NCAAF 1st half2025 Week 8: 59 of 59 games final. Favorites went 24-34 against the first-half spread, and halftime totals went 22 over, 35 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 14

3
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #129
6
1H ATS 2-4 · #104
20
1H spread
LIB -7
✓ LIB W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 26
Projected
8–17
✓ LIB led
Trend: Fast starter edge: NMSU ✗ Model: LIB by 2 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #110
3
1H ATS 0-5-1 · #102
7
1H spread
USA -5
✓ ARST W ATS
1H total
30
▼ Under 10
Projected
12–18
✓ USA led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ARST ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: ARST ✓ Model: USA by 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #109
19
1H ATS 2-4 · #94
6
1H spread
WKU -5.5
✓ FIU W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 25
Projected
11–17
✗ WKU did not lead
Model: WKU by 1 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓

Wednesday, Oct 15

2
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #117
6
1H ATS 2-3-1 · #101
21
1H spread
DEL -1.5
✓ JXST W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 27
Projected
13–17
✓ JXST led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: DEL ✗ Model: JXST by 5.5 ✓ Model: Over 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
UTEP
1H ATS 2-4 · #131
14
1H ATS 1-5 · #135
10
1H spread
UTEP -2
✓ UTEP W ATS
1H total
24.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
13–12
✓ UTEP led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: UTEP ✓ Model: SHSU by 1.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗

Thursday, Oct 16

1
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #113
14
1H ATS 3-3 · #51
24
1H spread
ECU -9.5
✓ ECU W ATS
1H total
28.5
▲ Over 38
Projected
7–20
✓ ECU led
Trend: Fast starter edge: TLSA ✗ Model: ECU by 3.5 ✓ Model: Under 2 ✗

Friday, Oct 17

4
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #25
14
1H ATS 4-1 · #6
10
1H spread
MIA -6
✓ LOU W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
10–18
✗ MIA did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: MIA ✗ Model: MIA by 2 ✗ Model: Over 2.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-1 · #45
6
1H ATS 0-5 · #69
7
1H spread
NEB -4
✓ MINN W ATS
1H total
25
▼ Under 13
Projected
14–9
✗ NEB did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: NEB ✗ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: NEB ✗ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✗ Model: NEB by 1 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #106
9
1H ATS 4-2 · #86
10
1H spread
USU -2
✓ SJSU W ATS
1H total
32.5
▼ Under 19
Projected
15–18
✓ USU led
Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✗ Model: USU by 1.5 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #89
10
1H ATS 3-3 · #76
14
1H spread
CAL -5
✓ UNC W ATS
1H total
24.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
10–15
✓ CAL led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓ Model: CAL by 0.5 ✗

Saturday, Oct 18

49
1H finalConf · est. line
LSU
1H ATS 1-4-1 · #31
13
1H ATS 4-2 · #13
17
1H spread
VAN -1
✓ VAN W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 30
Projected
14–14
✓ VAN led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: VAN ✓ Model: LSU by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #39
7
Duke
1H ATS 3-2 · #47
7
1H spread
DUKE -2
✓ GT W ATS
1H total
32
▼ Under 14
Projected
15–16
 
Trend: Fast starter edge: GT ✓ Model: GT by 1.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #15
7
1H ATS 1-5 · #21
7
1H spread
MICH -2.5
✓ WASH W ATS
1H total
26.5
▼ Under 14
Projected
12–14
 
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: WASH ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #87
17
1H ATS 1-5 · #84
20
1H spread
CONN -1.5
✓ BC W ATS
1H total
30.5
▲ Over 37
Projected
14–16
✓ BC led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: CONN ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: CONN ✗ Model: BC by 3 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-1 · #26
14
1H ATS 2-3-1 · #49
21
1H spread
ARIZ -1.5
✓ HOU W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
12–12
 
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ARIZ ✗ Model: HOU by 1.5 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 0-6 · #50
10
TCU
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #33
21
1H spread
TCU -2
✓ TCU W ATS
1H total
35
▼ Under 31
Projected
15–18
✓ TCU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: TCU ✓ Model: TCU by 1 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
Army
1H ATS 2-4 · #83
3
1H ATS 5-1 · #57
3
1H spread
TULN -6
✓ ARMY W ATS
1H total
23
▼ Under 6
Projected
7–16
 
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: TULN ✗ Model: TULN by 2.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #103
17
1H ATS 2-4 · #120
6
1H spread
BGSU -2
✓ CMU W ATS
1H total
23
Push 23
Projected
9–14
✗ BGSU did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: CMU ✓ Model: BGSU by 3.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-2 · #123
14
1H ATS 3-3 · #91
21
1H spread
M-OH -7
Push
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
9–17
✓ M-OH led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: EMU Model: M-OH by 0.5 Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #16
14
1H ATS 3-3 · #43
7
1H spread
OU -2.5
✓ OU W ATS
1H total
22.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
12–10
✓ OU led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-5 · #77
7
UCF
1H ATS 3-3 · #66
14
1H spread
UCF -4
✓ UCF W ATS
1H total
24.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
10–16
✓ UCF led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: UCF ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: UCF ✓ Model: UCF by 2 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #132
10
1H ATS 4-2 · #48
17
1H spread
TOL -15
✓ KENT W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 27
Projected
4–22
✓ TOL led
Model: TOL by 3 ✗ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #118
10
1H ATS 3-3 · #136
14
1H spread
BUFF -9.5
✓ MASS W ATS
1H total
24.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
17–9
✗ BUFF did not lead
Model: MASS by 2 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #79
0
1H ATS 4-2 · #59
13
1H spread
NU -2
✓ NU W ATS
1H total
24
▼ Under 13
Projected
11–14
✓ NU led
Model: NU by 1 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
Troy
1H ATS 2-4 · #99
17
1H ATS 2-4 · #130
8
1H spread
TROY -3
✓ TROY W ATS
1H total
23.5
▲ Over 25
Projected
14–10
✓ TROY led
Model: TROY by 1.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #2
17
1H ATS 1-5 · #63
0
1H spread
OSU -14.5
✓ OSU W ATS
1H total
21.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
18–4
✓ OSU led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: OSU ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #67
10
1H ATS 2-3 · #1
21
1H spread
IU -15.5
✓ MSU W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 31
Projected
4–21
✓ IU led
Trend: Fast starter edge: MSU ✓ Model: IU by 2 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #9
21
1H ATS 2-4 · #7
20
1H spread
UGA -4.5
✓ MISS W ATS
1H total
29.5
▲ Over 41
Projected
13–16
✗ UGA did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: MISS ✓ Model: MISS by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
SMU
1H ATS 2-3-1 · #27
16
1H ATS 3-3 · #34
7
1H spread
CLEM -3
✓ SMU W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 23
Projected
11–16
✗ CLEM did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: SMU ✓ Model: CLEM by 2.5 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #107
7
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #95
6
1H spread
AFA -2
✓ WYO W ATS
1H total
29.5
▼ Under 13
Projected
11–14
✗ AFA did not lead
Model: AFA by 1 ✗ Model: Under 4.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
UNLV
1H ATS 3-3 · #74
24
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #55
28
1H spread
BOIS -8
✓ UNLV W ATS
1H total
32
▲ Over 52
Projected
12–20
✓ BOIS led
Trend: Fast starter edge: UNLV ✓ Model: UNLV by 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #122
17
1H ATS 3-3 · #115
24
1H spread
APP -6
✓ APP W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 41
Projected
10–16
✓ APP led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Model: Over 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-1 · #46
27
1H ATS 3-3 · #28
28
1H spread
JMU -2
✓ ODU W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 55
Projected
12–13
✓ JMU led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ODU ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: ODU ✓ Model: ODU by 1 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #71
17
1H ATS 3-3 · #88
13
1H spread
TXST -1.5
✓ TXST W ATS
1H total
34
▼ Under 30
Projected
17–15
✓ TXST led
Model: MRSH by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #96
28
1H ATS 0-6 · #134
7
1H spread
TEM -5.5
✓ TEM W ATS
1H total
24
▲ Over 35
Projected
16–10
✓ TEM led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: TEM ✓ Model: TEM by 1.5 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-4 · #127
15
1H ATS 3-3 · #133
14
1H spread
BALL -1
✓ AKR W ATS
1H total
22.5
▲ Over 29
Projected
11–12
✗ BALL did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: AKR ✓ Model: BALL by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #124
8
Ohio
1H ATS 4-2 · #78
21
1H spread
OHIO -7
✓ OHIO W ATS
1H total
22
▲ Over 29
Projected
7–15
✓ OHIO led
Trend: Fast starter edge: NIU ✗ Model: OHIO by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #5
7
1H ATS 2-4 · #41
9
1H spread
TTU -5
✓ ASU W ATS
1H total
27.5
▼ Under 16
Projected
17–12
✗ TTU did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: TTU ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: TTU ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #61
14
UAB
1H ATS 3-3 · #119
17
1H spread
MEM -14
✓ UAB W ATS
1H total
31
Push 31
Projected
22–9
✗ MEM did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: UAB ✓ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over Model: UAB by 1 ✓ Model: Under 0.5
1H finalConf · est. line
UTSA
1H ATS 5-1 · #65
14
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #38
24
1H spread
UNT -2
✓ UNT W ATS
1H total
33
▲ Over 38
Projected
15–18
✓ UNT led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: UTSA ✗ Model: UNT by 1.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #56
7
1H ATS 2-3-1 · #37
13
1H spread
FLA -5.5
✓ FLA W ATS
1H total
27
▼ Under 20
Projected
10–17
✓ FLA led
Trend: Fast starter edge: MSST ✗ Model: FLA by 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #98
13
1H ATS 2-4 · #114
7
1H spread
USM -2.5
✓ USM W ATS
1H total
28.5
▼ Under 20
Projected
14–13
✓ USM led
Model: UL by 2 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #10
21
1H ATS 3-3 · #40
20
1H spread
TA&M -5
✓ ARK W ATS
1H total
30
▲ Over 41
Projected
18–13
✓ TA&M led
Model: ARK by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #4
42
1H ATS 5-1 · #62
3
1H spread
ORE -11
✓ ORE W ATS
1H total
32
▲ Over 45
Projected
21–12
✓ ORE led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: RUTG ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: RUTG ✗ Model: RUTG by 2 ✗
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #60
17
1H ATS 6-0 · #32
7
1H spread
UVA -9.5
✓ WSU W ATS
1H total
29.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
9–20
✗ UVA did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: UVA ✗ Model: UVA by 1 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-5 · #14
7
1H ATS 2-3 · #52
0
1H spread
TEX -8
✓ UK W ATS
1H total
23.5
▼ Under 7
Projected
15–8
✓ TEX led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: UK ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 0-6 · #17
14
Iowa
1H ATS 3-3 · #20
10
1H spread
IOWA -2
✓ PSU W ATS
1H total
21.5
▲ Over 24
Projected
12–12
✗ IOWA did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: IOWA ✗ Model: PSU by 1 ✓ Model: Over 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #72
3
UCLA
1H ATS 2-4 · #70
7
1H spread
UCLA -2.5
✓ UCLA W ATS
1H total
27.5
▼ Under 10
Projected
13–13
✗ MD did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: MD ✗ Model: MD by 3 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2-1 · #90
14
1H ATS 2-4 · #116
7
1H spread
CSU -1.5
✓ HAW W ATS
1H total
28
▼ Under 21
Projected
10–16
✗ CSU did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: HAW ✓ Model: CSU by 4 ✗ Model: Under 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #125
17
1H ATS 1-4-1 · #105
13
1H spread
GASO -4
✓ GAST W ATS
1H total
30.5
▼ Under 30
Projected
14–18
✗ GASO did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: GAST ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: GAST ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #22
7
1H ATS 4-2 · #11
23
1H spread
ALA -5
✓ ALA W ATS
1H total
31.5
▼ Under 30
Projected
12–18
✓ ALA led
Trend: Fast starter edge: TENN ✗ Model: ALA by 1.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
USC
1H ATS 5-1 · #12
13
1H ATS 1-5 · #3
14
1H spread
ND -6
✓ USC W ATS
1H total
31.5
▼ Under 27
Projected
14–19
✓ ND led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: USC ✓ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: USC ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: USC ✓ Model: USC by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-1 · #108
6
1H ATS 4-2 · #29
21
1H spread
USF -12
✓ USF W ATS
1H total
37.5
▼ Under 27
Projected
10–23
✓ USF led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: FAU ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: FAU ✗ Model: USF by 2 ✓ Model: Under 4.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1-1 · #35
17
1H ATS 2-4 · #92
7
1H spread
PITT -5
✓ PITT W ATS
1H total
28.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
16–13
✓ PITT led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: PITT ✓ Model: SYR by 2.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #18
10
1H ATS 4-2 · #24
7
1H spread
MIZ -1
✓ MIZ W ATS
1H total
22.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
13–12
✓ MIZ led
Model: MIZ by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
Utah
1H ATS 4-2 · #8
7
BYU
1H ATS 4-2 · #19
10
1H spread
UTAH -3
✓ BYU W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
13–12
✗ UTAH did not lead
Model: BYU by 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #58
28
1H ATS 1-4 · #111
10
1H spread
CIN -14
✓ CIN W ATS
1H total
30
▲ Over 38
Projected
20–7
✓ CIN led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: CIN ✓ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: CIN ✓ Model: OKST by 1.5 ✗ Model: Under 2.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #121
12
1H ATS 3-3 · #81
14
1H spread
UNM -8.5
✓ NEV W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 26
Projected
9–18
✓ UNM led
Trend: Fast starter edge: NEV ✓ Model: Over 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #23
10
1H ATS 2-3-1 · #85
13
1H spread
FSU -10.5
✓ STAN W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 23
Projected
19–8
✗ FSU did not lead
Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✗ Model: FSU by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✓
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
24-34 fav 1H ATS
O/U 22-35 · leans 5-10 ATS, 2-0 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.