No games match these filters
Loosen a filter, or start over.
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.5
Projected
36–35
✓ IONA won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.0
Projected
33–33
✗ LIU lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.4
Projected
39–37
✓ UMBC won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.6
Projected
33–43
✓ MICH won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.3
Projected
30–43
✓ OSU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.7
Projected
36–38
✓ UNCA won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.0
Projected
31–39
✓ PSU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.6
Projected
45–25
✓ DUKE won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 78.5
Projected
33–45
✗ FLA lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.5
Projected
29–43
✓ UNC won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.8
Projected
34–37
✓ ODU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.2
Projected
32–34
✓ COLG won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.6
Projected
26–43
✓ MD won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.7
Projected
39–35
✗ WIN lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.5
Projected
31–46
✓ UCF won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.2
Projected
30–43
✓ VILL won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.6
Projected
32–37
✓ UNA won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.0
Projected
35–39
✓ WRST won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.1
Projected
31–41
✓ HPU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.1
Projected
36–39
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 71.5
Projected
35–37
✓ TEM won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.6
Projected
30–38
✗ FOR lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.2
Projected
30–47
✓ BTLR won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.2
Projected
34–34
✓ DAV won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 63.9
Projected
30–34
✗ L-MD lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.3
Projected
33–39
✓ RICH won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.0
Projected
30–38
✓ URI won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.3
Projected
31–36
✓ CIN won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.1
Projected
27–44
✓ CLEM won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 65.8
Projected
27–38
✓ BC won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.3
Projected
33–36
✗ HARV lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.2
Projected
33–44
✓ PROV won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.7
Projected
36–32
✓ MSM won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.6
Projected
34–35
✓ PRIN won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.1
Projected
32–43
✗ UAB lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.0
Projected
39–34
✓ YALE won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.9
Projected
27–40
✓ ND won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.3
Projected
37–39
✓ LOU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.7
Projected
25–47
✓ ARK won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.0
Projected
29–44
✓ AUB won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.0
Projected
27–42
✓ KU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.0
Projected
32–35
✓ TAR won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.8
Projected
36–31
✗ TULN lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.7
Projected
32–36
✗ RICE lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.1
Projected
28–48
✓ OU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.2
Projected
30–42
✗ DEP lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 71.0
Projected
36–35
✗ ARST lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.4
Projected
36–38
✗ NDSU lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.3
Projected
24–44
✓ NEB won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.3
Projected
33–40
✓ SMU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.9
Projected
33–41
✓ DUQ won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 78.6
Projected
38–40
✓ ILL won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.3
Projected
28–44
✓ WIS won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.1
Projected
33–36
✓ WYO won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.4
Projected
27–47
✓ ARIZ won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.5
Projected
27–46
✗ BYU lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.3
Projected
34–38
✓ MISS won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.5
Projected
30–39
✓ UNM won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.1
Projected
34–35
✓ UTEP won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.0
Projected
32–42
✓ BOIS won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.1
Projected
29–39
✓ UVA won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.2
Projected
32–36
✓ CSUB won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.7
Projected
35–40
✓ GONZ won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.3
Projected
31–39
✓ SMC won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.4
Projected
36–33
✓ UCSB won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.1
Projected
33–41
✗ UNLV lost
| Status | Matchup | Spread | Total | Model line | Spread edge | Model total | Total edge | Win prob | Model | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Half final | 1-0 · #233 0-1 · #335 |
— | — | IONA -1.1 | — | 70.5 | — | 55% IONA | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #324 0-2 · #220 |
— | — | LIU -0.0 | — | 66.0 | — | 50% AF | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #264 0-1 · #345 |
— | — | UMBC -2.1 | — | 76.4 | — | 59% UMBC | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #89 1-0 · #8 |
— | — | MICH -9.8 | — | 75.6 | — | 86% MICH | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #259 2-0 · #33 |
— | — | OSU -13.2 | — | 72.3 | — | 92% OSU | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #214 0-2 · #271 |
— | — | UNCA -2.2 | — | 73.7 | — | 59% UNCA | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #199 2-0 · #78 |
— | — | PSU -8.6 | — | 70.0 | — | 82% PSU | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #3 0-1 · #288 |
— | — | DUKE -19.9 | — | 69.6 | — | 99% DUKE | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #81 1-1 · #1 |
— | — | FLA -11.8 | — | 78.5 | — | 90% FLA | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #246 2-0 · #44 |
— | — | UNC -13.9 | — | 72.5 | — | 94% UNC | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #319 0-1 · #234 |
— | — | ODU -2.4 | — | 70.8 | — | 61% ODU | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #262 0-2 · #211 |
— | — | COLG -2.0 | — | 66.2 | — | 58% COLG | › | |
| Half final | 0-3 · #360 1-1 · #50 |
— | — | MD -16.6 | — | 68.6 | — | 97% MD | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #205 0-1 · #283 |
— | — | WIN -3.2 | — | 73.7 | — | 64% WIN | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #327 1-1 · #39 |
— | — | UCF -15.2 | — | 76.5 | — | 95% UCF | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #311 1-1 · #32 |
— | — | VILL -13.4 | — | 73.2 | — | 93% VILL | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #318 0-1 · #292 |
— | — | UNA -5.1 | — | 68.6 | — | 71% UNA | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #157 0-1 · #180 |
— | — | WRST -3.7 | — | 74.0 | — | 66% WRST | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #223 1-0 · #90 |
— | — | HPU -9.5 | — | 72.1 | — | 85% HPU | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #296 0-1 · #266 |
— | — | FGCU -2.4 | — | 75.1 | — | 60% FGCU | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #124 1-0 · #111 |
— | — | TEM -2.3 | — | 71.5 | — | 60% TEM | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #354 0-1 · #100 |
— | — | FOR -8.3 | — | 67.6 | — | 82% FOR | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #362 2-0 · #72 |
— | — | BTLR -17.0 | — | 76.2 | — | 97% BTLR | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #115 2-0 · #141 |
— | — | DAV -0.4 | — | 68.2 | — | 52% DAV | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #316 0-1 · #314 |
— | — | L-MD -4.0 | — | 63.9 | — | 67% L-MD | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #217 1-0 · #104 |
— | — | RICH -5.8 | — | 72.3 | — | 74% RICH | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #349 1-1 · #105 |
— | — | URI -8.7 | — | 68.0 | — | 83% URI | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #91 2-0 · #30 |
— | — | CIN -5.0 | — | 67.3 | — | 71% CIN | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #350 2-0 · #35 |
— | — | CLEM -16.9 | — | 70.1 | — | 97% CLEM | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #337 1-1 · #95 |
— | — | BC -11.0 | — | 65.8 | — | 88% BC | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #229 1-0 · #136 |
— | — | HARV -2.4 | — | 69.3 | — | 60% HARV | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #137 1-1 · #52 |
— | — | PROV -11.0 | — | 76.2 | — | 88% PROV | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #278 0-2 · #88 |
— | — | MSM -3.9 | — | 68.7 | — | 66% MSM | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #299 0-1 · #135 |
— | — | PRIN -1.1 | — | 69.6 | — | 55% PRIN | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #302 1-1 · #102 |
— | — | UAB -10.7 | — | 75.1 | — | 88% UAB | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #126 1-1 · #241 |
— | — | YALE -4.5 | — | 73.0 | — | 69% YALE | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #361 2-0 · #71 |
— | — | ND -13.3 | — | 66.9 | — | 93% ND | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #19 2-0 · #14 |
— | — | LOU -1.5 | — | 76.3 | — | 57% LOU | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #240 1-1 · #18 |
— | — | ARK -21.9 | — | 72.7 | — | 99% ARK | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #248 2-0 · #21 |
— | — | AUB -15.8 | — | 73.0 | — | 96% AUB | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #238 1-1 · #16 |
— | — | KU -14.4 | — | 69.0 | — | 94% KU | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #225 1-2 · #185 |
— | — | TAR -2.7 | — | 67.0 | — | 62% TAR | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #130 1-1 · #221 |
— | — | TULN -4.8 | — | 66.8 | — | 70% TULN | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #193 0-1 · #177 |
— | — | RICE -3.9 | — | 67.7 | — | 66% RICE | › | |
| Half final | 0-3 · #363 1-1 · #31 |
— | — | OU -19.4 | — | 76.1 | — | 98% OU | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #237 2-0 · #66 |
— | — | DEP -12.2 | — | 72.2 | — | 91% DEP | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #171 0-0 · #250 |
— | — | ARST -1.2 | — | 71.0 | — | 55% ARST | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #194 0-2 · #213 |
— | — | NDSU -1.9 | — | 73.4 | — | 58% NDSU | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #364 2-0 · #27 |
— | — | NEB -19.7 | — | 67.3 | — | 98% NEB | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #132 2-0 · #55 |
— | — | SMU -7.4 | — | 73.3 | — | 79% SMU | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #175 2-0 · #107 |
— | — | DUQ -8.1 | — | 73.9 | — | 81% DUQ | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #12 2-0 · #4 |
— | — | ILL -2.3 | — | 78.6 | — | 60% ILL | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #181 2-0 · #41 |
— | — | WIS -15.6 | — | 72.3 | — | 96% WIS | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #210 1-0 · #122 |
— | — | WYO -2.3 | — | 69.1 | — | 60% WYO | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #321 2-0 · #5 |
— | — | ARIZ -19.5 | — | 74.4 | — | 98% ARIZ | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #206 2-0 · #24 |
— | — | BYU -18.8 | — | 73.5 | — | 98% BYU | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #76 2-0 · #46 |
— | — | MISS -4.3 | — | 72.3 | — | 68% MISS | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #281 2-0 · #82 |
— | — | UNM -8.7 | — | 69.5 | — | 83% UNM | › | |
| Half final | 2-0 · #121 0-0 · #190 |
— | — | UTEP -0.9 | — | 69.1 | — | 54% UTEP | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #287 1-0 · #86 |
— | — | BOIS -10.4 | — | 74.0 | — | 87% BOIS | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #159 2-0 · #20 |
— | — | UVA -10.2 | — | 68.1 | — | 87% UVA | › | |
| Half final | 0-2 · #365 0-1 · #329 |
— | — | CSUB -4.1 | — | 67.2 | — | 67% CSUB | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #37 2-0 · #17 |
— | — | GONZ -4.7 | — | 74.7 | — | 69% GONZ | › | |
| Half final | 1-1 · #128 2-0 · #97 |
— | — | SMC -8.4 | — | 69.3 | — | 82% SMC | › | |
| Half final | 1-0 · #134 0-0 · #196 |
— | — | UCSB -2.9 | — | 68.4 | — | 63% UCSB | › | |
| Half final | 0-1 · #273 1-1 · #98 |
— | — | UNLV -7.9 | — | 73.1 | — | 81% UNLV | › |
The model’s 1st half is fitted from its full-game numbers and past halves; ESPN posts no 1st-half lines for college games. The # beside a record is the team’s power rank today, from the Rankings; AP is the poll. Spread is the market line (the favorite shows the minus). Model line and Model edge are from the model, never the market. Lines are pre-tip-off: after tip-off a tile shows the closing line. Model record