Central Michigan Chippewas at Notre Dame Fighting Irish: Model Line and Edge

Tue, Nov 24, 8:00 PM ETPurcell Pavilion · at Notre Dame

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: C Michigan and Notre Dame
CMU	This season	ND
0-0	Record	1-0
0-0	ATS	1-0
0-0	O/U	1-0

ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders

Model: projects ND 85–64 · win probability ND 97%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 149.2

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: ND has more of the edges

CMU 1, ND 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

NDBig

ND offense vs CMU defense

Offense 76th of 366 against a defense 287th, on the model’s ratings

NDBig

CMU offense vs ND defense

Offense 258th of 366 against a defense 63rd, on the model’s ratings

NDBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CMU 29.2%, ND 31.2%. Defensive: CMU 65.7%, ND 73.3%

NDBig

Three-pointers

CMU hits 33.9% and allows 35.5%; ND hits 35.6% and allows 33.2%. Threes are 34.0% and 43.5% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

CMU has played the 158th-hardest schedule, ND the 69th. A record against a soft schedule means less

NDSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CMU 31.4, ND 34.1. Allowed: CMU 39.0, ND 36.2

NDSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: CMU 51.8 and allows 54.0; ND 52.3 and allows 51.8

NDSmall

Home court

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

CMUSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CMU 18.1%, ND 16.9%. Forced: CMU 16.9%, ND 14.0%

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: CMU plays 68.3 a game (212th fastest), ND 67.7 (239th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CMU 43%, ND 38%. Transfers in: CMU 1, ND 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

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	—	ND -21.3	—
Total	—	149.2	—
Projected score	—	CMU 63.9 · ND 85.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	ND -12.6	—
1H total	69.8	—
1H projected score	CMU 28.6 · ND 41.2	—

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	—
ND LLWLL	15-16	48%	8-9	—

Venue/role: CMU away; ND 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
ND OOOOO	22-9	71%	13-18

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%
ND	2-8 20%	4-6 40%	9-1 90%

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
Dec 2	@ M-OH	L61–100LO
Dec 5	vs OHIO	L64–80LU
Dec 9	vs KENT	L81–83WO

Notre Dame

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 28	vs STO	W89–60WO
Dec 2	vs VAN	No recent meeting
Dec 5	vs TCU	W87–85WO

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

Notre Dame

31 games played

Straight up

13-18

42% wins

Against the spread

15-16

48% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

22-9

71% overs · avg +4.9 pts vs the total

Straight up

13-1842%

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

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

15-1648%

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

2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

22-971%

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

8 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 3	vsLIU	W 89-67	-15.5	W +6.5	135.5	O 156
Nov 7	vsDETM	W 102-70	-21.5	W +10.5	147.5	O 172
Nov 11	vsEIU	W 78-58	-23.5	L −3.5	143.5	U 136
Nov 16	@OSU	L 63-64	+9.5	W +8.5	156.5	U 127
Nov 19	vsBELL	W 86-79	-24.5	L −17.5	150.5	O 165
Nov 24	vsKU	L 61-71	+5.5	L −4.5	143.5	U 132
Nov 25	vsRUTG	W 68-63	-6.5	L −1.5	140.5	U 131
Nov 26	vsHOU	L 56-66	+11.5	W +1.5	132.5	U 122
Dec 2	vsMIZ	W 76-71	+1.5	W +6.5	146.5	O 147
Dec 5	@TCU	W 87-85	+6.5	W +8.5	141.5	O 172
Dec 10	vsIDHO	W 80-65	-11.5	W +3.5	144.5	O 145
Dec 13	vsEVAN	W 82-58	-14.5	W +9.5	136.5	O 140
Dec 21	vsPFW	L 69-72	-11.5	L −14.5	149.5	U 141
Dec 30	@STAN	W 47-40	+6.5	W +13.5	143.5	U 87
Jan 2	@CAL	L 71-72	+3.5	W +2.5	138.5	O 143
Jan 10	vsCLEM	L 61-76	+3.5	L −11.5	133.5	O 137
Jan 13	vsMIA	L 69-81	+5.5	L −6.5	143.5	O 150
Jan 17	@VT	L 76-89	+6.5	L −6.5	143.5	O 165
Jan 21	@UNC	L 69-91	+13.5	L −8.5	149.5	O 160
Jan 24	vsBC	W 68-64	-7.5	L −3.5	137.5	U 132
Jan 27	vsUVA	L 97-100	+9.5	W +6.5	145.5	O 197
Jan 31	@SYR	L 72-86	+6.5	L −7.5	147.5	O 158
Feb 4	@LOU	L 65-76	+19.5	W +8.5	155.5	U 141
Feb 7	vsFSU	L 79-82	-1.5	L −4.5	154.5	O 161
Feb 10	@SMU	L 81-89	+10.5	W +2.5	154.5	O 170
Feb 14	vsGT	W 89-74	-5.5	W +9.5	150.5	O 163
Feb 21	@PITT	L 68-73	+3.5	L −1.5	140.5	O 141
Feb 24	vsDUKE	L 56-100	+16.5	L −27.5	141.5	O 156
Feb 28	vsNCSU	W 96-90	+6.5	W +12.5	153.5	O 186
Mar 4	vsSTAN	L 78-86	+1.5	L −6.5	147.5	O 164
Mar 7	@BC	L 69-77	-1.5	L −9.5	141.5	O 146

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

LIU

W 89-67

+6.5

DETM

W 102-70

+10.5

EIU

W 78-58

−3.5

OSU

L 63-64

+8.5

BELL

W 86-79

−17.5

L 61-71

−4.5

RUTG

W 68-63

−1.5

HOU

L 56-66

+1.5

MIZ

W 76-71

+6.5

TCU

W 87-85

+8.5

IDHO

W 80-65

+3.5

EVAN

W 82-58

+9.5

PFW

L 69-72

−14.5

STAN

W 47-40

+13.5

CAL

L 71-72

+2.5

CLEM

L 61-76

−11.5

MIA

L 69-81

−6.5

L 76-89

−6.5

UNC

L 69-91

−8.5

W 68-64

−3.5

UVA

L 97-100

+6.5

SYR

L 72-86

−7.5

LOU

L 65-76

+8.5

FSU

L 79-82

−4.5

SMU

L 81-89

+2.5

W 89-74

+9.5

PITT

L 68-73

−1.5

DUKE

L 56-100

−27.5

NCSU

W 96-90

+12.5

STAN

L 78-86

−6.5

L 69-77

−9.5

covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

LIU

W 89-67

+20.5

DETM

W 102-70

+24.5

EIU

W 78-58

−7.5

OSU

L 63-64

−29.5

BELL

W 86-79

+14.5

L 61-71

−11.5

RUTG

W 68-63

−9.5

HOU

L 56-66

−10.5

MIZ

W 76-71

+0.5

TCU

W 87-85

+30.5

IDHO

W 80-65

+0.5

EVAN

W 82-58

+3.5

PFW

L 69-72

−8.5

STAN

W 47-40

−56.5

CAL

L 71-72

+4.5

CLEM

L 61-76

+3.5

MIA

L 69-81

+6.5

L 76-89

+21.5

UNC

L 69-91

+10.5

W 68-64

−5.5

UVA

L 97-100

+51.5

SYR

L 72-86

+10.5

LOU

L 65-76

−14.5

FSU

L 79-82

+6.5

SMU

L 81-89

+15.5

W 89-74

+12.5

PITT

L 68-73

+0.5

DUKE

L 56-100

+14.5

NCSU

W 96-90

+32.5

STAN

L 78-86

+16.5

L 69-77

+4.5

over 22under 9avg +4.9 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Notre Dame has the better starters

Position by position: C Michigan 0, Notre Dame 5, even 0

C MichiganBetterNotre Dame

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

NDBig

G B. Shrewsberry15 pts · 6 reb · 3 ast Score 73

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

NDSmall

G E. Roberts TR11 pts · 2 reb · 0 ast Score 64

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

NDBig

G B. Smith TR16 pts · 4 reb · 3 ast Score 91

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

NDSmall

G D. Brown TR6.4 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.5 ast Score 43

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

NDBig

C L. Duncomb TR18.2 pts · 8.7 reb · 1.6 ast Score 99

C MichiganBetterNotre Dame

CMU offense258th of 366 · -8.0

NDBig

ND defense63rd of 366 · +1.2

CMU defense287th of 366 · -7.2

NDBig

ND offense76th of 366 · +1.1

Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players

NDBig

Backcourt+4.7 · 4 players

Frontcourt-1.1 · 1 player

NDBig

Frontcourt+7.1 · 1 player

BenchNo numbers yet

No call

Bench-0.9 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestCMU betterND 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

Notre Dame

Guards

B. Shrewsberry36 minE. Roberts32 min · TRB. Smith31 min · TRD. Brown24 min · TRL. Imes21 minB. Stevens2 min

Forwards

B. Koehler16 minB. Ruglass Dortch15 min · TRY. DialloNewL. DevineNew

Centers

L. Duncomb25 min · TRT. AhnemanNewG. SolongoNew

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

ND74.5 #180

Points per possession

CMU1.05 #248

ND1.10 #143

Pace (possessions)

CMU68.3 #212

ND67.7 #239

Shooting

Effective FG%

CMU51.8 #158

ND52.3 #133

3-point %

CMU33.9 #181

ND35.6 #82

3-point attempt rate

CMU34.0 #293

ND43.5 #101

Free throw rate

CMU31.4 #269

ND34.1 #206

Possessions

Turnover rate

CMU18.1 #279

ND16.9 #199

Offensive rebound rate

CMU29.2 #230

ND31.2 #155

Assists per game

CMU14.4 #120

ND12.3 #267

Defense

Points allowed

CMU77.7 #258

ND75.3 #197

Points allowed per possession

CMU1.14 #301

ND1.11 #255

Opponent effective FG%

CMU54.0 #299

ND51.8 #200

Opponent 3-point %

CMU35.5 #282

ND33.2 #138

Turnovers forced

CMU16.9 #157

ND14.0 #337

Defensive rebound rate

CMU65.7 #323

ND73.3 #27

Steals per game

CMU6.1 #219

ND4.5 #355

Blocks per game

CMU4.1 #64

ND2.2 #328

CMU		ND
Scoring
71.7 #256	Points per game	74.5 #180
1.05 #248	Points per possession	1.10 #143
68.3 #212	Pace (possessions)	67.7 #239
Shooting
51.8 #158	Effective FG%	52.3 #133
33.9 #181	3-point %	35.6 #82
34.0 #293	3-point attempt rate	43.5 #101
31.4 #269	Free throw rate	34.1 #206
Possessions
18.1 #279	Turnover rate	16.9 #199
29.2 #230	Offensive rebound rate	31.2 #155
14.4 #120	Assists per game	12.3 #267
Defense
77.7 #258	Points allowed	75.3 #197
1.14 #301	Points allowed per possession	1.11 #255
54.0 #299	Opponent effective FG%	51.8 #200
35.5 #282	Opponent 3-point %	33.2 #138
16.9 #157	Turnovers forced	14.0 #337
65.7 #323	Defensive rebound rate	73.3 #27
6.1 #219	Steals per game	4.5 #355
4.1 #64	Blocks per game	2.2 #328

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.

Notre Dame

13-18 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Boston College69–77
Lvs Stanford78–86
Wvs NC State96–90
Lvs Duke56–100
L@ Pitt68–73

A week or more of rest.

Central Michigan Chippewas at Notre Dame Fighting Irish

What could decide it: ND 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

Notre Dame

Notre Dame has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

C Michigan

Notre Dame