NCAAF 1st half2026 Week 7: 59 of 59 games final. Favorites went 27-32 against the first-half spread, and halftime totals went 28 over, 28 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

Tuesday, Oct 13

2
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #113
16
1H ATS 4-1 · #126
12
1H spread
DEL -1
✓ DEL W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 28
Projected
15–13
✓ DEL led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: MTSU ✗ Model: DEL by 1 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-1-1 · #105
17
1H ATS 2-4 · #99
17
1H spread
JXST -2
✓ FIU W ATS
1H total
23
▲ Over 34
Projected
11–12
 
Model: FIU by 0.5 ✓

Wednesday, Oct 14

2
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #117
7
1H ATS 3-2 · #130
6
1H spread
KENN -1.5
✓ MOST W ATS
1H total
27.5
▼ Under 13
Projected
15–13
✓ KENN led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: KENN ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #115
10
1H ATS 4-1 · #124
3
1H spread
WKU -1
✓ WKU W ATS
1H total
28
▼ Under 13
Projected
13–14
✗ SHSU did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: SHSU ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: SHSU ✗ Model: SHSU by 2 ✗

Thursday, Oct 15

3
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-4 · #92
14
UAB
1H ATS 3-3 · #107
3
1H spread
ECU -3
✓ ECU W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
15–11
✓ ECU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: UAB ✗ Model: ECU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-1 · #82
16
1H ATS 2-4 · #112
7
1H spread
GASO -2
✓ GASO W ATS
1H total
23
Push 23
Projected
13–12
✓ GASO led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: GASO ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: GASO ✓ Model: ODU by 1 ✗ Model: Over 1.5
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #110
21
1H ATS 3-2 · #58
45
1H spread
TXST -9
✓ TXST W ATS
1H total
36
▲ Over 66
Projected
14–22
✓ TXST led
Model: CSU by 1 ✗

Friday, Oct 16

3
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #62
10
1H ATS 1-4 · #86
23
1H spread
MEM -4
✓ TULN W ATS
1H total
29
▲ Over 33
Projected
14–11
✗ MEM did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: MEM ✗ Model: TULN by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 3.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-5 · #42
24
1H ATS 3-3 · #59
17
1H spread
PUR -2
✓ WASH W ATS
1H total
26.5
▲ Over 41
Projected
14–14
✗ PUR did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: PUR ✗ Model: WASH by 1.5 ✓ Model: Over 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #94
14
1H ATS 3-3 · #116
24
1H spread
APP -1
✓ CCU W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 38
Projected
14–13
✗ APP did not lead
Model: APP by 0.5 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✓

Saturday, Oct 17

49
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-1 · #2
10
1H ATS 2-3-1 · #7
7
1H spread
OSU -2
✓ OSU W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
14–13
✓ OSU led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: OSU ✓ Model: IU by 1 ✗ Model: Over 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #17
10
1H ATS 3-2 · #8
17
1H spread
TEX -8
✓ FLA W ATS
1H total
27
Push 27
Projected
10–18
✓ TEX led
Trend: Fast starter edge: FLA ✓ Model: Over 1
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #29
0
LSU
1H ATS 3-3 · #6
21
1H spread
LSU -10.5
✓ LSU W ATS
1H total
29.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
11–18
✓ LSU led
Trend: Fast starter edge: MSST ✗ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✗ Model: MSST by 3.5 ✗ Model: Over 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #49
10
SMU
1H ATS 3-2 · #35
13
1H spread
SMU -6
✓ UVA W ATS
1H total
27
▼ Under 23
Projected
12–15
✓ SMU led
Model: UVA by 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #30
10
1H ATS 2-4 · #69
14
1H spread
NU -4.5
✓ MSU W ATS
1H total
26.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
14–11
✗ NU did not lead
Model: MSU by 1 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-4 · #64
21
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #73
14
1H spread
WVU -1
✓ CIN W ATS
1H total
33.5
▲ Over 35
Projected
15–16
✗ WVU did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: WVU ✗ Model: CIN by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 2.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-0-1 · #46
17
1H ATS 2-3 · #41
18
1H spread
KSU -2
✓ KU W ATS
1H total
29
▲ Over 35
Projected
14–15
✓ KSU led
Model: KU by 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-1 · #39
12
1H ATS 3-2 · #79
14
1H spread
PITT -4
✓ BC W ATS
1H total
22
▲ Over 26
Projected
15–7
✗ PITT did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: PITT ✗ Model: PITT by 3.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-1-1 · #102
14
Army
1H ATS 3-2 · #78
35
1H spread
ARMY -1.5
✓ ARMY W ATS
1H total
29
▲ Over 49
Projected
13–16
✓ ARMY led
Trend: Fast starter edge: FAU ✗ Model: ARMY by 2 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #132
10
1H ATS 3-3 · #129
10
1H spread
BGSU -3.5
✓ BALL W ATS
1H total
24
▼ Under 20
Projected
10–15
 
Model: BGSU by 1.5 ✗ Model: Over 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-0 · #91
10
1H ATS 5-1 · #51
35
1H spread
JMU -4.5
✓ JMU W ATS
1H total
30
▲ Over 45
Projected
10–18
✓ JMU led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: JMU ✓ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: GAST ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: GAST ✗ Model: JMU by 2.5 ✓ Model: Under 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #77
13
1H ATS 3-3 · #72
23
1H spread
MD -3
✓ MD W ATS
1H total
29
▲ Over 36
Projected
12–17
✓ MD led
Model: MD by 2 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #135
7
1H ATS 5-1 · #104
14
1H spread
TEM -10.5
✓ CLT W ATS
1H total
24.5
▼ Under 21
Projected
7–18
✓ TEM led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: TEM ✗ Model: TEM by 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #123
15
1H ATS 2-4 · #125
8
1H spread
BUFF -4
✓ MASS W ATS
1H total
22.5
▲ Over 23
Projected
12–13
✗ BUFF did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: MASS ✓ Model: MASS by 3.5 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #88
14
1H ATS 2-4 · #120
0
1H spread
WMU -4.5
✓ WMU W ATS
1H total
22
▼ Under 14
Projected
13–9
✓ WMU led
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #25
17
1H ATS 4-2 · #4
14
1H spread
UGA -11.5
✓ AUB W ATS
1H total
26.5
▲ Over 31
Projected
7–18
✗ UGA did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: AUB ✓ Model: UGA by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #5
10
1H ATS 1-5 · #11
12
1H spread
ALA -4.5
✓ TENN W ATS
1H total
26.5
▼ Under 22
Projected
16–12
✗ ALA did not lead
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ALA ✗ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #19
3
1H ATS 3-1-1 · #12
21
1H spread
MISS -2.5
✓ MISS W ATS
1H total
30
▼ Under 24
Projected
13–14
✓ MISS led
Model: MIZ by 1.5 ✗ Model: Under 3 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #66
10
1H ATS 0-5 · #15
43
1H spread
TTU -9.5
✓ TTU W ATS
1H total
26.5
▲ Over 53
Projected
8–19
✓ TTU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ASU ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: ASU ✗ Model: TTU by 1.5 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-3 · #68
3
1H ATS 4-2 · #45
24
1H spread
VT -5
✓ VT W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 27
Projected
10–17
✓ VT led
Model: VT by 1.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #47
17
Duke
1H ATS 4-1 · #43
7
1H spread
DUKE -2
✓ UNC W ATS
1H total
24
Push 24
Projected
10–13
✗ DUKE did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: DUKE ✗ Model: DUKE by 1 ✗ Model: Under 1
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #32
3
1H ATS 3-2 · #34
0
1H spread
MICH -3.5
✓ PSU W ATS
1H total
22.5
▼ Under 3
Projected
11–12
✗ MICH did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: PSU ✓ Model: PSU by 2.5 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-4 · #134
6
1H ATS 2-4 · #122
20
1H spread
WYO -4
✓ WYO W ATS
1H total
22
▲ Over 26
Projected
7–13
✓ WYO led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: WYO ✓ Model: WYO by 2.5 ✓ Model: Under 1.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
UNLV
1H ATS 4-2 · #84
17
1H ATS 3-2 · #90
13
1H spread
AFA -1
✓ UNLV W ATS
1H total
25.5
▲ Over 30
Projected
12–13
✗ AFA did not lead
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Model: UNLV by 0.5 ✓ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #75
31
1H ATS 4-3 · #128
7
1H spread
TOL -4.5
✓ TOL W ATS
1H total
27
▲ Over 38
Projected
17–11
✓ TOL led
Model: TOL by 1 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #133
7
1H ATS 3-3 · #106
17
1H spread
M-OH -5.5
✓ M-OH W ATS
1H total
24.5
▼ Under 24
Projected
10–17
✓ M-OH led
Model: M-OH by 2 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #87
21
Rice
1H ATS 3-3 · #121
17
1H spread
TLSA -2
✓ TLSA W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 38
Projected
13–10
✓ TLSA led
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✗ Model: TLSA by 1 ✓ Model: Under 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
Troy
1H ATS 4-1 · #98
0
1H ATS 2-3-1 · #81
19
1H spread
UL -2
✓ UL W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 19
Projected
11–13
✓ UL led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: TROY ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: TROY ✗ Model: TROY by 1 ✗ Model: Under 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #100
10
1H ATS 6-0 · #48
27
1H spread
ORST -11
✓ ORST W ATS
1H total
27.5
▲ Over 37
Projected
8–17
✓ ORST led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: ORST ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: WSU ✗ Model: WSU by 1.5 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #40
14
1H ATS 5-0 · #3
14
1H spread
MIA -12
✓ FSU W ATS
1H total
30
▼ Under 28
Projected
9–22
 
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: MIA ✗ Model: MIA by 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #57
14
1H ATS 1-5 · #60
14
1H spread
VAN -3
✓ ARK W ATS
1H total
25
▲ Over 28
Projected
12–15
 
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: ARK ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: ARK ✓ Model: ARK by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
TCU
1H ATS 1-4 · #36
7
1H ATS 5-0 · #38
6
1H spread
BAY -2
✓ TCU W ATS
1H total
26.5
▼ Under 13
Projected
12–14
✗ BAY did not lead
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: BAY ✗ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: BAY ✗ Model: BAY by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 1-5 · #131
2
1H ATS 1-5 · #76
10
1H spread
USF -12
✓ KENT W ATS
1H total
24
▼ Under 12
Projected
6–18
✓ USF led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: KENT ✓ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: USF ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: KENT ✓ Model: USF by 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #109
11
1H ATS 4-2 · #74
19
1H spread
NDSU -8.5
✓ NEV W ATS
1H total
22
▲ Over 30
Projected
8–17
✓ NDSU led
Model: Over 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #103
16
1H ATS 2-2-1 · #127
7
1H spread
ARST -3
✓ ARST W ATS
1H total
32
▼ Under 23
Projected
16–14
✓ ARST led
Model: USM by 1 ✗ Model: Under 2 ✓
1H finalNon-conf · est. line
1H ATS 3-3 · #1
10
BYU
1H ATS 3-2 · #14
21
1H spread
ND -6
✓ BYU W ATS
1H total
24.5
▲ Over 31
Projected
16–11
✗ ND did not lead
Model: BYU by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2 · #33
0
UCLA
1H ATS 3-2 · #16
10
1H spread
UCLA -1
✓ UCLA W ATS
1H total
22
▼ Under 10
Projected
9–15
✓ UCLA led
Model: UCLA by 4.5 ✓ Model: Over 2.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #26
7
1H ATS 1-4 · #23
10
1H spread
OU -4
✓ UK W ATS
1H total
23
▼ Under 17
Projected
9–14
✓ OU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: UK ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: UK ✓ Model: OU by 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 1-3-1 · #44
3
1H ATS 4-2 · #21
14
1H spread
HOU -2.5
✓ HOU W ATS
1H total
32.5
▼ Under 17
Projected
12–18
✓ HOU led
Model: HOU by 4 ✓ Model: Under 2.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 0-5-1 · #22
28
1H ATS 4-1 · #70
23
1H spread
LOU -8.5
✓ SYR W ATS
1H total
29.5
▲ Over 51
Projected
18–12
✓ LOU led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: SYR ✓ Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: SYR ✓ Trend: Fast starter edge: SYR ✓ Model: SYR by 3 ✓ Model: Over 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
Navy
1H ATS 0-5 · #89
20
UTSA
1H ATS 4-2 · #71
21
1H spread
UTSA -3
✓ NAVY W ATS
1H total
27.5
▲ Over 41
Projected
11–17
✓ UTSA led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: UTSA ✗ Model: UTSA by 3.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-1 · #83
0
1H ATS 1-4 · #137
0
1H spread
LT -8
✓ ULM W ATS
1H total
29
▼ Under 0
Projected
19–9
 
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: LT ✗ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: LT ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: LT ✗ Model: LT by 1.5 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 2-4 · #111
7
UTEP
1H ATS 1-4-1 · #136
0
1H spread
SJSU -4
✓ SJSU W ATS
1H total
24
▼ Under 7
Projected
15–11
✓ SJSU led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: SJSU ✓ Model: Over 2.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
Ohio
1H ATS 3-3 · #96
27
1H ATS 1-5 · #138
0
1H spread
OHIO -10.5
✓ OHIO W ATS
1H total
24
▲ Over 27
Projected
16–10
✓ OHIO led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: OHIO ✓ Trend: 1st-half over teams: Over ✓ Model: SAC by 4 ✗ Model: Over 2 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
Utah
1H ATS 4-1 · #10
13
1H ATS 3-2 · #63
0
1H spread
UTAH -9
✓ UTAH W ATS
1H total
25.5
▼ Under 13
Projected
18–8
✓ UTAH led
Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: UTAH ✓ Model: UTAH by 1.5 ✓
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #20
34
1H ATS 1-5 · #85
0
1H spread
WAKE -6
✓ WAKE W ATS
1H total
28.5
▲ Over 34
Projected
17–11
✓ WAKE led
Trend: Fade a cold 1st-half team: WAKE ✓ Model: CAL by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 3-2-1 · #80
10
1H ATS 2-4 · #108
16
1H spread
FRES -4
✓ SDSU W ATS
1H total
24
▲ Over 26
Projected
14–9
✗ FRES did not lead
Model: FRES by 0.5 ✗ Model: Under 0.5 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 5-0 · #56
0
1H ATS 2-4 · #118
10
1H spread
UNM -8.5
✓ HAW W ATS
1H total
24
▼ Under 10
Projected
16–8
✗ UNM did not lead
Trend: 1st-half under teams: Under ✓ Trend: Hot 1st-half cover team: UNM ✗ Trend: Fast starter edge: UNM ✗ Model: HAW by 0.5 ✓ Model: Over 1 ✗
1H finalConf · est. line
1H ATS 4-2 · #13
7
1H ATS 2-3 · #9
0
1H spread
ORE -4
✓ NEB W ATS
1H total
26.5
▼ Under 7
Projected
12–17
✗ ORE did not lead
Trend: Fast starter edge: NEB ✓ Model: ORE by 1 ✗ Model: Over 2 ✗
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
27-32 fav 1H ATS
O/U 28-28 · leans 9-5 ATS, 0-1 O/U

2026 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
Oregon State 7 7-0 100% 4-3 5-2 24.1 9.6 +14.6
Kansas 6 5-0-1 100% 3-2-1 2-3-1 17.5 10.5 +7.0
Ohio State 7 6-1 85.7% 4-3 7-0 24.1 5.6 +18.6
Georgia Southern 7 6-1 85.7% 2-4-1 5-2 16.0 11.0 +5.0
South Alabama 7 6-1 85.7% 5-2 4-2-1 21.1 14.3 +6.9
NC State 6 5-1 83.3% 2-4 5-1 20.2 8.5 +11.7
Utah 6 5-1 83.3% 4-2 6-0 24.0 5.0 +19.0
Georgia State 6 5-1 83.3% 5-1 5-1 23.2 13.7 +9.5
Miami 6 5-1 83.3% 4-2 5-0-1 27.8 6.0 +21.8
Syracuse 6 5-1 83.3% 3-2-1 4-2 21.7 12.2 +9.5
Baylor 6 5-1 83.3% 3-3 4-2 16.8 7.2 +9.7
New Mexico 6 5-1 83.3% 1-5 4-2 18.3 4.5 +13.8
Ole Miss 6 4-1-1 80% 2-4 5-1 21.7 6.0 +15.7
James Madison 8 6-2 75% 4-4 7-1 25.1 8.8 +16.4
UNLV 7 5-2 71.4% 2-5 5-1-1 13.3 9.6 +3.7
Wake Forest 7 5-2 71.4% 5-1-1 5-2 21.3 10.7 +10.6
Houston 7 5-2 71.4% 3-4 6-1 21.1 7.3 +13.9
Nebraska 7 5-2 71.4% 4-3 7-0 19.3 7.0 +12.3
Ball State 7 5-2 71.4% 3-4 1-5-1 9.3 18.1 -8.9
Pittsburgh 7 5-2 71.4% 4-2-1 5-2 19.7 9.9 +9.9
Kentucky 7 5-2 71.4% 5-2 4-2-1 16.3 13.6 +2.7
Temple 7 5-2 71.4% 3-4 4-2-1 14.1 11.3 +2.9
Penn State 7 5-2 71.4% 4-3 5-1-1 16.0 8.1 +7.9
Missouri State 7 5-2 71.4% 2-5 2-5 13.4 14.6 -1.1
Western Michigan 7 5-2 71.4% 1-5-1 4-3 12.3 7.1 +5.1
Virginia Tech 7 5-2 71.4% 4-3 7-0 24.4 7.7 +16.7
Florida 7 5-2 71.4% 3-2-2 4-3 21.4 13.4 +8.0
Middle Tennessee 7 5-2 71.4% 1-6 2-4-1 10.9 12.1 -1.3
Florida International 7 4-2-1 66.7% 2-5 3-3-1 11.0 8.3 +2.7
North Carolina 6 4-2 66.7% 1-3-2 4-2 14.7 9.0 +5.7
UCF 6 4-2 66.7% 3-3 3-2-1 17.2 11.2 +6.0
North Texas 6 4-2 66.7% 3-2-1 3-2-1 23.2 16.0 +7.2
UConn 6 4-2 66.7% 5-1 3-2-1 20.2 13.5 +6.7
Army 6 4-2 66.7% 2-4 4-1-1 16.8 8.0 +8.8
South Carolina 6 4-2 66.7% 4-2 5-1 19.3 12.0 +7.3
Iowa State 6 4-2 66.7% 4-2 3-2-1 16.7 12.7 +4.0
Texas State 6 4-2 66.7% 4-2 4-1-1 26.0 16.2 +9.8
Boston College 6 4-2 66.7% 2-4 3-3 10.5 9.2 +1.3
Duke 6 4-2 66.7% 3-2-1 3-3 16.7 11.5 +5.2
Troy 6 4-2 66.7% 4-2 3-2-1 17.2 13.0 +4.2
Louisiana Tech 6 4-2 66.7% 2-4 3-2-1 17.3 8.3 +9.0
BYU 6 4-2 66.7% 4-2 4-1-1 21.5 7.3 +14.2
Arizona 6 4-2 66.7% 4-2 5-1 19.0 9.7 +9.3
UCLA 6 4-2 66.7% 2-4 5-0-1 14.7 7.8 +6.8
Boise State 6 3-2-1 60% 5-1 5-1 20.5 13.0 +7.5
Auburn 6 3-2-1 60% 3-3 5-1 15.3 9.2 +6.2
Florida Atlantic 6 3-2-1 60% 5-1 4-2 25.5 19.0 +6.5
Nevada 6 3-2-1 60% 2-4 2-2-2 10.8 11.7 -0.8
North Dakota State 7 4-3 57.1% 3-3-1 6-0-1 19.0 5.9 +13.1
Florida State 7 4-3 57.1% 1-6 3-2-2 16.7 13.1 +3.6
Massachusetts 7 4-3 57.1% 4-3 5-2 16.1 8.0 +8.1
Kennesaw State 7 4-3 57.1% 2-5 3-3-1 11.3 11.9 -0.6
Alabama 7 4-3 57.1% 5-2 5-2 23.4 13.4 +10.0
Coastal Carolina 7 4-3 57.1% 3-4 4-3 15.1 12.4 +2.7
Ohio 7 4-3 57.1% 5-2 4-3 16.6 9.3 +7.3
Liberty 7 4-3 57.1% 3-4 4-3 14.9 9.6 +5.3
Miami (OH) 7 4-3 57.1% 5-2 4-2-1 19.3 11.3 +8.0
Georgia 7 4-3 57.1% 5-2 5-2 25.4 8.1 +17.3
UTSA 7 4-3 57.1% 4-3 4-3 17.6 15.4 +2.1
Tulsa 7 4-3 57.1% 2-5 5-2 13.1 10.6 +2.6
Arkansas State 7 4-3 57.1% 2-5 3-3-1 15.1 13.9 +1.3
Sam Houston 7 4-3 57.1% 4-3 2-4-1 12.7 11.9 +0.9
Maryland 7 4-3 57.1% 5-2 3-4 17.7 18.0 -0.3
LSU 7 4-3 57.1% 4-3 5-2 19.3 8.3 +11.0
Western Kentucky 7 4-3 57.1% 3-4 3-4 11.6 16.1 -4.6
Washington State 7 4-3 57.1% 2-5 3-3-1 10.0 12.0 -2.0
Eastern Michigan 8 4-4 50% 3-4-1 3-5 11.9 14.6 -2.8
Fresno State 7 3-3-1 50% 5-2 2-4-1 12.6 13.9 -1.3
West Virginia 7 3-3-1 50% 4-3 4-3 18.9 13.3 +5.6
Louisiana 7 3-3-1 50% 2-5 4-3 15.0 9.3 +5.7
Colorado 6 3-3 50% 1-5 2-4 9.8 11.8 -2.0
Minnesota 6 3-3 50% 3-3 3-3 15.3 13.2 +2.2
Air Force 6 3-3 50% 2-4 3-2-1 14.0 10.8 +3.2
Texas 6 3-3 50% 2-3-1 5-1 15.8 8.3 +7.5
Iowa 6 3-3 50% 3-3 3-2-1 20.8 6.7 +14.2
Michigan 6 3-3 50% 1-5 5-1 9.7 6.2 +3.5
Mississippi State 6 3-3 50% 4-2 3-3 19.0 15.2 +3.8
Wisconsin 6 3-3 50% 3-3 3-3 14.7 9.3 +5.3
SMU 6 3-3 50% 2-4 6-0 19.3 9.0 +10.3
San José State 7 3-4 42.9% 0-7 5-2 7.7 7.6 +0.1
Virginia 7 3-4 42.9% 3-4 3-4 15.9 10.6 +5.3
Hawai'i 7 3-4 42.9% 1-6 2-5 6.9 12.1 -5.3
New Mexico State 7 3-4 42.9% 3-4 3-4 11.9 12.9 -1.0
Delaware 7 3-4 42.9% 4-3 4-3 13.7 16.6 -2.9
Missouri 7 3-4 42.9% 3-3-1 4-2-1 17.3 11.3 +6.0
UAB 7 3-4 42.9% 2-5 2-5 10.9 15.7 -4.9
Purdue 7 3-4 42.9% 3-3-1 3-4 13.9 16.6 -2.7
Michigan State 7 3-4 42.9% 3-3-1 3-4 11.0 14.6 -3.6
Toledo 7 3-4 42.9% 4-3 4-3 17.0 11.3 +5.7
East Carolina 7 3-4 42.9% 3-4 4-3 15.1 12.0 +3.1
Bowling Green 7 3-4 42.9% 2-5 3-3-1 8.1 15.1 -7.0
Charlotte 7 3-4 42.9% 1-6 1-6 6.4 19.3 -12.9
App State 7 3-4 42.9% 3-4 3-3-1 13.6 11.9 +1.7
Arkansas 7 3-4 42.9% 3-4 2-4-1 8.1 13.6 -5.4
Wyoming 7 3-4 42.9% 1-6 2-5 7.4 10.6 -3.1
Rice 7 3-4 42.9% 3-4 2-5 9.7 16.7 -7.0
San Diego State 7 3-4 42.9% 3-4 2-4-1 8.3 15.3 -7.0
Notre Dame 7 3-4 42.9% 5-1-1 6-1 25.0 7.9 +17.1
Southern Miss 6 2-3-1 40% 4-2 1-4-1 10.5 19.7 -9.2
Northwestern 6 2-3-1 40% 2-4 4-2 16.0 8.8 +7.2
Arizona State 6 2-3-1 40% 3-2-1 3-3 18.2 17.3 +0.8
USC 7 2-4-1 33.3% 4-3 4-2-1 20.4 9.7 +10.7
Indiana 7 2-4-1 33.3% 1-5-1 5-2 17.7 3.7 +14.0
TCU 6 2-4 33.3% 1-5 3-2-1 12.7 8.8 +3.8
Rutgers 6 2-4 33.3% 4-2 1-5 13.7 19.5 -5.8
Georgia Tech 6 2-4 33.3% 3-3 4-2 13.5 13.0 +0.5
Illinois 6 2-4 33.3% 5-1 4-2 18.8 15.3 +3.5
Oregon 6 2-4 33.3% 3-3 2-4 16.5 11.3 +5.2
Cincinnati 6 2-4 33.3% 3-3 3-3 12.7 13.2 -0.5
Tulane 6 2-4 33.3% 3-3 2-3-1 10.7 11.3 -0.7
Colorado State 6 2-4 33.3% 5-1 2-4 20.8 28.8 -8.0
Kansas State 6 2-4 33.3% 3-3 5-1 18.0 11.3 +6.7
UL Monroe 6 2-4 33.3% 4-2 1-4-1 10.7 23.5 -12.8
Clemson 6 2-4 33.3% 2-3-1 3-3 12.5 13.2 -0.7
Jacksonville State 7 2-5 28.6% 5-1-1 3-3-1 15.7 14.6 +1.1
Akron 7 2-5 28.6% 3-3-1 2-5 8.9 17.6 -8.7
Buffalo 7 2-5 28.6% 4-2-1 3-3-1 10.7 14.9 -4.1
Kent State 7 2-5 28.6% 4-3 1-6 6.1 17.1 -11.0
Marshall 7 2-5 28.6% 2-5 3-3-1 11.1 17.9 -6.7
Tennessee 7 2-5 28.6% 1-6 5-2 14.0 5.7 +8.3
Old Dominion 7 2-5 28.6% 4-2-1 2-4-1 9.6 17.9 -8.3
Texas A&M 7 2-5 28.6% 1-5-1 4-2-1 14.4 6.9 +7.6
Central Michigan 7 2-5 28.6% 3-4 2-5 5.9 16.7 -10.9
Washington 7 2-5 28.6% 4-3 5-2 14.6 13.1 +1.4
Memphis 8 2-6 25% 4-4 4-4 14.9 13.4 +1.5
Oklahoma State 6 1-4-1 20% 2-4 2-3-1 15.8 12.7 +3.2
UTEP 7 1-5-1 16.7% 2-4-1 1-6 6.0 16.4 -10.4
Oklahoma 6 1-5 16.7% 2-3-1 3-3 8.5 11.3 -2.8
Navy 6 1-5 16.7% 5-1 1-5 14.2 19.2 -5.0
Northern Illinois 6 1-5 16.7% 5-1 0-6 9.0 22.8 -13.8
Texas Tech 6 1-5 16.7% 3-3 4-2 18.7 9.7 +9.0
Utah State 6 1-5 16.7% 1-5 0-6 6.2 17.7 -11.5
Sacramento State 7 1-6 14.3% 6-1 1-6 7.6 20.9 -13.3
Stanford 7 1-6 14.3% 4-3 2-5 7.7 19.3 -11.6
Vanderbilt 7 1-6 14.3% 4-3 1-5-1 10.0 19.1 -9.1
South Florida 7 1-6 14.3% 2-5 4-3 10.1 8.4 +1.7
California 7 1-6 14.3% 4-3 1-6 12.4 17.9 -5.4
Louisville 7 0-6-1 0% 4-3 2-4-1 17.3 15.9 +1.4

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.