NCAAF Customer Results

Official Men's College Football Card Record

This page gives customers the clean version of the NCAA men's football backtest: what the official straight-bet card would have included, how many ATS and totals bets qualified, and what a $100 flat-bet customer would have earned. The deeper model audit stays available separately for internal review.

Top Line

What A $100 Flat-Bet Customer Would Have Seen

The official NCAAF card includes the ATS side card and the Hybrid Best totals card. It does not double-count the underlying full-game and first-half lane context.

2024 NCAAF Card

+$3,502
+35.02 units at $100 per unit
108-74-3 | 60.0% win/push
185 bets | 18.9% ROI

2025 NCAAF Card

+$3,962
+39.62 units at $100 per unit
99-65-0 | 60.4% win/push
164 bets | 24.2% ROI

2024-2025 Combined

+$7,464
+74.64 units at $100 per unit
207-139-3 | 60.2% win/push
349 bets | 21.4% ROI

CLV snapshot: true-close CLV is connected for the current NCAAF ATS side card and Hybrid Best totals card. The official ATS card averaged +0.028 spread points combined with 80.3% non-negative CLV. Hybrid Best totals averaged +0.013 total points combined with 71.3% non-negative CLV. We keep spread CLV and totals CLV separate because they measure different markets.

What Is Included

The Official NCAAF Card Has Two Parts

Part 1

NCAAF ATS Card

Includes full-game ATS and first-half ATS. If both qualify on the same game, the card uses the governed side-card rule from the model audit instead of blindly double-counting correlated exposure.

Part 2

Hybrid Best Totals Card

Includes full-game totals and first-half totals from the Hybrid Best totals lane. The totals card is tracked separately from ATS because spread CLV and total CLV are different market measurements.

Not double-counted: the detailed audit page still preserves model groups, lane notes, CLV notes, and internal context. This customer page shows only the official card record by season and bet type.

Season Results

Season-By-Season Official Card

2024 NCAAF Season

Official Card: +$3,502 / +35.02u

This includes the official ATS side card and Hybrid Best totals card from the 2024 tested season only.

Card PieceIncluded Bet TypesBetsRecordWin/PushProfitUnitsROI
NCAAF ATS CardFull-game ATS + first-half ATS; spread CLV +0.08 pts13779-55-359.9%+$2,306+23.06u16.8%
Hybrid Best Totals CardFull-game + first-half totals; totals CLV +0.07 pts4829-19-060.4%+$1,196+11.96u24.9%
Official 2024 CardATS card + Hybrid Best totals185108-74-360.0%+$3,502+35.02u18.9%

2025 NCAAF Season

Official Card: +$3,962 / +39.62u

This uses the same official-card structure as 2024, applied to the 2025 tested season only.

Card PieceIncluded Bet TypesBetsRecordWin/PushProfitUnitsROI
NCAAF ATS CardFull-game ATS + first-half ATS; spread CLV -0.03 pts13278-54-059.1%+$2,343+23.43u17.8%
Hybrid Best Totals CardFull-game + first-half totals; totals CLV -0.08 pts3221-11-065.6%+$1,619+16.19u50.6%
Official 2025 CardATS card + Hybrid Best totals16499-65-060.4%+$3,962+39.62u24.2%

Combined Tested Window

2024-2025 Official Card: +$7,464 / +74.64u

Card PieceIncluded Bet TypesBetsRecordWin/PushProfitUnitsROI
NCAAF ATS CardFull-game ATS + first-half ATS; spread CLV +0.028 pts269157-109-359.5%+$4,649+46.49u17.3%
Hybrid Best Totals CardFull-game + first-half totals; totals CLV +0.013 pts8050-30-062.5%+$2,815+28.15u35.2%
Official Combined CardATS card + Hybrid Best totals349207-139-360.2%+$7,464+74.64u21.4%

Plain-English Read

How Customers Should Read This

If a customer risked $100 on every official NCAA men's football card play across the 2024 and 2025 tested seasons, the historical result would have been 349 total bets and about $7,464 in profit, or +74.64 units. ROI is profit divided by total risked, so the combined 21.4% ROI means the card earned about $21.40 for every $100 risked across the tested window.

This is a historical backtest, not a promise of future profit. The value of the page is transparency: customers can see the bet count, record, included bet types, profit, units, ROI, and closing-line value without needing to interpret the deeper model audit.