Central Michigan Chippewas at Northern Kentucky Norse: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Nov 14, 3:30 PM ETTruist Arena · at N Kentucky

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: C Michigan and N Kentucky
CMU	This season	NKU
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 NKU 78–72 · win probability NKU 69%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 150.6

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: NKU has more of the edges

CMU 0, NKU 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Schedule so far

CMU has played the 158th-hardest schedule, NKU the 289th. A record against a soft schedule means less

NKUSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CMU 18.1%, NKU 16.3%. Forced: CMU 16.9%, NKU 18.6%

NKUSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CMU 29.2%, NKU 32.2%. Defensive: CMU 65.7%, NKU 68.4%

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: CMU plays 68.3 a game (212th fastest), NKU 71.5 (55th). Faster games mean more points

NKUSmall

NKU offense vs CMU defense

Offense 209th of 366 against a defense 287th, on the model’s ratings

NKUSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CMU 31.4, NKU 35.9. Allowed: CMU 39.0, NKU 37.2

NKUSmall

Home court

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

Even

Three-pointers

CMU hits 33.9% and allows 35.5%; NKU hits 33.6% and allows 36.6%. Threes are 34.0% and 44.9% of their shots

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CMU 43%, NKU 26%. Transfers in: CMU 1, NKU 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: CMU 51.8 and allows 54.0; NKU 53.2 and allows 54.2

Even

CMU offense vs NKU defense

Offense 258th of 366 against a defense 249th, on the model’s ratings

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	—	NKU -5.8	—
Total	—	150.6	—
Projected score	—	CMU 72.4 · NKU 78.2

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	NKU -3.3	—
1H total	70.4	—
1H projected score	CMU 33.6 · NKU 36.9	—

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	—
NKU WLWWL	13-18	42%	7-7	—

Venue/role: CMU away; NKU 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
NKU UOOOO	21-10	68%	17-14

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%
NKU	6-4 60%	4-6 40%	7-3 70%

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 17	@ DAY	No recent meeting
Nov 20	@ PITT	No recent meeting
Nov 24	@ ND	No recent meeting

N Kentucky

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 23	vs GASO	No recent meeting
Nov 25	vs BELL	W80–76LO
Dec 2	@ OAK	W85–84WO

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

CMU 0–1 NKUNKU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CMU 0-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 20, 2025-26	NKU 90 @ CMU 66	CMU -4.5	NKU W

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

N Kentucky

31 games played

Straight up

17-14

55% wins

Against the spread

13-18

42% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line

Over / Under

21-10

68% overs · avg +5.2 pts vs the total

Straight up

17-1455%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-1842%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

21-1068%

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

4 straight overs4 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 8	@TENN	L 56-95	+27.5	L −11.5	137.5	O 151
Nov 12	@ETSU	L 63-75	+6.5	L −5.5	142.5	U 138
Nov 20	@CMU	W 90-66	+4.5	W +28.5	146.5	O 156
Nov 24	vsEKU	W 82-71	-4.5	W +6.5	156.5	U 153
Nov 26	vsWOF	W 93-83	-3.5	W +6.5	149.5	O 176
Nov 29	vsBU	W 74-65	-7.5	W +1.5	143.5	U 139
Dec 3	vsCLE	W 95-80	-14.5	W +0.5	158.5	O 175
Dec 6	@PFW	L 77-79	+1.5	L −0.5	153.5	O 156
Dec 13	@BELL	W 80-76	-4.5	L −0.5	146.5	O 156
Dec 17	vsOAK	L 77-82	-3.5	L −8.5	163.5	U 159
Dec 21	vsCOFC	L 74-85	-5.5	L −16.5	153.5	O 159
Dec 29	@RMU	W 79-77	-1.5	W +0.5	149.5	O 156
Jan 1	vsIUIN	W 81-72	-13.5	L −4.5	176.5	U 153
Jan 4	vsYSU	W 94-79	-4.5	W +10.5	146.5	O 173
Jan 9	@MILW	W 85-67	+1.5	W +19.5	157.5	U 152
Jan 11	@GB	L 78-80	-4.5	L −6.5	144.5	O 158
Jan 15	vsDETM	W 96-71	-10.5	W +14.5	159.5	O 167
Jan 17	vsRMU	L 89-92	-7.5	L −10.5	153.5	O 181
Jan 24	@WRST	L 80-88	+1.5	L −6.5	155.5	O 168
Jan 30	@DETM	L 77-90	-5.5	L −18.5	161.5	O 167
Feb 1	@OAK	L 65-76	+3.5	L −7.5	166.5	U 141
Feb 4	vsGB	L 84-87	-7.5	L −10.5	149.5	O 171
Feb 7	vsMILW	W 67-62	-6.5	L −1.5	156.5	U 129
Feb 12	@IUIN	W 84-81	-5.5	L −2.5	164.5	O 165
Feb 18	vsPFW	W 87-71	-5.5	W +10.5	153.5	O 158
Feb 22	@YSU	L 58-64	+2.5	L −3.5	152.5	U 122
Feb 25	@CLE	W 81-70	-8.5	W +2.5	166.5	U 151
Feb 28	vsWRST	L 91-92	-3.5	L −4.5	153.5	O 183
Mar 4	@OAK	W 85-84	+1.5	W +2.5	161.5	O 169
Mar 8	vsGB	W 96-76	-3.5	W +16.5	146.5	O 172
Mar 9	vsWRST	L 90-103	-1.5	L −14.5	157.5	O 193

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

TENN

L 56-95

−11.5

ETSU

L 63-75

−5.5

CMU

W 90-66

+28.5

EKU

W 82-71

+6.5

WOF

W 93-83

+6.5

W 74-65

+1.5

CLE

W 95-80

+0.5

PFW

L 77-79

−0.5

BELL

W 80-76

−0.5

OAK

L 77-82

−8.5

COFC

L 74-85

−16.5

RMU

W 79-77

+0.5

IUIN

W 81-72

−4.5

YSU

W 94-79

+10.5

MILW

W 85-67

+19.5

L 78-80

−6.5

DETM

W 96-71

+14.5

RMU

L 89-92

−10.5

WRST

L 80-88

−6.5

DETM

L 77-90

−18.5

OAK

L 65-76

−7.5

L 84-87

−10.5

MILW

W 67-62

−1.5

IUIN

W 84-81

−2.5

PFW

W 87-71

+10.5

YSU

L 58-64

−3.5

CLE

W 81-70

+2.5

WRST

L 91-92

−4.5

OAK

W 85-84

+2.5

W 96-76

+16.5

WRST

L 90-103

−14.5

covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

TENN

L 56-95

+13.5

ETSU

L 63-75

−4.5

CMU

W 90-66

+9.5

EKU

W 82-71

−3.5

WOF

W 93-83

+26.5

W 74-65

−4.5

CLE

W 95-80

+16.5

PFW

L 77-79

+2.5

BELL

W 80-76

+9.5

OAK

L 77-82

−4.5

COFC

L 74-85

+5.5

RMU

W 79-77

+6.5

IUIN

W 81-72

−23.5

YSU

W 94-79

+26.5

MILW

W 85-67

−5.5

L 78-80

+13.5

DETM

W 96-71

+7.5

RMU

L 89-92

+27.5

WRST

L 80-88

+12.5

DETM

L 77-90

+5.5

OAK

L 65-76

−25.5

L 84-87

+21.5

MILW

W 67-62

−27.5

IUIN

W 84-81

+0.5

PFW

W 87-71

+4.5

YSU

L 58-64

−30.5

CLE

W 81-70

−15.5

WRST

L 91-92

+29.5

OAK

W 85-84

+7.5

W 96-76

+25.5

WRST

L 90-103

+35.5

over 21under 10avg +5.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

N Kentucky has the better starters

Position by position: C Michigan 1, N Kentucky 2, even 2

C MichiganBetterN Kentucky

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

CMUSmall

G E. Elliott4.8 pts · 2.8 reb · 4.4 ast Score 3

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

Even

G E. Acker TR5.7 pts · 1.3 reb · 1.6 ast Score 38

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

NKUBig

F N. Pagotto TR10.5 pts · 5.6 reb · 1 ast Score 68

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

NKUBig

F W. Shortt TR6.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.7 ast Score 51

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

Even

F D. Rakotonanahary3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast Score 25

C MichiganBetterN Kentucky

CMU offense258th of 366 · -8.0

Even

NKU defense249th of 366 · -6.5

CMU defense287th of 366 · -7.2

NKUSmall

NKU offense209th of 366 · -6.3

Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players

Even

Backcourt-5.4 · 2 players

Frontcourt-1.1 · 1 player

Even

Frontcourt-0.2 · 3 players

BenchNo numbers yet

No call

Bench-2.4 · 3 players

Score, worst to bestCMU betterNKU 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

N Kentucky

Guards

E. Elliott29 minE. Acker19 min · TRB. Davis-Ray7 min · TRB. Darbyshire6 minJ. ApathjangNewW. FosterNew

Forwards

N. Pagotto27 min · TRW. Shortt20 min · TRD. Rakotonanahary12 minR. Tolliver6 minJ. RuizNewP. Otto MaeNew

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

NKU80.9 #47

Points per possession

CMU1.05 #248

NKU1.13 #81

Pace (possessions)

CMU68.3 #212

NKU71.5 #55

Shooting

Effective FG%

CMU51.8 #158

NKU53.2 #93

3-point %

CMU33.9 #181

NKU33.6 #193

3-point attempt rate

CMU34.0 #293

NKU44.9 #71

Free throw rate

CMU31.4 #269

NKU35.9 #158

Possessions

Turnover rate

CMU18.1 #279

NKU16.3 #158

Offensive rebound rate

CMU29.2 #230

NKU32.2 #117

Assists per game

CMU14.4 #120

NKU15.5 #65

Defense

Points allowed

CMU77.7 #258

NKU78.7 #284

Points allowed per possession

CMU1.14 #301

NKU1.10 #225

Opponent effective FG%

CMU54.0 #299

NKU54.2 #305

Opponent 3-point %

CMU35.5 #282

NKU36.6 #333

Turnovers forced

CMU16.9 #157

NKU18.6 #66

Defensive rebound rate

CMU65.7 #323

NKU68.4 #236

Steals per game

CMU6.1 #219

NKU8.3 #25

Blocks per game

CMU4.1 #64

NKU3.5 #134

CMU		NKU
Scoring
71.7 #256	Points per game	80.9 #47
1.05 #248	Points per possession	1.13 #81
68.3 #212	Pace (possessions)	71.5 #55
Shooting
51.8 #158	Effective FG%	53.2 #93
33.9 #181	3-point %	33.6 #193
34.0 #293	3-point attempt rate	44.9 #71
31.4 #269	Free throw rate	35.9 #158
Possessions
18.1 #279	Turnover rate	16.3 #158
29.2 #230	Offensive rebound rate	32.2 #117
14.4 #120	Assists per game	15.5 #65
Defense
77.7 #258	Points allowed	78.7 #284
1.14 #301	Points allowed per possession	1.10 #225
54.0 #299	Opponent effective FG%	54.2 #305
35.5 #282	Opponent 3-point %	36.6 #333
16.9 #157	Turnovers forced	18.6 #66
65.7 #323	Defensive rebound rate	68.4 #236
6.1 #219	Steals per game	8.3 #25
4.1 #64	Blocks per game	3.5 #134

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.

N Kentucky

17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-11 in conference · Horizon League

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Wright St90–103
Wvs Green Bay96–76
W@ Oakland85–84
Lvs Wright St91–92
W@ Cleveland St81–70

A week or more of rest.

Central Michigan Chippewas at Northern Kentucky Norse

What could decide it: NKU 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

C Michigan

N Kentucky

N Kentucky has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

C Michigan

N Kentucky