Chicago State Cougars at California Baptist Lancers: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Nov 11, 10:00 PM ETDale E. and Sarah Ann Fowler Events Center · at CA Baptist

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Chicago St and CA Baptist
CHST	This season	CBU
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 CBU 79–62 · win probability CBU 92%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 140.6

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: CBU has more of the edges

CHST 1, CBU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

CBUBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, CBU 37.5%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, CBU 72.8%

CBUBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; CBU 48.3 and allows 46.3

CBUBig

CHST offense vs CBU defense

Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 178th, on the model’s ratings

CBUBig

Three-pointers

CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; CBU hits 33.4% and allows 29.5%. Threes are 30.9% and 32.0% of their shots

CHSTBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, CBU 18.0%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, CBU 16.9%

CBUSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, CBU 35.9. Allowed: CHST 38.0, CBU 36.6

CBUSmall

CBU offense vs CHST defense

Offense 246th of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, CBU the 202nd. A record against a soft schedule means less

CBUSmall

Home court

CBU at home. This season: CBU 0-0 at home, CHST 0-0 away

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), CBU 68.3 (217th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, CBU 18%. Transfers in: CHST 6, CBU 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

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	—	CBU -16.4	—
Total	—	140.6	—
Projected score	—	CHST 62.1 · CBU 78.5

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	CBU -9.6	—
1H total	65.8	—
1H projected score	CHST 28.1 · CBU 37.7	—

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
CHST WWLLW	15-16	48%	9-12	—
CBU WWWWW	20-14	59%	7-8	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CHST UUUOO	15-16	48%	6-25
CBU UOOUU	12-22	35%	25-9

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
CHST	4-6 40%	6-4 60%	4-6 40%
CBU	7-3 70%	8-2 80%	4-6 40%

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

Chicago St

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 13	@ USD	No recent meeting
Nov 15	@ LMU	No recent meeting
Nov 18	@ UIC	L63–67WU

CA Baptist

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 13	vs UAPB	No recent meeting
Nov 17	vs SEA	L48–72LU
Nov 21	vs LMU	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

CHST 1–2 CBUCBU leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · CBU has won the last 2 meetings · CHST 2-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 27, 2023-24	CHST 62 @ CBU 74	CBU -10.5	CBU W
Mar 2, 2021-22	CHST 53 @ CBU 62	CBU -14	CHST W
Jan 8, 2021-22	CBU 56 @ CHST 58	CHST +11.5	CHST W

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

Straight up

6-2519%

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

3 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

15-1648%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1648%

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

2 straight overs2 of last 4 over

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	@DEP	L 62-92	+24.5	L −5.5	143.5	O 154
Nov 6	@SLU	L 86-108	+30.5	W +8.5	155.5	O 194
Nov 11	@BTLR	L 66-98	+26.5	L −5.5	158.5	O 164
Nov 15	vsUIC	L 63-67	+9.5	W +5.5	156.5	U 130
Nov 18	@MINN	L 54-66	+27.5	W +15.5	144.5	U 120
Nov 20	@IOWA	L 54-93	+31.5	L −7.5	142.5	O 147
Nov 25	@PFW	L 77-90	+12.5	L −0.5	149.5	O 167
Nov 28	@YSU	L 64-87	+14.5	L −8.5	146.5	O 151
Dec 6	@ILST	L 53-95	+20.5	L −21.5	144.5	O 148
Dec 14	@LUC	W 84-75	+15.5	W +24.5	140.5	O 159
Dec 16	@BGSU	L 55-76	+21.5	W +0.5	148.5	U 131
Dec 20	@IU	L 58-78	+38.5	W +18.5	152.5	U 136
Jan 2	vsWAG	L 72-79	+1.5	L −5.5	146.5	O 151
Jan 4	vsLIU	L 55-74	+7.5	L −11.5	151.5	U 129
Jan 8	@FDU	L 63-70	+4.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 133
Jan 10	@STO	L 82-85	+4.5	W +1.5	135.5	O 167
Jan 17	vsLEM	L 57-72	+6.5	L −8.5	146.5	U 129
Jan 19	vsNHVN	L 56-62	-1.5	L −7.5	129.5	U 118
Jan 23	@SFPA	L 60-81	+3.5	L −17.5	143.5	U 141
Jan 25	@MERC	L 59-61	+9.5	W +7.5	131.5	U 120
Jan 31	vsMERC	W 78-74	+2.5	W +6.5	129.5	O 152
Feb 5	@CCSU	L 67-78	+8.5	L −2.5	138.5	O 145
Feb 7	@NHVN	W 63-57	+5.5	W +11.5	127.5	U 120
Feb 9	vsSFPA	W 80-75	-3.5	W +1.5	144.5	O 155
Feb 12	vsSTO	W 68-55	+2.5	W +15.5	131.5	U 123
Feb 14	@LEM	L 63-81	+6.5	L −11.5	144.5	U 144
Feb 19	vsFDU	L 59-60	+1.5	W +0.5	131.5	U 119
Feb 21	vsCCSU	W 70-51	+3.5	W +22.5	138.5	U 121
Feb 26	@LIU	L 56-73	+11.5	L −5.5	141.5	U 129
Feb 28	@WAG	L 61-80	+4.5	L −14.5	134.5	O 141
Mar 4	@LIU	L 75-79	+10.5	W +6.5	137.5	O 154

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

DEP

L 62-92

−5.5

SLU

L 86-108

+8.5

BTLR

L 66-98

−5.5

UIC

L 63-67

+5.5

MINN

L 54-66

+15.5

IOWA

L 54-93

−7.5

PFW

L 77-90

−0.5

YSU

L 64-87

−8.5

ILST

L 53-95

−21.5

LUC

W 84-75

+24.5

BGSU

L 55-76

+0.5

L 58-78

+18.5

WAG

L 72-79

−5.5

LIU

L 55-74

−11.5

FDU

L 63-70

−2.5

STO

L 82-85

+1.5

LEM

L 57-72

−8.5

NHVN

L 56-62

−7.5

SFPA

L 60-81

−17.5

MERC

L 59-61

+7.5

MERC

W 78-74

+6.5

CCSU

L 67-78

−2.5

NHVN

W 63-57

+11.5

SFPA

W 80-75

+1.5

STO

W 68-55

+15.5

LEM

L 63-81

−11.5

FDU

L 59-60

+0.5

CCSU

W 70-51

+22.5

LIU

L 56-73

−5.5

WAG

L 61-80

−14.5

LIU

L 75-79

+6.5

covered 15didn’t cover 16avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

DEP

L 62-92

+10.5

SLU

L 86-108

+38.5

BTLR

L 66-98

+5.5

UIC

L 63-67

−26.5

MINN

L 54-66

−24.5

IOWA

L 54-93

+4.5

PFW

L 77-90

+17.5

YSU

L 64-87

+4.5

ILST

L 53-95

+3.5

LUC

W 84-75

+18.5

BGSU

L 55-76

−17.5

L 58-78

−16.5

WAG

L 72-79

+4.5

LIU

L 55-74

−22.5

FDU

L 63-70

−10.5

STO

L 82-85

+31.5

LEM

L 57-72

−17.5

NHVN

L 56-62

−11.5

SFPA

L 60-81

−2.5

MERC

L 59-61

−11.5

MERC

W 78-74

+22.5

CCSU

L 67-78

+6.5

NHVN

W 63-57

−7.5

SFPA

W 80-75

+10.5

STO

W 68-55

−8.5

LEM

L 63-81

−0.5

FDU

L 59-60

−12.5

CCSU

W 70-51

−17.5

LIU

L 56-73

−12.5

WAG

L 61-80

+6.5

LIU

L 75-79

+16.5

over 15under 16avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

CA Baptist

34 games played

Straight up

25-9

74% wins

Against the spread

20-14

59% covers · avg +1.7 pts vs the line

Over / Under

12-22

35% overs · avg −4.3 pts vs the total

Straight up

25-974%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

20-1459%

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

7 straight covers4 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

12-2235%

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

2 straight unders2 of last 4 over

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	vsUPST	W 87-75	-14.5	L −2.5	152.5	O 162
Nov 7	@UCI	W 69-61	+8.5	W +16.5	147.5	U 130
Nov 14	vsWIU	W 69-59	-15.5	L −5.5	140.5	U 128
Nov 18	vsUCR	W 80-57	-12.5	W +10.5	142.5	U 137
Nov 21	vsGRAM	W 72-59	-14.5	L −1.5	144.5	U 131
Nov 25	vsUSD	W 76-61	-7.5	W +7.5	146.5	U 137
Nov 29	@ORST	W 75-69	+1.5	W +7.5	137.5	O 144
Dec 1	@COLO	L 70-78	+13.5	W +5.5	150.5	U 148
Dec 3	@BYU	L 60-91	+18.5	L −12.5	153.5	U 151
Dec 6	@UTAH	L 85-91	+5.5	L −0.5	145.5	O 176
Dec 12	@EWU	W 88-83	-3.5	W +1.5	153.5	O 171
Dec 16	vsSOU	W 75-67	-12.5	L −4.5	155.5	U 142
Dec 20	vsSAC	W 74-67	-14.5	L −7.5	158.5	U 141
Dec 29	@UVU	L 66-73	+7.5	W +0.5	148.5	U 139
Jan 1	@UTA	L 51-63	-2.5	L −14.5	134.5	U 114
Jan 3	@TAR	L 76-81	+1.5	L −3.5	147.5	O 157
Jan 8	vsUTU	W 84-72	-7.5	W +4.5	144.5	O 156
Jan 10	vsSUU	W 58-55	-14.5	L −11.5	150.5	U 113
Jan 15	@ACU	W 74-58	+1.5	W +17.5	140.5	U 132
Jan 21	vsUTU	W 73-64	-8.5	W +0.5	143.5	U 137
Jan 24	vsUVU	W 78-71	-1.5	W +5.5	147.5	O 149
Jan 31	@UTA	W 87-77	-1.5	W +8.5	134.5	O 164
Feb 5	vsTAR	W 56-55	-10.5	L −9.5	138.5	U 111
Feb 7	vsACU	W 65-63	-8.5	L −6.5	135.5	U 128
Feb 12	@SUU	W 83-66	-5.5	W +11.5	147.5	O 149
Feb 14	@UTU	L 65-70	-2.5	L −7.5	143.5	U 135
Feb 19	@UVU	L 46-65	+8.5	L −10.5	142.5	U 111
Feb 26	vsUTA	W 68-56	-6.5	W +5.5	134.5	U 124
Feb 28	vsTAR	W 82-67	-8.5	W +6.5	139.5	O 149
Mar 5	vsACU	W 87-48	-9.5	W +29.5	136.5	U 135
Mar 7	@SUU	W 82-75	-6.5	W +0.5	148.5	O 157
Mar 13	vsUTU	W 86-72	-8.5	W +5.5	144.5	O 158
Mar 14	vsUVU	W 63-61	+2.5	W +4.5	139.5	U 124
Mar 20	vsKU	L 60-68	+14.5	W +6.5	142.5	U 128

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UPST

W 87-75

−2.5

UCI

W 69-61

+16.5

WIU

W 69-59

−5.5

UCR

W 80-57

+10.5

GRAM

W 72-59

−1.5

USD

W 76-61

+7.5

ORST

W 75-69

+7.5

COLO

L 70-78

+5.5

BYU

L 60-91

−12.5

UTAH

L 85-91

−0.5

EWU

W 88-83

+1.5

SOU

W 75-67

−4.5

SAC

W 74-67

−7.5

UVU

L 66-73

+0.5

UTA

L 51-63

−14.5

TAR

L 76-81

−3.5

UTU

W 84-72

+4.5

SUU

W 58-55

−11.5

ACU

W 74-58

+17.5

UTU

W 73-64

+0.5

UVU

W 78-71

+5.5

UTA

W 87-77

+8.5

TAR

W 56-55

−9.5

ACU

W 65-63

−6.5

SUU

W 83-66

+11.5

UTU

L 65-70

−7.5

UVU

L 46-65

−10.5

UTA

W 68-56

+5.5

TAR

W 82-67

+6.5

ACU

W 87-48

+29.5

SUU

W 82-75

+0.5

UTU

W 86-72

+5.5

UVU

W 63-61

+4.5

L 60-68

+6.5

covered 20didn’t cover 14avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UPST

W 87-75

+9.5

UCI

W 69-61

−17.5

WIU

W 69-59

−12.5

UCR

W 80-57

−5.5

GRAM

W 72-59

−13.5

USD

W 76-61

−9.5

ORST

W 75-69

+6.5

COLO

L 70-78

−2.5

BYU

L 60-91

−2.5

UTAH

L 85-91

+30.5

EWU

W 88-83

+17.5

SOU

W 75-67

−13.5

SAC

W 74-67

−17.5

UVU

L 66-73

−9.5

UTA

L 51-63

−20.5

TAR

L 76-81

+9.5

UTU

W 84-72

+11.5

SUU

W 58-55

−37.5

ACU

W 74-58

−8.5

UTU

W 73-64

−6.5

UVU

W 78-71

+1.5

UTA

W 87-77

+29.5

TAR

W 56-55

−27.5

ACU

W 65-63

−7.5

SUU

W 83-66

+1.5

UTU

L 65-70

−8.5

UVU

L 46-65

−31.5

UTA

W 68-56

−10.5

TAR

W 82-67

+9.5

ACU

W 87-48

−1.5

SUU

W 82-75

+8.5

UTU

W 86-72

+13.5

UVU

W 63-61

−15.5

L 60-68

−14.5

over 12under 22avg −4.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

CA Baptist has the better starters

Position by position: Chicago St 0, CA Baptist 1, even 4

Chicago StBetterCA Baptist

G M. Price TR6.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 3

CBUBig

G E. Duncan TR10.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.9 ast Score 67

G A. Carraway TR4.9 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 3

Even

G J. Muller4.4 pts · 1 reb · 1.8 ast Score 7

G M. Olafioye TR3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.2 ast Score 2

No call

G J. Dollar1.9 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.1 ast Not ranked

F B. Akanmu TR5.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.5 ast Score 14

No call

F R. D'Amelio2.6 pts · 3 reb · 0.2 ast Not ranked

F D. Loury TR4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast Score 1

No call

F N. Richart TR0.3 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast Not ranked

Chicago StBetterCA Baptist

CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2

CBUBig

CBU defense178th of 366 · -4.0

CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0

CBUSmall

CBU offense246th of 366 · -7.5

Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players

CBUBig

Backcourt-2.2 · 3 players

Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players

CBUBig

Frontcourt-0.8 · 2 players

Bench-2.7 · 2 players

No call

BenchNo numbers yet

Score, worst to bestCHST betterCBU 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

Chicago St

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

CA Baptist

Guards

E. Duncan21 min · TRJ. Muller21 minJ. Dollar5 minT. ConerNewJ. StonkusNewO. BlanksonNew

Forwards

R. D'Amelio11 minN. Richart7 min · TRA. MilenkovicNewJ. ZilinskasNewA. SafinNew

Centers

M. KovacNew

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

CHST65.2 #348

CBU72.7 #230

Points per possession

CHST0.99 #337

CBU1.07 #209

Pace (possessions)

CHST66.0 #314

CBU68.3 #217

Shooting

Effective FG%

CHST45.3 #358

CBU48.3 #308

3-point %

CHST32.1 #275

CBU33.4 #200

3-point attempt rate

CHST30.9 #341

CBU32.0 #330

Free throw rate

CHST30.0 #311

CBU35.9 #154

Possessions

Turnover rate

CHST15.7 #114

CBU18.0 #270

Offensive rebound rate

CHST28.3 #255

CBU37.5 #13

Assists per game

CHST11.7 #305

CBU10.2 #355

Defense

Points allowed

CHST76.5 #231

CBU67.6 #28

Points allowed per possession

CHST1.16 #332

CBU0.99 #18

Opponent effective FG%

CHST56.7 #354

CBU46.3 #16

Opponent 3-point %

CHST35.6 #290

CBU29.5 #5

Turnovers forced

CHST20.1 #21

CBU16.9 #159

Defensive rebound rate

CHST65.0 #339

CBU72.8 #41

Steals per game

CHST8.2 #33

CBU5.5 #296

Blocks per game

CHST1.3 #365

CBU2.9 #253

CHST		CBU
Scoring
65.2 #348	Points per game	72.7 #230
0.99 #337	Points per possession	1.07 #209
66.0 #314	Pace (possessions)	68.3 #217
Shooting
45.3 #358	Effective FG%	48.3 #308
32.1 #275	3-point %	33.4 #200
30.9 #341	3-point attempt rate	32.0 #330
30.0 #311	Free throw rate	35.9 #154
Possessions
15.7 #114	Turnover rate	18.0 #270
28.3 #255	Offensive rebound rate	37.5 #13
11.7 #305	Assists per game	10.2 #355
Defense
76.5 #231	Points allowed	67.6 #28
1.16 #332	Points allowed per possession	0.99 #18
56.7 #354	Opponent effective FG%	46.3 #16
35.6 #290	Opponent 3-point %	29.5 #5
20.1 #21	Turnovers forced	16.9 #159
65.0 #339	Defensive rebound rate	72.8 #41
8.2 #33	Steals per game	5.5 #296
1.3 #365	Blocks per game	2.9 #253

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.

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.

CA Baptist

25-9 in 2025-26 overall · 15-5 in conference · Big West Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Kansas60–68
Wvs Utah Valley63–61
Wvs Utah Tech86–72
W@ Southern Utah82–75
Wvs Abilene Chrstn87–48

A week or more of rest.

Chicago State Cougars at California Baptist Lancers

What could decide it: CBU 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

Chicago St

CA Baptist

CA Baptist has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Chicago St

CA Baptist