M.A.C. Center · at Kent State · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | KENT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 KENT 79–74 · win probability KENT 68%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.8
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: KENT has more of the edges
BGSU 1, KENT 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: BGSU 16.4%, KENT 17.9%. Forced: BGSU 18.5%, KENT 16.1%
KENT offense vs BGSU defense
Offense 128th of 366 against a defense 231st, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: BGSU 28.7%, KENT 35.3%. Defensive: BGSU 73.1%, KENT 70.7%
Home court
KENT at home. This season: KENT 0-0 at home, BGSU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: BGSU plays 70.5 a game (96th fastest), KENT 73.3 (17th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: BGSU 51.8 and allows 51.0; KENT 51.4 and allows 52.1
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: BGSU 37.0, KENT 43.5. Allowed: BGSU 37.2, KENT 39.5
Even
Three-pointers
BGSU hits 34.4% and allows 33.5%; KENT hits 35.0% and allows 35.0%. Threes are 34.2% and 44.9% of their shots
Even
BGSU offense vs KENT defense
Offense 172nd of 366 against a defense 196th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
BGSU has played the 192nd-hardest schedule, KENT the 179th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: BGSU 24%, KENT 19%. Transfers in: BGSU 4, KENT 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | KENT -5.3 | — |
| Total | — | 152.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | BGSU 73.8 · KENT 79.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | KENT -3.0 | — |
| 1H total | 71.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | BGSU 34.2 · KENT 37.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | |
| 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 10 since 2021-22
BGSU 0–10 KENTKENT leads · 10 games since 2021-22 · KENT has won the last 10 meetings · BGSU 2-8 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2025-26 | KENT 78 @ BGSU 71 | BGSU -1.5 | KENT W |
| Jan 6, 2025-26 | BGSU 93 @ KENT 96 | KENT -3.5 | BGSU W |
| Feb 18, 2024-25 | KENT 91 @ BGSU 84 | BGSU +6.5 | KENT W |
| Jan 28, 2024-25 | BGSU 57 @ KENT 75 | KENT -12.5 | KENT W |
| Mar 15, 2023-24 | KENT 73 vs BGSU 60 | BGSU +2.5 | KENT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Bowling Green
29 games played
Straight up
15-14
52% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-18
38% overs · avg −1.2 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 83-48 | -5.5 | W +29.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 83-60 | -11.5 | W +11.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 87-91 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 74-82 | -8.5 | L −16.5 | 167.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 71-66 | -10.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 81-48 | -11.5 | W +21.5 | 148.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 1 | @ | W 82-66 | +12.5 | W +28.5 | 159.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 71-82 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 76-55 | -21.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 68-58 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 83-93 | -6.5 | L −16.5 | 150.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 101-100 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 152.5 | O 201 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 93-96 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | O 189 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 67-77 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 85-79 | -11.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 72-54 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 72-73 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 78-89 | -7.5 | L −18.5 | 150.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 59-62 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 77-52 | -11.5 | W +13.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 54-91 | +2.5 | L −34.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 68-52 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 80-70 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 150.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 71-78 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 77-91 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 79-88 | -11.5 | L −20.5 | 149.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 81-62 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 6 | @ | W 77-69 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 76-77 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TXST
W 83-48
+29.5
9
vs
LEM
W 83-60
+11.5
15
@
DAV
L 87-91
+0.5
19
vs
W&M
L 74-82
−16.5
24
vs
BUCK
W 71-66
−5.5
26
vs
VMI
W 81-48
+21.5
1
@
KSU
W 82-66
+28.5
6
vs
UVU
L 71-82
−9.5
16
vs
CHST
W 76-55
−0.5
20
@
OHIO
W 68-58
+8.5
30
vs
M-OH
L 83-93
−16.5
3
@
MASS
W 101-100
−0.5
6
@
KENT
L 93-96
+0.5
9
vs
AKR
L 67-77
−5.5
17
vs
EMU
W 85-79
−5.5
20
@
WMU
W 72-54
+11.5
24
@
TOL
L 72-73
−2.5
27
vs
BUF
L 78-89
−18.5
31
@
CMU
L 59-62
−11.5
3
vs
BALL
W 77-52
+13.5
7
@
ARST
L 54-91
−34.5
11
@
NIU
W 68-52
+8.5
14
vs
TOL
W 80-70
+6.5
17
vs
KENT
L 71-78
−8.5
20
@
M-OH
L 77-91
−5.5
24
vs
WMU
L 79-88
−20.5
28
vs
MASS
W 81-62
+15.5
6
@
EMU
W 77-69
+2.5
12
vs
TOL
L 76-77
+0.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TXST
W 83-48
−15.5
9
vs
LEM
W 83-60
−11.5
15
@
DAV
L 87-91
+33.5
19
vs
W&M
L 74-82
−11.5
24
vs
BUCK
W 71-66
−7.5
26
vs
VMI
W 81-48
−19.5
1
@
KSU
W 82-66
−11.5
6
vs
UVU
L 71-82
+8.5
16
vs
CHST
W 76-55
−17.5
20
@
OHIO
W 68-58
−27.5
30
vs
M-OH
L 83-93
+25.5
3
@
MASS
W 101-100
+48.5
6
@
KENT
L 93-96
+33.5
9
vs
AKR
L 67-77
−19.5
17
vs
EMU
W 85-79
+22.5
20
@
WMU
W 72-54
−26.5
24
@
TOL
L 72-73
−10.5
27
vs
BUF
L 78-89
+16.5
31
@
CMU
L 59-62
−28.5
3
vs
BALL
W 77-52
−8.5
7
@
ARST
L 54-91
−9.5
11
@
NIU
W 68-52
−24.5
14
vs
TOL
W 80-70
−0.5
17
vs
KENT
L 71-78
−2.5
20
@
M-OH
L 77-91
+13.5
24
vs
WMU
L 79-88
+17.5
28
vs
MASS
W 81-62
−7.5
6
@
EMU
W 77-69
+3.5
12
vs
TOL
L 76-77
+2.5
over 11under 18avg −1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Kent State
32 games played
Straight up
22-10
69% wins
Against the spread
12-20
38% covers · avg −2.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +4.5 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 | L 97-103 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 142.5 | O 200 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 110-102 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 164.5 | O 212 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 86-77 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 102-95 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 76-72 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 93-78 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 161.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 91-71 | -15.5 | W +4.5 | 172.5 | U 162 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 96-84 | -8.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 78-88 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 69-59 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 163.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 60-101 | +24.5 | L −16.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 77-73 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 96-93 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | O 189 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 85-87 | -10.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 87-81 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 16 | vs | W 87-84 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 168.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 101-107 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 167.5 | O 208 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 76-75 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 72-57 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 52-69 | +10.5 | L −6.5 | 166.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 161.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 65-66 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 95-91 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 186 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 75-68 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 78-71 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 83-81 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 70-92 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 166.5 | U 162 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 102-76 | -10.5 | W +15.5 | 148.5 | O 178 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 86-78 | -13.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 86-75 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 161.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 68-75 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 163.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 58-79 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TROY
L 97-103
−9.5
7
vs
COR
W 110-102
+1.5
10
vs
UNCW
W 86-77
+5.5
15
vs
CLE
W 102-95
−4.5
16
vs
WRST
W 76-72
−0.5
18
vs
EKU
W 93-78
+4.5
22
vs
CLE
W 91-71
+4.5
3
vs
APSU
W 96-84
+3.5
14
@
PORT
L 78-88
−17.5
20
@
MASS
W 69-59
+8.5
29
@
PUR
L 60-101
−16.5
3
vs
NIU
W 77-73
−12.5
6
vs
BGSU
W 96-93
−0.5
10
@
CMU
L 85-87
−12.5
13
@
BUF
W 87-81
+3.5
16
vs
TOL
W 87-84
−2.5
20
vs
M-OH
L 101-107
−7.5
24
@
EMU
W 76-75
−3.5
27
vs
OHIO
W 72-57
+9.5
30
@
AKR
L 52-69
−6.5
3
@
TOL
W 75-72
+1.5
7
@
USM
L 65-66
−5.5
11
vs
EMU
W 95-91
−6.5
14
@
BALL
W 75-68
−0.5
17
@
BGSU
W 78-71
+8.5
24
vs
CMU
W 83-81
−9.5
27
vs
AKR
L 70-92
−18.5
3
@
NIU
W 102-76
+15.5
6
vs
WMU
W 86-78
−5.5
12
vs
OHIO
W 86-75
+7.5
13
vs
AKR
L 68-75
−0.5
18
@
ILST
L 58-79
−16.5
covered 12didn’t cover 20avg −2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TROY
L 97-103
+57.5
7
vs
COR
W 110-102
+47.5
10
vs
UNCW
W 86-77
+6.5
15
vs
CLE
W 102-95
+31.5
16
vs
WRST
W 76-72
−9.5
18
vs
EKU
W 93-78
+9.5
22
vs
CLE
W 91-71
−10.5
3
vs
APSU
W 96-84
+26.5
14
@
PORT
L 78-88
+5.5
20
@
MASS
W 69-59
−35.5
29
@
PUR
L 60-101
+5.5
3
vs
NIU
W 77-73
−7.5
6
vs
BGSU
W 96-93
+33.5
10
@
CMU
L 85-87
+15.5
13
@
BUF
W 87-81
+2.5
16
vs
TOL
W 87-84
+2.5
20
vs
M-OH
L 101-107
+40.5
24
@
EMU
W 76-75
−3.5
27
vs
OHIO
W 72-57
−33.5
30
@
AKR
L 52-69
−45.5
3
@
TOL
W 75-72
−14.5
7
@
USM
L 65-66
−19.5
11
vs
EMU
W 95-91
+40.5
14
@
BALL
W 75-68
−0.5
17
@
BGSU
W 78-71
−2.5
24
vs
CMU
W 83-81
+7.5
27
vs
AKR
L 70-92
−4.5
3
@
NIU
W 102-76
+29.5
6
vs
WMU
W 86-78
+6.5
12
vs
OHIO
W 86-75
−0.5
13
vs
AKR
L 68-75
−20.5
18
@
ILST
L 58-79
−17.5
over 17under 15avg +4.5 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: Bowling Green 0, Kent State 0, even 5
Bowling GreenBetterKent State
G J. Johnson TR13.7 pts · 2.9 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 80
=Even
G C. Henry TR11.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 5.1 ast
Score 66
G J. Cranford TR11.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 35
=No call
G C. Willis TR6.3 pts · 3 reb · 3.3 ast
Not ranked
G J. Shackelford11.1 pts · 3.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 59
=Even
G Q. Woidke9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 69
F A. Goins3.1 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F C. Williams TR9.9 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 52
F C. Essandoko TR2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F G. Nwabude TR5.1 pts · 5.4 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 57
Bowling GreenBetterKent State
BGSU offense172nd of 366 · -5.3
=Even
KENT defense196th of 366 · -4.8
BGSU defense231st of 366 · -6.1
→KENTSmall
KENT offense128th of 366 · -3.5
Backcourt-0.2 · 3 players
→KENTSmall
Backcourt+0.8 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.3 · 2 players
→KENTSmall
Frontcourt-0.2 · 2 players
Bench-1.4 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-2.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestBGSU betterKENT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Johnson28 min · TRJ. Cranford26 min · TRJ. Shackelford24 minM. Leach8 minT. Beckford7 min · TRC. Dedivanaj2 min
Forwards
A. Goins8 minC. Essandoko8 min · TRC. Karel5 minP. Squire3 minL. AtenyNew
Guards
C. Henry29 min · TRC. Willis27 min · TRQ. Woidke20 minB. Moss5 minD. Lakatos1 minJ. SumlinNew
Forwards
C. Williams24 min · TRG. Nwabude19 min · TRL. Diouf13 min · TRD. Briscoe8 minL. Vanderwarker4 minJ. TownsendNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.8 #124 | Points per game | 82.3 #31 |
| 1.08 #177 | Points per possession | 1.12 #102 |
| 70.5 #96 | Pace (possessions) | 73.3 #17 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.8 #153 | Effective FG% | 51.4 #175 |
| 34.4 #148 | 3-point % | 35.0 #118 |
| 34.2 #289 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.9 #69 |
| 37.0 #129 | Free throw rate | 43.5 #15 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.4 #164 | Turnover rate | 17.9 #268 |
| 28.7 #244 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.3 #39 |
| 13.1 #203 | Assists per game | 15.1 #81 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #127 | Points allowed | 80.6 #328 |
| 1.04 #71 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #221 |
| 51.0 #163 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.1 #219 |
| 33.5 #161 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.0 #246 |
| 18.5 #73 | Turnovers forced | 16.1 #219 |
| 73.1 #31 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.7 #124 |
| 8.2 #30 | Steals per game | 6.5 #174 |
| 3.5 #138 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #184 |
Bowling Green
15-14 in 2025-26 overall · 9-10 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Toledo76–77
- W@ E Michigan77–69
- Wvs UMass81–62
- Lvs W Michigan79–88
- L@ Miami OH77–91
A week or more of rest.
Kent State
22-10 in 2025-26 overall · 15-5 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Illinois St58–79
- Lvs Akron68–75
- Wvs Ohio86–75
- Wvs W Michigan86–78
- W@ N Illinois102–76
A week or more of rest.