Tarleton State Texans at Pittsburgh Panthers: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Dec 5, 3:00 PM ETPetersen Events Center · at Pitt

#74PITTPitt

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Tarleton St and Pitt
TAR	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 81–66 · win probability PITT 91%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 146.7

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

TAR 0, PITT 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

PITTBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: TAR 31.5%, PITT 33.9%. Defensive: TAR 64.9%, PITT 71.9%

Context

Schedule so far

TAR has played the 210th-hardest schedule, PITT the 65th. A record against a soft schedule means less

PITTBig

TAR offense vs PITT defense

Offense 200th of 366 against a defense 59th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: TAR plays 71.2 a game (64th fastest), PITT 65.0 (345th). Faster games mean more points

PITTSmall

PITT offense vs TAR defense

Offense 87th of 366 against a defense 186th, on the model’s ratings

PITTSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: TAR 48.3 and allows 53.6; PITT 51.0 and allows 53.4

PITTSmall

Home court

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

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: TAR 19.9%, PITT 17.2%. Forced: TAR 23.5%, PITT 16.3%

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: TAR 23%, PITT 3%. Transfers in: TAR 7, PITT 10. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Three-pointers

TAR hits 32.5% and allows 34.9%; PITT hits 33.4% and allows 35.2%. Threes are 24.2% and 42.6% of their shots

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: TAR 41.9, PITT 30.4. Allowed: TAR 47.7, PITT 30.9

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 -15.5	—
Total	—	146.7	—
Projected score	—	TAR 65.6 · PITT 81.1

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	PITT -9.1	—
1H total	68.6	—
1H projected score	TAR 29.8 · PITT 38.8	—

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
TAR LWLLL	14-14	50%	9-6	—
PITT WWWWL	16-17	48%	9-9	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
TAR OOOUO	15-13	54%	10-18
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
TAR	3-7 30%	4-6 40%	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

Tarleton St

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 12	vs MOST	No recent meeting

Pitt

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 9	vs WVU	L49–71LU
Dec 15	vs DREX	No recent meeting

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

Tarleton St

28 games played

Straight up

10-18

36% wins

Against the spread

14-14

50% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-13

54% overs · avg +4.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

10-1836%

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

5 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1450%

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

3 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1354%

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

3 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	@SMU	L 76-96	+21.5	W +1.5	144.5	O 172
Nov 5	@LSU	L 60-96	+15.5	L −20.5	148.5	O 156
Nov 8	vsAMCC	W 85-77	-3.5	W +4.5	142.5	O 162
Nov 11	vsMRMK	W 76-62	-4.5	W +9.5	142.5	U 138
Nov 14	@BAY	L 81-94	+23.5	W +10.5	149.5	O 175
Nov 20	@RICE	W 90-74	+4.5	W +20.5	146.5	O 164
Dec 1	@CIN	L 58-76	+24.5	W +6.5	142.5	U 134
Dec 16	@MVSU	W 88-64	-17.5	W +6.5	142.5	O 152
Dec 19	vsFAMU	W 78-54	-14.5	W +9.5	145.5	U 132
Dec 29	@UTA	W 69-63	+2.5	W +8.5	136.5	U 132
Jan 1	vsUVU	L 85-91	+5.5	L −0.5	144.5	O 176
Jan 3	vsCBU	W 81-76	-1.5	W +3.5	147.5	O 157
Jan 8	vsACU	L 80-84	-4.5	L −8.5	140.5	O 164
Jan 15	@SUU	L 105-106	-3.5	L −4.5	150.5	O 211
Jan 17	@UTU	L 71-75	+3.5	L −0.5	150.5	U 146
Jan 21	@UTA	L 64-71	+3.5	L −3.5	142.5	U 135
Jan 29	vsUVU	L 55-83	+6.5	L −21.5	154.5	U 138
Jan 31	vsUTU	L 59-65	-1.5	L −7.5	149.5	U 124
Feb 5	@CBU	L 55-56	+10.5	W +9.5	138.5	U 111
Feb 7	@SUU	W 62-59	-1.5	W +1.5	149.5	U 121
Feb 14	@ACU	L 59-73	+3.5	L −10.5	134.5	U 132
Feb 16	vsACU	W 65-62	+1.5	W +4.5	134.5	U 127
Feb 19	vsSUU	W 78-74	-4.5	L −0.5	144.5	O 152
Feb 21	vsUTU	L 72-80	-1.5	L −9.5	140.5	O 152
Feb 26	@UVU	L 72-79	+17.5	W +10.5	141.5	O 151
Feb 28	@CBU	L 67-82	+8.5	L −6.5	139.5	O 149
Mar 5	vsUTA	L 60-65	-1.5	L −6.5	136.5	U 125
Mar 11	vsACU	L 78-84	+1.5	L −4.5	134.5	O 162

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

SMU

L 76-96

+1.5

LSU

L 60-96

−20.5

AMCC

W 85-77

+4.5

MRMK

W 76-62

+9.5

BAY

L 81-94

+10.5

RICE

W 90-74

+20.5

CIN

L 58-76

+6.5

MVSU

W 88-64

+6.5

FAMU

W 78-54

+9.5

UTA

W 69-63

+8.5

UVU

L 85-91

−0.5

CBU

W 81-76

+3.5

ACU

L 80-84

−8.5

SUU

L 105-106

−4.5

UTU

L 71-75

−0.5

UTA

L 64-71

−3.5

UVU

L 55-83

−21.5

UTU

L 59-65

−7.5

CBU

L 55-56

+9.5

SUU

W 62-59

+1.5

ACU

L 59-73

−10.5

ACU

W 65-62

+4.5

SUU

W 78-74

−0.5

UTU

L 72-80

−9.5

UVU

L 72-79

+10.5

CBU

L 67-82

−6.5

UTA

L 60-65

−6.5

ACU

L 78-84

−4.5

covered 14didn’t cover 14avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

SMU

L 76-96

+27.5

LSU

L 60-96

+7.5

AMCC

W 85-77

+19.5

MRMK

W 76-62

−4.5

BAY

L 81-94

+25.5

RICE

W 90-74

+17.5

CIN

L 58-76

−8.5

MVSU

W 88-64

+9.5

FAMU

W 78-54

−13.5

UTA

W 69-63

−4.5

UVU

L 85-91

+31.5

CBU

W 81-76

+9.5

ACU

L 80-84

+23.5

SUU

L 105-106

+60.5

UTU

L 71-75

−4.5

UTA

L 64-71

−7.5

UVU

L 55-83

−16.5

UTU

L 59-65

−25.5

CBU

L 55-56

−27.5

SUU

W 62-59

−28.5

ACU

L 59-73

−2.5

ACU

W 65-62

−7.5

SUU

W 78-74

+7.5

UTU

L 72-80

+11.5

UVU

L 72-79

+9.5

CBU

L 67-82

+9.5

UTA

L 60-65

−11.5

ACU

L 78-84

+27.5

over 15under 13avg +4.8 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: Tarleton St 0, Pitt 5, even 0

Tarleton StBetterPitt

G C. Blackwell TR10.7 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.9 ast Score 52

PITTSmall

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

G F. Emmou TR7.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.3 ast Score 36

PITTBig

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

G L. Kelly5.2 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.1 ast Score 41

PITTSmall

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

G T. Cope TR8.3 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.8 ast Score 47

PITTBig

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

F I. Harrell TR7.8 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 23

PITTBig

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

Tarleton StBetterPitt

TAR offense200th of 366 · -6.3

PITTBig

PITT defense59th of 366 · +1.3

TAR defense186th of 366 · -4.3

PITTSmall

PITT offense87th of 366 · +0.2

Backcourt-3.3 · 4 players

PITTBig

Backcourt+4.1 · 2 players

Frontcourt-1.8 · 1 player

PITTBig

Frontcourt+5.4 · 3 players

Bench-0.5 · 5 players

TARBig

Bench-4.0 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestTAR 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

Tarleton St

Guards

C. Blackwell31 min · TRF. Emmou23 min · TRL. Kelly21 minT. Cope21 min · TRK. Douglas16 minJ. Martinez2 min

Forwards

I. Harrell26 min · TRJ. Daniel19 min · TRJ. Hayes13 min · TRJ. Mani12 min · TRM. Vrabel7 minE. CarterNew

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

TAR72.5 #231

PITT70.5 #274

Points per possession

TAR1.01 #309

PITT1.08 #181

Pace (possessions)

TAR71.2 #64

PITT65.0 #345

Shooting

Effective FG%

TAR48.3 #306

PITT51.0 #193

3-point %

TAR32.5 #256

PITT33.4 #206

3-point attempt rate

TAR24.2 #365

PITT42.6 #124

Free throw rate

TAR41.9 #33

PITT30.4 #300

Possessions

Turnover rate

TAR19.9 #348

PITT17.2 #223

Offensive rebound rate

TAR31.5 #141

PITT33.9 #72

Assists per game

TAR10.5 #349

PITT13.2 #197

Defense

Points allowed

TAR75.8 #211

PITT71.8 #101

Points allowed per possession

TAR1.07 #130

PITT1.11 #237

Opponent effective FG%

TAR53.6 #285

PITT53.4 #279

Opponent 3-point %

TAR34.9 #244

PITT35.2 #263

Turnovers forced

TAR23.5 #2

PITT16.3 #202

Defensive rebound rate

TAR64.9 #340

PITT71.9 #68

Steals per game

TAR9.7 #3

PITT6.5 #172

Blocks per game

TAR3.1 #206

PITT3.1 #203

TAR		PITT
Scoring
72.5 #231	Points per game	70.5 #274
1.01 #309	Points per possession	1.08 #181
71.2 #64	Pace (possessions)	65.0 #345
Shooting
48.3 #306	Effective FG%	51.0 #193
32.5 #256	3-point %	33.4 #206
24.2 #365	3-point attempt rate	42.6 #124
41.9 #33	Free throw rate	30.4 #300
Possessions
19.9 #348	Turnover rate	17.2 #223
31.5 #141	Offensive rebound rate	33.9 #72
10.5 #349	Assists per game	13.2 #197
Defense
75.8 #211	Points allowed	71.8 #101
1.07 #130	Points allowed per possession	1.11 #237
53.6 #285	Opponent effective FG%	53.4 #279
34.9 #244	Opponent 3-point %	35.2 #263
23.5 #2	Turnovers forced	16.3 #202
64.9 #340	Defensive rebound rate	71.9 #68
9.7 #3	Steals per game	6.5 #172
3.1 #206	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.

Tarleton St

10-18 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · United Athletic Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Abilene Chrstn78–84
Lvs UT Arlington60–65
L@ CA Baptist67–82
L@ Utah Valley72–79
Lvs Utah Tech72–80

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.

Tarleton State Texans 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

Tarleton St

Pitt

Pitt has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Tarleton St

Pitt