Research
Wind, scoring and kicking in college football
By OverUnderWeather Research Desk
Wind is the most talked-about weather factor in football and the most sloppily measured. We matched every outdoor college game since 2016 to its kickoff-hour wind reading, season-adjusted the scoring against a calm control, graded each band against the closing total, then resolved the wind into the component blowing across the field using each venue's true bearing to test kicking directly.
The headline
Wind lowers college football scoring, and the drop is bigger than most people assume. Against the closing total the edge is marginal: strong-wind games lean under, but the margin does not reach our confidence threshold.
Against the calm control (under 10 mph, 5,610 games), games in 10–15 mph wind scored -1.3 points on a season-adjusted basis (t = -2.28, n = 1,170) and 15–20 mph games scored -4.0 points (t = -3.34, n = 254). Both clear our significance threshold. The market prices most of it: strong-wind games finished -1.2 points relative to their closing total (t = -1.19), yet the under hit 55.6% of graded games — arithmetically above -110 breakeven, but not statistically confident.
Strong wind (15–20 mph)
-4.0 pts
season-adjusted vs calm · t = -3.34
254 games · Under hit 55.6% of graded games
Moderate wind (10–15 mph)
-1.3 pts
season-adjusted vs calm · t = -2.28
1,170 games · the largest windy sample we have
Per 5 mph of wind
-1.41 pts
linear slope across all wind speeds
7,072 outdoor games with a closing total, 2016–2025
Scoring by wind band
| Wind band | Games | Avg wind | Points | Closing total | Vs calm (adj) | Dry games only |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calm: under 10 mph (control) | 5,610 | 5.5 mph | 55.6 | 55.2 | 0.0t = 0.00 | 0.0t = 0.00 |
| Moderate: 10–15 mph | 1,170 | 12.0 mph | 54.5 | 54.2 | -1.3t = -2.28 | -1.0t = -1.78 |
| Strong: 15–20 mph | 254 | 16.6 mph | 52.2 | 53.1 | -4.0t = -3.34 | -2.7t = -2.10 |
| Gale: 20 mph and abovebelow 40-game minimum — directional only | 38 | 22.5 mph | 49.5 | 49.5 | -6.6t = -1.76 | -4.8t = -1.25 |
Bold figures clear |t| ≥ 1.96 on a sample of at least 40 games. The dry column repeats the comparison on games with under 0.25 mm of precipitation, so the wind effect is not just rain wearing a different hat.
Against the closing total
| Wind band | O–U–P | Under rate | Vs total (adj) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calm: under 10 mph (control) | 2795–2768–47 | 49.8% | 0.0t = 0.00 |
| Moderate: 10–15 mph | 540–611–19 | 53.1% | -0.1t = -0.16 |
| Strong: 15–20 mph | 111–139–4 | 55.6% | -1.2t = -1.19 |
| Gale: 20 mph and above | 15–23–0 | 60.5% | -0.5t = -0.14 |
Strong-wind games lean under at 55.6%, which beats -110 breakeven arithmetically, but the season-adjusted margin against the line is -1.2 points at t = -1.19 and does not reach our |t| ≥ 1.96 standard. We treat it as a marginal directional edge, not a proven betting system.
Field-goal accuracy by wind speed
| Wind band | Attempts | Made | Expected | Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calm: under 10 mph (control) | 6,197 | 73.1% | 73.1% | 0.0 pts |
| Moderate: 10–15 mph | 918 | 71.1% | 73.1% | -2.0 pts |
| Strong: 15–20 mph | 129 | 73.6% | 73.8% | -0.2 pts |
| Gale: 20 mph and above | 19 | 78.9% | 77.6% | +1.4 pts |
Expected make rate is the calm baseline reweighted to each band's own distance mix, so coaches declining long kicks in wind does not flatter the windy rows. Kicking barely moves with raw wind speed; the crosswind tables below test the sideways component directly.
Shareable summary
Free to republish with a visible credit and a link to the study page.
The 20 mph+ gale band (38 games, -6.6 points, t = -1.76) sits below our pre-set 40-game minimum. It is published as directional evidence only and never appears in a headline or in our pricing.
Correction
Updated 3 September 2026
Our original Strong crosswind headline (+5.3 pts) was calculated from distance bands too small to be reliable (8–26 attempts each, below our own 40-attempt minimum). Recalculated — see below.
Crosswind: the headline
At sample sizes we trust, crosswind doesn't move field-goal accuracy in our CFB data — the popular “wind kills kicking” narrative doesn't show up here (yet).
Every crosswind band with an adequate sample lands within about a point of the calm expectation: Calm (0–5 mph cross) -0.1 pts (n=6,862), Light (5–10) -0.2 pts (n=2,959), Moderate (10–15) 0.0 pts (n=559). We'll keep grading Strong crosswind games as they accumulate.
Strong crosswind kicking
Insufficient data
81 attempts across four distance bands, none individually clearing our 40-attempt minimum sample threshold.
We'll report a headline figure here once enough games have accumulated.
Strong crosswind totals
+0.6 pts
average final score vs closing total
Under hit 50.0% of graded games
Sample
10,817
field-goal attempts graded
across 3,643 completed games
Field-goal accuracy vs the calm baseline
Each cell shows the make rate in that crosswind band, and how far it sits from what the same distance band produces in calm conditions. Cells below the minimum sample are greyed — we publish them for transparency, not as findings.
| Crosswind | Under 30 yds | 30-39 yds | 40-49 yds | 50+ yds | All (mix-adjusted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calm (0–5 mph cross) | 92.2%-0.2 · n=1860 | 81.2%-0.3 · n=2117 | 65.0%0.0 · n=2140 | 48.2%+0.2 · n=745 | 75.5%-0.1 · n=6862 |
| Light (5–10) | 90.5%-1.9 · n=829 | 80.7%-0.8 · n=918 | 66.0%+1.0 · n=899 | 50.5%+2.5 · n=313 | 75.8%-0.2 · n=2959 |
| Moderate (10–15) | 90.8%-1.6 · n=163 | 78.3%-3.2 · n=180 | 67.7%+2.7 · n=158 | 55.2%+7.2 · n=58 | 76.6%0.0 · n=559 |
| Strong (15+) | 96.2%+3.8 · n=26 | 73.1%-8.4 · n=26 | 81.0%+16.0 · n=21 | 75.0%+27.0 · n=8 | 82.7%+5.3 · n=81 |
Scoring vs the closing total by crosswind
| Conditions | Games | O–U–P | Under rate | Avg vs total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indoor | 41 | 17–23–1 | 57.5% | -1.5 pts |
| Calm (0–5 mph cross) | 970 | 477–482–11 | 50.3% | -0.2 pts |
| Light (5–10) | 409 | 194–209–6 | 51.9% | -0.2 pts |
| Moderate (10–15) | 87 | 41–45–1 | 52.3% | -1.6 pts |
| Strong (15+) | 16 | 8–8–0 | 50.0% | +0.6 pts |
Method
- Completed FBS regular-season games are pulled from the ESPN scoreboard and matched to our venue profiles for coordinates, roof type and field bearing.
- Kickoff-hour temperature, wind speed, wind direction and precipitation come from the Open-Meteo ERA5 reanalysis archive — the same source behind our NFL research.
- Crosswind is the wind vector resolved perpendicular to the field's long axis, so a pure headwind or tailwind registers as zero crosswind.
- Indoor games and games under 5 mph crosswind form the calm baseline. Each wind band's expectation is that baseline reweighted to the band's own distance mix, which removes the bias created by coaches declining long kicks in bad weather.
- Totals are graded against the ESPN consensus closing over/under. Pushes are excluded from the under rate but counted in the game total.
See it in practice
For the fan-facing version of this data, see the windiest college football stadiums — all 114 ranked venues, the five calmest, and the same wind bands applied to scoring.
References & data sources
- Open-Meteo ERA5 historical reanalysis — archive-api.open-meteo.com
- ESPN college football scoreboard, game summary and pickcenter endpoints
- ESPN college football scoreboard — espn.com/college-football
- OverUnderWeather venue profiles — field bearings, roof type and coordinates
- This study has been corrected since first publication. Every dated change is listed on our corrections log.
Model cfb-wind-v1 · last recomputed 2026-08-31
Where this is applied
These findings feed the game-time read on every College Football venue page, using the same sample-size and significance rules published here.
OverUnderWeather Research Desk
Independent data analysis on public sports and weather records. Studies match historical game outcomes to archived game-window weather, apply pre-set sample and significance rules, and publish null results when that is what the data show. Editorial policy and corrections log.
Methodology reviewed by Kerry G. KauffmanB.S. in Statistics, Lehigh University
“After examining the complete methodology and structure of the study, I am in agreement that the Welch’s t-test is the appropriate method when comparing two means.”— Kerry G. Kauffman, 2026-09-26
Cite this research
Free to republish with a visible credit and a link to this page. Ready-made citations below — click to copy.
Frequently asked
Does wind lower college football scoring?
Yes. Against the calm control (under 10 mph), games in 10–15 mph wind scored -1.3 points on a season-adjusted basis (t = -2.28, n = 1170), and 15–20 mph games scored -4.0 points (t = -3.34, n = 254). Both clear our significance threshold, and the strong-wind result survives when wet games are excluded.
Do windy college games go under the total?
They lean under. In the 15–20 mph band the under hit 55.6% of graded games, which is arithmetically above -110 breakeven. But the season-adjusted margin against the closing total is -1.2 points at t = -1.19, so we do not have statistical confidence that the market is under-pricing wind. We report it as a marginal directional edge, not a system.
Why crosswind instead of wind speed?
A 20 mph wind straight down the field is a very different kick to a 20 mph wind blowing across it. Every venue in our database carries a field bearing — the compass direction of the field's long axis — so we resolve the reported wind into the component that actually pushes the ball sideways. Raw wind speed blurs the two together.
How do you handle coaches avoiding long kicks in bad weather?
That selection bias is exactly why a raw make-rate-by-wind table is misleading: windy samples skew short, which flatters the make rate. We build an expected make rate per distance band from the calm sample, then report how far each wind band lands from that expectation given its own distance mix.
Is the wind measured at the moment of the kick?
No. Historical play-level wind is not available, so every attempt inherits the kickoff-hour ERA5 reanalysis reading for its venue. That adds noise but no directional bias, and it is the same weather source used across the rest of the site.
Is this a betting system?
No. It is a conditions study. Buckets below the minimum sample are marked as such and we do not draw conclusions from them. Check the weather before you bet — the numbers here describe how conditions have historically bent scoring and kicking, not what to wager.