College Player Props

Books post college props game by game in the days before kickoff, so this fills in as the week goes. Right now: 836 players across 35 games.

No hit rates here, on purpose

We hold no college player game logs, so any “hits 7 of his last 10” we put here would be invented. What we can show is real: what the ladder implies, the points the game line hands that offence, what the opposing defence did last season, and how much of that production actually returns.

These are milestone ladders, not over/unders.

North Carolina vs Duke

Sat 3:30 PM ETtotal 47.534 props

Walker EgetDUKEPassing yards
market midpoint ≈ 205 ydsDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct4% of passing production backdrifted -120 → -111
150+-34477.5%160+-27473.3%170+-21668.4%180+-17063%186+-11353.1%189+-11553.5%190+-13757.8%192+-11152.6%193+-11854.1%196+-12154.8%197+-12455.4%198+-11252.8%199+-11353.1%200+-11152.6%210++11147.4%220++14041.7%230++17136.9%240++21032.3%250++26127.7%260++32423.6%270++40519.8%280++50416.6%290++62013.9%300++80011.1%310++10208.9%320++12807.2%
Billy EdwardsUNCPassing yards
market midpoint ≈ 210 ydsUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct10% of passing production backdrifted -115 → +100
150+-39579.8%160+-30675.4%170+-24270.8%180+-19466%190+-15660.9%200+-12555.6%204+-11553.5%205+-11453.3%206+-11653.7%207+-11353.1%210++10050%220++12544.4%230++15339.5%240++19134.4%250++23729.7%260++29525.3%270++36521.5%280++45518%290++57314.9%300++71012.3%310++9109.9%320++11807.8%330++12007.7%
Nate SheppardDUKERushing yards
market midpoint ≈ 128 ydsDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct43% of rushing production backbet up +115 → +106
50+-210095.5%60+-108091.5%70+-65086.7%80+-42781%90+-29574.7%100+-21768.5%110+-16362%117+-12355.2%118+-12455.4%119+-12355.2%120+-12355.2%124+-11152.6%130++10648.5%140++13243.1%150++16837.3%160++21032.3%170++25927.9%180++31923.9%190++38720.5%200++46817.6%
Jordan ShippUNCReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 77 ydsUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct33% of receiving production back price steady
25+-290096.7%40+-71087.7%50+-36078.3%60+-20867.5%70+-13256.9%71+-11152.6%72+-11052.4%73+-11753.9%74+-10952.2%80++11247.2%90++16238.2%100++22830.5%110++31823.9%120++43418.7%130++57614.8%140++77011.5%150++10208.9%160++12807.2%
Benjamin HallUNCRushing yards
market midpoint ≈ 57 ydsUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct54% of rushing production back price steady
15+-188094.9%20+-146093.6%25+-79088.8%30+-49383.1%40+-23470.1%45+-12154.8%46+-11553.5%50+-13256.9%53+-11453.3%54+-11553.5%60++12145.2%70++18335.3%80++27027%90++39220.3%100++56415.1%110++80011.1%120++11208.2%
Jelani ThurmanUNCReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 50 ydsUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct33% of receiving production backdrifted -108 → +101
15+-154093.9%25+-48582.9%40+-16762.5%44+-11052.4%45+-12755.9%46+-11052.4%47+-12555.6%50++10149.8%60++16038.5%70++24229.2%80++34822.3%90++50916.4%100++71012.3%110++10208.9%
Jared RichardsonDUKEReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 39 ydsDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct20% of receiving production back price steady
15+-63086.3%25+-24370.8%34+-12755.9%35+-12255%36+-11653.7%40++10848.1%50++18235.5%60++28825.8%70++44018.5%80++67013%90++9809.3%100++12607.4%
Jeremiah HasleyDUKEReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 39 ydsDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct20% of receiving production back price steady
15+-65086.7%25+-25171.5%35+-11653.7%36+-11653.7%37+-11353.1%40++10548.8%50++17536.4%60++27926.4%70++42818.9%80++63013.7%90++9409.6%100++12207.6%
Jayden MooreDUKEReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 27 ydsDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct20% of receiving production back price steady
15+-25271.6%21+-11653.7%22+-11553.5%23+-11753.9%24+-11854.1%25+-11052.4%40++22630.7%50++37221.2%60++61014.1%70++9809.3%
Trech KekahunaUNCReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 29 ydsUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct33% of receiving production back price steady
15+-29674.7%19+-11353.1%20+-11453.3%25+-12856.1%26+-11954.3%40++19633.8%50++32923.3%60++52616%70++81011%80++12207.6%
Nate SheppardDUKEReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 21 ydsDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct20% of receiving production back price steady
15+-15861.2%18+-11453.3%19+-11553.5%25++13542.6%40++34522.5%50++58314.6%60++9209.8%
Benjamin HallUNCAnytime TD
52.4% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over-11052.4%
Billy EdwardsUNCAnytime TD
16.7% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+50016.7%
C.J. SadlerUNCAnytime TD
15.4% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+55015.4%
CJ CampbellDUKEAnytime TD
37% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production backdrifted +155 → +170
Over+17037%
Demon JuneUNCAnytime TD
50% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+10050%
Duke D/STAnytime TD
16.7% to score price steady
Over+50016.7%
Jaivon SolomonDUKEAnytime TD
14.3% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production back price steady
Over+60014.3%
Jake TaylorDUKEAnytime TD
16.7% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production back price steady
Over+50016.7%
Jared RichardsonDUKEAnytime TD
17.4% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production back price steady
Over+47517.4%
Jayden MooreDUKEAnytime TD
19% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production backbet up +475 → +425
Over+42519%
Jaylen McGillUNCAnytime TD
29% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+24529%
Jelani ThurmanUNCAnytime TD
43.5% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+13043.5%
Jeremiah HasleyDUKEAnytime TD
30.3% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production backbet up +255 → +230
Over+23030.3%
Jonah BurtonDUKEAnytime TD
27.8% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production backbet up +290 → +260
Over+26027.8%
Jordan ShippUNCAnytime TD
30.3% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+23030.3%
Kavon SimmonsDUKEAnytime TD
15.4% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production backbet up +650 → +550
Over+55015.4%
Mason HumphreyUNCAnytime TD
19% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+42519%
Nate KuriskyDUKEAnytime TD
9.5% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production back price steady
Over+9509.5%
Nate SheppardDUKEAnytime TD
88.2% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production backdrifted -900 → -750
Over-75088.2%
North Carolina D/STAnytime TD
16.7% to score price steady
Over+50016.7%
Shamar EasterUNCAnytime TD
19% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+42519%
Trech KekahunaUNCAnytime TD
16.7% to scoreUNC implied 22 pts · underdogDuke D was soft — 28th pct28% of overall production back price steady
Over+50016.7%
Walker EgetDUKEAnytime TD
10.5% to scoreDUKE implied 25.5 pts · favouredNorth Carolina D was middling — 57th pct17% of overall production back price steady
Over+85010.5%

Prices are DraftKings, refreshed every 30 minutes; tap any rung to send it to your betslip. We publish no model or pick on college player props — our own measurement says this sport is efficiently priced, and every spread band we tested lands at a coin flip. This board is here so you can read the market, not so we can beat it.