Fiserv Forum · at Marquette
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MARQ | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MARQ 89–64 · win probability MARQ 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 153.1
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: MARQ has more of the edges
DETM 2, MARQ 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MARQ offense vs DETM defense
Offense 46th of 366 against a defense 310th, on the model’s ratings
DETM offense vs MARQ defense
Offense 236th of 366 against a defense 36th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
DETM has played the 208th-hardest schedule, MARQ the 37th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DETM 16.0%, MARQ 16.1%. Forced: DETM 14.4%, MARQ 19.3%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DETM 33.3%, MARQ 29.7%. Defensive: DETM 69.2%, MARQ 65.3%
Free throws
Free throw rate: DETM 32.6, MARQ 32.8. Allowed: DETM 37.6, MARQ 32.0
Three-pointers
DETM hits 35.1% and allows 33.3%; MARQ hits 31.7% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 30.7% and 42.2% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: DETM 49.5 and allows 52.2; MARQ 50.5 and allows 50.6
Home court
MARQ at home. This season: MARQ 0-0 at home, DETM 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DETM 49%, MARQ 64%. Transfers in: DETM 0, MARQ 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: DETM plays 69.7 a game (132nd fastest), MARQ 70.9 (79th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | MARQ -24.5 | — |
| Total | — | 153.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | DETM 64.3 · MARQ 88.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MARQ -14.4 | — |
| 1H total | 71.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | DETM 28.5 · MARQ 43 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | 2-8 20% | |
| 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Detroit Mercy
30 games played
Straight up
15-15
50% wins
Against the spread
20-10
67% covers · avg +3.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg +0.5 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 | @ | L 71-91 | +9.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 70-102 | +21.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 83-90 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 62-72 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 56-84 | +30.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 75-95 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 29 | @ | W 70-66 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 92-78 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 180.5 | U 170 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 71-59 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 158.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 77-81 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 73-68 | +9.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 77-85 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 82-84 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 94-84 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 162.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 71-96 | +10.5 | L −14.5 | 159.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-77 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 169.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 76-83 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 87-95 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 90-77 | +5.5 | W +18.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 76-63 | +6.5 | W +19.5 | 155.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 63-76 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-74 | +11.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 76-70 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 91-86 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 74-70 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 62-73 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 95-89 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 84-63 | -1.5 | W +19.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 70-64 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 63-66 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 129 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UIC
L 71-91
−10.5
7
@
ND
L 70-102
−10.5
15
@
TOL
L 83-90
+3.5
18
vs
EMU
L 62-72
−11.5
21
@
MSU
L 56-84
+2.5
23
@
DEP
L 75-95
−0.5
29
@
NIA
W 70-66
+2.5
3
vs
IUIN
W 92-78
+10.5
6
@
CLE
W 71-59
+13.5
14
@
PFW
L 77-81
+5.5
29
@
YSU
W 73-68
+14.5
2
vs
RMU
L 77-85
−4.5
9
vs
WRST
L 82-84
+3.5
11
vs
CLE
W 94-84
+3.5
15
@
NKU
L 71-96
−14.5
17
@
IUIN
W 80-77
+4.5
21
vs
PFW
L 76-83
−4.5
24
vs
OAK
L 87-95
−1.5
30
vs
NKU
W 90-77
+18.5
4
@
MILW
W 76-63
+19.5
7
@
GB
L 63-76
−9.5
12
@
WRST
W 77-74
+14.5
15
vs
YSU
W 76-70
+10.5
20
vs
MILW
W 91-86
+6.5
22
vs
GB
W 74-70
+2.5
25
@
RMU
L 62-73
−2.5
28
@
OAK
W 95-89
+14.5
4
vs
MILW
W 84-63
+19.5
9
vs
RMU
W 70-64
+10.5
10
vs
WRST
L 63-66
+1.5
covered 20didn’t cover 10avg +3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UIC
L 71-91
+19.5
7
@
ND
L 70-102
+24.5
15
@
TOL
L 83-90
+13.5
18
vs
EMU
L 62-72
−23.5
21
@
MSU
L 56-84
−9.5
23
@
DEP
L 75-95
+18.5
29
@
NIA
W 70-66
−6.5
3
vs
IUIN
W 92-78
−10.5
6
@
CLE
W 71-59
−28.5
14
@
PFW
L 77-81
+4.5
29
@
YSU
W 73-68
−5.5
2
vs
RMU
L 77-85
+13.5
9
vs
WRST
L 82-84
+17.5
11
vs
CLE
W 94-84
+15.5
15
@
NKU
L 71-96
+7.5
17
@
IUIN
W 80-77
−12.5
21
vs
PFW
L 76-83
+3.5
24
vs
OAK
L 87-95
+14.5
30
vs
NKU
W 90-77
+5.5
4
@
MILW
W 76-63
−16.5
7
@
GB
L 63-76
−10.5
12
@
WRST
W 77-74
−0.5
15
vs
YSU
W 76-70
−5.5
20
vs
MILW
W 91-86
+23.5
22
vs
GB
W 74-70
−3.5
25
@
RMU
L 62-73
−15.5
28
@
OAK
W 95-89
+23.5
4
vs
MILW
W 84-63
−4.5
9
vs
RMU
W 70-64
−12.5
10
vs
WRST
L 63-66
−24.5
over 14under 16avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Marquette
32 games played
Straight up
12-20
38% wins
Against the spread
13-19
41% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% 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 80-53 | -24.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 5 | vs | W 100-82 | -24.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 9 | vs | L 77-100 | +3.5 | L −19.5 | 156.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 89-49 | -21.5 | W +18.5 | 155.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 82-89 | -8.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 71-77 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 151.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 85-71 | -25.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 74-75 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 162.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 75-72 | -17.5 | L −14.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 76-96 | +11.5 | L −8.5 | 160.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 59-79 | +16.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 69-78 | -6.5 | L −15.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 63-84 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 73-79 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 57-73 | +17.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 66-65 | -5.5 | L −4.5 | 157.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 73-76 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 68-92 | +15.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 16 | @ | L 75-80 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 105-104 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | O 209 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 76-87 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 161.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 86-62 | +1.5 | W +25.5 | 154.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 64-69 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 70-55 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 10 | @ | L 74-77 | +9.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 88-96 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 157.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 70-76 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 76-60 | +2.5 | W +18.5 | 150.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 51-62 | -4.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | U 113 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 78-56 | +3.5 | W +25.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 68-62 | +9.5 | W +15.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 87-89 | -4.5 | L −6.5 | 157.5 | O 176 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UALB
W 80-53
+2.5
5
vs
SOU
W 100-82
−6.5
9
vs
IU
L 77-100
−19.5
12
vs
LR
W 89-49
+18.5
15
vs
MD
L 82-89
−15.5
19
vs
DAY
L 71-77
−12.5
22
vs
CMU
W 85-71
−11.5
28
vs
OU
L 74-75
+0.5
2
vs
VAL
W 75-72
−14.5
6
@
WIS
L 76-96
−8.5
13
@
PUR
L 59-79
−3.5
17
vs
GTWN
L 69-78
−15.5
20
@
CREI
L 63-84
−14.5
30
vs
HALL
L 73-79
−7.5
4
@
CONN
L 57-73
+1.5
7
vs
XAV
W 66-65
−4.5
10
vs
VILL
L 73-76
+0.5
13
@
SJU
L 68-92
−8.5
16
@
DEP
L 75-80
−2.5
19
vs
PROV
W 105-104
−1.5
23
@
BTLR
L 76-87
−5.5
27
vs
CREI
W 86-62
+25.5
31
@
HALL
L 64-69
+1.5
7
vs
BTLR
W 70-55
+11.5
10
@
VILL
L 74-77
+6.5
14
@
XAV
L 88-96
−6.5
18
vs
SJU
L 70-76
+2.5
24
@
GTWN
W 76-60
+18.5
1
vs
DEP
L 51-62
−15.5
4
@
PROV
W 78-56
+25.5
7
vs
CONN
W 68-62
+15.5
11
vs
XAV
L 87-89
−6.5
covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UALB
W 80-53
−16.5
5
vs
SOU
W 100-82
+26.5
9
vs
IU
L 77-100
+20.5
12
vs
LR
W 89-49
−17.5
15
vs
MD
L 82-89
+24.5
19
vs
DAY
L 71-77
−3.5
22
vs
CMU
W 85-71
+3.5
28
vs
OU
L 74-75
−13.5
2
vs
VAL
W 75-72
+0.5
6
@
WIS
L 76-96
+11.5
13
@
PUR
L 59-79
−16.5
17
vs
GTWN
L 69-78
−2.5
20
@
CREI
L 63-84
−4.5
30
vs
HALL
L 73-79
+6.5
4
@
CONN
L 57-73
−14.5
7
vs
XAV
W 66-65
−26.5
10
vs
VILL
L 73-76
+2.5
13
@
SJU
L 68-92
+4.5
16
@
DEP
L 75-80
+9.5
19
vs
PROV
W 105-104
+41.5
23
@
BTLR
L 76-87
+1.5
27
vs
CREI
W 86-62
−6.5
31
@
HALL
L 64-69
−10.5
7
vs
BTLR
W 70-55
−30.5
10
@
VILL
L 74-77
+6.5
14
@
XAV
L 88-96
+26.5
18
vs
SJU
L 70-76
−11.5
24
@
GTWN
W 76-60
−14.5
1
vs
DEP
L 51-62
−26.5
4
@
PROV
W 78-56
−27.5
7
vs
CONN
W 68-62
−13.5
11
vs
XAV
L 87-89
+18.5
over 15under 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Marquette has the better starters
Position by position: Detroit Mercy 0, Marquette 2, even 3
Detroit MercyBetterMarquette
G T. Spratt10.1 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 54
=Even
G C. Porter TR11.2 pts · 3 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 45
G A. Carter11.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G N. Minessale TR19.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 97
G L. Stone6.6 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 9
→MARQBig
G N. James16.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 99
F L. Maiden6.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 28
→MARQBig
G A. Stevens7.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 65
C X. Istomin-Monroe1.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F R. Parham12.5 pts · 4.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 87
Detroit MercyBetterMarquette
DETM offense236th of 366 · -7.2
→MARQBig
MARQ defense36th of 366 · +3.1
DETM defense310th of 366 · -8.1
→MARQBig
MARQ offense46th of 366 · +4.2
Backcourt-2.0 · 3 players
→MARQBig
Backcourt+8.9 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.9 · 2 players
→MARQBig
Frontcourt+2.5 · 1 player
Bench-0.7 · 1 player
→MARQBig
Bench+2.8 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestDETM betterMARQ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Spratt25 minA. Carter21 minL. Stone21 minJ. Cotton7 minJ. BriggsNewE. PalssonNew
Forwards
L. Maiden16 minD. FavorNewV. SemerychNewC. HouserNewT. OwensNew
Centers
X. Istomin-Monroe8 min
Guards
C. Porter35 min · TRN. Minessale32 min · TRN. James29 minA. Stevens26 minE. JohnstonNewN. WalkerNew
Forwards
R. Parham29 minS. Fru22 min · TRD. Owens16 minC. Hamilton13 minM. Phillips8 minJ. Clark6 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.3 #135 | Points per game | 75.2 #160 |
| 1.09 #153 | Points per possession | 1.06 #223 |
| 69.7 #132 | Pace (possessions) | 70.9 #79 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #267 | Effective FG% | 50.5 #215 |
| 35.1 #108 | 3-point % | 31.7 #297 |
| 30.7 #343 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.2 #133 |
| 32.6 #247 | Free throw rate | 32.8 #243 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.0 #138 | Turnover rate | 16.1 #145 |
| 33.3 #81 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.7 #216 |
| 13.1 #208 | Assists per game | 15.5 #63 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.7 #285 | Points allowed | 75.8 #213 |
| 1.13 #290 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #125 |
| 52.2 #223 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.6 #131 |
| 33.3 #140 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #104 |
| 14.4 #324 | Turnovers forced | 19.3 #39 |
| 69.2 #193 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.3 #331 |
| 5.8 #264 | Steals per game | 9.3 #5 |
| 3.3 #182 | Blocks per game | 3.1 #207 |
Detroit Mercy
15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 14-9 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wright St63–66
- Wvs Robert Morris70–64
- Wvs Milwaukee84–63
- W@ Oakland95–89
- L@ Robert Morris62–73
A week or more of rest.
Marquette
12-20 in 2025-26 overall · 7-14 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Xavier87–89
- Wvs UConn68–62
- W@ Providence78–56
- Lvs DePaul51–62
- W@ Georgetown76–60
A week or more of rest.