College Football · Week 3
Saturday, 19 September 2026 · 71 games, 70 with a DraftKings price, 68 trading on Kalshi
Built 17 September 2026 at 12:03 PM ET
The rightmost column is how far our number sits from the market's. It is not an edge, and nothing on this page should be read as one.
Corrected 11 September 2026. This panel used to say the model had lost four separate tests against closing lines, including a best-fit blend weight of 0.00. Those tests were run unfairly. Every one of them fitted the ratings through the previous season and then graded a whole year forward, while the model that actually shipped refitted continuously — so a Week 13 prediction was being made on eleven-week-old ratings and compared against a line that had seen all eleven of those weeks. A blend weight of 0.00 against that opponent measures an information deficit, not the modelling.
Corrected again 15 September 2026. That fix compared the new ratings only with a fit frozen through the previous season. Tested against the plain season fit refitted before every slate, across every regular-season week of 2022–2025 (6,355 games), the plain fit misses actual margins by 13.64 points against 14.74, and 13.02 against 13.54 on FBS-vs-FBS games. The spreads on this page now come from that fit.
What did not change is the conclusion. Re-measured properly, the market still wins on margins, and no setting of these constants has produced a bet worth making. The model is better than the old number said and still not a signal.
Away team above, home team below and marked (H). Scores are projections. Sorted by market spread, biggest first. Two kinds of game are dimmed and tagged. FCS means the opponent is not an FBS team, so the model has no meaningful rating for it and the gap is noise in both directions. Mismatch means the market is three touchdowns or more, where our ratings simply do not extend far enough to price a 50-point favourite. In both cases the gap column measures the rating scale rather than the matchup.
| Matchup & projected score | DK spread | DK total | DK ML | DK home % | Kalshi home % | Our spread | Our home % | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Murray State
19
Oklahoma State
52
|
Oklahoma State −56.5 | 70.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Oklahoma State −32.7 | 98% | -23.8 |
|
Kent State
1
Ohio State
57
|
Ohio State −52.5 | 58.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Ohio State −55.9 | 100% | +3.4 |
|
Western Kentucky
13
Indiana
47
|
Indiana −44.5 | 60.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Indiana −33.5 | 98% | -11.0 |
|
Eastern Washington
12
Washington
45
|
Washington −42.5 | 56.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Washington −33.5 | 98% | -9.0 |
|
East Texas A&M
18
Tulsa
39
|
Tulsa −42.5 | 56.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Tulsa −20.9 | 91% | -21.6 |
|
Buffalo
7
Penn State
44
|
Penn State −41.5 | 50.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Penn State −37.3 | 99% | -4.2 |
|
Northern Iowa
8
Iowa
41
|
Iowa −40.5 | 49.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Iowa −33 | 98% | -7.5 |
|
Mercer
19
Georgia Tech
39
|
Georgia Tech −38.5 | 58.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Georgia Tech −20.5 | 91% | -18.0 |
|
Maine
13
Boston College
41
|
Boston College −38.5 | 53.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Boston College −27.9 | 96% | -10.6 |
|
Southern Illinois
18
Illinois
37
|
Illinois −38.5 | 54.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Illinois −19.5 | 89% | -19.0 |
|
Duquesne
10
Washington State
44
|
Washington State −37.5 | 53.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Washington State −34.2 | 99% | -3.3 |
|
Delaware State
11
South Florida
50
|
South Florida −36.5 | 61.5 | — / — | — | 100% | South Florida −38.5 | 99% | +2.0 |
|
UTEP
6
Michigan
42
|
Michigan −34.5 | 48.5 | — / — | — | 100% | Michigan −35.7 | 99% | +1.2 |
|
UT Martin
16
Memphis
42
|
Memphis −34.5 | 57.5 | +4000 / -50000 | 98% | 98% | Memphis −25.5 | 95% | -9.0 |
|
Kennesaw State
12
Tennessee
48
|
Tennessee −34.5 | 59.5 | +5000 / -100000 | 98% | 100% | Tennessee −36.4 | 99% | +1.9 |
|
Stonehill
17
Massachusetts
33
|
Massachusetts −33.5 | 49.5 | — / — | — | — | Massachusetts −16.4 | 85% | -17.1 |
|
Northern Illinois
13
Arizona
37
|
Arizona −33.5 | 50.5 | +4000 / -50000 | 98% | 98% | Arizona −23.7 | 94% | -9.8 |
|
UTSA
18
Texas
41
|
Texas −30.5 | 58.5 | +1800 / -5000 | 95% | 98% | Texas −23 | 93% | -7.5 |
|
Michigan State
12
Notre Dame
41
|
Notre Dame −29.5 | 52.5 | +1700 / -4500 | 95% | 96% | Notre Dame −29.2 | 97% | -0.3 |
|
Utah State
14
Utah
42
|
Utah −27.5 | 56.5 | +2000 / -6500 | 95% | 96% | Utah −27.7 | 96% | +0.2 |
|
Troy
14
Missouri
36
|
Missouri −27.5 | 50.5 | +1800 / -5000 | 95% | 96% | Missouri −21.8 | 92% | -5.7 |
|
North Dakota State
34
Sacramento State
17
|
North Dakota State −27.5 | 50.5 | -8000 / +2200 | 4% | 4% | North Dakota State −16.8 | 14% | +10.7 |
|
Georgia
34
Arkansas
20
|
Georgia −24.5 | 54.5 | -2800 / +1300 | 7% | 6% | Georgia −14.4 | 18% | +10.1 |
|
North Dakota
18
Nebraska
33
|
Nebraska −24.5 | 51.5 | +1400 / -3200 | 94% | 94% | Nebraska −14.8 | 83% | -9.7 |
|
Bowling Green
8
Iowa State
35
|
Iowa State −23.5 | 43.5 | +1300 / -2800 | 93% | 94% | Iowa State −27.2 | 96% | +3.7 |
|
Akron
12
Minnesota
37
|
Minnesota −23.5 | 48.5 | +1100 / -2100 | 92% | 94% | Minnesota −24.9 | 94% | +1.4 |
|
Eastern Michigan
12
Wisconsin
34
|
Wisconsin −23.5 | 45.5 | +1200 / -2400 | 93% | 94% | Wisconsin −22.2 | 92% | -1.3 |
|
South Dakota
20
Boise State
37
|
Boise State −23.5 | 56.5 | +1400 / -3200 | 94% | 95% | Boise State −16.6 | 86% | -6.9 |
|
USC
36
Rutgers
24
|
USC −21.5 | 59.5 | -2100 / +1100 | 8% | 6% | USC −12 | 22% | +9.5 |
|
New Mexico
12
Oklahoma
35
|
Oklahoma −21.5 | 46.5 | +1000 / -1800 | 91% | 94% | Oklahoma −22.9 | 93% | +1.4 |
|
Tulane
18
Kansas State
31
|
Kansas State −20.5 | 49.5 | +1000 / -1800 | 91% | 92% | Kansas State −13.2 | 80% | -7.3 |
|
Florida State
14
Alabama
34
|
Alabama −19.5 | 48.5 | +800 / -1350 | 89% | 90% | Alabama −19.8 | 90% | +0.3 |
|
Arkansas State
16
TCU
41
|
TCU −19.5 | 56.5 | +850 / -1450 | 90% | 91% | TCU −24.7 | 94% | +5.2 |
|
Louisiana Tech
17
Baylor
34
|
Baylor −17.5 | 51.5 | +625 / -950 | 87% | 90% | Baylor −16.7 | 86% | -0.8 |
|
Charlotte
18
App State
33
|
App State −17.5 | 51.5 | +700 / -1100 | 88% | — | App State −14.8 | 83% | -2.7 |
|
Georgia State
14
UCF
37
|
UCF −17.5 | 50.5 | +650 / -1000 | 87% | 90% | UCF −23 | 93% | +5.5 |
|
Nicholls
19
Sam Houston
31
|
Sam Houston −17.5 | 49.5 | — / — | — | 90% | Sam Houston −11.8 | 78% | -5.7 |
|
BYU
35
Colorado State
17
|
BYU −17.5 | 52.5 | -950 / +625 | 13% | 12% | BYU −18 | 12% | -0.5 |
|
Montana
24
Oregon State
28
|
Oregon State −17.5 | 52.5 | +525 / — | — | 86% | Oregon State −3.6 | 59% | -13.9 |
|
Kentucky
17
Texas A&M
34
|
Texas A&M −16.5 | 50.5 | +575 / -850 | 86% | 88% | Texas A&M −16.5 | 86% | +0.0 |
|
Miami (OH)
17
Cincinnati
33
|
Cincinnati −16.5 | 49.5 | +550 / -800 | 85% | 86% | Cincinnati −16.1 | 85% | -0.4 |
|
Ball State
17
Liberty
32
|
Liberty −14 | 49.5 | +440 / -600 | 82% | 84% | Liberty −15.4 | 84% | +1.4 |
|
Purdue
20
UCLA
33
|
UCLA −14 | 52.5 | +470 / -650 | 83% | 86% | UCLA −12.8 | 79% | -1.2 |
|
SE Louisiana
24
UL Monroe
25
|
UL Monroe −10.5 | 48.5 | — / — | — | — | UL Monroe −0.5 | 51% | -10.0 |
|
West Virginia
24
Virginia
29
|
Virginia −10.5 | 53.5 | +310 / -395 | 77% | 78% | Virginia −5 | 63% | -5.5 |
|
Stanford
16
Duke
34
|
Duke −10 | 50.5 | +310 / -395 | 77% | 77% | Duke −18.2 | 88% | +8.2 |
|
Western Michigan
24
Rice
19
|
Western Michigan −9.5 | 43.5 | -340 / +270 | 26% | 24% | Western Michigan −5.3 | 37% | +4.2 |
|
UAB
23
Louisiana
34
|
Louisiana −7.5 | 56.5 | +260 / -325 | 73% | 74% | Louisiana −11.4 | 77% | +3.9 |
|
Florida International
29
Florida Atlantic
34
|
Florida Atlantic −7 | 62.5 | +205 / -250 | 69% | 70% | Florida Atlantic −5.4 | 64% | -1.6 |
|
Ohio
23
South Alabama
27
|
South Alabama −7 | 49.5 | +220 / -270 | 70% | 72% | South Alabama −4.1 | 60% | -2.9 |
|
Fresno State
27
San José State
23
|
Fresno State −6.5 | 49.5 | -250 / +205 | 31% | 31% | Fresno State −4 | 40% | +2.5 |
|
Temple
17
Toledo
34
|
Toledo −6 | 50.5 | +190 / -230 | 67% | 68% | Toledo −16.9 | 86% | +10.9 |
|
Arizona State
26
Kansas
24
|
Arizona State −5.5 | 50.5 | -205 / +170 | 36% | 35% | Arizona State −1.7 | 46% | +3.8 |
|
Coastal Carolina
27
Delaware
30
|
Delaware −4.5 | 56.5 | +160 / -192 | 63% | 64% | Delaware −3.3 | 58% | -1.2 |
|
Mississippi State
25
South Carolina
34
|
South Carolina −4 | 58.5 | +145 / -175 | 61% | 62% | South Carolina −8.6 | 71% | +4.6 |
|
Marshall
27
Missouri State
26
|
Marshall −4 | 52.5 | -198 / +164 | 36% | 38% | Marshall −0.9 | 48% | +3.1 |
|
Nevada
25
Middle Tennessee
25
|
Nevada −3.5 | 50.5 | -180 / +150 | 38% | 38% | Nevada −0.4 | 49% | +3.1 |
|
Colorado
22
Northwestern
26
|
Northwestern −3.5 | 47.5 | +145 / -175 | 61% | 62% | Northwestern −4 | 60% | +0.5 |
|
North Carolina
15
Clemson
28
|
Clemson −3 | 43.5 | +136 / -162 | 59% | 60% | Clemson −12.6 | 79% | +9.6 |
|
North Texas
33
Texas State
29
|
Texas State −3 | 62.5 | +130 / -155 | 58% | 57% | North Texas −3.7 | 41% | -6.7 |
|
NC State
22
Vanderbilt
29
|
Vanderbilt −3 | 50.5 | +136 / -162 | 59% | 60% | Vanderbilt −6.9 | 67% | +3.9 |
|
East Carolina
23
Old Dominion
25
|
Old Dominion −3 | 48.5 | +124 / -148 | 57% | 56% | Old Dominion −2 | 55% | -1.0 |
|
UConn
29
Southern Miss
26
|
UConn −3 | 54.5 | -162 / +136 | 41% | 42% | UConn −3.3 | 42% | -0.3 |
|
Georgia Southern
22
Jacksonville State
30
|
Jacksonville State −3 | 52.5 | +140 / -166 | 60% | 60% | Jacksonville State −7.5 | 69% | +4.5 |
|
Virginia Tech
24
Maryland
29
|
Virginia Tech −3 | 53.5 | -142 / +120 | 44% | 42% | Maryland −5.4 | 64% | +8.4 |
|
Florida
25
Auburn
28
|
Florida −2.5 | 53.5 | -135 / +114 | 45% | 44% | Auburn −3.4 | 59% | +5.9 |
|
LSU
24
Ole Miss
34
|
LSU −2.5 | 57.5 | -135 / +114 | 45% | 46% | Ole Miss −10 | 74% | +12.5 |
|
Wyoming
19
Central Michigan
19
|
Wyoming −1.5 | 38.5 | -112 / -108 | 50% | 50% | Central Michigan −0.1 | 50% | +1.6 |
|
SMU
28
Louisville
31
|
Louisville −1.5 | 59.5 | +100 / -120 | 52% | 52% | Louisville −3.5 | 59% | +2.0 |
|
James Madison
28
San Diego State
19
|
San Diego State −1.5 | 46.5 | +110 / -130 | 54% | 54% | James Madison −8.7 | 29% | -10.2 |
|
Wagner
California
|
— | — | — / — | — | 100% | California −44.5 | 100% | — |
Where the projected scores come from. The margin is ours; the total is the market's. We built a totals model and it graded worse than always predicting the league average — MAE 13.43 against 13.24 on 762 walk-forward games, and a sweep across five ridge values and two half-lives put every single combination above that baseline. College scoring is too noisy and team scoring rates carry too weakly. So the market's total is the better number, and splitting it with our margin is what produces these two scores. All 80 games on this slate carry one.
The three percentage columns are all the home team's chance of winning, so they read straight across. The away side is one minus each.
DK's moneyline is shown as posted, away then home. Its percentage is de-vigged: a two-way market's implied probabilities add up to more than 100%, and that excess is the book's fee rather than its opinion. Kalshi is an exchange and carries no equivalent, so comparing raw implieds would make DK look more confident than Kalshi on both sides of every game. Normalising to 100% is what makes the two columns mean the same thing.
Kalshi's number is the midpoint of the bid and ask on the contract for that team winning. It quotes an outcome rather than a spread, so a probability is the comparison that invents nothing in between. 53 of the 71 games have a posted moneyline; the rest are lopsided enough that the book leaves them off the board.
FBS-versus-FBS games with the market inside 21 points. 37 of the 71 on the slate qualify; the rest are buy games or mismatches where a large gap tells us nothing.
| Game | Market | Ours | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| LSU at Ole Miss | LSU −2.5 | Ole Miss −10 | +12.5 |
| Temple at Toledo | Toledo −6 | Toledo −16.9 | +10.9 |
| James Madison at San Diego State | San Diego State −1.5 | James Madison −8.7 | -10.2 |
| North Carolina at Clemson | Clemson −3 | Clemson −12.6 | +9.6 |
| Virginia Tech at Maryland | Virginia Tech −3 | Maryland −5.4 | +8.4 |
| Stanford at Duke | Duke −10 | Duke −18.2 | +8.2 |
| Tulane at Kansas State | Kansas State −20.5 | Kansas State −13.2 | -7.3 |
| North Texas at Texas State | Texas State −3 | North Texas −3.7 | -6.7 |
Worth watching week to week to see whether the disagreements are systematic. That is the useful thing this board can tell us, and it is a different question from whether any single one of them is right.
Kalshi's college team markets against our player model. 28 contracts across 4 teams — Alabama, Florida St., Louisville, SMU — which is the whole of their college team-props market, not a selection from it.
| Team | Line | Our yards | Our P(over) | Market | Spread | Volume | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 250 | 169.9 | 18% | 42% | 17c | 191 | -23 |
| Louisville | 275 | 160.2 | 10% | 28% | 32c | 20 | -18 |
| Louisville | 225 | 160.2 | 23% | 67% | 8c | 0 | -44 |
| Louisville | 200 | 160.2 | 33% | 76% | 8c | 0 | -43 |
| Louisville | 175 | 160.2 | 43% | 84% | 8c | 0 | -41 |
| Louisville | 250 | 160.2 | 16% | 54% | 5c | 0 | -39 |
| Alabama | 200 | 169.9 | 37% | 66% | 19c | 0 | -30 |
| Florida St. | 175 | 199.6 | 61% | 32% | 41c | 0 | +28 |
| Alabama | 225 | 169.9 | 27% | 55% | 18c | 0 | -28 |
| Alabama | 175 | 169.9 | 48% | 75% | 18c | 0 | -27 |
| Florida St. | 150 | 199.6 | 71% | 46% | 40c | 0 | +25 |
| Florida St. | 200 | 199.6 | 50% | 26% | 29c | 0 | +23 |
| Florida St. | 225 | 199.6 | 39% | 16% | 28c | 0 | +23 |
| Florida St. | 125 | 199.6 | 80% | 59% | 40c | 0 | +21 |
| Alabama | 275 | 169.9 | 12% | 29% | 19c | 0 | -16 |
| Florida St. | 100 | 199.6 | 87% | 71% | 38c | 0 | +16 |
| Louisville | 325 | 160.2 | 3% | 18% | 13c | 0 | -15 |
| Louisville | 300 | 160.2 | 6% | 19% | 28c | 0 | -13 |
| Florida St. | 75 | 199.6 | 92% | 79% | 34c | 0 | +13 |
| Alabama | 300 | 169.9 | 7% | 18% | 13c | 0 | -11 |
| SMU | 300 | 277.2 | 40% | 50% | 10c | 0 | -10 |
| SMU | 275 | 277.2 | 51% | 61% | 10c | 0 | -10 |
| SMU | 325 | 277.2 | 30% | 39% | 10c | 0 | -9 |
| SMU | 250 | 277.2 | 62% | 71% | 10c | 0 | -9 |
| SMU | 350 | 277.2 | 21% | 29% | 8c | 0 | -8 |
| SMU | 225 | 277.2 | 72% | 79% | 10c | 0 | -7 |
| SMU | 375 | 277.2 | 14% | 20% | 9c | 0 | -7 |
| Alabama | 325 | 169.9 | 4% | 10% | 16c | 0 | -6 |
Team receiving yards are team passing yards, since every receiving yard is a passing yard. So the projection is the starting quarterback's, not the sum of every receiver's. Summing receivers was the first attempt and gave USC 647 yards, roughly double any real team game: each receiver's projection assumes he plays and takes his usual share, and nothing in the sum is constrained by how many passes the team will actually throw.
We sit under the market on every row here. Not one of them is a projection above the line. That is a calibration observation, not an edge: either our projections are systematically low on team passing volume, or the books shade these lines up because casual money buys overs. Both are ordinary and they look identical from one weekend of four teams. Worth watching across several weeks before reading anything into it.
Probability is a normal around the projection with sigma 89.4 yards, which is the measured standard deviation of actual team receiving yards across every team-game in our box history, not an assumption. A team total is a sum over many plays, so the normal is doing honest work here in a way it would not for one player's single game.
Their team touchdown market is deliberately absent. It counts every touchdown a team records, defensive and special teams included, and our model projects offensive production only. Every row would sit low by whatever the non-offensive rate is — a one-directional bias on the whole table, which is worse than no table. It goes in once that rate is measured rather than guessed.
Ridge-regularised Massey ratings fitted on 8,458 games through the current season, covering 408 teams. Home field 4.4 points, residual sigma 15.6. Win probability is the normal CDF of the projected margin over that sigma.
FanDuel is not here. The Odds API key is out of credits, plain requests get a 403, and a real browser session gets a CloudFront denial on the page itself, which reads as a geographic block on this host rather than bot detection. Four routes, all closed, so the column is left out and labelled rather than quietly blank.