College Football AI Predictions Week 8: ATS Picks & Score Predictions for Every Game

SMU’s passing efficiency points toward a comfortable home win. The Mustangs average 9.4 yards per attempt, while Cal’s offense manages 6.7 through the air and 3.3 per rush. SMU also allows opponents to convert only 26.5% of third downs, a difficult matchup for a Bears team coming off a 41–7 loss to Wake Forest. The model gives SMU a 33–16 victory, but that 17-point margin leaves Cal inside +20.5. The Bears can cover without matching SMU’s offensive ceiling if they avoid short fields and make the Mustangs sustain drives. Under 54.5 follows from the 49-point projection, with Cal’s limited scoring outlook doing much of the work.

Indiana’s defense gives the Hoosiers a way to rebound in Ann Arbor. Indiana allows just 2.3 yards per rush and 12.9 points per game, making Michigan’s 4.2-yard rushing average a difficult foundation for an upset. The Hoosiers’ own offense averages 5.7 yards per carry and 9.9 per pass attempt, though Michigan’s defense should make those numbers harder to reproduce. Our forecast is Indiana 23, Michigan 14, producing Indiana -7.5 and Under 41.5. Indiana is also one of two unanimous ATS teams in the comparison table, although both other sources publish -6.5. The nine-point projected margin clears either number, but the extra point reduces the cushion on our selection.

Auburn’s win at Georgia makes this a demanding road assignment for LSU. The Tigers return home after a 27–24 upset, while LSU arrives off a 31–0 shutout of Mississippi State. LSU’s defense allows 2.8 yards per rush and has collected 27 sacks, giving it the tools to disrupt Auburn if the home side falls behind the chains. The model nevertheless sees a competitive game: LSU 23, Auburn 19. Auburn +7.5 provides more than a field goal of room beyond that projected margin, while Under 51.5 sits well above the 42-point forecast. Auburn sustaining its 4.7-yard rushing average would help shorten the game and keep LSU from turning defensive stops into a runaway.

Miami’s passing attack can challenge the weaker half of Pittsburgh’s defense. Pitt allows only 2.0 yards per rush, but opponents average 7.8 yards per pass attempt. Miami averages 10.4 through the air and 48.5 points per game, so the Hurricanes have a productive alternative if running lanes are scarce. Our 38–18 Miami projection produces Pitt +20.5 and Over 48.5. The spread is a thin half-point lean, while the projected total stands 7.5 points above the line. Pitt needs enough offense to contribute to that Over; Miami’s defense allows just 2.3 yards per rush, making efficient early-down passing especially valuable for the Panthers.

Rutgers’ run defense gives Northwestern a clear route to control. The Scarlet Knights surrender 5.6 yards per carry and 31.8 points per game. Northwestern averages 4.8 per rush and 9.8 per pass attempt, a combination that can punish a defense whether it commits extra bodies to the box or leaves coverage exposed. The Wildcats are projected to win 37–17, covering -16.5 while staying Under 58.5. Rutgers does bring an efficient passing offense at 8.8 yards per attempt, so Northwestern cannot simply assume empty possessions. The forecast requires the Wildcats to limit that aerial production and turn their offensive balance into sustained drives, rather than a back-and-forth shootout.

Cincinnati’s rushing attack is the key to keeping Texas Tech within reach. The Bearcats average 5.9 yards per carry, but Tech allows only 2.9. That strength-on-strength meeting matters after Cincinnati scored 42 in a loss to West Virginia and the Red Raiders put 53 on Arizona State. The model projects Texas Tech 33, Cincinnati 24, supporting Cincinnati +10.5 and Over 56.5. Tech should find opportunities against a defense allowing 8.0 yards per pass attempt, but Cincinnati needs productive early downs to keep answering. The total is only a half-point lean: a 57-point forecast does not leave much room for missed red-zone chances.

BYU’s third-down efficiency supports another win, but the road margin stays tight. The Cougars convert 56.5% of their third downs, compared with UCF’s 35.6%. Both teams can run the ball, yet BYU’s defense allows just 3.1 yards per carry and 5.5 per pass attempt, making sustained UCF possessions difficult. After beating Notre Dame 28–24, BYU gets a 24–18 win in our forecast. That makes UCF +6.5 the spread selection and Under 43.5 the total pick. The AI model joins the Covers projections on UCF, opposite Chris Gregory’s BYU selection. The cover rests on only half a point, so UCF +6 would not produce the same outright ATS pick.

Iowa’s advantage on the ground can travel to Minneapolis. The Hawkeyes average 6.1 yards per rush while allowing only 2.5. Minnesota’s rushing offense manages 3.7, which puts pressure on the Gophers to find enough passing efficiency to stay out of obvious third-down situations. The projection is Iowa 25, Minnesota 17: Iowa -6.5 and Over 40.5. Minnesota allows opponents to convert just 30.9% of third downs, so Iowa’s ability to gain meaningful yardage before those situations is central to separating. The Over has a modest 1.5-point cushion, with the forecast needing Minnesota to contribute despite the difficult rushing matchup.

UCLA’s defense can keep Michigan State from sustaining enough offense. The Bruins allow 3.0 yards per rush and a 25.9% third-down conversion rate. Michigan State averages only 3.3 per carry, leaving limited room to establish the run before asking its passing game to extend drives. UCLA wins 31–14 in the model, producing UCLA -14.5 and Over 42.5. The Bruins’ own 5.6-yard rushing average provides a route to controlling possessions and field position. Michigan State needs to break that rhythm without giving up easy passing opportunities; opponents already average 7.7 yards per attempt against the Spartans. The total is the narrower selection, only 2.5 points below the projection.

Tennessee gets the upset nod after holding Alabama to 10 points. The Volunteers’ defense allows 5.5 yards per pass attempt and has generated 30 sacks. South Carolina’s rushing offense, averaging 6.0 yards per carry, offers a way to avoid those obvious passing downs and keep Tennessee’s pressure from dictating the afternoon. Our forecast favors Tennessee 27–24, giving the Volunteers +2.5 and a narrow Over 50.5. Chris Gregory also takes Tennessee, while the Covers projections favor South Carolina. The Gamecocks’ ability to run remains the main challenge to the upset call; Tennessee needs enough early-down stops to make South Carolina win through the air.

Alabama’s passing game has an opportunity to recover from the Tennessee loss. The Crimson Tide average 9.0 yards per pass attempt, while Texas A&M’s defense has recorded just five sacks through seven games. If Alabama can protect the pocket, that leaves the Aggies needing coverage to hold up for extended stretches. The model projects Alabama 34, Texas A&M 17, supporting Alabama -13.5. A&M’s own passing offense averages 6.2 yards per attempt, so it needs productive rushing downs to avoid repeatedly chasing long conversions. Over 50.5 is much less emphatic than the spread: the 51-point score projection clears it by only half a point.

Boise State’s ground game should be productive in Pullman. The Broncos average 5.4 yards per rush against a Washington State defense allowing 4.7. Boise also converts 50.6% of third downs, while the Cougars’ offense converts only 27.8%, a gap that can tilt possession and field position toward the visitors. Our forecast still keeps Washington State inside the number: Boise State 30–20, producing Washington State +13.5 and Under 52.5. The Broncos allow 8.7 yards per pass attempt, giving the Cougars a possible way to find enough scoring chances to cover. Washington State has averaged only 5.5 itself, however, so exploiting that vulnerability is far from automatic.

Arizona’s passing efficiency makes the Wildcats the likely winner in Tucson. They average 9.1 yards per attempt and convert 54.8% of third downs. Iowa State allows 7.7 yards per pass attempt, so generating pressure before those routes develop is essential to keeping Arizona from repeatedly extending drives. The AI score is Arizona 30, Iowa State 21, yielding Iowa State +10.5 and Over 50.5. The Cyclones’ 5.0-yard rushing average gives them a way to stay competitive, but a 31.0% third-down conversion rate leaves little margin when early downs fail. Both selections are close to the line, particularly the total, which sits just half a point below the forecast.

Texas’ defense gives the Longhorns a chance to stop their slide. Texas allows 5.6 yards per pass attempt and 2.9 per rush, a strong platform against an Ole Miss offense averaging 37.5 points. The Rebels arrive after a 31–3 win over Missouri, while Texas has lost two straight, most recently 27–24 to Florida. Our 27–24 Texas forecast leaves Ole Miss +3.5 as the spread pick, alongside Under 53.5. The Ole Miss vs. Texas prediction backs Texas -3.5, making the expected margin the dividing point. A Texas win alone is not enough to settle that disagreement; the AI model has the Rebels staying within a field goal.

Wisconsin’s pass defense is the foundation of the model’s upset call. USC averages 9.1 yards per pass attempt, but the Badgers allow only 5.7. Wisconsin also holds opponents to 3.2 yards per rush, giving it a chance to prevent the Trojans from escaping that matchup by leaning on the ground game. The projection is Wisconsin 24, USC 23, producing Wisconsin +2.5 and Under 50.5. USC’s defense allows 8.4 yards per pass attempt, offering Wisconsin a route to more offense after scoring seven at UCLA. A one-point forecast remains fragile, but the Badgers do not need to win outright to cover the published spread.

Kentucky’s running game can help the Wildcats build on their Oklahoma win. Kentucky averages 4.9 yards per carry against a Vanderbilt defense allowing 4.2 and 29.7 points per game. Vanderbilt’s own rushing offense averages only 3.6, increasing the importance of finding manageable passing situations. The model has Kentucky winning 34–20, covering -10.5 and going Over 51.5. Third downs are the concern for the favorite: Kentucky converts just 29.1% on offense and allows opponents to convert 47.1%. Vanderbilt can threaten the cover by extending possessions through that weakness, forcing Kentucky to sustain its scoring rather than relying on a few explosive drives.

Utah’s defense gives it the edge in the late Top 15 showdown. Houston averages 39.3 points per game and converts 61.4% of third downs, but Utah allows only 14.8 points and a 30.5% conversion rate. The Utes also average 5.5 yards per rush, giving their offense a dependable way to keep Houston off the field. Our forecast is Utah 35, Houston 22, producing Utah -6.5 and Over 56.5. The side joins both comparison sources, and the Houston vs. Utah prediction also favors the Utes. The total is far less decisive: 57 projected points leave only half a point above the market.