NCAAF 1st half2024 Week 8: 59 of 59 games final. Favorites went 26-31 against the first-half spread, and halftime totals went 27 over, 32 under.How 1st-half lines work ⓘ
FinalCurrentUpcomingFull-game view of Week 8 ›
Sort by
⌨ Shortcuts

Group the list

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

Jump to

Tuesday, Oct 15

3
1H finalConf · est. line
Troy
1H ATS 2-4 · #97
3
1H ATS 2-3 · #66
19
1H spread
USA -5
✓ USA W ATS
1H total
27
▼ Under 22
Projected
11–17
✓ USA led
Model: USA by 1 ✓ Model: Over 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2 · #133
2
1H ATS 1-4 · #129
7
1H spread
MTSU -6
✓ KENN W ATS
1H total
26.5
▼ Under 9
Projected
10–16
✓ MTSU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: KENN ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: KENN ✓ Model: KENN by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2 · #112
14
1H ATS 1-5 · #130
10
1H spread
LT -7.5
✓ NMSU W ATS
1H total
25
▼ Under 24
Projected
14–10
✓ LT led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: LT ✗ Model: NMSU by 3 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✓

Wednesday, Oct 16

2
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #103
17
1H ATS 3-2 · #93
14
1H spread
SHSU -1
✓ WKU W ATS
1H total
29
▲ Over 31
Projected
12–15
✗ SHSU did not lead
Model: SHSU by 1 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #121
14
UTEP
1H ATS 2-3 · #128
17
1H spread
FIU -4
✓ UTEP W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 31
Projected
12–11
✗ FIU did not lead
Model: UTEP by 3 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✗

Thursday, Oct 17

2
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-3 · #110
10
1H ATS 5-1 · #69
25
1H spread
MRSH -5
✓ MRSH W ATS
1H total
26.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
10–16
✓ MRSH led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: MRSH ✓ Model: MRSH by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #58
0
1H ATS 2-4 · #38
28
1H spread
VT -5
✓ VT W ATS
1H total
24
▲ Over 28
Projected
9–15
✓ VT led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: BC ✗ Model: VT by 1 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✓

Friday, Oct 18

4
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 0-6 · #85
6
Duke
1H ATS 1-4 · #60
17
1H spread
DUKE -1.5
✓ DUKE W ATS
1H total
21.5
▲ Over 23
Projected
10–12
✓ DUKE led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: FSU ✗ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: DUKE ✓ Model: DUKE by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-1 · #5
21
1H ATS 1-4-1 · #117
0
1H spread
ORE -17.5
✓ ORE W ATS
1H total
31.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
24–7
✓ ORE led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ORE ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: PUR ✗ Model: PUR by 1 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #87
21
BYU
1H ATS 4-0 · #22
14
1H spread
BYU -4.5
✓ OKST W ATS
1H total
27.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
10–18
✗ BYU did not lead
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Model: BYU by 3.5 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #84
17
1H ATS 3-4 · #102
21
1H spread
FRES -1.5
✓ NEV W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 38
Projected
13–13
 
Model: NEV by 1.5 ✓

Saturday, Oct 19

48
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-4 · #9
24
1H ATS 1-5 · #14
17
1H spread
MIA -2.5
✓ MIA W ATS
1H total
31.5
▲ Over 41
Projected
16–14
✓ MIA led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: MIA ✓ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: LOU ✗ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✓ Model: LOU by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2 · #77
10
1H ATS 4-1-1 · #17
17
1H spread
CLEM -12
✓ UVA W ATS
1H total
29.5
▼ Under 27
Projected
8–20
✓ CLEM led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: CLEM ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: UVA ✓ Model: UVA by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-1-1 · #41
7
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #10
28
1H spread
IU -4
✓ IU W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
9–15
✓ IU led
Model: IU by 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #33
3
1H ATS 3-3 · #23
3
1H spread
MIZ -2.5
✓ AUB W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 6
Projected
11–15
 
Model: MIZ by 2 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #92
0
Army
1H ATS 5-1 · #52
24
1H spread
ARMY -11
✓ ARMY W ATS
1H total
28.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
7–17
✓ ARMY led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ARMY ✓ Model: ECU by 1 ✗ Model: Under 4 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #47
14
1H ATS 3-2 · #83
0
1H spread
WIS -5.5
✓ WIS W ATS
1H total
22
▼ Under 14
Projected
13–8
✓ WIS led
Model: NU by 1 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
UCLA
1H ATS 2-3 · #48
21
1H ATS 3-3 · #51
10
1H spread
RUTG -2.5
✓ UCLA W ATS
1H total
22
▲ Over 31
Projected
9–14
✗ RUTG did not lead
Model: RUTG by 2 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #89
13
1H ATS 4-2 · #80
6
1H spread
WAKE -1.5
✓ WAKE W ATS
1H total
29.5
▼ Under 19
Projected
14–16
✗ CONN did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: CONN ✗ Model: CONN by 4 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #18
7
1H ATS 4-1 · #45
24
1H spread
CIN -2.5
✓ CIN W ATS
1H total
26.5
▲ Over 31
Projected
13–16
✓ CIN led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: CIN ✓ Model: Over 3 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #71
17
1H ATS 4-2 · #101
14
1H spread
UL -4
✓ CCU W ATS
1H total
29.5
▲ Over 31
Projected
14–14
 
Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✓ Model: CCU by 4 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #13
32
1H ATS 2-4 · #28
3
1H spread
SC -1.5
✓ SC W ATS
1H total
21
▲ Over 35
Projected
10–13
✗ OU did not lead
Model: OU by 4 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #123
14
1H ATS 2-3-1 · #120
16
1H spread
EMU -2
Push
1H total
27.5
▲ Over 30
Projected
12–15
✓ EMU led
Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✓ Model: EMU by 1.5
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #131
0
1H ATS 1-4-1 · #127
17
1H spread
TEM -1.5
✓ TEM W ATS
1H total
27
▼ Under 17
Projected
13–15
✓ TEM led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: TLSA ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: TLSA ✗ Model: TLSA by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #7
7
1H ATS 4-2 · #11
0
1H spread
ALA -2
✓ ALA W ATS
1H total
30
▼ Under 7
Projected
15–15
✗ TENN did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: TENN ✗ Model: TENN by 2.5 ✗
1H finalNeutral · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #4
14
1H ATS 4-1 · #36
7
1H spread
ND -8.5
✓ GT W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
18–10
✓ ND led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: GT ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: GT ✓ Model: GT by 1 ✓ Model: Over 2.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2 · #27
7
1H ATS 4-2 · #44
13
1H spread
MICH -3
✓ ILL W ATS
1H total
23
▼ Under 20
Projected
13–11
✗ MICH did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: ILL ✓ Model: ILL by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-2-1 · #119
10
Navy
1H ATS 5-0 · #61
38
1H spread
NAVY -9.5
✓ NAVY W ATS
1H total
30
▲ Over 48
Projected
10–18
✓ NAVY led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: NAVY ✓ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✓ Model: CLT by 2 ✗ Model: Under 2.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 0-7 · #67
10
1H ATS 3-3 · #55
13
1H spread
CAL -5.5
✓ NCSU W ATS
1H total
23.5
▼ Under 23
Projected
8–16
✓ CAL led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: CAL ✗ Model: CAL by 2 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-0 · #76
14
1H ATS 2-4 · #35
28
1H spread
KU -3
✓ KU W ATS
1H total
23.5
▲ Over 42
Projected
8–14
✓ KU led
Model: KU by 3 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✗
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #109
3
1H ATS 3-1 · #68
21
1H spread
WSU -11
✓ WSU W ATS
1H total
28.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
8–21
✓ WSU led
Trend: Fast starter edge: HAW ✗ Model: WSU by 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-1-1 · #54
0
1H ATS 4-1-1 · #78
14
1H spread
TXST -6
✓ ODU W ATS
1H total
31
▼ Under 14
Projected
17–12
✗ TXST did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ODU ✓ Model: ODU by 1 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
Ohio
1H ATS 3-3 · #65
0
1H ATS 3-3 · #73
16
1H spread
M-OH -2
✓ M-OH W ATS
1H total
22
▼ Under 16
Projected
10–13
✓ M-OH led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: OHIO ✗ Model: M-OH by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-3-1 · #134
6
1H ATS 2-3 · #75
20
1H spread
BGSU -14
Push
1H total
28.5
▼ Under 26
Projected
6–23
✓ BGSU led
Model: BGSU by 3 Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #107
28
1H ATS 3-3 · #105
17
1H spread
WMU -1
✓ WMU W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 45
Projected
13–14
✗ BUFF did not lead
Model: BUFF by 1.5 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #88
7
1H ATS 5-1 · #74
6
1H spread
NIU -2
✓ TOL W ATS
1H total
22
▼ Under 13
Projected
10–13
✗ NIU did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: NIU ✗ Model: NIU by 1.5 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
UAB
1H ATS 1-4 · #116
9
1H ATS 2-2 · #91
7
1H spread
USF -8.5
✓ UAB W ATS
1H total
29.5
▼ Under 16
Projected
11–18
✗ USF did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: USF ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: UAB ✓ Model: UAB by 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #118
17
UTSA
1H ATS 3-2 · #82
17
1H spread
UTSA -2.5
✓ FAU W ATS
1H total
27
▲ Over 34
Projected
12–15
 
Model: UTSA by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
Rice
1H ATS 3-3 · #104
7
1H ATS 5-1 · #40
10
1H spread
TULN -13.5
✓ RICE W ATS
1H total
27.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
6–19
✓ TULN led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: TULN ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: RICE ✓ Model: RICE by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
USC
1H ATS 3-3 · #16
21
1H ATS 2-3 · #62
7
1H spread
USC -4
✓ USC W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 28
Projected
17–12
✓ USC led
Trend: Fast starter edge: MD ✗ Model: USC by 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #25
28
1H ATS 1-5 · #79
7
1H spread
ARIZ -1.5
✓ COLO W ATS
1H total
29.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
14–16
✗ ARIZ did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: COLO ✓ Model: ARIZ by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #39
24
1H ATS 2-3 · #46
14
1H spread
TTU -2.5
✓ BAY W ATS
1H total
29
▲ Over 38
Projected
10–17
✗ TTU did not lead
Model: TTU by 4 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-1 · #111
15
1H ATS 1-3-1 · #106
24
1H spread
UNM -0.5
✓ USU W ATS
1H total
40.5
▼ Under 39
Projected
19–20
✓ USU led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: UNM ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: UNM ✗ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✗ Model: USU by 1.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 0-5 · #114
0
1H ATS 3-2 · #86
14
1H spread
SJSU -7
✓ SJSU W ATS
1H total
27.5
▼ Under 14
Projected
9–17
✓ SJSU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: SJSU ✓ Model: SJSU by 1 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #59
0
1H ATS 3-3 · #90
21
1H spread
JMU -5
✓ GASO W ATS
1H total
30
▼ Under 21
Projected
18–11
✗ JMU did not lead
Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✗ Model: JMU by 2.5 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #19
21
1H ATS 3-2 · #72
17
1H spread
TA&M -12.5
✓ MSST W ATS
1H total
29
▲ Over 38
Projected
19–10
✓ TA&M led
Model: MSST by 4 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
LSU
1H ATS 1-4 · #12
16
1H ATS 5-0 · #32
7
1H spread
LSU -1.5
✓ LSU W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 23
Projected
17–14
✓ LSU led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ARK ✗ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ARK ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: ARK ✗ Model: LSU by 1 ✓ Model: Over 2.5 ✗
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #126
7
1H ATS 5-1 · #53
14
1H spread
VAN -16
✓ BALL W ATS
1H total
29.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
7–23
✓ VAN led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: VAN ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: BALL ✓ Model: VAN by 1 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-2-1 · #113
28
1H ATS 1-4 · #132
21
1H spread
ARST -4
✓ ARST W ATS
1H total
29.5
▲ Over 49
Projected
16–13
✓ ARST led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ARST ✓ Model: USM by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
UCF
1H ATS 2-4 · #37
21
1H ATS 2-4 · #24
14
1H spread
ISU -8
✓ UCF W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
9–16
✗ ISU did not lead
Model: UCF by 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #20
17
1H ATS 2-4 · #63
10
1H spread
KSU -1.5
✓ KSU W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 27
Projected
16–14
✓ KSU led
Model: KSU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
Iowa
1H ATS 3-2 · #30
0
1H ATS 4-2 · #70
12
1H spread
IOWA -4
✓ MSU W ATS
1H total
20.5
▼ Under 12
Projected
13–8
✗ IOWA did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: MSU ✓ Model: IOWA by 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #94
24
1H ATS 4-2 · #56
28
1H spread
MEM -6
✓ UNT W ATS
1H total
35
▲ Over 52
Projected
14–20
✓ MEM led
Model: MEM by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #50
13
1H ATS 2-3 · #21
27
1H spread
UK -1.5
✓ FLA W ATS
1H total
21.5
▲ Over 40
Projected
11–11
✓ FLA led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Model: FLA by 2 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 0-5-1 · #8
23
1H ATS 4-2 · #2
0
1H spread
TEX -2.5
✓ UGA W ATS
1H total
29.5
▼ Under 23
Projected
11–16
✗ TEX did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: TEX ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: TEX ✗ Model: TEX by 2.5 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
SMU
1H ATS 2-2 · #15
31
1H ATS 3-3 · #96
7
1H spread
SMU -9.5
✓ SMU W ATS
1H total
27.5
▲ Over 38
Projected
19–10
✓ SMU led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #100
14
1H ATS 2-4 · #108
0
1H spread
CSU -3
✓ CSU W ATS
1H total
23
▼ Under 14
Projected
13–9
✓ CSU led
Model: CSU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
UNLV
1H ATS 5-0 · #42
16
1H ATS 3-2 · #98
17
1H spread
UNLV -4
✓ ORST W ATS
1H total
32
▲ Over 33
Projected
17–13
✗ UNLV did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: UNLV ✗ Model: ORST by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
TCU
1H ATS 3-2 · #34
10
Utah
1H ATS 3-3 · #49
0
1H spread
UTAH -3
✓ TCU W ATS
1H total
27
▼ Under 10
Projected
12–15
✗ UTAH did not lead
Model: UTAH by 0.5 ✗
Loading…
StatusMatchup1H spreadMove1H totalModelTrendDetails
Loading…
1H ATS: the team's 1st-half margin plus its 1st-half line. Away team listed first. Spread edge = the model's 1st-half line minus the 1H spread (Total edge: the model's 1H total minus the 1H total), in points; a lean starts at 2 pts (3 on the total) and is context only. Projections use only games played before that week. Trends use each team's 1st halves earlier this season; dot = backtest status ( proven edge, above break-even but not proven, no edge). est. lines are estimated from the full-game line.
1H ATS leans (backtest)
1117-1157 (49.1%)
No edge 2016–26 · break-even 52.4%
1H O/U leans (backtest)
313-299 (51.1%)
No edge 3+ pt edges
Halftime leader picked
69.7%
7,953 games, walk-forward
This week
26-31 fav 1H ATS
O/U 27-32 · leans 6-10 ATS, 1-0 O/U

2024 team 1st-half records

Against the 1st-half line (real or estimated), halftime over/under and halftime leads
TeamGP1H ATSCover %1H O-ULed-trailed1H PF1H PA1H margin
North Dakota State 1 1-0 100% 1-0 1-0 20.0 17.0 +3.0
Missouri State 1 1-0 100% 0-1 0-0-1 7.0 7.0 +0.0
Old Dominion 12 9-2-1 81.8% 6-6 7-4-1 14.8 12.3 +2.5
Minnesota 13 10-3 76.9% 5-7-1 9-3-1 14.5 8.8 +5.6
Marshall 13 10-3 76.9% 4-9 9-3-1 15.8 9.4 +6.5
Texas 16 12-4 75% 7-9 14-2 19.4 5.8 +13.7
TCU 13 9-3 75% 4-8 9-4 18.7 12.0 +6.7
UTSA 13 9-3 75% 7-5 8-3-2 19.0 13.8 +5.2
Georgia Tech 13 8-3 72.7% 4-8 7-5-1 14.7 10.4 +4.3
Arkansas 13 8-3-1 72.7% 5-7 7-3-3 15.9 10.6 +5.3
Arizona State 14 10-4 71.4% 8-5-1 9-3-2 18.9 10.6 +8.3
Nebraska 13 7-3-1 70% 4-7 8-3-2 14.7 7.8 +6.9
South Carolina 13 9-4 69.2% 7-5-1 8-3-2 15.0 9.7 +5.3
Oregon 14 8-4 66.7% 9-3 11-3 21.4 12.1 +9.2
San José State 13 8-4 66.7% 1-11 5-4-4 14.2 13.2 +1.1
Navy 13 8-4 66.7% 7-6 8-5 16.5 10.2 +6.3
Florida 13 8-4 66.7% 3-9 8-3-2 12.5 10.7 +1.8
Indiana 13 8-4-1 66.7% 7-6 11-2 20.5 8.2 +12.4
UL Monroe 12 8-4 66.7% 6-6 5-5-2 9.3 14.3 -4.9
Akron 12 8-4 66.7% 9-3 4-8 12.4 15.8 -3.3
Rice 12 8-4 66.7% 6-6 5-7 12.1 12.5 -0.4
Ohio 14 9-5 64.3% 6-8 10-4 14.6 8.4 +6.3
Miami (OH) 14 9-5 64.3% 5-9 8-4-2 11.4 8.8 +2.6
Western Kentucky 14 9-5 64.3% 6-8 8-5-1 14.1 12.4 +1.8
BYU 13 7-4 63.6% 5-6 8-4-1 15.8 10.9 +4.8
Hawai'i 12 7-4 63.6% 2-9 5-7 10.6 11.7 -1.1
UAB 12 7-4 63.6% 5-6 6-5-1 15.8 15.8 -0.1
Massachusetts 12 7-4-1 63.6% 5-7 4-6-2 13.0 15.5 -2.5
Northwestern 12 7-4 63.6% 7-4 4-7-1 8.6 12.2 -3.6
San Diego State 12 7-4 63.6% 6-5 3-9 10.8 14.9 -4.2
Notre Dame 16 10-6 62.5% 9-7 11-3-2 18.1 7.4 +10.8
Army 14 8-5-1 61.5% 8-6 12-2 17.0 6.6 +10.4
Boise State 14 8-5 61.5% 4-9 10-1-3 21.2 10.9 +10.3
Rutgers 13 8-5 61.5% 6-5-2 9-4 14.2 11.5 +2.8
Toledo 13 8-5 61.5% 7-6 9-4 15.0 8.6 +6.4
Ole Miss 13 8-5 61.5% 4-8-1 10-2-1 22.6 8.3 +14.3
USC 13 8-5 61.5% 4-9 5-3-5 13.8 10.6 +3.2
Boston College 13 8-5 61.5% 7-6 6-6-1 14.7 12.2 +2.5
Arkansas State 13 6-4-1 60% 5-6 6-6-1 11.8 15.4 -3.5
Mississippi State 12 6-4-1 60% 7-3-1 2-10 12.8 21.5 -8.8
Fresno State 13 7-5 58.3% 6-6 9-4 16.4 10.2 +6.2
Texas Tech 13 7-5 58.3% 7-5 8-4-1 21.7 14.9 +6.8
Kansas 12 7-5 58.3% 7-4-1 5-5-2 17.9 13.6 +4.3
Wisconsin 12 7-5 58.3% 3-9 8-4 11.1 9.3 +1.8
Florida International 12 7-5 58.3% 8-4 6-5-1 14.4 14.0 +0.4
Auburn 12 7-5 58.3% 3-9 5-4-3 13.7 8.3 +5.4
Tulane 14 8-6 57.1% 8-6 10-4 17.3 9.1 +8.1
SMU 14 6-5-1 54.5% 6-6 11-3 20.1 11.2 +8.9
Washington State 13 6-5 54.5% 5-6 10-3 21.2 13.8 +7.5
North Texas 13 6-5-1 54.5% 7-5 5-8 16.9 20.6 -3.7
East Carolina 13 6-5-1 54.5% 6-7 7-5-1 14.5 13.2 +1.3
Wake Forest 12 6-5 54.5% 6-4-1 6-6 14.1 16.7 -2.6
Central Michigan 12 6-5-1 54.5% 7-5 3-9 12.7 16.6 -3.9
Michigan State 12 6-5-1 54.5% 6-6 6-6 12.4 12.1 +0.3
Cincinnati 12 6-5 54.5% 5-6 6-4-2 14.8 13.2 +1.7
Kennesaw State 12 6-5 54.5% 5-6 0-9-3 7.8 15.7 -7.9
Ball State 12 6-5 54.5% 7-4 3-7-2 12.8 18.5 -5.8
Clemson 14 7-6-1 53.8% 7-7 9-4-1 20.4 9.8 +10.6
UNLV 14 7-6 53.8% 7-5-1 9-5 19.1 11.3 +7.9
Buffalo 13 7-6 53.8% 5-8 7-6 12.8 11.6 +1.2
Coastal Carolina 13 7-6 53.8% 8-5 6-7 14.0 16.6 -2.6
Illinois 13 7-6 53.8% 7-6 8-4-1 13.5 10.5 +2.9
Oklahoma 13 7-6 53.8% 5-8 8-5 14.2 11.7 +2.5
Vanderbilt 13 7-6 53.8% 4-9 7-5-1 13.3 10.5 +2.8
Virginia Tech 13 7-6 53.8% 4-7-2 9-4 14.0 9.3 +4.7
Tennessee 13 7-6 53.8% 5-8 7-5-1 19.6 7.0 +12.6
Syracuse 13 7-6 53.8% 9-4 7-5-1 16.7 15.4 +1.3
Georgia Southern 13 7-6 53.8% 6-7 8-5 13.7 13.5 +0.2
Alabama 13 7-6 53.8% 6-7 10-3 18.0 7.4 +10.6
Baylor 13 7-6 53.8% 7-5-1 7-5-1 17.9 16.9 +1.0
Ohio State 16 8-8 50% 8-8 14-1-1 19.8 7.4 +12.4
Jacksonville State 14 7-7 50% 9-5 8-4-2 18.1 16.1 +2.1
Colorado 13 6-6 50% 7-5 6-7 15.4 14.5 +0.8
Western Michigan 13 6-6-1 50% 8-5 5-7-1 15.8 15.8 +0.1
Iowa 13 6-6 50% 5-7 7-6 9.7 8.3 +1.4
Michigan 13 5-5-1 50% 6-5 7-5-1 11.6 10.8 +0.8
LSU 13 6-6 50% 5-7 7-3-3 18.1 13.2 +4.9
New Mexico 12 6-6 50% 7-5 4-7-1 17.5 20.7 -3.2
Florida Atlantic 12 6-6 50% 6-6 6-5-1 14.6 14.0 +0.6
Air Force 12 6-6 50% 5-7 5-7 9.9 11.4 -1.5
Houston 12 5-5 50% 4-6 2-9-1 8.4 13.3 -4.9
Utah State 12 5-5-1 50% 4-7 6-6 14.3 20.0 -5.8
Sacramento State 2 1-1 50% 1-1 1-1 13.5 19.5 -6.0
North Carolina 13 6-7 46.2% 6-6-1 6-6-1 14.0 14.4 -0.4
Colorado State 13 6-7 46.2% 2-11 6-6-1 11.8 10.9 +0.8
Northern Illinois 13 6-7 46.2% 6-7 6-7 13.8 11.7 +2.1
California 13 6-7 46.2% 5-8 7-6 13.2 12.1 +1.1
Kansas State 13 6-7 46.2% 7-6 8-5 14.5 13.5 +1.0
Memphis 13 6-7 46.2% 5-8 10-1-2 19.2 11.1 +8.1
Duke 13 5-6-1 45.5% 5-7-1 7-6 12.6 11.6 +1.0
South Alabama 13 5-6-1 45.5% 6-6 8-5 18.5 13.2 +5.4
South Florida 13 5-6 45.5% 4-7 5-8 14.5 15.6 -1.2
Louisiana Tech 13 5-6-1 45.5% 3-9 7-5-1 11.3 10.5 +0.8
Texas State 13 5-6-1 45.5% 8-4 8-4-1 21.3 13.5 +7.8
UTEP 12 5-6 45.5% 3-8 3-7-2 8.8 16.5 -7.7
Oregon State 12 5-6 45.5% 4-7 7-4-1 11.8 14.3 -2.5
UCLA 12 5-6 45.5% 4-7 4-7-1 9.8 12.5 -2.8
Charlotte 12 4-5-1 44.4% 5-5 2-9-1 10.0 15.9 -5.9
Penn State 16 6-8-1 42.9% 7-8 9-6-1 17.9 9.6 +8.3
Pittsburgh 13 5-7-1 41.7% 7-6 5-6-2 15.6 15.8 -0.2
Sam Houston 13 5-7 41.7% 7-5 6-5-2 12.8 10.2 +2.7
James Madison 13 5-7 41.7% 7-5 7-6 18.5 12.2 +6.3
Utah 12 5-7 41.7% 5-7 6-5-1 13.3 9.6 +3.8
Stanford 12 5-7 41.7% 5-7 4-8 11.1 17.5 -6.4
Kentucky 12 5-7 41.7% 2-10 6-5-1 11.2 10.2 +1.0
New Mexico State 12 5-7 41.7% 6-6 3-8-1 8.8 17.9 -9.1
Louisiana 14 5-8 38.5% 7-6 9-4-1 16.6 13.5 +3.1
Nevada 13 5-8 38.5% 5-8 3-8-2 10.8 15.2 -4.4
West Virginia 13 5-8 38.5% 7-6 6-6-1 16.8 16.5 +0.3
UConn 13 5-8 38.5% 5-6-2 6-7 15.3 12.2 +3.1
Louisville 13 5-8 38.5% 8-5 7-4-2 19.0 12.9 +6.1
Bowling Green 13 4-7-1 36.4% 5-7 9-4 15.5 11.8 +3.7
Southern Miss 12 4-7 36.4% 3-7-1 1-11 9.7 20.1 -10.4
Georgia State 12 4-7 36.4% 5-6 3-7-2 11.4 15.9 -4.5
Texas A&M 13 4-8 33.3% 5-6-1 6-3-4 15.5 9.4 +6.1
UCF 12 4-8 33.3% 7-5 4-8 14.8 15.9 -1.2
Tulsa 12 4-8 33.3% 7-5 3-8-1 10.4 24.9 -14.5
Oklahoma State 12 4-8 33.3% 6-6 3-8-1 11.8 17.3 -5.5
Troy 12 4-8 33.3% 4-7-1 6-6 11.4 14.8 -3.4
Iowa State 14 4-9-1 30.8% 8-6 8-5-1 15.0 13.9 +1.1
Missouri 13 4-9 30.8% 5-7-1 5-6-2 13.2 10.8 +2.3
Washington 13 3-7-1 30% 6-5 6-6-1 12.9 13.8 -0.9
Eastern Michigan 12 3-7-2 30% 5-7 6-6 10.2 13.5 -3.3
Virginia 12 3-7 30% 3-5-2 3-8-1 10.3 15.3 -5.1
Maryland 12 3-8 27.3% 5-4-2 2-10 10.5 16.3 -5.8
Middle Tennessee 12 3-8 27.3% 5-6 2-9-1 8.8 19.5 -10.7
Wyoming 12 3-8 27.3% 6-5 0-10-2 9.9 18.8 -8.8
NC State 13 3-10 23.1% 4-9 3-9-1 10.8 16.0 -5.2
Kent State 12 2-7-2 22.2% 7-4 0-12 6.6 27.2 -20.6
Purdue 12 2-8-2 20% 5-7 1-10-1 4.4 19.7 -15.3
App State 11 2-8 20% 6-4 3-8 14.0 21.3 -7.3
Miami 13 2-9-1 18.2% 9-2-1 9-4 20.7 14.7 +6.0
Temple 12 2-9-1 18.2% 8-4 1-11 9.3 19.7 -10.3
Liberty 12 2-10 16.7% 3-9 5-5-2 13.0 12.1 +0.9
Arizona 12 2-10 16.7% 5-7 3-9 8.6 18.5 -9.9
Florida State 12 1-11 8.3% 3-9 2-9-1 6.8 13.9 -7.1
Georgia 14 1-12-1 7.7% 4-10 6-7-1 12.0 10.4 +1.6

How it works

Halftime scores come from ESPN quarter scores (Q1 + Q2) for every game since 2015.

1st-half lines. ESPN publishes no college 1st-half lines. Real ones come from The Odds API’s US books (DraftKings first) for games kicking off within about five days (the biggest matchups first, a capped number a day), pulled once, so a line shows the time it was fetched; every other game, and every past college game, is estimated from the full-game closing line (spread × 0.59, total × 0.52, rounded to the half point: the share of the margin and points college teams score before halftime). A real line shows its book; an estimated one is marked “est.”

Projection. The full-game model's margin and total, scaled the same way. The blend was chosen by the lowest walk-forward error.

Spread edge and Total edge. The model’s 1st-half line (total) minus the market’s, in points. A lean starts when the projection beats the 1H line by 2–6 pts (ATS) or 3+ pts (O/U). Shown for context: neither has a proven edge.

Picks and prices. For a game with a posted 1st-half line, tap Pick on its tile to save a 1H spread or total pick (graded on the halftime score; they show in My picks). The game card’s Market tab lists every book’s 1st-half price.

NCAAF first-half betting FAQ

First-half lines, 1H ATS and halftime totals explained

What is a first-half spread in the NCAAF?

A first-half (1H) spread is a point spread graded on the score at halftime only. A team covers the 1st-half spread when its 1st-half margin plus its 1st-half line is positive; the 2nd half and overtime don't count.

How are NCAAF first-half lines set here?

ESPN publishes no college 1st-half lines. Real ones come from The Odds API’s US books (DraftKings first) for games kicking off within about five days (the biggest matchups first, a capped number a day), pulled once, so a line shows the time it was fetched; every other game, and every past college game, is estimated from the full-game closing line (spread × 0.59, total × 0.52, rounded to the half point: the share of the margin and points college teams score before halftime).

How is the 1st-half projection made?

The full-game power-rating model's margin and total are scaled to the first half. Every past week is predicted only from games played before it.

Do the 1st-half leans beat the market?

Not so far. Over 2016–26, 1st-half ATS leans went 1117-1157 (49.1%) and over/under leans 313-299 (51.1%), below or near the 52.4% needed to break even at -110 odds, so they are shown as context only.

How often does the model pick the team leading at halftime?

69.7% of 7,953 NCAAF games in the 2016–26 walk-forward backtest.