On the board
0 priced of 118
Median gap
Straight up
104–32
Model state
Wk 0 Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4 Wk 5 Wk 6 Wk 7 Wk 8 Wk 9 Wk 10 Wk 11 Wk 12 Wk 13 Wk 14 Wk 15
Top projected winners 76% · 104-32 this season

The model's most-likely winners — a read, not a betting edge. Graded straight-up on the public record once games are played.

Top projected winners ranked by our win probability · graded straight up, never against a price
Top spread reads ranked by the book’s de-vigged lean toward our side — the only calibrated cover probability here; “we differ by” is distance, not confidence

No game on this slate has a book spread to compare against yet.

Top total reads ranked by the book’s de-vigged lean toward our side; the points are our distance from the line

No game on this slate has a book total to compare against yet.

Top team totals our projected score against the book’s team total · 0 games priced this week

No book has posted a team total on this slate yet.

Week 7 sheet 0 priced of 118 Sheet Panels All games
What the colors mean state · side · price · outcome
State In play · its own hue, never an outcome To play  Played
Prediction — which side The side we logged, edged in that team’s own color Identity only. It names the side; it does not say the side is good.
Value — the price One book’s number beats the field, in POINTS 0 games today Tap the book or the total to put that side on the slip at that price. Points first, price second — half a point is worth far more than a few cents of juice. ncaaf_line_shopping.py: +0.86% win rate, +1.61% ROI over 8,652 graded bets. The only edge this site has measured, and the only thing on this page with a right answer.
Outcome ATS WTOT LML · Graded games only. Nothing in play is ever green or red.
How reliable has each gap band been? ncaaf_edge_audit.py · 10,740 games · 2016–2025
0-3 pts 52.0% n=4,250 3-7 50.2% n=3,651 7-14 49.3% n=2,173 14+ 46.8% n=666 17+ wide p90 — tagged, never ranked up

Read the ramp the way it is drawn: bright means we AGREE with the market. Every band above is under the 52.4% break-even and the rate falls as our disagreement grows, so a big gap is this model’s worst bucket rather than a buy signal. That is why the disagreement column is drawn in neutral ink instead of a hot-to-cold scale, why nothing here is sorted by it, and why the value color is attached to the price rather than to the size of our disagreement.

KickoffMatchupScore Our numberThe book Disagreement ← awaybookhome → Side we loggedBest line — and by how much TotalWhere it stands
No priced games yet — books post lines through the week.
+118 unpriced games — schedule & projections in All games →

Every bar puts the book at the center and our number beside it, to one scale for every game. A wide gap is a caution, not a signal — measured over 10,740 graded games, the further we sit from the market the worse we have done (52.0% ATS where we barely disagree, 46.8% where we disagree by 14+ points). Naming a side is orientation, not a recommendation: this project measured no edge on spreads or totals over 10,777 games. The best-number column is a price, never a pick — whatever side you were going to take, it says who has the best number on it.

Every row links to its full breakdown. The books grid, the public splits and the bet slip live on Panels and on each game’s own page.