Temple Owls vs Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders: Model Line and Edge

Fri, Nov 20, 12:30 PM ETElridge Blake Sports and Fitness Center · Neutral site

#154MTSUMTSU

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Temple and MTSU
TEM	This season	MTSU
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 TEM 76–72 · win probability TEM 65%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 147.2

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: TEM has more of the edges

TEM 4, MTSU 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

TEMBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: TEM 13.7%, MTSU 17.1%. Forced: TEM 15.5%, MTSU 14.9%

TEMSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: TEM 40.6, MTSU 32.7. Allowed: TEM 35.5, MTSU 35.7

MTSUSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: TEM 29.8%, MTSU 30.7%. Defensive: TEM 69.7%, MTSU 71.5%

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: TEM plays 65.6 a game (325th fastest), MTSU 68.3 (216th). Faster games mean more points

TEMSmall

TEM offense vs MTSU defense

Offense 116th of 366 against a defense 167th, on the model’s ratings

TEMSmall

MTSU offense vs TEM defense

Offense 158th of 366 against a defense 108th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Three-pointers

TEM hits 33.6% and allows 32.8%; MTSU hits 33.8% and allows 34.0%. Threes are 35.7% and 45.3% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

TEM has played the 110th-hardest schedule, MTSU the 132nd. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: TEM 50.2 and allows 50.7; MTSU 51.6 and allows 51.0

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: TEM 38%, MTSU 30%. Transfers in: TEM 6, MTSU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Neutral floor

No home court: the model takes it out of the line

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	—	TEM -4.3	—
Total	—	147.2	—
Projected score	—	TEM 75.7 · MTSU 71.5

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	TEM -2.7	—
1H total	68.8	—
1H projected score	TEM 35.8 · MTSU 33.1	—

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	Neutral	Role
TEM WLWWL	14-17	45%	0-5	—
MTSU WLWWL	13-16	45%	1-3	—

Venue/role: TEM neutral site; MTSU neutral site. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
TEM OOOOU	17-14	55%	15-16
MTSU OOUUO	15-14	52%	14-15

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
TEM	2-8 20%	4-6 40%	6-4 60%
MTSU	6-4 60%	6-4 60%	7-3 70%

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

Temple

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 1	vs VILL	L56–74LU
Dec 12	vs SBU	No recent meeting

MTSU

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 1	vs TNTC	No recent meeting
Dec 5	@ BEL	L62–83LU
Dec 15	vs AUB	No recent meeting

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

Temple

31 games played

Straight up

15-16

48% wins

Against the spread

14-17

45% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-14

55% overs · avg −1 pts vs the total

Straight up

15-1648%

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

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1745%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

17-1455%

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

3 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 5	vsDSU	W 83-65	-16.5	W +1.5	154.5	U 148
Nov 11	vsLAS	W 90-63	-6.5	W +20.5	148.5	O 153
Nov 15	vsBC	L 71-76	-3.5	L −8.5	142.5	O 147
Nov 19	vsHOF	W 81-76	-5.5	L −0.5	145.5	O 157
Nov 24	vsUCSD	L 76-91	-1.5	L −16.5	148.5	O 167
Nov 25	vsPRIN	W 79-75	-8.5	L −4.5	145.5	O 154
Nov 26	vsURI	L 75-90	+3.5	L −11.5	149.5	O 165
Dec 1	@VILL	L 56-74	+14.5	L −3.5	146.5	U 130
Dec 6	vsJOES	L 69-70	-1.5	L −2.5	147.5	U 139
Dec 14	vsSFPA	W 95-67	-20.5	W +7.5	150.5	O 162
Dec 18	@DAV	W 68-63	+5.5	W +10.5	141.5	U 131
Dec 22	vsPRIN	W 65-61	-8.5	L −4.5	139.5	U 126
Dec 30	@CLT	W 76-73	+1.5	W +4.5	138.5	O 149
Jan 3	vsUTSA	W 76-57	-10.5	W +8.5	149.5	U 133
Jan 7	vsECU	W 75-67	-7.5	W +0.5	143.5	U 142
Jan 14	@MEM	L 53-55	+7.5	W +5.5	143.5	U 108
Jan 18	vsFAU	L 73-79	+2.5	L −3.5	148.5	O 152
Jan 21	@RICE	W 69-65	+1.5	W +5.5	142.5	U 134
Jan 24	@UTSA	W 70-64	-10.5	L −4.5	145.5	U 134
Jan 28	vsCLT	L 76-80	-4.5	L −8.5	139.5	O 156
Jan 31	vsUSF	W 79-78	+9.5	W +10.5	154.5	O 157
Feb 7	@ECU	W 81-73	-2.5	W +5.5	140.5	O 154
Feb 11	@TULN	L 66-77	+1.5	L −9.5	144.5	U 143
Feb 15	vsUNT	L 62-65	-2.5	L −5.5	135.5	U 127
Feb 18	vsUAB	L 71-76	-1.5	L −6.5	143.5	O 147
Feb 21	@WICH	L 57-69	+8.5	L −3.5	144.5	U 126
Feb 26	@FAU	L 73-77	+4.5	W +0.5	145.5	O 150
Mar 1	vsRICE	L 74-80	-6.5	L −12.5	142.5	O 154
Mar 5	vsTULN	W 89-60	-4.5	W +24.5	144.5	O 149
Mar 8	@TLSA	L 76-78	+11.5	W +9.5	149.5	O 154
Mar 11	vsFAU	L 59-63	-1.5	L −5.5	144.5	U 122

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

DSU

W 83-65

+1.5

LAS

W 90-63

+20.5

L 71-76

−8.5

HOF

W 81-76

−0.5

UCSD

L 76-91

−16.5

PRIN

W 79-75

−4.5

URI

L 75-90

−11.5

VILL

L 56-74

−3.5

JOES

L 69-70

−2.5

SFPA

W 95-67

+7.5

DAV

W 68-63

+10.5

PRIN

W 65-61

−4.5

CLT

W 76-73

+4.5

UTSA

W 76-57

+8.5

ECU

W 75-67

+0.5

MEM

L 53-55

+5.5

FAU

L 73-79

−3.5

RICE

W 69-65

+5.5

UTSA

W 70-64

−4.5

CLT

L 76-80

−8.5

USF

W 79-78

+10.5

ECU

W 81-73

+5.5

TULN

L 66-77

−9.5

UNT

L 62-65

−5.5

UAB

L 71-76

−6.5

WICH

L 57-69

−3.5

FAU

L 73-77

+0.5

RICE

L 74-80

−12.5

TULN

W 89-60

+24.5

TLSA

L 76-78

+9.5

FAU

L 59-63

−5.5

covered 14didn’t cover 17avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

DSU

W 83-65

−6.5

LAS

W 90-63

+4.5

L 71-76

+4.5

HOF

W 81-76

+11.5

UCSD

L 76-91

+18.5

PRIN

W 79-75

+8.5

URI

L 75-90

+15.5

VILL

L 56-74

−16.5

JOES

L 69-70

−8.5

SFPA

W 95-67

+11.5

DAV

W 68-63

−10.5

PRIN

W 65-61

−13.5

CLT

W 76-73

+10.5

UTSA

W 76-57

−16.5

ECU

W 75-67

−1.5

MEM

L 53-55

−35.5

FAU

L 73-79

+3.5

RICE

W 69-65

−8.5

UTSA

W 70-64

−11.5

CLT

L 76-80

+16.5

USF

W 79-78

+2.5

ECU

W 81-73

+13.5

TULN

L 66-77

−1.5

UNT

L 62-65

−8.5

UAB

L 71-76

+3.5

WICH

L 57-69

−18.5

FAU

L 73-77

+4.5

RICE

L 74-80

+11.5

TULN

W 89-60

+4.5

TLSA

L 76-78

+4.5

FAU

L 59-63

−22.5

over 17under 14avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin

MTSU

29 games played

Straight up

14-15

48% wins

Against the spread

13-16

45% covers · avg +0 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-14

52% overs · avg +2.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

14-1548%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-1645%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1452%

O U O O U U U U U O U O U U O U O U O O O O U O 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 12	@EVAN	W 77-72	+2.5	W +7.5	140.5	O 149
Nov 19	@MICH	L 61-86	+27.5	W +2.5	159.5	U 147
Nov 23	vsMUR	W 90-87	+6.5	W +9.5	161.5	O 177
Nov 24	vsGW	L 79-92	+9.5	L −3.5	158.5	O 171
Nov 25	vsMCN	L 62-72	+9.5	L −0.5	147.5	U 134
Dec 1	vsUAB	W 76-61	+1.5	W +16.5	153.5	U 137
Dec 7	vsBEL	L 62-83	+3.5	L −17.5	153.5	U 145
Dec 17	vsKENN	W 68-67	-3.5	L −2.5	160.5	U 135
Dec 29	@HOU	L 60-69	+25.5	W +16.5	138.5	U 129
Jan 2	vsLT	W 88-51	-6.5	W +30.5	134.5	O 139
Jan 4	vsSHSU	W 68-67	-4.5	L −3.5	156.5	U 135
Jan 8	@UTEP	L 80-83	-3.5	L −6.5	137.5	O 163
Jan 10	@NMSU	W 59-55	+3.5	W +7.5	144.5	U 114
Jan 14	@LT	L 58-59	-3.5	L −4.5	131.5	U 117
Jan 17	vsMOST	W 90-87	-5.5	L −2.5	137.5	O 177
Jan 23	@JXST	L 58-75	-1.5	L −18.5	133.5	U 133
Jan 29	vsLIB	L 65-81	+1.5	L −14.5	136.5	O 146
Jan 31	vsWKU	L 60-65	-6.5	L −11.5	140.5	U 125
Feb 4	vsFIU	L 84-88	-5.5	L −9.5	154.5	O 172
Feb 7	@DEL	L 88-89	-5.5	L −6.5	133.5	O 177
Feb 12	@KENN	W 90-87	+3.5	W +6.5	148.5	O 177
Feb 14	@WKU	L 80-82	+3.5	W +1.5	145.5	O 162
Feb 18	@SHSU	L 70-78	+3.5	L −4.5	151.5	U 148
Feb 21	vsDEL	W 78-66	-10.5	W +1.5	137.5	O 144
Feb 26	vsUTEP	W 77-67	-8.5	W +1.5	139.5	O 144
Feb 28	vsNMSU	W 86-85	-5.5	L −4.5	148.5	O 171
Mar 5	@FIU	W 73-67	+1.5	W +7.5	153.5	U 140
Mar 7	@MOST	W 75-63	+2.5	W +14.5	145.5	U 138
Mar 12	vsLT	L 69-80	-1.5	L −12.5	134.5	O 149

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

EVAN

W 77-72

+7.5

MICH

L 61-86

+2.5

MUR

W 90-87

+9.5

L 79-92

−3.5

MCN

L 62-72

−0.5

UAB

W 76-61

+16.5

BEL

L 62-83

−17.5

KENN

W 68-67

−2.5

HOU

L 60-69

+16.5

W 88-51

+30.5

SHSU

W 68-67

−3.5

UTEP

L 80-83

−6.5

NMSU

W 59-55

+7.5

L 58-59

−4.5

MOST

W 90-87

−2.5

JXST

L 58-75

−18.5

LIB

L 65-81

−14.5

WKU

L 60-65

−11.5

FIU

L 84-88

−9.5

DEL

L 88-89

−6.5

KENN

W 90-87

+6.5

WKU

L 80-82

+1.5

SHSU

L 70-78

−4.5

DEL

W 78-66

+1.5

UTEP

W 77-67

+1.5

NMSU

W 86-85

−4.5

FIU

W 73-67

+7.5

MOST

W 75-63

+14.5

L 69-80

−12.5

covered 13didn’t cover 16avg +0 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

EVAN

W 77-72

+8.5

MICH

L 61-86

−12.5

MUR

W 90-87

+15.5

L 79-92

+12.5

MCN

L 62-72

−13.5

UAB

W 76-61

−16.5

BEL

L 62-83

−8.5

KENN

W 68-67

−25.5

HOU

L 60-69

−9.5

W 88-51

+4.5

SHSU

W 68-67

−21.5

UTEP

L 80-83

+25.5

NMSU

W 59-55

−30.5

L 58-59

−14.5

MOST

W 90-87

+39.5

JXST

L 58-75

−0.5

LIB

L 65-81

+9.5

WKU

L 60-65

−15.5

FIU

L 84-88

+17.5

DEL

L 88-89

+43.5

KENN

W 90-87

+28.5

WKU

L 80-82

+16.5

SHSU

L 70-78

−3.5

DEL

W 78-66

+6.5

UTEP

W 77-67

+4.5

NMSU

W 86-85

+22.5

FIU

W 73-67

−13.5

MOST

W 75-63

−7.5

L 69-80

+14.5

over 15under 14avg +2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Temple has the better starters

Position by position: Temple 3, MTSU 1, even 1

TempleBetterMTSU

G D. Ford18.1 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.9 ast Score 86

TEMBig

G K. de Kovachich TR11.6 pts · 2.2 reb · 2 ast Score 40

G D. White TR9.7 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.1 ast Score 44

MTSUSmall

G J. Carter10.3 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.5 ast Score 63

G G. Griffiths10 pts · 4.9 reb · 1.3 ast Score 68

TEMSmall

G E. Rice TR6.7 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.2 ast Score 43

F B. Njie TR9.6 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.3 ast Score 45

Even

F O. Naveh TR11 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.8 ast Score 52

F E. Suarez TR9.3 pts · 6.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 54

TEMSmall

C L. Jovanovic2.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.4 ast Score 26

TempleBetterMTSU

TEM offense116th of 366 · -2.5

Even

MTSU defense167th of 366 · -3.7

TEM defense108th of 366 · -1.1

Even

MTSU offense158th of 366 · -4.7

Backcourt+1.9 · 3 players

TEMBig

Backcourt-2.0 · 3 players

Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players

Even

Frontcourt-1.1 · 2 players

Bench-1.1 · 5 players

Even

Bench-0.1 · 2 players

Score, worst to bestTEM betterMTSU 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

Temple

Guards

D. Ford36 minD. White30 min · TRG. Griffiths29 minJ. Marsh18 min · TRC. Wallace6 minD. DrakeNew

Forwards

B. Njie26 min · TRE. Suarez22 min · TRS. Issac Herron13 min · TR

Centers

C. Beam16 min · TRM. Keita5 min

MTSU

Guards

K. de Kovachich31 min · TRJ. Carter27 minE. Rice20 min · TRM. Whitlock11 minQ. BarnettNewJ. HowardNew

Forwards

O. Naveh29 min · TRJ. Hall7 minA. BoldenNew

Centers

L. Jovanovic14 minK. SilerNew

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

TEM73.0 #224

MTSU73.5 #216

Points per possession

TEM1.11 #115

MTSU1.08 #195

Pace (possessions)

TEM65.6 #325

MTSU68.3 #216

Shooting

Effective FG%

TEM50.2 #229

MTSU51.6 #167

3-point %

TEM33.6 #194

MTSU33.8 #183

3-point attempt rate

TEM35.7 #255

MTSU45.3 #61

Free throw rate

TEM40.6 #52

MTSU32.7 #245

Possessions

Turnover rate

TEM13.7 #18

MTSU17.1 #214

Offensive rebound rate

TEM29.8 #209

MTSU30.7 #171

Assists per game

TEM11.9 #290

MTSU13.7 #168

Defense

Points allowed

TEM71.2 #77

MTSU74.6 #180

Points allowed per possession

TEM1.08 #177

MTSU1.09 #205

Opponent effective FG%

TEM50.7 #137

MTSU51.0 #155

Opponent 3-point %

TEM32.8 #107

MTSU34.0 #180

Turnovers forced

TEM15.5 #245

MTSU14.9 #293

Defensive rebound rate

TEM69.7 #177

MTSU71.5 #83

Steals per game

TEM5.7 #279

MTSU5.8 #265

Blocks per game

TEM4.0 #71

MTSU4.0 #76

TEM		MTSU
Scoring
73.0 #224	Points per game	73.5 #216
1.11 #115	Points per possession	1.08 #195
65.6 #325	Pace (possessions)	68.3 #216
Shooting
50.2 #229	Effective FG%	51.6 #167
33.6 #194	3-point %	33.8 #183
35.7 #255	3-point attempt rate	45.3 #61
40.6 #52	Free throw rate	32.7 #245
Possessions
13.7 #18	Turnover rate	17.1 #214
29.8 #209	Offensive rebound rate	30.7 #171
11.9 #290	Assists per game	13.7 #168
Defense
71.2 #77	Points allowed	74.6 #180
1.08 #177	Points allowed per possession	1.09 #205
50.7 #137	Opponent effective FG%	51.0 #155
32.8 #107	Opponent 3-point %	34.0 #180
15.5 #245	Turnovers forced	14.9 #293
69.7 #177	Defensive rebound rate	71.5 #83
5.7 #279	Steals per game	5.8 #265
4.0 #71	Blocks per game	4.0 #76

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.

Temple

15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · American Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs FAU59–63
L@ Tulsa76–78
Wvs Tulane89–60
Lvs Rice74–80
L@ FAU73–77

A week or more of rest.

MTSU

14-15 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Conference USA

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Louisiana Tech69–80
W@ Missouri St75–63
W@ FIU73–67
Wvs New Mexico St86–85
Wvs UTEP77–67

A week or more of rest.

Temple Owls vs Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders

What could decide it: TEM has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Temple

MTSU

Temple has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Temple

MTSU