Bryce Jordan Center · at Penn State
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PSU 85–63 · win probability PSU 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.6
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: PSU has more of the edges
MERC 3, PSU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
MERC has played the 356th-hardest schedule, PSU the 63rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
MERC offense vs PSU defense
Offense 346th of 366 against a defense 101st, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: MERC 25.6, PSU 33.8. Allowed: MERC 42.6, PSU 27.5
PSU offense vs MERC defense
Offense 70th of 366 against a defense 272nd, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
MERC hits 32.1% and allows 32.3%; PSU hits 32.4% and allows 38.8%. Threes are 31.1% and 38.0% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MERC 14.3%, PSU 15.6%. Forced: MERC 18.6%, PSU 17.7%
Home court
PSU at home. This season: PSU 0-0 at home, MERC 0-0 away
Shooting
Effective FG%: MERC 49.5 and allows 50.1; PSU 53.0 and allows 58.4
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: MERC plays 65.6 a game (327th fastest), PSU 67.5 (255th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MERC 26.4%, PSU 25.9%. Defensive: MERC 70.1%, PSU 68.8%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MERC 26%, PSU 27%. Transfers in: MERC 3, PSU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | PSU -22.5 | — |
| Total | — | 147.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | MERC 62.5 · PSU 85 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PSU -13.3 | — |
| 1H total | 69.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | MERC 27.9 · PSU 41.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Mercyhurst
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
21-10
68% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg +1.3 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 | @ | L 47-70 | +26.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 6 | @ | W 73-65 | +21.5 | W +29.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 55-58 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 86-72 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 71-76 | +15.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 60-69 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 38-70 | +21.5 | L −10.5 | 127.5 | U 108 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 71-79 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 47-80 | +11.5 | L −21.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 62-76 | +24.5 | W +10.5 | 131.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-61 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 132.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 67-74 | -5.5 | L −12.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 74-60 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 58-60 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 70-69 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 132.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 57-62 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 128.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 79-61 | -1.5 | W +16.5 | 132.5 | O 140 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 61-57 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 122.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 25 | vs | W 61-59 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 70-51 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 122.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-78 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 98-89 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | O 187 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 52-55 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 94-79 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 80-83 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 133.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 91-83 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 78-80 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 70-61 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 56-51 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 107 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 70-79 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
NU
L 47-70
+3.5
6
@
LUC
W 73-65
+29.5
12
@
CAN
L 55-58
−4.5
15
vs
MORG
W 86-72
+7.5
20
@
M-OH
L 71-76
+10.5
23
@
MRSH
L 60-69
+2.5
30
@
WVU
L 38-70
−10.5
13
@
DAV
L 47-80
−21.5
17
@
SYR
L 62-76
+10.5
20
vs
BING
W 82-61
+13.5
2
vs
FDU
L 67-74
−12.5
4
vs
LEM
W 74-60
+11.5
8
@
LIU
L 58-60
+6.5
10
@
WAG
W 70-69
+2.5
17
vs
STO
L 57-62
−9.5
19
vs
CCSU
W 79-61
+16.5
23
@
NHVN
W 61-57
+2.5
25
vs
CHST
W 61-59
−7.5
29
vs
NHVN
W 70-51
+13.5
31
@
CHST
L 74-78
−6.5
5
vs
SFPA
W 98-89
+2.5
7
@
FDU
L 52-55
−0.5
12
@
LEM
L 57-58
+1.5
14
@
SFPA
W 94-79
+12.5
19
vs
WAG
L 80-83
−6.5
21
vs
LIU
W 91-83
+11.5
26
@
CCSU
L 78-80
+1.5
28
@
STO
W 75-72
+1.5
4
vs
FDU
W 70-61
+5.5
7
vs
STO
W 56-51
+0.5
10
@
LIU
L 70-79
−4.5
covered 21didn’t cover 10avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
NU
L 47-70
−23.5
6
@
LUC
W 73-65
−6.5
12
@
CAN
L 55-58
−22.5
15
vs
MORG
W 86-72
+11.5
20
@
M-OH
L 71-76
+7.5
23
@
MRSH
L 60-69
−18.5
30
@
WVU
L 38-70
−19.5
13
@
DAV
L 47-80
−5.5
17
@
SYR
L 62-76
+6.5
20
vs
BING
W 82-61
+10.5
2
vs
FDU
L 67-74
+7.5
4
vs
LEM
W 74-60
−7.5
8
@
LIU
L 58-60
−21.5
10
@
WAG
W 70-69
+6.5
17
vs
STO
L 57-62
−9.5
19
vs
CCSU
W 79-61
+7.5
23
@
NHVN
W 61-57
−4.5
25
vs
CHST
W 61-59
−11.5
29
vs
NHVN
W 70-51
−1.5
31
@
CHST
L 74-78
+22.5
5
vs
SFPA
W 98-89
+49.5
7
@
FDU
L 52-55
−24.5
12
@
LEM
L 57-58
−23.5
14
@
SFPA
W 94-79
+34.5
19
vs
WAG
L 80-83
+29.5
21
vs
LIU
W 91-83
+33.5
26
@
CCSU
L 78-80
+16.5
28
@
STO
W 75-72
+9.5
4
vs
FDU
W 70-61
−0.5
7
vs
STO
W 56-51
−27.5
10
@
LIU
L 70-79
+14.5
over 15under 16avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Penn State
32 games played
Straight up
12-20
38% wins
Against the spread
12-20
38% covers · avg −3.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-14
56% overs · avg +1.9 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 76-68 | -15.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 87-43 | -18.5 | W +25.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 80-71 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 83-69 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 84-80 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 65-77 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 96-87 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 90-59 | -14.5 | W +16.5 | 160.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 87-76 | -14.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 72-113 | +14.5 | L −26.5 | 152.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 72-76 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 46-80 | -1.5 | L −35.5 | 146.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 90-67 | -23.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 65-73 | +14.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 72-74 | +24.5 | W +22.5 | 169.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 85-93 | +22.5 | W +14.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 60-71 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 18 | @ | L 73-96 | +1.5 | L −21.5 | 148.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 71-98 | +5.5 | L −21.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 26 | @ | L 78-84 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 73-94 | +7.5 | L −13.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 77-75 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 69-110 | +26.5 | L −14.5 | 161.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 8 | vs | L 75-77 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 63-60 | +12.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 72-83 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 72-85 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 64-87 | +17.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 71-69 | +9.5 | W +11.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 62-94 | +7.5 | L −24.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 62-74 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 66-76 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
FAIR
W 76-68
−7.5
8
@
NHVN
W 87-43
+25.5
11
vs
NAVY
W 80-71
−2.5
15
vs
LAS
W 83-69
+5.5
19
vs
HARV
W 84-80
−8.5
22
vs
PROV
L 65-77
−8.5
25
vs
BU
W 96-87
−5.5
29
vs
SHU
W 90-59
+16.5
2
vs
CAM
W 87-76
−3.5
9
@
IU
L 72-113
−26.5
13
vs
MSU
L 72-76
+8.5
21
vs
PITT
L 46-80
−35.5
29
vs
NCCU
W 90-67
−0.5
3
vs
ILL
L 65-73
+6.5
6
vs
MICH
L 72-74
+22.5
10
@
PUR
L 85-93
+14.5
14
vs
UCLA
L 60-71
−6.5
18
@
MD
L 73-96
−21.5
22
vs
WIS
L 71-98
−21.5
26
@
OSU
L 78-84
+5.5
29
@
NU
L 73-94
−13.5
1
vs
MINN
W 77-75
+4.5
5
@
MICH
L 69-110
−14.5
8
vs
USC
L 75-77
+1.5
11
@
WASH
W 63-60
+15.5
14
@
ORE
L 72-83
−4.5
18
vs
RUTG
L 72-85
−17.5
21
@
NEB
L 64-87
−5.5
28
vs
IOWA
W 71-69
+11.5
4
vs
OSU
L 62-94
−24.5
8
@
RUTG
L 62-74
−7.5
10
vs
NU
L 66-76
−5.5
covered 12didn’t cover 20avg −3.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
FAIR
W 76-68
−7.5
8
@
NHVN
W 87-43
−13.5
11
vs
NAVY
W 80-71
−4.5
15
vs
LAS
W 83-69
+6.5
19
vs
HARV
W 84-80
+21.5
22
vs
PROV
L 65-77
−23.5
25
vs
BU
W 96-87
+40.5
29
vs
SHU
W 90-59
−11.5
2
vs
CAM
W 87-76
+8.5
9
@
IU
L 72-113
+32.5
13
vs
MSU
L 72-76
+2.5
21
vs
PITT
L 46-80
−20.5
29
vs
NCCU
W 90-67
+6.5
3
vs
ILL
L 65-73
−18.5
6
vs
MICH
L 72-74
−23.5
10
@
PUR
L 85-93
+25.5
14
vs
UCLA
L 60-71
−17.5
18
@
MD
L 73-96
+20.5
22
vs
WIS
L 71-98
+11.5
26
@
OSU
L 78-84
+8.5
29
@
NU
L 73-94
+18.5
1
vs
MINN
W 77-75
+9.5
5
@
MICH
L 69-110
+17.5
8
vs
USC
L 75-77
−5.5
11
@
WASH
W 63-60
−30.5
14
@
ORE
L 72-83
+9.5
18
vs
RUTG
L 72-85
+8.5
21
@
NEB
L 64-87
+3.5
28
vs
IOWA
W 71-69
−3.5
4
vs
OSU
L 62-94
+3.5
8
@
RUTG
L 62-74
−13.5
10
vs
NU
L 66-76
−1.5
over 18under 14avg +1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Penn State has the better starters
Position by position: Mercyhurst 1, Penn State 3, even 1
MercyhurstBetterPenn State
G J. Lemelman14.4 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 61
←MERCSmall
G D. Bowen TR11.1 pts · 3.1 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 45
G D. Kelly TR5 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 6
→PSUBig
G J. Rodgers TR11 pts · 2.2 reb · 6.9 ast
Score 49
G M. Jackson TR0.5 pts · 2 reb · 0.7 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F B. Byers TR14.3 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 55
F T. Rainwater TR9.7 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 48
→PSUSmall
F J. Reed11.5 pts · 4.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 82
F C. Johnson2.8 pts · 2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 2
→PSUBig
F I. Juric10.2 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 61
MercyhurstBetterPenn State
MERC offense346th of 366 · -11.9
→PSUBig
PSU defense101st of 366 · -0.8
MERC defense272nd of 366 · -6.9
→PSUBig
PSU offense70th of 366 · +1.7
Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players
→PSUSmall
Backcourt-1.9 · 2 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
→PSUBig
Frontcourt+2.2 · 3 players
Bench-0.9 · 3 players
→PSUBig
Bench+2.1 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestMERC betterPSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Lemelman31 minD. Kelly21 min · TRM. Jackson7 min · TRO. Faran4 minB. Conner3 minM. Maxwell-GrimesNew
Forwards
T. Rainwater25 min · TRC. Johnson12 minC. Leman2 minD. AgbaosiNewS. KirkerNew
Guards
D. Bowen35 min · TRJ. Rodgers30 min · TRR. Blums23 min · TRT. AllardNewR. GrodinNewA. GemaoNew
Forwards
B. Byers32 min · TRJ. Reed28 minI. Juric26 minT. Oboh22 min · TRR. PrkacinNewF. WibautNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.3 #310 | Points per game | 73.7 #211 |
| 1.04 #260 | Points per possession | 1.09 #148 |
| 65.6 #327 | Pace (possessions) | 67.5 #255 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #269 | Effective FG% | 53.0 #102 |
| 32.1 #276 | 3-point % | 32.4 #263 |
| 31.1 #338 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.0 #214 |
| 25.6 #361 | Free throw rate | 33.8 #219 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #35 | Turnover rate | 15.6 #113 |
| 26.4 #312 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.9 #325 |
| 14.0 #148 | Assists per game | 12.7 #238 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.7 #43 | Points allowed | 79.3 #308 |
| 1.04 #76 | Points allowed per possession | 1.17 #345 |
| 50.1 #107 | Opponent effective FG% | 58.4 #363 |
| 32.3 #80 | Opponent 3-point % | 38.8 #363 |
| 18.6 #68 | Turnovers forced | 17.7 #115 |
| 70.1 #153 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.8 #210 |
| 7.0 #130 | Steals per game | 6.9 #132 |
| 3.8 #94 | Blocks per game | 1.7 #357 |
Mercyhurst
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Long Island70–79
- Wvs Stonehill56–51
- Wvs FDU70–61
- W@ Stonehill75–72
- L@ C Connecticut78–80
A week or more of rest.
Penn State
12-20 in 2025-26 overall · 3-18 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Northwestern66–76
- L@ Rutgers62–74
- Lvs Ohio State62–94
- Wvs Iowa71–69
- L@ Nebraska64–87
A week or more of rest.