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: 1169 players across 49 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.

Mississippi State vs LSU

Sat 12:00 PM ETtotal 55.535 props

Sam LeavittLSUPassing yards
market midpoint ≈ 260 ydsLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct13% of passing production backdrifted -105 → +104
150+-156094%160+-112091.8%170+-81089%180+-63086.3%190+-48482.9%200+-37378.9%210+-29674.7%220+-23570.1%230+-18765.2%240+-14859.7%250+-12054.5%251+-11753.9%254+-11954.3%255+-11653.7%256+-11753.9%257+-11553.5%258+-11854.1%259+-11753.9%260++10449%270++12943.7%280++15838.8%290++19434%300++24229.2%310++30524.7%320++38020.8%330++47717.3%340++60014.3%350++77011.5%360++9809.3%370++12607.4%380++12207.6%
Anthony EvansMSSTReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 70 ydsMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct28% of receiving production back price steady
25+-144093.5%40+-38779.5%50+-21568.3%60+-13457.3%62+-11753.9%63+-11653.7%66+-11453.3%67+-11252.8%68+-12455.4%69+-12555.6%70++11646.3%80++17136.9%90++24628.9%100++34922.3%110++48417.1%120++66013.2%130++89010.1%140++11807.8%150++12607.4%
Dilin JonesLSURushing yards
market midpoint ≈ 95 ydsLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct40% of rushing production back price steady
40+-134093.1%50+-63086.3%60+-36878.6%70+-23269.9%80+-16061.5%88+-11553.5%89+-11653.7%90+-11252.8%91+-11653.7%100++12344.8%110++16437.9%120++21631.6%130++28026.3%140++36421.6%150++47217.5%160++60014.3%170++77011.5%180++9809.3%190++12407.5%
Winston WatkinsLSUReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 66 ydsLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct20% of receiving production backdrifted -130 → -114
25+-118092.2%40+-32976.7%50+-18464.8%59+-11954.3%60+-11453.3%61+-11854.1%62+-11653.7%63+-11854.1%70++13243.1%80++19334.1%90++27726.5%100++39420.2%110++54515.5%120++74011.9%130++9909.2%140++12207.6%
Sam LeavittLSURushing yards
market midpoint ≈ 40 ydsLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct40% of rushing production backdrifted -111 → +107
10+-220095.7%15+-86089.6%20+-44181.5%25+-26972.9%30+-18364.7%36+-12255%37+-12255%39+-11954.3%40++10748.3%50++18235.5%60++29825.1%70++47617.4%80++70012.5%90++10808.5%100++11807.8%
Jackson HarrisLSUReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 55 ydsLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct20% of receiving production backdrifted -125 → -109
15+-210095.5%25+-57685.2%40+-19666.2%50+-11453.3%51+-10952.2%52+-12455.4%53+-11152.6%60++14041.7%70++21431.8%80++31424.2%90++45118.1%100++63013.7%110++89010.1%120++11807.8%
Sanfrisco MageeMSSTReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 38 ydsMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct28% of receiving production back price steady
15+-49483.2%25+-19966.6%33+-11753.9%34+-11453.3%35+-11553.5%36+-11553.5%37+-11353.1%40++12843.9%50++21431.8%60++33722.9%70++51316.3%80++78011.4%90++11807.8%
Zion RaginsMSSTReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 36 ydsMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct28% of receiving production back price steady
15+-41480.5%25+-17563.6%31+-11653.7%32+-11954.3%33+-11353.1%34+-11353.1%35+-11453.3%40++14441%50++23829.6%60++38020.8%70++59314.4%80++89010.1%90++11807.8%
Eugene WilsonLSUReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 34 ydsLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct20% of receiving production back price steady
15+-46482.3%25+-19065.5%32+-11653.7%40++13941.8%50++23030.3%60++36121.7%70++55015.4%80++84010.6%90++12207.6%
Dilin JonesLSUReceiving yards
market midpoint ≈ 20 ydsLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct20% of receiving production back price steady
15+-14158.5%16+-12555.6%17+-11854.1%18+-11453.3%25++15339.5%40++39120.4%50++65013.3%60++10408.8%
Anthony EvansMSSTAnytime TD
39.2% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backdrifted +115 → +155
Over+15539.2%
Corey Barber Jr.LSUAnytime TD
16.7% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backdrifted +370 → +500
Over+50016.7%
Dilin JonesLSUAnytime TD
75.6% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backbet up -255 → -310
Over-31075.6%
Eugene WilsonLSUAnytime TD
34.5% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backbet up +215 → +190
Over+19034.5%
Fluff BothwellMSSTAnytime TD
51.2% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backdrifted -160 → -105
Over-10551.2%
Harlem BerryLSUAnytime TD
35.7% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backbet up +230 → +180
Over+18035.7%
Jackson HarrisLSUAnytime TD
39.2% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production back price steady
Over+15539.2%
Jayce BrownLSUAnytime TD
24.4% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backbet up +450 → +310
Over+31024.4%
Kamario TaylorMSSTAnytime TD
40% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backdrifted +115 → +150
Over+15040%
Kolin WilsonMSSTAnytime TD
51.2% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backbet up +180 → -105
Over-10551.2%
Landen ClarkLSUAnytime TD
30.8% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backdrifted +150 → +225
Over+22530.8%
LSU D/STAnytime TD
22.7% to score price steady
Over+34022.7%
Marquis JohnsonMSSTAnytime TD
16.7% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backdrifted +320 → +500
Over+50016.7%
Mississippi State D/STAnytime TD
14.3% to scoredrifted +500 → +600
Over+60014.3%
Parker PuckettMSSTAnytime TD
28.6% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backdrifted +220 → +250
Over+25028.6%
Roman MothershedLSUAnytime TD
16.7% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backdrifted +350 → +500
Over+50016.7%
Sam LeavittLSUAnytime TD
69.2% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backbet up -200 → -225
Over-22569.2%
Sam WestMSSTAnytime TD
11.1% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backdrifted +600 → +800
Over+80011.1%
Sanfrisco MageeMSSTAnytime TD
22.7% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backdrifted +235 → +340
Over+34022.7%
Scott Starzykfgm
price steady
2++11047.6%
Stacy GageLSUAnytime TD
21.3% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backdrifted +265 → +370
Over+37021.3%
Winston WatkinsLSUAnytime TD
47.6% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backbet up +130 → +110
Over+11047.6%
Xavier GaytenMSSTAnytime TD
30.3% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backbet up +500 → +230
Over+23030.3%
Zach GraceLSUAnytime TD
18.2% to scoreLSU implied 36.5 pts · favouredMississippi State D was soft — 25th pct21% of overall production backdrifted +290 → +450
Over+45018.2%
Zion RaginsMSSTAnytime TD
20.4% to scoreMSST implied 19 pts · underdogLSU D was tough — 79th pct34% of overall production backdrifted +265 → +390
Over+39020.4%

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.