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 86–68 · win probability PSU 95%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.0
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: PSU has more of the edges
UTC 2, PSU 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
UTC has played the 306th-hardest schedule, PSU the 63rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: UTC 29.7, PSU 33.8. Allowed: UTC 42.6, PSU 27.5
PSU offense vs UTC defense
Offense 70th of 366 against a defense 270th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
UTC hits 35.0% and allows 34.2%; PSU hits 32.4% and allows 38.8%. Threes are 49.2% and 38.0% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: UTC 54.2 and allows 51.7; PSU 53.0 and allows 58.4
UTC offense vs PSU defense
Offense 193rd of 366 against a defense 101st, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UTC 14.5%, PSU 15.6%. Forced: UTC 13.1%, PSU 17.7%
Home court
PSU at home. This season: PSU 0-0 at home, UTC 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UTC 21.8%, PSU 25.9%. Defensive: UTC 68.3%, PSU 68.8%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UTC 32%, PSU 27%. Transfers in: UTC 2, PSU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: UTC plays 67.6 a game (249th fastest), PSU 67.5 (255th). 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 | — | PSU -18.7 | — |
| Total | — | 154.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | UTC 67.7 · PSU 86.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PSU -11.0 | — |
| 1H total | 72.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | UTC 30.5 · PSU 41.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | |
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Chattanooga
29 games played
Straight up
10-19
34% wins
Against the spread
12-17
41% covers · avg −3.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-13
55% 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 7 | @ | L 66-87 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 69-101 | +7.5 | L −24.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 73-91 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 78-66 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 154.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 71-57 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 64-70 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 155.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 70-74 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 78-92 | +19.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-79 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 73-66 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 72-77 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 71-79 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 67-78 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 88-79 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 76-67 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 90-82 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 66-67 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 64-75 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 55-81 | -1.5 | L −27.5 | 150.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 70-75 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-75 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 71-78 | -9.5 | L −16.5 | 142.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 61-73 | +10.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 76-81 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 94-90 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 93-72 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 80-85 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 86-79 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-88 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
SMC
L 66-87
−5.5
8
@
UNLV
L 69-101
−24.5
15
@
FGCU
L 73-91
−19.5
19
@
SCST
W 78-66
+0.5
22
vs
UNA
W 71-57
+4.5
30
vs
TNST
L 64-70
−14.5
6
vs
SEMO
L 70-74
−7.5
13
vs
AUB
L 78-92
+5.5
17
@
BELL
L 64-79
−16.5
21
@
AAMU
W 73-66
+4.5
1
@
UNCG
L 72-77
−7.5
3
@
VMI
L 71-79
−14.5
7
vs
FUR
L 67-78
−8.5
10
vs
SAM
W 88-79
+7.5
14
@
WOF
W 76-67
+14.5
17
@
WCU
W 90-82
+9.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 66-67
+3.5
24
@
SAM
L 64-75
−6.5
29
vs
WOF
L 55-81
−27.5
1
@
FUR
L 70-75
+2.5
5
vs
MER
W 79-75
+8.5
7
vs
CIT
L 71-78
−16.5
11
@
ETSU
L 61-73
−1.5
14
vs
WCU
L 76-81
−6.5
19
@
MER
W 94-90
+14.5
21
@
CIT
W 93-72
+16.5
26
vs
UNCG
L 80-85
−9.5
28
vs
VMI
W 86-79
−4.5
6
vs
CIT
L 85-88
−10.5
covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
SMC
L 66-87
+7.5
8
@
UNLV
L 69-101
+14.5
15
@
FGCU
L 73-91
+11.5
19
@
SCST
W 78-66
−10.5
22
vs
UNA
W 71-57
−21.5
30
vs
TNST
L 64-70
−21.5
6
vs
SEMO
L 70-74
−5.5
13
vs
AUB
L 78-92
+19.5
17
@
BELL
L 64-79
−3.5
21
@
AAMU
W 73-66
+0.5
1
@
UNCG
L 72-77
+1.5
3
@
VMI
L 71-79
+0.5
7
vs
FUR
L 67-78
−1.5
10
vs
SAM
W 88-79
+18.5
14
@
WOF
W 76-67
−11.5
17
@
WCU
W 90-82
+21.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 66-67
−10.5
24
@
SAM
L 64-75
−13.5
29
vs
WOF
L 55-81
−14.5
1
@
FUR
L 70-75
−1.5
5
vs
MER
W 79-75
−1.5
7
vs
CIT
L 71-78
+6.5
11
@
ETSU
L 61-73
−11.5
14
vs
WCU
L 76-81
+5.5
19
@
MER
W 94-90
+32.5
21
@
CIT
W 93-72
+20.5
26
vs
UNCG
L 80-85
+7.5
28
vs
VMI
W 86-79
+10.5
6
vs
CIT
L 85-88
+24.5
over 16under 13avg +2.6 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: Chattanooga 0, Penn State 2, even 3
ChattanoogaBetterPenn State
G T. Darner9.8 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 49
=Even
G D. Bowen TR11.1 pts · 3.1 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 45
G S. Cusano2.5 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Rodgers TR11 pts · 2.2 reb · 6.9 ast
Score 49
F T. Houser TR14.4 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
=Even
F B. Byers TR14.3 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 55
F Y. Levy TR5 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 18
→PSUBig
F J. Reed11.5 pts · 4.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 82
F J. Bowman3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 22
→PSUBig
F I. Juric10.2 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 61
ChattanoogaBetterPenn State
UTC offense193rd of 366 · -5.9
→PSUSmall
PSU defense101st of 366 · -0.8
UTC defense270th of 366 · -6.8
→PSUBig
PSU offense70th of 366 · +1.7
Backcourt-1.6 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt-1.9 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 3 players
→PSUBig
Frontcourt+2.2 · 3 players
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
→PSUBig
Bench+2.1 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestUTC betterPSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Darner29 minS. Cusano13 minH. Holland11 minL. VittersNewM. HamptonNewT. PowellNew
Forwards
T. Houser33 min · TRY. Levy21 min · TRJ. Bowman12 minA. SwiftNewC. HardawayNew
Centers
J. FleemanNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.1 #192 | Points per game | 73.7 #211 |
| 1.10 #132 | Points per possession | 1.09 #148 |
| 67.6 #249 | Pace (possessions) | 67.5 #255 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.2 #60 | Effective FG% | 53.0 #102 |
| 35.0 #116 | 3-point % | 32.4 #263 |
| 49.2 #18 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.0 #214 |
| 29.7 #319 | Free throw rate | 33.8 #219 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.5 #40 | Turnover rate | 15.6 #113 |
| 21.8 #358 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.9 #325 |
| 14.3 #127 | Assists per game | 12.7 #238 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.1 #269 | Points allowed | 79.3 #308 |
| 1.15 #325 | Points allowed per possession | 1.17 #345 |
| 51.7 #195 | Opponent effective FG% | 58.4 #363 |
| 34.2 #195 | Opponent 3-point % | 38.8 #363 |
| 13.1 #351 | Turnovers forced | 17.7 #115 |
| 68.3 #240 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.8 #210 |
| 5.0 #336 | Steals per game | 6.9 #132 |
| 2.5 #305 | Blocks per game | 1.7 #357 |
Chattanooga
10-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs The Citadel85–88
- Wvs VMI86–79
- Lvs UNC Greensboro80–85
- W@ The Citadel93–72
- W@ Mercer94–90
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.