Chicago State Cougars at Marquette Golden Eagles: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 22, 1:00 PM ETFiserv Forum · at Marquette

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Chicago St and Marquette
CHST	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 90–56 · win probability MARQ 100%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 146.2

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

CHST 0, MARQ 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

MARQBig

CHST offense vs MARQ defense

Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 36th, on the model’s ratings

MARQBig

MARQ offense vs CHST defense

Offense 46th of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, MARQ the 37th. A record against a soft schedule means less

MARQBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; MARQ 50.5 and allows 50.6

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), MARQ 70.9 (79th). Faster games mean more points

MARQBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, MARQ 32.8. Allowed: CHST 38.0, MARQ 32.0

MARQSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, MARQ 64%. Transfers in: CHST 6, MARQ 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

MARQSmall

Three-pointers

CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; MARQ hits 31.7% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 30.9% and 42.2% of their shots

MARQSmall

Home court

MARQ at home. This season: MARQ 0-0 at home, CHST 0-0 away

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, MARQ 16.1%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, MARQ 19.3%

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, MARQ 29.7%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, MARQ 65.3%

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	MARQ -33.7	—
Total	—	146.2	—
Projected score	—	CHST 56.2 · MARQ 90

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	MARQ -19.9	—
1H total	68.4	—
1H projected score	CHST 24.2 · MARQ 44.2	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
CHST WWLLW	15-16	48%	9-12	—
MARQ WLWWL	13-19	41%	7-10	—

Venue/role: CHST away; MARQ home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CHST UUUOO	15-16	48%	6-25
MARQ UUUUO	15-17	47%	12-20

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
CHST	4-6 40%	6-4 60%	4-6 40%
MARQ	4-6 40%	7-3 70%	3-7 30%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Chicago St

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 28	@ BRAD	No recent meeting
Nov 30	@ EVAN	No recent meeting
Dec 2	@ MUR	L65–66WU

Marquette

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 25	vs UVA	No recent meeting
Nov 27	vs TA&M	No recent meeting
Dec 1	vs WAG	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

CHST 0–1 MARQMARQ leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CHST 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 26, 2022-23	CHST 68 @ MARQ 82	MARQ -27.5	CHST W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Chicago St

31 games played

Straight up

6-25

19% wins

Against the spread

15-16

48% covers · avg +0.3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-16

48% overs · avg −0.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

6-2519%

L L L L L L L L L W L L L L L L L L L L W L W W W L L W L L L

3 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

15-1648%

L W L W W L L L L W W W L L L W L L L W W L W W W L W W L L W

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1648%

O O O U U O O O O O U U O U U O U U U U O O U O U U U U U O O

2 straight overs2 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@DEP	L 62-92	+24.5	L −5.5	143.5	O 154
Nov 6	@SLU	L 86-108	+30.5	W +8.5	155.5	O 194
Nov 11	@BTLR	L 66-98	+26.5	L −5.5	158.5	O 164
Nov 15	vsUIC	L 63-67	+9.5	W +5.5	156.5	U 130
Nov 18	@MINN	L 54-66	+27.5	W +15.5	144.5	U 120
Nov 20	@IOWA	L 54-93	+31.5	L −7.5	142.5	O 147
Nov 25	@PFW	L 77-90	+12.5	L −0.5	149.5	O 167
Nov 28	@YSU	L 64-87	+14.5	L −8.5	146.5	O 151
Dec 6	@ILST	L 53-95	+20.5	L −21.5	144.5	O 148
Dec 14	@LUC	W 84-75	+15.5	W +24.5	140.5	O 159
Dec 16	@BGSU	L 55-76	+21.5	W +0.5	148.5	U 131
Dec 20	@IU	L 58-78	+38.5	W +18.5	152.5	U 136
Jan 2	vsWAG	L 72-79	+1.5	L −5.5	146.5	O 151
Jan 4	vsLIU	L 55-74	+7.5	L −11.5	151.5	U 129
Jan 8	@FDU	L 63-70	+4.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 133
Jan 10	@STO	L 82-85	+4.5	W +1.5	135.5	O 167
Jan 17	vsLEM	L 57-72	+6.5	L −8.5	146.5	U 129
Jan 19	vsNHVN	L 56-62	-1.5	L −7.5	129.5	U 118
Jan 23	@SFPA	L 60-81	+3.5	L −17.5	143.5	U 141
Jan 25	@MERC	L 59-61	+9.5	W +7.5	131.5	U 120
Jan 31	vsMERC	W 78-74	+2.5	W +6.5	129.5	O 152
Feb 5	@CCSU	L 67-78	+8.5	L −2.5	138.5	O 145
Feb 7	@NHVN	W 63-57	+5.5	W +11.5	127.5	U 120
Feb 9	vsSFPA	W 80-75	-3.5	W +1.5	144.5	O 155
Feb 12	vsSTO	W 68-55	+2.5	W +15.5	131.5	U 123
Feb 14	@LEM	L 63-81	+6.5	L −11.5	144.5	U 144
Feb 19	vsFDU	L 59-60	+1.5	W +0.5	131.5	U 119
Feb 21	vsCCSU	W 70-51	+3.5	W +22.5	138.5	U 121
Feb 26	@LIU	L 56-73	+11.5	L −5.5	141.5	U 129
Feb 28	@WAG	L 61-80	+4.5	L −14.5	134.5	O 141
Mar 4	@LIU	L 75-79	+10.5	W +6.5	137.5	O 154

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

DEP

L 62-92

−5.5

SLU

L 86-108

+8.5

BTLR

L 66-98

−5.5

UIC

L 63-67

+5.5

MINN

L 54-66

+15.5

IOWA

L 54-93

−7.5

PFW

L 77-90

−0.5

YSU

L 64-87

−8.5

ILST

L 53-95

−21.5

LUC

W 84-75

+24.5

BGSU

L 55-76

+0.5

L 58-78

+18.5

WAG

L 72-79

−5.5

LIU

L 55-74

−11.5

FDU

L 63-70

−2.5

STO

L 82-85

+1.5

LEM

L 57-72

−8.5

NHVN

L 56-62

−7.5

SFPA

L 60-81

−17.5

MERC

L 59-61

+7.5

MERC

W 78-74

+6.5

CCSU

L 67-78

−2.5

NHVN

W 63-57

+11.5

SFPA

W 80-75

+1.5

STO

W 68-55

+15.5

LEM

L 63-81

−11.5

FDU

L 59-60

+0.5

CCSU

W 70-51

+22.5

LIU

L 56-73

−5.5

WAG

L 61-80

−14.5

LIU

L 75-79

+6.5

covered 15didn’t cover 16avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

DEP

L 62-92

+10.5

SLU

L 86-108

+38.5

BTLR

L 66-98

+5.5

UIC

L 63-67

−26.5

MINN

L 54-66

−24.5

IOWA

L 54-93

+4.5

PFW

L 77-90

+17.5

YSU

L 64-87

+4.5

ILST

L 53-95

+3.5

LUC

W 84-75

+18.5

BGSU

L 55-76

−17.5

L 58-78

−16.5

WAG

L 72-79

+4.5

LIU

L 55-74

−22.5

FDU

L 63-70

−10.5

STO

L 82-85

+31.5

LEM

L 57-72

−17.5

NHVN

L 56-62

−11.5

SFPA

L 60-81

−2.5

MERC

L 59-61

−11.5

MERC

W 78-74

+22.5

CCSU

L 67-78

+6.5

NHVN

W 63-57

−7.5

SFPA

W 80-75

+10.5

STO

W 68-55

−8.5

LEM

L 63-81

−0.5

FDU

L 59-60

−12.5

CCSU

W 70-51

−17.5

LIU

L 56-73

−12.5

WAG

L 61-80

+6.5

LIU

L 75-79

+16.5

over 15under 16avg −0.6 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

Straight up

12-2038%

W W L W L L W L W L L L L L L W L L L W L W L W L L L W L W W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-1941%

W L L W L L L W L L L L L L W L W L L L L W W W W L W W L W W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1747%

U O O U O U O U O O U U U O U U O O O O O U U U O O U U U U U O

1 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsUALB	W 80-53	-24.5	W +2.5	149.5	U 133
Nov 5	vsSOU	W 100-82	-24.5	L −6.5	155.5	O 182
Nov 9	vsIU	L 77-100	+3.5	L −19.5	156.5	O 177
Nov 12	vsLR	W 89-49	-21.5	W +18.5	155.5	U 138
Nov 15	vsMD	L 82-89	-8.5	L −15.5	146.5	O 171
Nov 19	vsDAY	L 71-77	-6.5	L −12.5	151.5	U 148
Nov 22	vsCMU	W 85-71	-25.5	L −11.5	152.5	O 156
Nov 28	vsOU	L 74-75	+1.5	W +0.5	162.5	U 149
Dec 2	vsVAL	W 75-72	-17.5	L −14.5	146.5	O 147
Dec 6	@WIS	L 76-96	+11.5	L −8.5	160.5	O 172
Dec 13	@PUR	L 59-79	+16.5	L −3.5	154.5	U 138
Dec 17	vsGTWN	L 69-78	-6.5	L −15.5	149.5	U 147
Dec 20	@CREI	L 63-84	+6.5	L −14.5	151.5	U 147
Dec 30	vsHALL	L 73-79	-1.5	L −7.5	145.5	O 152
Jan 4	@CONN	L 57-73	+17.5	W +1.5	144.5	U 130
Jan 7	vsXAV	W 66-65	-5.5	L −4.5	157.5	U 131
Jan 10	vsVILL	L 73-76	+3.5	W +0.5	146.5	O 149
Jan 13	@SJU	L 68-92	+15.5	L −8.5	155.5	O 160
Jan 16	@DEP	L 75-80	+2.5	L −2.5	145.5	O 155
Jan 19	vsPROV	W 105-104	-2.5	L −1.5	167.5	O 209
Jan 23	@BTLR	L 76-87	+5.5	L −5.5	161.5	O 163
Jan 27	vsCREI	W 86-62	+1.5	W +25.5	154.5	U 148
Jan 31	@HALL	L 64-69	+6.5	W +1.5	143.5	U 133
Feb 7	vsBTLR	W 70-55	-3.5	W +11.5	155.5	U 125
Feb 10	@VILL	L 74-77	+9.5	W +6.5	144.5	O 151
Feb 14	@XAV	L 88-96	+1.5	L −6.5	157.5	O 184
Feb 18	vsSJU	L 70-76	+8.5	W +2.5	157.5	U 146
Feb 24	@GTWN	W 76-60	+2.5	W +18.5	150.5	U 136
Mar 1	vsDEP	L 51-62	-4.5	L −15.5	139.5	U 113
Mar 4	@PROV	W 78-56	+3.5	W +25.5	161.5	U 134
Mar 7	vsCONN	W 68-62	+9.5	W +15.5	143.5	U 130
Mar 11	vsXAV	L 87-89	-4.5	L −6.5	157.5	O 176

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UALB

W 80-53

+2.5

SOU

W 100-82

−6.5

L 77-100

−19.5

W 89-49

+18.5

L 82-89

−15.5

DAY

L 71-77

−12.5

CMU

W 85-71

−11.5

L 74-75

+0.5

VAL

W 75-72

−14.5

WIS

L 76-96

−8.5

PUR

L 59-79

−3.5

GTWN

L 69-78

−15.5

CREI

L 63-84

−14.5

HALL

L 73-79

−7.5

CONN

L 57-73

+1.5

XAV

W 66-65

−4.5

VILL

L 73-76

+0.5

SJU

L 68-92

−8.5

DEP

L 75-80

−2.5

PROV

W 105-104

−1.5

BTLR

L 76-87

−5.5

CREI

W 86-62

+25.5

HALL

L 64-69

+1.5

BTLR

W 70-55

+11.5

VILL

L 74-77

+6.5

XAV

L 88-96

−6.5

SJU

L 70-76

+2.5

GTWN

W 76-60

+18.5

DEP

L 51-62

−15.5

PROV

W 78-56

+25.5

CONN

W 68-62

+15.5

XAV

L 87-89

−6.5

covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UALB

W 80-53

−16.5

SOU

W 100-82

+26.5

L 77-100

+20.5

W 89-49

−17.5

L 82-89

+24.5

DAY

L 71-77

−3.5

CMU

W 85-71

+3.5

L 74-75

−13.5

VAL

W 75-72

+0.5

WIS

L 76-96

+11.5

PUR

L 59-79

−16.5

GTWN

L 69-78

−2.5

CREI

L 63-84

−4.5

HALL

L 73-79

+6.5

CONN

L 57-73

−14.5

XAV

W 66-65

−26.5

VILL

L 73-76

+2.5

SJU

L 68-92

+4.5

DEP

L 75-80

+9.5

PROV

W 105-104

+41.5

BTLR

L 76-87

+1.5

CREI

W 86-62

−6.5

HALL

L 64-69

−10.5

BTLR

W 70-55

−30.5

VILL

L 74-77

+6.5

XAV

L 88-96

+26.5

SJU

L 70-76

−11.5

GTWN

W 76-60

−14.5

DEP

L 51-62

−26.5

PROV

W 78-56

−27.5

CONN

W 68-62

−13.5

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: Chicago St 0, Marquette 5, even 0

Chicago StBetterMarquette

G M. Price TR6.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 3

MARQBig

G C. Porter TR11.2 pts · 3 reb · 3.3 ast Score 45

G A. Carraway TR4.9 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 3

MARQBig

G N. Minessale TR19.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 4.2 ast Score 97

G M. Olafioye TR3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.2 ast Score 2

MARQBig

G N. James16.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 4.9 ast Score 99

F B. Akanmu TR5.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.5 ast Score 14

MARQBig

G A. Stevens7.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.6 ast Score 65

F D. Loury TR4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast Score 1

MARQBig

F R. Parham12.5 pts · 4.9 reb · 0.9 ast Score 87

Chicago StBetterMarquette

CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2

MARQBig

MARQ defense36th of 366 · +3.1

CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0

MARQBig

MARQ offense46th of 366 · +4.2

Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players

MARQBig

Backcourt+8.9 · 4 players

Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players

MARQBig

Frontcourt+2.5 · 1 player

Bench-2.7 · 2 players

MARQBig

Bench+2.8 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestCHST betterMARQ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Chicago St

Guards

M. Price18 min · TRA. Carraway16 min · TRM. Olafioye16 min · TRM. Robinson15 minJ. Pazon11 min · TRW. Lovings-WattsNew

Forwards

B. Akanmu21 min · TRD. Loury17 min · TRK. FomanNewL. Stephane DjiyaNewF. SheriffNewL. HodgesNew

Centers

B. KalonjiNew

Marquette

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

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

CHST65.2 #348

MARQ75.2 #160

Points per possession

CHST0.99 #337

MARQ1.06 #223

Pace (possessions)

CHST66.0 #314

MARQ70.9 #79

Shooting

Effective FG%

CHST45.3 #358

MARQ50.5 #215

3-point %

CHST32.1 #275

MARQ31.7 #297

3-point attempt rate

CHST30.9 #341

MARQ42.2 #133

Free throw rate

CHST30.0 #311

MARQ32.8 #243

Possessions

Turnover rate

CHST15.7 #114

MARQ16.1 #145

Offensive rebound rate

CHST28.3 #255

MARQ29.7 #216

Assists per game

CHST11.7 #305

MARQ15.5 #63

Defense

Points allowed

CHST76.5 #231

MARQ75.8 #213

Points allowed per possession

CHST1.16 #332

MARQ1.07 #125

Opponent effective FG%

CHST56.7 #354

MARQ50.6 #131

Opponent 3-point %

CHST35.6 #290

MARQ32.7 #104

Turnovers forced

CHST20.1 #21

MARQ19.3 #39

Defensive rebound rate

CHST65.0 #339

MARQ65.3 #331

Steals per game

CHST8.2 #33

MARQ9.3 #5

Blocks per game

CHST1.3 #365

MARQ3.1 #207

CHST		MARQ
Scoring
65.2 #348	Points per game	75.2 #160
0.99 #337	Points per possession	1.06 #223
66.0 #314	Pace (possessions)	70.9 #79
Shooting
45.3 #358	Effective FG%	50.5 #215
32.1 #275	3-point %	31.7 #297
30.9 #341	3-point attempt rate	42.2 #133
30.0 #311	Free throw rate	32.8 #243
Possessions
15.7 #114	Turnover rate	16.1 #145
28.3 #255	Offensive rebound rate	29.7 #216
11.7 #305	Assists per game	15.5 #63
Defense
76.5 #231	Points allowed	75.8 #213
1.16 #332	Points allowed per possession	1.07 #125
56.7 #354	Opponent effective FG%	50.6 #131
35.6 #290	Opponent 3-point %	32.7 #104
20.1 #21	Turnovers forced	19.3 #39
65.0 #339	Defensive rebound rate	65.3 #331
8.2 #33	Steals per game	9.3 #5
1.3 #365	Blocks per game	3.1 #207

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Chicago St

6-25 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Northeast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Long Island75–79
L@ Wagner61–80
L@ Long Island56–73
Wvs C Connecticut70–51
Lvs FDU59–60

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.

Chicago State Cougars at Marquette Golden Eagles

What could decide it: MARQ has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Chicago St

Marquette

Marquette has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Chicago St

Marquette