Eastern Michigan Eagles at Toledo Rockets: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Dec 9, 7:00 PM ETSavage Arena · at Toledo · Conference game

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: E Michigan and Toledo
EMU	This season	TOL
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 TOL 78–73 · win probability TOL 67%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 150.3

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: TOL has more of the edges

EMU 1, TOL 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

TOLBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: EMU 17.5%, TOL 14.7%. Forced: EMU 15.5%, TOL 17.9%

TOLSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: EMU 29.3, TOL 30.5. Allowed: EMU 35.5, TOL 26.6

EMUSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: EMU 27.8%, TOL 29.5%. Defensive: EMU 70.9%, TOL 66.3%

TOLSmall

TOL offense vs EMU defense

Offense 121st of 366 against a defense 188th, on the model’s ratings

TOLSmall

Three-pointers

EMU hits 32.4% and allows 32.9%; TOL hits 37.0% and allows 34.4%. Threes are 31.8% and 32.5% of their shots

TOLSmall

Home court

TOL at home. This season: TOL 0-0 at home, EMU 0-0 away

Even

EMU offense vs TOL defense

Offense 206th of 366 against a defense 234th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 69 possessions: EMU plays 68.9 a game (190th fastest), TOL 69.5 (146th). Faster games mean more points

Context

Schedule so far

EMU has played the 157th-hardest schedule, TOL the 172nd. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: EMU 37%, TOL 43%. Transfers in: EMU 4, TOL 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: EMU 49.6 and allows 50.3; TOL 54.5 and allows 54.3

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	—	TOL -5.0	—
Total	—	150.3	—
Projected score	—	EMU 72.6 · TOL 77.6

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	TOL -2.9	—
1H total	70.3	—
1H projected score	EMU 33.7 · TOL 36.6	—

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
EMU WLLWL	20-10	67%	11-6	—
TOL WWLWW	19-13	59%	6-7	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
EMU UOUUO	9-21	30%	9-21
TOL UOOUU	13-19	41%	17-15

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
EMU	1-9 10%	6-4 60%	3-7 30%
TOL	7-3 70%	7-3 70%	4-6 40%

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

E Michigan

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 12	vs CMU	W66–54WU

Toledo

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 12	@ WMU	W90–79WO

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

Recent meetings

Last 5 of 7 since 2021-22

EMU 1–6 TOLTOL leads · 7 games since 2021-22 · EMU 5-2 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Feb 21, 2025-26	EMU 75 @ TOL 94	TOL -8.5	TOL W
Feb 15, 2024-25	TOL 73 @ EMU 80	EMU +3.5	EMU W
Jan 7, 2024-25	EMU 87 @ TOL 90	TOL -9.5	EMU W
Feb 6, 2023-24	TOL 91 @ EMU 87	EMU +12.5	EMU W
Feb 11, 2022-23	TOL 70 @ EMU 63	EMU +11.5	EMU W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

E Michigan

30 games played

Straight up

9-21

30% wins

Against the spread

20-10

67% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

9-21

30% overs · avg −3.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

9-2130%

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

4 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

20-1067%

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

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

9-2130%

U O U U O U U U U U O U O U U U U O U O U U U O U 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	vsGAST	W 71-49	-3.5	W +18.5	149.5	U 120
Nov 10	@PITT	L 66-78	+15.5	W +3.5	141.5	O 144
Nov 14	vsIUIN	L 83-90	-4.5	L −11.5	186.5	U 173
Nov 18	@DETM	W 72-62	+1.5	W +11.5	157.5	U 134
Nov 21	vsOAK	W 97-91	+1.5	W +7.5	153.5	O 188
Nov 24	@LOU	L 46-87	+33.5	L −7.5	162.5	U 133
Nov 26	@CIN	W 64-56	+22.5	W +30.5	146.5	U 120
Nov 28	vsNJIT	W 73-55	-14.5	W +3.5	141.5	U 128
Dec 2	@BTLR	L 68-84	+17.5	W +1.5	153.5	U 152
Dec 10	@PFW	L 65-80	+3.5	L −11.5	147.5	U 145
Dec 19	@AKR	L 72-93	+15.5	L −5.5	155.5	O 165
Dec 22	@WRST	L 64-70	+10.5	W +4.5	142.5	U 134
Dec 30	vsMASS	W 80-74	+2.5	W +8.5	148.5	O 154
Jan 3	vsOHIO	L 67-68	+2.5	W +1.5	150.5	U 135
Jan 6	@BALL	W 74-52	+1.5	W +23.5	137.5	U 126
Jan 10	@WMU	L 62-79	-1.5	L −18.5	145.5	U 141
Jan 13	vsNIU	W 77-59	-7.5	W +10.5	141.5	U 136
Jan 17	@BGSU	L 79-85	+11.5	W +5.5	141.5	O 164
Jan 24	vsKENT	L 75-76	+4.5	W +3.5	154.5	U 151
Jan 27	@CMU	L 65-100	-2.5	L −37.5	139.5	O 165
Jan 31	@MASS	L 67-70	+8.5	W +5.5	148.5	U 137
Feb 3	vsAKR	L 64-66	+12.5	W +10.5	153.5	U 130
Feb 7	@APP	L 60-65	+7.5	W +2.5	131.5	U 125
Feb 11	@KENT	L 91-95	+10.5	W +6.5	145.5	O 186
Feb 14	vsWMU	L 62-76	-6.5	L −20.5	143.5	U 138
Feb 17	vsCMU	W 66-54	-4.5	W +7.5	140.5	U 120
Feb 21	@TOL	L 75-94	+8.5	L −10.5	145.5	O 169
Feb 24	vsM-OH	L 64-74	+8.5	L −1.5	151.5	U 138
Mar 3	@BUF	L 67-72	+5.5	W +0.5	143.5	U 139
Mar 6	vsBGSU	L 69-77	+5.5	L −2.5	142.5	O 146

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

GAST

W 71-49

+18.5

PITT

L 66-78

+3.5

IUIN

L 83-90

−11.5

DETM

W 72-62

+11.5

OAK

W 97-91

+7.5

LOU

L 46-87

−7.5

CIN

W 64-56

+30.5

NJIT

W 73-55

+3.5

BTLR

L 68-84

+1.5

PFW

L 65-80

−11.5

AKR

L 72-93

−5.5

WRST

L 64-70

+4.5

MASS

W 80-74

+8.5

OHIO

L 67-68

+1.5

BALL

W 74-52

+23.5

WMU

L 62-79

−18.5

NIU

W 77-59

+10.5

BGSU

L 79-85

+5.5

KENT

L 75-76

+3.5

CMU

L 65-100

−37.5

MASS

L 67-70

+5.5

AKR

L 64-66

+10.5

APP

L 60-65

+2.5

KENT

L 91-95

+6.5

WMU

L 62-76

−20.5

CMU

W 66-54

+7.5

TOL

L 75-94

−10.5

M-OH

L 64-74

−1.5

BUF

L 67-72

+0.5

BGSU

L 69-77

−2.5

covered 20didn’t cover 10avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

GAST

W 71-49

−29.5

PITT

L 66-78

+2.5

IUIN

L 83-90

−13.5

DETM

W 72-62

−23.5

OAK

W 97-91

+34.5

LOU

L 46-87

−29.5

CIN

W 64-56

−26.5

NJIT

W 73-55

−13.5

BTLR

L 68-84

−1.5

PFW

L 65-80

−2.5

AKR

L 72-93

+9.5

WRST

L 64-70

−8.5

MASS

W 80-74

+5.5

OHIO

L 67-68

−15.5

BALL

W 74-52

−11.5

WMU

L 62-79

−4.5

NIU

W 77-59

−5.5

BGSU

L 79-85

+22.5

KENT

L 75-76

−3.5

CMU

L 65-100

+25.5

MASS

L 67-70

−11.5

AKR

L 64-66

−23.5

APP

L 60-65

−6.5

KENT

L 91-95

+40.5

WMU

L 62-76

−5.5

CMU

W 66-54

−20.5

TOL

L 75-94

+23.5

M-OH

L 64-74

−13.5

BUF

L 67-72

−4.5

BGSU

L 69-77

+3.5

over 9under 21avg −3.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Toledo

32 games played

Straight up

17-15

53% wins

Against the spread

19-13

59% covers · avg +2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-19

41% overs · avg −0.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

17-1553%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

19-1359%

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

2 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

13-1941%

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

2 straight unders2 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	vsUSA	L 74-76	-2.5	L −4.5	150.5	U 150
Nov 8	vsMRSH	L 73-85	-2.5	L −14.5	160.5	U 158
Nov 11	@WRST	W 81-71	+5.5	W +15.5	159.5	U 152
Nov 15	vsDETM	W 90-83	-10.5	L −3.5	159.5	O 173
Nov 19	vsYSU	W 92-75	-1.5	W +15.5	160.5	O 167
Nov 24	vsTROY	W 75-68	+2.5	W +9.5	159.5	U 143
Nov 26	vsBEL	L 72-87	+4.5	L −10.5	163.5	U 159
Dec 6	@OAK	L 97-98	+4.5	W +3.5	166.5	O 195
Dec 13	@RMU	L 70-75	-1.5	L −6.5	154.5	U 145
Dec 16	@MSU	L 69-92	+23.5	W +0.5	150.5	O 161
Dec 30	vsWMU	W 84-79	-10.5	L −5.5	160.5	O 163
Jan 3	@CMU	W 78-75	-7.5	L −4.5	158.5	U 153
Jan 6	@NIU	W 75-61	-7.5	W +6.5	161.5	U 136
Jan 9	vsM-OH	L 73-87	-1.5	L −15.5	166.5	U 160
Jan 13	vsOHIO	W 101-85	-2.5	W +13.5	161.5	O 186
Jan 16	@KENT	L 84-87	+5.5	W +2.5	168.5	O 171
Jan 20	@MASS	L 82-84	+2.5	W +0.5	164.5	O 166
Jan 24	vsBGSU	W 73-72	+1.5	W +2.5	155.5	U 145
Jan 27	@AKR	L 81-91	+12.5	W +2.5	168.5	O 172
Jan 31	vsBALL	W 73-55	-8.5	W +9.5	146.5	U 128
Feb 3	vsKENT	L 72-75	+1.5	L −1.5	161.5	U 147
Feb 7	@JMU	L 71-73	-1.5	L −3.5	153.5	U 144
Feb 11	@WMU	W 90-79	-6.5	W +4.5	154.5	O 169
Feb 14	@BGSU	L 70-80	+3.5	L −6.5	150.5	U 150
Feb 21	vsEMU	W 94-75	-8.5	W +10.5	145.5	O 169
Feb 24	vsNIU	W 79-69	-12.5	L −2.5	150.5	U 148
Feb 28	@OHIO	W 79-67	+1.5	W +13.5	158.5	U 146
Mar 3	@M-OH	L 72-74	+7.5	W +5.5	162.5	U 146
Mar 6	vsBUF	W 99-78	-5.5	W +15.5	155.5	O 177
Mar 12	vsBGSU	W 77-76	-1.5	L −0.5	150.5	O 153
Mar 13	vsMASS	W 77-67	-2.5	W +7.5	158.5	U 144
Mar 14	vsAKR	L 76-79	+7.5	W +4.5	157.5	U 155

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

USA

L 74-76

−4.5

MRSH

L 73-85

−14.5

WRST

W 81-71

+15.5

DETM

W 90-83

−3.5

YSU

W 92-75

+15.5

TROY

W 75-68

+9.5

BEL

L 72-87

−10.5

OAK

L 97-98

+3.5

RMU

L 70-75

−6.5

MSU

L 69-92

+0.5

WMU

W 84-79

−5.5

CMU

W 78-75

−4.5

NIU

W 75-61

+6.5

M-OH

L 73-87

−15.5

OHIO

W 101-85

+13.5

KENT

L 84-87

+2.5

MASS

L 82-84

+0.5

BGSU

W 73-72

+2.5

AKR

L 81-91

+2.5

BALL

W 73-55

+9.5

KENT

L 72-75

−1.5

JMU

L 71-73

−3.5

WMU

W 90-79

+4.5

BGSU

L 70-80

−6.5

EMU

W 94-75

+10.5

NIU

W 79-69

−2.5

OHIO

W 79-67

+13.5

M-OH

L 72-74

+5.5

BUF

W 99-78

+15.5

BGSU

W 77-76

−0.5

MASS

W 77-67

+7.5

AKR

L 76-79

+4.5

covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

USA

L 74-76

−0.5

MRSH

L 73-85

−2.5

WRST

W 81-71

−7.5

DETM

W 90-83

+13.5

YSU

W 92-75

+6.5

TROY

W 75-68

−16.5

BEL

L 72-87

−4.5

OAK

L 97-98

+28.5

RMU

L 70-75

−9.5

MSU

L 69-92

+10.5

WMU

W 84-79

+2.5

CMU

W 78-75

−5.5

NIU

W 75-61

−25.5

M-OH

L 73-87

−6.5

OHIO

W 101-85

+24.5

KENT

L 84-87

+2.5

MASS

L 82-84

+1.5

BGSU

W 73-72

−10.5

AKR

L 81-91

+3.5

BALL

W 73-55

−18.5

KENT

L 72-75

−14.5

JMU

L 71-73

−9.5

WMU

W 90-79

+14.5

BGSU

L 70-80

−0.5

EMU

W 94-75

+23.5

NIU

W 79-69

−2.5

OHIO

W 79-67

−12.5

M-OH

L 72-74

−16.5

BUF

W 99-78

+21.5

BGSU

W 77-76

+2.5

MASS

W 77-67

−14.5

AKR

L 76-79

−2.5

over 13under 19avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

E Michigan has the better starters

Position by position: E Michigan 1, Toledo 0, even 4

E MichiganBetterToledo

G J. Fitzpatrick TR15.4 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.6 ast Score 75

Even

G A. Montas TR16.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.5 ast Score 89

G E. Richards TR9.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast Score 32

No call

G S. Jones TR6.3 pts · 1.4 reb · 3.9 ast Not ranked

G B. Green4.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast Score 9

Even

G M. Strong5.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 19

F M. Habhab14.2 pts · 8.3 reb · 3.1 ast Score 64

EMUBig

F J. Ouwinga6.1 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.7 ast Score 27

F K. Brockhoff TR10.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 2 ast Score 44

Even

C A. Parks10.3 pts · 5.5 reb · 1.8 ast Score 54

E MichiganBetterToledo

EMU offense206th of 366 · -6.3

Even

TOL defense234th of 366 · -6.2

EMU defense188th of 366 · -4.4

TOLSmall

TOL offense121st of 366 · -2.8

Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players

TOLBig

Backcourt+0.8 · 3 players

Frontcourt+0.1 · 2 players

Even

Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players

Bench-0.3 · 2 players

EMUSmall

Bench-1.5 · 3 players

Score, worst to bestEMU betterTOL 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

E Michigan

Guards

J. Fitzpatrick36 min · TRE. Richards27 min · TRB. Green20 minG. Lawson18 minS. Harris17 min · TRD. PorterNew

Forwards

M. Habhab36 minK. Brockhoff22 min · TRK. JohnsonNewJ. WrightNewO. SuleimanNew

Toledo

Guards

A. Montas31 min · TRS. Jones21 min · TRM. Strong18 minW. James9 minM. JohnsonNewM. MattucciNew

Forwards

J. Ouwinga19 minC. Riddle13 minT. Nwokolo2 minR. BarronNewR. PorterNew

Centers

A. Parks25 min

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

EMU70.2 #282

TOL79.8 #71

Points per possession

EMU1.02 #298

TOL1.15 #62

Pace (possessions)

EMU68.9 #190

TOL69.5 #146

Shooting

Effective FG%

EMU49.6 #264

TOL54.5 #50

3-point %

EMU32.4 #259

TOL37.0 #29

3-point attempt rate

EMU31.8 #332

TOL32.5 #323

Free throw rate

EMU29.3 #325

TOL30.5 #298

Possessions

Turnover rate

EMU17.5 #235

TOL14.7 #51

Offensive rebound rate

EMU27.8 #273

TOL29.5 #220

Assists per game

EMU12.4 #261

TOL15.6 #61

Defense

Points allowed

EMU74.4 #169

TOL77.4 #250

Points allowed per possession

EMU1.07 #142

TOL1.11 #257

Opponent effective FG%

EMU50.3 #115

TOL54.3 #308

Opponent 3-point %

EMU32.9 #111

TOL34.4 #215

Turnovers forced

EMU15.5 #249

TOL17.9 #104

Defensive rebound rate

EMU70.9 #109

TOL66.3 #313

Steals per game

EMU5.7 #269

TOL7.7 #67

Blocks per game

EMU4.1 #61

TOL2.9 #247

EMU		TOL
Scoring
70.2 #282	Points per game	79.8 #71
1.02 #298	Points per possession	1.15 #62
68.9 #190	Pace (possessions)	69.5 #146
Shooting
49.6 #264	Effective FG%	54.5 #50
32.4 #259	3-point %	37.0 #29
31.8 #332	3-point attempt rate	32.5 #323
29.3 #325	Free throw rate	30.5 #298
Possessions
17.5 #235	Turnover rate	14.7 #51
27.8 #273	Offensive rebound rate	29.5 #220
12.4 #261	Assists per game	15.6 #61
Defense
74.4 #169	Points allowed	77.4 #250
1.07 #142	Points allowed per possession	1.11 #257
50.3 #115	Opponent effective FG%	54.3 #308
32.9 #111	Opponent 3-point %	34.4 #215
15.5 #249	Turnovers forced	17.9 #104
70.9 #109	Defensive rebound rate	66.3 #313
5.7 #269	Steals per game	7.7 #67
4.1 #61	Blocks per game	2.9 #247

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.

E Michigan

9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Mid-American Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Bowling Green69–77
L@ Buffalo67–72
Lvs Miami OH64–74
L@ Toledo75–94
Wvs C Michigan66–54

A week or more of rest.

Toledo

17-15 in 2025-26 overall · 13-8 in conference · Mid-American Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Akron76–79
Wvs UMass77–67
Wvs Bowling Green77–76
Wvs Buffalo99–78
L@ Miami OH72–74

A week or more of rest.

Eastern Michigan Eagles at Toledo Rockets

What could decide it: TOL 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

E Michigan

Toledo

E Michigan has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

E Michigan

Toledo