Chicago State Cougars at Bradley Braves: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Nov 28, 12:00 AM ETCarver Arena · at Bradley

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Chicago St and Bradley
CHST	This season	BRAD
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 BRAD 81–63 · win probability BRAD 94%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 144.7

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: BRAD has more of the edges

CHST 0, BRAD 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

BRADBig

CHST offense vs BRAD defense

Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 185th, on the model’s ratings

BRADBig

BRAD offense vs CHST defense

Offense 175th of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings

BRADBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; BRAD 51.1 and allows 52.8

BRADBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, BRAD 27.4%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, BRAD 72.2%

Context

Schedule so far

CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, BRAD the 155th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), BRAD 69.9 (125th). Faster games mean more points

BRADSmall

Three-pointers

CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; BRAD hits 36.1% and allows 36.6%. Threes are 30.9% and 40.5% of their shots

BRADSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, BRAD 35.9. Allowed: CHST 38.0, BRAD 38.2

BRADSmall

Home court

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

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, BRAD 13.9%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, BRAD 18.9%

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, BRAD 16%. Transfers in: CHST 6, BRAD 3. 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	—	BRAD -17.8	—
Total	—	144.7	—
Projected score	—	CHST 63.4 · BRAD 81.2

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	BRAD -10.5	—
1H total	67.7	—
1H projected score	CHST 28.6 · BRAD 39.1	—

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	—
BRAD LWWWL	14-19	42%	7-9	—

Venue/role: CHST away; BRAD 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
BRAD OOOOO	19-14	58%	20-13

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%
BRAD	5-5 50%	6-4 60%	7-3 70%

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 30	@ EVAN	No recent meeting
Dec 2	@ MUR	L65–66WU
Dec 5	vs ILST	L53–95LO

Bradley

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 4	@ UNT	No recent meeting
Dec 8	vs GB	No recent meeting

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

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

Bradley

33 games played

Straight up

20-13

61% wins

Against the spread

14-19

42% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-14

58% overs · avg +5.5 pts vs the total

Straight up

20-1361%

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

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1942%

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

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

19-1458%

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

5 straight overs4 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	vsSBU	L 63-69	+1.5	L −4.5	139.5	U 132
Nov 8	vsCMU	W 85-54	-9.5	W +21.5	147.5	U 139
Nov 12	vsUTM	L 67-78	-15.5	L −26.5	144.5	O 145
Nov 15	@SF	L 64-75	+9.5	L −1.5	146.5	U 139
Nov 19	vsUML	W 87-77	-21.5	L −11.5	149.5	O 164
Nov 24	vsPRIN	W 88-64	-9.5	W +14.5	141.5	O 152
Nov 25	vsUCSD	L 77-87	-1.5	L −11.5	145.5	O 164
Nov 26	vsLIB	W 74-64	+4.5	W +14.5	144.5	U 138
Dec 2	vsWSU	W 64-60	-5.5	L −1.5	148.5	U 124
Dec 6	vsNIU	W 84-55	-18.5	W +10.5	146.5	U 139
Dec 18	@INST	W 108-99	-5.5	W +3.5	150.5	O 207
Dec 21	vsSIU	W 73-69	-6.5	L −2.5	152.5	U 142
Dec 29	vsEVAN	W 76-68	-11.5	L −3.5	144.5	U 144
Jan 1	@BEL	L 78-88	+3.5	L −6.5	153.5	O 166
Jan 4	@MUR	L 66-86	+5.5	L −14.5	162.5	U 152
Jan 7	vsDRKE	W 93-66	-6.5	W +20.5	144.5	O 159
Jan 10	vsUNI	W 75-69	-4.5	W +1.5	131.5	O 144
Jan 13	@EVAN	W 94-90	-7.5	L −3.5	142.5	O 184
Jan 17	@ILST	L 62-88	+5.5	L −20.5	147.5	O 150
Jan 21	vsINST	W 75-68	-8.5	L −1.5	155.5	U 143
Jan 24	vsUIC	L 70-85	-7.5	L −22.5	144.5	O 155
Jan 31	@DRKE	W 87-73	-2.5	W +11.5	150.5	O 160
Feb 3	vsVAL	W 72-65	-7.5	L −0.5	144.5	U 137
Feb 6	@UNI	L 49-61	+3.5	L −8.5	134.5	U 110
Feb 9	vsBEL	W 95-84	+1.5	W +12.5	152.5	O 179
Feb 15	@SIU	W 70-60	+2.5	W +12.5	146.5	U 130
Feb 18	@VAL	L 72-79	-2.5	L −9.5	142.5	O 151
Feb 21	vsILST	W 74-60	-3.5	W +10.5	145.5	U 134
Feb 24	@UIC	L 86-93	+1.5	L −5.5	141.5	O 179
Mar 1	vsMUR	W 87-78	-3.5	W +5.5	157.5	O 165
Mar 6	vsVAL	W 90-84	-5.5	W +0.5	139.5	O 174
Mar 7	vsUNI	L 69-73	+4.5	W +0.5	127.5	O 142
Mar 18	vsDAY	L 66-80	+2.5	L −11.5	141.5	O 146

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

SBU

L 63-69

−4.5

CMU

W 85-54

+21.5

UTM

L 67-78

−26.5

L 64-75

−1.5

UML

W 87-77

−11.5

PRIN

W 88-64

+14.5

UCSD

L 77-87

−11.5

LIB

W 74-64

+14.5

WSU

W 64-60

−1.5

NIU

W 84-55

+10.5

INST

W 108-99

+3.5

SIU

W 73-69

−2.5

EVAN

W 76-68

−3.5

BEL

L 78-88

−6.5

MUR

L 66-86

−14.5

DRKE

W 93-66

+20.5

UNI

W 75-69

+1.5

EVAN

W 94-90

−3.5

ILST

L 62-88

−20.5

INST

W 75-68

−1.5

UIC

L 70-85

−22.5

DRKE

W 87-73

+11.5

VAL

W 72-65

−0.5

UNI

L 49-61

−8.5

BEL

W 95-84

+12.5

SIU

W 70-60

+12.5

VAL

L 72-79

−9.5

ILST

W 74-60

+10.5

UIC

L 86-93

−5.5

MUR

W 87-78

+5.5

VAL

W 90-84

+0.5

UNI

L 69-73

+0.5

DAY

L 66-80

−11.5

covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

SBU

L 63-69

−7.5

CMU

W 85-54

−8.5

UTM

L 67-78

+0.5

L 64-75

−7.5

UML

W 87-77

+14.5

PRIN

W 88-64

+10.5

UCSD

L 77-87

+18.5

LIB

W 74-64

−6.5

WSU

W 64-60

−24.5

NIU

W 84-55

−7.5

INST

W 108-99

+56.5

SIU

W 73-69

−10.5

EVAN

W 76-68

−0.5

BEL

L 78-88

+12.5

MUR

L 66-86

−10.5

DRKE

W 93-66

+14.5

UNI

W 75-69

+12.5

EVAN

W 94-90

+41.5

ILST

L 62-88

+2.5

INST

W 75-68

−12.5

UIC

L 70-85

+10.5

DRKE

W 87-73

+9.5

VAL

W 72-65

−7.5

UNI

L 49-61

−24.5

BEL

W 95-84

+26.5

SIU

W 70-60

−16.5

VAL

L 72-79

+8.5

ILST

W 74-60

−11.5

UIC

L 86-93

+37.5

MUR

W 87-78

+7.5

VAL

W 90-84

+34.5

UNI

L 69-73

+14.5

DAY

L 66-80

+4.5

over 19under 14avg +5.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Bradley has the better starters

Position by position: Chicago St 0, Bradley 2, even 3

Chicago StBetterBradley

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

Even

G T. Payton TR9.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.7 ast Score 15

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

BRADSmall

G T. van der Knaap6.5 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.4 ast Score 30

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

No call

G D. Richardson2.2 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.5 ast Not ranked

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

BRADBig

F X. Alarie TR10.3 pts · 7.4 reb · 1.5 ast Score 50

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

No call

F J. Ibukunoluwa TR2.3 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.2 ast Not ranked

Chicago StBetterBradley

CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2

BRADBig

BRAD defense185th of 366 · -4.3

CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0

BRADBig

BRAD offense175th of 366 · -5.4

Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players

BRADSmall

Backcourt-5.9 · 3 players

Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players

BRADBig

Frontcourt-0.2 · 2 players

Bench-2.7 · 2 players

BRADSmall

Bench-0.0 · 1 player

Score, worst to bestCHST betterBRAD 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

Bradley

Guards

T. Payton34 min · TRT. van der Knaap23 minD. Richardson7 minG. Rugaard1 minK. GrillNewG. GerganovNew

Forwards

X. Alarie28 min · TRJ. Ibukunoluwa6 min · TRB. ThornbrueNew

Centers

G. GuimaresNew

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

BRAD77.0 #117

Points per possession

CHST0.99 #337

BRAD1.10 #129

Pace (possessions)

CHST66.0 #314

BRAD69.9 #125

Shooting

Effective FG%

CHST45.3 #358

BRAD51.1 #189

3-point %

CHST32.1 #275

BRAD36.1 #53

3-point attempt rate

CHST30.9 #341

BRAD40.5 #161

Free throw rate

CHST30.0 #311

BRAD35.9 #156

Possessions

Turnover rate

CHST15.7 #114

BRAD13.9 #19

Offensive rebound rate

CHST28.3 #255

BRAD27.4 #285

Assists per game

CHST11.7 #305

BRAD13.3 #191

Defense

Points allowed

CHST76.5 #231

BRAD74.2 #162

Points allowed per possession

CHST1.16 #332

BRAD1.06 #109

Opponent effective FG%

CHST56.7 #354

BRAD52.8 #259

Opponent 3-point %

CHST35.6 #290

BRAD36.6 #334

Turnovers forced

CHST20.1 #21

BRAD18.9 #53

Defensive rebound rate

CHST65.0 #339

BRAD72.2 #62

Steals per game

CHST8.2 #33

BRAD7.5 #86

Blocks per game

CHST1.3 #365

BRAD3.2 #192

CHST		BRAD
Scoring
65.2 #348	Points per game	77.0 #117
0.99 #337	Points per possession	1.10 #129
66.0 #314	Pace (possessions)	69.9 #125
Shooting
45.3 #358	Effective FG%	51.1 #189
32.1 #275	3-point %	36.1 #53
30.9 #341	3-point attempt rate	40.5 #161
30.0 #311	Free throw rate	35.9 #156
Possessions
15.7 #114	Turnover rate	13.9 #19
28.3 #255	Offensive rebound rate	27.4 #285
11.7 #305	Assists per game	13.3 #191
Defense
76.5 #231	Points allowed	74.2 #162
1.16 #332	Points allowed per possession	1.06 #109
56.7 #354	Opponent effective FG%	52.8 #259
35.6 #290	Opponent 3-point %	36.6 #334
20.1 #21	Turnovers forced	18.9 #53
65.0 #339	Defensive rebound rate	72.2 #62
8.2 #33	Steals per game	7.5 #86
1.3 #365	Blocks per game	3.2 #192

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.

Bradley

20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 14-8 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Dayton66–80
Lvs Northern Iowa69–73
Wvs Valparaiso90–84
Wvs Murray St87–78
L@ UIC86–93

A week or more of rest.

Chicago State Cougars at Bradley Braves

What could decide it: BRAD has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Chicago St

Bradley

Bradley has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Chicago St

Bradley