Sports Handicapper Joe Duffy's Picks & Predictions

Good to: Northern Arizona +20 at -110 or better. Preferred range: +21 to +21.5 or higher.

Both principal projection sources favor taking the points. KenPom projects UNLV 82–64, an 18-point margin. EvanMiya projects UNLV 80.6–66.4, a 14.2-point margin. At +21.5, Northern Arizona receives 3.5 points beyond KenPom’s forecast and 7.3 beyond EvanMiya’s.

The personnel situation adds a concrete reason to question UNLV’s ability to sustain a margin exceeding 20. AJ Storr remains ineligible, removing a preseason All-Mountain West selection from the available rotation. Issac Williamson, Tyler Harris and Terrance Ford Jr. also missed UNLV’s exhibition finale because of injuries. Williamson averaged 8.6 points last season, making his availability meaningful to an already reshaped backcourt.

Those absences can concentrate ballhandling and scoring responsibilities among fewer players. That matters when asking a favorite to maintain pressure and offensive execution across an entire game, rather than simply establish that it is the better team.

Northern Arizona has returning perimeter contributors in Ryan Abelman and Chris Komin. Abelman averaged 10.5 points and 5.1 rebounds last season; Komin averaged 7.8 points overall and 10.8 in conference play. Their experience gives the Lumberjacks identifiable offensive pieces as they integrate newcomers.

UNLV’s exhibition victory over Missouri requires perspective. The Rebels forced 20 turnovers and converted them into 25 points. That performance demonstrates how their pressure can create separation, and it is the main reason this remains a Major rather than a stronger rating. Northern Arizona must avoid giving away repeated transition opportunities.

Nevertheless, both leading projections anticipate a comfortable UNLV victory while keeping Northern Arizona inside the spread. We are getting a substantial cushion against a favorite with unresolved depth concerns. Take +21.5 where available, with +20 the minimum acceptable number.

Good to: Under 170 at -110 or better. Preferred range: Under 171 to 171.5 or higher.

The scoring requirement is demanding even after allowing for Alabama’s fast offensive approach. KenPom projects Alabama 96, Sam Houston 70, producing a total of 166. An additional external benchmark projects 164. At 171.5, both forecasts favor the Under, with KenPom providing a 5.5-point cushion.

The important distinction is between a fast game and a game that exceeds an already elevated total. Alabama can score in the 90s and this wager can still win. At KenPom’s projected 96 points for the Crimson Tide, Sam Houston would need 76 to push the combined score above 171.5—six more than its projected contribution.

A broad historical system adds modest confirmation. Games with a favorite of at least 16 points and a total of at least 152 have produced 760 Unders against 672 Overs, with eight pushes. That is 53.1% Unders, with approximately 1.3% ROI on the Under.

This is supporting evidence rather than a dominant system. Its value is that the direction agrees with the projections: a large favorite and an attractive scoring environment do not necessarily make an inflated total easier to exceed.

The matchup also provides a plausible route to reduced scoring late. If Alabama establishes a comfortable advantage, reserve combinations and uneven offensive execution can interrupt the scoring pace. That is a possible game script, rather than an assumption that Nate Oats will deliberately slow the game.

The Under does not require Alabama to abandon its preferred style. It requires the combined scoring efficiency to fall short of a number that already anticipates substantial offensive production. The agreement between KenPom, the additional benchmark and the historical category supports a 3* Major, with the price limit preserving a meaningful cushion.

Good to: Drexel +29 at -110 or better. Preferred range: +30 to +31.5 or higher.

Drexel offers strong agreement between the two most important college basketball projection sources. KenPom projects Virginia to win 83–58, a 25-point margin. EvanMiya projects 82.8–56.8, a 26-point margin. At +31, that provides five to six points of separation from the market.

The case remains substantial even when setting aside the more aggressive external forecast suggesting Virginia should be favored by only 21.7. The two principal ratings independently place this matchup closer to a mid-20s spread.

Drexel also brings an established defensive foundation under Zach Spiker. Last season, the Dragons held opponents to a 47.1% effective field-goal percentage and 30.3% three-point shooting. Those results do not automatically carry forward to a changed roster, but they demonstrate a program capable of making opponents work for efficient scoring opportunities. Returning players Josh Reed, Clem Edomwonyin and Dillon Tingler provide some continuity within that structure.

The practical betting question is how consistently Virginia can extend its advantage. At a spread above 30, winning comfortably is insufficient. The favorite must keep creating separation through substitutions, changes in offensive rhythm and the final possessions. A few competitive stretches from Drexel can preserve the cover even if Virginia controls the outcome throughout.

KenPom’s projected score illustrates the cushion: an 83–58 Virginia victory would leave Drexel six points inside a +31 ticket. EvanMiya reaches nearly the same conclusion through its own ratings. That agreement is more persuasive than a single unusually optimistic underdog projection.

This is a 3* Major because the strongest support comes from preseason projections rather than a demonstrated current-season sample. The price supplies enough room to support a premium selection, with +29 the minimum acceptable number.

Good to: OHIO -14 at -110 or better.

Ohio enters Tuesday with the stronger overall team profile, substantially better conference results and a qualifying historical road-team system.

The system targets road teams whose previous opponent was not a substantial favorite and whose rushing production in their preceding game was limited to 120 yards or fewer.

Since 2015, qualifying road teams have produced an 826-681-19 ATS record, covering 54.8% of the time and generating $7,690 in historical profits at the database’s standard $100 betting level.

The system is especially useful as supporting evidence because it identifies road teams whose recent rushing production may have understated their underlying capabilities.

Ohio enters 6-2 overall and 4-0 in the MAC, having won six consecutive games. Akron is 1-7 overall and 0-4 in conference play.

The Bobcats have held four consecutive opponents to 20 points or fewer, providing a defensive foundation that can support a double-digit road favorite.

Akron is coming off a 35-20 defeat against Kent State, while Ohio defeated Eastern Michigan 24-20.

The Bobcats have demonstrated the ability to control games defensively, and their stronger conference results are particularly relevant against an Akron team struggling to establish consistent offensive production.

Akron running back Chris Gee has been reported out, potentially reducing the Zips’ rushing options.

Ohio receiver Riley Neer has been listed as questionable, creating some uncertainty in the Bobcats’ receiving rotation.

Ohio quarterback availability also warrants attention because of an unofficial questionable designation. A meaningful quarterback change would materially affect this handicap.

The TeamRankings Luck Factor adds another consideration.

Ohio ranks 24th nationally at +0.8, while Akron ranks 130th at -1.3. That represents a 2.1-point rating difference, although these ratings are indicators of results relative to expectation rather than a direct projected-margin adjustment.

Ohio’s positive rating suggests that its results have exceeded its underlying expectation, while Akron’s negative rating indicates the opposite.

That divergence prevents treating the teams’ win-loss records alone as sufficient justification for the spread. However, the Bobcats’ defensive performance, conference results and superior overall personnel profile provide support beyond their record.

The current market has generally placed Ohio between -12.5 and -14.5, depending on the sportsbook.

The historical road-team system provides additional support, while Akron’s offensive limitations create a plausible path for Ohio to build and protect a substantial lead.

Ohio’s ability to maintain defensive discipline and avoid turnovers will be especially important when laying nearly two touchdowns on the road.

The Bobcats have the stronger overall matchup and qualify for a profitable historical ATS system.

This is a 3* Major rather than a Wise Guy because of the uncertainty surrounding Ohio’s quarterback status and the regression considerations identified by the Luck Factor.

Good to: UNDER 43.5 at -110 or better.

Two powerful historical college football systems support the UNDER in this Mid-American Conference matchup, and the personnel situation provides meaningful additional confirmation.

The first system targets favorites when the combined offensive and defensive scoring histories of both teams suggest a substantially higher total than the number established by oddsmakers. Since the beginning of the database, these situations have produced 1,182 UNDERS against 847 OVERS, with 34 pushes, generating $25,030 in profits at the database’s standard $100 betting level.

The second system adds a requirement involving each team’s season-long combined scoring averages. That more restrictive version has produced 508 UNDERS against 340 OVERS, with 17 pushes, generating $13,400 in profits.

These systems are closely related, so their historical results should not be treated as independent samples. Both have also experienced weaker performance in recent seasons, making current personnel and matchup evidence especially important.

Miami enters with substantial quarterback limitations.

Original starting quarterback David McComb is out for the season, while Thomas Gotkowski is also unavailable. The RedHawks have turned to Caleb Heavner, who has provided mobility and enough production to keep Miami competitive but has not consistently generated explosive offensive performances.

In Miami’s 28-27 victory over Central Michigan, Heavner completed 18 of 33 passes for 221 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions. He added 58 rushing yards and a touchdown.

The rushing contribution gives Miami another dimension, but the passing numbers illustrate the limitations of an offense operating behind its original quarterback depth chart.

Miami has not reached 390 total offensive yards in a game with Heavner directing the offense.

Buffalo also has quarterback personnel concerns. Elijah Holmes is out for the season, leaving Jason Wright to operate the offense.

Against Bowling Green, Wright completed 13 of 21 passes for 127 yards and one touchdown. Buffalo nevertheless won 31-24, relying heavily on its rushing attack.

The Bulls have additional receiving-corps injuries, while running back Terrance Shelton Jr. has been listed as questionable. Miami’s offense also has injuries affecting its receivers and tight ends.

These personnel limitations increase the importance of sustained rushing production, field position and third-down efficiency.

Both teams enter 5-3 overall and 3-1 in conference play. With positioning in the MAC championship race at stake, neither has an obvious incentive to abandon a manageable offensive approach early.

Miami’s defense has been vulnerable against the pass, but Buffalo’s limited passing production makes it less certain that the Bulls can fully exploit that weakness.

Weather could provide modest additional support. Forecasts indicate sustained winds around 13-15 mph during portions of the game, with the possibility of stronger gusts. Those conditions warrant monitoring, although wind alone is not the foundation of this selection.

The total has also declined from approximately 45.5 to 44.5 in some tracked markets. That movement is consistent with a lower-scoring expectation, although it is not sufficiently large to constitute a major market signal by itself.

The combination of two qualifying historical UNDER systems, quarterback limitations on both sides, offensive personnel concerns and the importance of a competitive conference game supports a lower-scoring contest.