Schottenstein Center · at Ohio State
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | OSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 OSU 89–61 · win probability OSU 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.0
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: OSU has more of the edges
UMBC 0, OSU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
UMBC has played the 342nd-hardest schedule, OSU the 33rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
OSU offense vs UMBC defense
Offense 36th of 366 against a defense 279th, on the model’s ratings
UMBC offense vs OSU defense
Offense 255th of 366 against a defense 35th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
OSU at home. This season: OSU 0-0 at home, UMBC 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UMBC 11%, OSU 37%. Transfers in: UMBC 2, OSU 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: UMBC 34.1, OSU 37.2. Allowed: UMBC 25.7, OSU 34.7
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UMBC 14.1%, OSU 15.3%. Forced: UMBC 15.1%, OSU 15.6%
Even
Three-pointers
UMBC hits 36.1% and allows 32.7%; OSU hits 35.7% and allows 31.9%. Threes are 38.8% and 40.1% of their shots
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UMBC 24.9%, OSU 30.4%. Defensive: UMBC 74.2%, OSU 70.0%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: UMBC 54.1 and allows 49.4; OSU 56.2 and allows 50.2
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: UMBC plays 67.0 a game (278th fastest), OSU 67.2 (275th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | OSU -27.5 | — |
| Total | — | 150.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | UMBC 61.2 · OSU 88.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | OSU -16.2 | — |
| 1H total | 70.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | UMBC 27 · OSU 43.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UMBC
31 games played
Straight up
22-9
71% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +6.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg −0.6 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 8 | @ | L 71-77 | +25.5 | W +19.5 | 154.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 81-79 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 162.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 71-70 | -6.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 52-89 | +22.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 71-57 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 81-90 | +19.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 73-66 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 12 | vs | L 60-63 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 69-94 | +22.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 93-59 | -10.5 | W +23.5 | 148.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 69-62 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 133.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 75-74 | -6.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 74-79 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 78-60 | -4.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 87-74 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 79-56 | -2.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 55-64 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-65 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-62 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 78-62 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 135.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 85-63 | -2.5 | W +19.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 75-62 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 66-62 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 70-58 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 84-60 | -2.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 91-52 | -4.5 | W +34.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 84-69 | -12.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 91-69 | -7.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 74-59 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 17 | vs | L 83-86 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
DAY
L 71-77
+19.5
11
@
MORG
W 81-79
−2.5
16
vs
WAG
W 71-70
−5.5
19
@
GW
L 52-89
−14.5
29
vs
DSU
W 71-57
+0.5
3
@
GTWN
L 81-90
+10.5
6
@
BUCK
W 73-66
+8.5
9
vs
BUF
L 79-83
−0.5
12
vs
ARMY
L 60-63
−10.5
21
@
USF
L 69-94
−2.5
29
@
COPP
W 93-59
+23.5
8
vs
ME
W 69-62
−0.5
10
vs
UNH
W 75-74
−5.5
15
@
BRY
L 74-79
−6.5
19
@
BING
W 78-60
+13.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 87-74
+6.5
24
vs
UML
W 79-56
+20.5
29
@
UVM
L 55-64
−0.5
31
@
UALB
W 68-65
+1.5
5
vs
BING
W 79-62
+5.5
12
@
ME
W 78-62
+12.5
14
@
UNH
W 85-63
+19.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-62
+14.5
21
vs
UALB
W 66-62
−3.5
26
vs
BRY
W 70-58
+0.5
28
@
UML
W 84-60
+21.5
3
@
NJIT
W 91-52
+34.5
7
vs
UNH
W 84-69
+2.5
10
vs
UML
W 91-69
+14.5
14
vs
UVM
W 74-59
+13.5
17
vs
HOW
L 83-86
−1.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +6.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
DAY
L 71-77
−6.5
11
@
MORG
W 81-79
−2.5
16
vs
WAG
W 71-70
+0.5
19
@
GW
L 52-89
−19.5
29
vs
DSU
W 71-57
−10.5
3
@
GTWN
L 81-90
+21.5
6
@
BUCK
W 73-66
−4.5
9
vs
BUF
L 79-83
+16.5
12
vs
ARMY
L 60-63
−23.5
21
@
USF
L 69-94
+2.5
29
@
COPP
W 93-59
+3.5
8
vs
ME
W 69-62
−2.5
10
vs
UNH
W 75-74
+5.5
15
@
BRY
L 74-79
+17.5
19
@
BING
W 78-60
−2.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 87-74
+17.5
24
vs
UML
W 79-56
−16.5
29
@
UVM
L 55-64
−22.5
31
@
UALB
W 68-65
−8.5
5
vs
BING
W 79-62
+2.5
12
@
ME
W 78-62
+4.5
14
@
UNH
W 85-63
+1.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-62
−5.5
21
vs
UALB
W 66-62
−16.5
26
vs
BRY
W 70-58
−10.5
28
@
UML
W 84-60
−6.5
3
@
NJIT
W 91-52
−0.5
7
vs
UNH
W 84-69
+10.5
10
vs
UML
W 91-69
+12.5
14
vs
UVM
W 74-59
−1.5
17
vs
HOW
L 83-86
+25.5
over 14under 17avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Ohio State
34 games played
Straight up
21-13
62% wins
Against the spread
18-16
53% covers · avg +1.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-18
47% overs · avg −1 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 118-102 | -33.5 | L −17.5 | 172.5 | O 220 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 94-68 | -24.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 75-53 | -23.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 64-63 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 91-58 | -26.5 | W +6.5 | 159.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 113-60 | -30.5 | W +22.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 66-67 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 86-82 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 80-88 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 89-88 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 70-71 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 23 | vs | W 89-63 | -28.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 80-73 | -9.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 5 | vs | L 69-72 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 72-62 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 74-81 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 86-74 | -4.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 82-74 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 62-74 | +16.5 | W +4.5 | 165.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 26 | vs | W 84-78 | -11.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 82-92 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 82-62 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 8 | vs | L 61-82 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 89-82 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 66-70 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 86-69 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 60-66 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 57-74 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 1 | vs | W 82-74 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 94-62 | -7.5 | W +24.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 91-78 | -3.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 72-69 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 67-71 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 64-66 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
IUIN
W 118-102
−17.5
7
vs
PFW
W 94-68
+1.5
11
vs
APP
W 75-53
−1.5
16
vs
ND
W 64-63
−8.5
20
vs
WMU
W 91-58
+6.5
25
vs
MSM
W 113-60
+22.5
28
@
PITT
L 66-67
−6.5
6
@
NU
W 86-82
+2.5
9
vs
ILL
L 80-88
−4.5
13
vs
WVU
W 89-88
−2.5
20
vs
UNC
L 70-71
+1.5
23
vs
GRAM
W 89-63
−2.5
2
@
RUTG
W 80-73
−2.5
5
vs
NEB
L 69-72
−5.5
8
@
ORE
W 72-62
+11.5
11
@
WASH
L 74-81
−5.5
17
vs
UCLA
W 86-74
+7.5
20
vs
MINN
W 82-74
+0.5
23
@
MICH
L 62-74
+4.5
26
vs
PSU
W 84-78
−5.5
31
@
WIS
L 82-92
−5.5
5
@
MD
W 82-62
+13.5
8
vs
MICH
L 61-82
−12.5
11
vs
USC
W 89-82
−0.5
14
vs
UVA
L 66-70
+1.5
17
vs
WIS
W 86-69
+15.5
22
@
MSU
L 60-66
+4.5
25
@
IOWA
L 57-74
−10.5
1
vs
PUR
W 82-74
+14.5
4
@
PSU
W 94-62
+24.5
7
vs
IU
W 91-78
+9.5
12
vs
IOWA
W 72-69
+4.5
13
vs
MICH
L 67-71
+8.5
19
vs
TCU
L 64-66
−4.5
covered 18didn’t cover 16avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
IUIN
W 118-102
+47.5
7
vs
PFW
W 94-68
+2.5
11
vs
APP
W 75-53
−19.5
16
vs
ND
W 64-63
−29.5
20
vs
WMU
W 91-58
−10.5
25
vs
MSM
W 113-60
+21.5
28
@
PITT
L 66-67
−15.5
6
@
NU
W 86-82
+12.5
9
vs
ILL
L 80-88
+5.5
13
vs
WVU
W 89-88
+31.5
20
vs
UNC
L 70-71
−16.5
23
vs
GRAM
W 89-63
−1.5
2
@
RUTG
W 80-73
+1.5
5
vs
NEB
L 69-72
−14.5
8
@
ORE
W 72-62
−18.5
11
@
WASH
L 74-81
−0.5
17
vs
UCLA
W 86-74
+13.5
20
vs
MINN
W 82-74
+12.5
23
@
MICH
L 62-74
−29.5
26
vs
PSU
W 84-78
+8.5
31
@
WIS
L 82-92
+18.5
5
@
MD
W 82-62
−6.5
8
vs
MICH
L 61-82
−18.5
11
vs
USC
W 89-82
+18.5
14
vs
UVA
L 66-70
−10.5
17
vs
WIS
W 86-69
−2.5
22
@
MSU
L 60-66
−20.5
25
@
IOWA
L 57-74
−10.5
1
vs
PUR
W 82-74
+6.5
4
@
PSU
W 94-62
+3.5
7
vs
IU
W 91-78
+20.5
12
vs
IOWA
W 72-69
+0.5
13
vs
MICH
L 67-71
−17.5
19
vs
TCU
L 64-66
−15.5
over 16under 18avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Ohio State has the better starters
Position by position: UMBC 0, Ohio State 3, even 2
UMBCBetterOhio State
G F. Burton TR14.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 63
→OSUSmall
G J. Mobley15.7 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 93
G A. Cross TR3.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 1
→OSUBig
G J. Pippen TR13.9 pts · 4 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 90
G D. Ceaser4.3 pts · 1 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Williams TR14.9 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 92
F R. Jacobs4.2 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 24
→OSUBig
G C. Givens TR9.4 pts · 2.1 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 65
F R. Ciunys NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Bynum9.7 pts · 4.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 73
UMBCBetterOhio State
UMBC offense255th of 366 · -7.8
→OSUBig
OSU defense35th of 366 · +3.3
UMBC defense279th of 366 · -7.0
→OSUBig
OSU offense36th of 366 · +5.2
Backcourt-2.9 · 3 players
→OSUBig
Backcourt+9.1 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
→OSUSmall
Frontcourt+1.1 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+1.0 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestUMBC betterOSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
F. Burton32 min · TRA. Cross16 min · TRD. Ceaser8 minJ. RisticNewJ. ReynoldsNewT. SlatingNew
Forwards
R. Jacobs15 minR. CiunysNewA. BarryNewJ. NdongNewS. HuanNew
Guards
J. Mobley32 minJ. Pippen31 min · TRJ. Williams30 min · TRC. Givens26 min · TRB. Nash2 minM. HerroNew
Forwards
A. Bynum29 minA. Jelavic16 min · TRJ. OjianwunaNewA. ThompsonNewA. SmithNewV. LazarevicNew
Centers
I. Njegovan11 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.7 #149 | Points per game | 79.3 #76 |
| 1.13 #85 | Points per possession | 1.18 #31 |
| 67.0 #278 | Pace (possessions) | 67.2 #275 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.1 #64 | Effective FG% | 56.2 #19 |
| 36.1 #55 | 3-point % | 35.7 #72 |
| 38.8 #195 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.1 #170 |
| 34.1 #205 | Free throw rate | 37.2 #122 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.1 #25 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #91 |
| 24.9 #342 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.4 #185 |
| 11.9 #291 | Assists per game | 14.5 #117 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.5 #41 | Points allowed | 72.6 #120 |
| 1.02 #46 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #164 |
| 49.4 #79 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.2 #114 |
| 32.7 #98 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.9 #57 |
| 15.1 #283 | Turnovers forced | 15.6 #243 |
| 74.2 #18 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.0 #160 |
| 4.9 #338 | Steals per game | 4.8 #340 |
| 2.4 #314 | Blocks per game | 2.4 #311 |
UMBC
22-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-2 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Howard83–86
- Wvs Vermont74–59
- Wvs UMass Lowell91–69
- Wvs New Hampshire84–69
- W@ NJIT91–52
A week or more of rest.
Ohio State
21-13 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs TCU64–66
- Lvs Michigan67–71
- Wvs Iowa72–69
- Wvs Indiana91–78
- W@ Penn State94–62
A week or more of rest.