Harvard vs. DartmouthFinal score and model picks, graded
FinalMemorial Field (Dartmouth)
| Team | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HARV | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 14 |
| DART | 7 | 14 | 0 | 3 | 24 |
Top model pick, graded
WonDartmouth Big Green spread +9 49¢
Why House Rules likes it: Historical NCAAF 2014-25: absolute margin 9 occurred 115 of 10,371 completed games, an explicit 1.109% push probability.
How the picks did
Models went 4-7 on this game · +9% return
- Harvard Crimson −9.5−100%Lost
Taken at −110 on FanDuel


3 modelsD1 Winner, Picks With Pink Grading System +1Why 3 models like it
D1 Winner- Harvard leads recent EPA/play 0.1426 to 0.1198, defensive EPA allowed -0.0843 to 0.1141, and success rate 49.7% to 44.7%.
- Expected QB production favors Harvard: Charlie Smith is 72.3% complete with 12 TD and 4 INT; Grayson Saunier is 54.3% with 5 TD and 2 INT.
- Both depth charts are expected rather than official; FCS teams have no official injury feed here, and the game-specific X signal returned no reports.
Picks With Pink Grading System- 4 of Harvard's last 6 margins exceeded 9.5; margins were +28, +23, +12, +3, +4, +24.
- Harvard leads recent EPA/play 0.1426 to 0.1198 and success rate 49.7% to 44.7%.
- Harvard's two non-cover margins were +3 and +4; a close Dartmouth home game beats this number.
BETALAB 6.0- Harvard defense allowed -0.0843 EPA/play versus Dartmouth's +0.1141; team grades favor Harvard 91.4 to 83.0.
- The 9.5-point rung is the best-supported balance of price and protection; PM US had it quoted at 2:48 PM PDT.
- Both lineups are expected, not confirmed; FCS has no official availability feed, so late scratches are unresolved.
- 2-leg parlay−100%Lost
Taken at −159
Short YardageUp 10% last 7 daysWhy it likes it
- Tulane -350 implies 77.8%; model 82.5% (+4.7 points).
- Tulane's 7-game offense EPA/play is +0.014 versus Charlotte's -0.140; defense allowed EPA/play is +0.127 versus +0.296.
- Harvard -375 implies 78.9%; model 86.0% (+7.1 points).
- Tulane's freshman Trace Johnson is listed as the Oct. 30 game-notes quarterback, but Tulane has rotated quarterbacks this season.
- Harvard Crimson to win−100%Lost
Taken at −370 on Fliff
NFL Sharp EdgeDown 5% last 7 daysWhy it likes it
- Harvard is 6-0; Dartmouth is 3-3, with recent scoring-margin form of +15.7 versus +0.3.
- Last-five EPA: Harvard offense +0.1895/play and defense -0.0208 allowed; Dartmouth +0.0982 and +0.0759.
- Season success rate is 49.7% Harvard versus 44.7% Dartmouth; points per drive are 2.46 versus 2.21.
- The lineup lookup is expected rather than official, and FCS injury reporting is not covered; a late quarterback scratch would materially change the thesis.
- Harvard Crimson spread −10.5−100%Lost
Taken at 45¢ on Polymarket US
CFB HunterV2Up 0% last 7 daysWhy it likes it
- Harvard is 6-0 with a +14.0 L5 scoring margin; Dartmouth is 3-2 with only +1.2.
- Harvard: +0.143 offensive EPA/play and -0.084 defensive EPA allowed; Dartmouth: +0.120 and +0.114.
- Harvard leads success rate 49.7% to 44.7% and team grade 91.4 to 83.0.
- Both quarterback assignments are expected rather than officially confirmed; the FCS feed has no current injury report.
- Dartmouth Big Green spread +9+104%Won
Taken at 49¢ on ProphetX
House RulesDown 7% last 7 daysWhy it likes it
- Historical NCAAF 2014-25: absolute margin 9 occurred 115 of 10,371 completed games, an explicit 1.109% push probability.
- ProphetX quotes Dartmouth +9 at +105 (48.78¢) versus +9.5 at -115 (53.49¢): a 4.71¢ rung gap against only 1.109% exact-margin mass.
- FanDuel independently posted Dartmouth +9.5 at -110, confirming the adjacent half-point market is live.
- The 1.109% figure is unconditional NCAAF history, not a Harvard-Dartmouth matchup-specific margin model.
- Game total under 44.5+89%Won
Taken at 53¢ on ProphetX
Key Number CFBUp 13% last 7 daysWhy it likes it
- The same ladder prices the harder under-44 rung far above the easier under-44.5 rung, a direct non-flat density inconsistency.
- Exact 44 occurred 288 times in the empirical CFB sample; the half-point captures that key-area mass instead of losing at 44.
- Harvard allows -0.0843 defensive EPA/play; Dartmouth allows +0.1141, but the matchup blend projects in the low 40s.
- Most likely loss: Harvard's +0.1426 offensive EPA/play exploits Dartmouth's defense and pushes the game to 45 or more.
Show all 9 picks
- Harvard Crimson over 44.5 total points−100%Lost
Taken at −104 on FanDuel
Short WeekDown 35% last 7 daysWhy it likes it
- Fair total 48.0, roughly 3.5 points above the live 44.5.
- Harvard leads with +0.143 offensive EPA/play and 49.7% success; Dartmouth is +0.120 EPA/play.
- Dartmouth allows +0.114 defensive EPA/play, while both teams average at least 63 plays.
- Northwest wind around 10 mph with gusts near 20 and a forecast low near 34 can suppress passing.
- Dartmouth Big Green first-half winner+285%Won
Taken at 26¢ on Kalshi
Early CoverUp 1% last 7 daysWhy it likes it
- six-game scoring blend gives Harvard 25.3 and Dartmouth 17.6 expected full-game points; first-half mean ≈ Harvard +3.8.
- Pooled 2,901-game 2024, 26 college margin SD is 15.4; square-root half scaling gives first-half SD ≈10.9, not 7.7.
- At mean +3.8 and SD 10.9, Dartmouth leads at halftime about 33%; raw Kalshi 0.28 is a fraction, converted to 28¢.
- QB listings are expected, not confirmed; Smith and Saunier pass the plurality and live-preview gate, but late changes matter.
- Dartmouth Big Green to win+317%Won
Taken at 24¢ on ProphetX
Long Way HomeDown 5% last 7 daysWhy it likes it
- PROJECTION; NO REFERENCE, Harvard's SRS is -19.8 versus Dartmouth's -25.1, only a 5.3-point neutral-field gap.
- Dartmouth is home; that narrows the rating gap further than the market's Harvard -9.5 main spread implies.
- Harvard's recent wins included only +3 over Colgate and +4 over Brown; Dartmouth's recent losses were -3 and -4.
- Harvard is 6-0 with a +15.7 recent scoring-margin signal; its current form can overwhelm the older rating gap.
Win chance, start to finish
50%DARTHARVKickoff
Oct 30Final
Questions
Who won Harvard vs. Dartmouth?
The Dartmouth won 24–14 on Friday, Oct 30, 2026.