The full 2026 schedule is locked, Vegas has posted season win totals, and training camp has already reshuffled a few depth charts that matter for this pool. Time for the first real refresh of our three-entry plan for Splash Sports’ The Big Splash — $3,000,000 guaranteed, $100 to enter, up to 33,334 entries in the field. Since our last post laid out the double-pick problem and the case for three decorrelated entries, here’s what’s new: a fully rebuilt win-probability model built on real 2026 win totals instead of early guesswork, a round of camp-news adjustments, and — worth being upfront about — a flaw we found and fixed in how the model was sequencing bye-heavy weeks.
What Changed Since Last Time
The strength model now runs off each team’s 2026 Vegas season win total, which is a far better proxy than preseason vibes. On top of that we layered a handful of adjustments for camp news the market hasn’t fully priced in yet:
- Arizona released Kyler Murray and is starting Jacoby Brissett on a restructured deal — already the league’s lowest win total, and we shaved it down further. Arizona is one of this plan’s most-used opponents all season as a result.
- Minnesota turned around and signed Murray as competition/insurance for J.J. McCarthy — a small bump, though the QB competition itself is still genuinely unresolved through camp.
- The LA Rams traded for Myles Garrett, adding a true difference-maker to a defense on a roster that was already this model’s top-rated team. That trade is a big reason the Rams show up so rarely before Week 12 in the plan below.
- Kansas City (Patrick Mahomes fully cleared for camp after ACL surgery, but OC Eric Bieniemy stepped away from the team for personal reasons) and Indianapolis (Daniel Jones still working back from a torn Achilles) both got small, conservative discounts pending how August actually goes.
- Cleveland (unresolved Flacco/Sanders QB competition under new coach Todd Monken), Miami (fully in tank mode post-Tua) and Tampa Bay (DT Vita Vea requesting a trade amid a stalled extension) all took modest hits.
None of this flips the board, but Arizona and Miami in particular are now even more clearly this plan’s two most reliable opponents — between them they account for eleven of the seventy-eight team-picks across all three entries this season.
The Week 11 Blind Spot We Caught (and Fixed)
Worth flagging because it’s a good example of how this model can quietly go wrong if we’re not careful: an earlier pass solved the season by processing the double-pick weeks first (since they’re weighted heaviest) and only came back to fill in the single weeks afterward. That seemed reasonable, but it left Week 11 — which has six teams on bye, including Atlanta, Cleveland, Green Bay, the Rams, the Patriots, and Seattle — starved of good options, because every strong team left standing had already been claimed for Weeks 12 through 16. Two of our three entries were staring down a virtual coin flip that week (41% and 41%), which defeats the entire point of a reserve strategy.
The fix was to stop solving the season in weight-priority passes and instead solve all 18 weeks — and all three entries — together, as a single optimization. Once we did that, Week 11 opened right back up: it turns out to have some of the best matchups on the whole board (Buffalo at 91% against Miami, Kansas City at 92% against Arizona, the Rams at 91% on the road at Arizona), which the old sequencing was reserving for other weeks unnecessarily. Lesson banked: always solve globally, never in priority passes, or you can accidentally manufacture a crisis in a week that was never actually short on options.
Reserving the Elite Tier for Weeks 12–16
The double-pick cluster in Weeks 12 through 16 is still the real threat in this contest — ten correct picks needed across five weeks, right as good matchups thin out leaguewide. So the model weights that stretch at 1.7x a normal week (1.3x for the earlier double weeks, Weeks 3/6/9) when deciding which teams are worth spending now versus banking for later. The practical result: the Rams and Ravens (this year’s two highest win totals) barely appear before Week 12 across any of the three entries, and the rest of the 10.5-win-total tier — Buffalo, Detroit, Green Bay, the Chargers, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle — is almost entirely held for that stretch too. If you scan the roadmap below and notice those teams missing from the early weeks, that’s deliberate, not an oversight.
Our Week 1–3 Blueprint
Week 1 kicks off September 9. Here’s the plan for all three entries through the first double-pick week:
Entry A, Week 1: Las Vegas Raiders (home vs. Miami, 67%) — Miami’s rebuild posture makes even a middling Raiders team a plus matchup.
Entry B, Week 1: Tennessee Titans (home vs. NY Jets, 65%) — essentially tied in value with Las Vegas; split across entries rather than doubled up.
Entry C, Week 1: Jacksonville Jaguars (home vs. Cleveland, 80%) — the highest-confidence pick of the week across all three entries.
Entry A, Week 2: Tampa Bay Buccaneers (home vs. Cleveland, 73%) — a second, different bite at Cleveland’s weak roster, spread to a different entry than Week 1’s Jacksonville pick.
Entry B, Week 2: Seattle Seahawks (at Arizona, 87%) — one of the best true road plus-matchups on the early board, helped along by Arizona’s own QB downgrade.
Entry C, Week 2: LA Chargers (home vs. Las Vegas, 88%) — a top-10 team at home against a clearly lesser Raiders squad.
Week 3 is the first double-pick week, where a miss on either half ends the entry — all three lean on genuinely strong teams rather than pure value plays:
Entry A, Week 3: Detroit Lions (home vs. NY Jets, 88%) + San Francisco 49ers (home vs. Arizona, 92%) — two projected top-10 teams at home against clearly beatable opponents, a low-variance pair to open the double-pick portion of the season.
Entry B, Week 3: Kansas City Chiefs (at Miami, 85%) + New Orleans Saints (home vs. Las Vegas, 72%) — Kansas City on the road at Miami is still comfortably favored even with the Mahomes recovery discount factored in.
Entry C, Week 3: Green Bay Packers (home vs. Atlanta, 79%) + NY Giants (home vs. Tennessee, 65%) — the Giants pick is the softest of the nine Week 3 selections across all entries, but the alternative (Carolina, 53%) graded lower and is being held for a thinner week later on.
Weeks 1–3: What We Considered and Passed On
Since Scott doesn’t want just the winners, here’s what each pick beat out and why the runner-up lost:
- Week 1, Entry A — Las Vegas (67%): Tennessee (65%) was nearly identical in value but went to Entry B instead purely to avoid stacking both entries on the same team in Week 1. Carolina (41%) and Atlanta (35%) were well behind and are being held for later, thinner weeks.
- Week 1, Entry B — Tennessee (65%): Got this pick specifically because Entry A already had Las Vegas — splitting two near-equal options across entries cost almost nothing in expected value while cutting Week 1 correlation risk.
- Week 1, Entry C — Jacksonville (80%): Las Vegas graded similarly but was already spoken for by Entry A; the drop to the next tier (Carolina, 41%) was steep enough that we didn’t force a swap.
- Week 2, Entry A — Tampa Bay (73%): Atlanta (57%) and Carolina (43%) were the next-best options, both held back for future weeks where they’re worth more relative to what else is on the board.
- Week 2, Entry B — Seattle (87%): Clear top choice this week for this entry; Atlanta and Carolina were a distant second tier.
- Week 2, Entry C — LA Chargers (88%): Same story — Atlanta and Cleveland were the closest alternatives, both meaningfully weaker plays banked for later.
- Week 3, Entry A — Detroit + San Francisco: Carolina (53%) and Cleveland (47%) were the next options for this pair and are being saved for weeks where the model’s options thin out more.
- Week 3, Entry B — Kansas City + New Orleans: Carolina (53%) was again the top alternative on the board and, again, held back.
- Week 3, Entry C — Green Bay + NY Giants: Carolina (53%) and Cleveland (47%) were the runners-up here too — Carolina in particular keeps showing up as a strong alternate across multiple entries and weeks, which is exactly why the model is deliberately spreading our exposure to Carolina’s schedule across later weeks rather than cashing it in now.
The Full 18-Week Roadmap
Per Scott’s standing request, the complete plan for all three entries, start to finish — not just this week’s picks. Double-pick weeks are highlighted; the last column tracks modeled cumulative survival odds per entry (illustrative, not predictive — see the caveat below the table).
| Wk | Type | Entry A | Entry B | Entry C | A / B / C Survival |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | single | Las Vegas Raiders (vs Miami Dolphins, 67%) | Tennessee Titans (vs New York Jets, 65%) | Jacksonville Jaguars (vs Cleveland Browns, 80%) | 66.8% / 65.3% / 80.2% |
| 2 | single | Tampa Bay Buccaneers (vs Cleveland Browns, 73%) | Seattle Seahawks (@ Arizona Cardinals, 87%) | Los Angeles Chargers (vs Las Vegas Raiders, 88%) | 49.1% / 56.6% / 70.4% |
| 3 | DOUBLE | Detroit Lions (vs New York Jets, 88%) San Francisco 49ers (vs Arizona Cardinals, 92%) |
Kansas City Chiefs (@ Miami Dolphins, 85%) New Orleans Saints (vs Las Vegas Raiders, 72%) |
Green Bay Packers (vs Atlanta Falcons, 79%) New York Giants (vs Tennessee Titans, 65%) |
39.7% / 34.7% / 36.1% |
| 4 | single | Minnesota Vikings (vs Miami Dolphins, 86%) | New York Giants (vs Arizona Cardinals, 81%) | Chicago Bears (vs New York Jets, 84%) | 34.0% / 28.2% / 30.2% |
| 5 | single | Cincinnati Bengals (@ Miami Dolphins, 81%) | Washington Commanders (vs New York Giants, 57%) | Houston Texans (@ Tennessee Titans, 67%) | 27.5% / 16.2% / 20.2% |
| 6 | DOUBLE | Los Angeles Rams (vs Arizona Cardinals, 95%) New England Patriots (vs New York Jets, 84%) |
Baltimore Ravens (@ Cleveland Browns, 81%) Indianapolis Colts (vs Tennessee Titans, 64%) |
Buffalo Bills (@ Las Vegas Raiders, 80%) San Francisco 49ers (vs Washington Commanders, 79%) |
21.8% / 8.4% / 12.6% |
| 7 | single | New York Jets (vs Miami Dolphins, 67%) | Houston Texans (vs New York Giants, 72%) | Tennessee Titans (vs Cleveland Browns, 60%) | 14.6% / 6.1% / 7.6% |
| 8 | single | Dallas Cowboys (vs Arizona Cardinals, 89%) | Pittsburgh Steelers (vs Cleveland Browns, 74%) | Dallas Cowboys (vs Arizona Cardinals, 89%) | 13.0% / 4.5% / 6.8% |
| 9 | DOUBLE | Kansas City Chiefs (vs New York Jets, 87%) Seattle Seahawks (vs Arizona Cardinals, 92%) |
Chicago Bears (vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 66%) San Francisco 49ers (vs Las Vegas Raiders, 88%) |
Detroit Lions (@ Miami Dolphins, 85%) Philadelphia Eagles (vs New York Giants, 79%) |
10.5% / 2.7% / 4.5% |
| 10 | single | Indianapolis Colts (vs Miami Dolphins, 79%) | Los Angeles Rams (@ Arizona Cardinals, 91%) | Indianapolis Colts (vs Miami Dolphins, 79%) | 8.2% / 2.4% / 3.6% |
| 11 | single | Buffalo Bills (vs Miami Dolphins, 91%) | Dallas Cowboys (vs Tennessee Titans, 79%) | Kansas City Chiefs (vs Arizona Cardinals, 92%) | 7.5% / 1.9% / 3.3% |
| 12 | DOUBLE | Jacksonville Jaguars (vs Tennessee Titans, 79%) Washington Commanders (@ Arizona Cardinals, 70%) |
Cincinnati Bengals (vs New Orleans Saints, 72%) Cleveland Browns (vs Las Vegas Raiders, 63%) |
Minnesota Vikings (vs Atlanta Falcons, 68%) Tampa Bay Buccaneers (vs Carolina Panthers, 64%) |
4.2% / 0.9% / 1.4% |
| 13 | DOUBLE | Denver Broncos (vs Miami Dolphins, 88%) Philadelphia Eagles (@ Arizona Cardinals, 87%) |
Denver Broncos (vs Miami Dolphins, 88%) Minnesota Vikings (vs Carolina Panthers, 68%) |
Cincinnati Bengals (@ Cleveland Browns, 69%) Denver Broncos (vs Miami Dolphins, 88%) |
3.2% / 0.5% / 0.9% |
| 14 | DOUBLE | Chicago Bears (@ Miami Dolphins, 81%) Los Angeles Chargers (@ Las Vegas Raiders, 80%) |
Detroit Lions (vs Tennessee Titans, 84%) Philadelphia Eagles (vs Indianapolis Colts, 79%) |
Baltimore Ravens (vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 79%) Seattle Seahawks (vs New York Giants, 79%) |
2.1% / 0.3% / 0.5% |
| 15 | DOUBLE | Green Bay Packers (vs Miami Dolphins, 91%) New York Giants (vs Cleveland Browns, 68%) |
Green Bay Packers (vs Miami Dolphins, 91%) Tampa Bay Buccaneers (vs New Orleans Saints, 64%) |
Los Angeles Rams (vs Dallas Cowboys, 75%) Washington Commanders (vs Atlanta Falcons, 57%) |
1.3% / 0.2% / 0.2% |
| 16 | DOUBLE | Baltimore Ravens (vs Cleveland Browns, 89%) New Orleans Saints (vs Arizona Cardinals, 81%) |
Los Angeles Chargers (@ Miami Dolphins, 85%) New England Patriots (@ New York Jets, 74%) |
New Orleans Saints (vs Arizona Cardinals, 81%) Pittsburgh Steelers (vs Carolina Panthers, 65%) |
0.9% / 0.1% / 0.1% |
| 17 | single | Pittsburgh Steelers (@ Tennessee Titans, 59%) | Jacksonville Jaguars (vs Washington Commanders, 72%) | Atlanta Falcons (vs New Orleans Saints, 57%) | 0.5% / 0.1% / 0.1% |
| 18 | single | Houston Texans (vs Tennessee Titans, 79%) | Buffalo Bills (vs New York Jets, 88%) | New England Patriots (vs Miami Dolphins, 88%) | 0.4% / 0.1% / 0.1% |
Caveat: this is a model built on 2026 season win totals plus a simplified win-probability formula, not real betting lines. Treat Weeks 1–3 as the most actionable; everything past Week 4 is a sequencing plan — which team is earmarked for which slot — that will keep getting rewritten as camp battles resolve, injuries happen, and real lines post. The survival percentages exist to show why the Week 12-16 stretch is the real danger zone, not as a precise forecast for any one entry.
What to Watch Before Week 1
A few storylines worth checking again closer to kickoff, since each one touches teams this plan leans on: Patrick Mahomes’ workload as camp ramps up; whether Daniel Jones’ Achilles holds up under real practice reps; how the Minnesota QB competition between Murray and McCarthy actually resolves; Kyle Shanahan and George Kittle’s recovery timelines in San Francisco; and any further roster moves out of Miami, Arizona, Cleveland, Tennessee, the Jets, or Las Vegas — the six teams this plan’s first half leans on hardest.
What’s Next
This stays a living document. We’re re-running the model every week between now and kickoff, tightening Weeks 1–3 as real injury reports and lines land, and re-optimizing anything camp news materially moves. Once games are actually played, expect this space to start tracking live results and which of our three entries are still standing.