CFSB Center · at Murray St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MUR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MUR 86–64 · win probability MUR 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.1
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: MUR has more of the edges
CHST 1, MUR 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MUR offense vs CHST defense
Offense 110th of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; MUR 53.8 and allows 52.4
Free throws
Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, MUR 38.6. Allowed: CHST 38.0, MUR 32.2
CHST offense vs MUR defense
Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 197th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), MUR 72.3 (30th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, MUR 32.6%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, MUR 68.7%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, MUR 16.4%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, MUR 15.7%
Context
Schedule so far
CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, MUR the 165th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; MUR hits 35.0% and allows 36.2%. Threes are 30.9% and 44.8% of their shots
Home court
MUR at home. This season: MUR 0-0 at home, CHST 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, MUR 28%. Transfers in: CHST 6, MUR 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | MUR -21.4 | — |
| Total | — | 150.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | CHST 64.4 · MUR 85.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MUR -12.6 | — |
| 1H total | 70.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | CHST 28.8 · MUR 41.4 | — |
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% | |
| 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CHST 0–1 MURMUR leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CHST 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2022-23 | CHST 65 @ MUR 66 | MUR -12.5 | 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
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
Murray St
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-14
58% overs · avg +4.9 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
8 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered
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 | vs | W 85-77 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 108-60 | -38.5 | W +9.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 91-102 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 164.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 99-79 | -14.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 89-68 | -13.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 87-90 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 60-73 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 158.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 96-95 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 167.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 84-52 | -16.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 81-68 | -16.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 115-100 | +4.5 | W +19.5 | 168.5 | O 215 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 81-72 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 85-79 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 84-81 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 165.5 | U 165 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 81-77 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 86-66 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 162.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 79-69 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 92-79 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 85-81 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 167.5 | U 166 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 90-101 | -4.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | O 191 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 76-81 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 65-70 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 86-103 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 163.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 81-74 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 6 | @ | W 91-81 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 60-89 | -4.5 | L −33.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 74-72 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 70-87 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 166.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 61-78 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 158.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 88-75 | -15.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 78-87 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 79-92 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 75-89 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
OMA
W 85-77
+2.5
7
vs
MVSU
W 108-60
+9.5
11
@
SMU
L 91-102
−0.5
15
vs
NICH
W 99-79
+5.5
18
vs
LR
W 89-68
+7.5
23
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
−9.5
24
vs
MCN
L 60-73
−10.5
25
vs
GW
W 96-95
+8.5
2
vs
MORE
W 84-52
+15.5
6
vs
BELL
W 81-68
−3.5
13
vs
AKR
W 115-100
+19.5
18
vs
DRKE
W 81-72
+1.5
21
@
VAL
W 85-79
+0.5
29
vs
SIU
W 84-81
−3.5
1
@
UIC
W 81-77
−1.5
4
vs
BRAD
W 86-66
+14.5
7
@
EVAN
W 79-69
+1.5
10
vs
VAL
W 92-79
+0.5
17
vs
INST
W 85-81
−7.5
21
@
DRKE
L 90-101
−15.5
24
@
UNI
L 76-81
−6.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-70
−8.5
31
@
BEL
L 86-103
−13.5
3
vs
UIC
W 81-74
+0.5
6
@
SIU
W 91-81
+8.5
9
vs
UNI
L 60-89
−33.5
12
@
INST
W 74-72
−1.5
15
vs
BEL
L 70-87
−15.5
18
@
ILST
L 61-78
−14.5
21
vs
EVAN
W 88-75
−2.5
1
@
BRAD
L 78-87
−5.5
6
vs
UIC
L 79-92
−11.5
18
@
NEV
L 75-89
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
OMA
W 85-77
+8.5
7
vs
MVSU
W 108-60
+8.5
11
@
SMU
L 91-102
+28.5
15
vs
NICH
W 99-79
+20.5
18
vs
LR
W 89-68
+3.5
23
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
+15.5
24
vs
MCN
L 60-73
−25.5
25
vs
GW
W 96-95
+23.5
2
vs
MORE
W 84-52
−22.5
6
vs
BELL
W 81-68
−8.5
13
vs
AKR
W 115-100
+46.5
18
vs
DRKE
W 81-72
−3.5
21
@
VAL
W 85-79
+8.5
29
vs
SIU
W 84-81
−0.5
1
@
UIC
W 81-77
−1.5
4
vs
BRAD
W 86-66
−10.5
7
@
EVAN
W 79-69
−5.5
10
vs
VAL
W 92-79
+18.5
17
vs
INST
W 85-81
−1.5
21
@
DRKE
L 90-101
+34.5
24
@
UNI
L 76-81
+11.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-70
−24.5
31
@
BEL
L 86-103
+25.5
3
vs
UIC
W 81-74
−2.5
6
@
SIU
W 91-81
+14.5
9
vs
UNI
L 60-89
+3.5
12
@
INST
W 74-72
−17.5
15
vs
BEL
L 70-87
−9.5
18
@
ILST
L 61-78
−19.5
21
vs
EVAN
W 88-75
+9.5
1
@
BRAD
L 78-87
+7.5
6
vs
UIC
L 79-92
+20.5
18
@
NEV
L 75-89
+4.5
over 19under 14avg +4.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Murray St has the better starters
Position by position: Chicago St 0, Murray St 5, even 0
Chicago StBetterMurray St
G M. Price TR6.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 3
→MURBig
G C. Jones TR10 pts · 3 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 61
G A. Carraway TR4.9 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 3
→MURBig
G R. Domon14.2 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 95
G M. Olafioye TR3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 2
→MURSmall
G M. Courbon4.6 pts · 2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 31
F B. Akanmu TR5.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 14
→MURBig
F S. Tupuola TR6.3 pts · 5.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 55
F D. Loury TR4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 1
→MURBig
F B. Rogers TR6.7 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 67
Chicago StBetterMurray St
CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2
→MURBig
MUR defense197th of 366 · -4.8
CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0
→MURBig
MUR offense110th of 366 · -1.8
Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players
→MURBig
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players
→MURBig
Frontcourt+0.4 · 2 players
Bench-2.7 · 2 players
→MURSmall
Bench-1.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestCHST betterMUR 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
C. Jones26 min · TRR. Domon25 minM. Courbon16 minB. Shorter15 minK. Magwood11 min · TRB. ShtolzbergNew
Forwards
S. Tupuola25 min · TRB. Rogers18 min · TRP. NikolicNewJ. BoulefaaNew
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 | 83.1 #26 |
| 0.99 #337 | Points per possession | 1.15 #56 |
| 66.0 #314 | Pace (possessions) | 72.3 #30 |
| Shooting | ||
| 45.3 #358 | Effective FG% | 53.8 #70 |
| 32.1 #275 | 3-point % | 35.0 #120 |
| 30.9 #341 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.8 #72 |
| 30.0 #311 | Free throw rate | 38.6 #86 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.7 #114 | Turnover rate | 16.4 #160 |
| 28.3 #255 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.6 #100 |
| 11.7 #305 | Assists per game | 13.7 #165 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.5 #231 | Points allowed | 80.2 #323 |
| 1.16 #332 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #233 |
| 56.7 #354 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #236 |
| 35.6 #290 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.2 #310 |
| 20.1 #21 | Turnovers forced | 15.7 #234 |
| 65.0 #339 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.7 #214 |
| 8.2 #33 | Steals per game | 5.9 #248 |
| 1.3 #365 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #69 |
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.
Murray St
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Nevada75–89
- Lvs UIC79–92
- L@ Bradley78–87
- Wvs Evansville88–75
- L@ Illinois St61–78
A week or more of rest.