The College Football Playoff field is finally set, and Brad Powers is here to weigh in on who belongs, who doesn't, and where the value sits for College Football Playoff bets.
From Indiana's historic rise to Notre Dame's stunning omission, he boldly maps the postseason fault lines and spotlights bets shaped by motivation, matchups, and market movement.
Check out his favorite NCAAF picks and analysis below.
James Madison vs 
Oregon best bet
Pick: Oregon -20.5 (-105 at FanDuel)
Powers' betting card leans into mismatches and motivation — two drivers amplified in the postseason. He's backing Oregon -20.5 over James Madison, a pick that pairs talent and depth advantages with situational edges.
The Ducks' physicality in the trenches and multiple matchup wins on the perimeter should strain JMU's defensive structure, and any coaching turnover, opt-outs, or distractions only widen the gap. In a tournament that's supposed to identify the best teams, Oregon's power rating edge is the blueprint for a lay-the-chalk approach.
Enjoying Covers content? Add us as a preferred source on your Google account
Tulane vs 
Mississippi best bet
Pick: Mississippi -16.5 (-122 at FanDuel)
Powers is equally confident in Mississippi -16.5 over Tulane, citing a rematch dynamic that favors an offense and athleticism mismatch that pops on film.
"They've already met and what a matchup: Mississippi won 45-10," Powers says. "They outgained Tulane by nearly 300 yards. I know there's going to be some concerns since Lane Kiffin is gone, but Charlie Weis Jr. is coming back to call the plays."
Zooming out, the broader betting framework is consistent with Powers' philosophy throughout this postseason: fade sentimental inclusions with soft resumes, lean into teams whose power numbers and personnel are peaking, and be early on numbers you believe will move. If you can identify the team with more to prove and the talent to express it, you often beat both the closing line and the scoreboard.
Covers college football betting tools
- College football odds
- College football picks
- CFB National Championship odds
- Best football betting sites
- This week’s college football matchups
Controversies and surprises in the College Football Playoff bracket selection
The playoff bracket arrived with more static than clarity. Teams outside most analytical Top 30s found themselves in the field while, as Powers points out, multiple Top 12 power-rated teams were left at home. That dissonance between committee logic and power numbers won't be new to seasoned bettors, but this year's gap feels especially jarring, stirring questions about what the expanded format is truly rewarding: resume gloss, sentiment, or on-field strength.
At the heart of the debate is a philosophical split: should the playoff reflect the best teams right now, or reward tidy records and storylines? Powers doesn't mince words. His standard is unapologetically competitive, and he sees this bracket as a stress test for what the 12-team era will prioritize: quality or quantity.
"This is about winning a national championship, not about handing participation trophies," he claims.
The dramatic turnaround and coaching impact at Indiana
No storyline better illustrates the power of coaching than Indiana's metamorphosis under Curt Cignetti. In a sport where momentum often feels mythical, Powers quantifies it: a 32-point leap in power ratings, the kind of shift that typically requires a multi-year rebuild. For a program historically synonymous with heartbreak, the transformation is both data-backed and visible. The Hoosiers are suddenly fluent in efficiency, identity, and expectation.
"This isn't even an argument. This is the greatest turnaround in college football history," Powers asserts. "This isn't recency bias. Keep in mind, Indiana as a program lost more games than any program in the history of college football."
For bettors, that jump isn't just a headline; it's a signal. Sharp markets adjust fastest to quarterback injuries and coaching changes, and Indiana's new baseline suggests a different pricing reality going forward. The more this identity hardens the more we should expect spreads to catch up. Early in the coming cycle, however, the Hoosiers could remain undervalued against brands whose reputations move slower than the numbers.
Notre Dame's playoff exclusion and future uncertainties
Few outcomes rattled the market's sensibilities like Notre Dame's absence. In multiple power ratings, the Irish sat third and squarely in the elite tier. They didn't lose down the stretch; they didn't even take the field in the final week. Yet as the bracket settled, Notre Dame slid out of the 12, a decision that confounds the notion of a static resume and raises fresh skepticism about the committee's week-to-week priorities.
"For the No. 3 team to be left out of a 12-team playoff is shocking, especially when they were in the rankings every single week," he says. "It's not like they lost a game. It's not like they even played a game and yet they dropped."
What comes next? Independence has been a strategic advantage for scheduling flexibility and brand prominence, but the 12-team format adds its own politics. If the committee is signaling preference for conference champions and late-stage optics, Notre Dame must either fortify its schedule even further or rethink its pathway in the new ecosystem.
From a betting standpoint, this uncertainty could create early-season edges. Elite metrics coupled with diminished public faith are a recipe for value, at least until the market reconciles the disconnect.
Debate over Group of Five teams in the expanded playoff format
Powers is blunt on the Group of Five discourse. He argues that neither James Madison nor Tulane sits inside his Top 30, and that their inclusion, alongside the exclusion of three Top 12 teams, risks diluting the field. The standard, as he frames it, is simple and strict: go unbeaten or present a resume that survives a power-rated sniff test.
"I think in order for a G5 team to get in, they got to go undefeated at minimum," Powers says. "That's a start. Or, you know, even have a resume."
That's not a dismissal of the G5's best so much as a call for clearer criteria. If the expanded playoff is to deliver both inclusivity and quality, strength-of-schedule adjustments must be sharper, and context has to matter. Otherwise, the bracket invites compelling stories that fade against top-tier speed and depth once the ball is kicked.
Texas Tech's under-the-radar dominance and playoff prospects
If there's a team quietly building a case against perception bias, it's Texas Tech. They've been a bettor's dream: 12-1 ATS and a double-digit dominance profile, with every win by 22-plus. In a season filled with erratic performances, that level of consistency is rare and deserves respect, even if the wider playoff conversation remains skeptical.
"You've got to appreciate their consistency," he says. "All 12 of their wins have been by 22 points or more. You just don't see that kind of consistency in college football anymore."
The rub is schedule strength. Elite teams are measured not just by how they win but whom they beat, and Tech's slate leaves room for doubt about its ultimate ceiling. That's the balancing act for handicappers: upgrade them for what they've proven while shading expectations against Top 10 opposition where speed, trench play, and explosive depth can compress that ATS edge.
