Exclusive $60 Bonus
CODE: COVERS60
Free College Football Expert and Computer Picks For Every Game Oct. 8, 2026
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
27.39 |
+1.5 -108 |
o56.5 -105 |
+103 |
|
|
29.24 |
-1.5 -105 |
u56.5 -109 |
-115 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
18.84 |
+13.5 -105 |
o52.5 -105 |
+425 |
|
|
33.37 |
-13.5 -105 |
u53.5 -115 |
-525 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
22.51 |
+7.0 -119 |
o49.5 -112 |
+220 |
|
|
28.95 |
-7.0 -101 |
u50.5 -114 |
-240 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
28.35 |
+3.5 -145 |
o60.0 -110 |
+125 |
|
|
30.98 |
-3.5 +115 |
u61.5 -120 |
-139 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
27.63 |
+3.5 -105 |
o59.0 -113 |
+155 |
|
|
31.68 |
-3.5 -105 |
u59.5 -110 |
-170 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
16.95 |
+6.0 -113 |
o41.5 -115 |
+190 |
|
|
23.56 |
-6.0 -107 |
u43.5 -120 |
-184 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
19.11 |
+3.5 -120 |
o41.5 -105 |
+140 |
|
|
22.68 |
-3.5 +100 |
u41.5 -108 |
-150 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
18.37 |
+5.5 -105 |
o43.5 -110 |
+175 |
|
|
23.80 |
-5.5 -108 |
u44.5 -118 |
-185 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
18.68 |
+10.5 -115 |
o45.5 -110 |
+330 |
|
|
29.43 |
-10.5 -105 |
u46.5 -108 |
-400 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
29.15 |
-7.5 -105 |
o48.0 -110 |
-300 |
|
|
22.31 |
+7.5 -110 |
u48.5 -109 |
+250 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
18.43 |
+9.5 -115 |
o43.5 -110 |
+265 |
|
|
25.07 |
-9.5 -105 |
u44.5 -115 |
-295 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
22.74 |
+3.5 -110 |
o47.5 -115 |
+150 |
|
|
27.25 |
-3.5 +105 |
u48.5 -110 |
-160 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
31.05 |
-3.0 -117 |
o61.0 -114 |
-155 |
|
|
28.46 |
+3.0 -103 |
u62.5 -115 |
+140 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
21.22 |
+11.5 -115 |
o52.5 -115 |
+350 |
|
|
31.41 |
-11.5 -105 |
u53.5 -108 |
-425 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20.41 |
+4.0 -108 |
o46.5 -115 |
+157 |
|
|
26.31 |
-4.0 -112 |
u47.5 -108 |
-164 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
31.32 |
-3.5 -102 |
o59.5 -108 |
-162 |
|
|
28.96 |
+3.5 -110 |
u59.5 -110 |
+155 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
21.30 |
+3.5 -110 |
o47.5 -110 |
+141 |
|
|
25.29 |
-3.5 +100 |
u48.5 -115 |
-159 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
7.32 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
|
45.32 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
25.03 |
+12.5 -110 |
o59.5 -105 |
+370 |
|
|
36.71 |
-12.5 -110 |
u60.5 -110 |
-425 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
19.53 |
+9.5 -105 |
o48.5 +100 |
+300 |
|
|
30.31 |
-9.5 -105 |
u48.5 -108 |
-370 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
24.81 |
-1.5 -110 |
o46.5 -110 |
-122 |
|
|
23.64 |
+1.5 -105 |
u47.5 -108 |
+113 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
28.06 |
-6.5 -118 |
o51.5 -110 |
-250 |
|
|
22.30 |
+6.5 +100 |
u52.5 -118 |
+225 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
7.59 |
+38.5 -108 |
o54.5 -108 |
+10000 |
|
|
48.17 |
-38.5 +100 |
u54.5 -105 |
-12000 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
23.66 |
-7.5 -110 |
o38.5 -114 |
-300 |
|
|
16.95 |
+7.5 -107 |
u39.5 -110 |
+270 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
31.92 |
-8.5 -120 |
o52.5 -110 |
-360 |
|
|
22.89 |
+8.5 +100 |
u54.5 -115 |
+300 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
26.70 |
+2.5 -105 |
o55.0 -110 |
+120 |
|
|
29.98 |
-2.5 -110 |
u55.5 -108 |
-135 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
24.88 |
-2.5 -110 |
o47.5 -110 |
-134 |
|
|
22.81 |
+2.5 -105 |
u48.5 -120 |
+115 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
14.11 |
+14.5 -120 |
o42.5 -110 |
+500 |
|
|
29.18 |
-14.5 -105 |
u43.5 -105 |
-575 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
26.40 |
-6.5 -115 |
o43.5 -110 |
-250 |
|
|
20.22 |
+6.5 +100 |
u44.5 -118 |
+215 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
15.34 |
+28.5 -108 |
o57.5 -108 |
+2500 |
|
|
45.23 |
-28.5 -105 |
u58.5 -115 |
-3000 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
24.40 |
+11.5 -110 |
o58.5 -110 |
+360 |
|
|
36.72 |
-11.5 -105 |
u59.5 -115 |
-441 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
32.74 |
-9.5 -110 |
o55.5 -105 |
-350 |
|
|
24.79 |
+9.5 -105 |
u55.5 -108 |
+300 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
16.66 |
+21.5 -110 |
o54.5 -112 |
+1100 |
|
|
38.93 |
-21.5 +100 |
u55.5 -120 |
-1500 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
22.51 |
+2.5 -105 |
o48.5 -108 |
+117 |
|
|
25.96 |
-2.5 -108 |
u49.0 -110 |
-132 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20.76 |
+3.0 -110 |
o46.0 -110 |
+125 |
|
|
24.70 |
-3.0 -107 |
u46.5 -108 |
-140 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
26.17 |
+4.5 -110 |
o53.5 -115 |
+160 |
|
|
29.41 |
-4.5 -109 |
u55.5 -118 |
-172 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
17.68 |
+10.5 -110 |
o46.5 -115 |
+325 |
|
|
29.02 |
-10.5 -105 |
u47.5 -110 |
-360 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
10.93 |
+34.5 -105 |
o56.5 -109 |
+4500 |
|
|
46.24 |
-34.5 -109 |
u57.5 -115 |
-12000 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
32.89 |
-13.5 -110 |
o51.0 -114 |
-526 |
|
|
19.44 |
+13.5 -105 |
u51.5 -108 |
+410 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
19.22 |
+16.5 -110 |
o53.5 -105 |
+550 |
|
|
34.03 |
-16.5 -108 |
u53.5 -110 |
-676 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
29.94 |
-8.5 -110 |
o48.5 -120 |
-350 |
|
|
20.62 |
+8.5 -110 |
u49.5 -110 |
+300 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
30.66 |
-8.5 -108 |
o51.5 -113 |
-320 |
|
|
22.51 |
+8.5 -107 |
u52.5 -115 |
+275 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
26.66 |
+4.0 -112 |
o58.5 -104 |
+150 |
|
|
29.96 |
-4.0 -107 |
u59.5 -110 |
-165 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
25.59 |
-3.0 -114 |
o47.5 -110 |
-154 |
|
|
21.98 |
+3.0 -106 |
u48.5 -110 |
+136 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
19.14 |
+14.5 -110 |
o51.5 -117 |
+480 |
|
|
34.40 |
-14.5 +100 |
u52.5 -109 |
-599 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
30.65 |
-7.5 -105 |
o51.5 -105 |
-280 |
|
|
22.23 |
+7.5 -110 |
u52.0 -110 |
+250 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
26.14 |
+1.5 -110 |
o54.5 -110 |
+102 |
|
|
28.92 |
-1.5 -105 |
u55.0 -114 |
-120 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
27.39 |
-7.5 -105 |
o46.0 -115 |
-310 |
|
|
19.46 |
+7.5 -108 |
u47.5 -115 |
+260 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20.36 |
+9.5 -105 |
o50.0 -110 |
+300 |
|
|
31.06 |
-9.5 -107 |
u50.5 -108 |
-345 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
23.27 |
+3.5 -120 |
o46.5 -110 |
+130 |
|
|
26.84 |
-3.5 +105 |
u47.5 -110 |
-145 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
26.78 |
+1.5 -105 |
o51.0 -110 |
+105 |
|
|
28.22 |
-1.5 -105 |
u51.5 -110 |
-115 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
27.63 |
-2.5 -109 |
o50.5 -110 |
-130 |
|
|
24.60 |
+2.5 -107 |
u50.5 -105 |
+115 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
18.07 |
+15.5 -110 |
o50.5 -115 |
+540 |
|
|
34.76 |
-15.5 -105 |
u51.5 -112 |
-699 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
15.59 |
+21.5 -115 |
o49.5 -112 |
+1000 |
|
|
35.68 |
-21.5 -105 |
u50.5 -110 |
-1500 |
Predicted Score
Team |
Predicted Score |
Spread |
Total |
ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
26.79 |
-6.5 -105 |
o48.0 -110 |
-225 |
|
|
21.53 |
+6.5 -105 |
u48.5 -110 |
+205 |
South Florida is the fourth-lowest scoring team in college football, averaging just FOUR points, while UTSA ranks 47th in first-half scoring at more than 15 points per game. I expect the Roadrunners to cover 4.5 points, but if that wonky number worries you, take UTSA to win the first half.
Don’t let South Florida’s top-10 scoring defense fool you, as the Bulls have faced a soft schedule. This matchup should be a wake-up call against a Roadrunners offense that can attack on the ground. While UTSA’s run defense has been vulnerable, much of that damage came against Texas and Texas State.
I'd play the Over on Florida State's team total at 27.5 or better. The Seminoles are averaging 33.2 PPG and have gone Over 27.5 in four of five games. They have one of the best run games in the country (12th in EPA per rush), and Louisville has allowed Over 27.5 points in all four of its FBS games.
With how poorly these defenses have looked at times this season, this should be a shootout, and I'd play the Over at 60.5 or better. Louisville is top 25 nationally in offensive success rate (49.7%), but its defense is 73rd in success rate (44.3%). Florida State's offense is eighth nationally in net adjusted EPA per play, but its defense is 93rd. Perfect shootout matchup.
Under 41.5 is playable down to 40.5. Both defenses hold a clear efficiency edge, neither offense creates many explosive plays, and both teams rank outside the Top 85 nationally in red-zone touchdown rate.
Under 45.5 is playable down to 44.5. Both offenses lean heavily on the run, while BYU is missing its best offensive player. I'm also fading recency bias from Iowa State's 45-42 shootout and last year's high-scoring matchup.
North Carolina's defense wears down as the game goes on, and Pitt will take advantage. The Panthers hold possession 31:38 per game and convert 46% of their third downs. Antonio Chadha is a perfect 5-for-5 on field goals and 23-for-23 on extra points, so even stalled drives turn into points.
The Tar Heels can add their own points. Pitt's pass defense just allowed 434 yards at Virginia Tech, and Billy Edwards Jr. threw three touchdown passes against Notre Dame. Jaden Jefferson returned a kickoff 98 yards against the Irish, and Pitt allows 25.8 yards per kick return.
Pitt has scored on 18 of 22 red-zone trips, including 14 touchdowns. Play this up to 47.5.
Oklahoma hasn't scored more than 13 points in its last three games, and I like the Under on its team total at 14.5 or better. The Sooners haven't even scored a touchdown in three of Brent Venables four Red River Rivalry Games, and John Mateer might not change that. Last year against Texas, Mateer threw three interceptions, had six turnover-worthy plays, and finished with a 34.6 QBR.
These two teams are a combined 6-2 to the Under this season, and I like the Under in Red River this year at 38.5 or better. Oklahoma is averaging 12.3 PPG in its last three games, and Texas' defense ranks No. 3 nationally in net adjusted EPA per play.
Dylan Raiola is the best backup quarterback in the country. He was a solid starter at Nebraska for two years. Two weeks ago, he came off the bench after Moore's injury and led Oregon to a 41-27 win at USC. It was a high-pressure game the Ducks desperately needed, and Raiola had a 98.8 QBR!
While it has been a great start for UCLA and new head coach Bob Chesney, the Bruins have not played a team currently in the Top 60 of my power ratings. Most of their opponents are way down this year, including California, San Diego State, and Maryland. That's inflating their metrics.
UCLA has all the makings of a team that can win this game outright. Yes, Dylan Raiola filled Dante Moore's shoes nicely against USC, but UCLA's defense will provide much more resistance, ranking 15th in opponent yards per play compared to USC's 87th. On the other side of the ball, UCLA leads the nation in yards per carry and sits fourth in yards per play. Take the points.
I like UConn to cover +2.5 or better because of its offensive firepower. Huskies QB Kalieb Osborne leads the G6 in big-time throw rate (10.2%) and ranks No. 6 nationally among QBs in rushing yards after contact (239). Temple's defense ranks outside the top 120 in early-down EPA per play and third/fourth down success (55.7%).
Arkansas is poorly equipped to supply its share of a shootout. Its offense ranks 131st in early-down EPA per play, repeatedly leaving longer conversion attempts against a Tennessee defense that ranks 25th in that same early-down metric.
That puts pressure on Arkansas to rescue possessions through the air rather than build drives on favorable terms. Tennessee’s offense brings its own limitation: a 33% passing success rate, ranking 131st. A quarterback change could improve that, but pricing in an immediate transformation would be aggressive.
Tennessee’s biggest offensive weakness shouldn’t dictate this game. The metrics rank its rushing attack fourth nationally in EPA per rush, while Arkansas ranks 128th defending the run. That’s a direct route around the passing problems.
DeSean Bishop gives Tennessee a back capable of turning that mismatch into sustained offense. Arkansas can crowd the line, but its inability to consistently win against the run makes that adjustment easier to draw up than execute.
With the way Oregon State's offense looks, I like the Beavers at -16.5 or better. Their offense ranks 13th in net EPA per play, 19th in available yards percentage (58.3%), and 24th in offensive explosiveness (1.325). San Diego State, which is still dealing with the mumps, was outgained 565 to 239 in a win last week. The Aztecs had turnover and special teams luck against Texas State that likely won't repeat against Oregon State.
North Dakota State is the third-highest-ranked G6 program by SP+ (38th), and I would take the Bison up to -6.5. UNLV hasn't seen a defense as strong as NDSU's this season. The Bison's defense ranks No. 2 nationally points per opportunity (1.63), No. 13 in EPA per rush, and No. 14 in net EPA per drive.
Memphis is the play for me up to -16.5. The Tigers are 3-1 ATS in FBS play and are covering by an average of 16.8 points. UAB is 1-3 ATS since Week 2. Memphis' offense should be the difference; it ranks fifth in available yards percentage (65.2%) and 17th in offensive success rate (49.9%).
James Madison is undefeated ATS (5-0), and Georgia Southern is 1-3 against FBS teams. I like JMU to cover -9.5 or better because of its defense. The Dukes are 17th nationally in defensive success rate (37.7%), and Georgia Southern QB Max Johnson is third nationally in turnover-worthy plays (10).
USC has looked lifeless to start 2026, failing to cover since Week 1 while now facing a difficult road spot across two time zones. The Trojans have already shown plenty of cracks, and I expect Matt Campbell and Penn State to capitalize. The Nittany Lions are coming off back-to-back losses, but I love this spot for a bounce-back win.
King Miller (3.68 yards after contact per attempt) and Waymond Jordan (Big Ten-leading 37% missed tackles forced rate) will eat against a defense that surrendered a whopping 413 rushing yards and four scores last week to Northwestern.
I’m fading Minnesota after its emotional win over Michigan and P.J. Fleck calling it one of the best days of his life. Purdue has competed well outside its Notre Dame blowout, including an outright win over Illinois as nearly 10-point dogs. Take the points.
Play Hawaii down to +18.5 as Arizona State hasn't been trustworthy enough to lay three scores with. The two most recent data points have seen them muster just 3.5 yards per play against Kansas and get dominated 19-55 by Baylor, and the underlying metrics are concerning.
Good to 49.5. Neither offense is trustworthy, and the forecast is calling for rain (63% chance throughout the contest). Hawaii bottles up big plays on defense (33rd in passing explosiveness allowed), but can't generate them offensively (123rd in explosiveness generated through the air).
I love the spot for Boise State. It's a revenge spot as they were favored by double digits and lost outright to Fresno State last season in a game where they lost their starting QB. I think this is a rare conference game that they have circled on their calander. I like the price as well, which I made seven. I'm not overly impressed by Fresno State so far this season.
Our experts and prediction models are hard at work analyzing the data. Check back shortly for today's picks, or explore our Computer Picks for inspiration.
The table above lets you know how profitable and helpful our sports betting computer picks have been across the last 100 college football games played. Our NCAAF computer picks use expert data to review odds and generate moneyline, spread, and total bets for every game throughout the season.
Listed in the table are unit details, which show the total profit or loss based on a bettor placing $100 on each of the last 100 college football picks made by the computer, on both the opening and closing lines.
Take advantage of these free college football picks before you wager any money at sportsbooks.
As human beings, we're bound to be biased with our picks and potentially fall into the trap of swinging with the public. With advanced stats growing in popularity and getting harder to track, college football computer predictions are starting to become more relied on.
Betting on a moneyline simply means you're picking the outright winner of the game, regardless of the scoring margin or total. If the team you choose wins, then your bet hits. Here's what it will look like over at your favorite sportsbook:
| Team | Moneyline |
|---|---|
| Alabama Crimson Tide | -120 |
| Missouri Tigers | +150 |
In this case, Alabama is favored to win the game as its moneyline odds have a minus sign (-) in front of the number. The favorites will have the minus sign present, and the underdogs will have a plus sign (+). Easy, right?
Betting the spread gives your bet a bit more breathing room. Here, you don't need to sweat out a team to win. Instead, you can wager on the point differential on the scoreboard.
Betting on the spread is a good idea when the moneyline profits aren't enticing. There's no point betting on Alabama as a heavy -1500 favorite over Missouri. But taking Missouri to keep the scoring margin within a certain frame will get you more bang for your buck.
| Team | Spread |
|---|---|
| Alabama Crimson Tide | -24.5 (-105) |
| Missouri Tigers | +24.5 (-115) |
In this example, the Tide are favored to dominate their game against Missouri, outperforming them by at least 24.5 points.
If Alabama does win by more than 25 points, that would mean the Crimson Tide covered the spread. But if the Tide won by just 20 points, then that would mean the Tigers "covered the spread" instead.
If you think the outcome of a game could flip in either direction, then an Over/Under is the way to go. This bet relies on the combined score from both teams and whether it goes Over or Under the point total listed at sportsbooks. Then, who cares who wins?
| Team | Total |
|---|---|
| Alabama Crimson Tide | O 52.5 (-110) |
| Missouri Tigers | U 52.5 (-110) |
In this example, oddsmakers have set the total score for the game at 52.5 points. The choice is now up to you. If you think the Tide and Tigers will score a combined total of more than 52.5 points, 53 points or more, then pick the Over. If you're thinking otherwise, then bet the Under, and the bet will hit if they score fewer than 52.5 points.
If the set number was a whole number like 52 points and the two teams score exactly that amount, then it is considered a push and you'd get your money back.
Use these additional college football betting resources to compare markets, find more picks, and research specific betting angles before placing a wager.
If you're ready to bet on college football picks, you first need to find the right sportsbook. Our betting sites guide offers secure banking, the best odds, bonuses, and reliable customer service options for you.
More than a dozen Covers college football picks are released throughout the week during the season, covering all the biggest games and matchups.
Covers provides free NCAA football picks covering many markets, including point spreads, totals, moneylines, player props, and more.