Cintas Center · at Xavier
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | XAV | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 XAV 86–68 · win probability XAV 95%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 153.9
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: XAV has more of the edges
EMU 0, XAV 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
XAV offense vs EMU defense
Offense 31st of 366 against a defense 188th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
EMU has played the 157th-hardest schedule, XAV the 33rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
EMU offense vs XAV defense
Offense 206th of 366 against a defense 89th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: EMU 17.5%, XAV 14.0%. Forced: EMU 15.5%, XAV 15.5%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: EMU plays 68.9 a game (190th fastest), XAV 71.8 (44th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
XAV at home. This season: XAV 0-0 at home, EMU 0-0 away
Three-pointers
EMU hits 32.4% and allows 32.9%; XAV hits 36.5% and allows 34.8%. Threes are 31.8% and 40.6% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: EMU 37%, XAV 14%. Transfers in: EMU 4, XAV 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: EMU 49.6 and allows 50.3; XAV 51.8 and allows 54.1
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: EMU 27.8%, XAV 26.5%. Defensive: EMU 70.9%, XAV 70.5%
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: EMU 29.3, XAV 28.1. Allowed: EMU 35.5, XAV 32.6
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 | — | XAV -18.7 | — |
| Total | — | 153.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | EMU 67.6 · XAV 86.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | XAV -11.0 | — |
| 1H total | 71.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | EMU 30.5 · XAV 41.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 9-1 90% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
E Michigan
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
20-10
67% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-21
30% overs · avg −3.6 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 71-49 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 149.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 66-78 | +15.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 83-90 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 186.5 | U 173 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 72-62 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 97-91 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 46-87 | +33.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 64-56 | +22.5 | W +30.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 73-55 | -14.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 68-84 | +17.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 65-80 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 72-93 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 64-70 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 80-74 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 67-68 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 74-52 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 137.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 62-79 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 77-59 | -7.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 79-85 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 75-76 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 65-100 | -2.5 | L −37.5 | 139.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 67-70 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 64-66 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 60-65 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 131.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 91-95 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 186 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 62-76 | -6.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 66-54 | -4.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-94 | +8.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 64-74 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 67-72 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 69-77 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
GAST
W 71-49
+18.5
10
@
PITT
L 66-78
+3.5
14
vs
IUIN
L 83-90
−11.5
18
@
DETM
W 72-62
+11.5
21
vs
OAK
W 97-91
+7.5
24
@
LOU
L 46-87
−7.5
26
@
CIN
W 64-56
+30.5
28
vs
NJIT
W 73-55
+3.5
2
@
BTLR
L 68-84
+1.5
10
@
PFW
L 65-80
−11.5
19
@
AKR
L 72-93
−5.5
22
@
WRST
L 64-70
+4.5
30
vs
MASS
W 80-74
+8.5
3
vs
OHIO
L 67-68
+1.5
6
@
BALL
W 74-52
+23.5
10
@
WMU
L 62-79
−18.5
13
vs
NIU
W 77-59
+10.5
17
@
BGSU
L 79-85
+5.5
24
vs
KENT
L 75-76
+3.5
27
@
CMU
L 65-100
−37.5
31
@
MASS
L 67-70
+5.5
3
vs
AKR
L 64-66
+10.5
7
@
APP
L 60-65
+2.5
11
@
KENT
L 91-95
+6.5
14
vs
WMU
L 62-76
−20.5
17
vs
CMU
W 66-54
+7.5
21
@
TOL
L 75-94
−10.5
24
vs
M-OH
L 64-74
−1.5
3
@
BUF
L 67-72
+0.5
6
vs
BGSU
L 69-77
−2.5
covered 20didn’t cover 10avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
GAST
W 71-49
−29.5
10
@
PITT
L 66-78
+2.5
14
vs
IUIN
L 83-90
−13.5
18
@
DETM
W 72-62
−23.5
21
vs
OAK
W 97-91
+34.5
24
@
LOU
L 46-87
−29.5
26
@
CIN
W 64-56
−26.5
28
vs
NJIT
W 73-55
−13.5
2
@
BTLR
L 68-84
−1.5
10
@
PFW
L 65-80
−2.5
19
@
AKR
L 72-93
+9.5
22
@
WRST
L 64-70
−8.5
30
vs
MASS
W 80-74
+5.5
3
vs
OHIO
L 67-68
−15.5
6
@
BALL
W 74-52
−11.5
10
@
WMU
L 62-79
−4.5
13
vs
NIU
W 77-59
−5.5
17
@
BGSU
L 79-85
+22.5
24
vs
KENT
L 75-76
−3.5
27
@
CMU
L 65-100
+25.5
31
@
MASS
L 67-70
−11.5
3
vs
AKR
L 64-66
−23.5
7
@
APP
L 60-65
−6.5
11
@
KENT
L 91-95
+40.5
14
vs
WMU
L 62-76
−5.5
17
vs
CMU
W 66-54
−20.5
21
@
TOL
L 75-94
+23.5
24
vs
M-OH
L 64-74
−13.5
3
@
BUF
L 67-72
−4.5
6
vs
BGSU
L 69-77
+3.5
over 9under 21avg −3.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Xavier
33 games played
Straight up
15-18
45% wins
Against the spread
16-17
48% covers · avg −1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
24-9
73% overs · avg +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 66-62 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 74-69 | -24.5 | L −19.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 10 | vs | L 68-87 | -3.5 | L −22.5 | 155.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 62-81 | +15.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 99-69 | -10.5 | W +19.5 | 150.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 77-78 | +10.5 | W +9.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 78-68 | +5.5 | W +15.5 | 140.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 88-67 | -13.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 96-74 | -27.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 79-74 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 12 | vs | W 75-57 | -18.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 57-98 | -2.5 | L −43.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 80-77 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 67-90 | +11.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 77-86 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 65-66 | +5.5 | W +4.5 | 157.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 97-84 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 165.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 89-75 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 161.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 93-94 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 187 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 83-88 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 68-86 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 68-66 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 60-92 | +16.5 | L −15.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 82-87 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 159.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 96-88 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 89-92 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-80 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 159.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 84-94 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 170.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 91-84 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 68-77 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 78-91 | +11.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 89-87 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | O 176 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 68-93 | +17.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MRST
W 66-62
−8.5
6
vs
LEM
W 74-69
−19.5
10
vs
SCU
L 68-87
−22.5
14
@
IOWA
L 62-81
−3.5
18
vs
ODU
W 99-69
+19.5
21
vs
UGA
L 77-78
+9.5
23
vs
WVU
W 78-68
+15.5
28
vs
AMCC
W 88-67
+7.5
1
vs
SFPA
W 96-74
−5.5
5
vs
CIN
W 79-74
+6.5
12
vs
MOST
W 75-57
−0.5
17
vs
CREI
L 57-98
−43.5
20
@
GTWN
W 80-77
+7.5
31
vs
CONN
L 67-90
−11.5
3
@
DEP
L 77-86
−6.5
7
@
MARQ
L 65-66
+4.5
10
vs
PROV
W 97-84
+14.5
14
vs
BTLR
W 89-75
+15.5
21
@
CREI
L 93-94
+7.5
24
vs
SJU
L 83-88
+3.5
28
@
HALL
L 68-86
−12.5
31
vs
DEP
W 68-66
−2.5
3
@
CONN
L 60-92
−15.5
9
@
SJU
L 82-87
+11.5
14
vs
MARQ
W 96-88
+6.5
17
vs
VILL
L 89-92
+1.5
21
@
BTLR
L 75-80
−0.5
25
@
PROV
L 84-94
−4.5
28
vs
GTWN
W 91-84
+2.5
3
vs
HALL
L 68-77
−7.5
7
@
VILL
L 78-91
−1.5
11
vs
MARQ
W 89-87
+6.5
12
vs
CONN
L 68-93
−7.5
covered 16didn’t cover 17avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MRST
W 66-62
−11.5
6
vs
LEM
W 74-69
−13.5
10
vs
SCU
L 68-87
−0.5
14
@
IOWA
L 62-81
−0.5
18
vs
ODU
W 99-69
+17.5
21
vs
UGA
L 77-78
−10.5
23
vs
WVU
W 78-68
+5.5
28
vs
AMCC
W 88-67
+8.5
1
vs
SFPA
W 96-74
+17.5
5
vs
CIN
W 79-74
+5.5
12
vs
MOST
W 75-57
−19.5
17
vs
CREI
L 57-98
+3.5
20
@
GTWN
W 80-77
+7.5
31
vs
CONN
L 67-90
+12.5
3
@
DEP
L 77-86
+13.5
7
@
MARQ
L 65-66
−26.5
10
vs
PROV
W 97-84
+15.5
14
vs
BTLR
W 89-75
+2.5
21
@
CREI
L 93-94
+31.5
24
vs
SJU
L 83-88
+11.5
28
@
HALL
L 68-86
+8.5
31
vs
DEP
W 68-66
−16.5
3
@
CONN
L 60-92
+4.5
9
@
SJU
L 82-87
+9.5
14
vs
MARQ
W 96-88
+26.5
17
vs
VILL
L 89-92
+28.5
21
@
BTLR
L 75-80
−4.5
25
@
PROV
L 84-94
+7.5
28
vs
GTWN
W 91-84
+19.5
3
vs
HALL
L 68-77
+0.5
7
@
VILL
L 78-91
+15.5
11
vs
MARQ
W 89-87
+18.5
12
vs
CONN
L 68-93
+10.5
over 24under 9avg +6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Xavier has the better starters
Position by position: E Michigan 0, Xavier 4, even 1
E MichiganBetterXavier
G J. Fitzpatrick TR15.4 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 75
→XAVSmall
G C. Westry TR15.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 5.6 ast
Score 97
G E. Richards TR9.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 32
→XAVBig
G T. Washington TR11.9 pts · 4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 82
G B. Green4.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 9
→XAVBig
F N. Chitikoudis TR11.1 pts · 7.7 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 66
F M. Habhab14.2 pts · 8.3 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 64
=Even
F J. Milicevic12.4 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 75
F K. Brockhoff TR10.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 44
→XAVSmall
F R. Aligbe TR9.4 pts · 7.6 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 74
E MichiganBetterXavier
EMU offense206th of 366 · -6.3
→XAVSmall
XAV defense89th of 366 · -0.2
EMU defense188th of 366 · -4.4
→XAVBig
XAV offense31st of 366 · +6.0
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
→XAVBig
Backcourt+6.0 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.1 · 2 players
→XAVBig
Frontcourt+3.1 · 3 players
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
→XAVBig
Bench+5.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestEMU betterXAV betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Fitzpatrick36 min · TRE. Richards27 min · TRB. Green20 minG. Lawson18 minS. Harris17 min · TRD. PorterNew
Forwards
M. Habhab36 minK. Brockhoff22 min · TRK. JohnsonNewJ. WrightNewO. SuleimanNew
Guards
C. Westry31 min · TRT. Washington28 min · TRR. Dominguez23 min · TRB. Appelhans13 min · TRM. Wolf2 minK. HouseNew
Forwards
N. Chitikoudis27 min · TRJ. Milicevic26 minR. Aligbe25 min · TRM. Nwoko22 min · TRH. Thole1 minG. PozzatoNew
Centers
K. WestphalNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.2 #282 | Points per game | 78.4 #91 |
| 1.02 #298 | Points per possession | 1.09 #149 |
| 68.9 #190 | Pace (possessions) | 71.8 #44 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #264 | Effective FG% | 51.8 #155 |
| 32.4 #259 | 3-point % | 36.5 #39 |
| 31.8 #332 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.6 #156 |
| 29.3 #325 | Free throw rate | 28.1 #341 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.5 #235 | Turnover rate | 14.0 #21 |
| 27.8 #273 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.5 #311 |
| 12.4 #261 | Assists per game | 17.4 #15 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.4 #169 | Points allowed | 80.6 #329 |
| 1.07 #142 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #276 |
| 50.3 #115 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.1 #302 |
| 32.9 #111 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.8 #237 |
| 15.5 #249 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #253 |
| 70.9 #109 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.5 #136 |
| 5.7 #269 | Steals per game | 6.5 #181 |
| 4.1 #61 | Blocks per game | 4.0 #77 |
E Michigan
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Bowling Green69–77
- L@ Buffalo67–72
- Lvs Miami OH64–74
- L@ Toledo75–94
- Wvs C Michigan66–54
A week or more of rest.
Xavier
15-18 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn68–93
- Wvs Marquette89–87
- L@ Villanova78–91
- Lvs Seton Hall68–77
- Wvs Georgetown91–84
A week or more of rest.