Player Props to Target Week 5
Purdue Boilermakers @ Illinois Fighting Illini
Asaad Waseem Over 61.5 Receiving Yards
| Book line | 61.5 |
| Model projection | 82.7 (+34.5%) |
| 2026 to date | 355 yards in 4 games, 88.8 a game |
| Volume | 8.0 targets a game, 32 on the season, 92 routes |
| Efficiency | 3.86 yards per route run, 11.2 average depth of target, 82.9 route grade |
| Hands | 24 catches on 32 targets, no drops |
| Illinois defense | 113th Success Rate, 75.5 coverage, 49.9 tackling |
| Books | 2 |
Waseem has 355 receiving yards in four games, 88.8 a game, against a line of 61.5. The projection is 82.7, and the pace multiplier behind it is 1.038, so almost none of that number is a script assumption. It is the production.
The efficiency is what carries it. 3.86 yards per route run on 92 routes, 24 catches on 32 targets with no drops, an 11.2 average depth of target and an 82.9 route grade, with a long of 37. He is a primary read on a downfield route tree, not a volume accumulator.
Illinois are the matchup and they are soft where it matters. Their defense ranks 113th in Success Rate, 111th in Havoc and 105th in Finishing Drives, with a 75.5 coverage grade and a 49.9 tackling grade. Purdue are 10-point underdogs with a 26.2 implied total, which is the script that produces throws: trailing teams pass.
The argument against is the one that always applies to a receiver. Eight targets a game is real but it is not guaranteed in any single game, and 61.5 needs roughly two-thirds of his average. A quiet first half and a Purdue deficit that turns into a running clock is how it fails.
California Golden Bears @ UNLV Rebels
Adam Mohammed Over 64.5 Rushing Yards
| Book line | 64.5 |
| Model projection | 80.8 (+25.3%) |
| 2026 to date | 336 yards in 4 games, 84.0 a game |
| Volume | 18.3 carries a game, 73 on the season: 63.5% of California’s carries |
| Running style | 14.3% breakaway share, 302 of 336 yards after contact, long of 28 |
| Grades | 77.4 run grade, 26 avoided tackles, no fumbles |
| UNLV tackling | 49.2 grade |
| Books | 2 |
Mohammed has 336 rushing yards in four games, 84.0 a game, against a line of 64.5. At his 18.3 carries a game the line asks for 3.5 yards a carry; he is at 4.6.
The running style is what makes the number dependable. A 14.3% breakaway share and a long of 28 mean almost none of his output is boom: 302 of his 336 yards came after contact, with 26 avoided tackles and no fumbles on a 77.4 run grade. A back who gets two and three yards at a time clears a yardage line by accumulation rather than by one play.
The volume is the edge. 63.5% of California’s carries is a workhorse share and the next man has 16 attempts all season, so there is no committee to price. UNLV tackle at 49.2 against California’s 79.1 run grade, a 30-point gap in the unit this position runs through.
The game is near a pick at California +2.5, so no blowout script in either direction takes the ball out of his hands. This card also takes Under 53.5 in the same game; a run-heavy, clock-controlling afternoon serves both, which is the rare case where two positions in one game reinforce rather than fight.
BYU Cougars @ TCU Horned Frogs
Kari Ashley Over 32.5 Receiving Yards
| Book line | 32.5 |
| Model projection | 44.9 (+38.2%) |
| 2026 to date | 266 yards in 4 games, 66.5 a game |
| Volume | 6.3 targets a game, 25 on the season, 90 routes |
| Efficiency | 2.96 yards per route run, 9.2 average depth of target, 77.5 route grade |
| Line vs production | 34.0 yds/gm below his average |
| Working against it | BYU 89.6 coverage, TCU implied total 20.8, 0.813 pace adjustment |
| Books | 2 |
Ashley has 266 receiving yards in four games, 66.5 a game, against a line of 32.5. The market is asking for roughly half of what he has been doing.
The efficiency is not a one-game spike. 2.96 yards per route run on 90 routes, 19 catches on 25 targets, three touchdowns, a 9.2 average depth of target and a 77.5 route grade, with a long of 37. A tight end running that many routes at that rate is being used as a primary read rather than a checkdown. Two drops is the one blemish.
What makes this interesting is that the number survives everything working against it. BYU allow 15.7 a game and grade 89.6 in coverage. TCU are 6-point home underdogs with a 20.8 implied total, and the model applies a 0.813 pace adjustment for the low-scoring script it expects. After all of that the projection still sits 38% above the line, because the starting production is so far clear of it.
The honest risk is the script rather than the matchup. A team expected to score 21 throws less than one expected to score 31, and BYU’s defense is built to make that worse. TCU’s own best defensive number, a 92.0 run defense, also argues their offense will spend time behind.
Kentucky Wildcats @ South Carolina Gamecocks
Mazeo Bennett Jr. Under 37.5 Receiving Yards
| Book line | 37.5 |
| Model projection | 21.7 (-42.1%) |
| 2026 to date | 109 yards in 4 games, 27.3 a game |
| Volume | 5.3 targets a game, 21 on the season, 98 routes |
| Efficiency | 1.11 yards per route run, 4 drops on 21 targets, 56.1 route grade |
| Longest catch | 18 yards, all season |
| Working against it | Kentucky 88th Success Rate defense, South Carolina implied total 28.8 |
| Books | 2 |
Bennett has 109 receiving yards in four games, 27.3 a game, against a line of 37.5. The line is asking for 38% more than he has produced in any sustained stretch.
The case is efficiency, not usage, which is what makes it unusual: it requires nothing to happen. He has run 98 routes for 1.11 yards per route run, caught 10 of 21 targets, and dropped four, on a 56.1 route grade. His longest catch all season is 18 yards. A receiver with no explosive play and a sub-50% catch rate needs volume he is not getting to reach 37.5.
A 9.0 average depth of target means these are intermediate throws rather than screens, which cuts both ways: more yards when they land, a lower completion rate on the way.
Kentucky’s defense is the argument against and it is not small. They rank 88th in Success Rate and 115th in Field Position while allowing 25.0 a game, which is not a unit that shuts receivers down. South Carolina are 3-point home favourites with a 28.8 implied total, so there is no negative script forcing volume away from him either. One 40-yard play beats this, which is the whole risk in a sentence.
Florida Gators @ Missouri Tigers
Jadan Baugh Over 118.0 Rushing Yards
| Book line | 118.0 |
| Model projection | 155.6 (+31.9%), read down for a 1.471 pace multiplier |
| 2026 to date | 580 yards in 4 games, 145.0 a game |
| Volume | 21.0 carries a game, 84 on the season: 48.6% of Florida’s carries |
| Efficiency | 6.9 yards a carry against a line asking 5.6 |
| Grades | 92.6 run grade, 34 avoided tackles, 358 yards after contact, 11 touchdowns |
| Missouri run defense | 84.3 grade and 9th in Havoc, but 126th in Explosiveness allowed |
| Books | 2 |
Baugh has 580 rushing yards in four games, 145.0 a game, against a line of 118.0. The projection of 155.6 carries a 1.471 pace multiplier and should be discounted, but the projection is not what this rests on: 118 asks for 5.6 yards a carry on his 21.0 attempts and he is at 6.9.
The underlying work supports the rate. A 92.6 run grade, 34 avoided tackles, 358 yards after contact, 13 explosive runs, 11 touchdowns and a long of 75, with no fumbles on 84 carries. He takes 48.6% of everything Florida run and 56.4% of the carries that are not the quarterback’s.
Missouri are the hard part. They allow 20.8 a game on an 84.3 run defense grade, 9th in Havoc and 36th in Success Rate, with a 90.0 pass rush grade. What keeps the matchup workable is 126th in Explosiveness allowed, which is the one thing a back with a 52.4% breakaway share needs.
That breakaway share is also the risk. More than half his yardage arrives on a handful of carries, so the distribution is lumpy: he either clears this comfortably or falls well short, with little in between. Florida are 5.5-point favourites with a 31.5 implied total, so the script supports the carries.
