NCAAF 1st half2025 Week 7: 56 of 56 games final. Favorites went 27-28 against the first-half spread, and halftime totals went 29 over, 27 under.How 1st-half lines work ⓘ
FinalCurrentUpcomingFull-game view of Week 7 ›
Sort by
⌨ Shortcuts

Group the list

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

Jump to

Wednesday, Oct 8

2
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #112
16
1H ATS 2-3 · #128
13
1H spread
MOST -1.5
✓ MOST W ATS
1H total
27.5
▲ Over 29
Projected
14–13
✓ MOST led
Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-4 · #104
13
UTEP
1H ATS 2-3 · #131
0
1H spread
LIB -1
✓ LIB W ATS
1H total
24.5
▼ Under 13
Projected
12–12
 
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: UTEP ✗ Model: UTEP by 1 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✓

Thursday, Oct 9

4
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #93
7
1H ATS 4-1 · #97
14
1H spread
LT -3
✓ KENN W ATS
1H total
23.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
14–9
✗ LT did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: KENN ✓ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: LT ✗ Model: LT by 1 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #51
0
1H ATS 4-1 · #57
12
1H spread
TULN -4
✓ TULN W ATS
1H total
28
▼ Under 12
Projected
11–15
✓ TULN led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: TULN ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: ECU ✗ Model: ECU by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #101
17
1H ATS 0-5 · #135
14
1H spread
JXST -4.5
✓ SHSU W ATS
1H total
27.5
▲ Over 31
Projected
17–13
✓ JXST led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: JXST ✗ Model: SHSU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #98
28
1H ATS 1-3-1 · #105
7
1H spread
USM -1.5
✓ USM W ATS
1H total
31.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
15–16
✗ GASO did not lead
Model: GASO by 2.5 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✗

Friday, Oct 10

3
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #29
21
1H ATS 3-1-1 · #38
21
1H spread
UNT -1.5
✓ USF W ATS
1H total
35.5
▲ Over 42
Projected
16–17
 
Trend: Fast starter edge: UNT ✗ Model: USF by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #62
13
1H ATS 3-2 · #15
10
1H spread
WASH -5.5
✓ RUTG W ATS
1H total
32.5
▼ Under 23
Projected
12–20
✗ WASH did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: RUTG ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: RUTG ✓ Model: WASH by 2.5 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #82
14
1H ATS 1-4 · #116
35
1H spread
FRES -3
✓ CSU W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 49
Projected
12–12
✗ FRES did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: FRES ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: FRES ✗ Model: CSU by 2.5 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✗

Saturday, Oct 11

47
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #2
20
1H ATS 3-3 · #30
3
1H spread
OSU -9
✓ OSU W ATS
1H total
27
▼ Under 23
Projected
18–8
✓ OSU led
Trend: Fast starter edge: ILL ✗ Model: OSU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #11
17
1H ATS 2-3 · #18
10
1H spread
ALA -2
✓ ALA W ATS
1H total
26.5
▲ Over 27
Projected
15–13
✓ ALA led
Model: ALA by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #35
14
1H ATS 3-2 · #23
21
1H spread
FSU -7
Push
1H total
30
▲ Over 35
Projected
10–18
✓ FSU led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: PITT Trend: Fast starter edge: PITT Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✓ Model: FSU by 0.5 Model: Under 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
UCLA
1H ATS 1-4 · #70
24
1H ATS 2-3 · #67
7
1H spread
MSU -4
✓ UCLA W ATS
1H total
27
▲ Over 31
Projected
10–15
✗ MSU did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: MSU ✗ Model: MSU by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-3-1 · #85
7
SMU
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #27
17
1H spread
SMU -11.5
✓ STAN W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 24
Projected
8–19
✓ SMU led
Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
UCF
1H ATS 3-2 · #66
3
1H ATS 3-1 · #58
17
1H spread
CIN -6
✓ CIN W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 20
Projected
12–16
✓ CIN led
Model: UCF by 2.5 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-3-1 · #49
24
1H ATS 1-3 · #111
10
1H spread
HOU -8.5
✓ HOU W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 34
Projected
17–9
✓ HOU led
Model: OKST by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-4 · #114
14
1H ATS 3-2 · #28
7
1H spread
JMU -11
✓ UL W ATS
1H total
23.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
7–18
✗ JMU did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: JMU ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: UL ✓ Model: JMU by 1 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 0-5 · #134
0
Army
1H ATS 1-4 · #83
17
1H spread
ARMY -10.5
✓ ARMY W ATS
1H total
23
▼ Under 17
Projected
7–18
✓ ARMY led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: CLT ✗ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ARMY ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: CLT ✗ Model: ARMY by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #91
3
1H ATS 2-4 · #127
0
1H spread
M-OH -7
✓ AKR W ATS
1H total
24.5
▼ Under 3
Projected
16–8
✓ M-OH led
Model: M-OH by 1 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #48
21
1H ATS 2-3 · #120
7
1H spread
TOL -6
✓ TOL W ATS
1H total
23.5
▲ Over 28
Projected
15–10
✓ TOL led
Trend: Fast starter edge: TOL ✓ Model: BGSU by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #60
7
1H ATS 3-2 · #9
10
1H spread
MISS -19
✓ WSU W ATS
1H total
30.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
5–24
✓ MISS led
Trend: Fast starter edge: WSU ✓ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #124
3
1H ATS 4-2 · #123
6
1H spread
NIU -1
✓ EMU W ATS
1H total
25
▼ Under 9
Projected
13–12
✗ NIU did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: NIU ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #136
6
1H ATS 2-2 · #132
21
1H spread
KENT -1
✓ KENT W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 27
Projected
14–14
 
Trend: Fast starter edge: MASS ✗ Model: MASS by 1 ✗ Model: Over 3 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-3 · #1
13
1H ATS 4-1 · #4
10
1H spread
ORE -4.5
✓ IU W ATS
1H total
27
▼ Under 23
Projected
13–17
✗ ORE did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ORE ✗ Model: IU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 2.5 ✗
1H finalNeutral · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #16
6
1H ATS 1-4 · #14
3
1H spread
TEX -1.5
✓ OU W ATS
1H total
22.5
▼ Under 9
Projected
11–13
✗ TEX did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: OU ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: OU ✓ Model: TEX by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #73
7
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #39
21
1H spread
GT -8.5
✓ GT W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 28
Projected
10–17
✓ GT led
Trend: Fast starter edge: VT ✗ Model: VT by 1 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #44
7
1H ATS 1-4 · #3
10
1H spread
ND -14.5
✓ NCSU W ATS
1H total
31
▼ Under 17
Projected
9–22
✓ ND led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: NCSU ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: NCSU ✓ Model: NCSU by 1 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #36
10
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #75
7
1H spread
ISU -1.5
✓ ISU W ATS
1H total
27.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
14–13
✓ ISU led
Model: COLO by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #59
13
1H ATS 0-5 · #17
14
1H spread
PSU -12
✓ NU W ATS
1H total
24
▲ Over 27
Projected
6–19
✓ PSU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: NU ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: NU ✓ Model: PSU by 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #45
24
1H ATS 4-1 · #72
17
1H spread
NEB -4
✓ NEB W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 41
Projected
14–11
✓ NEB led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: MD ✗ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: NEB ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: MD ✗ Model: MD by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #53
25
1H ATS 2-4 · #100
0
1H spread
WAKE -1
✓ WAKE W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 25
Projected
14–13
✓ WAKE led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: WAKE ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: WAKE ✓ Model: Over 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
TCU
1H ATS 3-1-1 · #33
7
1H ATS 2-4 · #42
14
1H spread
TCU -1.5
✓ KSU W ATS
1H total
28.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
15–13
✗ TCU did not lead
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #95
21
UNLV
1H ATS 3-2 · #74
13
1H spread
UNLV -4.5
✓ AFA W ATS
1H total
34.5
▼ Under 34
Projected
13–20
✗ UNLV did not lead
Model: UNLV by 2 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #115
17
1H ATS 3-2 · #125
0
1H spread
APP -1.5
✓ APP W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 17
Projected
15–14
✓ APP led
Model: GAST by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-0 · #46
10
1H ATS 2-3 · #88
24
1H spread
ODU -8.5
✓ MRSH W ATS
1H total
30
▲ Over 34
Projected
18–11
✗ ODU did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ODU ✗ Model: MRSH by 1 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #133
0
1H ATS 4-2 · #80
21
1H spread
WMU -5.5
✓ WMU W ATS
1H total
22
▼ Under 21
Projected
8–15
✓ WMU led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓ Model: WMU by 1 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
Navy
1H ATS 2-3 · #64
7
1H ATS 3-2 · #96
17
1H spread
NAVY -6
✓ TEM W ATS
1H total
27.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
16–11
✗ NAVY did not lead
Model: TEM by 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #40
17
1H ATS 4-1 · #22
17
1H spread
TENN -6
✓ ARK W ATS
1H total
35.5
▼ Under 34
Projected
14–20
 
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: TENN ✗ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
UAB
1H ATS 3-2 · #119
14
1H ATS 4-1 · #108
35
1H spread
FAU -3
✓ FAU W ATS
1H total
34
▲ Over 49
Projected
15–19
✓ FAU led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: FAU ✓ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✓ Model: FAU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #37
14
1H ATS 3-2 · #10
21
1H spread
TA&M -4
✓ TA&M W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 35
Projected
10–15
✓ TA&M led
Model: TA&M by 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
Iowa
1H ATS 2-3 · #20
23
1H ATS 1-4 · #63
0
1H spread
IOWA -2.5
✓ IOWA W ATS
1H total
19.5
▲ Over 23
Projected
11–10
✓ IOWA led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: IOWA ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: IOWA ✓ Model: WIS by 1 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #106
28
1H ATS 3-2 · #107
14
1H spread
SJSU -1
✓ SJSU W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 42
Projected
12–14
✗ WYO did not lead
Model: WYO by 3 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #130
0
1H ATS 1-4 · #122
16
1H spread
ULM -1.5
✓ CCU W ATS
1H total
23.5
▼ Under 16
Projected
10–13
✓ CCU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ULM ✗ Model: CCU by 4 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #54
17
1H ATS 4-0 · #5
21
1H spread
TTU -8
✓ KU W ATS
1H total
30.5
▲ Over 38
Projected
11–19
✓ TTU led
Model: TTU by 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #7
3
1H ATS 3-2 · #24
10
1H spread
UGA -2.5
✓ AUB W ATS
1H total
23.5
▼ Under 13
Projected
14–12
✗ UGA did not lead
Model: UGA by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 2.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-4 · #21
7
USC
1H ATS 4-1 · #12
14
1H spread
USC -1.5
✓ USC W ATS
1H total
30
▼ Under 21
Projected
13–17
✓ USC led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: USC ✓ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: USC ✓ Model: USC by 2.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #79
17
1H ATS 0-4 · #69
13
1H spread
MINN -4.5
✓ PUR W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 30
Projected
10–15
✗ MINN did not lead
Model: MINN by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #34
34
1H ATS 1-4 · #84
10
1H spread
CLEM -8
✓ CLEM W ATS
1H total
28.5
▲ Over 44
Projected
17–11
✓ CLEM led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: CLEM ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: BC ✗ Model: BC by 2 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
Rice
1H ATS 3-3 · #126
10
UTSA
1H ATS 4-1 · #65
38
1H spread
UTSA -5.5
✓ UTSA W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 48
Projected
9–17
✓ UTSA led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: UTSA ✓ Model: UTSA by 2 ✓ Model: Over 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #43
7
LSU
1H ATS 1-3-1 · #31
10
1H spread
LSU -5
✓ SC W ATS
1H total
23
▼ Under 17
Projected
9–15
✓ LSU led
Trend: Fast starter edge: SC ✓ Model: LSU by 1.5 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
BYU
1H ATS 4-1 · #19
14
1H ATS 4-1 · #26
17
1H spread
BYU -1.5
✓ ARIZ W ATS
1H total
24
▲ Over 31
Projected
14–12
✗ BYU did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ARIZ ✓ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: BYU ✗ Model: BYU by 1 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
Troy
1H ATS 2-3 · #99
17
1H ATS 2-3 · #71
31
1H spread
TXST -4.5
✓ TXST W ATS
1H total
28
▲ Over 48
Projected
11–17
✓ TXST led
Model: TXST by 1.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #81
14
1H ATS 3-1-1 · #55
17
1H spread
BOIS -9
✓ UNM W ATS
1H total
30
▲ Over 31
Projected
10–20
✓ BOIS led
Trend: Fast starter edge: UNM ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #41
3
Utah
1H ATS 3-2 · #8
21
1H spread
UTAH -5
✓ UTAH W ATS
1H total
22
▲ Over 24
Projected
10–14
✓ UTAH led
Model: ASU by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2 · #68
35
1H ATS 3-2 · #121
0
1H spread
SDSU -4
✓ SDSU W ATS
1H total
22
▲ Over 35
Projected
13–10
✓ SDSU led
Model: NEV by 1 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #86
20
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #90
24
1H spread
USU -1
✓ HAW W ATS
1H total
30
▲ Over 44
Projected
14–15
✓ HAW led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: USU ✗ Model: HAW by 2 ✓ Model: Under 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
27-28 fav 1H ATS
O/U 29-27 · leans 4-6 ATS, 1-0 O/U

2025 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
Sacramento State 1 1-0 100% 1-0 1-0 17.0 13.0 +4.0
Wake Forest 13 10-3 76.9% 6-7 11-2 16.8 8.6 +8.2
Washington State 13 10-3 76.9% 5-8 10-3 13.5 8.9 +4.5
Northwestern 13 9-3-1 75% 5-8 5-8 12.0 10.1 +1.9
Arkansas 12 9-3 75% 9-3 6-5-1 21.4 18.3 +3.1
Oregon 15 11-4 73.3% 7-8 12-2-1 20.5 7.1 +13.3
Tulane 14 10-4 71.4% 5-9 10-3-1 17.6 11.1 +6.5
Texas Tech 14 9-4 69.2% 5-7-1 12-2 22.7 4.4 +18.3
North Texas 14 9-4-1 69.2% 10-4 10-2-2 24.5 12.5 +12.0
South Florida 13 9-4 69.2% 7-6 9-3-1 19.3 11.8 +7.5
Central Michigan 13 9-4 69.2% 5-7-1 9-4 13.7 11.2 +2.5
Old Dominion 13 9-4 69.2% 4-9 8-4-1 18.3 7.6 +10.7
Washington 13 9-4 69.2% 5-8 7-4-2 16.2 8.5 +7.7
Fresno State 13 8-4-1 66.7% 5-7-1 8-5 14.1 11.3 +2.8
San Diego State 13 8-4 66.7% 7-6 9-3-1 16.0 8.5 +7.5
TCU 13 8-4-1 66.7% 3-10 9-3-1 16.4 11.2 +5.2
Iowa State 12 8-4 66.7% 6-6 9-2-1 15.3 10.3 +5.1
Rutgers 12 8-4 66.7% 7-4-1 6-5-1 16.4 16.9 -0.5
Liberty 12 8-4 66.7% 4-8 6-3-3 12.2 9.3 +2.9
Western Michigan 14 9-5 64.3% 4-10 9-5 12.9 7.6 +5.3
Ohio State 14 9-5 64.3% 6-8 13-1 16.4 4.4 +12.0
Virginia 14 9-5 64.3% 4-10 7-4-3 17.0 9.9 +7.1
Pittsburgh 13 7-4-2 63.6% 8-5 9-4 19.0 12.1 +6.9
Eastern Michigan 12 7-4-1 63.6% 4-7-1 4-7-1 12.7 15.3 -2.6
Miami 16 10-6 62.5% 2-14 12-2-2 14.4 5.0 +9.4
Duke 14 8-5 61.5% 9-5 7-4-3 17.1 15.9 +1.3
BYU 14 8-5 61.5% 7-6 8-6 16.1 10.9 +5.2
Ohio 13 8-5 61.5% 5-7-1 9-3-1 14.5 9.8 +4.8
NC State 13 8-5 61.5% 8-5 6-7 18.6 15.2 +3.4
East Carolina 13 8-5 61.5% 6-7 7-6 17.0 11.4 +5.6
Delaware 13 8-5 61.5% 6-7 8-4-1 15.1 15.3 -0.2
Toledo 13 8-5 61.5% 8-5 9-4 17.8 5.7 +12.1
UTSA 13 8-5 61.5% 7-5-1 8-5 19.0 13.2 +5.8
Utah 13 8-5 61.5% 9-4 10-3 20.8 8.6 +12.2
Indiana 16 9-6 60% 6-9-1 14-1-1 21.3 5.8 +15.4
Alabama 15 9-6 60% 5-9-1 9-4-2 17.0 9.5 +7.5
Ole Miss 15 9-6 60% 8-6-1 12-3 20.1 11.8 +8.3
Stanford 12 6-4-2 60% 6-6 2-7-3 10.1 16.6 -6.5
Hawai'i 13 7-5-1 58.3% 7-6 9-4 14.8 12.8 +2.1
New Mexico 13 7-5-1 58.3% 8-5 7-6 15.2 12.1 +3.1
SMU 13 7-5-1 58.3% 2-11 9-4 16.0 8.8 +7.2
Florida Atlantic 12 7-5 58.3% 9-3 5-7 17.9 18.8 -0.9
Nevada 12 7-5 58.3% 7-5 4-8 8.2 16.3 -8.1
Northern Illinois 12 7-5 58.3% 6-6 4-6-2 10.2 11.1 -0.9
Kennesaw State 14 8-6 57.1% 5-8-1 9-4-1 13.1 11.9 +1.3
Cincinnati 13 6-5-1 54.5% 6-6-1 8-5 19.4 11.7 +7.7
Michigan State 12 6-5-1 54.5% 5-7 3-9 10.8 13.5 -2.7
Florida 12 6-5-1 54.5% 7-5 6-5-1 13.4 13.8 -0.4
New Mexico State 12 6-5 54.5% 5-6 4-6-2 9.2 14.0 -4.8
Georgia 14 7-6-1 53.8% 7-7 9-4-1 16.9 8.9 +8.1
Western Kentucky 13 7-6 53.8% 5-8 7-6 14.6 13.0 +1.6
Nebraska 13 7-6 53.8% 8-5 8-4-1 16.9 10.8 +6.1
Army 13 7-6 53.8% 6-7 8-4-1 11.6 10.5 +1.2
Southern Miss 13 7-6 53.8% 3-9-1 8-5 13.6 12.8 +0.8
UConn 13 7-6 53.8% 8-5 9-3-1 18.8 11.5 +7.3
Oklahoma 13 7-6 53.8% 4-9 9-1-3 14.8 7.3 +7.5
Iowa 13 7-6 53.8% 8-5 8-3-2 17.3 8.9 +8.4
Vanderbilt 13 7-6 53.8% 8-5 6-4-3 17.5 13.0 +4.5
Arkansas State 13 7-6 53.8% 6-7 4-7-2 14.6 15.5 -0.9
Clemson 13 7-6 53.8% 6-7 7-5-1 16.7 11.7 +5.0
Utah State 13 7-6 53.8% 7-6 7-6 16.5 15.5 +1.0
Arizona State 13 7-6 53.8% 5-8 7-5-1 12.2 11.9 +0.3
California 13 7-6 53.8% 5-8 8-5 13.8 11.7 +2.1
UNLV 14 7-7 50% 6-8 6-8 17.9 14.6 +3.3
Houston 13 6-6-1 50% 7-6 8-4-1 15.3 12.5 +2.8
App State 13 6-6-1 50% 4-7-1 5-7-1 11.7 14.4 -2.7
Georgia Tech 13 6-6-1 50% 5-8 7-4-2 15.0 11.8 +3.2
Arizona 13 6-6-1 50% 7-6 6-7 16.1 12.2 +3.9
Kansas 12 6-6 50% 8-4 5-6-1 15.5 14.0 +1.5
UL Monroe 12 6-6 50% 6-6 4-8 8.7 15.2 -6.5
Akron 12 6-6 50% 7-5 5-6-1 11.9 14.1 -2.2
Buffalo 12 6-6 50% 3-8-1 4-6-2 11.1 9.5 +1.6
UAB 12 6-6 50% 7-4-1 3-8-1 13.4 22.4 -9.0
Auburn 12 6-6 50% 4-8 6-4-2 14.2 10.3 +3.9
San José State 12 6-6 50% 8-4 4-7-1 12.5 17.5 -5.0
Kentucky 12 6-6 50% 7-5 4-7-1 12.3 15.6 -3.3
Air Force 12 5-5-1 50% 3-8-1 4-8 11.9 11.8 +0.1
Temple 12 6-6 50% 8-4 5-7 14.1 16.8 -2.7
Georgia State 12 6-6 50% 4-6-2 3-8-1 11.1 17.8 -6.7
Tulsa 12 6-6 50% 7-5 5-7 12.4 15.0 -2.6
Jacksonville State 14 6-7-1 46.2% 6-8 8-5-1 14.3 12.1 +2.2
Miami (OH) 14 6-7-1 46.2% 7-7 6-7-1 11.0 10.1 +0.9
Missouri 13 6-7 46.2% 6-7 6-5-2 14.5 10.5 +4.1
Florida International 13 6-7 46.2% 10-3 4-8-1 14.5 17.3 -2.8
Tennessee 13 6-7 46.2% 8-5 7-3-3 23.7 13.3 +10.4
Memphis 13 6-7 46.2% 11-1-1 8-5 18.8 16.5 +2.3
Coastal Carolina 13 6-7 46.2% 7-6 4-9 10.3 18.4 -8.1
Texas A&M 13 6-7 46.2% 7-5-1 10-2-1 16.4 10.1 +6.3
USC 13 6-7 46.2% 6-7 6-7 17.1 13.2 +3.8
Missouri State 13 6-7 46.2% 7-6 3-8-2 12.5 14.3 -1.8
Louisiana Tech 13 6-7 46.2% 5-8 6-7 10.9 9.8 +1.1
Texas State 13 6-7 46.2% 5-8 9-3-1 17.7 13.2 +4.5
Georgia Southern 13 5-6-2 45.5% 6-6-1 8-5 15.4 18.4 -3.0
UCF 12 5-6 45.5% 5-7 5-6-1 12.3 13.7 -1.4
Oklahoma State 12 5-6 45.5% 5-7 2-10 8.6 18.6 -10.0
Kent State 12 5-6 45.5% 6-5 3-9 8.3 19.0 -10.8
Virginia Tech 12 5-6 45.5% 4-8 4-8 9.9 14.5 -4.6
James Madison 14 6-8 42.9% 8-6 9-4-1 16.4 12.9 +3.5
Troy 14 6-8 42.9% 5-9 7-7 10.9 12.4 -1.5
Illinois 13 5-7-1 41.7% 5-8 9-4 14.8 11.7 +3.1
Kansas State 12 5-7 41.7% 4-8 6-3-3 13.4 11.9 +1.5
Bowling Green 12 5-7 41.7% 3-7-2 5-6-1 10.1 12.9 -2.8
Wyoming 12 5-7 41.7% 5-7 4-8 7.1 11.9 -4.8
Syracuse 12 5-7 41.7% 4-8 3-8-1 9.5 18.5 -9.0
Maryland 12 5-7 41.7% 6-6 5-7 14.4 11.8 +2.7
Purdue 12 5-7 41.7% 7-5 4-8 10.4 18.3 -7.9
Ball State 12 5-7 41.7% 4-8 2-9-1 6.8 17.1 -10.3
Boston College 12 5-7 41.7% 7-5 4-5-3 12.7 16.9 -4.3
Marshall 12 5-7 41.7% 7-4-1 7-4-1 16.9 14.4 +2.5
Massachusetts 12 5-7 41.7% 8-3-1 2-10 8.9 21.5 -12.6
South Carolina 12 5-7 41.7% 5-7 6-6 15.3 10.2 +5.2
Boise State 14 5-8-1 38.5% 7-6-1 8-6 16.4 13.1 +3.3
Navy 13 5-8 38.5% 7-5-1 7-5-1 16.2 13.2 +3.0
Louisiana 13 5-8 38.5% 8-5 5-7-1 16.0 16.3 -0.3
Rice 13 5-8 38.5% 8-5 3-10 10.3 17.9 -7.6
Minnesota 13 4-7-1 36.4% 7-6 7-6 12.8 12.5 +0.3
Colorado 12 4-7-1 36.4% 5-7 3-7-2 10.6 16.1 -5.5
Florida State 12 4-7-1 36.4% 5-6-1 6-5-1 17.8 10.4 +7.4
Mississippi State 13 4-8 33.3% 5-8 5-7-1 13.8 12.9 +0.9
Penn State 13 4-8-1 33.3% 7-6 9-3-1 14.2 9.8 +4.4
Sam Houston 12 4-8 33.3% 4-8 0-10-2 7.3 18.8 -11.5
Wisconsin 12 4-8 33.3% 2-10 3-9 4.3 12.1 -7.8
UTEP 12 4-8 33.3% 6-6 2-9-1 11.1 17.3 -6.2
UCLA 12 4-8 33.3% 6-6 4-8 8.2 17.0 -8.8
Notre Dame 12 4-8 33.3% 6-6 10-2 23.7 10.7 +13.0
North Carolina 12 4-8 33.3% 4-8 2-8-2 8.8 14.8 -6.0
Louisville 13 4-9 30.8% 5-8 6-6-1 15.1 11.2 +3.9
Middle Tennessee 12 3-8 27.3% 7-3-1 1-10-1 10.9 16.3 -5.4
LSU 13 3-9-1 25% 4-9 7-5-1 11.7 10.2 +1.5
West Virginia 12 3-9 25% 5-6-1 3-8-1 8.4 17.8 -9.3
Michigan 13 3-10 23.1% 6-7 7-3-3 13.7 10.5 +3.2
Charlotte 12 2-9-1 18.2% 6-5 0-11-1 5.8 20.7 -14.8
South Alabama 12 2-9-1 18.2% 4-7-1 5-7 12.1 14.8 -2.7
Colorado State 12 2-9 18.2% 5-7 1-10-1 8.0 17.5 -9.5
Baylor 12 2-10 16.7% 5-7 4-6-2 16.7 16.8 -0.2
Oregon State 12 2-10 16.7% 3-9 2-10 6.9 16.8 -9.8
Texas 13 2-11 15.4% 7-6 6-6-1 13.5 10.5 +2.9

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.