UD Arena · at Dayton
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DAY | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CIN 75–70 · win probability CIN 69%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.6
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: CIN has more of the edges
CIN 4, DAY 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
CIN hits 33.9% and allows 31.0%; DAY hits 33.9% and allows 35.4%. Threes are 43.8% and 41.4% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: CIN 29.4, DAY 46.1. Allowed: CIN 30.0, DAY 35.5
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CIN 30.6%, DAY 26.9%. Defensive: CIN 72.7%, DAY 71.2%
DAY offense vs CIN defense
Offense 109th of 366 against a defense 24th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CIN 1%, DAY 31%. Transfers in: CIN 12, DAY 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
DAY at home. This season: DAY 0-0 at home, CIN 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
CIN has played the 39th-hardest schedule, DAY the 90th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: CIN 50.5 and allows 47.4; DAY 51.6 and allows 51.0
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CIN 17.0%, DAY 16.9%. Forced: CIN 18.2%, DAY 21.0%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: CIN plays 69.4 a game (152nd fastest), DAY 68.3 (213th). Faster games mean more points
Even
CIN offense vs DAY defense
Offense 49th of 366 against a defense 57th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | CIN -5.6 | — |
| Total | — | 144.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | CIN 75.1 · DAY 69.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CIN -3.5 | — |
| 1H total | 67.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | CIN 35.5 · DAY 32.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | |
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 2-8 20% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CIN 2–1 DAYCIN leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · CIN has won the last 2 meetings · CIN 2-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2025-26 | DAY 62 @ CIN 74 | CIN -5.5 | CIN W |
| Dec 20, 2024-25 | CIN 66 vs DAY 59 | DAY +3.5 | CIN W |
| Dec 16, 2023-24 | DAY 82 vs CIN 68 | CIN -5.5 | DAY W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Cincinnati
33 games played
Straight up
18-15
55% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-20
39% overs · avg −4.3 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
3 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered
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 94-63 | -22.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 74-64 | -29.5 | L −19.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 74-62 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 72-55 | -25.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 64-74 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 94-67 | -34.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 56-64 | -22.5 | L −30.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 76-58 | -24.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 74-79 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 65-84 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 88-51 | -21.5 | W +15.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 65-68 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 89-62 | -13.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 60-67 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 60-62 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 132.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 72-73 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 77-68 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 79-70 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 51-77 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 68-82 | -3.5 | L −17.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 67-57 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 54-76 | +13.5 | L −8.5 | 135.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 54-59 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 127.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 8 | vs | W 92-72 | -4.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 91-62 | -2.5 | W +26.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 69-65 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 84-68 | +8.5 | W +24.5 | 139.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 68-80 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 91-68 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 90-68 | -1.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 63-73 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 73-66 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 65-66 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
WCU
W 94-63
+8.5
7
vs
GAST
W 74-64
−19.5
11
vs
DAY
W 74-62
+6.5
16
vs
MSM
W 72-55
−8.5
21
vs
LOU
L 64-74
−1.5
24
vs
NJIT
W 94-67
−7.5
26
vs
EMU
L 56-64
−30.5
1
vs
TAR
W 76-58
−6.5
5
@
XAV
L 74-79
−6.5
13
vs
UGA
L 65-84
−13.5
17
vs
ALST
W 88-51
+15.5
21
vs
CLEM
L 65-68
+0.5
29
vs
LIP
W 89-62
+13.5
3
vs
HOU
L 60-67
−2.5
6
@
WVU
L 60-62
−3.5
11
@
UCF
L 72-73
+1.5
14
vs
COLO
W 77-68
+0.5
17
vs
ISU
W 79-70
+14.5
21
@
ARIZ
L 51-77
−12.5
24
@
ASU
L 68-82
−17.5
28
vs
BAY
W 67-57
+6.5
31
@
HOU
L 54-76
−8.5
5
vs
WVU
L 54-59
−10.5
8
vs
UCF
W 92-72
+15.5
11
@
KSU
W 91-62
+26.5
15
vs
UTAH
W 69-65
−8.5
21
@
KU
W 84-68
+24.5
24
@
TTU
L 68-80
−5.5
28
vs
OKST
W 91-68
+13.5
3
vs
BYU
W 90-68
+20.5
7
@
TCU
L 63-73
−7.5
10
vs
UTAH
W 73-66
−5.5
11
vs
UCF
L 65-66
−4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
WCU
W 94-63
+13.5
7
vs
GAST
W 74-64
−13.5
11
vs
DAY
W 74-62
−11.5
16
vs
MSM
W 72-55
−18.5
21
vs
LOU
L 64-74
−25.5
24
vs
NJIT
W 94-67
+19.5
26
vs
EMU
L 56-64
−26.5
1
vs
TAR
W 76-58
−8.5
5
@
XAV
L 74-79
+5.5
13
vs
UGA
L 65-84
−8.5
17
vs
ALST
W 88-51
−6.5
21
vs
CLEM
L 65-68
−7.5
29
vs
LIP
W 89-62
+0.5
3
vs
HOU
L 60-67
−8.5
6
@
WVU
L 60-62
−10.5
11
@
UCF
L 72-73
−5.5
14
vs
COLO
W 77-68
−0.5
17
vs
ISU
W 79-70
+7.5
21
@
ARIZ
L 51-77
−24.5
24
@
ASU
L 68-82
+3.5
28
vs
BAY
W 67-57
−21.5
31
@
HOU
L 54-76
−5.5
5
vs
WVU
L 54-59
−14.5
8
vs
UCF
W 92-72
+17.5
11
@
KSU
W 91-62
+5.5
15
vs
UTAH
W 69-65
−5.5
21
@
KU
W 84-68
+12.5
24
@
TTU
L 68-80
+4.5
28
vs
OKST
W 91-68
+7.5
3
vs
BYU
W 90-68
+6.5
7
@
TCU
L 63-73
−4.5
10
vs
UTAH
W 73-66
+0.5
11
vs
UCF
L 65-66
−18.5
over 13under 20avg −4.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Dayton
37 games played
Straight up
25-12
68% wins
Against the spread
17-20
46% covers · avg −1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-24
35% overs · avg −2.6 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 88-48 | -25.5 | W +14.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 77-71 | -25.5 | L −19.5 | 154.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 62-74 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 91-82 | -21.5 | L −12.5 | 148.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 77-71 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 151.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 74-55 | -29.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 84-79 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 79-83 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 88-71 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 73-86 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 84-61 | -30.5 | L −7.5 | 159.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 97-69 | -6.5 | W +21.5 | 162.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 61-64 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 63-56 | -16.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 70-68 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 79-72 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 71-65 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 16 | vs | W 78-51 | -16.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 64-67 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 137.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 74-81 | -6.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 76-81 | -9.5 | L −14.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 71-102 | +9.5 | L −21.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 72-70 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 6 | @ | L 73-99 | +8.5 | L −17.5 | 147.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 70-59 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 82-67 | +2.5 | W +17.5 | 137.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 78-66 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 77-62 | +3.5 | W +18.5 | 157.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 68-66 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 65-60 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 62-68 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 68-63 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 70-69 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 15 | vs | L 62-70 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 18 | @ | W 80-66 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Mar 21 | @ | W 80-61 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 138.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 25 | vs | L 55-61 | -7.5 | L −13.5 | 140.5 | U 116 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CAN
W 88-48
+14.5
8
vs
UMBC
W 77-71
−19.5
11
@
CIN
L 62-74
−6.5
15
vs
BCU
W 91-82
−12.5
19
@
MARQ
W 77-71
+12.5
22
vs
NCCU
W 74-55
−10.5
27
vs
GTWN
W 84-79
+3.5
28
vs
BYU
L 79-83
+5.5
2
vs
ETSU
W 88-71
+5.5
6
vs
UVA
L 73-86
−7.5
13
vs
UNF
W 84-61
−7.5
16
vs
FSU
W 97-69
+21.5
20
vs
LIB
L 61-64
−12.5
31
vs
FOR
W 63-56
−9.5
3
@
LUC
W 70-68
−5.5
6
vs
GW
W 79-72
+4.5
13
@
DUQ
W 71-65
+3.5
16
vs
LUC
W 78-51
+10.5
21
@
LAS
L 64-67
−12.5
24
@
JOES
L 74-81
−13.5
27
vs
URI
L 76-81
−14.5
30
@
SLU
L 71-102
−21.5
3
vs
SBU
W 72-70
−5.5
6
@
VCU
L 73-99
−17.5
15
vs
DAV
W 70-59
+5.5
18
@
GMU
W 82-67
+17.5
21
vs
DUQ
W 78-66
+5.5
24
vs
SLU
W 77-62
+18.5
27
@
GW
W 68-66
+4.5
3
@
RICH
W 65-60
−0.5
6
vs
VCU
L 62-68
−7.5
13
vs
SBU
W 68-63
−0.5
14
vs
SLU
W 70-69
+5.5
15
vs
VCU
L 62-70
−4.5
18
@
BRAD
W 80-66
+11.5
21
@
UNCW
W 80-61
+15.5
25
vs
ILST
L 55-61
−13.5
covered 17didn’t cover 20avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CAN
W 88-48
−6.5
8
vs
UMBC
W 77-71
−6.5
11
@
CIN
L 62-74
−11.5
15
vs
BCU
W 91-82
+24.5
19
@
MARQ
W 77-71
−3.5
22
vs
NCCU
W 74-55
−17.5
27
vs
GTWN
W 84-79
+17.5
28
vs
BYU
L 79-83
+11.5
2
vs
ETSU
W 88-71
+18.5
6
vs
UVA
L 73-86
+11.5
13
vs
UNF
W 84-61
−14.5
16
vs
FSU
W 97-69
+3.5
20
vs
LIB
L 61-64
−17.5
31
vs
FOR
W 63-56
−20.5
3
@
LUC
W 70-68
−2.5
6
vs
GW
W 79-72
−3.5
13
@
DUQ
W 71-65
−16.5
16
vs
LUC
W 78-51
−12.5
21
@
LAS
L 64-67
−6.5
24
@
JOES
L 74-81
+15.5
27
vs
URI
L 76-81
+18.5
30
@
SLU
L 71-102
+21.5
3
vs
SBU
W 72-70
−2.5
6
@
VCU
L 73-99
+24.5
15
vs
DAV
W 70-59
−11.5
18
@
GMU
W 82-67
+11.5
21
vs
DUQ
W 78-66
−4.5
24
vs
SLU
W 77-62
−18.5
27
@
GW
W 68-66
−18.5
3
@
RICH
W 65-60
−19.5
6
vs
VCU
L 62-68
−16.5
13
vs
SBU
W 68-63
−10.5
14
vs
SLU
W 70-69
−6.5
15
vs
VCU
L 62-70
−7.5
18
@
BRAD
W 80-66
+4.5
21
@
UNCW
W 80-61
+2.5
25
vs
ILST
L 55-61
−24.5
over 13under 24avg −2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Cincinnati has the better starters
Position by position: Cincinnati 3, Dayton 0, even 2
CincinnatiBetterDayton
G J. Campbell TR19.3 pts · 4.4 reb · 5.1 ast
Score 95
←CINSmall
G Z. Lowery TR8.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 63
G T. Carson TR12.2 pts · 6.5 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 75
=Even
G L. Joseph TR7.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 78
G M. Collins TR17.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 94
←CINSmall
F G. Randall TR11.5 pts · 6.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 65
G T. Riley TR15 pts · 3.9 reb · 4.4 ast
Score 92
=Even
F A. L'Etang11.9 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 89
F T. Tejada TR17.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 91
←CINSmall
F J. Simon5.6 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 63
CincinnatiBetterDayton
CIN offense49th of 366 · +3.7
=Even
DAY defense57th of 366 · +1.4
CIN defense24th of 366 · +4.9
←CINSmall
DAY offense109th of 366 · -1.7
Backcourt+12.2 · 4 players
←CINBig
Backcourt+0.8 · 2 players
Frontcourt+4.0 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt+3.5 · 3 players
Bench+6.3 · 5 players
←CINBig
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCIN betterDAY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Campbell35 min · TRT. Carson33 min · TRM. Collins31 min · TRT. Riley28 min · TRM. Colvin27 min · TRA. Fleming26 min · TR
Forwards
T. Tejada36 min · TRR. Allenspach25 min · TRJ. Hastings23 min · TRA. Elamin20 min · TRD. VadenNewD. IwezeNew
Guards
Z. Lowery23 min · TRL. Joseph18 min · TRT. Perry17 min · TRE. Dickey2 minM. Grant1 minW. Maxwell1 min
Forwards
G. Randall32 min · TRA. L'Etang26 minJ. Simon18 minM. Thomas9 minD. Friery6 minJ. HaynesNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.1 #221 | Points per game | 74.1 #193 |
| 1.05 #243 | Points per possession | 1.09 #167 |
| 69.4 #152 | Pace (possessions) | 68.3 #213 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.5 #213 | Effective FG% | 51.6 #168 |
| 33.9 #175 | 3-point % | 33.9 #182 |
| 43.8 #94 | 3-point attempt rate | 41.4 #142 |
| 29.4 #323 | Free throw rate | 46.1 #2 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.0 #203 | Turnover rate | 16.9 #198 |
| 30.6 #174 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.9 #298 |
| 16.6 #35 | Assists per game | 14.2 #134 |
| Defense | ||
| 67.6 #27 | Points allowed | 69.3 #50 |
| 0.97 #9 | Points allowed per possession | 1.01 #37 |
| 47.4 #27 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #164 |
| 31.0 #35 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.4 #270 |
| 18.2 #89 | Turnovers forced | 21.0 #11 |
| 72.7 #45 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.2 #94 |
| 6.3 #208 | Steals per game | 8.2 #31 |
| 4.2 #53 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #90 |
Cincinnati
18-15 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UCF65–66
- Wvs Utah73–66
- L@ TCU63–73
- Wvs BYU90–68
- Wvs Oklahoma St91–68
A week or more of rest.
Dayton
25-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-7 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Illinois St55–61
- W@ UNC Wilmington80–61
- W@ Bradley80–66
- Lvs VCU62–70
- Wvs Saint Louis70–69
A week or more of rest.