No games match these filters
Loosen a filter, or start over.
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.0
Projected
36–38
✗ PUR lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.5
Projected
34–33
✗ DUKE lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.9
Projected
32–36
✓ GT won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 62.4
Projected
26–36
✗ BC lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.9
Projected
36–40
✓ PROV won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.5
Projected
34–37
✓ UVA won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.1
Projected
30–42
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.3
Projected
34–35
✓ BUCK won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 71.3
Projected
32–39
✗ RICH lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.5
Projected
34–34
✗ BGSU lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.0
Projected
29–37
✓ M-OH won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.2
Projected
31–44
✓ NCSU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 63.6
Projected
30–34
✓ LAS won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.3
Projected
33–35
✗ SIUE lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.3
Projected
32–35
✓ JMU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 65.0
Projected
34–31
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.5
Projected
32–40
✗ WIN lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.4
Projected
40–35
✓ GASO won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 62.6
Projected
29–34
✗ PRES lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.2
Projected
35–37
✓ UPST won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.1
Projected
37–36
✗ OSU lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.0
Projected
35–37
✗ WGA lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.2
Projected
27–42
✓ SC won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.7
Projected
33–36
✓ FIU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 63.3
Projected
28–35
✓ AMER won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.0
Projected
35–40
✓ WIS won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.9
Projected
27–42
✓ LIB won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.0
Projected
34–37
✗ BTLR lost
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 79.9
Projected
42–38
✓ YSU won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.0
Projected
38–38
✗ CLE lost
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.0
Projected
37–37
✓ NKU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.3
Projected
36–32
✓ SBU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 71.9
Projected
33–39
✓ DUQ won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 65.6
Projected
30–36
✓ FOR won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.2
Projected
32–34
✓ FUR won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.5
Projected
36–39
✓ LOU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 65.5
Projected
32–34
✓ LUC won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.1
Projected
34–42
✓ KENN won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.0
Projected
33–36
✓ SDST won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 77.8
Projected
37–41
✗ OAK lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.4
Projected
30–38
✓ TLSA won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.1
Projected
34–42
✓ MUR won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.4
Projected
35–36
✓ VT won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.9
Projected
27–44
✓ MICH won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.9
Projected
30–44
✓ ARK won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.9
Projected
35–34
✗ NCAT lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.9
Projected
37–39
✗ WOF lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.4
Projected
36–38
✓ OHIO won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.4
Projected
35–40
✓ MASS won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.8
Projected
32–38
✓ IOWA won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 71.6
Projected
32–40
✗ WYO lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 62.7
Projected
35–27
✓ UNCW won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 62.9
Projected
34–30
✗ NMSU lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.4
Projected
32–39
✓ WKU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.3
Projected
33–36
✗ ECU lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.0
Projected
36–36
✓ LEM won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 78.1
Projected
41–37
✓ AKR won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.6
Projected
34–36
✗ KSU lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 74.9
Projected
39–36
✓ LONG won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.7
Projected
35–35
✓ NICH won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.1
Projected
36–37
✗ TEM lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.0
Projected
35–37
✓ UTC won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.9
Projected
40–36
✗ BAY lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.2
Projected
34–38
✗ PRST lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.3
Projected
36–34
✗ UVM lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.6
Projected
31–39
✓ ORST won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.1
Projected
34–38
✓ EWU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 76.3
Projected
41–36
✓ SHSU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.1
Projected
36–37
✓ CSU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.5
Projected
32–38
✓ CAL won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.4
Projected
34–35
✗ LEH lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.7
Projected
30–39
✓ COLU won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 77.0
Projected
37–40
✓ USC won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.9
Projected
31–37
✓ UCLA won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.5
Projected
32–37
✓ IDST won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 66.6
Projected
33–33
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 78.5
Projected
36–43
✓ GW won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.1
Projected
33–36
✗ NOLA lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 64.8
Projected
34–30
✓ BU won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 63.4
Projected
31–33
✓ LAM won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.2
Projected
33–37
✓ UTAH won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.2
Projected
37–39
✗ CP lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.7
Projected
28–41
✓ VILL won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.6
Projected
39–35
✓ OKST won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 68.2
Projected
30–38
✓ HOU won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.2
Projected
37–36
✗ ILL lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.0
Projected
31–42
✓ SJU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.4
Projected
38–35
✗ MONT lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.1
Projected
32–38
✓ NDSU won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 71.8
Projected
38–34
✓ MTST won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.1
Projected
29–40
✓ BRAD won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 62.7
Projected
31–32
✗ UNI lost
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.7
Projected
36–38
✗ MILW lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.2
Projected
29–40
✓ ILST won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 78.0
Projected
37–41
✓ UNCO won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 67.8
Projected
35–33
✗ LIN lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.3
Projected
30–43
✗ DEP lost
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 72.5
Projected
37–36
✗ SCU lost
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 71.0
Projected
33–39
✓ UCSB won
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.7
Projected
39–31
✓ UCSD won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 70.6
Projected
38–32
✓ ARST won
Half finalNon-conference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 77.4
Projected
37–40
✓ ARIZ won
Half finalNon-conference · Neutral site
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 75.0
Projected
39–36
✗ OU lost
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 69.1
Projected
31–38
✗ UCI lost
Half finalConference
1H spread
—
no 1H line yet
1H total
—
model 73.9
Projected
32–42
✓ HAW won
| Status | Matchup | Spread | Total | Model line | Spread edge | Model total | Total edge | Win prob | Model | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Half final | 8-0 · #13 8-0 · #23 |
— | — | PUR -2.0 | — | 74.0 | — | 58% PUR | › | |
| Half final | 9-0 · #3 8-0 · #10 |
— | — | DUKE -1.4 | — | 66.5 | — | 56% DUKE | › | |
| Half final | 4-4 · #155 5-4 · #94 |
— | — | GT -4.5 | — | 67.9 | — | 69% GT | › | |
| Half final | 2-4 · #355 4-5 · #95 |
— | — | BC -9.8 | — | 62.4 | — | 86% BC | › | |
| Half final | 7-2 · #105 5-4 · #52 |
— | — | PROV -4.3 | — | 75.9 | — | 68% PROV | › | |
| Half final | 7-2 · #91 7-1 · #20 |
— | — | UVA -2.6 | — | 70.5 | — | 61% UVA | › | |
| Half final | 3-3 · #224 7-2 · #25 |
— | — | MIA -12.2 | — | 72.1 | — | 91% MIA | › | |
| Half final | 3-3 · #264 2-8 · #299 |
— | — | BUCK -1.1 | — | 69.3 | — | 55% BUCK | › | |
| Half final | 2-6 · #234 6-1 · #104 |
— | — | RICH -7.1 | — | 71.3 | — | 78% RICH | › | |
| Half final | 3-3 · #150 5-2 · #200 |
— | — | BGSU -0.2 | — | 68.5 | — | 51% BGSU | › | |
| Half final | 0-10 · #323 5-0 · #125 |
— | — | M-OH -7.2 | — | 66.0 | — | 78% M-OH | › | |
| Half final | 3-4 · #271 5-3 · #48 |
— | — | NCSU -13.0 | — | 75.2 | — | 92% NCSU | › | |
| Half final | 3-5 · #262 2-6 · #124 |
— | — | LAS -3.8 | — | 63.6 | — | 66% LAS | › | |
| Half final | 4-4 · #187 4-3 · #256 |
— | — | SIUE -1.6 | — | 67.3 | — | 57% SIUE | › | |
| Half final | 1-5 · #319 5-4 · #158 |
— | — | JMU -3.0 | — | 66.3 | — | 63% JMU | › | |
| Half final | 2-4 · #206 0-7 · #351 |
— | — | DEL -3.0 | — | 65.0 | — | 63% DEL | › | |
| Half final | 4-4 · #283 5-4 · #205 |
— | — | WIN -8.4 | — | 72.5 | — | 82% WIN | › | |
| Half final | 4-5 · #296 0-9 · #348 |
— | — | GASO -5.2 | — | 75.4 | — | 71% GASO | › | |
| Half final | 1-6 · #350 3-6 · #183 |
— | — | PRES -5.1 | — | 62.6 | — | 71% PRES | › | |
| Half final | 2-4 · #215 3-5 · #325 |
— | — | UPST -1.8 | — | 72.2 | — | 58% UPST | › | |
| Half final | 6-1 · #33 5-3 · #59 |
— | — | OSU -0.5 | — | 73.1 | — | 52% OSU | › | |
| Half final | 1-6 · #282 4-3 · #298 |
— | — | WGA -2.4 | — | 72.0 | — | 60% WGA | › | |
| Half final | 2-7 · #303 5-3 · #79 |
— | — | SC -14.3 | — | 69.2 | — | 94% SC | › | |
| Half final | 3-4 · #223 2-3 · #178 |
— | — | FIU -3.5 | — | 68.7 | — | 65% FIU | › | |
| Half final | 2-7 · #364 4-4 · #153 |
— | — | AMER -6.8 | — | 63.3 | — | 77% AMER | › | |
| Half final | 5-4 · #42 6-2 · #41 |
— | — | WIS -5.9 | — | 75.0 | — | 74% WIS | › | |
| Half final | 1-9 · #352 3-2 · #160 |
— | — | LIB -14.9 | — | 68.9 | — | 95% LIB | › | |
| Half final | 4-2 · #86 7-1 · #72 |
— | — | BTLR -3.0 | — | 70.0 | — | 63% BTLR | › | |
| Half final | 4-4 · #265 2-7 · #340 |
— | — | YSU -4.6 | — | 79.9 | — | 69% YSU | › | |
| Half final | 2-6 · #277 1-7 · #315 |
— | — | CLE -0.4 | — | 76.0 | — | 52% CLE | › | |
| Half final | 5-2 · #230 1-6 · #249 |
— | — | NKU -0.2 | — | 74.0 | — | 51% NKU | › | |
| Half final | 7-1 · #142 7-0 · #237 |
— | — | SBU -3.6 | — | 68.3 | — | 65% SBU | › | |
| Half final | 4-2 · #191 4-3 · #107 |
— | — | DUQ -5.7 | — | 71.9 | — | 73% DUQ | › | |
| Half final | 2-6 · #317 3-3 · #100 |
— | — | FOR -5.3 | — | 65.6 | — | 72% FOR | › | |
| Half final | 4-5 · #136 3-4 · #152 |
— | — | FUR -1.9 | — | 66.2 | — | 58% FUR | › | |
| Half final | 7-1 · #38 7-1 · #14 |
— | — | LOU -2.6 | — | 74.5 | — | 61% LOU | › | |
| Half final | 2-8 · #135 2-7 · #113 |
— | — | LUC -2.2 | — | 65.5 | — | 59% LUC | › | |
| Half final | 0-8 · #208 4-2 · #148 |
— | — | KENN -7.8 | — | 76.1 | — | 80% KENN | › | |
| Half final | 3-3 · #247 3-4 · #201 |
— | — | SDST -2.9 | — | 69.0 | — | 62% SDST | › | |
| Half final | 4-3 · #157 3-5 · #204 |
— | — | OAK -4.0 | — | 77.8 | — | 67% OAK | › | |
| Half final | 1-3 · #250 5-1 · #108 |
— | — | TLSA -8.4 | — | 67.4 | — | 82% TLSA | › | |
| Half final | 2-4 · #295 6-3 · #132 |
— | — | MUR -8.5 | — | 76.1 | — | 82% MUR | › | |
| Half final | 8-0 · #93 7-2 · #68 |
— | — | VT -1.2 | — | 70.4 | — | 55% VT | › | |
| Half final | 5-4 · #62 7-0 · #8 |
— | — | MICH -17.4 | — | 70.9 | — | 97% MICH | › | |
| Half final | 5-3 · #174 6-2 · #18 |
— | — | ARK -13.3 | — | 73.9 | — | 93% ARK | › | |
| Half final | 2-3 · #275 0-7 · #357 |
— | — | NCAT -0.7 | — | 68.9 | — | 53% NCAT | › | |
| Half final | 3-4 · #232 5-3 · #248 |
— | — | WOF -2.4 | — | 75.9 | — | 60% WOF | › | |
| Half final | 5-3 · #231 2-6 · #128 |
— | — | OHIO -2.3 | — | 74.4 | — | 60% OHIO | › | |
| Half final | 1-6 · #307 5-3 · #209 |
— | — | MASS -5.3 | — | 74.4 | — | 72% MASS | › | |
| Half final | 6-3 · #50 7-1 · #43 |
— | — | IOWA -6.4 | — | 69.8 | — | 76% IOWA | › | |
| Half final | 2-3 · #251 5-2 · #122 |
— | — | WYO -8.3 | — | 71.6 | — | 82% WYO | › | |
| Half final | 7-1 · #120 1-8 · #221 |
— | — | UNCW -7.9 | — | 62.7 | — | 81% UNCW | › | |
| Half final | 4-1 · #133 3-3 · #253 |
— | — | NMSU -4.0 | — | 62.9 | — | 67% NMSU | › | |
| Half final | 2-5 · #255 4-2 · #129 |
— | — | WKU -7.3 | — | 70.4 | — | 79% WKU | › | |
| Half final | 1-8 · #284 2-5 · #145 |
— | — | ECU -3.3 | — | 69.3 | — | 64% ECU | › | |
| Half final | 3-5 · #332 1-6 · #272 |
— | — | PK | — | 72.0 | — | 50% BING | › | |
| Half final | 6-2 · #118 6-2 · #130 |
— | — | AKR -4.7 | — | 78.1 | — | 70% AKR | › | |
| Half final | 8-1 · #67 5-3 · #83 |
— | — | KSU -1.9 | — | 69.6 | — | 58% KSU | › | |
| Half final | 3-5 · #218 0-6 · #345 |
— | — | LONG -3.7 | — | 74.9 | — | 66% LONG | › | |
| Half final | 2-3 · #289 0-7 · #285 |
— | — | NICH -0.2 | — | 69.7 | — | 51% NICH | › | |
| Half final | 3-3 · #114 4-4 · #111 |
— | — | TEM -0.7 | — | 73.1 | — | 53% TEM | › | |
| Half final | 1-6 · #306 2-4 · #227 |
— | — | UTC -2.2 | — | 72.0 | — | 59% UTC | › | |
| Half final | 6-1 · #29 3-4 · #76 |
— | — | BAY -3.4 | — | 75.9 | — | 64% BAY | › | |
| Half final | 1-7 · #279 3-2 · #274 |
— | — | PRST -3.9 | — | 72.2 | — | 66% PRST | › | |
| Half final | 3-5 · #186 1-6 · #172 |
— | — | UVM -1.6 | — | 70.3 | — | 57% UVM | › | |
| Half final | 1-6 · #267 4-5 · #99 |
— | — | ORST -7.3 | — | 69.6 | — | 79% ORST | › | |
| Half final | 0-7 · #335 0-7 · #254 |
— | — | EWU -3.9 | — | 72.1 | — | 66% EWU | › | |
| Half final | 3-3 · #189 0-5 · #322 |
— | — | SHSU -4.9 | — | 76.3 | — | 70% SHSU | › | |
| Half final | 8-0 · #65 6-2 · #87 |
— | — | CSU -0.2 | — | 73.1 | — | 51% CSU | › | |
| Half final | 6-2 · #163 7-1 · #92 |
— | — | CAL -6.6 | — | 69.5 | — | 76% CAL | › | |
| Half final | 4-4 · #324 2-7 · #216 |
— | — | LEH -0.8 | — | 69.4 | — | 54% LEH | › | |
| Half final | 0-6 · #301 7-1 · #170 |
— | — | COLU -8.8 | — | 69.7 | — | 83% COLU | › | |
| Half final | 5-3 · #56 8-0 · #36 |
— | — | USC -3.0 | — | 77.0 | — | 63% USC | › | |
| Half final | 4-4 · #57 6-2 · #26 |
— | — | UCLA -6.0 | — | 67.9 | — | 75% UCLA | › | |
| Half final | 3-5 · #263 3-4 · #344 |
— | — | IDST -5.3 | — | 69.5 | — | 72% IDST | › | |
| Half final | 6-3 · #89 7-2 · #47 |
— | — | WAKE -0.2 | — | 66.6 | — | 51% WAKE | › | |
| Half final | 6-2 · #217 7-2 · #101 |
— | — | GW -6.5 | — | 78.5 | — | 76% GW | › | |
| Half final | 2-4 · #300 2-6 · #276 |
— | — | NOLA -3.1 | — | 68.1 | — | 63% NOLA | › | |
| Half final | 3-5 · #261 0-7 · #286 |
— | — | BU -4.0 | — | 64.8 | — | 67% BU | › | |
| Half final | 0-5 · #238 3-2 · #293 |
— | — | LAM -1.8 | — | 63.4 | — | 58% LAM | › | |
| Half final | 7-2 · #203 6-3 · #73 |
— | — | UTAH -3.3 | — | 70.2 | — | 64% UTAH | › | |
| Half final | 3-5 · #281 3-5 · #164 |
— | — | CP -1.8 | — | 75.2 | — | 58% CP | › | |
| Half final | 4-3 · #137 6-1 · #32 |
— | — | VILL -13.1 | — | 69.7 | — | 92% VILL | › | |
| Half final | 8-0 · #45 5-3 · #80 |
— | — | OKST -4.6 | — | 73.6 | — | 69% OKST | › | |
| Half final | 5-3 · #81 7-1 · #2 |
— | — | HOU -7.9 | — | 68.2 | — | 81% HOU | › | |
| Half final | 6-2 · #4 7-2 · #7 |
— | — | ILL -1.1 | — | 73.2 | — | 55% ILL | › | |
| Half final | 5-3 · #46 4-3 · #9 |
— | — | SJU -10.6 | — | 73.0 | — | 88% SJU | › | |
| Half final | 2-5 · #273 2-7 · #336 |
— | — | MONT -2.8 | — | 73.4 | — | 62% MONT | › | |
| Half final | 2-3 · #321 4-3 · #213 |
— | — | NDSU -6.1 | — | 69.1 | — | 75% NDSU | › | |
| Half final | 2-5 · #162 1-7 · #305 |
— | — | MTST -4.2 | — | 71.8 | — | 68% MTST | › | |
| Half final | 2-5 · #334 5-4 · #167 |
— | — | BRAD -10.3 | — | 69.1 | — | 87% BRAD | › | |
| Half final | 4-4 · #77 6-1 · #131 |
— | — | UNI -0.6 | — | 62.7 | — | 53% UNI | › | |
| Half final | 5-3 · #168 2-5 · #235 |
— | — | MILW -1.7 | — | 73.7 | — | 57% MILW | › | |
| Half final | 0-8 · #362 6-2 · #116 |
— | — | ILST -11.7 | — | 69.2 | — | 90% ILST | › | |
| Half final | 4-4 · #291 5-1 · #219 |
— | — | UNCO -4.4 | — | 78.0 | — | 68% UNCO | › | |
| Half final | 3-4 · #258 1-5 · #361 |
— | — | LIN -1.7 | — | 67.8 | — | 57% LIN | › | |
| Half final | 1-8 · #363 5-3 · #66 |
— | — | DEP -13.4 | — | 73.3 | — | 93% DEP | › | |
| Half final | 7-1 · #106 5-2 · #82 |
— | — | SCU -1.2 | — | 72.5 | — | 55% SCU | › | |
| Half final | 3-5 · #329 5-2 · #134 |
— | — | UCSB -5.9 | — | 71.0 | — | 74% UCSB | › | |
| Half final | 6-1 · #123 1-7 · #297 |
— | — | UCSD -7.5 | — | 69.7 | — | 79% UCSD | › | |
| Half final | 5-3 · #171 1-6 · #222 |
— | — | ARST -6.1 | — | 70.6 | — | 75% ARST | › | |
| Half final | 7-2 · #21 7-0 · #5 |
— | — | ARIZ -3.0 | — | 77.4 | — | 63% ARIZ | › | |
| Half final | 6-2 · #31 6-2 · #60 |
— | — | OU -3.4 | — | 75.0 | — | 64% OU | › | |
| Half final | 3-4 · #194 4-4 · #149 |
— | — | UCI -6.3 | — | 69.1 | — | 75% UCI | › | |
| Half final | 2-6 · #312 6-2 · #140 |
— | — | HAW -9.7 | — | 73.9 | — | 86% HAW | › |
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