Sunday, October 4, 2026
Pate's Ramen Noodle Express went 4–6 in Week 5. He wasn't happy with the week, although he said the season record is still comfortably above .500.
The transcript does not give a complete pick-by-pick Week 5 grading sheet.
The biggest betting takeaway may actually be Penn State–Northwestern: Pate admitted his model loved Northwestern, but he ignored it. Northwestern then beat Penn State decisively.
These are the only wagers in this reaction show that Pate clearly labels as Ramen Noodle Express / Best Bets for the coming week.
Pate says he's "seen all I need to see" and puts Penn State +1.5 aboard the Ramen Noodle Express.
His reasoning is straightforward:
> He believes the wrong team is favored.
That's especially interesting because he just spent part of the show burying Penn State after the Northwestern loss.
Pate is going back to Buffalo after backing them the previous week.
Buffalo nearly won outright in that game, and Pate says he's happy to take the big number again.
Penn State +1.5 vs USC
Buffalo +19.5
Everything below should be treated differently unless Pate upgrades it later.
This was the clearest Pate-vs-model disagreement of the show.
Pate said:
Penn State was a short favorite.
His model loved Northwestern.
Pate ignored the model.
He admitted afterward that he shouldn't have ignored it.
Northwestern then dominated Penn State.
The most absurd stat:
Northwestern outrushed Penn State 413–48.
Northwestern also had 11 individual runs longer than Penn State's longest run.
Pate was extremely bullish on Ohio State against Iowa.
He said the matchup was about as close to "free money" as you ever get in college football, while also making the usual disclaimer that there is no such thing as an actual guaranteed bet.
His view was that Iowa was still carrying a reputation in the betting market that this year's team had not earned.
He specifically didn't believe Iowa had shown:
an effective enough running game
enough pass rush
the ability to erase elite WR1s like past Iowa teams
Ohio State won 31–14.
However:
This reaction transcript does not establish Ohio State as an official Ramen Noodle Express pick.
So I'd classify it as a strong handicap opinion, not retroactively count it as a pick.
Pate remains very bullish on Ohio State overall and still thinks they can be the best team in the country.
His Big Ten view:
Ohio State's league to lose, with Indiana and Oregon as the main threats.
NO PICK YET.
Pate gave a long early breakdown, but explicitly said the full prediction is coming Tuesday.
The market moved from approximately:
Georgia -1.5
To
Alabama -1.5
by Sunday evening.
Pate's biggest questions:
Can Alabama knock Georgia off schedule?
Can Georgia run the ball against a much-improved Alabama run defense?
Can Alabama exploit Georgia if Keelon Russell turns the game into a scoring contest?
If Alabama scores 34, can Georgia get to 38?
Is Gunner Stockton capable of winning that type of point-trading game?
Do not turn any of that into an Alabama or Georgia pick yet.
Pate mentioned Indiana around -8.5 at Nebraska.
But he deliberately refused to reveal what his model thinks because he wants to show Will Compton in person.
So:
NO SIDE
NO MODEL NUMBER
NO PICK YET
This may have been Pate's biggest team upgrade of the entire show.
Before the season, Pate called Alabama a:
"Conditional contender."
Meaning the high-end talent was there, but several things had to prove themselves before he would put Alabama alongside teams like Georgia, Ohio State and Texas.
Now?
Pate says essentially all the conditions have turned green.
Keelon Russell has answered the quarterback question.
The run game is dramatically better.
Tight end has become a major strength.
The defense is much better.
The offensive line is worlds better.
The overall physicality of the team is different.
Young elite talent is already contributing.
The portal additions have worked.
Pate originally thought Alabama might become an elite team in 2027.
Now he's seeing many of the reasons he expected them to be elite next year showing up right now.
Pate has moved Alabama from:
High-upside / conditional contender
to something much closer to:
Legitimate national-title-level team right now.
Missouri's 45–7 demolition of Florida clearly moved Pate.
The biggest takeaway was the line of scrimmage.
Florida came in as the No. 2 rushing team in the country.
Missouri outrushed them:
220–42
Missouri also had:
3 sacks
11 tackles for loss
dominant defensive-line play
another strong Austin Simmons performance
Pate is increasingly impressed with Simmons and thinks Missouri could have a quarterback advantage in a lot of its remaining games.
He does not think Missouri will simply out-talent teams like Georgia or Texas.
His point is that Missouri can win through:
matchup
coaching
execution
quarterback play
That's a meaningful upgrade.
Pate specifically says:
Gunner Stockton is a better quarterback this year than he was last year.
Against Vanderbilt:
25-of-32
nearly 300 yards
3 TDs
Pate likes how Georgia's offense stays on schedule.
He also pointed out that eight different Georgia players had multiple receptions, which says a lot about how broadly distributed the offense is.
Heading into Alabama, the key question becomes whether Stockton can keep doing that if Georgia gets dragged into a higher-scoring game.
USC looked dead for a while against Washington.
Washington led:
21–10
USC came back and won:
25–21
Pate's takeaway isn't that USC is suddenly great.
It's:
They're not dead.
That's important after the emotional damage from the previous week.
He still says he doesn't know if he trusts USC against Penn State.
That connects directly to why Penn State +1.5 became his first Week 6 best bet.
Penn State received the Week 5:
Sarah McLachlan Special
Pate basically declared their playoff hopes dead.
After Penn State led Wisconsin 17–0 the prior week, Pate says they were outscored:
58–6
over the rest of that game and the Northwestern game.
The Northwestern loss was catastrophic.
Again, though:
Pate immediately turned around and made Penn State +1.5 vs USC an official best bet.
That's an important distinction.
Team outlook and betting value are not the same thing.
Pate is extremely concerned about Michigan.
Against Minnesota:
180 total yards
Bryce Underwood: 10-of-21
101 yards
0 TD
2 INT
Pate says that if he had to guess right now:
Michigan may struggle to make a bowl.
His bigger concern isn't just scheme or talent.
He describes Michigan as lacking:
juice
energy
life
spark
And that's despite having plenty of talent.
This is one of the strongest negative team opinions in the show.
Pate's breakdown was pretty simple:
> "Auburn's just not good."
He thinks people need to stop expecting a quick fix.
His view is that the rebuild is going to take time, even in the portal era.
Tennessee beat Auburn 24–14 despite only throwing for 86 yards.
Auburn had:
11 penalties
3 turnovers
Pate doesn't see a competent product there yet.
Miami beat Clemson:
41–13
Pate says Clemson has now played two legitimate high-end opponents:
LSU
Miami
And Clemson got blown off the field by both.
His only positive for Clemson:
There are no more LSU/Miami-level teams left on the regular-season schedule.
So Clemson may start winning more games without Pate necessarily changing his underlying evaluation.
Pate doesn't simply call Florida bad.
He calls them a:
High-variance team.
We've now seen both extremes.
High end:
Florida beating Ole Miss
Low end:
Missouri beating Florida 45–7
His concerns:
offensive line against better competition
secondary quality
whether the early-season success is sustainable
whether Florida is just a September surprise
Pate thinks the next several weeks should answer that question.
Pate says Miami is now doing to Clemson:
what Clemson used to do to everyone else.
His biggest Miami concern is injuries.
Not team quality.
His description of the ACC was basically:
Miami is a travel-team-level program playing in a church softball league.
That's about as strong an endorsement of Miami relative to the ACC as you're going to get.
Pate stops short of planting the flag completely, but says he's:
pretty sure there are more than eight teams better than No. 8 BYU.
He questions the resume and the quality of the Big 12 as a whole.
But this is:
NOT A BETTING PICK
It's an AP poll / team-quality opinion.
Pate thinks Oklahoma may still have multiple losses coming.
He mentioned their live win total around:
5.5
He also said the offense is terrible and the team just isn't very good relative to what people expected.
Not betting picks, but useful context.
Pate thinks the situation has probably run its course.
He believes South Carolina can find the money for the buyout and suggested the bye after Florida could be a natural decision point.
Pate was much more definitive here.
His words were essentially:
He's done.
Pate says the coaching search has already begun behind the scenes.
Pate thinks the outside narrative is more negative than the internal one.
People around Florida State still badly want Norvell to succeed.
They don't want to fire him.
They also don't want to eat the massive buyout.
So Pate does not view the FSU job as automatically opening.
No claim that Kyle Whittingham is definitely getting fired.
But Pate thinks the situation bears very close watching.
His issue is the overall lack of energy and life in the program.
Pate thinks this could become one of the more interesting situations in the country if additional losses pile up.
Penn State +1.5 vs USC — BEST BET
Buffalo +19.5 — BEST BET
- Pate's model loved Northwestern.
- Pate ignored it.
- Northwestern won decisively.
Very bullish on Ohio State
Major upgrade on Alabama
Upgrade on Missouri
Upgrade on Gunner Stockton / Georgia
Major downgrade on Michigan
Hard downgrade on Auburn
Significant downgrade on Clemson
BYU potentially overrated
Florida high variance
USC is not dead, but Pate still doesn't fully trust them
Georgia–Alabama — early matchup discussion only; full prediction coming Tuesday
Indiana–Nebraska — model opinion deliberately withheld
Oklahoma win total 5.5 — discussed, not bet
BYU ranking criticism — opinion, not a betting side
South Carolina / Florida comments — hot-seat context, not a wager
The most useful piece of the show may not be the two early best bets.
It may be Penn State–Northwestern.
Pate had a strong enough personal opinion to override a model that loved Northwestern.
The model was right.
Pate was wrong.
And he admitted it immediately.
In this edition of "Master Class", we're gonna look at Prediction Markets vs Sportsbooks, and why the Prediction Markets are the Future of Sports Betting!! Come join us, as we try to provide you with all the tools to STACK YOUR NICKELS TO THE CEILING!! Feel Free to drop any questions you have in the comments!! Hope This Helps My Friends!! Good Luck, Good Gamblin, & Have The Day You Deserve!!
-Crickett
Two conflicting trends dictate the Senate outcome in 2026. The map heavily favors Republicans, as the competitive Senate seats up lean heavily Republican. By contrast, the election context heavily favors Democrats, with war, recession, realignment and scandal tipping in their direction. A deeper dive reveals why prediction markets still likely undersell Democratic prospects.
First, the idea that Senate midterms favor the party out of power in the White House is belied by both recent and a century of history of Senate elections. Unlike the House, only a third of Senate seats face election in any midterm, and that map dictates outcomes unless the election context is particularly bad for the incumbent party.
Consider that the highly unpopular Biden didn’t lost any net Senate seats in 2022 and Trump added Senate seats in the Democratic friendly cycle in 2018. Equally, Clinton didn’t lose net Senate seats in 1998 nor did W. in 2002. Even low-approval election cycles like 1966 and 1982 didn’t produce a big swing in the Senate. Indeed, since 1934, the party in power only lost 10% or more of their Senate seats (4+) less than half of the time. Democrats need a flip of exactly that — at least 4 Senate seats — to retake power in the Senate.
Then take a look at the map, and you can see the reason for optimism in GOP circles and some traders in the prediction markets. Only 2 GOP-held seats are in states Trump won by less than double digits, while 2 Democratic-held seats are in states Trump won, and one of those GOP held seats features a long-time incumbent who typically runs double-digits ahead of the GOP norm (Collins in Maine). This is why the GOP entered the year believing odds of losing the Senate were remote, and the prediction markets mostly concurred.
But this ignores the counter-trend: the degree of election dismay with the incumbent party in the White House, and the reasons for that dismay. Presidential job approval has not been a neat proxy for Senate midterms because it depends on the reason for that dissatisfaction in the electorate. Four factors drive Senatorial midterms: war, recession/cost of living, realignment, and scandal. When two of those four factors are not present and don’t dominate, then the incumbent party’s odds of losing 4+ Senate seats drops to less than 20%. By contrast, when two of those four factors are present and do predominate, then the odds of the incumbent party losing 4+ Senate seats rises to 100%. Indeed, the median number of Senate seats lost when some combination of war, recession, realignment and scandal, are present, the White House party loses at least 8 Senate seats.
A few examples: while FDR added Senate seats in 1934 midterms, he lost 9 in 1938 midterms due to the combination of recession and scandal (trying to stack SCOTUS). 1942 and 1946 gave us war and recession to cost Democrats 8 and 12 Senate seats alike. 1950 gave us war again and scandals concerning the war costing Democrats 5 Senate seats. 1958 gave us recession and scandal, costing Ike 15 Senate seats. While JFK added Senate seats in 1962 and Nixon added Senate seats in 1970, only Watergate and stagflation in 1974 or the combination of Iran Contra and vulnerable class of 1980 incumbents cost the incumbent party 4 or more Senate seats until the realignment election of 1994, where evangelicals shifted their down-ballot voting to the GOP en masse. It took war and scandal in 2006 to see the Senate switch 4+ Senate seats again.
That’s the story of 2026: a very GOP favorable Senate map versus a very Democratic friendly election cycle. The GOP enters election season with all four factor present: war, recession/cost of living, realignment, and scandal. The Iran War was already deeply unpopular, and it’s impact on the economy in gas and diesel prices turns Americans sour on their current economic prospects, as wages fall behind, housing and health care feel increasingly unaffordable, labor force participation continues to drop, the the mirage of AI keeps the GDP just above a technical recession. The Epstein scandal remains one of the worst scandals in American political history, and Trump managed to associate himself deeply with the scandal in his handling of it. Then the realignment, as the new Trump 2024 voters joined the Obama-Trump converts of 2016 in abandoning GOP identity, already evident in surveys and primary participation.
A quintet of voter groups appear to be realigning away from the Republican brand — hispanic voters, black voters, industrial area voters, libertarian-leaning voters, and war-skeptical voters alike. This realigning electorate shows up disproportionately in key Senate contests. The war-skeptical voters in states like Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, and Alaska (these are the states W failed to gain in between 2000 and 2004 due to the Iraq War before it even turned unpopular). The hispanic voters in states like Florida and Texas. The African-American voters in states like North Carolina and Georgia. The industrial voters in Ohio and Michigan. The libertarian leaving voters in states like New Hampshire, Alaska, Texas and Florida.
Thus, many of the states that seem “Safe” on the map are anything but, as their realigning electorates shift back against the Republican brand, with all of them having recent histories in electoral cycles of favoring Democrats or being true swing states. Take states like Florida and Texas where suburban margins began to erode for the GOP in the Trump era but countered that by massive margin shifts in hispanic and black precincts. Primary participation, voter identification, and public opinion surveys show those black and hispanic voters shifting back massively away from the GOP brand, which, given the erosion in some suburban areas and losses with younger generations, makes states Florida and Texas closer to competitive than double-digit leans.
In big swing election cycles, even “safe” Senate seats can suddenly turn razor close, as Bob Dole found out in 1974, barely holding on to his Kansas seat before being the VP nominee two years later. Strong independent candidates in Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and Montana may pose a unique threat to GOP held seats, as the Nebraska race in 2024 showed, with Osborn running 17 points ahead of Harris’ margin in the state. Democrats field the much better candidate in Ohio with a proven track record of out-performing Democratic margins in the state, while the Texas GOP nominee faces abandonment from his own party after they spent over $100M bashing him in the state for a disliked party incumbent. Alaska primary results suggest the Democratic nominee already holds the edge in that ranked choice voting state, while the famed cross-over support for Collins in Maine appears to be fading with newer generations taking over the voter rolls. My current map would be as follows, with surprising closer-than-expected races in Montana, Kansas, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, South Carolina and Kentucky, and a median map of Democrats holding 53+ Senate seats after the 2026 elections.

If past is prologue, the map won’t save the GOP in 2026, and an ever bigger tsunami may be incoming than anyone in Washington expects.