It's time for the quarterfinals of the 2025 College Football Playoff. After the first round where teams won with ease (Oregon) or clawed back to victory (Alabama), teams fresh off gritty matchups will meet well-rested contenders in some of the biggest games of the season.
Pamela Maldonado breaks down the Goodyear Cotton Bowl Classic, the Capital One Orange Bowl, the Rose Bowl Game Pres. by Prudential and the Allstate Sugar Bowl to uncover the bets with the best value to help ring in the new year.
All odds via DraftKings Sportsbook
Jump to:
Cotton Bowl | Orange Bowl | Rose Bowl | Sugar Bowl
College Football Playoff Quarterfinal
at the Goodyear Cotton Bowl Classic
No. 10 Miami at No. 2 Ohio State -9.5
Wednesday, Dec. 31, 7:30 p.m., ESPN
Records: Miami 10-2, 4-0 vs. AP Top 25; Ohio State 12-1, 3-1 vs. AP Top 25
Opening line: Ohio State -9.5, O/U 43.5
Money line: Miami (+280); Ohio State (-355)
Over/under: 42.5 (O -108, U -112)
The Miami Hurricanes arrive fresh off a statement win over the Texas A&M Aggies. The Ohio State Buckeyes arrive rested.
Both routes still lead to the same high stakes checkpoint, with a semifinal looming for whichever team survives what comes next.
Here's what I see for both squads, with a prediction at the end.
When Ohio State has the ball
This is the most uncomfortable matchup Ohio State's offense has seen all season. The Buckeyes' biggest edge is elite passing, and Miami is built to stress that. The Hurricanes have the second-best pass rush -- behind only Texas Tech -- with nearly 300 pressures, and they do it without blitzing.
Buckeyes QB Julian Sayin has been excellent when clean, but under pressure, his completion rate drops from 83% to 61.5% with his execution taking a real hit. Miami can collapse the pocket with a four-man rush, tighten windows and kill explosives.
Add in Miami's top-12 coverage grade and strong red zone resistance, and this points toward a grind. Fewer chunk plays and more third downs with field goals carrying real weight against a defense designed to make you earn everything.
WR Jeremiah Smith's eight receptions for 144 yards with no scores against Indiana shows how the Buckeyes can rack up yardage between the 20's without converting those big plays into points.
When Miami has the ball
The Hurricanes will move the ball, and the data says they should. The Hurricanes are balanced, grading top-30 in both passing and rushing grades, with run blocking that's good enough to stay on schedule and avoid negative plays. Between QB Carson Beck's efficiency and a run game that can move the chains, they can stack first downs and string together real drives.
The problem shows up when the field shrinks.
Ohio State's red zone defense has been elite all season. The Buckeyes have allowed just eight total red zone touchdowns ... all season ... on just 24 attempts. That's a one-third conversion rate -- before you even factor in their tackling and rushing defense. That combo means space compresses fast and yards after contact disappear.
This is the script Ohio State wants. Let you drive, let the clock bleed and force finishes to stall. Miami can sustain possessions, but turning those drives into seven points instead of three will be a challenge.
Betting consideration: First quarter UNDER 9.5 (-105)
I'll be honest: I can't get a read on the spread or full game total. The full game total of 42 is already low, but the first quarter splits are screaming field position, punts and a grind.
For a 15-minute window, the early numbers matter most.
First-quarter offense:
Ohio State 56th, 5.9 points
Miami 75th, 5.2 points
The bigger edge is on the defensive side. Ohio State allowed just 1.3 first quarter points (first in the FBS), while Miami allowed 2.5 (sixth). When you blend each offense with the opposing first-quarter defense, the expectation comfortably sits below 9.5.
There's also a clear reason both teams start slow. Early scripts lean conservative, defenses are fresh and neither unit needs to blitz to win downs. Miami's pass rush and Ohio State's overall defensive structure limit clean throws early, creating more second-and-long and third-and-long situations. This is how drives stall before they even threaten points.
As for 9.5 versus 10, the difference is the likelihood of landing on exactly 10. I'd prefer 10, but the midpoint expectation lives in the 6-9 range, which keeps value on the under 9.5.
The risk is always that there will be a defensive or special teams score, but the volatility is already priced in. From script and efficiency standpoints, this is where the value sits.
College Football Playoff Quarterfinal
at the Capital One Orange Bowl
No. 5 Oregon -2.5 at No. 4 Texas Tech
Thursday, Jan. 1, noon, ESPN
Records: Oregon 11-1, 2-1 vs. AP Top 25; Texas Tech 12-1, 3-0 vs. AP Top 25
Opening line: Oregon -1.5, O/U 52.5
Money line: Oregon (-135); Texas Tech (+114)
Over/under: 50.5 (O -110, U -110)
The Oregon Ducks enter the College Football Playoff quarterfinal riding momentum after a comfortable first-round win over the James Madison Dukes, while the Texas Tech Red Raiders step into the spotlight rested after earning a bye.
With a trip to the CFP semifinal on the line, this Orange Bowl matchup sets up as a clash of contrasting styles where tempo, execution and discipline will matter far more than raw scoring averages.
Here's what I see for both teams, with a prediction at the end.
Oregon: built to control games
The Ducks' edge is control: They are built to win games where efficiency fluctuates and explosives are limited. Oregon operates with a positive expected points added (EPA) profile, generating value without needing constant chunk plays, and defending early downs well enough to dictate. Against a Tech team that thrives on volume, coach Dan Lanning is comfortable setting up his offense with fewer snaps, leaning on balance and trusting its defense to squeeze possessions.
Defensively, Oregon is disciplined and mistake-resistant. A top-5 tackling grade limits yards after contact, top-10 coverage reduces big time plays and a top-15 pass rush creates pressure without overexposing the secondary. The Ducks have the ability to overwhelm opponents, but they also consistently avoid the negative swings that flip games. In a neutral-site setting, that ability to lower variance matters.
Texas Tech: dangerous when the game stays chaotic
The Red Raiders are dangerous because of how fast games can get away from opponents. Tech plays with high tempo and heavy play volume, complemented with an aggressive defense that, when it's all put together, can create blowouts when chaos is allowed to breathe.
Tech's defense is legitimately rude. The unit is ranked first against the run, in tackling, in coverage and even first in takeaways because it's the best pass rush in the country. Tech forces opponents to be uncomfortable throughout all four quarters.
The concern lies on offense. Behren Morton is a fine quarterback, and RB Cameron Dickey can be a threat on the ground, but Tech's production is driven by volume and field position rather than execution. Its EPA per play trends negative, early down success lags, and drives are harder to finish when possessions are limited. Against defenses that can tackle well and limit big plays, Tech often settles for field goals or empty trips. The offensive ceiling for the Red Raiders is real.
Betting consideration: First half UNDER 24.5 (-110)
The initial lean was the full-game under, which opened at 53 but has ticked down to 50.5. The problem now is price. At this number, the edge is not entirely gone, but it is thinner. I'll pivot to finding value earlier in the game instead.
Oregon is overwhelming when allowed to dictate terms but against real resistance, the offense becomes mortal. When facing the Penn State Nittany Lions, Indiana Hoosiers and Iowa Hawkeyes, EPA remained positive but success rate dipped, explosives disappeared and drives lengthened, all of which suppresses early scoring. Points can still come, just not quickly.
Texas Tech's offense looks elite in raw output but the scoring is propped by volume and short fields created by its defense. Play-by-play volume is inconsistent and execution drops sharply when possessions are limited. The Red Raiders convert just 56% of red zone trips into touchdowns, one of the weakest rates among the playoff teams ... and in the FBS as a whole. Tech can move the ball early, but struggle to finish.
The first-half splits reinforce this. Both are top 5 in first-half scoring defense when traveling, while second-half volatility increases, especially for Tech, whose offensive output spikes when game state forces aggression. Basically, tighter early and looser later.
At 53, the full game was mispriced. At 50.5, it's close to fair. The stronger move now is isolating the portion of the game where resistance is strongest.
College Football Playoff Quarterfinal
at the Rose Bowl Presented by Prudential
No. 9 Alabama at No. 1 Indiana -7
Thursday, Jan. 1, 4 p.m., ESPN
Records: Alabama 10-3, 4-2 vs. AP Top 25; Indiana 13-0, 3-0 vs. AP Top 25
Opening Line: Indiana -6.5, O/U 49.5
Money line: Alabama (+210); Indiana (-258)
Over/Under: 47.5 (O -105, U -115)
The College Football Playoff quarterfinal slate feels like a bracket built out of pressure points. In one lane, Alabama Crimson Tide versus Indiana Hoosiers sets up a stress test that feeds directly into a semifinal spot.
Here's the problem with Alabama
Alabama's issues start with the run game, averaging just 3.2 yards per carry, tied for the fifth worst in the FBS, with teams like Kent State, UMass, and Ball State. The running back room is solid on an individual level but the offensive line isn't winning consistently, which means the Crimson Tide made it to the postseason by surviving.
We've seen the script play out against quality opponents. Against Georgia in the SEC title game, Bama finished with -3 rushing yards (not a typo). In the regular season loss to Oklahoma, the Tide managed just 80 rushing yards on 33 carries, the offense was dead. Even in the playoff win over the Sooners, the run game never showed and Bama depended on high-impact gains and flipped field position to advance.
Defensively, Alabama isn't imposing itself but rather is reacting. It doesn't win the line of scrimmage snap to snap, 131st in pressures and sacks and can't shut down the run on a down-to-down basis. This is an event-based defense, not a dominant one.
Bama is at its best when leading with tempo in check and Simpson is comfortable, but the Tide are the most vulnerable when trailing, stuck in long drives and forced to run. They can beat good teams, but the wrong matchup can absolutely strangle them.
Take a look at Kirby Smart preparing the Bulldogs for their CFP Quarterfinal as they have a rematch against Ole Miss in New Orleans.
Betting consideration: Indiana -7
This is that wrong matchup. Bama's weakness lines up directly with Indiana's strength. The Tide wants balance but doesn't have it, which forces the offense to live through Simpson. That's risky against a defense that doesn't need help to create pressure. Alabama also faced weaker pass rushes for most of the season, which inflates how comfortable this offense has looked at times.
Indiana's defense is built to punish that profile: it ranks third against the run, fourth in tackling, sixth in coverage and 14th in pressure and sacks. The Hoosiers collapse the pocket with four, tackle cleanly and force field goals. Opponents score touchdowns on just 27% of red zone trips, the lowest rate in the FBS. That's a nightmare for an offense that stalls without explosives.
The real separation comes when Indiana has the ball. The Hoosiers are multi-dimensional and not at all dependent. Fernando Mendoza is elite in execution, decisive, accurate, and doesn't chase hero throws. IU rushed for 214 yards per game with three legitimate ball carriers plus quarterback mobility. The offense is choice driven. They pick their spots and attack when to hurt you. Bama's coverage is solid but the pass rush being nonexistent gives Mendoza times, the Hoosiers offense clean drives, and more red zone looks. Over a full game, that gap turns into points.
This is stability versus dependency. Indiana defines the game. Alabama reacts. Indiana -7.
College Football Playoff Quarterfinal
at the Allstate Sugar Bowl
No. 6 Ole Miss at No. 3 Georgia -6.5
Thursday, Jan. 1, 8 p.m., ESPN
Records: Ole Miss 11-1, 2-1 vs. AP Top 25; Georgia 12-1, 5-1 vs. AP Top 25
Opening Line: Georgia -6.5, O/U 56.5
Money line: Ole Miss (+205); Georgia (-250)
Over/Under: 55.5 (O -112, U -108)
The other side of the bracket runs back unfinished business with the Ole Miss Rebels against the Georgia Bulldogs. Some teams win by owning game flow and space, while others survive by hitting that one more that keeps them alive.
Ole Miss versus Georgia take 1: What actually happened
If this truly is a rematch, the first meeting deserves a clear-eyed revisit. The final score, a 43-35 win for the Bulldogs over the Rebels, says a tight contest. However, Georgia shaped the game from start to finish, even while trailing.
The Bulldogs held the ball for over 37 minutes, creating a 15-minute possession gap that defined the game. Ole Miss scored quickly, while Georgia scored deliberately, owning the clock from start to finish.
Quarterback Trinidad Chambliss leaned on chunk gains to stay alive, most notably a 75-yard touchdown. Without it, the Rebels were productive but constrained, forced to create improv without the benefit of Georgia mistakes. That margin never appeared.
Georgia's run game ultimately broke the Rebels through attrition, nearly 50 rushing attempts allowed the Dogs to take over late game situations and wear down the defense. After Ole Miss took a brief lead late in the third, Georgia outscored them 17-0.
The quarterback contrast mattered. Georgia played clean, disciplined football, while Ole Miss needed near perfection. In the playoff setting, that imbalance is decisive.
Betting consideration: Georgia -6
For a rematch this means Georgia can keep to the same blueprint and lean even harder into the run. The Bulldogs already proved they can survive early Ole Miss tempo, absorb splash play and still take over the final 20 minutes through volume, possession and finishing drives.
For Ole Miss to flip the result, it must hold Georgia in check on the ground, asking the Rebels to become something they haven't shown all year. Even Tulane found ground-game success against this front. Ole Miss' run defense (28th) and tackling (56th) says resistance but not dominance and resistance doesn't hold up for four quarters, especially not against a team willing to run 45-plus times.
If Georgia repeats its rushing output, the math favors a late separation.