Cable news runs on fear-mongering, political panic and screaming headlines. 1440's daily newsletter gives you:

Join 4+ million readers today.

Sign Up For Free

THE EDGE REPORT by AndActionBTB | November 10–14, 2026

The Week 11 board runs November 10–14, with 67 matchups, home-team spreads, moneylines, totals and our projected scores. The biggest decisions are not always about picking the winner: several projected margins differ sharply from the betting line, while conference races and bowl eligibility raise the stakes. Projected scores reflect regulation-time estimates; an even projection signals no modeled separation, not a final result that can end in a tie. Start with the market-to-projection contrasts below, then follow each game in kickoff order.

USC at Indiana: Indiana’s 8–1 record contrasts with its 1–8 ATS mark. A 7.5-point home spread makes covering a separate question from winning.

Texas at LSU: The 3.5-point home spread and our three-point LSU projection leave almost no margin for error in a ranked SEC matchup.

Wake Forest at SMU: Wake Forest’s 7–2 ATS record meets a tight market in a game with direct ACC title-race implications.

Keep reading: This 67-game preview is longer than many email clients display in full. Continue with every matchup, betting line and projected score on THE EDGE REPORT website.

Moneyline: Western Michigan -655 / Akron +464 | Home spread: Akron +14 | Total: 48 | Projected score: Western Michigan 29, Akron 19.

Matchup insight: MACtion spotlight: Western Michigan brings a 29–19 projected edge, but the market asks the Broncos to cover two touchdowns. Akron’s defense allows 32.2 points per game; whether the Zips can slow Jalen Buckley is the matchup’s pressure point. Western Michigan can protect its position near the top of the MAC; Akron is trying to halt a five-game conference losing streak.

Western Michigan — Advantage: The Broncos average 26.2 points per game and allow 19.2. Running back Jalen Buckley has 711 rushing yards and eight touchdowns.

Akron — Vulnerability: The Zips average 19.1 points and allow 32.2. Jordan Gant has rushed for 726 yards and seven touchdowns, but Akron's defense faces a substantial efficiency challenge.

Moneyline: Kent State +166 / Bowling Green -203 | Home spread: Bowling Green −6 | Total: 45 | Projected score: Kent State 22, Bowling Green 24.

Matchup insight: Can Bowling Green’s defense dictate the night? The Falcons allow just 168.8 passing yards per game, while Kent State has struggled to finish drives. Bowling Green is favored by six, but our projected score sees a two-point game. Both teams are 2–5 in MAC play, so the stakes are late-season momentum and a stronger conference finish.

Bowling Green — Advantage: The Falcons allow 168.8 passing yards per game and limit third-down conversions to 34.6%.

Kent State — Vulnerability: The Golden Flashes average 14.3 points per game and convert red-zone opportunities at a 59.3% scoring rate. Receiver Wayne Harris has 662 receiving yards and five touchdowns.

Moneyline: Ohio -119 / Miami (OH) -104 | Home spread: Miami (OH) +1.5 | Total: 46.5 | Projected score: Ohio 28, Miami (OH) 25.

Matchup insight: A MAC rivalry with little separation: Ohio has won the last two meetings, including the 2024 MAC Championship and the 2025 regular-season game; our projected score favors the Bobcats by three. Miami’s six overs in eight graded totals add an intriguing contrast to the 46.5-point total. Ohio leads the MAC race at 5–0 in conference play; Miami (OH) needs a win to improve its bowl outlook.

Ohio — Defensive matchup: Ohio allows 339.9 total yards per game, compared with Miami (OH)'s 377.2. The lower yardage allowance gives Ohio the statistical defensive edge, though pace and opposition quality remain important context.

Miami — Vulnerability: The RedHawks allowed 34 points in their most recent game against Buffalo, increasing the importance of third-down stops and limiting explosive gains.

Moneyline: Buffalo -137 / Ball State +113 | Home spread: Ball State +2.5 | Total: 51.5 | Projected score: Buffalo 29, Ball State 24.

Matchup insight: The home underdog with a better cover record: Ball State enters 6–3 ATS against Buffalo’s 5–4. Buffalo is favored by 2.5, while our projection gives the Bulls a five-point edge. Buffalo can strengthen its MAC standing, while Ball State needs a result to escape the lower end of the conference.

Buffalo — Run-game outlook: Buffalo averages 167.7 rushing yards per game; Ball State allows 179.8. Ball State has conceded 12.1 more rushing yards per game than Buffalo typically generates. The matchup offers Buffalo a chance to establish the run, but yards per carry and early-down success will be decisive.

Ball State — Run-game outlook: Ball State averages 144.2 rushing yards per game; Buffalo allows 154.9. Buffalo has conceded 10.7 more rushing yards per game than Ball State typically generates. That comparison points to possible rushing opportunities for Ball State; sustaining drives will matter more than raw yardage.

Moneyline: Sacramento State +705 / Central Michigan -1155 | Home spread: Central Michigan −18 | Total: 43.5 | Projected score: Sacramento State 20, Central Michigan 25.

Matchup insight: The number to watch is 18: Central Michigan is a substantial home favorite, but the season projection separates the teams by only five points. That is one of the widest market-to-model gaps on the early-week card. Central Michigan is trying to move toward an even MAC record; Sacramento State seeks a conference breakthrough.

Sacramento State — Run-game outlook: Sacramento State averages 97.6 rushing yards per game; Central Michigan allows 167.2. Central Michigan has conceded 69.6 more rushing yards per game than Sacramento State typically generates. Sacramento State could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

Central Michigan — Run-game outlook: Central Michigan averages 176.6 rushing yards per game; Sacramento State allows 180.0. Sacramento State has conceded 3.4 more rushing yards per game than Central Michigan typically generates. The matchup offers Central Michigan a chance to establish the run, but yards per carry and early-down success will be decisive.

Moneyline: Massachusetts +460 / Toledo -655 | Home spread: Toledo −14.5 | Total: 51.5 | Projected score: Massachusetts 26, Toledo 29.

Matchup insight: A big Toledo spread, a close projection: The Rockets are laying 14.5 at home, yet the season-based score gives them just a three-point margin. Toledo must turn its season advantage into scoreboard separation. Toledo can reinforce its MAC title contention; Massachusetts is seeking a result that changes its conference trajectory.

Massachusetts — Defensive matchup: Massachusetts allows 327.3 total yards per game, compared with Toledo's 314.3. The 13.0-yard defensive gap favors Toledo;That deficit raises the pressure on Massachusetts to tighten tackling and finish possessions with stops.

Toledo — Defensive matchup: Toledo allows 314.3 total yards per game, compared with Massachusetts's 327.3. The lower yardage allowance gives Toledo the statistical defensive edge, though pace and opposition quality remain important context.

Moneyline: Memphis -185 / South Florida +151 | Home spread: South Florida +4 | Total: 56.5 | Projected score: Memphis 26, South Florida 25.

Matchup insight: A one-point projection in a four-point market: Memphis carries the road-favorite tag, but the projected score is 26–25. With the total in the mid-50s, the matchup could hinge on which offense finishes drives. Memphis remains in the American title chase at 4–1; South Florida needs a win to recover ground after its recent conference losses.

Memphis — Defensive matchup: Memphis allows 377.0 total yards per game, compared with South Florida's 312.7. The 64.3-yard defensive gap favors South Florida;For Memphis, limiting explosive gains and getting off the field on third down are the practical responses.

South Florida — Defensive matchup: South Florida allows 312.7 total yards per game, compared with Memphis's 377.0. On a per-game basis, South Florida has allowed less yardage, a useful benchmark rather than a guarantee of matchup dominance.

Moneyline: Louisiana -430 / UL Monroe +327 | Home spread: UL Monroe +10.5 | Total: 49.5 | Projected score: Louisiana 32, UL Monroe 21.

Matchup insight: Louisiana’s road test comes with a double-digit price. The Ragin’ Cajuns are favored by 10.5, almost exactly our projected 11-point margin. UL Monroe’s 3–6 ATS record offers little evidence of consistent covers, but home field gives the Warhawks an opportunity to disrupt the favorite’s rhythm. Louisiana is pursuing a strong Sun Belt finish; UL Monroe needs its first conference win.

Louisiana — Run-game outlook: Louisiana averages 202.9 rushing yards per game; UL Monroe allows 211.1. UL Monroe has conceded 8.2 more rushing yards per game than Louisiana typically generates. Louisiana could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

UL Monroe — Run-game outlook: UL Monroe averages 138.0 rushing yards per game; Louisiana allows 130.6. Louisiana's defense has held opponents to 7.4 fewer rushing yards per game than UL Monroe's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for UL Monroe's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Florida State +137 / Pittsburgh -166 | Home spread: Pittsburgh −3.5 | Total: 53.5 | Projected score: Florida State 25, Pittsburgh 30.

Matchup insight: Pittsburgh has the edge, but not much room: The Panthers are favored by 3.5 and projected to win by five. Florida State’s path to an upset begins with keeping the game within one possession entering the fourth quarter. Pittsburgh is chasing an ACC championship-game berth; Florida State needs to keep its postseason hopes moving.

Florida State — Run-game test: Florida State averages 169.8 rushing yards per game, but Pittsburgh allows only 68.3 per game through November 7, ranking second nationally. This is a challenging rushing matchup, not an automatic advantage for Florida State.

Pittsburgh — Run-game outlook: Pittsburgh averages 167.7 rushing yards per game; Florida State allows 173.3. Florida State has conceded 5.6 more rushing yards per game than Pittsburgh typically generates. The matchup offers Pittsburgh a chance to establish the run, but yards per carry and early-down success will be decisive.

Moneyline: Illinois +304 / UCLA -398 | Home spread: UCLA −10 | Total: 47.5 | Projected score: Illinois 21, UCLA 28.

Matchup insight: UCLA’s perfect start meets a double-digit spread: The Bruins enter 9–0 and are 9–0 ATS at BetMGM, while another closing-line dataset records an 8–0–1 mark. Our projection favors UCLA by seven, three points inside the posted ten-point line. UCLA is unbeaten and leads the Big Ten at 6–0; Illinois can disrupt the title race and bolster its postseason résumé.

Illinois — Defensive matchup: Illinois allows 376.8 total yards per game, compared with UCLA's 264.7. The 112.1-yard defensive gap favors UCLA;That deficit raises the pressure on Illinois to tighten tackling and finish possessions with stops.

UCLA — Defensive matchup: UCLA allows 264.7 total yards per game, compared with Illinois's 376.8. The lower yardage allowance gives UCLA the statistical defensive edge, though pace and opposition quality remain important context.

Moneyline: Houston -430 / Colorado +325 | Home spread: Colorado +10.5 | Total: 51.5 | Projected score: Houston 32, Colorado 21.

Matchup insight: Can Colorado slow a ranked road favorite? Houston’s 32–21 projection advantage mirrors the 10.5-point spread. Neither team has impressed against the number—Houston is 3–6 ATS and Colorado 2–6–1—making execution more informative than their cover records. Houston is among the Big 12 contenders; Colorado needs to halt its slide and improve a 3–6 overall record.

Houston — Advantage: The Cougars average 470.2 yards and 35.4 points per game, including 207.7 rushing yards. They convert 59.3% of third downs and have thrown only two interceptions in nine games. That efficiency attacks a Colorado defense allowing 28.3 points and 243.7 passing yards per game.

Colorado — Advantage / vulnerability: The Buffaloes average 255.4 passing yards per game against a Houston secondary allowing 252.9, creating a potential route to explosive plays. But Colorado scores only 19.8 points per game, rushes for 131.6 yards, and has thrown 11 interceptions; Houston allows just 107.3 rushing yards per game. Colorado must exploit the passing matchup without becoming one-dimensional.

Moneyline: Cincinnati +126 / Iowa State -152 | Home spread: Iowa State −3 | Total: 61 | Projected score: Cincinnati 31, Iowa State 29.

Matchup insight: The projection leans against the favorite. Iowa State is laying three at home, but our season projected score favors Cincinnati 31–29. With a total of 61, this Big 12 matchup has room for momentum swings and late scoring. Cincinnati needs one more overall win for conventional bowl eligibility; Iowa State can move closer to six wins.

Cincinnati — Advantage: The Bearcats average 221.9 rushing yards per game, but Iowa State allows 163.1 on the ground and 28.9 points overall. Cincinnati's ground game is its clearest way to dictate pace, while its own defense has conceded 29.4 points per game.

Moneyline: Duke +423 / Miami -576 | Home spread: Miami −13.5 | Total: 53.5 | Projected score: Duke 26, Miami 29.

Matchup insight: Duke’s ATS résumé meets Miami’s talent advantage: Duke enters 7–2 ATS, while Miami is favored by 13.5 at home. The question is whether the Hurricanes can create enough explosive plays to turn a win into a two-touchdown margin. Miami is unbeaten in ACC play and leads the title race; Duke can change the championship picture with a road upset.

Miami — Run-game outlook: Miami averages 191.2 rushing yards per game; Duke allows 95.6. Duke's defense has held opponents to 95.6 fewer rushing yards per game than Miami's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Miami's preferred rushing volume.

Duke — Defensive matchup: Duke allows 282.1 total yards per game, compared with Miami's 323.7. That gap favors Duke in total defense; the challenge is translating it into third-down stops and fewer scoring drives.

Moneyline: Northwestern +362 / Ohio State -482 | Home spread: Ohio State −12.5 | Total: 46.5 | Projected score: Northwestern 25, Ohio State 28.

Matchup insight: Ohio State has the market’s respect, but the projection is tighter. The Buckeyes are favored by 12.5 at home; our season projected score sees a three-point margin. Northwestern’s opportunity is to make this a four-quarter game. Ohio State needs a win to stay within reach of the Big Ten leaders; Northwestern can strengthen its postseason position.

Ohio State — Defensive matchup: Ohio State allows 287.0 total yards per game, compared with Northwestern's 365.4. On a per-game basis, Ohio State has allowed less yardage, a useful benchmark rather than a guarantee of matchup dominance.

Northwestern — Defensive matchup: Northwestern allows 365.4 total yards per game, compared with Ohio State's 287.0. The 78.4-yard defensive gap favors Ohio State;Northwestern must win more early downs and force punts to narrow that statistical disadvantage.

Moneyline: Wake Forest -115 / SMU -107 | Home spread: SMU +1.5 | Total: 60.5 | Projected score: Wake Forest 33, SMU 26.

Matchup insight: A ranked road favorite with a proven cover record: Wake Forest enters 8–1 straight up and 7–2 ATS. SMU has allowed 28 points in consecutive ACC games, making defensive stops critical in a matchup priced close to a pick’em. Wake Forest and SMU are direct ACC title-game rivals; the head-to-head result could matter in a conference tiebreak.

Moneyline: Auburn -144 / Mississippi State +118 | Home spread: Mississippi State +3 | Total: 50 | Projected score: Auburn 26, Mississippi State 26.

Matchup insight: Auburn’s spread struggles meet a coin-flip projection. The Tigers enter 2–7 ATS and are favored by three on the road. Our projected score is tied at 26, putting the spotlight on Mississippi State’s home-field execution. Auburn is one win from six; Mississippi State needs victories to keep a bowl route open.

Auburn — Run-game outlook: Auburn averages 156.1 rushing yards per game; Mississippi State allows 121.3. Mississippi State's defense has held opponents to 34.8 fewer rushing yards per game than Auburn's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Auburn's preferred rushing volume.

Mississippi State — Run-game outlook: Mississippi State averages 148.4 rushing yards per game; Auburn allows 157.7. Auburn has conceded 9.3 more rushing yards per game than Mississippi State typically generates. The matchup offers Mississippi State a chance to establish the run, but yards per carry and early-down success will be decisive.

Moneyline: Syracuse -145 / NC State +119 | Home spread: NC State +2.5 | Total: 53.5 | Projected score: Syracuse 28, NC State 27.

Matchup insight: One point separates these ACC opponents in our projection. Syracuse is favored by 2.5 on the road, while projection calls it 28–27. Expect the market focus to fall on late-game possessions rather than a decisive mismatch. NC State can improve its ACC position; Syracuse is seeking momentum in a difficult conference stretch.

Syracuse — Run-game outlook: Syracuse averages 156.9 rushing yards per game; NC State allows 142.9. NC State's defense has held opponents to 14.0 fewer rushing yards per game than Syracuse's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Syracuse's preferred rushing volume.

NC State — Run-game outlook: NC State averages 144.8 rushing yards per game; Syracuse allows 130.0. Syracuse's defense has held opponents to 14.8 fewer rushing yards per game than NC State's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for NC State's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Wisconsin -327 / Maryland +257 | Home spread: Maryland +8 | Total: 43.5 | Projected score: Wisconsin 28, Maryland 22.

Matchup insight: Maryland has room to compete as a home underdog. Wisconsin is laying eight, but our projected score gives the Badgers a six-point edge. The 43.5 total suggests scoring chances may be at a premium. Wisconsin is in the Big Ten's upper tier; Maryland is playing for a late-season turnaround.

Wisconsin — Defensive matchup: Wisconsin allows 286.4 total yards per game, compared with Maryland's 377.6. On a per-game basis, Wisconsin has allowed less yardage, a useful benchmark rather than a guarantee of matchup dominance.

Moneyline: James Madison -183 / UConn +150 | Home spread: UConn +4 | Total: 57.5 | Projected score: James Madison 34, UConn 26.

Matchup insight: Two teams with winning ATS records collide. James Madison is 7–3 ATS and UConn 5–3–1, but the Dukes are favored by just four. Our projected score gives an eight-point JMU win, making the Huskies’ defensive response the story. James Madison can strengthen its 5–2 Sun Belt record, while UConn needs a high-value nonconference win for its postseason case.

James Madison — Run-game outlook: James Madison averages 199.3 rushing yards per game; UConn allows 142.8. UConn's defense has held opponents to 56.5 fewer rushing yards per game than James Madison's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for James Madison's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Georgia Tech +395 / Clemson -533 | Home spread: Clemson −13.5 | Total: 47.5 | Projected score: Georgia Tech 22, Clemson 27.

Matchup insight: Public support concentrates on Clemson: The supplied market snapshot shows heavy moneyline interest in the Tigers. Clemson’s 13.5-point spread is the real hurdle, while Georgia Tech must avoid giving away short fields. Clemson needs to stay in the ACC title race; Georgia Tech seeks an upset that improves its conference finish.

Georgia Tech — Run-game outlook: Georgia Tech averages 118.7 rushing yards per game; Clemson allows 122.3. Clemson has conceded 3.6 more rushing yards per game than Georgia Tech typically generates. Georgia Tech could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

Clemson — Run-game outlook: Clemson averages 152.9 rushing yards per game; Georgia Tech allows 222.8. Georgia Tech has conceded 69.9 more rushing yards per game than Clemson typically generates. The matchup offers Clemson a chance to establish the run, but yards per carry and early-down success will be decisive.

Moneyline: Nebraska -584 / Rutgers +422 | Home spread: Rutgers +13.5 | Total: 51.5 | Projected score: Nebraska 31, Rutgers 21.

Matchup insight: Nebraska’s road-favorite role carries a big number. The Cornhuskers are 6–3 ATS at BetMGM (6–2–1 in another closing-line dataset) and favored by 13.5, while our projection sees a ten-point win. Rutgers must limit explosive plays to stay inside two touchdowns. Nebraska is one win from six; Rutgers needs to end a difficult Big Ten run.

Nebraska — Run-game outlook: Nebraska averages 181.7 rushing yards per game; Rutgers allows 186.3. Rutgers has conceded 4.6 more rushing yards per game than Nebraska typically generates. That comparison points to possible rushing opportunities for Nebraska; sustaining drives will matter more than raw yardage.

Rutgers — Run-game outlook: Rutgers averages 143.6 rushing yards per game; Nebraska allows 90.3. Nebraska's defense has held opponents to 53.3 fewer rushing yards per game than Rutgers's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Rutgers's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Alabama -802 / Vanderbilt +539 | Home spread: Vanderbilt +16 | Total: 50.5 | Projected score: Alabama 33, Vanderbilt 22.

Matchup insight: Alabama is a popular moneyline anchor: Tickets and money both lean heavily toward the Crimson Tide in the supplied snapshot. Vanderbilt’s upset would disrupt favorite-heavy parlays, but the spread asks a separate question about Alabama’s margin. Alabama is chasing SEC title-game positioning; Vanderbilt is trying to move closer to bowl eligibility.

Alabama — Run-game outlook: Alabama averages 143.8 rushing yards per game; Vanderbilt allows 137.8. Vanderbilt's defense has held opponents to 6.0 fewer rushing yards per game than Alabama's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Alabama's preferred rushing volume.

Vanderbilt — Run-game outlook: Vanderbilt averages 112.2 rushing yards per game; Alabama allows 104.6. Alabama's defense has held opponents to 7.6 fewer rushing yards per game than Vanderbilt's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Vanderbilt's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: East Carolina -479 / Charlotte +355 | Home spread: Charlotte +11.5 | Total: 45.5 | Projected score: East Carolina 31, Charlotte 22.

Matchup insight: East Carolina brings the stronger cover profile. The Pirates are 5–4 ATS against Charlotte’s 3–6 and favored by 11.5 on the road. Our projected score points to a nine-point ECU victory. East Carolina is one win from six and still has an American conference path; Charlotte needs a conference rebound.

East Carolina — Run-game outlook: East Carolina averages 161.8 rushing yards per game; Charlotte allows 190.0. Charlotte has conceded 28.2 more rushing yards per game than East Carolina typically generates. East Carolina could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

Moneyline: UAB +109 / Temple -132 | Home spread: Temple −2.5 | Total: 49 | Projected score: UAB 25, Temple 24.

Matchup insight: UAB’s under streak is the standout trend. Eight of UAB’s nine games have finished under the total using DraftKings closing numbers; Pinnacle’s tracked set has all eight of its graded games under. Temple is a 2.5-point home favorite, but our projection gives UAB a 25–24 edge. UAB is one win from six; Temple is trying to improve a 2–7 season.

UAB — Run-game outlook: UAB averages 152.3 rushing yards per game; Temple allows 188.9. Temple has conceded 36.6 more rushing yards per game than UAB typically generates. The matchup offers UAB a chance to establish the run, but yards per carry and early-down success will be decisive.

Moneyline: Arkansas State -104 / Coastal Carolina -119 | Home spread: Coastal Carolina −1.5 | Total: 50.5 | Projected score: Arkansas State 26, Coastal Carolina 26.

Matchup insight: The Sun Belt market can barely separate these teams. Coastal Carolina is favored by 1.5 at home, with both sides 4–5 ATS. Our projection is a 26–26 tie. Arkansas State and Coastal Carolina need a late-season conference win to improve their Sun Belt standing.

Arkansas State — Run-game outlook: Arkansas State averages 134.6 rushing yards per game; Coastal Carolina allows 180.0. Coastal Carolina has conceded 45.4 more rushing yards per game than Arkansas State typically generates. That comparison points to possible rushing opportunities for Arkansas State; sustaining drives will matter more than raw yardage.

Moneyline: Tulane +109 / Rice -134 | Home spread: Rice −3 | Total: 48.5 | Projected score: Tulane 28, Rice 25.

Matchup insight: The model and market disagree on the favorite. Rice is favored by three at home, while our projection has Tulane winning 28–25. That reversal is the most compelling angle in this tightly priced matchup. Tulane needs to build toward bowl eligibility; Rice is still searching for its first American conference win.

Tulane — Run-game outlook: Tulane averages 139.6 rushing yards per game; Rice allows 177.6. Rice has conceded 38.0 more rushing yards per game than Tulane typically generates. Tulane could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

Moneyline: Kennesaw State -295 / Sam Houston +235 | Home spread: Sam Houston +8 | Total: 47 | Projected score: Kennesaw State 26, Sam Houston 22.

Matchup insight: Kennesaw State’s cover record meets a tougher road assignment. The Owls are 6–3 ATS and favored by eight, but our season projection sees only a four-point margin. Kennesaw State enters 2–3 in Conference USA, while Sam Houston is 0–5; the winner gains a conference victory.

Kennesaw State — Run-game outlook: Kennesaw State averages 130.3 rushing yards per game; Sam Houston allows 175.0. Sam Houston has conceded 44.7 more rushing yards per game than Kennesaw State typically generates. The matchup offers Kennesaw State a chance to establish the run, but yards per carry and early-down success will be decisive.

Moneyline: Kansas State +310 / TCU -405 | Home spread: TCU −9 | Total: 46 | Projected score: Kansas State 24, TCU 25.

Matchup insight: TCU is favored by nine; our projection sees a one-point game. Kansas State’s 3–5–1 ATS record is hardly reassuring, yet the sizable difference between the market and projection makes the spread worth examining. Kansas State and TCU each enter needing wins to strengthen their bowl outlook.

Kansas State — Run-game outlook: Kansas State averages 196.8 rushing yards per game; TCU allows 114.7. TCU's defense has held opponents to 82.1 fewer rushing yards per game than Kansas State's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Kansas State's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: New Mexico State +104 / Missouri State -127 | Home spread: Missouri State −1.5 | Total: 48.5 | Projected score: New Mexico State 25, Missouri State 25.

Matchup insight: A near-pick’em with almost no projected separation. Missouri State is favored by 1.5 at home, and our projected score is effectively even. One turnover or special-teams play could swing this matchup. Both programs are trying to improve their Conference USA standing in the closing weeks.

New Mexico State — Run-game outlook: New Mexico State averages 143.9 rushing yards per game; Missouri State allows 177.0. Missouri State has conceded 33.1 more rushing yards per game than New Mexico State typically generates. That comparison points to possible rushing opportunities for New Mexico State; sustaining drives will matter more than raw yardage.

Moneyline: FIU +170 / Delaware -209 | Home spread: Delaware −6.5 | Total: 54.5 | Projected score: FIU 24, Delaware 25.

Matchup insight: Delaware’s favorite status is stronger than the projection. The Blue Hens are laying 6.5 at home, but projection has them ahead by just one. FIU’s ability to sustain drives will determine whether this stays close. FIU can move toward a winning conference record; Delaware seeks a result to improve its first-season FBS trajectory.

FIU — Defensive strength: FIU allows 120.0 rushing yards per game, ranking among the nation's better run defenses. That is a measurable strength if Delaware attempts to establish the run; FIU's offense must still finish drives to turn stops into a road result.

Delaware — Offensive challenge: Delaware averages 106.9 rushing yards per game against an FIU defense allowing 120.0. The Blue Hens may need passing efficiency to prevent the visitors from dictating down-and-distance.

Moneyline: Tennessee -139 / Texas A&M +114 | Home spread: Texas A&M +2.5 | Total: 43.5 | Projected score: Tennessee 26, Texas A&M 21.

Matchup insight: The projected margin is the key. Texas A&M is getting 2.5 at home, making this essentially a one-possession market. Tennessee's projected score should be read against that narrow line rather than as a stand-alone endorsement. Tennessee is trying to stay in the SEC title conversation; Texas A&M needs wins to revive its postseason path.

Tennessee — Defensive matchup: Tennessee allows 296.6 total yards per game, compared with Texas A&M's 320.6. The lower yardage allowance gives Tennessee the statistical defensive edge, though pace and opposition quality remain important context.

Moneyline: USC +230 / Indiana -287 | Home spread: Indiana −7.5 | Total: 49.5 | Projected score: USC 22, Indiana 28.

Matchup insight: Indiana's 8–1 record contrasts with a reported 1–8 against-the-spread mark, making the 7.5-point home line a different test from simply winning. USC leads the all-time series 4–0; the schools have not met since 1982, and this is their first meeting as Big Ten opponents. Indiana's defense has held opponents below 100 rushing yards in 28 games since 2024, so USC's protection and passing efficiency are central to the upset path. Both teams remain in the Big Ten title race, making this a meaningful head-to-head result.

USC — Run-game outlook: USC averages 129.4 rushing yards per game; Indiana allows 75.6. Indiana's defense has held opponents to 53.8 fewer rushing yards per game than USC's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for USC's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Boston College +2142 / Notre Dame -7666 | Home spread: Notre Dame −29 | Total: 52.5 | Projected score: Boston College 18, Notre Dame 33.

Matchup insight: The largest favorite on the marquee: Notre Dame is laying roughly 30 points. The Irish are expected to win, but Boston College’s ability to sustain drives and limit explosive plays determines whether the margin approaches that number. Notre Dame needs to protect its playoff résumé; Boston College seeks a major late-season upset.

Boston College — Defensive matchup: Boston College allows 343.9 total yards per game, compared with Notre Dame's 251.8. The 92.1-yard defensive gap favors Notre Dame;For Boston College, limiting explosive gains and getting off the field on third down are the practical responses.

Moneyline: Michigan +341 / Oregon -455 | Home spread: Oregon −11.5 | Total: 38.5 | Projected score: Michigan 21, Oregon 25.

Matchup insight: Can Oregon turn a defensive game into a decisive win? The Ducks are favored by 11.5, while the total sits below 40 in the cited market. A low-scoring script raises the importance of field position and turnovers. Oregon needs to keep pace in a crowded Big Ten race; Michigan is one win from bowl eligibility.

Michigan — Defensive strength: Michigan allows 255.3 total yards per game, among the strongest marks nationally. Oregon's ability to produce explosive plays against that defense is a more meaningful test than either team's record alone.

Moneyline: California +330 / Virginia -432 | Home spread: Virginia −10 | Total: 47.5 | Projected score: California 23, Virginia 29.

Matchup insight: Virginia’s double-digit spread meets a modest projection. The Cavaliers are favored by ten, while our projected score gives them a six-point advantage. California enters 2–7 ATS, so neither the underdog’s form nor the margin offers a simple answer. Virginia can improve its ACC finish; California needs a road result to strengthen its postseason outlook.

Moneyline: Florida Atlantic +174 / Tulsa -214 | Home spread: Tulsa −5.5 | Total: 74.5 | Projected score: Florida Atlantic 32, Tulsa 34.

Matchup insight: The total is the headline. At 74.5, Florida Atlantic–Tulsa carries one of Week 11’s biggest scoring expectations. Our projected score sees Tulsa winning 34–32, well inside the 5.5-point home-favorite spread. Florida Atlantic and Tulsa are fighting for position in the American standings and bowl security.

Moneyline: Nevada -292 / Northern Illinois +234 | Home spread: Northern Illinois +7 | Total: 47.5 | Projected score: Nevada 29, Northern Illinois 20.

Matchup insight: Northern Illinois searches for a breakthrough. The Huskies are winless and getting seven at home. Our projection favors Nevada 29–20, putting pressure on NIU’s offense to keep pace. Nevada needs a road win to improve its Mountain West finish; Northern Illinois seeks its first conference victory.

Moneyline: Georgia Southern -211 / Georgia State +171 | Home spread: Georgia State +5.5 | Total: 56.5 | Projected score: Georgia Southern 26, Georgia State 27.

Matchup insight: The Eagles’ 8–1 ATS mark meets a tricky road spread. Georgia Southern is favored by 5.5, yet our projection gives Georgia State a one-point win. The contrast makes this in-state matchup worth watching. Both Georgia Southern and Georgia State are one win from six; the rivalry carries immediate bowl implications.

Moneyline: Jacksonville State -288 / Western Kentucky +229 | Home spread: Western Kentucky +7.5 | Total: 53.5 | Projected score: Jacksonville State 31, Western Kentucky 21.

Matchup insight: The market favors Jacksonville State on the road. Western Kentucky is getting 7.5 at home, and our projection points to a competitive game. Protecting the ball is the Hilltoppers’ clearest route to staying close. Jacksonville State is in the Conference USA title hunt; Western Kentucky can complicate that race.

Moneyline: Middle Tennessee +917 / Liberty -1855 | Home spread: Liberty −20.5 | Total: 53.5 | Projected score: Middle Tennessee 20, Liberty 32.

Matchup insight: Liberty is the heavy favorite—but the model sees a smaller margin. The Flames enter 8–1 and are laying 20.5 at home. Our projection favors Liberty by 12, making a comfortable win and a cover distinct possibilities. Liberty is a Conference USA championship contender; Middle Tennessee is one win from six.

Moneyline: Missouri +525 / Georgia -776 | Home spread: Georgia −15.5 | Total: 47.5 | Projected score: Missouri 22, Georgia 31.

Matchup insight: Georgia’s 7–2 ATS record is the headline: The Bulldogs have repeatedly met market expectations and now face a spread above two touchdowns. Missouri must limit explosive plays to keep Georgia from stretching the margin. Georgia leads the SEC race; Missouri needs a major upset to revive its conference positioning.

Missouri — Defensive matchup: Missouri allows 333.7 total yards per game, compared with Georgia's 270.3. The 63.4-yard defensive gap favors Georgia;That deficit raises the pressure on Missouri to tighten tackling and finish possessions with stops.

Moneyline: Arizona State +135 / UCF -164 | Home spread: UCF −3.5 | Total: 49.5 | Projected score: Arizona State 27, UCF 29.

Matchup insight: Two points separate the teams in our projection: UCF is favored by 3.5 at home, and our projected score calls for a 29–27 Knights win. The matchup is closer than either team’s reputation may suggest. Arizona State and UCF are both 5–4 overall; a sixth win would move either program to conventional bowl eligibility.

Moneyline: Baylor +229 / BYU -287 | Home spread: BYU −7.5 | Total: 49.5 | Projected score: Baylor 26, BYU 24.

Matchup insight: Two strong ATS teams, one touchdown spread: Baylor enters 7–2 ATS and BYU 6–3. The Cougars are favored by 7.5 at home, but Baylor’s season-long cover record makes the underdog worth a closer look. BYU needs to stay within reach of Big 12 leader Utah; Baylor can gain a valuable head-to-head result against another contender.

Baylor — Advantage: The Bears average 277.8 passing yards per game, while BYU allows just 199.6. Baylor's ability to stretch the field is tested by a defense allowing only 17.0 points per game.

Moneyline: Fresno State +283 / Texas State -367 | Home spread: Texas State −9.5 | Total: 63.5 | Projected score: Fresno State 29, Texas State 30.

Matchup insight: Fresno State’s cover record challenges a hefty home spread. The Bulldogs are 6–3 ATS at BetMGM (6–2 in another closing-line dataset), yet Texas State is favored by 9.5. Our projected score gives the Bobcats just a one-point edge. Fresno State can improve its postseason outlook; Texas State seeks a stronger Sun Belt finish.

Fresno State — Run-game outlook: Fresno State averages 132.1 rushing yards per game; Texas State allows 111.2. Texas State's defense has held opponents to 20.9 fewer rushing yards per game than Fresno State's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Fresno State's preferred rushing volume.

Texas State — Run-game outlook: Texas State averages 265.8 rushing yards per game; Fresno State allows 158.2. Fresno State's defense has held opponents to 107.6 fewer rushing yards per game than Texas State's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Texas State's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Washington -167 / Michigan State +139 | Home spread: Michigan State +3.5 | Total: 43.5 | Projected score: Washington 25, Michigan State 21.

Matchup insight: A road favorite in a low-total Big Ten matchup. Washington is favored by 3.5 and projected to win 25–21. With the total at 43.5, field position and red-zone stops could decide the final possession. Washington is one win from six; Michigan State is trying to improve its Big Ten standing.

Washington — Run-game outlook: Washington averages 99.3 rushing yards per game; Michigan State allows 160.0. Michigan State has conceded 60.7 more rushing yards per game than Washington typically generates. Washington could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

Michigan State — Run-game outlook: Michigan State averages 110.1 rushing yards per game; Washington allows 136.0. Washington has conceded 25.9 more rushing yards per game than Michigan State typically generates. The matchup offers Michigan State a chance to establish the run, but yards per carry and early-down success will be decisive.

Moneyline: Ole Miss -115 / Oklahoma -106 | Home spread: Oklahoma +2 | Total: 49.5 | Projected score: Ole Miss 27, Oklahoma 24.

Matchup insight: A near-pick’em with little ATS separation: Ole Miss and Oklahoma each enter 4–5 ATS at BetMGM, leaving the market price and projected margin more informative than an unverified situational streak. The Rebels’ projection gives them a three-point edge. Ole Miss needs a win to remain in the SEC title conversation; Oklahoma is one win from bowl eligibility.

Ole Miss — Run-game outlook: Ole Miss averages 147.3 rushing yards per game; Oklahoma allows 122.7. Oklahoma's defense has held opponents to 24.6 fewer rushing yards per game than Ole Miss's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Ole Miss's preferred rushing volume.

Oklahoma — Run-game outlook: Oklahoma averages 110.9 rushing yards per game; Ole Miss allows 165.1. Ole Miss has conceded 54.2 more rushing yards per game than Oklahoma typically generates. That comparison points to possible rushing opportunities for Oklahoma; sustaining drives will matter more than raw yardage.

Moneyline: Southern Miss +614 / Louisiana Tech -955 | Home spread: Louisiana Tech −17.5 | Total: 55.5 | Projected score: Southern Miss 23, Louisiana Tech 34.

Matchup insight: Louisiana Tech’s 8–1 ATS run gets a major test. The Bulldogs are favored by 17.5 at home, while our projection sees an 11-point margin. Southern Miss must avoid falling behind early. Louisiana Tech is chasing a strong Conference USA finish; Southern Miss needs a road upset to reverse its season.

Southern Miss — Run-game outlook: Southern Miss averages 158.3 rushing yards per game; Louisiana Tech allows 125.6. Louisiana Tech's defense has held opponents to 32.7 fewer rushing yards per game than Southern Miss's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Southern Miss's preferred rushing volume.

Louisiana Tech — Run-game outlook: Louisiana Tech averages 142.4 rushing yards per game; Southern Miss allows 218.0. Southern Miss has conceded 75.6 more rushing yards per game than Louisiana Tech typically generates. Louisiana Tech could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

Moneyline: Kansas +124 / West Virginia -150 | Home spread: West Virginia −3 | Total: 67.5 | Projected score: Kansas 32, West Virginia 31.

Matchup insight: The Big 12 total invites attention. West Virginia is favored by three, but our projection gives Kansas a 32–31 win. A 67.5-point total points to a game where one defensive stop could prove decisive. West Virginia is one win from six; Kansas needs victories to preserve a realistic bowl path.

Kansas — Run-game outlook: Kansas averages 201.3 rushing yards per game; West Virginia allows 178.2. West Virginia's defense has held opponents to 23.1 fewer rushing yards per game than Kansas's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Kansas's preferred rushing volume.

West Virginia — Run-game outlook: West Virginia averages 263.6 rushing yards per game; Kansas allows 157.8. Kansas's defense has held opponents to 105.8 fewer rushing yards per game than West Virginia's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for West Virginia's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Oregon State +385 / Boise State -516 | Home spread: Boise State −13 | Total: 65.5 | Projected score: Oregon State 32, Boise State 33.

Matchup insight: Boise State’s home-favorite price is far wider than our projection. The Broncos are laying 13, while projection sees a 33–32 Boise State win. Oregon State’s ability to match scoring drives is central to the matchup. Boise State is protecting its Pac-12 championship position; Oregon State can disrupt the race with a road win.

Oregon State — Defensive matchup: Oregon State allows 378.0 total yards per game, compared with Boise State's 377.2. The 0.8-yard defensive gap favors Boise State;For Oregon State, limiting explosive gains and getting off the field on third down are the practical responses.

Boise State — Defensive matchup: Boise State allows 377.2 total yards per game, compared with Oregon State's 378.0. On a per-game basis, Boise State has allowed less yardage, a useful benchmark rather than a guarantee of matchup dominance.

Moneyline: Appalachian State -125 / Marshall +102 | Home spread: Marshall +1.5 | Total: 53 | Projected score: Appalachian State 29, Marshall 23.

Matchup insight: The market sees a toss-up; projection favors Appalachian State. The Mountaineers are slight road favorites, and our projection has them winning 29–23. Marshall’s home-field response will shape this Sun Belt contest. Appalachian State and Marshall are each one win from six; both also have Sun Belt positioning at stake.

Appalachian State — Run-game outlook: Appalachian State averages 119.0 rushing yards per game; Marshall allows 176.4. Marshall has conceded 57.4 more rushing yards per game than Appalachian State typically generates. Appalachian State could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

Marshall — Run-game outlook: Marshall averages 171.7 rushing yards per game; Appalachian State allows 142.9. Appalachian State's defense has held opponents to 28.8 fewer rushing yards per game than Marshall's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Marshall's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Florida +146 / Kentucky -178 | Home spread: Kentucky −3.5 | Total: 53.5 | Projected score: Florida 29, Kentucky 29.

Matchup insight: Kentucky’s cover record demands attention: The Wildcats enter 7–2 ATS and are short home favorites. Florida’s ability to stay ahead of schedule offensively is crucial against a market expecting a close SEC contest. Kentucky is chasing SEC title-game relevance; Florida needs one win to reach six.

Florida — Defensive matchup: Florida allows 366.6 total yards per game, compared with Kentucky's 365.6. The 1.0-yard defensive gap favors Kentucky;For Florida, limiting explosive gains and getting off the field on third down are the practical responses.

Kentucky — Defensive matchup: Kentucky allows 365.6 total yards per game, compared with Florida's 366.6. On a per-game basis, Kentucky has allowed less yardage, a useful benchmark rather than a guarantee of matchup dominance.

Moneyline: Louisville -172 / North Carolina +140 | Home spread: North Carolina +3 | Total: 60.5 | Projected score: Louisville 32, North Carolina 27.

Matchup insight: The Cardinals are favored, but our margin is only five: Louisville’s 6–3 ATS record supports its profile, while the current three-point road spread leaves room for a close finish. Louisville remains in the ACC chase; North Carolina needs one more win for bowl eligibility.

Louisville — Run-game outlook: Louisville averages 228.0 rushing yards per game; North Carolina allows 149.8. North Carolina's defense has held opponents to 78.2 fewer rushing yards per game than Louisville's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Louisville's preferred rushing volume.

North Carolina — Run-game outlook: North Carolina averages 114.2 rushing yards per game; Louisville allows 138.6. Louisville has conceded 24.4 more rushing yards per game than North Carolina typically generates. North Carolina could find room to lean on the ground game, provided it converts those opportunities into efficient gains.

Moneyline: Minnesota +273 / Penn State -347 | Home spread: Penn State −9.5 | Total: 43.5 | Projected score: Minnesota 22, Penn State 25.

Matchup insight: Penn State is favored by 9.5, but our projection sees three points. Both teams enter 5–4, and the 43.5 total leaves limited room for offensive mistakes. Minnesota’s defense could keep the game within reach. Minnesota and Penn State are both one win from six; the winner locks in a critical postseason milestone.

Minnesota — Defensive matchup: Minnesota allows 322.9 total yards per game, compared with Penn State's 297.3. The 25.6-yard defensive gap favors Penn State;For Minnesota, limiting explosive gains and getting off the field on third down are the practical responses.

Penn State — Defensive matchup: Penn State allows 297.3 total yards per game, compared with Minnesota's 322.9. On a per-game basis, Penn State has allowed less yardage, a useful benchmark rather than a guarantee of matchup dominance.

Moneyline: San Jose State +358 / Air Force -480 | Home spread: Air Force −12.5 | Total: 47.5 | Projected score: San Jose State 21, Air Force 25.

Matchup insight: Air Force’s 7–2 record comes with a 12.5-point spread. The Falcons are 6–3 ATS, but our projection favors them by four. San Jose State’s ability to sustain drives will be crucial. Air Force is competing near the top of the Mountain West; San Jose State seeks to climb in the standings.

San Jose State — Defensive matchup: San Jose State allows 379.1 total yards per game, compared with Air Force's 295.9. The 83.2-yard defensive gap favors Air Force;San Jose State must win more early downs and force punts to narrow that statistical disadvantage.

Air Force — Defensive matchup: Air Force allows 295.9 total yards per game, compared with San Jose State's 379.1. That gap favors Air Force in total defense; the challenge is translating it into third-down stops and fewer scoring drives.

Moneyline: Troy +128 / South Alabama -156 | Home spread: South Alabama −3 | Total: 56.5 | Projected score: Troy 27, South Alabama 29.

Matchup insight: A three-point Sun Belt rivalry. South Alabama is favored at home, while our projected score has the Jaguars winning 29–27. The 56.5 total leaves room for a late scoring swing. South Alabama is trying to stay in the Sun Belt race; Troy can tighten the divisional picture.

Troy — Run-game outlook: Troy averages 177.6 rushing yards per game; South Alabama allows 173.9. South Alabama's defense has held opponents to 3.7 fewer rushing yards per game than Troy's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Troy's preferred rushing volume.

South Alabama — Run-game outlook: South Alabama averages 207.1 rushing yards per game; Troy allows 132.1. Troy's defense has held opponents to 75.0 fewer rushing yards per game than South Alabama's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for South Alabama's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Purdue +623 / Iowa -965 | Home spread: Iowa −17 | Total: 42.5 | Projected score: Purdue 21, Iowa 30.

Matchup insight: Iowa’s cover record meets a 17-point assignment. The Hawkeyes are 6–3 ATS and strong home favorites. Our projection sees a nine-point win, putting Purdue’s ability to shorten the game in focus. Iowa is trying to keep pace in the Big Ten race; Purdue needs a road upset to improve its bowl chances.

Purdue — Run-game outlook: Purdue averages 117.9 rushing yards per game; Iowa allows 81.9. Iowa's defense has held opponents to 36.0 fewer rushing yards per game than Purdue's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Purdue's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Stanford +528 / Virginia Tech -778 | Home spread: Virginia Tech −15.5 | Total: 68.5 | Projected score: Stanford 22, Virginia Tech 36.

Matchup insight: The Hokies are asked to win big in a high-total matchup. Virginia Tech is favored by 15.5, with the total at 68.5. Our projection calls for a 14-point win, close to the market number. Virginia Tech can improve its ACC finish; Stanford needs a road result to keep postseason hopes alive.

Stanford — Run-game outlook: Stanford averages 110.4 rushing yards per game; Virginia Tech allows 107.3. Virginia Tech's defense has held opponents to 3.1 fewer rushing yards per game than Stanford's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Stanford's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Texas +146 / LSU -177 | Home spread: LSU −3.5 | Total: 46.5 | Projected score: Texas 24, LSU 27.

Matchup insight: Baton Rouge hosts one of Week 11’s biggest tests: LSU is favored by 3.5, and our projection sees a three-point Tigers win. With so little separation, red-zone efficiency and explosive-play prevention loom large. Texas needs a road win to stay in SEC title contention; LSU is seeking a bounce-back after the Alabama loss.

Texas — Run-game outlook: Texas averages 130.9 rushing yards per game; LSU allows 84.9. LSU's defense has held opponents to 46.0 fewer rushing yards per game than Texas's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Texas's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: UNLV +470 / New Mexico -667 | Home spread: New Mexico −14.5 | Total: 46.5 | Projected score: UNLV 19, New Mexico 30.

Matchup insight: New Mexico’s breakout season gets a two-touchdown test: The Lobos enter 8–1, but our projection favors them by 11 rather than the market’s 14.5. UNLV’s challenge is to keep the game within reach into the second half. New Mexico is unbeaten in Mountain West conference play; UNLV can alter the title race with an upset.

UNLV — Run-game outlook: UNLV averages 174.0 rushing yards per game; New Mexico allows 71.6. New Mexico's defense has held opponents to 102.4 fewer rushing yards per game than UNLV's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for UNLV's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Utah -142 / Arizona +117 | Home spread: Arizona +2.5 | Total: 54.5 | Projected score: Utah 29, Arizona 25.

Matchup insight: Unbeaten Utah visits a ranked Arizona team: Utah’s 8–1 ATS record complements its 9–0 start. The Utes are short road favorites, so this is a test of whether their consistency travels. Utah leads the Big 12 unbeaten in conference play; Arizona can create a decisive head-to-head tiebreaker advantage.

Utah — Defensive matchup: Utah allows 337.1 total yards per game, compared with Arizona's 328.6. The 8.5-yard defensive gap favors Arizona;That deficit raises the pressure on Utah to tighten tackling and finish possessions with stops.

Moneyline: South Carolina -313 / Arkansas +245 | Home spread: Arkansas +7.5 | Total: 51.5 | Projected score: South Carolina 31, Arkansas 22.

Matchup insight: South Carolina carries the road-favorite tag. The Gamecocks are laying 7.5 in Fayetteville, while our projected score favors them by nine. Arkansas needs a sharper defensive showing to keep the SEC matchup close. South Carolina can improve its SEC and bowl position; Arkansas needs a strong finish to salvage its season.

South Carolina — Run-game outlook: South Carolina averages 205.4 rushing yards per game; Arkansas allows 156.4. Arkansas's defense has held opponents to 49.0 fewer rushing yards per game than South Carolina's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for South Carolina's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: North Texas -132 / UTSA +108 | Home spread: UTSA +1 | Total: 77.5 | Projected score: North Texas 37, UTSA 32.

Matchup insight: The total steals the spotlight: A number above 76 points signals one of Week 11’s highest-scoring expectations. The spread is tight, making a single defensive stop or turnover potentially decisive. North Texas is unbeaten in American conference play; UTSA is one loss behind, making this a direct title-race showdown.

North Texas — Matchup assessment: Matching 7–2 records make this a high-stakes conference matchup; the market gives North Texas a narrow road edge.

Moneyline: Utah State -141 / San Diego State +116 | Home spread: San Diego State +1.5 | Total: 41 | Projected score: Utah State 26, San Diego State 24.

Matchup insight: A tight Mountain West game with a low total. Utah State is a slight road favorite, and our projected score sees a 26–24 Aggies win. At 41 points, the total underscores the value of every scoring opportunity. San Diego State is trying to improve its Mountain West standing; Utah State seeks to close its season strongly.

Utah State — Run-defense strength: Utah State allows 113.4 rushing yards per game. San Diego State will have to work for efficient rushing downs, making passing-game execution and third-down conversion important to the matchup.

Moneyline: Texas Tech +138 / Oklahoma State -171 | Home spread: Oklahoma State −3.5 | Total: 72.5 | Projected score: Texas Tech 32, Oklahoma State 34.

Matchup insight: A market built for points: The posted total exceeds 70, and Oklahoma State has gone over in seven of nine games. With our projected score also in the 60s, both offenses have a clear opportunity to dictate pace. Texas Tech is one game behind Utah in the Big 12 race; Oklahoma State can re-enter the picture with a head-to-head win.

Texas Tech — Advantage / vulnerability: The Red Raiders average 214.7 rushing yards and 37.6 points per game, but allow 287.0 passing yards. Oklahoma State averages 339.1 passing yards and 43.9 points, making pass defense Texas Tech's most obvious exposure.

Moneyline: Wyoming -321 / UTEP +252 | Home spread: UTEP +7.5 | Total: 39.5 | Projected score: Wyoming 28, UTEP 18.

Matchup insight: Wyoming’s projected edge exceeds the market spread. The Cowboys are favored by 7.5 and projected to win 28–18. The 39.5 total makes offensive consistency especially important. Wyoming can improve its Mountain West finish; UTEP needs a late-season home result.

Wyoming — Run-game outlook: Wyoming averages 204.1 rushing yards per game; UTEP allows 180.0. UTEP's defense has held opponents to 24.1 fewer rushing yards per game than Wyoming's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Wyoming's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: Colorado State +278 / Washington State -358 | Home spread: Washington State −9.5 | Total: 67.5 | Projected score: Colorado State 32, Washington State 32.

Matchup insight: One of the slate’s sharpest market-to-model contrasts. Washington State is favored by 9.5 at home despite a one-win record, while our projection is an exact 32–32 tie. Colorado State has an opportunity to challenge that price. Colorado State needs to finish its Pac-12 schedule strongly; Washington State is seeking its second conference win.

Colorado State — Run-game outlook: Colorado State averages 169.2 rushing yards per game; Washington State allows 150.0. Washington State's defense has held opponents to 19.2 fewer rushing yards per game than Colorado State's typical output. That is a meaningful resistance point for Colorado State's preferred rushing volume.

Moneyline: North Dakota State -247 / Hawaii +198 | Home spread: Hawaii +6.5 | Total: 38.5 | Projected score: North Dakota State 26, Hawaii 16.

Matchup insight: A late-night test of field position. North Dakota State is favored by 6.5, with the total at just 38.5. Our projection favors the Bison 26–16, but a low-scoring script gives each possession added weight. North Dakota State can protect its conference position; Hawaii is trying to improve a difficult season.

North Dakota State — Defensive matchup: North Dakota State allows 248.8 total yards per game, compared with Hawaii's 361.0. The lower yardage allowance gives North Dakota State the statistical defensive edge, though pace and opposition quality remain important context.

College Football Week 10 Preview: All 63 Games & Our Edge

College Football Recap: Notre Dame Drops Miami, Oregon Stuns Ohio State & the Playoff Race Tightens

College Football Week 9 Preview

Betting Education: When Do I Hedge? Knowing When to Protect a Winning Ticket

Bet responsibly. Odds are snapshots and vary by sportsbook and time. Projected scores are estimates, not guarantees.