Chicago State Cougars at Evansville Purple Aces: Model Line and Edge

Mon, Nov 30, 12:00 AM ETFord Center · at Evansville

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Chicago St and Evansville
CHST	This season	EVAN
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 EVAN 77–65 · win probability EVAN 87%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 141.8

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: EVAN has more of the edges

CHST 1, EVAN 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

CHSTBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, EVAN 19.1%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, EVAN 15.4%

EVANBig

CHST offense vs EVAN defense

Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 220th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, EVAN the 127th. A record against a soft schedule means less

EVANSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, EVAN 29.8. Allowed: CHST 38.0, EVAN 31.4

EVANSmall

EVAN offense vs CHST defense

Offense 277th of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings

EVANSmall

Home court

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

EVANSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; EVAN 49.3 and allows 55.1

EVANSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, EVAN 35%. Transfers in: CHST 6, EVAN 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), EVAN 67.9 (232nd). Faster games mean more points

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, EVAN 22.0%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, EVAN 69.8%

Even

Three-pointers

CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; EVAN hits 32.3% and allows 37.6%. Threes are 30.9% and 43.1% of their shots

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	—	EVAN -12.7	—
Total	—	141.8	—
Projected score	—	CHST 64.6 · EVAN 77.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	EVAN -7.4	—
1H total	66.4	—
1H projected score	CHST 29.5 · EVAN 36.9	—

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	—
EVAN WLWLW	14-16	47%	5-8	—

Venue/role: CHST away; EVAN 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
EVAN OOOOU	15-15	50%	5-25

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%
EVAN	2-8 20%	5-5 50%	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
Dec 2	@ MUR	L65–66WU
Dec 5	vs ILST	L53–95LO
Dec 12	@ VAL	W63–62WU

Evansville

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 5	vs WKU	L79–80WO
Dec 8	@ BALL	W64–52WU
Dec 15	vs DRKE	L78–82WO

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

Evansville

30 games played

Straight up

5-25

17% wins

Against the spread

14-16

47% covers · avg −3.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-15

50% overs · avg +2.2 pts vs the total

Straight up

5-2517%

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

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1647%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1550%

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

3 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 4	@PUR	L 51-82	+33.5	W +2.5	150.5	U 133
Nov 12	vsMTSU	L 72-77	-2.5	L −7.5	140.5	O 149
Nov 18	vsUTA	L 76-84	-2.5	L −10.5	138.5	O 160
Nov 21	vsORST	W 73-69	+6.5	W +10.5	136.5	O 142
Nov 23	vsAKR	L 59-97	+11.5	L −26.5	156.5	U 156
Nov 24	vsCOFC	L 59-78	+4.5	L −14.5	141.5	U 137
Dec 3	vsBALL	W 64-52	-6.5	W +5.5	136.5	U 116
Dec 6	@WKU	L 79-80	+11.5	W +10.5	147.5	O 159
Dec 13	@ND	L 58-82	+14.5	L −9.5	136.5	O 140
Dec 16	vsBEL	L 78-83	+8.5	W +3.5	147.5	O 161
Dec 21	vsDRKE	L 65-66	-2.5	L −3.5	141.5	U 131
Dec 29	@BRAD	L 68-76	+11.5	W +3.5	144.5	U 144
Jan 1	@ILST	L 47-73	+12.5	L −13.5	144.5	U 120
Jan 4	vsUNI	L 48-62	+4.5	L −9.5	131.5	U 110
Jan 7	vsMUR	L 69-79	+8.5	L −1.5	153.5	U 148
Jan 10	@INST	W 72-69	+7.5	W +10.5	145.5	U 141
Jan 13	vsBRAD	L 90-94	+7.5	W +3.5	142.5	O 184
Jan 20	@UIC	L 49-76	+8.5	L −18.5	139.5	U 125
Jan 28	@DRKE	L 78-82	+8.5	W +4.5	143.5	O 160
Jan 31	@UNI	L 55-71	+11.5	L −4.5	128.5	U 126
Feb 3	vsINST	L 63-84	+1.5	L −19.5	145.5	O 147
Feb 6	@VAL	L 63-70	+8.5	W +1.5	136.5	U 133
Feb 9	vsILST	W 88-80	+10.5	W +18.5	137.5	O 168
Feb 12	@SIU	L 60-86	+12.5	L −13.5	142.5	O 146
Feb 18	vsUIC	L 46-84	+8.5	L −29.5	140.5	U 130
Feb 21	@MUR	L 75-88	+15.5	W +2.5	153.5	O 163
Feb 25	@BEL	L 64-98	+18.5	L −15.5	152.5	O 162
Feb 28	vsVAL	W 80-79	+5.5	W +6.5	137.5	O 159
Mar 1	vsSIU	L 67-81	+9.5	L −4.5	139.5	O 148
Mar 5	vsUNI	L 59-68	+13.5	W +4.5	127.5	U 127

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

PUR

L 51-82

+2.5

MTSU

L 72-77

−7.5

UTA

L 76-84

−10.5

ORST

W 73-69

+10.5

AKR

L 59-97

−26.5

COFC

L 59-78

−14.5

BALL

W 64-52

+5.5

WKU

L 79-80

+10.5

L 58-82

−9.5

BEL

L 78-83

+3.5

DRKE

L 65-66

−3.5

BRAD

L 68-76

+3.5

ILST

L 47-73

−13.5

UNI

L 48-62

−9.5

MUR

L 69-79

−1.5

INST

W 72-69

+10.5

BRAD

L 90-94

+3.5

UIC

L 49-76

−18.5

DRKE

L 78-82

+4.5

UNI

L 55-71

−4.5

INST

L 63-84

−19.5

VAL

L 63-70

+1.5

ILST

W 88-80

+18.5

SIU

L 60-86

−13.5

UIC

L 46-84

−29.5

MUR

L 75-88

+2.5

BEL

L 64-98

−15.5

VAL

W 80-79

+6.5

SIU

L 67-81

−4.5

UNI

L 59-68

+4.5

covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

PUR

L 51-82

−17.5

MTSU

L 72-77

+8.5

UTA

L 76-84

+21.5

ORST

W 73-69

+5.5

AKR

L 59-97

−0.5

COFC

L 59-78

−4.5

BALL

W 64-52

−20.5

WKU

L 79-80

+11.5

L 58-82

+3.5

BEL

L 78-83

+13.5

DRKE

L 65-66

−10.5

BRAD

L 68-76

−0.5

ILST

L 47-73

−24.5

UNI

L 48-62

−21.5

MUR

L 69-79

−5.5

INST

W 72-69

−4.5

BRAD

L 90-94

+41.5

UIC

L 49-76

−14.5

DRKE

L 78-82

+16.5

UNI

L 55-71

−2.5

INST

L 63-84

+1.5

VAL

L 63-70

−3.5

ILST

W 88-80

+30.5

SIU

L 60-86

+3.5

UIC

L 46-84

−10.5

MUR

L 75-88

+9.5

BEL

L 64-98

+9.5

VAL

W 80-79

+21.5

SIU

L 67-81

+8.5

UNI

L 59-68

−0.5

over 15under 15avg +2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Evansville has the better starters

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

Chicago StBetterEvansville

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

EVANSmall

G B. Quinet8.6 pts · 2 reb · 2.4 ast Score 31

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

No call

G M. Langenfeld TR2.6 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.5 ast Not ranked

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

EVANBig

F A. Casey13.9 pts · 6 reb · 2 ast Score 86

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

EVANBig

F G. Winther TR7.9 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.9 ast Score 51

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

Even

F J. Dyson-Merwe2.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 8

Chicago StBetterEvansville

CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2

EVANBig

EVAN defense220th of 366 · -5.7

CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0

EVANSmall

EVAN offense277th of 366 · -8.5

Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players

EVANBig

Backcourt-2.2 · 2 players

Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players

EVANBig

Frontcourt+0.8 · 3 players

Bench-2.7 · 2 players

No call

BenchNo numbers yet

Score, worst to bestCHST betterEVAN 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

Evansville

Guards

B. Quinet27 minM. Langenfeld7 min · TRM. RiekNewL. EllspermannNewA. GutmanNewR. MasumyanNew

Forwards

A. Casey30 minG. Winther22 min · TRJ. Dyson-Merwe13 minD. NejezchlebNewY. PinasNewJ. GenschawNew

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

EVAN65.8 #347

Points per possession

CHST0.99 #337

EVAN0.97 #344

Pace (possessions)

CHST66.0 #314

EVAN67.9 #232

Shooting

Effective FG%

CHST45.3 #358

EVAN49.3 #280

3-point %

CHST32.1 #275

EVAN32.3 #268

3-point attempt rate

CHST30.9 #341

EVAN43.1 #109

Free throw rate

CHST30.0 #311

EVAN29.8 #315

Possessions

Turnover rate

CHST15.7 #114

EVAN19.1 #324

Offensive rebound rate

CHST28.3 #255

EVAN22.0 #355

Assists per game

CHST11.7 #305

EVAN12.6 #245

Defense

Points allowed

CHST76.5 #231

EVAN78.3 #275

Points allowed per possession

CHST1.16 #332

EVAN1.15 #329

Opponent effective FG%

CHST56.7 #354

EVAN55.1 #332

Opponent 3-point %

CHST35.6 #290

EVAN37.6 #351

Turnovers forced

CHST20.1 #21

EVAN15.4 #258

Defensive rebound rate

CHST65.0 #339

EVAN69.8 #170

Steals per game

CHST8.2 #33

EVAN5.0 #335

Blocks per game

CHST1.3 #365

EVAN3.3 #171

CHST		EVAN
Scoring
65.2 #348	Points per game	65.8 #347
0.99 #337	Points per possession	0.97 #344
66.0 #314	Pace (possessions)	67.9 #232
Shooting
45.3 #358	Effective FG%	49.3 #280
32.1 #275	3-point %	32.3 #268
30.9 #341	3-point attempt rate	43.1 #109
30.0 #311	Free throw rate	29.8 #315
Possessions
15.7 #114	Turnover rate	19.1 #324
28.3 #255	Offensive rebound rate	22.0 #355
11.7 #305	Assists per game	12.6 #245
Defense
76.5 #231	Points allowed	78.3 #275
1.16 #332	Points allowed per possession	1.15 #329
56.7 #354	Opponent effective FG%	55.1 #332
35.6 #290	Opponent 3-point %	37.6 #351
20.1 #21	Turnovers forced	15.4 #258
65.0 #339	Defensive rebound rate	69.8 #170
8.2 #33	Steals per game	5.0 #335
1.3 #365	Blocks per game	3.3 #171

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.

Evansville

5-25 in 2025-26 overall · 3-18 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Northern Iowa59–68
Lvs S Illinois67–81
Wvs Valparaiso80–79
L@ Belmont64–98
L@ Murray St75–88

A week or more of rest.

Chicago State Cougars at Evansville Purple Aces

What could decide it: EVAN 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

Evansville

Evansville has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Chicago St

Evansville