Yuengling Center · at South Florida
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | USF | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 USF 88–70 · win probability USF 94%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 158.1
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: USF has more of the edges
TNST 0, USF 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
TNST has played the 345th-hardest schedule, USF the 89th. A record against a soft schedule means less
USF offense vs TNST defense
Offense 59th of 366 against a defense 290th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: TNST 33.4, USF 40.4. Allowed: TNST 41.4, USF 39.0
TNST offense vs USF defense
Offense 207th of 366 against a defense 121st, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: TNST 50.0 and allows 51.6; USF 50.6 and allows 48.8
Home court
USF at home. This season: USF 0-0 at home, TNST 0-0 away
Turnovers
Turnover rate: TNST 16.7%, USF 15.1%. Forced: TNST 19.8%, USF 19.1%
Even
Three-pointers
TNST hits 33.3% and allows 34.0%; USF hits 32.5% and allows 34.5%. Threes are 30.7% and 43.8% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 73 possessions: TNST plays 71.1 a game (66th fastest), USF 74.4 (9th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: TNST 34.8%, USF 38.1%. Defensive: TNST 69.4%, USF 68.1%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: TNST 10%, USF 14%. Transfers in: TNST 7, USF 10. 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 | — | USF -17.4 | — |
| Total | — | 158.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | TNST 70.4 · USF 87.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | USF -10.2 | — |
| 1H total | 73.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | TNST 31.8 · USF 42.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | |
| 9-1 90% | 7-3 70% | 2-8 20% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Tennessee St
30 games played
Straight up
20-10
67% wins
Against the spread
18-12
60% covers · avg +3.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg +2.3 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 8 | @ | L 79-87 | +13.5 | W +5.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 82-95 | +12.5 | L −0.5 | 167.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 60-89 | +31.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 75-73 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 164.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 70-64 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 155.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 53-80 | -4.5 | L −31.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 63-60 | +12.5 | W +15.5 | 161.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 78-71 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 82-91 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 88-76 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 84-79 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 90-68 | -6.5 | W +15.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 70-74 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 105-100 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 205 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 73-67 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 66-74 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 96-86 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 85-90 | -7.5 | L −12.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 77-68 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 83-56 | -15.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 73-71 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 86-94 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 89-80 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 80-53 | -2.5 | W +24.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 79-71 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 67-42 | +2.5 | W +27.5 | 143.5 | U 109 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 68-55 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 137.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 93-67 | -5.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 74-108 | +24.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | O 182 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
BEL
L 79-87
+5.5
16
@
WKU
L 82-95
−0.5
20
@
TENN
L 60-89
+2.5
25
@
UNCA
W 75-73
+7.5
30
@
UTC
W 70-64
+14.5
3
@
AAMU
L 53-80
−31.5
13
@
UNLV
W 63-60
+15.5
18
vs
UTM
W 78-71
+4.5
20
vs
SEMO
L 82-91
−7.5
30
@
TNTC
W 88-76
+10.5
3
@
LR
W 84-79
+3.5
8
@
WIU
W 90-68
+15.5
10
@
EIU
L 70-74
−7.5
15
vs
MORE
W 105-100
−2.5
17
vs
USI
W 73-67
−2.5
22
@
SIUE
L 66-74
−6.5
24
@
LIN
W 96-86
+14.5
29
vs
LR
W 70-63
+2.5
2
vs
TNTC
L 85-90
−12.5
5
vs
EIU
W 77-68
−0.5
7
vs
WIU
W 83-56
+11.5
12
@
USI
W 73-71
−4.5
14
@
MORE
L 86-94
−9.5
19
vs
LIN
W 89-80
+5.5
21
vs
SIUE
W 80-53
+24.5
26
@
SEMO
W 79-71
+10.5
28
@
UTM
W 67-42
+27.5
6
vs
UTM
W 68-55
+11.5
7
vs
MORE
W 93-67
+20.5
20
vs
ISU
L 74-108
−9.5
covered 18didn’t cover 12avg +3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
BEL
L 79-87
+7.5
16
@
WKU
L 82-95
+9.5
20
@
TENN
L 60-89
−8.5
25
@
UNCA
W 75-73
−16.5
30
@
UTC
W 70-64
−21.5
3
@
AAMU
L 53-80
−14.5
13
@
UNLV
W 63-60
−38.5
18
vs
UTM
W 78-71
+7.5
20
vs
SEMO
L 82-91
+21.5
30
@
TNTC
W 88-76
+8.5
3
@
LR
W 84-79
+18.5
8
@
WIU
W 90-68
+12.5
10
@
EIU
L 70-74
−0.5
15
vs
MORE
W 105-100
+56.5
17
vs
USI
W 73-67
−10.5
22
@
SIUE
L 66-74
−2.5
24
@
LIN
W 96-86
+21.5
29
vs
LR
W 70-63
−17.5
2
vs
TNTC
L 85-90
+21.5
5
vs
EIU
W 77-68
−0.5
7
vs
WIU
W 83-56
−12.5
12
@
USI
W 73-71
−3.5
14
@
MORE
L 86-94
+31.5
19
vs
LIN
W 89-80
+9.5
21
vs
SIUE
W 80-53
−10.5
26
@
SEMO
W 79-71
−1.5
28
@
UTM
W 67-42
−34.5
6
vs
UTM
W 68-55
−14.5
7
vs
MORE
W 93-67
+16.5
20
vs
ISU
L 74-108
+34.5
over 14under 16avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
South Florida
33 games played
Straight up
24-9
73% wins
Against the spread
18-15
55% covers · avg +1.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-18
45% 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 102-67 | -25.5 | W +9.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 95-99 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 100-50 | -34.5 | W +15.5 | 167.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 108-89 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 177.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 95-103 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 177.5 | O 198 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 66-78 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 172.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 97-91 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 68-83 | -2.5 | L −17.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 4 | vs | W 74-61 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 81-75 | -13.5 | L −7.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 93-104 | +14.5 | W +3.5 | 178.5 | O 197 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 94-69 | -22.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 106-109 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 163.5 | O 215 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 74-70 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 93-78 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 163.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 82-71 | -18.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 85-86 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 82-69 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 168.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 25 | vs | W 89-75 | -5.5 | W +8.5 | 166.5 | U 164 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 97-83 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 78-79 | -9.5 | L −10.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 109-88 | -23.5 | L −2.5 | 164.5 | O 197 |
| Feb 8 | vs | W 80-74 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 170.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 66-58 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 83-81 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | U 164 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 87-66 | -9.5 | W +11.5 | 163.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 75-56 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 157.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 1 | vs | W 90-62 | -15.5 | W +12.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 96-89 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 163.5 | O 185 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 83-60 | -17.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 86-64 | -15.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 15 | vs | W 70-55 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 160.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
FAMU
W 102-67
+9.5
8
vs
GW
L 95-99
−5.5
12
vs
COPP
W 100-50
+15.5
16
@
KENN
W 108-89
+11.5
19
@
OKST
L 95-103
−4.5
26
vs
VCU
L 66-78
−10.5
27
vs
WKU
W 97-91
−1.5
28
vs
CSU
L 68-83
−17.5
4
vs
USU
W 74-61
+10.5
10
vs
COFC
W 81-75
−7.5
17
@
ALA
L 93-104
+3.5
21
vs
UMBC
W 94-69
+2.5
4
vs
UAB
L 106-109
−11.5
7
@
UNT
W 74-70
−0.5
10
@
TLSA
W 93-78
+16.5
14
vs
ECU
W 82-71
−7.5
18
vs
WICH
L 85-86
−8.5
22
@
UAB
W 82-69
+10.5
25
vs
FAU
W 89-75
+8.5
28
@
TULN
W 97-83
+5.5
31
@
TEM
L 78-79
−10.5
4
vs
UTSA
W 109-88
−2.5
8
vs
TLSA
W 80-74
+1.5
11
@
WICH
W 66-58
+5.5
15
@
FAU
W 83-81
−2.5
19
vs
MEM
W 87-66
+11.5
25
@
RICE
W 75-56
+7.5
1
vs
TULN
W 90-62
+12.5
5
@
MEM
W 96-89
−0.5
8
vs
CLT
W 83-60
+5.5
14
vs
CLT
W 86-64
+6.5
15
vs
WICH
W 70-55
+8.5
19
vs
LOU
L 79-83
−0.5
covered 18didn’t cover 15avg +1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
FAMU
W 102-67
+15.5
8
vs
GW
L 95-99
+34.5
12
vs
COPP
W 100-50
−17.5
16
@
KENN
W 108-89
+19.5
19
@
OKST
L 95-103
+20.5
26
vs
VCU
L 66-78
−28.5
27
vs
WKU
W 97-91
+20.5
28
vs
CSU
L 68-83
−4.5
4
vs
USU
W 74-61
−27.5
10
vs
COFC
W 81-75
−4.5
17
@
ALA
L 93-104
+18.5
21
vs
UMBC
W 94-69
+2.5
4
vs
UAB
L 106-109
+51.5
7
@
UNT
W 74-70
−3.5
10
@
TLSA
W 93-78
+7.5
14
vs
ECU
W 82-71
−5.5
18
vs
WICH
L 85-86
+12.5
22
@
UAB
W 82-69
−17.5
25
vs
FAU
W 89-75
−2.5
28
@
TULN
W 97-83
+21.5
31
@
TEM
L 78-79
+2.5
4
vs
UTSA
W 109-88
+32.5
8
vs
TLSA
W 80-74
−16.5
11
@
WICH
W 66-58
−36.5
15
@
FAU
W 83-81
−1.5
19
vs
MEM
W 87-66
−10.5
25
@
RICE
W 75-56
−26.5
1
vs
TULN
W 90-62
−3.5
5
@
MEM
W 96-89
+21.5
8
vs
CLT
W 83-60
−13.5
14
vs
CLT
W 86-64
−3.5
15
vs
WICH
W 70-55
−26.5
19
vs
LOU
L 79-83
+1.5
over 15under 18avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
South Florida has the better starters
Position by position: Tennessee St 0, South Florida 2, even 3
Tennessee StBetterSouth Florida
G T. Johnson TR15 pts · 2.8 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 85
=Even
G S. Wilson TR17.2 pts · 3.8 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 79
G A. Morris TR11.1 pts · 3.7 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 30
→USFBig
G A. Dancler TR15.6 pts · 5.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 72
G C. Alston TR4.5 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 42
→USFBig
G J. Omojafo11 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 80
F A. Bradshaw TR8.6 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 79
=Even
G A. Shoshkikj TR10.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 73
F J. Rivera TR3.3 pts · 2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 47
=Even
F R. Goods TR7.8 pts · 5.9 reb · 2 ast
Score 41
Tennessee StBetterSouth Florida
TNST offense207th of 366 · -6.3
→USFSmall
USF defense121st of 366 · -2.1
TNST defense290th of 366 · -7.3
→USFBig
USF offense59th of 366 · +2.7
Backcourt-0.4 · 3 players
→USFBig
Backcourt+4.4 · 4 players
Frontcourt+1.0 · 2 players
←TNSTSmall
Frontcourt-0.8 · 1 player
Bench-2.4 · 5 players
→USFSmall
Bench-0.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestTNST betterUSF betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Johnson29 min · TRA. Morris28 min · TRC. Alston11 min · TRD. Howard8 minI. Stewart4 min · TRJ. Jones3 min
Forwards
A. Bradshaw19 min · TRJ. Rivera12 min · TRK. Jones11 minD. LindseyNew
Guards
S. Wilson37 min · TRA. Dancler34 min · TRJ. Omojafo28 minA. Shoshkikj26 min · TRC. Davis18 min · TRM. James11 min · TR
Forwards
R. Goods25 min · TRG. Johnson23 min · TRJ. Lewis23 min · TRZ. High9 min · TRR. StevensonNewJ. FeldhausNew
Centers
T. Diawara3 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.9 #96 | Points per game | 86.8 #6 |
| 1.10 #146 | Points per possession | 1.17 #42 |
| 71.1 #66 | Pace (possessions) | 74.4 #9 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.0 #237 | Effective FG% | 50.6 #209 |
| 33.3 #211 | 3-point % | 32.5 #255 |
| 30.7 #344 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.8 #93 |
| 33.4 #228 | Free throw rate | 40.4 #55 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.7 #177 | Turnover rate | 15.1 #73 |
| 34.8 #53 | Offensive rebound rate | 38.1 #7 |
| 12.7 #237 | Assists per game | 16.8 #28 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.1 #191 | Points allowed | 76.5 #230 |
| 1.06 #97 | Points allowed per possession | 1.03 #54 |
| 51.6 #190 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.8 #58 |
| 34.0 #183 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.5 #218 |
| 19.8 #26 | Turnovers forced | 19.1 #42 |
| 69.4 #184 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.1 #252 |
| 9.0 #10 | Steals per game | 9.0 #8 |
| 3.8 #99 | Blocks per game | 4.0 #72 |
Tennessee St
20-10 in 2025-26 overall · 17-5 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Iowa State74–108
- Wvs Morehead St93–67
- Wvs UT Martin68–55
- W@ UT Martin67–42
- W@ SE Missouri79–71
A week or more of rest.
South Florida
24-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-3 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Louisville79–83
- Wvs Wichita St70–55
- Wvs Charlotte86–64
- Wvs Charlotte83–60
- W@ Memphis96–89
A week or more of rest.