T-Mobile Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CREI | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 0-0 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 0-0 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 0-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects MICH 85–72 · win probability MICH 87%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 157.0
Model edge
—
No market line yet
Public
—
No split yet for this game
The model has not beaten the closing line: with an edge of 3 or more it went 409-367 in 2025-26. Model record
What could decide it: MICH has more of the edges
MICH 4, CREI 0 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
MICH hits 36.8% and allows 30.4%; CREI hits 34.1% and allows 35.1%. Threes are 41.5% and 48.2% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MICH 34.7%, CREI 26.9%. Defensive: MICH 71.8%, CREI 70.5%
Shooting
Effective FG%: MICH 58.3 and allows 44.6; CREI 53.0 and allows 51.1
Free throws
Free throw rate: MICH 38.0, CREI 28.3. Allowed: MICH 26.0, CREI 24.8
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: MICH plays 71.7 a game (48th fastest), CREI 68.9 (187th). Faster games mean more points
Even
MICH offense vs CREI defense
Offense 5th of 366 against a defense 43rd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MICH 16.3%, CREI 16.4%. Forced: MICH 15.2%, CREI 13.7%
Context
Schedule so far
MICH has played the 3rd-hardest schedule, CREI the 40th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MICH 38%, CREI 53%. Transfers in: MICH 4, CREI 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
CREI offense vs MICH defense
Offense 33rd of 366 against a defense 10th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Market
Open → current
Spread
Open—
no open
Now—
Opening line not available
Total
Open—
no open
Now—
Moneyline
—
Pre-game lines only (ESPN, DraftKings first). After tip-off the line shown is the closing line.
Model vs market
| Market | Model | Model edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spread | — | MICH -12.8 | — |
| Total | — | 157.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | MICH 84.9 · CREI 72.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MICH -7.7 | — |
| 1H total | 73.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | MICH 40.5 · CREI 32.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | |
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Michigan
40 games played
Straight up
37-3
93% wins
Against the spread
19-21
48% covers · avg +3.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-23
43% overs · avg −1.6 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total
| Date | Opp | Result | Line | ATS | Total | O/U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3 | vs | W 121-78 | -24.5 | W +18.5 | 156.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 85-84 | -15.5 | L −14.5 | 168.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 67-63 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 86-61 | -27.5 | L −2.5 | 159.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 94-54 | -6.5 | W +33.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 102-72 | -4.5 | W +25.5 | 163.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 101-61 | +3.5 | W +43.5 | 165.5 | U 162 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 101-60 | -25.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 89-61 | -17.5 | W +10.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 101-83 | -19.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 102-50 | -40.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 112-71 | -24.5 | W +16.5 | 161.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 96-66 | -22.5 | W +7.5 | 173.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 74-72 | -24.5 | L −22.5 | 169.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 88-91 | -19.5 | L −22.5 | 169.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 82-72 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 81-71 | -18.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 86-72 | -15.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 74-62 | -16.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 75-72 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 83-71 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 110-69 | -26.5 | W +14.5 | 161.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 82-61 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 87-75 | -15.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 86-56 | -15.5 | W +14.5 | 156.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 91-80 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 63-68 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 77-67 | -22.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 84-70 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 71-68 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 90-80 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 71-67 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 68-65 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 15 | vs | L 72-80 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 101-80 | -30.5 | L −9.5 | 151.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 95-72 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 27 | vs | W 90-77 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 172.5 | U 167 |
| Mar 29 | vs | W 95-62 | -8.5 | W +24.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Apr 4 | vs | W 91-73 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 157.5 | O 164 |
| Apr 6 | vs | W 69-63 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | U 132 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
OAK
W 121-78
+18.5
11
vs
WAKE
W 85-84
−14.5
14
@
TCU
W 67-63
−3.5
19
vs
MTSU
W 86-61
−2.5
24
vs
SDSU
W 94-54
+33.5
25
vs
AUB
W 102-72
+25.5
26
vs
GONZ
W 101-61
+43.5
6
vs
RUTG
W 101-60
+15.5
9
vs
VILL
W 89-61
+10.5
13
@
MD
W 101-83
−1.5
21
vs
LAS
W 102-50
+11.5
29
vs
MCN
W 112-71
+16.5
2
vs
USC
W 96-66
+7.5
6
@
PSU
W 74-72
−22.5
10
vs
WIS
L 88-91
−22.5
14
@
WASH
W 82-72
−2.5
17
@
ORE
W 81-71
−8.5
20
vs
IU
W 86-72
−1.5
23
vs
OSU
W 74-62
−4.5
27
vs
NEB
W 75-72
−8.5
30
@
MSU
W 83-71
+9.5
5
vs
PSU
W 110-69
+14.5
8
@
OSU
W 82-61
+12.5
11
@
NU
W 87-75
−3.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 86-56
+14.5
17
@
PUR
W 91-80
+8.5
21
vs
DUKE
L 63-68
−8.5
24
vs
MINN
W 77-67
−12.5
27
@
ILL
W 84-70
+12.5
5
@
IOWA
W 71-68
−6.5
8
vs
MSU
W 90-80
−0.5
13
vs
OSU
W 71-67
−8.5
14
vs
WIS
W 68-65
−9.5
15
vs
PUR
L 72-80
−12.5
19
vs
HOW
W 101-80
−9.5
21
vs
SLU
W 95-72
+10.5
27
vs
ALA
W 90-77
+3.5
29
vs
TENN
W 95-62
+24.5
4
vs
ARIZ
W 91-73
+19.5
6
vs
CONN
W 69-63
−0.5
covered 19didn’t cover 21avg +3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
OAK
W 121-78
+42.5
11
vs
WAKE
W 85-84
+0.5
14
@
TCU
W 67-63
−34.5
19
vs
MTSU
W 86-61
−12.5
24
vs
SDSU
W 94-54
−0.5
25
vs
AUB
W 102-72
+10.5
26
vs
GONZ
W 101-61
−3.5
6
vs
RUTG
W 101-60
+7.5
9
vs
VILL
W 89-61
−6.5
13
@
MD
W 101-83
+20.5
21
vs
LAS
W 102-50
−3.5
29
vs
MCN
W 112-71
+21.5
2
vs
USC
W 96-66
−11.5
6
@
PSU
W 74-72
−23.5
10
vs
WIS
L 88-91
+9.5
14
@
WASH
W 82-72
−11.5
17
@
ORE
W 81-71
−5.5
20
vs
IU
W 86-72
−5.5
23
vs
OSU
W 74-62
−29.5
27
vs
NEB
W 75-72
−10.5
30
@
MSU
W 83-71
+4.5
5
vs
PSU
W 110-69
+17.5
8
@
OSU
W 82-61
−18.5
11
@
NU
W 87-75
+8.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 86-56
−14.5
17
@
PUR
W 91-80
+14.5
21
vs
DUKE
L 63-68
−20.5
24
vs
MINN
W 77-67
−1.5
27
@
ILL
W 84-70
−5.5
5
@
IOWA
W 71-68
−7.5
8
vs
MSU
W 90-80
+17.5
13
vs
OSU
W 71-67
−17.5
14
vs
WIS
W 68-65
−28.5
15
vs
PUR
L 72-80
+2.5
19
vs
HOW
W 101-80
+29.5
21
vs
SLU
W 95-72
+5.5
27
vs
ALA
W 90-77
−5.5
29
vs
TENN
W 95-62
+10.5
4
vs
ARIZ
W 91-73
+6.5
6
vs
CONN
W 69-63
−14.5
over 17under 23avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Creighton
34 games played
Straight up
16-18
47% wins
Against the spread
11-23
32% covers · avg −2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-18
47% overs · avg +0 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total
| Date | Opp | Result | Line | ATS | Total | O/U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5 | vs | W 92-76 | -29.5 | L −13.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 63-90 | +12.5 | L −14.5 | 164.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 84-45 | -33.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 75-60 | -29.5 | L −14.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 74-81 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 60-78 | +9.5 | L −8.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 76-66 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 96-76 | -18.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 50-71 | +5.5 | L −15.5 | 155.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 76-83 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 98-57 | +2.5 | W +43.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 84-63 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 92-69 | -19.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 89-85 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 156.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 54-56 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 76-72 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 73-90 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 86-83 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 16 | @ | L 88-93 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 161.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 94-93 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 187 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 62-86 | -1.5 | L −25.5 | 154.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 58-85 | +6.5 | L −20.5 | 142.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 68-76 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 69-68 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 71-72 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 141.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 69-80 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 91-84 | +15.5 | W +22.5 | 143.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 52-81 | +12.5 | L −16.5 | 156.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 71-72 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 76-79 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 166.5 | U 155 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 76-59 | +2.5 | W +19.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 61-72 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 136.5 | U 133 |
| Apr 2 | vs | W 82-69 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Apr 4 | vs | L 70-87 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 137.5 | O 157 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
SDAK
W 92-76
−13.5
11
@
GONZ
L 63-90
−14.5
14
vs
UMES
W 84-45
+5.5
19
vs
UND
W 75-60
−14.5
24
vs
BAY
L 74-81
−3.5
25
vs
ISU
L 60-78
−8.5
27
vs
ORE
W 76-66
+7.5
2
vs
NICH
W 96-76
+1.5
7
@
NEB
L 50-71
−15.5
13
vs
KSU
L 76-83
−11.5
17
@
XAV
W 98-57
+43.5
20
vs
MARQ
W 84-63
+14.5
22
vs
UTU
W 92-69
+3.5
30
vs
BTLR
W 89-85
−1.5
4
@
HALL
L 54-56
+1.5
7
@
VILL
W 76-72
+8.5
10
vs
SJU
L 73-90
−14.5
13
vs
GTWN
W 86-83
−5.5
16
@
PROV
L 88-93
−7.5
21
vs
XAV
W 94-93
−7.5
27
@
MARQ
L 62-86
−25.5
31
vs
CONN
L 58-85
−20.5
4
@
GTWN
L 68-76
−6.5
7
vs
HALL
W 69-68
−0.5
11
@
DEP
L 71-72
−2.5
14
vs
VILL
L 69-80
−9.5
18
@
CONN
W 91-84
+22.5
21
@
SJU
L 52-81
−16.5
25
vs
DEP
L 71-72
−4.5
28
vs
PROV
L 76-79
−6.5
4
@
BTLR
W 76-59
+19.5
12
vs
HALL
L 61-72
−8.5
2
vs
RUTG
W 82-69
+8.5
4
vs
WVU
L 70-87
−15.5
covered 11didn’t cover 23avg −2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
SDAK
W 92-76
−1.5
11
@
GONZ
L 63-90
−11.5
14
vs
UMES
W 84-45
−6.5
19
vs
UND
W 75-60
−20.5
24
vs
BAY
L 74-81
+0.5
25
vs
ISU
L 60-78
−14.5
27
vs
ORE
W 76-66
−8.5
2
vs
NICH
W 96-76
+28.5
7
@
NEB
L 50-71
−34.5
13
vs
KSU
L 76-83
−0.5
17
@
XAV
W 98-57
+3.5
20
vs
MARQ
W 84-63
−4.5
22
vs
UTU
W 92-69
+13.5
30
vs
BTLR
W 89-85
+17.5
4
@
HALL
L 54-56
−33.5
7
@
VILL
W 76-72
+5.5
10
vs
SJU
L 73-90
+10.5
13
vs
GTWN
W 86-83
+21.5
16
@
PROV
L 88-93
+19.5
21
vs
XAV
W 94-93
+31.5
27
@
MARQ
L 62-86
−6.5
31
vs
CONN
L 58-85
+0.5
4
@
GTWN
L 68-76
−2.5
7
vs
HALL
W 69-68
−3.5
11
@
DEP
L 71-72
+1.5
14
vs
VILL
L 69-80
+3.5
18
@
CONN
W 91-84
+31.5
21
@
SJU
L 52-81
−23.5
25
vs
DEP
L 71-72
+0.5
28
vs
PROV
L 76-79
−11.5
4
@
BTLR
W 76-59
−20.5
12
vs
HALL
L 61-72
−3.5
2
vs
RUTG
W 82-69
−0.5
4
vs
WVU
L 70-87
+19.5
over 16under 18avg +0 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Michigan has the better starters
Position by position: Michigan 1, Creighton 0, even 4
MichiganBetterCreighton
G K. Noland TR17.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 87
=Even
G B. Robinson TR17.6 pts · 2.8 reb · 6.7 ast
Score 86
G E. Cadeau10.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 5.9 ast
Score 87
←MICHSmall
G W. Enis TR16.4 pts · 3.6 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 72
G T. McKenney9.9 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 88
=Even
F J. Green10.5 pts · 6.3 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 92
G R. Gayle7.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 76
=Even
F O. Erhunmwunse TR6.9 pts · 8.3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 74
C M. Thiam TR12.8 pts · 7.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 92
=Even
C F. King TR13.1 pts · 8.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 92
MichiganBetterCreighton
MICH offense5th of 366 · +10.9
=Even
CREI defense43rd of 366 · +2.7
MICH defense10th of 366 · +7.4
=Even
CREI offense33rd of 366 · +5.5
Backcourt+7.0 · 4 players
←MICHBig
Backcourt+3.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt+4.4 · 1 player
→CREIBig
Frontcourt+8.6 · 3 players
Bench+5.5 · 4 players
=Even
Bench+5.7 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestMICH betterCREI betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Noland34 min · TRE. Cadeau27 minT. McKenney22 minR. Gayle21 minH. Eisley1 minR. LiburdNew
Forwards
J. Estrella18 min · TRJ. Reed18 min · TRO. Goodman5 minH. HochbergNewL. CosbyNewQ. CostelloNew
Centers
M. Thiam27 min · TRM. MollerNew
Guards
B. Robinson36 min · TRW. Enis34 min · TRB. Davis23 min · TRA. Swartz22 minH. Greer14 minK. Edwards7 min · TR
Forwards
J. Green28 minO. Erhunmwunse25 min · TRJ. McAndrew21 minI. Traudt19 minT. Carter-GivensNew
Centers
F. King25 min · TRW. RosaNew
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Matchup stats
2025-26 · rank among 365 teams
Scoring
Points per game
Points per possession
Pace (possessions)
Shooting
Effective FG%
3-point %
3-point attempt rate
Free throw rate
Possessions
Turnover rate
Offensive rebound rate
Assists per game
Defense
Points allowed
Points allowed per possession
Opponent effective FG%
Opponent 3-point %
Turnovers forced
Defensive rebound rate
Steals per game
Blocks per game
| Scoring | ||
|---|---|---|
| 87.3 #4 | Points per game | 75.2 #159 |
| 1.21 #8 | Points per possession | 1.09 #156 |
| 71.7 #48 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #187 |
| Shooting | ||
| 58.3 #8 | Effective FG% | 53.0 #103 |
| 36.8 #33 | 3-point % | 34.1 #167 |
| 41.5 #141 | 3-point attempt rate | 48.2 #23 |
| 38.0 #102 | Free throw rate | 28.3 #340 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.3 #157 | Turnover rate | 16.4 #161 |
| 34.7 #55 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.9 #301 |
| 18.6 #5 | Assists per game | 15.4 #72 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.5 #55 | Points allowed | 75.2 #196 |
| 0.97 #8 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #197 |
| 44.6 #1 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.1 #165 |
| 30.4 #18 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.1 #256 |
| 15.2 #270 | Turnovers forced | 13.7 #341 |
| 71.8 #70 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.5 #132 |
| 5.6 #286 | Steals per game | 5.7 #278 |
| 6.0 #2 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #255 |
Michigan
37-3 in 2025-26 overall · 21-2 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Wvs UConn69–63
- Wvs Arizona91–73
- Wvs Tennessee95–62
- Wvs Alabama90–77
- Wvs Saint Louis95–72
A week or more of rest.
Creighton
16-18 in 2025-26 overall · 9-12 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs West Virginia70–87
- Wvs Rutgers82–69
- Lvs Seton Hall61–72
- W@ Butler76–59
- Lvs Providence76–79
A week or more of rest.