United Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DUKE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 DUKE 75–71 · win probability DUKE 65%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.4
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: DUKE has more of the edges
MSU 0, DUKE 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MSU 17.1%, DUKE 16.0%. Forced: MSU 14.9%, DUKE 17.2%
Free throws
Free throw rate: MSU 35.9, DUKE 38.2. Allowed: MSU 30.2, DUKE 22.8
Shooting
Effective FG%: MSU 53.8 and allows 48.9; DUKE 56.6 and allows 46.2
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MSU 63%, DUKE 47%. Transfers in: MSU 1, DUKE 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
MSU offense vs DUKE defense
Offense 21st of 366 against a defense 3rd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: MSU plays 67.3 a game (264th fastest), DUKE 66.8 (285th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Schedule so far
MSU has played the 16th-hardest schedule, DUKE the 23rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
DUKE offense vs MSU defense
Offense 11th of 366 against a defense 5th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
MSU hits 36.3% and allows 33.0%; DUKE hits 34.7% and allows 30.6%. Threes are 36.4% and 43.5% of their shots
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MSU 37.8%, DUKE 38.4%. Defensive: MSU 77.6%, DUKE 74.8%
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 | — | DUKE -4.5 | — |
| Total | — | 146.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | MSU 70.9 · DUKE 75.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | DUKE -2.5 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | MSU 33 · DUKE 35.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | |
| 9-1 90% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
MSU 0–3 DUKEDUKE leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · DUKE has won the last 3 meetings · MSU 0-3 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2025-26 | DUKE 66 @ MSU 60 | MSU +1.5 | DUKE W |
| Nov 14, 2023-24 | DUKE 74 vs MSU 65 | MSU +4.5 | DUKE W |
| Mar 20, 2021-22 | MSU 76 vs DUKE 85 | DUKE -6.5 | DUKE W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Michigan St
35 games played
Straight up
27-8
77% wins
Against the spread
18-17
51% covers · avg +1.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-19
46% overs · avg +1.5 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 | vs | W 80-69 | -22.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 69-66 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 79-60 | -24.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 83-66 | +3.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 84-56 | -30.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 89-56 | -19.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 74-58 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 152.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 71-52 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 133.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 60-66 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 76-72 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 92-69 | -23.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 79-70 | -19.5 | L −10.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 114-97 | -23.5 | L −6.5 | 160.5 | O 211 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 56-58 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 80-51 | -11.5 | W +17.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 76-66 | -13.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 81-60 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-63 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 68-52 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 91-48 | -18.5 | W +24.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 88-79 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 71-83 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 73-76 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 85-82 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 142.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 13 | @ | L 71-92 | -1.5 | L −22.5 | 149.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 82-59 | -8.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 66-60 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 76-74 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 77-64 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 91-87 | -20.5 | L −16.5 | 141.5 | O 178 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 80-90 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 84-88 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 92-67 | -16.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 77-69 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 27 | vs | L 63-67 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 136.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
COLG
W 80-69
−11.5
8
vs
ARK
W 69-66
+0.5
13
vs
SJSU
W 79-60
−5.5
18
vs
UK
W 83-66
+20.5
21
vs
DETM
W 84-56
−2.5
25
vs
ECU
W 89-56
+13.5
27
vs
UNC
W 74-58
+14.5
2
vs
IOWA
W 71-52
+13.5
6
vs
DUKE
L 60-66
−4.5
13
@
PSU
W 76-72
−8.5
16
vs
TOL
W 92-69
−0.5
20
vs
OAK
W 79-70
−10.5
29
vs
COR
W 114-97
−6.5
2
@
NEB
L 56-58
+0.5
5
vs
USC
W 80-51
+17.5
8
vs
NU
W 76-66
−3.5
13
vs
IU
W 81-60
+14.5
17
@
WASH
W 80-63
+13.5
20
@
ORE
W 68-52
+5.5
24
vs
MD
W 91-48
+24.5
27
@
RUTG
W 88-79
−5.5
30
vs
MICH
L 71-83
−9.5
4
@
MINN
L 73-76
−11.5
7
vs
ILL
W 85-82
+1.5
13
@
WIS
L 71-92
−22.5
17
vs
UCLA
W 82-59
+14.5
22
vs
OSU
W 66-60
−4.5
26
@
PUR
W 76-74
+7.5
1
@
IU
W 77-64
+10.5
5
vs
RUTG
W 91-87
−16.5
8
@
MICH
L 80-90
+0.5
13
vs
UCLA
L 84-88
−9.5
19
vs
NDSU
W 92-67
+8.5
21
vs
LOU
W 77-69
+2.5
27
vs
CONN
L 63-67
−1.5
covered 18didn’t cover 17avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
COLG
W 80-69
+4.5
8
vs
ARK
W 69-66
−20.5
13
vs
SJSU
W 79-60
−4.5
18
vs
UK
W 83-66
−3.5
21
vs
DETM
W 84-56
−9.5
25
vs
ECU
W 89-56
+4.5
27
vs
UNC
W 74-58
−20.5
2
vs
IOWA
W 71-52
−10.5
6
vs
DUKE
L 60-66
−15.5
13
@
PSU
W 76-72
+2.5
16
vs
TOL
W 92-69
+10.5
20
vs
OAK
W 79-70
−6.5
29
vs
COR
W 114-97
+50.5
2
@
NEB
L 56-58
−32.5
5
vs
USC
W 80-51
−20.5
8
vs
NU
W 76-66
−1.5
13
vs
IU
W 81-60
−4.5
17
@
WASH
W 80-63
−2.5
20
@
ORE
W 68-52
−19.5
24
vs
MD
W 91-48
−2.5
27
@
RUTG
W 88-79
+28.5
30
vs
MICH
L 71-83
+4.5
4
@
MINN
L 73-76
+12.5
7
vs
ILL
W 85-82
+24.5
13
@
WIS
L 71-92
+13.5
17
vs
UCLA
W 82-59
+1.5
22
vs
OSU
W 66-60
−20.5
26
@
PUR
W 76-74
+6.5
1
@
IU
W 77-64
−3.5
5
vs
RUTG
W 91-87
+36.5
8
@
MICH
L 80-90
+17.5
13
vs
UCLA
L 84-88
+30.5
19
vs
NDSU
W 92-67
+14.5
21
vs
LOU
W 77-69
−5.5
27
vs
CONN
L 63-67
−6.5
over 16under 19avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Duke
38 games played
Straight up
35-3
92% wins
Against the spread
21-17
55% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-24
37% overs · avg −3.4 pts vs the total
Against the spread
21-1755%
2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered
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 4 | vs | W 75-60 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 95-54 | -36.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 114-59 | -33.5 | W +21.5 | 152.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 100-62 | -37.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | U 162 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 78-66 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 100-42 | -39.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 93-56 | -43.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 80-71 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 67-66 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 66-60 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 97-73 | -32.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 81-82 | -9.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 85-79 | -27.5 | L −21.5 | 153.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 91-87 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 163.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 84-73 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 161.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 82-75 | -15.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 71-56 | -14.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-50 | -11.5 | W +18.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 90-69 | -19.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 26 | vs | W 83-52 | -8.5 | W +22.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 72-58 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 67-49 | -26.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-71 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 70-54 | -17.5 | L −1.5 | 136.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 67-54 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 101-64 | -20.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 68-63 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 100-56 | -16.5 | W +27.5 | 141.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 77-51 | -9.5 | W +16.5 | 143.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 93-64 | -8.5 | W +20.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 76-61 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-79 | -16.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 73-61 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 74-70 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 71-65 | -28.5 | L −22.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 81-58 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 27 | vs | W 80-75 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 29 | vs | L 72-73 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | O 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
TEX
W 75-60
+4.5
8
vs
WCU
W 95-54
+4.5
11
@
ARMY
W 114-59
+21.5
14
vs
INST
W 100-62
+0.5
18
vs
KU
W 78-66
+1.5
21
vs
NIA
W 100-42
+18.5
23
vs
HOW
W 93-56
−6.5
27
vs
ARK
W 80-71
−3.5
2
vs
FLA
W 67-66
−8.5
6
@
MSU
W 66-60
+4.5
16
vs
LIP
W 97-73
−8.5
20
vs
TTU
L 81-82
−10.5
31
vs
GT
W 85-79
−21.5
3
@
FSU
W 91-87
−12.5
6
@
LOU
W 84-73
+9.5
10
vs
SMU
W 82-75
−8.5
14
@
CAL
W 71-56
+0.5
17
@
STAN
W 80-50
+18.5
24
vs
WAKE
W 90-69
+1.5
26
vs
LOU
W 83-52
+22.5
31
@
VT
W 72-58
+0.5
3
vs
BC
W 67-49
−8.5
7
@
UNC
L 68-71
−9.5
10
@
PITT
W 70-54
−1.5
14
vs
CLEM
W 67-54
+0.5
16
vs
SYR
W 101-64
+16.5
21
vs
MICH
W 68-63
+8.5
24
@
ND
W 100-56
+27.5
28
vs
UVA
W 77-51
+16.5
2
@
NCSU
W 93-64
+20.5
7
vs
UNC
W 76-61
−3.5
12
vs
FSU
W 80-79
−15.5
13
vs
CLEM
W 73-61
+1.5
14
vs
UVA
W 74-70
−2.5
19
vs
SIE
W 71-65
−22.5
21
vs
TCU
W 81-58
+10.5
27
vs
SJU
W 80-75
−1.5
29
vs
CONN
L 72-73
−5.5
covered 21didn’t cover 17avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
TEX
W 75-60
−18.5
8
vs
WCU
W 95-54
−3.5
11
@
ARMY
W 114-59
+20.5
14
vs
INST
W 100-62
−1.5
18
vs
KU
W 78-66
−5.5
21
vs
NIA
W 100-42
−4.5
23
vs
HOW
W 93-56
−5.5
27
vs
ARK
W 80-71
−8.5
2
vs
FLA
W 67-66
−24.5
6
@
MSU
W 66-60
−15.5
16
vs
LIP
W 97-73
+18.5
20
vs
TTU
L 81-82
+10.5
31
vs
GT
W 85-79
+10.5
3
@
FSU
W 91-87
+14.5
6
@
LOU
W 84-73
−4.5
10
vs
SMU
W 82-75
+1.5
14
@
CAL
W 71-56
−22.5
17
@
STAN
W 80-50
−18.5
24
vs
WAKE
W 90-69
+5.5
26
vs
LOU
W 83-52
−22.5
31
@
VT
W 72-58
−18.5
3
vs
BC
W 67-49
−25.5
7
@
UNC
L 68-71
−13.5
10
@
PITT
W 70-54
−12.5
14
vs
CLEM
W 67-54
−13.5
16
vs
SYR
W 101-64
+20.5
21
vs
MICH
W 68-63
−20.5
24
@
ND
W 100-56
+14.5
28
vs
UVA
W 77-51
−15.5
2
@
NCSU
W 93-64
+6.5
7
vs
UNC
W 76-61
−10.5
12
vs
FSU
W 80-79
+8.5
13
vs
CLEM
W 73-61
−0.5
14
vs
UVA
W 74-70
+3.5
19
vs
SIE
W 71-65
−1.5
21
vs
TCU
W 81-58
−1.5
27
vs
SJU
W 80-75
+14.5
29
vs
CONN
L 72-73
+9.5
over 14under 24avg −3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Michigan St 1, Duke 1, even 3
Michigan StBetterDuke
G J. Fears15.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 9.4 ast
Score 99
=Even
G J. Blackwell TR19.1 pts · 5.1 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 97
G K. Teng7.3 pts · 2 reb · 1 ast
Score 63
=Even
G C. Foster8.3 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 76
F C. Carr12 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 85
=Even
G J. Theodosiou TR12.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
F J. Scott5.8 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 53
→DUKESmall
G C. Boozer7.7 pts · 2.3 reb · 3 ast
Score 85
C A. Bonke TR10.4 pts · 8.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 80
←MSUSmall
F D. Sarr6.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 52
Michigan StBetterDuke
MSU offense21st of 366 · +7.6
=Even
DUKE defense3rd of 366 · +11.4
MSU defense5th of 366 · +9.3
=Even
DUKE offense11th of 366 · +10.1
Backcourt+7.0 · 2 players
→DUKESmall
Backcourt+9.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt+4.8 · 3 players
←MSUBig
Frontcourt-0.2 · 1 player
Bench+0.9 · 4 players
→DUKEBig
Bench+7.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestMSU betterDUKE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Fears32 minK. Teng18 minM. WatkinsNewJ. JervisNewC. MedlockNew
Forwards
C. Carr29 minJ. Scott21 minC. Ward15 minJ. McCulloch7 minB. Walton1 minC. Walton1 min
Centers
A. Bonke26 min · TRE. TaylorNew
Guards
J. Blackwell34 min · TRC. Foster25 minJ. Theodosiou23 min · TRC. Boozer23 minB. DavisNewD. RippeyNew
Forwards
D. Sarr24 minD. Scharnowski22 min · TRS. WilkinsNewC. WilliamsNew
Centers
P. Ngongba22 minM. MeyerNewJ. Boumtje BoumtjeNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.8 #84 | Points per game | 81.6 #36 |
| 1.17 #40 | Points per possession | 1.23 #4 |
| 67.3 #264 | Pace (possessions) | 66.8 #285 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.8 #72 | Effective FG% | 56.6 #13 |
| 36.3 #47 | 3-point % | 34.7 #133 |
| 36.4 #241 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.5 #100 |
| 35.9 #157 | Free throw rate | 38.2 #97 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #217 | Turnover rate | 16.0 #139 |
| 37.8 #10 | Offensive rebound rate | 38.4 #4 |
| 18.6 #4 | Assists per game | 16.7 #32 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.3 #37 | Points allowed | 63.6 #3 |
| 1.02 #40 | Points allowed per possession | 0.95 #2 |
| 48.9 #61 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.2 #13 |
| 33.0 #119 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.6 #27 |
| 14.9 #296 | Turnovers forced | 17.2 #133 |
| 77.6 #1 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.8 #10 |
| 5.1 #328 | Steals per game | 7.4 #92 |
| 4.1 #59 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #164 |
Michigan St
27-8 in 2025-26 overall · 15-6 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn63–67
- Wvs Louisville77–69
- Wvs N Dakota St92–67
- Lvs UCLA84–88
- L@ Michigan80–90
A week or more of rest.
Duke
35-3 in 2025-26 overall · 20-1 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn72–73
- Wvs St John's80–75
- Wvs TCU81–58
- Wvs Siena71–65
- Wvs Virginia74–70
A week or more of rest.