1. NCAAB
  2. Mon, Nov 2
  3. UTC @ LOU
NCAAB · Mon, Nov 2

Chattanooga Mocs at Louisville Cardinals

KFC Yum! Center · at Louisville
#227UTCChattanooga
@
#14LOULouisville AP #11
LineLOU -31.5moved 2 toward LOU
Total159.5up 3 from 156.5
UTCThis seasonLOU
0-0Record0-0
0-0ATS0-0
0-0O/U0-0

ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders

Model: projects LOU 94–60 · win probability LOU 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Spread
Total
Winner
Line
LOU -31.5
moved 2 toward LOU
Total
159.5
model 153.9 · Under by 5.5
Model edge
LOU by 2.5
model vs market
Public on the spread
96% UTC
93% of the money
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: LOU has more of the edges

UTC 0, LOU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
UTC has played the 306th-hardest schedule, LOU the 44th. A record against a soft schedule means less
LOUBig
LOU offense vs UTC defense
Offense 15th of 366 against a defense 270th, on the model’s ratings
LOUBig
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UTC 21.8%, LOU 32.8%. Defensive: UTC 68.3%, LOU 72.5%
LOUBig
UTC offense vs LOU defense
Offense 193rd of 366 against a defense 16th, on the model’s ratings
LOUBig
Free throws
Free throw rate: UTC 29.7, LOU 33.1. Allowed: UTC 42.6, LOU 33.0
LOUSmall
Shooting
Effective FG%: UTC 54.2 and allows 51.7; LOU 56.5 and allows 48.7
LOUSmall
Three-pointers
UTC hits 35.0% and allows 34.2%; LOU hits 36.0% and allows 32.3%. Threes are 49.2% and 52.9% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UTC plays 67.6 a game (249th fastest), LOU 71.0 (77th). Faster games mean more points
LOUSmall
Home court
LOU at home. This season: LOU 0-0 at home, UTC 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UTC 32%, LOU 12%. Transfers in: UTC 2, LOU 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UTC 14.5%, LOU 16.8%. Forced: UTC 13.1%, LOU 16.7%
Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

How games like this went

Division I games since 2023-24, closing lines
SituationGamesFavorite wonFavorite coveredWent over
Home favorites of 20 or more116599%50%52%
Non-conference games at this spread109099%50%52%
Lines that moved 1+ toward the favorite676375%50%51%
Games with a total of 155 to 159.5155574%51%49%
A bet at standard prices needs 52.4% to break even, and most situations sit near 50%. Past rates, not a prediction.

Market

Open → current
Spread
2 pts toward LOU
Total
Up 3 since the open
Moneyline
UTC +5000 · LOU -100000
Line movement
Median of 8 sportsbooks, pre-tip-off · tap a dot
Opened LOU -29.5 · now LOU -31.5 · moved 2 toward LOUmodel LOU -34
Opened 156.5 · now 159.5 · moved 3 upmodel 154
Openline modelNow

Pre-game lines only (ESPN, DraftKings first). After tip-off the line shown is the closing line.

Public betting

Share of bets and of money
UTC +31.5SpreadLOU -31.5
Bets
Money
Over 159.5TotalUnder 159.5
Bets
Money
Sports Betting Dime, an average of sportsbooks. Read . ⓘ

Books

8 sportsbooks · current prices
BookSpreadTotalMoneyline
UTCLOUOverUnderUTCLOU
BetMGMMGM-31.5-110+31.5-110159.5-110159.5-110+3300-10000
BetOnline.agBetOnline.ag-31.5-105+31.5-115159-110159-110——
BetRiversBetRivers-31.5-114+31.5-108159.5-109159.5-114——
BetUSBetUS-31.5-105+31.5-115159-110159-110——
BovadaBovada-31.5-105+31.5-115159-110159-110——
DraftKingsDK-31.5-108+31.5-112159.5-108159.5-112+5000-100000
FanDuelFD-30.5-102+30.5-120159.5-110159.5-110+8000-100000
LowVig.agLowVig.ag-31.5-101+31.5-111159-108159-108——
Prices from The Odds API, updated 8:30 AM ET. Green = best price in the column.

Model vs market

MarketModelModel edge
SpreadLOU -31.5LOU -33.8LOU +2.3
Total159.5153.9Under 5.6
Projected score—UTC 60.1 · LOU 93.9

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›
ModelActual
1H spreadLOU -19.9—
1H total72.0—
1H projected scoreUTC 26 · LOU 46—
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.

Louisville has the better starters

Position by position: Chattanooga 0, Louisville 4, even 1
ChattanoogaBetterLouisville
G T. Darner9.8 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.8 ast Score 49
LOUBig
G J. Shelstad TR15.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.9 ast Score 92
G S. Cusano2.5 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast Not ranked
No call
G S. Trimble TR14 pts · 3.8 reb · 3 ast Score 90
F T. Houser TR14.4 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.8 ast Score 68
LOUSmall
G D. Montgomery TR13.4 pts · 4 reb · 2.1 ast Score 92
F Y. Levy TR5 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.7 ast Score 18
LOUBig
F F. Bidunga TR13.3 pts · 9 reb · 1.5 ast Score 99
F J. Bowman3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.8 ast Score 22
LOUBig
F L. Wells TR15.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 2.2 ast Score 85
ChattanoogaBetterLouisville
UTC offense193rd of 366 · -5.9
LOUBig
LOU defense16th of 366 · +6.2
UTC defense270th of 366 · -6.8
LOUBig
LOU offense15th of 366 · +9.3
Backcourt-1.6 · 2 players
LOUBig
Backcourt+9.1 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 3 players
LOUBig
Frontcourt+9.2 · 2 players
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
LOUBig
Bench+4.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUTC betterLOU 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
Chattanooga
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
Louisville
Guards
J. Shelstad35 min · TRS. Trimble33 min · TRD. Montgomery31 min · TRA. Wooley23 minK. Knox22 min · TRW. Hanke1 min
Forwards
F. Bidunga32 min · TRL. Wells31 min · TRA. Folgueiras21 min · TRB. ZhangNew
Centers
G. Dynes12 min · TRO. EkezieNew
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
Scoring
Shooting
Possessions
Defense
UTCLOU
Scoring
74.1 #192Points per game84.2 #18
1.10 #132Points per possession1.18 #29
67.6 #249Pace (possessions)71.0 #77
Shooting
54.2 #60Effective FG%56.5 #14
35.0 #1163-point %36.0 #58
49.2 #183-point attempt rate52.9 #4
29.7 #319Free throw rate33.1 #236
Possessions
14.5 #40Turnover rate16.8 #184
21.8 #358Offensive rebound rate32.8 #93
14.3 #127Assists per game17.1 #23
Defense
78.1 #269Points allowed72.5 #119
1.15 #325Points allowed per possession1.02 #49
51.7 #195Opponent effective FG%48.7 #54
34.2 #195Opponent 3-point %32.3 #76
13.1 #351Turnovers forced16.7 #172
68.3 #240Defensive rebound rate72.5 #50
5.0 #336Steals per game6.8 #148
2.5 #305Blocks per game3.3 #179
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.

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.

Louisville

24-11 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26
  • Lvs Michigan St69–77
  • Wvs South Florida83–79
  • Lvs Miami73–78
  • Wvs SMU62–58
  • W@ Miami92–89

A week or more of rest.