Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected New Hampshire 32.6, Harvard 27.4 at Wildcat Stadium (NH) in Week 3. That is a lean: New Hampshire wins about 63% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 5.2 points and 59.9 combined points. Tags: upset alert, leans high scoring.
Harvard has not played a game yet this season, so its number leans on last year's results. New Hampshire is 1-2, scoring 19.7 and allowing 43 points per game (-23.3 per game).
College football is noisy: even a well-rated projection misses the final margin by about 14 points on average. Based on how real results have scattered around our numbers, the final margin should land somewhere between Harvard by 17 and New Hampshire by 28 about 80% of the time.
New Hampshire gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. Even on a neutral field the ratings would still favour New Hampshire by about 3.1.
Result: Harvard 31, New Hampshire 7. Harvard won, so this goes down as a miss for the model (margin off by 29.2 points).
Market lines
Market lines · Source: The Odds API, ESPN, Action Network · Updated Oct 29, 11:25 AM UTC. Shown for information; not an input to our projections.
| Provider | Spread (open → now) | Total (open → now) | Moneyline (Harvard / New Hampshire) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Harvard -15.5 → Harvard -14.5 | 52.5 → 51.5 | -900 / +554 |
| DraftKings | Harvard -15.5 → Harvard -14.5 | 52.5 → 51.5 | -900 / +554 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com · read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | New Hampshire win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | New Hampshire -5 | 59.9 | 63% |
| Market consensus | Harvard -14.5 | 51.5 | 15% |
| Blended projection | Harvard -11.5 | 52.7 | 22% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- New Hampshire win probability
- model 63% · market (no-vig) 15% · difference +49 pts
- Margin
- model New Hampshire -5.2 · market Harvard -14.5 · difference +19.7 pts (New Hampshire view)
- Total
- model 59.9 · market 51.5 · difference +8.4
Model margin is 19.7 pts more toward New Hampshire than the market.
21+ only where legal. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Original projection vs new formula
| Projection | Score | Win prob | Margin miss | Total miss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original projection | Harvard 27.4, New Hampshire 32.6 | New Hampshire 63%wrong winner | 29.2 | 21.9 |
| New formula | Harvard 35.2, New Hampshire 24.7 | Harvard 73%right winner | 13.5 | 22.0 |
Final: Harvard 31, New Hampshire 7. Original = the number we posted before kickoff. New formula (2026-10-21 matchup terms) = the current model re-run with only the games played before this one.
Harvard vs New Hampshire: stat comparison
2025 season numbers (this season's sample is still too small).
| Stat | Harvard | New Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 36.5 | 24.8 |
| Points allowed per game | 21.2 | 22.8 |
| Yards per play | 6.66 | 5.48 |
| Yards per play allowed | 5.30 | 5.68 |
| Rushing yards per game | 169.8 | 157.8 |
| Net passing yards per game | 276.8 | 204.5 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 139.8 | 188.8 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 190.0 | 165.0 |
| Turnovers per game | 0.91 | 0.54 |
| Takeaways per game | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Sacks per game | 1.73 | 2.15 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 0.91 | 1.85 |
| Stat | Harvard | New Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | +0.17 | -0.01 |
| EPA per play allowed | -0.04 | +0.06 |
| Success rate | 45.9% | 40.1% |
| Success rate allowed | 43.4% | 43.8% |
| Explosive play rate | 15.2% | 12.2% |
| Explosive plays allowed | 10.5% | 13.7% |
| Havoc rate | 11.0% | 13.2% |
| Havoc allowed | 9.1% | 12.7% |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 0.00 | 3.01 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 0.00 | 3.61 |
| Average starting field position | opp 0 | opp 5 |
| Opponents' starting field position | opp 0 | opp 6 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 67.1 | 66.1 |
| Stat | Harvard | New Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | +0.17 | -0.05 |
| Passing EPA per play | +0.17 | +0.04 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | -0.04 | +0.13 |
| Passing EPA allowed | -0.02 | -0.04 |
| Rushing success rate | 49.8% | 40.4% |
| Passing success rate | 46.5% | 41.1% |
| Run stuff rate | 16.9% | 19.4% |
| Passing-down success rate | 38.1% | 32.2% |
| Passing-down success allowed | 27.3% | 32.4% |
| Third-down conversion rate | 48.3% | 38.8% |
| Third-down rate allowed | 44.1% | 43.0% |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 0.0% | 51.1% |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 0.0% | 52.2% |
# = rank among 136 FBS teams. Efficiency numbers exclude garbage time. Per-play numbers of teams with a weak schedule are pulled toward their opponent-adjusted values (fully at one standard deviation below an average schedule). Source: play-by-play (cfbfastR / sportsdataverse), aggregated by us.
More: Harvard schedule · New Hampshire schedule · all Week 3 projections
Share this prediction
Projections are statistical estimates for entertainment and analysis only. They are not betting advice and nothing here guarantees any result.
Free weekly projections email
One email a week in season: the closest projected games, the biggest mismatches and how the model graded out last week. Email address only — no spam, unsubscribe any time.