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.

Pittsburgh vs Boston College

Sat 12:00 PM ETtotal 42.536 props

Mason McKenzieBCPassing yards
market midpoint ≈ 199 ydsBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct8% of passing production backdrifted -117 → +105
150+-28073.7%160+-22168.8%170+-17763.9%180+-14559.2%190+-11854.1%191+-11653.7%192+-11553.5%193+-11753.9%195+-11553.5%196+-11653.7%200++10548.8%201+-11553.5%210++13243.1%220++16138.3%230++20333%240++25428.2%250++32023.8%260++40319.9%270++50516.5%280++64013.5%290++81011%300++10408.8%310++12607.4%
Mason McKenzieBCRushing yards
market midpoint ≈ 56 ydsBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct-62% of rushing production back price steady
15+-270096.4%20+-152093.8%25+-80088.9%30+-49083.1%40+-23670.2%48+-11854.1%49+-11753.9%50+-13256.9%51+-12555.6%60++12344.8%70++18834.7%80++27826.5%90++40819.7%100++58014.7%110++80011.1%120++11208.2%
Damon Ferguson Jr.PITTRushing yards
market midpoint ≈ 55 ydsPITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct67% of rushing production backdrifted -118 → -111
15+-310096.9%20+-130092.9%25+-73088%30+-45281.9%40+-21868.6%49+-11152.6%50+-12555.6%60++13043.5%70++19733.7%80++29225.5%90++42319.1%100++59514.4%110++83010.8%120++11208.2%
Cataurus HicksPITTReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 50 ydsPITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct24% of receiving production backdrifted -108 → +103
15+-148093.7%25+-47982.7%40+-16261.8%47+-11353.1%48+-11052.4%50++10349.3%60++16138.3%70++24329.2%80++36121.7%90++51416.3%100++72012.2%110++10009.1%120++12607.4%
Evan DickensBCRushing yards
market midpoint ≈ 27 ydsBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct-62% of rushing production back price steady
10+-58885.5%15+-28774.2%20+-17263.2%23+-12455.4%24+-12154.8%25+-11353.1%30++12744.1%40++23230.1%50++39820.1%60++66013.2%70++10808.5%
Jaedn SkeeteBCReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 37 ydsBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct23% of receiving production back price steady
15+-55484.7%25+-21768.5%33+-11753.9%34+-12054.5%35+-11353.1%40++11845.9%50++19633.8%60++31324.2%70++49016.9%80++73012%90++10808.5%
Carson KentPITTReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 39 ydsPITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct24% of receiving production backdrifted +102 → +109
15+-62086.1%25+-23970.5%36+-11653.7%40++10947.8%50++18535.1%60++29925.1%70++45518%80++67013%90++10009.1%100++12607.4%
Javarius GreenBCReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 38 ydsBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct23% of receiving production back price steady
15+-57785.2%25+-22669.3%35+-11353.1%36+-11453.3%40++11845.9%50++19733.7%60++30924.4%70++46317.8%80++68012.8%90++9809.3%
Censere LeePITTReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 27 ydsPITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct24% of receiving production back price steady
15+-24771.2%24+-11954.3%25+-11152.6%40++22331%50++37820.9%60++61014.1%70++9409.6%
Dawson PoughBCReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 22 ydsBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct23% of receiving production back price steady
15+-17363.4%19+-12255%20+-11653.7%25++12444.6%40++31224.3%50++53115.8%60++88010.2%
Johnathan MontagueBCReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 20 ydsBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct23% of receiving production back price steady
15+-14659.3%18+-11453.3%25++14740.5%40++36621.5%50++63013.7%60++10208.9%
Antonio Chadhafgm
price steady
2++15539.2%
Bo MacCormackBCAnytime TD
17.4% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production back price steady
Over+47517.4%
Boston College D/STAnytime TD
17.4% to score price steady
Over+47517.4%
Bryce YatesPITTAnytime TD
22.2% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production backdrifted +320 → +350
Over+35022.2%
Carson KentPITTAnytime TD
21.3% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production back price steady
Over+37021.3%
Cataurus HicksPITTAnytime TD
35.7% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production backdrifted +165 → +180
Over+18035.7%
Censere LeePITTAnytime TD
35.7% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production backdrifted +165 → +180
Over+18035.7%
Damon Ferguson Jr.PITTAnytime TD
53.5% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production backdrifted -125 → -115
Over-11553.5%
Danny EdgehilleBCAnytime TD
14.3% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production back price steady
Over+60014.3%
Dawson PoughBCAnytime TD
16.7% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production backdrifted +450 → +500
Over+50016.7%
Demetrice McCrayPITTAnytime TD
13.3% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production back price steady
Over+65013.3%
Elijah LaggPITTAnytime TD
15.4% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production back price steady
Over+55015.4%
Evan DickensBCAnytime TD
45.5% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production backdrifted +110 → +120
Over+12045.5%
Holden GerinerPITTAnytime TD
11.1% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production back price steady
Over+80011.1%
Ja'Kyrian TurnerPITTAnytime TD
36.4% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production back price steady
Over+17536.4%
Jaedn SkeeteBCAnytime TD
14.3% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production back price steady
Over+60014.3%
Javarius GreenBCAnytime TD
27% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production back price steady
Over+27027%
Johnathan MontagueBCAnytime TD
20% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production back price steady
Over+40020%
La'Vell WrightPITTAnytime TD
43.5% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production backdrifted +120 → +130
Over+13043.5%
Landon WrightBCAnytime TD
10.5% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production back price steady
Over+85010.5%
Malik KnightPITTAnytime TD
29.4% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production back price steady
Over+24029.4%
Mason McKenzieBCAnytime TD
55.6% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production backdrifted -140 → -125
Over-12555.6%
Pittsburgh D/STAnytime TD
20% to score price steady
Over+40020%
Tony KinslerPITTAnytime TD
12.5% to scorePITT implied 24.5 pts · favouredBoston College D was middling — 40th pct40% of overall production back price steady
Over+70012.5%
Zeke MooreBCAnytime TD
14.3% to scoreBC implied 18 pts · underdogPittsburgh D was tough — 93th pct16% of overall production back price steady
Over+60014.3%

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.