FinalCurrentUpcomingWeek 5: 1st-half lines & halftime results ›Spread edge and Total edge = our projection vs the market ⓘ · Trend = this season’s results

Week in numbers

Tap a number to filter the games below
Favorites ATS24-2846% covered
Upsets16outright
Over / Under27-2552% over
Model Favorite37-1571% won
Did the team the spread moved toward cover? ATS vs the closing line, by how far it moved
Moved towardThis week20242024–2026
Any move
20–2445%
324–33549%
789–801–850%
1.5+ pts
13–1350%
192–19749%
446–443–450%
3+ pts
5–645%
76–8348%
215–206–251%
5+ pts
1–0100%
15–1944%
47–4551%
7+ pts
1–0100%
4–544%
13–765%
Covered–didn’t–push; % leaves out pushes and is grey under 10 games; green or red from 10 games. ClickTap a row or count to filter.
Sort by
⌨ Shortcuts

Group the list

Sort by
No games match these filters
Loosen a filter, or start over.

Jump to

Thursday, Sep 26

1
Final · Conf
Army
3-0 · #52
42
1-3 · #127
14
Spread
ARMY -21.5
✓ ARMY W ATS
Total
52.5 ▲7
▲ Over 56 · Q4
Projected
33–14
✓ ARMY won
Trend: ARMY ATS ✓Trend: Over ✓ Model: TEM by 9.5 ✗ Model: Under 5.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q3

Friday, Sep 27

2
Final · Conf
2-2 · #38
34
4-0 · #9
38
Spread
MIA -17.5
✓ VT W ATS
Total
55.5 ▼1
▲ Over 72 · Q4
Projected
18–35
✓ MIA won
Trend: MIA ATS ✗ Model: MIA by 1 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
3-1 · #31
18
3-0 · #51
21
Spread
RUTG -1.5
✓ RUTG W ATS
Total
44.5 ▼1
▼ Under 39
Projected
23–24
✓ RUTG won
Model: WASH by 3 ✗ Model: Over 3 ✗ Cover settled: Q2

Saturday, Sep 28

50
Final · Conf
2-2 · #50
20
4-0 · #3
17
Spread
MISS -15.5
✓ UK W ATS
Total
51.5
▼ Under 37
Projected
17–33
✗ MISS lost
Trend: MISS ATS ✗Trend: Under ✓ Model: MISS by 3 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
2-2 · #26
24
3-1 · #27
27
Spread
MICH -10.5
✓ MINN W ATS
Total
34.5 ▼5
▲ Over 51 · Q4
Projected
11–22
✓ MICH won
Trend: Under ✗ Model: MICH by 4 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Conf
3-1 · #87
20
3-1 · #20
42
Spread
KSU -5.5
✓ KSU W ATS
Total
58.5 ▲4
▲ Over 62 · Q4
Projected
26–32
✓ KSU won
Trend: OKST ATS ✗Trend: Over ✓ Model: KSU by 2.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q2
Final · Conf
BYU
4-0 · #22
34
2-2 · #39
28
Spread
BAY -3.5
✓ BYU W ATS
Total
46.5 ▲1
▲ Over 62 · Q3
Projected
23–25
✗ BAY lost
Trend: BAY ATS ✗ Model: BYU by 7 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
3-1 · #62
28
4-0 · #10
42
Spread
IU -7.5
✓ IU W ATS
Total
48.5 ▼7
▲ Over 70 · Q3
Projected
22–29
✓ IU won
Trend: IU ATS ✓Trend: Under ✗ Model: MD by 1.5 ✗ Model: Over 3 ✓ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Conf
3-1 · #41
28
1-2 · #117
10
Spread
NEB -10.5
✓ NEB W ATS
Total
46.5 ▼3
▼ Under 38
Projected
28–19
✓ NEB won
Trend: Under ✓ Model: PUR by 4.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Non-conf
3-1 · #105
3
2-2 · #80
47
Spread
CONN -5.5
✓ CONN W ATS
Total
44.5 ▼2
▲ Over 50 · Q4
Projected
20–26
✓ CONN won
Trend: CONN ATS ✓Trend: Under ✗ Model: CONN by 1 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
3-1 · #103
20
3-1 · #58
21
Spread
BC -7.5
✓ WKU W ATS
Total
48.5 ▼8
▼ Under 41
Projected
23–32
✓ BC won
Trend: WKU ATS ✓Trend: Under ✓ Model: BC by 7.5 ✗ Model: Over 6.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
2-1 · #74
17
2-2 · #67
24
Spread
NCSU -7.5
✓ NIU W ATS
Total
46.5 ▼1
▼ Under 41
Projected
21–28
✓ NCSU won
Trend: NIU ATS ✓ Model: NIU by 2 ✓ Model: Over 3.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Conf
Navy
3-0 · #61
41
UAB
1-2 · #116
18
Spread
NAVY -5.5
✓ NAVY W ATS
Total
56.5 ▲1
▲ Over 59 · Q4
Projected
29–25
✓ NAVY won
Trend: NAVY ATS ✓ Model: UAB by 6.5 ✗ Model: Under 2.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
2-2 · #91
10
2-2 · #40
45
Spread
TULN -5.5
✓ TULN W ATS
Total
60.5 ▼2
▼ Under 55
Projected
26–32
✓ TULN won
Trend: TULN ATS ✓Trend: Under ✓ Model: TULN by 4 ✓ Model: Under 2.5 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
1-2 · #126
7
3-0 · #59
63
Spread
JMU -20.5
✓ JMU W ATS
Total
54.5 ▼2
▲ Over 70 · Q3
Projected
15–37
✓ JMU won
Trend: JMU ATS ✓Trend: Under ✗ Model: JMU by 5.5 ✓ Model: Under 2.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q2
Final · Neutral
2-1 · #54
39
3-1 · #93
40
Spread
TXST -10.5
✓ SHSU W ATS
Total
54.5 ▼1
▲ Over 79 · Q3
Projected
32–23
✗ TXST lost
Trend: TXST ATS ✗ Model: SHSU by 4 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓ Cover settled: Q3
Final · Conf
2-1 · #47
21
USC
2-1 · #16
38
Spread
USC -13.5
✓ USC W ATS
Total
49.5 ▼2
▲ Over 59 · Q4
Projected
18–33
✓ USC won
Trend: Under ✗ Model: USC by 4.5 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Non-conf
3-0 · #14
24
3-1 · #4
31
Spread
ND -6.5
✓ ND W ATS
Total
45.5 ▼3
▲ Over 55 · Q4
Projected
21–27
✓ ND won
Trend: Under ✗ Model: ND by 0 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
3-1 · #28
27
2-2 · #33
21
Spread
AUB -1.5
✓ OU W ATS
Total
43.5 ▼4
▲ Over 48 · Q4
Projected
23–23
✓ OU won
Trend: AUB ATS ✗Trend: Under ✗ Model: OU by 7.5 ✓ Model: Over 3.5 ✓ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Neutral
3-1 · #32
17
3-1 · #19
21
Spread
TA&M -7.5
✓ ARK W ATS
Total
50.5 ▼2
▼ Under 38
Projected
22–29
✓ TA&M won
Trend: TA&M ATS ✗Trend: Under ✓ Model: ARK by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
1-3 · #125
20
0-3 · #73
23
Spread
M-OH -15.5
✓ MASS W ATS
Total
43.5 ▼4
▼ Under 43
Projected
14–30
✓ M-OH won
Trend: Under ✓ Model: M-OH by 1 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
2-1 · #71
41
1-2 · #89
38
Spread
WAKE -2.5
✓ UL W ATS
Total
58.5 ▼1
▲ Over 79 · Q3
Projected
28–30
✗ WAKE lost
Model: UL by 1.5 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
TCU
2-2 · #34
38
1-3 · #35
27
Spread
KU -1.5
✓ TCU W ATS
Total
59.5
▲ Over 65 · Q4
Projected
29–31
✗ KU lost
Trend: TCU ATS ✓ Model: KU by 0.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q2
Final · Conf
3-1 · #84
14
UNLV
3-0 · #42
59
Spread
UNLV -2.5
✓ UNLV W ATS
Total
49.5 ▼3
▲ Over 73 · Q4
Projected
24–28
✓ UNLV won
Trend: Under ✗ Model: UNLV by 4.5 ✓ Model: Over 3 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
1-2 · #122
21
2-2 · #123
22
Spread
CMU -2.5
✓ SDSU W ATS
Total
48.5 ▼7
▼ Under 43
Projected
24–26
✓ CMU won
Trend: CMU ATS ✗Trend: Under ✓ Model: SDSU by 2 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q2
Final · Conf
2-2 · #90
38
2-1 · #110
21
Spread
GAST -3.5
✓ GASO W ATS
Total
56.5 ▼1
▲ Over 59 · Q4
Projected
26–29
✗ GAST lost
Model: GAST by 1 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
1-2 · #107
20
1-2 · #69
27
Spread
MRSH -3.5
✓ MRSH W ATS
Total
52.5 ▼1
▼ Under 47
Projected
28–32
✓ MRSH won
Trend: WMU ATS ✗ Model: MRSH by 5.5 ✓ Model: Over 7.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Conf
1-3 · #124
10
Ohio
2-2 · #65
30
Spread
OHIO -7.5
✓ OHIO W ATS
Total
45.5
▼ Under 40
Projected
20–29
✓ OHIO won
Trend: Over ✗ Model: OHIO by 5.5 ✓ Model: Over 3.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Conf
3-1 · #120
52
0-4 · #134
33
Spread
EMU -13.5
✓ EMU W ATS
Total
44.5 ▼4
▲ Over 85 · Q3
Projected
34–20
✓ EMU won
Trend: EMU ATS ✓Trend: Under ✗ Model: EMU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 9 ✓ Cover settled: Q3
Non-conf
4-0 · #95
2-2 · #99
Spread
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 59
Spread edge
—
model APP -2.5
Final · Conf
3-1 · #64
20
Duke
4-0 · #60
21
Spread
UNC -1.5
✓ DUKE W ATS
Total
54.5 ▼1
▼ Under 41
Projected
27–26
✗ UNC lost
Trend: DUKE ATS ✓ Model: DUKE by 2.5 ✓ Model: Under 2 ✓ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Conf
UTSA
2-2 · #82
20
2-2 · #92
30
Spread
ECU -1.5
✓ ECU W ATS
Total
52.5 ▼1
▼ Under 50
Projected
23–24
✓ ECU won
Trend: UTSA ATS ✗ Model: ECU by 1 ✓ Model: Under 5.5 ✓ Cover settled: Q3
Final · Conf
1-3 · #72
13
4-0 · #2
35
Spread
TEX -38.5
✓ MSST W ATS
Total
58.5 ▼3
▼ Under 48
Projected
11–49
✓ TEX won
Trend: TEX ATS ✗Trend: Under ✓ Model: MSST by 4.5 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
3-1 · #25
48
UCF
3-0 · #37
21
Spread
UCF -12.5
✓ COLO W ATS
Total
59.5 ▼4
▲ Over 69 · Q3
Projected
22–36
✗ UCF lost
Trend: Under ✗ Model: UCF by 5 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
0-3 · #78
30
1-2 · #75
27
Spread
BGSU -11.5
✓ ODU W ATS
Total
51.5 ▲2
▲ Over 57 · Q4
Projected
19–31
✗ BGSU lost
Trend: BGSU ATS ✗Trend: Over ✓ Model: ODU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
1-2 · #112
10
1-3 · #121
17
Spread
LT -2
✓ FIU W ATS
Total
49.5 ▼2
▼ Under 27
Projected
24–22
✗ LT lost
Trend: Under ✓ Model: FIU by 3 ✓ Model: Under 3.5 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
2-1 · #96
14
2-1 · #17
40
Spread
CLEM -23.5
✓ CLEM W ATS
Total
57.5
▼ Under 54
Projected
15–39
✓ CLEM won
Trend: CLEM ATS ✓ Model: Under 4 ✓ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Conf
3-0 · #24
20
1-3 · #76
0
Spread
ISU -16.5
✓ ISU W ATS
Total
42.5 ▼1
▼ Under 20
Projected
28–12
✓ ISU won
Trend: ISU ATS ✓ Model: HOU by 4 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✓ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Conf
2-1 · #115
13
Troy
1-3 · #97
9
Spread
TROY -6.5
✓ ULM W ATS
Total
44.5 ▼1
▼ Under 22
Projected
19–26
✗ TROY lost
Trend: ULM ATS ✓ Model: TROY by 3.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
1-3 · #119
21
Rice
1-3 · #104
20
Spread
RICE -4.5
✓ CLT W ATS
Total
47.5 ▲1
▼ Under 41
Projected
22–27
✗ RICE lost
Trend: CLT ATS ✓ Model: RICE by 1 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q3
Final · Conf
2-2 · #131
20
3-1 · #94
52
Spread
UNT -7.5
✓ UNT W ATS
Total
65.5 ▼3
▲ Over 72 · Q4
Projected
29–37
✓ UNT won
Trend: Under ✗ Model: UNT by 4 ✓ Cover settled: Q2
Final · Conf
3-0 · #8
34
3-0 · #7
41
Spread
UGA -1.5
✓ ALA W ATS
Total
50.5 ▼1
▲ Over 75 · Q4
Projected
26–25
✗ UGA lost
Model: ALA by 6 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
3-0 · #1
38
3-1 · #70
7
Spread
OSU -23.5
✓ OSU W ATS
Total
47.5 ▼3
▼ Under 45
Projected
34–11
✓ OSU won
Trend: Under ✓ Model: OSU by 0 ✓ Model: Under 2.5 ✓ Cover settled: Q3
Final · Conf
4-0 · #44
7
3-0 · #6
21
Spread
PSU -19.5
✓ ILL W ATS
Total
48.5 ▲1
▼ Under 28
Projected
14–34
✓ PSU won
Model: PSU by 2 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
1-3 · #129
7
3-1 · #56
24
Spread
MEM -27.5
✓ MTSU W ATS
Total
60.5 ▼1
▼ Under 31
Projected
17–44
✓ MEM won
Trend: MEM ATS ✗ Model: MEM by 0 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Non-conf
2-2 · #66
10
LSU
3-1 · #12
42
Spread
LSU -20.5
✓ LSU W ATS
Total
64.5 ▼1
▼ Under 52
Projected
23–43
✓ LSU won
Trend: USA ATS ✗ Model: USA by 3 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
1-3 · #85
16
SMU
3-1 · #15
42
Spread
SMU -5.5
✓ SMU W ATS
Total
46.5 ▼1
▲ Over 58 · Q4
Projected
21–27
✓ SMU won
Trend: SMU ATS ✓ Model: SMU by 3 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓ Cover settled: Q3
Final · Conf
3-1 · #45
41
3-1 · #46
44
Spread
TTU -3.5
✓ CIN W ATS
Total
59.5 ▲1
▲ Over 85 · Q3
Projected
27–31
✓ TTU won
Model: TTU by 4.5 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q4
Final · Non-conf
0-4 · #111
50
1-3 · #130
40
Spread
UNM -8.5
✓ UNM W ATS
Total
53.5 ▼5
▲ Over 90 · Q4
Projected
32–25
✓ UNM won
Trend: UNM ATS ✓Trend: Under ✗ Model: NMSU by 7 ✗ Model: Over 3.5 ✓ Cover settled: Q2
Final · Conf
1-2 · #108
19
0-4 · #114
31
Spread
AFA -4.5
✓ WYO W ATS
Total
33.5 ▼3
▲ Over 50 · Q3
Projected
18–15
✗ AFA lost
Trend: AFA ATS ✗Trend: Under ✗ Model: WYO by 7.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✗ Cover settled: Q3
Final · Non-conf
4-0 · #68
24
2-1 · #29
45
Spread
BOIS -6.5
✓ BOIS W ATS
Total
65.5 ▲1
▲ Over 69 · Q4
Projected
30–36
✓ BOIS won
Model: WSU by 1 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✓ Cover settled: Q2
Final · Conf
2-1 · #79
23
Utah
4-0 · #49
10
Spread
UTAH -7.5
✓ ARIZ W ATS
Total
46.5 ▼5
▼ Under 33
Projected
21–29
✗ UTAH lost
Trend: ARIZ ATS ✓Trend: Under ✓ Model: UTAH by 2.5 ✗ Model: Over 3 ✗ Cover settled: Q1
Final · Conf
3-0 · #5
34
UCLA
1-2 · #48
13
Spread
ORE -23.5
✓ UCLA W ATS
Total
52.5 ▼3
▼ Under 47
Projected
37–15
✓ ORE won
Trend: Under ✓ Model: UCLA by 5 ✓ Cover settled: Q1
Loading…
StatusMatchupSpreadMoveTotalModelSignalDetails
Loading…
Hover a column name for what it means. Records are before kickoff; #N = power rank. Data signal badges: green = ATS, teal = Over, purple = Under; solid = moderate or strong lean (blue left edge on the row); ✓/✗ = how the lean did. ↗ Line toward model the line (or total) has moved toward the model's pick since the open; hover it for how such picks have done. small sample · QB ⓘ quarterback on the injury report (hover or tap it to see who). In our 2023–26 backtest, moderate-or-stronger ATS leans went 365-359 (50%) and total leans 21-19 (53%) over 2024–26, so treat them as context, not picks.
Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total