How to read this: every angle below is a true fact about these teams — and there are hundreds, so some will look striking by pure chance. Each side's combinations carry a chance baseline telling you how good the best one would look if nothing were going on. FBS teams carry far less history than NFL ones (a median of 148 graded games vs ~435), so that baseline runs higher here — a perfect record is cheaper in college. Signals disagreeing is normal; weigh them yourself.
Wake Forest — the basics
142 graded games since 2014
| on the road | 32-30 | 52% | +1.6 | n=62 |
| vs Louisville | 5-4 | 56% | -0.9 | n=9 |
| in a conference game | 50-45 | 53% | +1.1 | n=95 |
| vs an FBS opponent | 70-63 | 53% | +1.1 | n=133 |
| vs a P5 opponent | 64-53 | 55% | +1.2 | n=117 |
| vs the ACC | 51-45 | 53% | +1.1 | n=96 |
| in September | 20-19 | 51% | +1.1 | n=39 |
| at this venue | 3-2 | 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| in the last 5 seasons | 31-30 | 51% | +0.3 | n=61 |
record vs the closing number · pts = avg margin vs the line
Wake Forest — form & streaks
| Last 12 games: +7.8 pts vs their number per game | n=12 |
| All 142 graded games: +1.1 pts vs their number per game | n=142 |
Wake Forest — combinations
119 lean Wake Forest · 30 lean against
Read this first. 161 combinations shown. The best one here is 70%. With this many combinations you'd expect the best to be about 71% by chance alone, and about 0 perfect records — this matchup has 0.
| Combination | Rec | % | Pts | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| vs the ACC + in September | 10-6 | 63%from 53% | +5.4 | n=16 |
| + in the last 5 seasons | 4-2 | 67%from 63% | +5.5 | n=6 |
| on the road + in September | 8-5 | 62%from 52% | +5.3 | n=13 |
| in a conference game + in September | 9-6 | 60%from 53% | +5.6 | n=15 |
| + in the last 5 seasons | 4-2 | 67%from 60% | +5.5 | n=6 |
| on the road + vs Louisville | 3-2 | 60%from 52% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + in a conference game | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs an FBS opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs a P5 opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs the ACC | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs an FBS opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs a P5 opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs the ACC | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs a P5 opponent | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs the ACC | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + vs the ACC | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 60% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| on the road + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 52% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| vs Louisville + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 56% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| in a conference game + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 53% | -3.2 | n=5 |
| vs an FBS opponent + at this venue | 3-2 | 60%from 53% | -3.2 | n=5 |
indented rows narrow the one above · click any row for the games behind it
Informational only. Historical splits are shared for analysis and entertainment — not betting advice or any guarantee of outcome. A trend describes the past; it does not predict. Must be 21+ where applicable. If gambling is a problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER.