Stroh Center · at Bowling Green · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | BGSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 BGSU 78–75 · win probability BGSU 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 153.5
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: BGSU has more of the edges
WMU 1, BGSU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WMU 16.8%, BGSU 16.4%. Forced: WMU 13.4%, BGSU 18.5%
Shooting
Effective FG%: WMU 49.9 and allows 54.4; BGSU 51.8 and allows 51.0
WMU offense vs BGSU defense
Offense 137th of 366 against a defense 231st, on the model’s ratings
BGSU offense vs WMU defense
Offense 172nd of 366 against a defense 253rd, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: WMU 32.8, BGSU 37.0. Allowed: WMU 37.5, BGSU 37.2
Home court
BGSU at home. This season: BGSU 0-0 at home, WMU 0-0 away
Three-pointers
WMU hits 35.3% and allows 36.1%; BGSU hits 34.4% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 36.1% and 34.2% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WMU 0%, BGSU 24%. Transfers in: WMU 9, BGSU 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: WMU plays 69.3 a game (160th fastest), BGSU 70.5 (96th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
WMU has played the 175th-hardest schedule, BGSU the 192nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WMU 30.5%, BGSU 28.7%. Defensive: WMU 70.9%, BGSU 73.1%
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 | — | BGSU -2.6 | — |
| Total | — | 153.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | WMU 75.4 · BGSU 78 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BGSU -1.4 | — |
| 1H total | 71.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | WMU 35.2 · BGSU 36.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 9 since 2021-22
WMU 4–5 BGSUBGSU leads · 9 games since 2021-22 · WMU 5-4 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2025-26 | WMU 88 @ BGSU 79 | BGSU -11.5 | WMU W |
| Jan 20, 2025-26 | BGSU 72 @ WMU 54 | WMU +6.5 | BGSU W |
| Mar 7, 2024-25 | WMU 64 @ BGSU 63 | BGSU -2.5 | WMU W |
| Jan 7, 2024-25 | BGSU 83 @ WMU 79 | WMU -4.5 | BGSU W |
| Mar 5, 2023-24 | BGSU 73 @ WMU 65 | WMU -1.5 | BGSU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
W Michigan
29 games played
Straight up
9-20
31% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-11
62% overs · avg +1.5 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 | W 76-71 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 82-91 | +9.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 83-71 | +3.5 | W +15.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 78-83 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 172.5 | U 161 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 58-91 | +26.5 | L −6.5 | 159.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 83-60 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 55-84 | +4.5 | L −24.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 88-74 | -5.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 83-73 | +5.5 | W +15.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 51-91 | +25.5 | L −14.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 71-88 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 79-84 | +10.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 76-87 | +14.5 | W +3.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 79-62 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 82-85 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 89-104 | +21.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 54-72 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 77-65 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 65-85 | +1.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 71-91 | +10.5 | L −9.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 61-77 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 79-90 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 76-62 | +6.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 73-90 | +14.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 70-83 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 88-79 | +11.5 | W +20.5 | 149.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 67-69 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 161.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 71-74 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 6 | @ | L 78-86 | +13.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CCU
W 76-71
+2.5
9
@
CAM
L 82-91
+0.5
12
vs
PFW
W 83-71
+15.5
16
@
SDAK
L 78-83
−1.5
20
@
OSU
L 58-91
−6.5
23
vs
MSM
W 83-60
+21.5
29
@
VAL
L 55-84
−24.5
3
vs
USI
W 88-74
+8.5
6
@
SIUE
W 83-73
+15.5
14
@
IOWA
L 51-91
−14.5
20
vs
BUF
L 71-88
−14.5
30
@
TOL
L 79-84
+5.5
6
@
M-OH
L 76-87
+3.5
10
vs
EMU
W 79-62
+18.5
13
vs
MASS
L 82-85
+2.5
17
@
AKR
L 89-104
+6.5
20
vs
BGSU
L 54-72
−11.5
24
vs
CMU
W 77-65
+6.5
27
@
NIU
L 65-85
−18.5
3
@
OHIO
L 71-91
−9.5
7
@
TXST
L 61-77
−9.5
11
vs
TOL
L 79-90
−4.5
14
@
EMU
W 76-62
+20.5
17
vs
AKR
L 73-90
−2.5
21
@
CMU
L 70-83
−9.5
24
@
BGSU
W 88-79
+20.5
27
vs
M-OH
L 67-69
+10.5
3
vs
BALL
L 71-74
−4.5
6
@
KENT
L 78-86
+5.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CCU
W 76-71
+0.5
9
@
CAM
L 82-91
+20.5
12
vs
PFW
W 83-71
−7.5
16
@
SDAK
L 78-83
−11.5
20
@
OSU
L 58-91
−10.5
23
vs
MSM
W 83-60
−7.5
29
@
VAL
L 55-84
−7.5
3
vs
USI
W 88-74
+11.5
6
@
SIUE
W 83-73
+16.5
14
@
IOWA
L 51-91
+4.5
20
vs
BUF
L 71-88
+8.5
30
@
TOL
L 79-84
+2.5
6
@
M-OH
L 76-87
+2.5
10
vs
EMU
W 79-62
−4.5
13
vs
MASS
L 82-85
+9.5
17
@
AKR
L 89-104
+29.5
20
vs
BGSU
L 54-72
−26.5
24
vs
CMU
W 77-65
−6.5
27
@
NIU
L 65-85
+3.5
3
@
OHIO
L 71-91
+6.5
7
@
TXST
L 61-77
−8.5
11
vs
TOL
L 79-90
+14.5
14
@
EMU
W 76-62
−5.5
17
vs
AKR
L 73-90
+2.5
21
@
CMU
L 70-83
+2.5
24
@
BGSU
W 88-79
+17.5
27
vs
M-OH
L 67-69
−25.5
3
vs
BALL
L 71-74
+6.5
6
@
KENT
L 78-86
+6.5
over 18under 11avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
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: W Michigan 1, Bowling Green 1, even 3
W MichiganBetterBowling Green
G T. Hayhurst TR10 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 41
→BGSUBig
G J. Johnson TR13.7 pts · 2.9 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 80
G M. Bendinger TR14.4 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 37
=Even
G J. Cranford TR11.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 35
G R. Lee TR15.9 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 79
←WMUSmall
G J. Shackelford11.1 pts · 3.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 59
G J. Washington TR10 pts · 2.3 reb · 4 ast
Score 73
=No call
F A. Goins3.1 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
F I. Finlinson TR9.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 56
=No call
F C. Essandoko TR2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
W MichiganBetterBowling Green
WMU offense137th of 366 · -4.0
←WMUSmall
BGSU defense231st of 366 · -6.1
WMU defense253rd of 366 · -6.6
→BGSUSmall
BGSU offense172nd of 366 · -5.3
Backcourt-1.0 · 4 players
=Even
Backcourt-0.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt0.0 · 1 player
←WMUSmall
Frontcourt-1.3 · 2 players
Bench-1.7 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-1.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestWMU betterBGSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Hayhurst31 min · TRM. Bendinger31 min · TRR. Lee29 min · TRJ. Washington27 min · TRJ. Gomez23 min · TRA. Harakow19 min · TR
Forwards
I. Finlinson23 min · TRJ. Eli15 min · TRA. Kiudulas14 min · TRD. WatkinsNew
Centers
J. JünemannNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #203 | Points per game | 76.8 #124 |
| 1.06 #225 | Points per possession | 1.08 #177 |
| 69.3 #160 | Pace (possessions) | 70.5 #96 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.9 #241 | Effective FG% | 51.8 #153 |
| 35.3 #95 | 3-point % | 34.4 #148 |
| 36.1 #248 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.2 #289 |
| 32.8 #241 | Free throw rate | 37.0 #129 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #191 | Turnover rate | 16.4 #164 |
| 30.5 #177 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.7 #244 |
| 12.4 #256 | Assists per game | 13.1 #203 |
| Defense | ||
| 80.1 #320 | Points allowed | 72.7 #127 |
| 1.16 #336 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #71 |
| 54.4 #310 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #163 |
| 36.1 #307 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #161 |
| 13.4 #346 | Turnovers forced | 18.5 #73 |
| 70.9 #110 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.1 #31 |
| 4.1 #362 | Steals per game | 8.2 #30 |
| 2.5 #301 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #138 |
W Michigan
9-20 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Kent State78–86
- Lvs Ball State71–74
- Lvs Miami OH67–69
- W@ Bowling Green88–79
- L@ C Michigan70–83
A week or more of rest.
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.