McDermott Center · at Incarnate Word
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UIW | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UIW 77–66 · win probability UIW 83%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.8
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: UIW has more of the edges
CHST 1, UIW 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, UIW 17.1%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, UIW 15.8%
Three-pointers
CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; UIW hits 36.1% and allows 34.4%. Threes are 30.9% and 39.1% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, UIW 32.1%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, UIW 68.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; UIW 50.2 and allows 54.5
CHST offense vs UIW defense
Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 280th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
UIW at home. This season: UIW 0-0 at home, CHST 0-0 away
UIW offense vs CHST defense
Offense 291st of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, UIW the 285th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, UIW 34.0. Allowed: CHST 38.0, UIW 41.6
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, UIW 17%. Transfers in: CHST 6, UIW 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), UIW 65.4 (335th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | UIW -10.8 | — |
| Total | — | 142.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | CHST 66 · UIW 76.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UIW -6.3 | — |
| 1H total | 66.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | CHST 30.3 · UIW 36.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | |
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
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
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 62-92 | +24.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 86-108 | +30.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 66-98 | +26.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 63-67 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 54-66 | +27.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 54-93 | +31.5 | L −7.5 | 142.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 77-90 | +12.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 64-87 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 53-95 | +20.5 | L −21.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 84-75 | +15.5 | W +24.5 | 140.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 55-76 | +21.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 58-78 | +38.5 | W +18.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 72-79 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 55-74 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 63-70 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 82-85 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 57-72 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 56-62 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 129.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 60-81 | +3.5 | L −17.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 25 | @ | L 59-61 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 78-74 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 67-78 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 63-57 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 127.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 80-75 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 68-55 | +2.5 | W +15.5 | 131.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-81 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 59-60 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 70-51 | +3.5 | W +22.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 56-73 | +11.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 61-80 | +4.5 | L −14.5 | 134.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 75-79 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | O 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
DEP
L 62-92
−5.5
6
@
SLU
L 86-108
+8.5
11
@
BTLR
L 66-98
−5.5
15
vs
UIC
L 63-67
+5.5
18
@
MINN
L 54-66
+15.5
20
@
IOWA
L 54-93
−7.5
25
@
PFW
L 77-90
−0.5
28
@
YSU
L 64-87
−8.5
6
@
ILST
L 53-95
−21.5
14
@
LUC
W 84-75
+24.5
16
@
BGSU
L 55-76
+0.5
20
@
IU
L 58-78
+18.5
2
vs
WAG
L 72-79
−5.5
4
vs
LIU
L 55-74
−11.5
8
@
FDU
L 63-70
−2.5
10
@
STO
L 82-85
+1.5
17
vs
LEM
L 57-72
−8.5
19
vs
NHVN
L 56-62
−7.5
23
@
SFPA
L 60-81
−17.5
25
@
MERC
L 59-61
+7.5
31
vs
MERC
W 78-74
+6.5
5
@
CCSU
L 67-78
−2.5
7
@
NHVN
W 63-57
+11.5
9
vs
SFPA
W 80-75
+1.5
12
vs
STO
W 68-55
+15.5
14
@
LEM
L 63-81
−11.5
19
vs
FDU
L 59-60
+0.5
21
vs
CCSU
W 70-51
+22.5
26
@
LIU
L 56-73
−5.5
28
@
WAG
L 61-80
−14.5
4
@
LIU
L 75-79
+6.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
DEP
L 62-92
+10.5
6
@
SLU
L 86-108
+38.5
11
@
BTLR
L 66-98
+5.5
15
vs
UIC
L 63-67
−26.5
18
@
MINN
L 54-66
−24.5
20
@
IOWA
L 54-93
+4.5
25
@
PFW
L 77-90
+17.5
28
@
YSU
L 64-87
+4.5
6
@
ILST
L 53-95
+3.5
14
@
LUC
W 84-75
+18.5
16
@
BGSU
L 55-76
−17.5
20
@
IU
L 58-78
−16.5
2
vs
WAG
L 72-79
+4.5
4
vs
LIU
L 55-74
−22.5
8
@
FDU
L 63-70
−10.5
10
@
STO
L 82-85
+31.5
17
vs
LEM
L 57-72
−17.5
19
vs
NHVN
L 56-62
−11.5
23
@
SFPA
L 60-81
−2.5
25
@
MERC
L 59-61
−11.5
31
vs
MERC
W 78-74
+22.5
5
@
CCSU
L 67-78
+6.5
7
@
NHVN
W 63-57
−7.5
9
vs
SFPA
W 80-75
+10.5
12
vs
STO
W 68-55
−8.5
14
@
LEM
L 63-81
−0.5
19
vs
FDU
L 59-60
−12.5
21
vs
CCSU
W 70-51
−17.5
26
@
LIU
L 56-73
−12.5
28
@
WAG
L 61-80
+6.5
4
@
LIU
L 75-79
+16.5
over 15under 16avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Incarnate Word
28 games played
Straight up
9-19
32% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-14
50% overs · avg +1.4 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 64-98 | +10.5 | L −23.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 61-69 | +28.5 | W +20.5 | 157.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 87-81 | -9.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-91 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 71-67 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 67-74 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 8 | @ | L 83-84 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 65-69 | +19.5 | W +15.5 | 143.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 90-66 | -6.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 79-70 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 73-56 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 67-80 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 51-63 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 46-56 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 76-74 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 58-80 | -6.5 | L −28.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 71-79 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 75-81 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 93-106 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 71-69 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 64-81 | +16.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 62-74 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 83-91 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 16 | vs | L 64-78 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 154.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 82-73 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 49-54 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 103 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 72-60 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 68-76 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
−23.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
+20.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
−3.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+1.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
+14.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−8.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
−2.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
+15.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+17.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+2.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
+10.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
−11.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−10.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−2.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
−6.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−28.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
−9.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
−7.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
−11.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
+6.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−10.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
−10.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−16.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+12.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−3.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
+10.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
−0.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
+14.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
−27.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
+22.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+10.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
−7.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−4.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
+18.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
−9.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+15.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+13.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
−12.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
+0.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−26.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−38.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
+8.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−4.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
+13.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
+15.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
+58.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
−0.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−1.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
+25.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−12.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+9.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−35.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
−6.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
+1.5
over 14under 14avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Incarnate Word has the better starters
Position by position: Chicago St 0, Incarnate Word 3, even 2
Chicago StBetterIncarnate Word
G M. Price TR6.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 3
→UIWSmall
G I. Habib14.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 36
G A. Carraway TR4.9 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 3
→UIWSmall
G M. Conner TR7.8 pts · 3.4 reb · 6.2 ast
Score 19
G M. Olafioye TR3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 2
→UIWBig
G B. McCreesh TR7.4 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 40
F B. Akanmu TR5.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 14
=No call
F D. Goodwin TR4.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
F D. Loury TR4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 1
=No call
F G. Erheriene TR0.8 pts · 0.7 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
Chicago StBetterIncarnate Word
CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2
→UIWSmall
UIW defense280th of 366 · -7.0
CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0
=Even
UIW offense291st of 366 · -9.0
Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players
→UIWSmall
Backcourt-5.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players
→UIWBig
Frontcourt-1.2 · 2 players
Bench-2.7 · 2 players
→UIWSmall
Bench-0.1 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestCHST betterUIW betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
I. Habib33 minM. Conner30 min · TRB. McCreesh28 min · TRD. Barbee2 minJ. ThomasNewD. CasonNew
Forwards
D. Goodwin14 min · TRG. Erheriene5 min · TRK. Spencer2 min · TRD. EmetuNewK. IoaneNewT. CollinsNew
Centers
C. PareNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 65.2 #348 | Points per game | 70.4 #275 |
| 0.99 #337 | Points per possession | 1.07 #206 |
| 66.0 #314 | Pace (possessions) | 65.4 #335 |
| Shooting | ||
| 45.3 #358 | Effective FG% | 50.2 #228 |
| 32.1 #275 | 3-point % | 36.1 #54 |
| 30.9 #341 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.1 #190 |
| 30.0 #311 | Free throw rate | 34.0 #210 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.7 #114 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #206 |
| 28.3 #255 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.1 #120 |
| 11.7 #305 | Assists per game | 10.8 #342 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.5 #231 | Points allowed | 75.0 #189 |
| 1.16 #332 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #331 |
| 56.7 #354 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.5 #314 |
| 35.6 #290 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.4 #214 |
| 20.1 #21 | Turnovers forced | 15.8 #233 |
| 65.0 #339 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #260 |
| 8.2 #33 | Steals per game | 5.1 #329 |
| 1.3 #365 | Blocks per game | 2.4 #310 |
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.
Incarnate Word
9-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SF Austin68–76
- Wvs Lamar72–60
- L@ N'Western St49–54
- W@ East Texas A&M82–73
- Lvs LSU N Orleans64–78
A week or more of rest.