Central Michigan Chippewas at Pittsburgh Panthers: Model Line and Edge

Fri, Nov 20, 7:00 PM ETPetersen Events Center · at Pitt

#74PITTPitt

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: C Michigan and Pitt
CMU	This season	PITT
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 PITT 84–64 · win probability PITT 96%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 147.8

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: PITT has more of the edges

CMU 1, PITT 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

PITTBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CMU 29.2%, PITT 33.9%. Defensive: CMU 65.7%, PITT 71.9%

PITTBig

PITT offense vs CMU defense

Offense 87th of 366 against a defense 287th, on the model’s ratings

PITTBig

CMU offense vs PITT defense

Offense 258th of 366 against a defense 59th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

CMU has played the 158th-hardest schedule, PITT the 65th. A record against a soft schedule means less

PITTSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CMU 31.4, PITT 30.4. Allowed: CMU 39.0, PITT 30.9

CMUSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CMU 43%, PITT 3%. Transfers in: CMU 1, PITT 10. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: CMU plays 68.3 a game (212th fastest), PITT 65.0 (345th). Faster games mean more points

PITTSmall

Home court

PITT at home. This season: PITT 0-0 at home, CMU 0-0 away

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: CMU 51.8 and allows 54.0; PITT 51.0 and allows 53.4

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CMU 18.1%, PITT 17.2%. Forced: CMU 16.9%, PITT 16.3%

Even

Three-pointers

CMU hits 33.9% and allows 35.5%; PITT hits 33.4% and allows 35.2%. Threes are 34.0% and 42.6% of their shots

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	—	PITT -19.6	—
Total	—	147.8	—
Projected score	—	CMU 64.1 · PITT 83.7

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	PITT -11.6	—
1H total	69.1	—
1H projected score	CMU 28.8 · PITT 40.3	—

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
CMU WWWLL	16-13	55%	6-10	—
PITT WWWWL	16-17	48%	9-9	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CMU OOUUO	13-16	45%	8-21
PITT UOUUO	19-14	58%	13-20

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
CMU	4-6 40%	6-4 60%	5-5 50%
PITT	4-6 40%	7-3 70%	6-4 60%

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

C Michigan

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 24	@ ND	No recent meeting
Dec 2	@ M-OH	L61–100LO
Dec 5	vs OHIO	L64–80LU

Pitt

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 24	vs OU	No recent meeting
Nov 26	vs DEP	No recent meeting
Dec 1	@ MIZ	L64–71LU

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

ATS History · 2025-26

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

C Michigan

29 games played

Straight up

8-21

28% wins

Against the spread

16-13

55% covers · avg +1.4 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-16

45% overs · avg +0.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

8-2128%

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

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

16-1355%

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

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

13-1645%

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

2 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	vsAPP	W 82-66	-1.5	W +14.5	142.5	O 148
Nov 8	@BRAD	L 54-85	+9.5	L −21.5	147.5	U 139
Nov 13	vsUSA	L 64-66	+5.5	W +3.5	142.5	U 130
Nov 14	vsCOPP	W 82-59	-10.5	W +12.5	142.5	U 141
Nov 20	vsNKU	L 66-90	-4.5	L −28.5	146.5	O 156
Nov 22	@MARQ	L 71-85	+25.5	W +11.5	152.5	O 156
Dec 2	@LUC	L 72-83	+6.5	L −4.5	140.5	O 155
Dec 7	@SLU	L 65-107	+24.5	L −17.5	160.5	O 172
Dec 13	@STBK	L 55-78	+7.5	L −15.5	145.5	U 133
Dec 20	@NIU	L 73-74	+2.5	W +1.5	149.5	U 147
Dec 22	@WIS	L 61-88	+26.5	L −0.5	152.5	U 149
Dec 30	vsOHIO	L 64-80	+6.5	L −9.5	151.5	U 144
Jan 3	vsTOL	L 75-78	+7.5	W +4.5	158.5	U 153
Jan 6	@AKR	L 69-82	+23.5	W +10.5	164.5	U 151
Jan 10	vsKENT	W 87-85	+10.5	W +12.5	156.5	O 172
Jan 13	@M-OH	L 61-100	+15.5	L −23.5	158.5	O 161
Jan 20	vsBALL	L 67-68	+1.5	W +0.5	142.5	U 135
Jan 24	@WMU	L 65-77	+5.5	L −6.5	148.5	U 142
Jan 27	vsEMU	W 100-65	+2.5	W +37.5	139.5	O 165
Jan 31	vsBGSU	W 62-59	+8.5	W +11.5	149.5	U 121
Feb 3	@MASS	L 89-95	+11.5	W +5.5	152.5	O 184
Feb 7	@UL	L 80-85	+2.5	L −2.5	134.5	O 165
Feb 14	vsNIU	W 88-46	-4.5	W +37.5	146.5	U 134
Feb 17	@EMU	L 54-66	+4.5	L −7.5	140.5	U 120
Feb 21	vsWMU	W 83-70	-3.5	W +9.5	150.5	O 153
Feb 24	@KENT	L 81-83	+11.5	W +9.5	156.5	O 164
Feb 28	@BUF	W 75-70	+5.5	W +10.5	151.5	U 145
Mar 3	vsAKR	L 64-77	+11.5	L −1.5	158.5	U 141
Mar 6	@BALL	L 69-85	+2.5	L −13.5	134.5	O 154

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

APP

W 82-66

+14.5

BRAD

L 54-85

−21.5

USA

L 64-66

+3.5

COPP

W 82-59

+12.5

NKU

L 66-90

−28.5

MARQ

L 71-85

+11.5

LUC

L 72-83

−4.5

SLU

L 65-107

−17.5

STBK

L 55-78

−15.5

NIU

L 73-74

+1.5

WIS

L 61-88

−0.5

OHIO

L 64-80

−9.5

TOL

L 75-78

+4.5

AKR

L 69-82

+10.5

KENT

W 87-85

+12.5

M-OH

L 61-100

−23.5

BALL

L 67-68

+0.5

WMU

L 65-77

−6.5

EMU

W 100-65

+37.5

BGSU

W 62-59

+11.5

MASS

L 89-95

+5.5

L 80-85

−2.5

NIU

W 88-46

+37.5

EMU

L 54-66

−7.5

WMU

W 83-70

+9.5

KENT

L 81-83

+9.5

BUF

W 75-70

+10.5

AKR

L 64-77

−1.5

BALL

L 69-85

−13.5

covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

APP

W 82-66

+5.5

BRAD

L 54-85

−8.5

USA

L 64-66

−12.5

COPP

W 82-59

−1.5

NKU

L 66-90

+9.5

MARQ

L 71-85

+3.5

LUC

L 72-83

+14.5

SLU

L 65-107

+11.5

STBK

L 55-78

−12.5

NIU

L 73-74

−2.5

WIS

L 61-88

−3.5

OHIO

L 64-80

−7.5

TOL

L 75-78

−5.5

AKR

L 69-82

−13.5

KENT

W 87-85

+15.5

M-OH

L 61-100

+2.5

BALL

L 67-68

−7.5

WMU

L 65-77

−6.5

EMU

W 100-65

+25.5

BGSU

W 62-59

−28.5

MASS

L 89-95

+31.5

L 80-85

+30.5

NIU

W 88-46

−12.5

EMU

L 54-66

−20.5

WMU

W 83-70

+2.5

KENT

L 81-83

+7.5

BUF

W 75-70

−6.5

AKR

L 64-77

−17.5

BALL

L 69-85

+19.5

over 13under 16avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Pitt

33 games played

Straight up

13-20

39% wins

Against the spread

16-17

48% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-14

58% overs · avg −0.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

13-2039%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1748%

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

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

19-1458%

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

2 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	vsYSU	W 74-59	-14.5	W +0.5	145.5	U 133
Nov 7	vsLONG	W 78-60	-14.5	W +3.5	145.5	U 138
Nov 10	vsEMU	W 78-66	-15.5	L −3.5	141.5	O 144
Nov 13	@WVU	L 49-71	+5.5	L −16.5	134.5	U 120
Nov 17	vsBUCK	W 84-50	-16.5	W +17.5	141.5	U 134
Nov 20	vsUCF	L 67-77	-1.5	L −11.5	149.5	U 144
Nov 23	vsQUIN	L 75-83	-12.5	L −20.5	140.5	O 158
Nov 28	vsOSU	W 67-66	+5.5	W +6.5	148.5	U 133
Dec 2	vsTA&M	L 73-81	+3.5	L −4.5	152.5	O 154
Dec 7	vsHOF	L 73-80	-8.5	L −15.5	134.5	O 153
Dec 13	@VILL	L 61-79	+10.5	L −7.5	138.5	O 140
Dec 17	vsBING	W 103-63	-24.5	W +15.5	134.5	O 166
Dec 21	vsPSU	W 80-46	+1.5	W +35.5	146.5	U 126
Dec 30	@MIA	L 69-76	+9.5	W +2.5	144.5	O 145
Jan 3	vsCLEM	L 68-73	+3.5	L −1.5	135.5	O 141
Jan 10	vsSYR	L 72-83	-1.5	L −12.5	142.5	O 155
Jan 14	@GT	W 89-66	-1.5	W +21.5	145.5	O 155
Jan 17	vsLOU	L 59-100	+7.5	L −33.5	152.5	O 159
Jan 21	@BC	L 62-65	-2.5	L −5.5	137.5	U 127
Jan 24	vsNCSU	L 72-81	+6.5	L −2.5	144.5	O 153
Jan 27	vsWAKE	W 80-76	-1.5	W +2.5	150.5	O 156
Jan 31	@CLEM	L 52-63	+10.5	L −0.5	135.5	U 115
Feb 3	@UVA	L 47-67	+12.5	L −7.5	142.5	U 114
Feb 7	vsSMU	L 67-86	+4.5	L −14.5	147.5	O 153
Feb 10	vsDUKE	L 54-70	+17.5	W +1.5	136.5	U 124
Feb 14	@UNC	L 65-79	+11.5	L −2.5	142.5	O 144
Feb 21	vsND	W 73-68	-3.5	W +1.5	140.5	O 141
Feb 25	@STAN	L 67-75	+8.5	W +0.5	138.5	O 142
Feb 28	@CAL	W 72-56	+6.5	W +22.5	143.5	U 128
Mar 4	vsFSU	L 74-75	+1.5	W +0.5	144.5	O 149
Mar 7	@SYR	W 71-69	+5.5	W +7.5	141.5	U 140
Mar 10	vsSTAN	W 64-63	+4.5	W +5.5	136.5	U 127
Mar 11	vsNCSU	L 88-98	+8.5	L −1.5	144.5	O 186

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

YSU

W 74-59

+0.5

LONG

W 78-60

+3.5

EMU

W 78-66

−3.5

WVU

L 49-71

−16.5

BUCK

W 84-50

+17.5

UCF

L 67-77

−11.5

QUIN

L 75-83

−20.5

OSU

W 67-66

+6.5

TA&M

L 73-81

−4.5

HOF

L 73-80

−15.5

VILL

L 61-79

−7.5

BING

W 103-63

+15.5

PSU

W 80-46

+35.5

MIA

L 69-76

+2.5

CLEM

L 68-73

−1.5

SYR

L 72-83

−12.5

W 89-66

+21.5

LOU

L 59-100

−33.5

L 62-65

−5.5

NCSU

L 72-81

−2.5

WAKE

W 80-76

+2.5

CLEM

L 52-63

−0.5

UVA

L 47-67

−7.5

SMU

L 67-86

−14.5

DUKE

L 54-70

+1.5

UNC

L 65-79

−2.5

W 73-68

+1.5

STAN

L 67-75

+0.5

CAL

W 72-56

+22.5

FSU

L 74-75

+0.5

SYR

W 71-69

+7.5

STAN

W 64-63

+5.5

NCSU

L 88-98

−1.5

covered 16didn’t cover 17avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

YSU

W 74-59

−12.5

LONG

W 78-60

−7.5

EMU

W 78-66

+2.5

WVU

L 49-71

−14.5

BUCK

W 84-50

−7.5

UCF

L 67-77

−5.5

QUIN

L 75-83

+17.5

OSU

W 67-66

−15.5

TA&M

L 73-81

+1.5

HOF

L 73-80

+18.5

VILL

L 61-79

+1.5

BING

W 103-63

+31.5

PSU

W 80-46

−20.5

MIA

L 69-76

+0.5

CLEM

L 68-73

+5.5

SYR

L 72-83

+12.5

W 89-66

+9.5

LOU

L 59-100

+6.5

L 62-65

−10.5

NCSU

L 72-81

+8.5

WAKE

W 80-76

+5.5

CLEM

L 52-63

−20.5

UVA

L 47-67

−28.5

SMU

L 67-86

+5.5

DUKE

L 54-70

−12.5

UNC

L 65-79

+1.5

W 73-68

+0.5

STAN

L 67-75

+3.5

CAL

W 72-56

−15.5

FSU

L 74-75

+4.5

SYR

W 71-69

−1.5

STAN

W 64-63

−9.5

NCSU

L 88-98

+41.5

over 19under 14avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Pitt has the better starters

Position by position: C Michigan 0, Pitt 5, even 0

C MichiganBetterPitt

G J. Petty TR10.5 pts · 4 reb · 1.5 ast Score 35

PITTBig

G N. George TR10.9 pts · 3 reb · 5.4 ast Score 75

G P. Phat Brooks11.1 pts · 3 reb · 3.9 ast Score 46

PITTBig

G A. Sumler TR19.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 3.9 ast Score 93

G J. Whitaker5.4 pts · 1.3 reb · 1 ast Score 11

PITTBig

F T. Rudovskii TR13.1 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.8 ast Score 59

G J. Kampen4.1 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast Score 16

PITTBig

F B. Ndongo TR11.8 pts · 8.1 reb · 2.4 ast Score 90

F K. Garner7.5 pts · 5.5 reb · 1.6 ast Score 35

PITTBig

C A. Mighty TR13.3 pts · 10.9 reb · 1 ast Score 71

C MichiganBetterPitt

CMU offense258th of 366 · -8.0

PITTBig

PITT defense59th of 366 · +1.3

CMU defense287th of 366 · -7.2

PITTBig

PITT offense87th of 366 · +0.2

Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players

PITTBig

Backcourt+4.1 · 2 players

Frontcourt-1.1 · 1 player

PITTBig

Frontcourt+5.4 · 3 players

BenchNo numbers yet

No call

Bench-4.0 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestCMU betterPITT 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

C Michigan

Guards

J. Petty31 min · TRP. Phat Brooks29 minJ. Whitaker18 minJ. Kampen14 minJ. HackettNewU. AmeneNew

Forwards

K. Garner25 minT. AmbroseNewN. UsenNewJ. BascomNew

Centers

C. LuczynskiNewK. AburashedNewB. MendozaNew

Pitt

Guards

N. George32 min · TRA. Sumler31 min · TRC. Hawkins27 min · TRJ. Powell16 min · TRJ. Bethea8 min · TRM. Moore6 min

Forwards

T. Rudovskii32 min · TRB. Ndongo27 min · TRA. Souare8 min · TRD. Diomande8 min · TRB. MayhewNewJ. NelsonNew

Centers

A. Mighty32 min · TR

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

CMU71.7 #256

PITT70.5 #274

Points per possession

CMU1.05 #248

PITT1.08 #181

Pace (possessions)

CMU68.3 #212

PITT65.0 #345

Shooting

Effective FG%

CMU51.8 #158

PITT51.0 #193

3-point %

CMU33.9 #181

PITT33.4 #206

3-point attempt rate

CMU34.0 #293

PITT42.6 #124

Free throw rate

CMU31.4 #269

PITT30.4 #300

Possessions

Turnover rate

CMU18.1 #279

PITT17.2 #223

Offensive rebound rate

CMU29.2 #230

PITT33.9 #72

Assists per game

CMU14.4 #120

PITT13.2 #197

Defense

Points allowed

CMU77.7 #258

PITT71.8 #101

Points allowed per possession

CMU1.14 #301

PITT1.11 #237

Opponent effective FG%

CMU54.0 #299

PITT53.4 #279

Opponent 3-point %

CMU35.5 #282

PITT35.2 #263

Turnovers forced

CMU16.9 #157

PITT16.3 #202

Defensive rebound rate

CMU65.7 #323

PITT71.9 #68

Steals per game

CMU6.1 #219

PITT6.5 #172

Blocks per game

CMU4.1 #64

PITT3.1 #203

CMU		PITT
Scoring
71.7 #256	Points per game	70.5 #274
1.05 #248	Points per possession	1.08 #181
68.3 #212	Pace (possessions)	65.0 #345
Shooting
51.8 #158	Effective FG%	51.0 #193
33.9 #181	3-point %	33.4 #206
34.0 #293	3-point attempt rate	42.6 #124
31.4 #269	Free throw rate	30.4 #300
Possessions
18.1 #279	Turnover rate	17.2 #223
29.2 #230	Offensive rebound rate	33.9 #72
14.4 #120	Assists per game	13.2 #197
Defense
77.7 #258	Points allowed	71.8 #101
1.14 #301	Points allowed per possession	1.11 #237
54.0 #299	Opponent effective FG%	53.4 #279
35.5 #282	Opponent 3-point %	35.2 #263
16.9 #157	Turnovers forced	16.3 #202
65.7 #323	Defensive rebound rate	71.9 #68
6.1 #219	Steals per game	6.5 #172
4.1 #64	Blocks per game	3.1 #203

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.

C Michigan

8-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-12 in conference · Mid-American Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Ball State69–85
Lvs Akron64–77
W@ Buffalo75–70
L@ Kent State81–83
Wvs W Michigan83–70

A week or more of rest.

Pitt

13-20 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs NC State88–98
Wvs Stanford64–63
W@ Syracuse71–69
Lvs Florida St74–75
W@ California72–56

A week or more of rest.

Central Michigan Chippewas at Pittsburgh Panthers

What could decide it: PITT has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

C Michigan

Pitt

Pitt has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

C Michigan

Pitt