Chicago State Cougars at San Diego Toreros: Model Line and Edge

Fri, Nov 13, 9:30 PM ETJenny Craig Pavilion · at San Diego

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Chicago St and San Diego
CHST	This season	USD
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 USD 82–64 · win probability USD 95%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 145.8

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: USD has more of the edges

CHST 1, USD 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

USDBig

USD offense vs CHST defense

Offense 127th of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings

USDBig

CHST offense vs USD defense

Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 189th, on the model’s ratings

USDBig

Three-pointers

CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; USD hits 34.6% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 30.9% and 43.7% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, USD the 130th. A record against a soft schedule means less

USDSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; USD 51.2 and allows 54.7

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), USD 69.6 (139th). Faster games mean more points

CHSTSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, USD 17.6%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, USD 18.8%

USDSmall

Home court

USD at home. This season: USD 0-0 at home, CHST 0-0 away

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, USD 25.8. Allowed: CHST 38.0, USD 38.8

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, USD 28.1%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, USD 65.5%

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, USD 7%. Transfers in: CHST 6, USD 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

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	—	USD -18.8	—
Total	—	145.8	—
Projected score	—	CHST 63.5 · USD 82.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	USD -11.1	—
1H total	68.2	—
1H projected score	CHST 28.6 · USD 39.6	—

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	Venue	Role
CHST WWLLW	15-16	48%	9-12	—
USD LLLWW	16-15	52%	10-5	—

Venue/role: CHST away; USD home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CHST UUUOO	15-16	48%	6-25
USD UOOUU	13-18	42%	10-21

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
CHST	4-6 40%	6-4 60%	4-6 40%
USD	2-8 20%	3-7 30%	4-6 40%

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

Chicago St

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 15	@ LMU	No recent meeting
Nov 18	@ UIC	L63–67WU
Nov 22	@ MARQ	L68–82WO

San Diego

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 18	vs UCR	L71–85LO
Nov 21	vs UCI	No recent meeting
Nov 22	vs FOR	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

Chicago St

31 games played

Straight up

6-25

19% wins

Against the spread

15-16

48% covers · avg +0.3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-16

48% overs · avg −0.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

6-2519%

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

3 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

15-1648%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1648%

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

2 straight overs2 of last 4 over

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 3	@DEP	L 62-92	+24.5	L −5.5	143.5	O 154
Nov 6	@SLU	L 86-108	+30.5	W +8.5	155.5	O 194
Nov 11	@BTLR	L 66-98	+26.5	L −5.5	158.5	O 164
Nov 15	vsUIC	L 63-67	+9.5	W +5.5	156.5	U 130
Nov 18	@MINN	L 54-66	+27.5	W +15.5	144.5	U 120
Nov 20	@IOWA	L 54-93	+31.5	L −7.5	142.5	O 147
Nov 25	@PFW	L 77-90	+12.5	L −0.5	149.5	O 167
Nov 28	@YSU	L 64-87	+14.5	L −8.5	146.5	O 151
Dec 6	@ILST	L 53-95	+20.5	L −21.5	144.5	O 148
Dec 14	@LUC	W 84-75	+15.5	W +24.5	140.5	O 159
Dec 16	@BGSU	L 55-76	+21.5	W +0.5	148.5	U 131
Dec 20	@IU	L 58-78	+38.5	W +18.5	152.5	U 136
Jan 2	vsWAG	L 72-79	+1.5	L −5.5	146.5	O 151
Jan 4	vsLIU	L 55-74	+7.5	L −11.5	151.5	U 129
Jan 8	@FDU	L 63-70	+4.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 133
Jan 10	@STO	L 82-85	+4.5	W +1.5	135.5	O 167
Jan 17	vsLEM	L 57-72	+6.5	L −8.5	146.5	U 129
Jan 19	vsNHVN	L 56-62	-1.5	L −7.5	129.5	U 118
Jan 23	@SFPA	L 60-81	+3.5	L −17.5	143.5	U 141
Jan 25	@MERC	L 59-61	+9.5	W +7.5	131.5	U 120
Jan 31	vsMERC	W 78-74	+2.5	W +6.5	129.5	O 152
Feb 5	@CCSU	L 67-78	+8.5	L −2.5	138.5	O 145
Feb 7	@NHVN	W 63-57	+5.5	W +11.5	127.5	U 120
Feb 9	vsSFPA	W 80-75	-3.5	W +1.5	144.5	O 155
Feb 12	vsSTO	W 68-55	+2.5	W +15.5	131.5	U 123
Feb 14	@LEM	L 63-81	+6.5	L −11.5	144.5	U 144
Feb 19	vsFDU	L 59-60	+1.5	W +0.5	131.5	U 119
Feb 21	vsCCSU	W 70-51	+3.5	W +22.5	138.5	U 121
Feb 26	@LIU	L 56-73	+11.5	L −5.5	141.5	U 129
Feb 28	@WAG	L 61-80	+4.5	L −14.5	134.5	O 141
Mar 4	@LIU	L 75-79	+10.5	W +6.5	137.5	O 154

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

DEP

L 62-92

−5.5

SLU

L 86-108

+8.5

BTLR

L 66-98

−5.5

UIC

L 63-67

+5.5

MINN

L 54-66

+15.5

IOWA

L 54-93

−7.5

PFW

L 77-90

−0.5

YSU

L 64-87

−8.5

ILST

L 53-95

−21.5

LUC

W 84-75

+24.5

BGSU

L 55-76

+0.5

L 58-78

+18.5

WAG

L 72-79

−5.5

LIU

L 55-74

−11.5

FDU

L 63-70

−2.5

STO

L 82-85

+1.5

LEM

L 57-72

−8.5

NHVN

L 56-62

−7.5

SFPA

L 60-81

−17.5

MERC

L 59-61

+7.5

MERC

W 78-74

+6.5

CCSU

L 67-78

−2.5

NHVN

W 63-57

+11.5

SFPA

W 80-75

+1.5

STO

W 68-55

+15.5

LEM

L 63-81

−11.5

FDU

L 59-60

+0.5

CCSU

W 70-51

+22.5

LIU

L 56-73

−5.5

WAG

L 61-80

−14.5

LIU

L 75-79

+6.5

covered 15didn’t cover 16avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

DEP

L 62-92

+10.5

SLU

L 86-108

+38.5

BTLR

L 66-98

+5.5

UIC

L 63-67

−26.5

MINN

L 54-66

−24.5

IOWA

L 54-93

+4.5

PFW

L 77-90

+17.5

YSU

L 64-87

+4.5

ILST

L 53-95

+3.5

LUC

W 84-75

+18.5

BGSU

L 55-76

−17.5

L 58-78

−16.5

WAG

L 72-79

+4.5

LIU

L 55-74

−22.5

FDU

L 63-70

−10.5

STO

L 82-85

+31.5

LEM

L 57-72

−17.5

NHVN

L 56-62

−11.5

SFPA

L 60-81

−2.5

MERC

L 59-61

−11.5

MERC

W 78-74

+22.5

CCSU

L 67-78

+6.5

NHVN

W 63-57

−7.5

SFPA

W 80-75

+10.5

STO

W 68-55

−8.5

LEM

L 63-81

−0.5

FDU

L 59-60

−12.5

CCSU

W 70-51

−17.5

LIU

L 56-73

−12.5

WAG

L 61-80

+6.5

LIU

L 75-79

+16.5

over 15under 16avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

San Diego

31 games played

Straight up

10-21

32% wins

Against the spread

16-15

52% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-18

42% overs · avg +0.5 pts vs the total

Straight up

10-2132%

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

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1552%

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

2 straight covers2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

13-1842%

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

2 straight unders2 of last 4 over

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 7	vsIDST	L 68-71	-4.5	L −7.5	152.5	U 139
Nov 12	vsIDHO	W 78-74	+1.5	W +5.5	155.5	U 152
Nov 18	vsGRAM	W 78-68	-6.5	W +3.5	149.5	U 146
Nov 21	vsUCR	L 71-85	-7.5	L −21.5	152.5	O 156
Nov 25	vsCBU	L 61-76	+7.5	L −7.5	146.5	U 137
Nov 30	@LBSU	L 72-76	-2.5	L −6.5	147.5	O 148
Dec 5	@SJSU	L 69-86	+6.5	L −10.5	144.5	O 155
Dec 9	vsUSC	L 81-94	+14.5	W +1.5	158.5	O 175
Dec 13	vsNAU	W 78-69	-4.5	W +4.5	149.5	U 147
Dec 19	@UCSD	W 82-80	+12.5	W +14.5	156.5	O 162
Dec 22	@WASH	L 56-86	+18.5	L −11.5	159.5	U 142
Dec 28	vsPAC	W 66-54	+2.5	W +14.5	150.5	U 120
Dec 30	vsGONZ	L 93-99	+29.5	W +23.5	160.5	O 192
Jan 2	@SF	L 64-74	+12.5	W +2.5	152.5	U 138
Jan 4	@SCU	L 70-98	+17.5	L −10.5	161.5	O 168
Jan 8	vsPEPP	W 83-63	-4.5	W +15.5	149.5	U 146
Jan 10	@PAC	L 70-77	+8.5	W +1.5	147.5	U 147
Jan 15	@SEA	L 64-75	+9.5	L −1.5	147.5	U 139
Jan 21	vsWSU	W 96-92	+1.5	W +5.5	152.5	O 188
Jan 24	vsSCU	L 73-85	+13.5	W +1.5	162.5	U 158
Jan 28	@PEPP	W 92-88	-2.5	W +1.5	151.5	O 180
Jan 31	vsORST	L 76-78	-3.5	L −5.5	150.5	O 154
Feb 4	@SMC	L 60-87	+20.5	L −6.5	148.5	U 147
Feb 7	@LMU	L 63-83	+6.5	L −13.5	151.5	U 146
Feb 11	vsPORT	W 71-58	-1.5	W +11.5	150.5	U 129
Feb 15	vsSF	L 79-92	+5.5	L −7.5	148.5	O 171
Feb 21	vsLMU	L 65-77	+2.5	L −9.5	149.5	U 142
Feb 25	@ORST	L 82-92	+6.5	L −3.5	144.5	O 174
Feb 28	@PORT	L 74-87	+2.5	L −10.5	148.5	O 161
Mar 5	vsLMU	W 66-62	+5.5	W +9.5	145.5	U 128
Mar 6	vsSEA	L 56-58	+8.5	W +6.5	139.5	U 114

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

IDST

L 68-71

−7.5

IDHO

W 78-74

+5.5

GRAM

W 78-68

+3.5

UCR

L 71-85

−21.5

CBU

L 61-76

−7.5

LBSU

L 72-76

−6.5

SJSU

L 69-86

−10.5

USC

L 81-94

+1.5

NAU

W 78-69

+4.5

UCSD

W 82-80

+14.5

WASH

L 56-86

−11.5

PAC

W 66-54

+14.5

GONZ

L 93-99

+23.5

L 64-74

+2.5

SCU

L 70-98

−10.5

PEPP

W 83-63

+15.5

PAC

L 70-77

+1.5

SEA

L 64-75

−1.5

WSU

W 96-92

+5.5

SCU

L 73-85

+1.5

PEPP

W 92-88

+1.5

ORST

L 76-78

−5.5

SMC

L 60-87

−6.5

LMU

L 63-83

−13.5

PORT

W 71-58

+11.5

L 79-92

−7.5

LMU

L 65-77

−9.5

ORST

L 82-92

−3.5

PORT

L 74-87

−10.5

LMU

W 66-62

+9.5

SEA

L 56-58

+6.5

covered 16didn’t cover 15avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

IDST

L 68-71

−13.5

IDHO

W 78-74

−3.5

GRAM

W 78-68

−3.5

UCR

L 71-85

+3.5

CBU

L 61-76

−9.5

LBSU

L 72-76

+0.5

SJSU

L 69-86

+10.5

USC

L 81-94

+16.5

NAU

W 78-69

−2.5

UCSD

W 82-80

+5.5

WASH

L 56-86

−17.5

PAC

W 66-54

−30.5

GONZ

L 93-99

+31.5

L 64-74

−14.5

SCU

L 70-98

+6.5

PEPP

W 83-63

−3.5

PAC

L 70-77

−0.5

SEA

L 64-75

−8.5

WSU

W 96-92

+35.5

SCU

L 73-85

−4.5

PEPP

W 92-88

+28.5

ORST

L 76-78

+3.5

SMC

L 60-87

−1.5

LMU

L 63-83

−5.5

PORT

W 71-58

−21.5

L 79-92

+22.5

LMU

L 65-77

−7.5

ORST

L 82-92

+29.5

PORT

L 74-87

+12.5

LMU

W 66-62

−17.5

SEA

L 56-58

−25.5

over 13under 18avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

San Diego has the better starters

Position by position: Chicago St 0, San Diego 5, even 0

Chicago StBetterSan Diego

G M. Price TR6.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 3

USDBig

G M. Worthy TR16.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 3 ast Score 72

G A. Carraway TR4.9 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 3

USDBig

G D. Hill TR14.2 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.3 ast Score 92

G M. Olafioye TR3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.2 ast Score 2

USDSmall

G D. Stromer TR6.4 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.1 ast Score 29

F B. Akanmu TR5.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.5 ast Score 14

USDSmall

F T. McMorris TR7.5 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.4 ast Score 47

F D. Loury TR4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast Score 1

USDBig

F A. Munoz TR12.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.9 ast Score 56

Chicago StBetterSan Diego

CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2

USDBig

USD defense189th of 366 · -4.4

CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0

USDBig

USD offense127th of 366 · -3.5

Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players

USDBig

Backcourt+2.0 · 3 players

Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players

USDBig

Frontcourt-0.4 · 2 players

Bench-2.7 · 2 players

USDBig

Bench+0.3 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestCHST betterUSD 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

Chicago St

Guards

M. Price18 min · TRA. Carraway16 min · TRM. Olafioye16 min · TRM. Robinson15 minJ. Pazon11 min · TRW. Lovings-WattsNew

Forwards

B. Akanmu21 min · TRD. Loury17 min · TRK. FomanNewL. Stephane DjiyaNewF. SheriffNewL. HodgesNew

Centers

B. KalonjiNew

San Diego

Guards

M. Worthy35 min · TRD. Hill27 min · TRD. Stromer23 min · TRC. Versher2 minN. Del Bosque1 minB. RomanNew

Forwards

T. McMorris26 min · TRA. Munoz25 min · TRJ. Roberto Tanchyn19 min · TRS. Konneh13 min · TRA. Aviles11 minJ. HillNew

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

CHST65.2 #348

USD72.8 #228

Points per possession

CHST0.99 #337

USD1.05 #251

Pace (possessions)

CHST66.0 #314

USD69.6 #139

Shooting

Effective FG%

CHST45.3 #358

USD51.2 #185

3-point %

CHST32.1 #275

USD34.6 #141

3-point attempt rate

CHST30.9 #341

USD43.7 #96

Free throw rate

CHST30.0 #311

USD25.8 #358

Possessions

Turnover rate

CHST15.7 #114

USD17.6 #242

Offensive rebound rate

CHST28.3 #255

USD28.1 #262

Assists per game

CHST11.7 #305

USD15.4 #68

Defense

Points allowed

CHST76.5 #231

USD78.8 #290

Points allowed per possession

CHST1.16 #332

USD1.13 #286

Opponent effective FG%

CHST56.7 #354

USD54.7 #320

Opponent 3-point %

CHST35.6 #290

USD32.7 #100

Turnovers forced

CHST20.1 #21

USD18.8 #55

Defensive rebound rate

CHST65.0 #339

USD65.5 #328

Steals per game

CHST8.2 #33

USD7.7 #65

Blocks per game

CHST1.3 #365

USD2.6 #294

CHST		USD
Scoring
65.2 #348	Points per game	72.8 #228
0.99 #337	Points per possession	1.05 #251
66.0 #314	Pace (possessions)	69.6 #139
Shooting
45.3 #358	Effective FG%	51.2 #185
32.1 #275	3-point %	34.6 #141
30.9 #341	3-point attempt rate	43.7 #96
30.0 #311	Free throw rate	25.8 #358
Possessions
15.7 #114	Turnover rate	17.6 #242
28.3 #255	Offensive rebound rate	28.1 #262
11.7 #305	Assists per game	15.4 #68
Defense
76.5 #231	Points allowed	78.8 #290
1.16 #332	Points allowed per possession	1.13 #286
56.7 #354	Opponent effective FG%	54.7 #320
35.6 #290	Opponent 3-point %	32.7 #100
20.1 #21	Turnovers forced	18.8 #55
65.0 #339	Defensive rebound rate	65.5 #328
8.2 #33	Steals per game	7.7 #65
1.3 #365	Blocks per game	2.6 #294

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.

Chicago St

6-25 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Northeast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Long Island75–79
L@ Wagner61–80
L@ Long Island56–73
Wvs C Connecticut70–51
Lvs FDU59–60

A week or more of rest.

San Diego

10-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · West Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Seattle U56–58
Wvs LMU66–62
L@ Portland74–87
L@ Oregon St82–92
Lvs LMU65–77

A week or more of rest.

Chicago State Cougars at San Diego Toreros

What could decide it: USD has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Chicago St

San Diego

San Diego has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Chicago St

San Diego