Memorial Coliseum (IN) · at Purdue FW · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PFW | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PFW 78–74 · win probability PFW 61%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.0
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: PFW has more of the edges
DETM 3, PFW 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DETM 33.3%, PFW 22.9%. Defensive: DETM 69.2%, PFW 65.5%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DETM 16.0%, PFW 14.5%. Forced: DETM 14.4%, PFW 19.1%
Three-pointers
DETM hits 35.1% and allows 33.3%; PFW hits 34.2% and allows 37.9%. Threes are 30.7% and 45.4% of their shots
PFW offense vs DETM defense
Offense 218th of 366 against a defense 310th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: DETM 32.6, PFW 30.6. Allowed: DETM 37.6, PFW 28.6
DETM offense vs PFW defense
Offense 236th of 366 against a defense 291st, on the model’s ratings
Home court
PFW at home. This season: PFW 0-0 at home, DETM 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DETM 49%, PFW 29%. Transfers in: DETM 0, PFW 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: DETM plays 69.7 a game (132nd fastest), PFW 69.0 (179th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: DETM 49.5 and allows 52.2; PFW 52.6 and allows 56.1
Context
Schedule so far
DETM has played the 208th-hardest schedule, PFW the 209th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | PFW -3.3 | — |
| Total | — | 152.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | DETM 74.4 · PFW 77.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PFW -1.8 | — |
| 1H total | 71.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | DETM 34.6 · PFW 36.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | 2-8 20% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 11 since 2021-22
DETM 4–7 PFWPFW leads · 11 games since 2021-22 · PFW has won the last 3 meetings · DETM 5-6 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 2025-26 | PFW 83 @ DETM 76 | DETM +2.5 | PFW W |
| Dec 14, 2025-26 | DETM 77 @ PFW 81 | PFW -9.5 | DETM W |
| Jan 11, 2024-25 | DETM 67 @ PFW 90 | PFW -18.5 | PFW W |
| Dec 5, 2024-25 | PFW 78 @ DETM 79 | DETM +7.5 | DETM W |
| Feb 17, 2023-24 | PFW 83 @ DETM 69 | DETM +8.5 | PFW W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Detroit Mercy
30 games played
Straight up
15-15
50% wins
Against the spread
20-10
67% covers · avg +3.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg +0.5 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 71-91 | +9.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 70-102 | +21.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 83-90 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 62-72 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 56-84 | +30.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 75-95 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 29 | @ | W 70-66 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 92-78 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 180.5 | U 170 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 71-59 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 158.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 77-81 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 73-68 | +9.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 77-85 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 82-84 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 94-84 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 162.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 71-96 | +10.5 | L −14.5 | 159.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-77 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 169.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 76-83 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 87-95 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 90-77 | +5.5 | W +18.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 76-63 | +6.5 | W +19.5 | 155.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 63-76 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-74 | +11.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 76-70 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 91-86 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 74-70 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 62-73 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 95-89 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 84-63 | -1.5 | W +19.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 70-64 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 63-66 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 129 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UIC
L 71-91
−10.5
7
@
ND
L 70-102
−10.5
15
@
TOL
L 83-90
+3.5
18
vs
EMU
L 62-72
−11.5
21
@
MSU
L 56-84
+2.5
23
@
DEP
L 75-95
−0.5
29
@
NIA
W 70-66
+2.5
3
vs
IUIN
W 92-78
+10.5
6
@
CLE
W 71-59
+13.5
14
@
PFW
L 77-81
+5.5
29
@
YSU
W 73-68
+14.5
2
vs
RMU
L 77-85
−4.5
9
vs
WRST
L 82-84
+3.5
11
vs
CLE
W 94-84
+3.5
15
@
NKU
L 71-96
−14.5
17
@
IUIN
W 80-77
+4.5
21
vs
PFW
L 76-83
−4.5
24
vs
OAK
L 87-95
−1.5
30
vs
NKU
W 90-77
+18.5
4
@
MILW
W 76-63
+19.5
7
@
GB
L 63-76
−9.5
12
@
WRST
W 77-74
+14.5
15
vs
YSU
W 76-70
+10.5
20
vs
MILW
W 91-86
+6.5
22
vs
GB
W 74-70
+2.5
25
@
RMU
L 62-73
−2.5
28
@
OAK
W 95-89
+14.5
4
vs
MILW
W 84-63
+19.5
9
vs
RMU
W 70-64
+10.5
10
vs
WRST
L 63-66
+1.5
covered 20didn’t cover 10avg +3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UIC
L 71-91
+19.5
7
@
ND
L 70-102
+24.5
15
@
TOL
L 83-90
+13.5
18
vs
EMU
L 62-72
−23.5
21
@
MSU
L 56-84
−9.5
23
@
DEP
L 75-95
+18.5
29
@
NIA
W 70-66
−6.5
3
vs
IUIN
W 92-78
−10.5
6
@
CLE
W 71-59
−28.5
14
@
PFW
L 77-81
+4.5
29
@
YSU
W 73-68
−5.5
2
vs
RMU
L 77-85
+13.5
9
vs
WRST
L 82-84
+17.5
11
vs
CLE
W 94-84
+15.5
15
@
NKU
L 71-96
+7.5
17
@
IUIN
W 80-77
−12.5
21
vs
PFW
L 76-83
+3.5
24
vs
OAK
L 87-95
+14.5
30
vs
NKU
W 90-77
+5.5
4
@
MILW
W 76-63
−16.5
7
@
GB
L 63-76
−10.5
12
@
WRST
W 77-74
−0.5
15
vs
YSU
W 76-70
−5.5
20
vs
MILW
W 91-86
+23.5
22
vs
GB
W 74-70
−3.5
25
@
RMU
L 62-73
−15.5
28
@
OAK
W 95-89
+23.5
4
vs
MILW
W 84-63
−4.5
9
vs
RMU
W 70-64
−12.5
10
vs
WRST
L 63-66
−24.5
over 14under 16avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Purdue FW
29 games played
Straight up
14-15
48% wins
Against the spread
13-16
45% covers · avg −3.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-13
55% 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 | @ | L 71-90 | +14.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 68-94 | +24.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 71-83 | -3.5 | L −15.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 77-85 | +13.5 | W +5.5 | 161.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 60-91 | +19.5 | L −11.5 | 166.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 90-77 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 92-101 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | O 193 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 79-77 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 80-65 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 81-77 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 72-69 | +11.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 55-77 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 54-72 | -8.5 | L −26.5 | 145.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 74-71 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 71-69 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 79-74 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 18 | vs | W 100-82 | -3.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 83-76 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 65-74 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 83-71 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 61-90 | -2.5 | L −31.5 | 147.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-73 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 59-76 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 144.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-78 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 71-87 | +5.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 22 | @ | W 92-86 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 163.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 70-74 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 87-81 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 163.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 56-64 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 120 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
GCU
L 71-90
−4.5
7
@
OSU
L 68-94
−1.5
12
@
WMU
L 71-83
−15.5
18
@
UTAH
L 77-85
+5.5
21
@
SLU
L 60-91
−11.5
25
vs
CHST
W 90-77
+0.5
3
@
OAK
L 92-101
−4.5
6
vs
NKU
W 79-77
+0.5
10
vs
EMU
W 80-65
+11.5
14
vs
DETM
W 81-77
−5.5
21
@
ND
W 72-69
+14.5
29
@
MILW
L 55-77
−18.5
1
vs
GB
L 54-72
−26.5
4
vs
CLE
W 74-71
−8.5
7
@
YSU
W 71-69
+6.5
11
@
RMU
W 79-74
+9.5
18
vs
MILW
W 100-82
+14.5
21
@
DETM
W 83-76
+4.5
28
vs
OAK
L 65-74
−7.5
31
vs
RMU
W 83-71
+9.5
4
vs
YSU
L 61-90
−31.5
7
@
WRST
L 68-73
+1.5
12
@
GB
L 59-76
−18.5
15
vs
IUIN
W 83-78
−2.5
18
@
NKU
L 71-87
−10.5
22
@
CLE
W 92-86
+2.5
25
vs
WRST
L 70-74
−2.5
28
@
IUIN
W 87-81
+4.5
3
@
GB
L 56-64
−4.5
covered 13didn’t cover 16avg −3.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
GCU
L 71-90
+5.5
7
@
OSU
L 68-94
+2.5
12
@
WMU
L 71-83
−7.5
18
@
UTAH
L 77-85
+0.5
21
@
SLU
L 60-91
−15.5
25
vs
CHST
W 90-77
+17.5
3
@
OAK
L 92-101
+30.5
6
vs
NKU
W 79-77
+2.5
10
vs
EMU
W 80-65
−2.5
14
vs
DETM
W 81-77
+4.5
21
@
ND
W 72-69
−8.5
29
@
MILW
L 55-77
−24.5
1
vs
GB
L 54-72
−19.5
4
vs
CLE
W 74-71
−14.5
7
@
YSU
W 71-69
−5.5
11
@
RMU
W 79-74
+6.5
18
vs
MILW
W 100-82
+33.5
21
@
DETM
W 83-76
+3.5
28
vs
OAK
L 65-74
−23.5
31
vs
RMU
W 83-71
+8.5
4
vs
YSU
L 61-90
+3.5
7
@
WRST
L 68-73
−9.5
12
@
GB
L 59-76
−9.5
15
vs
IUIN
W 83-78
+1.5
18
@
NKU
L 71-87
+4.5
22
@
CLE
W 92-86
+14.5
25
vs
WRST
L 70-74
−6.5
28
@
IUIN
W 87-81
+4.5
3
@
GB
L 56-64
−25.5
over 16under 13avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Detroit Mercy has the better starters
Position by position: Detroit Mercy 1, Purdue FW 0, even 4
Detroit MercyBetterPurdue FW
G T. Spratt10.1 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 54
=Even
G D. Craig13.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 68
G A. Carter11.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G A. Williamson TR7.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 16
G L. Stone6.6 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 9
=Even
G C. Morgan2.3 pts · 1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 2
F L. Maiden6.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 28
←DETMSmall
G E. Mosley2.8 pts · 1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 9
C X. Istomin-Monroe1.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Isaac TR9.5 pts · 7.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 63
Detroit MercyBetterPurdue FW
DETM offense236th of 366 · -7.2
←DETMSmall
PFW defense291st of 366 · -7.3
DETM defense310th of 366 · -8.1
→PFWSmall
PFW offense218th of 366 · -6.7
Backcourt-2.0 · 3 players
←DETMBig
Backcourt-5.6 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.9 · 2 players
→PFWSmall
Frontcourt+0.4 · 1 player
Bench-0.7 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.2 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestDETM betterPFW betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Spratt25 minA. Carter21 minL. Stone21 minJ. Cotton7 minJ. BriggsNewE. PalssonNew
Forwards
L. Maiden16 minD. FavorNewV. SemerychNewC. HouserNewT. OwensNew
Centers
X. Istomin-Monroe8 min
Guards
D. Craig30 minA. Williamson23 min · TRC. Morgan14 minE. Mosley12 minM. Shrout3 minD. LewisNew
Forwards
A. Isaac24 min · TRE. OrtizNewQ. MorganNewA. WalkerNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.3 #135 | Points per game | 74.2 #189 |
| 1.09 #153 | Points per possession | 1.07 #204 |
| 69.7 #132 | Pace (possessions) | 69.0 #179 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #267 | Effective FG% | 52.6 #125 |
| 35.1 #108 | 3-point % | 34.2 #163 |
| 30.7 #343 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.4 #60 |
| 32.6 #247 | Free throw rate | 30.6 #292 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.0 #138 | Turnover rate | 14.5 #43 |
| 33.3 #81 | Offensive rebound rate | 22.9 #351 |
| 13.1 #208 | Assists per game | 13.1 #207 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.7 #285 | Points allowed | 78.8 #286 |
| 1.13 #290 | Points allowed per possession | 1.14 #311 |
| 52.2 #223 | Opponent effective FG% | 56.1 #345 |
| 33.3 #140 | Opponent 3-point % | 37.9 #355 |
| 14.4 #324 | Turnovers forced | 19.1 #44 |
| 69.2 #193 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.5 #327 |
| 5.8 #264 | Steals per game | 7.9 #42 |
| 3.3 #182 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #224 |
Detroit Mercy
15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 14-9 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wright St63–66
- Wvs Robert Morris70–64
- Wvs Milwaukee84–63
- W@ Oakland95–89
- L@ Robert Morris62–73
A week or more of rest.
Purdue FW
14-15 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Green Bay56–64
- W@ IU Indy87–81
- Lvs Wright St70–74
- W@ Cleveland St92–86
- L@ N Kentucky71–87
A week or more of rest.