Cleveland State Vikings at Purdue Fort Wayne Mastodons: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Dec 5, 2:00 PM ETMemorial Coliseum (IN) · at Purdue FW · Conference game

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Cleveland St and Purdue FW
CLE	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 81–74 · win probability PFW 73%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 154.8

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: PFW has more of the edges

CLE 1, PFW 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

PFWBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CLE 17.9%, PFW 14.5%. Forced: CLE 15.1%, PFW 19.1%

PFWBig

PFW offense vs CLE defense

Offense 218th of 366 against a defense 356th, on the model’s ratings

CLESmall

Three-pointers

CLE hits 37.5% and allows 36.1%; PFW hits 34.2% and allows 37.9%. Threes are 50.8% and 45.4% of their shots

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: CLE plays 71.4 a game (56th fastest), PFW 69.0 (179th). Faster games mean more points

PFWSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CLE 0%, PFW 29%. Transfers in: CLE 7, PFW 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

PFWSmall

Home court

PFW at home. This season: PFW 0-0 at home, CLE 0-0 away

Even

CLE offense vs PFW defense

Offense 248th of 366 against a defense 291st, on the model’s ratings

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: CLE 54.2 and allows 57.2; PFW 52.6 and allows 56.1

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CLE 27.0%, PFW 22.9%. Defensive: CLE 63.4%, PFW 65.5%

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: CLE 37.9, PFW 30.6. Allowed: CLE 35.5, PFW 28.6

Context

Schedule so far

CLE has played the 222nd-hardest schedule, PFW the 209th. A record against a soft schedule means less

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	—	PFW -7.2	—
Total	—	154.8	—
Projected score	—	CLE 73.8 · PFW 81

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	PFW -4.1	—
1H total	72.3	—
1H projected score	CLE 34.1 · PFW 38.2	—

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
CLE LLLWL	12-18	40%	6-10	—
PFW LWLWL	13-16	45%	5-7	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CLE OUUOU	19-11	63%	8-22
PFW OOUOU	16-13	55%	14-15

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
CLE	2-8 20%	2-8 20%	4-6 40%
PFW	4-6 40%	4-6 40%	6-4 60%

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

Cleveland St

No more games listed yet.

Purdue FW

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 9	@ XAV	No recent meeting
Dec 12	@ BUF	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Last 5 of 11 since 2021-22

CLE 8–3 PFWCLE leads · 11 games since 2021-22 · PFW has won the last 2 meetings · CLE 7-4 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Feb 22, 2025-26	PFW 92 @ CLE 86	CLE +3.5	PFW W
Jan 4, 2025-26	CLE 71 @ PFW 74	PFW -11.5	CLE W
Mar 1, 2024-25	PFW 57 @ CLE 68	CLE -2.5	CLE W
Jan 30, 2024-25	CLE 68 @ PFW 58	PFW -4.5	CLE W
Feb 7, 2023-24	CLE 75 @ PFW 72	PFW -3.5	CLE W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Cleveland St

30 games played

Straight up

8-22

27% wins

Against the spread

12-18

40% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-11

63% overs · avg +6.2 pts vs the total

Straight up

8-2227%

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

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

12-1840%

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

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

19-1163%

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

1 of last 4 overno streak

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	@LUC	L 88-91	+17.5	W +14.5	151.5	O 179
Nov 10	@NU	L 63-110	+23.5	L −23.5	151.5	O 173
Nov 15	vsKENT	L 95-102	+11.5	W +4.5	165.5	O 197
Nov 16	vsRAD	W 87-82	+8.5	W +13.5	162.5	O 169
Nov 19	vsVAL	L 75-90	-2.5	L −17.5	158.5	O 165
Nov 22	@KENT	L 71-91	+15.5	L −4.5	172.5	U 162
Nov 28	@MIZ	L 59-86	+31.5	W +4.5	170.5	U 145
Dec 3	@NKU	L 80-95	+14.5	L −0.5	158.5	O 175
Dec 6	vsDETM	L 59-71	-1.5	L −13.5	158.5	U 130
Dec 17	@UAB	L 77-101	+18.5	L −5.5	156.5	O 178
Dec 21	vsMILW	L 71-81	+6.5	L −3.5	160.5	U 152
Dec 29	vsIUIN	W 99-86	-1.5	W +11.5	172.5	O 185
Jan 4	@PFW	L 71-74	+11.5	W +8.5	159.5	U 145
Jan 9	@OAK	L 74-97	+15.5	L −7.5	169.5	O 171
Jan 11	@DETM	L 84-94	+6.5	L −3.5	162.5	O 178
Jan 15	vsGB	L 73-88	+3.5	L −11.5	150.5	O 161
Jan 17	vsYSU	W 80-78	+8.5	W +10.5	152.5	O 158
Jan 21	@WRST	W 85-79	+15.5	W +21.5	156.5	O 164
Jan 30	@GB	W 89-82	+7.5	W +14.5	150.5	O 171
Feb 1	@MILW	W 90-88	+9.5	W +11.5	160.5	O 178
Feb 4	vsOAK	W 91-78	+7.5	W +20.5	170.5	U 169
Feb 7	@IUIN	L 74-82	+2.5	L −5.5	169.5	U 156
Feb 12	vsRMU	L 68-85	+3.5	L −13.5	154.5	U 153
Feb 15	vsWRST	L 90-102	+7.5	L −4.5	157.5	O 192
Feb 18	@YSU	L 82-106	+11.5	L −12.5	157.5	O 188
Feb 22	vsPFW	L 86-92	+3.5	L −2.5	163.5	O 178
Feb 25	vsNKU	L 70-81	+8.5	L −2.5	166.5	U 151
Feb 28	@RMU	L 64-83	+12.5	L −6.5	157.5	U 147
Mar 2	vsIUIN	W 101-93	+2.5	W +10.5	169.5	O 194
Mar 4	@WRST	L 61-90	+14.5	L −14.5	162.5	U 151

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

LUC

L 88-91

+14.5

L 63-110

−23.5

KENT

L 95-102

+4.5

RAD

W 87-82

+13.5

VAL

L 75-90

−17.5

KENT

L 71-91

−4.5

MIZ

L 59-86

+4.5

NKU

L 80-95

−0.5

DETM

L 59-71

−13.5

UAB

L 77-101

−5.5

MILW

L 71-81

−3.5

IUIN

W 99-86

+11.5

PFW

L 71-74

+8.5

OAK

L 74-97

−7.5

DETM

L 84-94

−3.5

L 73-88

−11.5

YSU

W 80-78

+10.5

WRST

W 85-79

+21.5

W 89-82

+14.5

MILW

W 90-88

+11.5

OAK

W 91-78

+20.5

IUIN

L 74-82

−5.5

RMU

L 68-85

−13.5

WRST

L 90-102

−4.5

YSU

L 82-106

−12.5

PFW

L 86-92

−2.5

NKU

L 70-81

−2.5

RMU

L 64-83

−6.5

IUIN

W 101-93

+10.5

WRST

L 61-90

−14.5

covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

LUC

L 88-91

+27.5

L 63-110

+21.5

KENT

L 95-102

+31.5

RAD

W 87-82

+6.5

VAL

L 75-90

+6.5

KENT

L 71-91

−10.5

MIZ

L 59-86

−25.5

NKU

L 80-95

+16.5

DETM

L 59-71

−28.5

UAB

L 77-101

+21.5

MILW

L 71-81

−8.5

IUIN

W 99-86

+12.5

PFW

L 71-74

−14.5

OAK

L 74-97

+1.5

DETM

L 84-94

+15.5

L 73-88

+10.5

YSU

W 80-78

+5.5

WRST

W 85-79

+7.5

W 89-82

+20.5

MILW

W 90-88

+17.5

OAK

W 91-78

−1.5

IUIN

L 74-82

−13.5

RMU

L 68-85

−1.5

WRST

L 90-102

+34.5

YSU

L 82-106

+30.5

PFW

L 86-92

+14.5

NKU

L 70-81

−15.5

RMU

L 64-83

−10.5

IUIN

W 101-93

+24.5

WRST

L 61-90

−11.5

over 19under 11avg +6.2 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

Straight up

14-1548%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-1645%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

16-1355%

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

2 of last 4 overno streak

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	@GCU	L 71-90	+14.5	L −4.5	155.5	O 161
Nov 7	@OSU	L 68-94	+24.5	L −1.5	159.5	O 162
Nov 12	@WMU	L 71-83	-3.5	L −15.5	161.5	U 154
Nov 18	@UTAH	L 77-85	+13.5	W +5.5	161.5	O 162
Nov 21	@SLU	L 60-91	+19.5	L −11.5	166.5	U 151
Nov 25	vsCHST	W 90-77	-12.5	W +0.5	149.5	O 167
Dec 3	@OAK	L 92-101	+4.5	L −4.5	162.5	O 193
Dec 6	vsNKU	W 79-77	-1.5	W +0.5	153.5	O 156
Dec 10	vsEMU	W 80-65	-3.5	W +11.5	147.5	U 145
Dec 14	vsDETM	W 81-77	-9.5	L −5.5	153.5	O 158
Dec 21	@ND	W 72-69	+11.5	W +14.5	149.5	U 141
Dec 29	@MILW	L 55-77	+3.5	L −18.5	156.5	U 132
Jan 1	vsGB	L 54-72	-8.5	L −26.5	145.5	U 126
Jan 4	vsCLE	W 74-71	-11.5	L −8.5	159.5	U 145
Jan 7	@YSU	W 71-69	+4.5	W +6.5	145.5	U 140
Jan 11	@RMU	W 79-74	+4.5	W +9.5	146.5	O 153
Jan 18	vsMILW	W 100-82	-3.5	W +14.5	148.5	O 182
Jan 21	@DETM	W 83-76	-2.5	W +4.5	155.5	O 159
Jan 28	vsOAK	L 65-74	+1.5	L −7.5	162.5	U 139
Jan 31	vsRMU	W 83-71	-2.5	W +9.5	145.5	O 154
Feb 4	vsYSU	L 61-90	-2.5	L −31.5	147.5	O 151
Feb 7	@WRST	L 68-73	+6.5	W +1.5	150.5	U 141
Feb 12	@GB	L 59-76	-1.5	L −18.5	144.5	U 135
Feb 15	vsIUIN	W 83-78	-7.5	L −2.5	159.5	O 161
Feb 18	@NKU	L 71-87	+5.5	L −10.5	153.5	O 158
Feb 22	@CLE	W 92-86	-3.5	W +2.5	163.5	O 178
Feb 25	vsWRST	L 70-74	+1.5	L −2.5	150.5	U 144
Feb 28	@IUIN	W 87-81	-1.5	W +4.5	163.5	O 168
Mar 3	@GB	L 56-64	+3.5	L −4.5	145.5	U 120

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

GCU

L 71-90

−4.5

OSU

L 68-94

−1.5

WMU

L 71-83

−15.5

UTAH

L 77-85

+5.5

SLU

L 60-91

−11.5

CHST

W 90-77

+0.5

OAK

L 92-101

−4.5

NKU

W 79-77

+0.5

EMU

W 80-65

+11.5

DETM

W 81-77

−5.5

W 72-69

+14.5

MILW

L 55-77

−18.5

L 54-72

−26.5

CLE

W 74-71

−8.5

YSU

W 71-69

+6.5

RMU

W 79-74

+9.5

MILW

W 100-82

+14.5

DETM

W 83-76

+4.5

OAK

L 65-74

−7.5

RMU

W 83-71

+9.5

YSU

L 61-90

−31.5

WRST

L 68-73

+1.5

L 59-76

−18.5

IUIN

W 83-78

−2.5

NKU

L 71-87

−10.5

CLE

W 92-86

+2.5

WRST

L 70-74

−2.5

IUIN

W 87-81

+4.5

L 56-64

−4.5

covered 13didn’t cover 16avg −3.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

GCU

L 71-90

+5.5

OSU

L 68-94

+2.5

WMU

L 71-83

−7.5

UTAH

L 77-85

+0.5

SLU

L 60-91

−15.5

CHST

W 90-77

+17.5

OAK

L 92-101

+30.5

NKU

W 79-77

+2.5

EMU

W 80-65

−2.5

DETM

W 81-77

+4.5

W 72-69

−8.5

MILW

L 55-77

−24.5

L 54-72

−19.5

CLE

W 74-71

−14.5

YSU

W 71-69

−5.5

RMU

W 79-74

+6.5

MILW

W 100-82

+33.5

DETM

W 83-76

+3.5

OAK

L 65-74

−23.5

RMU

W 83-71

+8.5

YSU

L 61-90

+3.5

WRST

L 68-73

−9.5

L 59-76

−9.5

IUIN

W 83-78

+1.5

NKU

L 71-87

+4.5

CLE

W 92-86

+14.5

WRST

L 70-74

−6.5

IUIN

W 87-81

+4.5

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.

Cleveland St has the better starters

Position by position: Cleveland St 1, Purdue FW 0, even 4

Cleveland StBetterPurdue FW

G O. Bronston TR10.3 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.7 ast Score 55

Even

G D. Craig13.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 2.7 ast Score 68

G J. Lowery TR4.4 pts · 1.3 reb · 1.2 ast Score 30

Even

G A. Williamson TR7.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.1 ast Score 16

G R. Griffith TR3.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 18

CLESmall

G C. Morgan2.3 pts · 1 reb · 0.9 ast Score 2

G C. Stinson TR1.2 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.6 ast Score 14

Even

G E. Mosley2.8 pts · 1 reb · 0.6 ast Score 9

C D. Vorst TR7.7 pts · 3.7 reb · 1.3 ast Score 50

Even

F A. Isaac TR9.5 pts · 7.3 reb · 0.9 ast Score 63

Cleveland StBetterPurdue FW

CLE offense248th of 366 · -7.5

Even

PFW defense291st of 366 · -7.3

CLE defense356th of 366 · -10.1

PFWBig

PFW offense218th of 366 · -6.7

Backcourt-3.5 · 4 players

CLESmall

Backcourt-5.6 · 4 players

Frontcourt+0.2 · 1 player

Even

Frontcourt+0.4 · 1 player

Bench+0.0 · 2 players

Even

Bench-0.2 · 1 player

Score, worst to bestCLE betterPFW 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

Cleveland St

Guards

O. Bronston21 min · TRJ. Lowery15 min · TRR. Griffith14 min · TRC. Stinson8 min · TRA. Bruskotter7 min · TRM. BaysNew

Forwards

D. Jones2 min · TRG. HeadingsNewB. McCruterNew

Centers

D. Vorst21 min · TRB. WhiteNew

Purdue FW

Guards

D. Craig30 minA. Williamson23 min · TRC. Morgan14 minE. Mosley12 minM. Shrout3 minD. LewisNew

Forwards

A. Isaac24 min · TRE. OrtizNewQ. MorganNewA. WalkerNew

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

CLE78.6 #89

PFW74.2 #189

Points per possession

CLE1.10 #133

PFW1.07 #204

Pace (possessions)

CLE71.4 #56

PFW69.0 #179

Shooting

Effective FG%

CLE54.2 #62

PFW52.6 #125

3-point %

CLE37.5 #21

PFW34.2 #163

3-point attempt rate

CLE50.8 #11

PFW45.4 #60

Free throw rate

CLE37.9 #105

PFW30.6 #292

Possessions

Turnover rate

CLE17.9 #264

PFW14.5 #43

Offensive rebound rate

CLE27.0 #294

PFW22.9 #351

Assists per game

CLE14.8 #100

PFW13.1 #207

Defense

Points allowed

CLE88.6 #363

PFW78.8 #286

Points allowed per possession

CLE1.24 #363

PFW1.14 #311

Opponent effective FG%

CLE57.2 #360

PFW56.1 #345

Opponent 3-point %

CLE36.1 #309

PFW37.9 #355

Turnovers forced

CLE15.1 #279

PFW19.1 #44

Defensive rebound rate

CLE63.4 #356

PFW65.5 #327

Steals per game

CLE5.5 #289

PFW7.9 #42

Blocks per game

CLE2.6 #297

PFW3.0 #224

CLE		PFW
Scoring
78.6 #89	Points per game	74.2 #189
1.10 #133	Points per possession	1.07 #204
71.4 #56	Pace (possessions)	69.0 #179
Shooting
54.2 #62	Effective FG%	52.6 #125
37.5 #21	3-point %	34.2 #163
50.8 #11	3-point attempt rate	45.4 #60
37.9 #105	Free throw rate	30.6 #292
Possessions
17.9 #264	Turnover rate	14.5 #43
27.0 #294	Offensive rebound rate	22.9 #351
14.8 #100	Assists per game	13.1 #207
Defense
88.6 #363	Points allowed	78.8 #286
1.24 #363	Points allowed per possession	1.14 #311
57.2 #360	Opponent effective FG%	56.1 #345
36.1 #309	Opponent 3-point %	37.9 #355
15.1 #279	Turnovers forced	19.1 #44
63.4 #356	Defensive rebound rate	65.5 #327
5.5 #289	Steals per game	7.9 #42
2.6 #297	Blocks per game	3.0 #224

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.

Cleveland St

8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Horizon League

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Wright St61–90
Wvs IU Indy101–93
L@ Robert Morris64–83
Lvs N Kentucky70–81
Lvs Purdue FW86–92

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.

Cleveland State Vikings at Purdue Fort Wayne Mastodons

What could decide it: PFW has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Cleveland St

Purdue FW

Cleveland St has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Cleveland St

Purdue FW