Koessler Athletic Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WIU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MERC 75–65 · win probability MERC 81%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.1
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: MERC has more of the edges
MERC 5, WIU 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MERC 14.3%, WIU 17.5%. Forced: MERC 18.6%, WIU 14.9%
Free throws
Free throw rate: MERC 25.6, WIU 37.7. Allowed: MERC 42.6, WIU 34.8
Shooting
Effective FG%: MERC 49.5 and allows 50.1; WIU 44.5 and allows 54.2
Three-pointers
MERC hits 32.1% and allows 32.3%; WIU hits 30.9% and allows 35.6%. Threes are 31.1% and 33.3% of their shots
WIU offense vs MERC defense
Offense 365th of 366 against a defense 272nd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MERC 26.4%, WIU 27.0%. Defensive: MERC 70.1%, WIU 65.2%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: MERC plays 65.6 a game (327th fastest), WIU 67.6 (246th). Faster games mean more points
Even
MERC offense vs WIU defense
Offense 346th of 366 against a defense 362nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MERC 26%, WIU 21%. Transfers in: MERC 3, WIU 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Schedule so far
MERC has played the 356th-hardest schedule, WIU the 361st. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | MERC -10.2 | — |
| Total | — | 140.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | MERC 75.2 · WIU 64.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MERC -6.2 | — |
| 1H total | 65.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | MERC 35.9 · WIU 29.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 1-9 10% | 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Mercyhurst
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
21-10
68% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg +1.3 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 47-70 | +26.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 6 | @ | W 73-65 | +21.5 | W +29.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 55-58 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 86-72 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 71-76 | +15.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 60-69 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 38-70 | +21.5 | L −10.5 | 127.5 | U 108 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 71-79 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 47-80 | +11.5 | L −21.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 62-76 | +24.5 | W +10.5 | 131.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-61 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 132.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 67-74 | -5.5 | L −12.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 74-60 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 58-60 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 70-69 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 132.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 57-62 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 128.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 79-61 | -1.5 | W +16.5 | 132.5 | O 140 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 61-57 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 122.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 25 | vs | W 61-59 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 70-51 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 122.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-78 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 98-89 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | O 187 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 52-55 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 94-79 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 80-83 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 133.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 91-83 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 78-80 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 70-61 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 56-51 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 107 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 70-79 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
NU
L 47-70
+3.5
6
@
LUC
W 73-65
+29.5
12
@
CAN
L 55-58
−4.5
15
vs
MORG
W 86-72
+7.5
20
@
M-OH
L 71-76
+10.5
23
@
MRSH
L 60-69
+2.5
30
@
WVU
L 38-70
−10.5
13
@
DAV
L 47-80
−21.5
17
@
SYR
L 62-76
+10.5
20
vs
BING
W 82-61
+13.5
2
vs
FDU
L 67-74
−12.5
4
vs
LEM
W 74-60
+11.5
8
@
LIU
L 58-60
+6.5
10
@
WAG
W 70-69
+2.5
17
vs
STO
L 57-62
−9.5
19
vs
CCSU
W 79-61
+16.5
23
@
NHVN
W 61-57
+2.5
25
vs
CHST
W 61-59
−7.5
29
vs
NHVN
W 70-51
+13.5
31
@
CHST
L 74-78
−6.5
5
vs
SFPA
W 98-89
+2.5
7
@
FDU
L 52-55
−0.5
12
@
LEM
L 57-58
+1.5
14
@
SFPA
W 94-79
+12.5
19
vs
WAG
L 80-83
−6.5
21
vs
LIU
W 91-83
+11.5
26
@
CCSU
L 78-80
+1.5
28
@
STO
W 75-72
+1.5
4
vs
FDU
W 70-61
+5.5
7
vs
STO
W 56-51
+0.5
10
@
LIU
L 70-79
−4.5
covered 21didn’t cover 10avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
NU
L 47-70
−23.5
6
@
LUC
W 73-65
−6.5
12
@
CAN
L 55-58
−22.5
15
vs
MORG
W 86-72
+11.5
20
@
M-OH
L 71-76
+7.5
23
@
MRSH
L 60-69
−18.5
30
@
WVU
L 38-70
−19.5
13
@
DAV
L 47-80
−5.5
17
@
SYR
L 62-76
+6.5
20
vs
BING
W 82-61
+10.5
2
vs
FDU
L 67-74
+7.5
4
vs
LEM
W 74-60
−7.5
8
@
LIU
L 58-60
−21.5
10
@
WAG
W 70-69
+6.5
17
vs
STO
L 57-62
−9.5
19
vs
CCSU
W 79-61
+7.5
23
@
NHVN
W 61-57
−4.5
25
vs
CHST
W 61-59
−11.5
29
vs
NHVN
W 70-51
−1.5
31
@
CHST
L 74-78
+22.5
5
vs
SFPA
W 98-89
+49.5
7
@
FDU
L 52-55
−24.5
12
@
LEM
L 57-58
−23.5
14
@
SFPA
W 94-79
+34.5
19
vs
WAG
L 80-83
+29.5
21
vs
LIU
W 91-83
+33.5
26
@
CCSU
L 78-80
+16.5
28
@
STO
W 75-72
+9.5
4
vs
FDU
W 70-61
−0.5
7
vs
STO
W 56-51
−27.5
10
@
LIU
L 70-79
+14.5
over 15under 16avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
W Illinois
28 games played
Straight up
2-26
7% wins
Against the spread
11-17
39% covers · avg −5.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-15
46% overs · avg −0.1 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 75-80 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 58-77 | +30.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 58-74 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 59-69 | +15.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 64-84 | +3.5 | L −16.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 69-78 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 57-108 | +17.5 | L −33.5 | 138.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 69-66 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 76-92 | +12.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 22 | vs | L 61-66 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 60-67 | +13.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 50-73 | +13.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 68-90 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 54-59 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 55-57 | +6.5 | W +4.5 | 132.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 79-86 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 66-71 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 64-96 | +6.5 | L −25.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 74-78 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 44-84 | +10.5 | L −29.5 | 137.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 72-97 | +9.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 56-83 | +15.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 79-70 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 133.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 58-77 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 70-77 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 59-81 | +8.5 | L −13.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 47-67 | +13.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 69-91 | +11.5 | L −10.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
RAD
L 75-80
+11.5
7
@
IOWA
L 58-77
+11.5
11
@
CSUB
L 58-74
−8.5
14
@
CBU
L 59-69
+5.5
21
vs
CCU
L 64-84
−16.5
23
vs
UND
L 69-78
−6.5
2
@
DRKE
L 57-108
−33.5
13
@
UND
W 69-66
+10.5
18
@
LIN
L 76-92
−3.5
22
vs
SIUE
L 61-66
+1.5
1
@
UTM
L 60-67
+6.5
3
@
SEMO
L 50-73
−9.5
8
vs
TNST
L 68-90
−15.5
10
vs
TNTC
L 54-59
−1.5
13
@
EIU
L 55-57
+4.5
17
@
LR
L 79-86
+3.5
22
@
MORE
L 66-71
+3.5
23
@
USI
L 64-96
−25.5
29
vs
SEMO
L 74-78
+6.5
31
vs
UTM
L 44-84
−29.5
5
@
TNTC
L 72-97
−15.5
7
@
TNST
L 56-83
−11.5
10
vs
EIU
W 79-70
+13.5
12
vs
LR
L 58-77
−11.5
19
vs
USI
L 70-77
−3.5
21
vs
MORE
L 59-81
−13.5
26
@
SIUE
L 47-67
−6.5
28
vs
LIN
L 69-91
−10.5
covered 11didn’t cover 17avg −5.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
RAD
L 75-80
+3.5
7
@
IOWA
L 58-77
−10.5
11
@
CSUB
L 58-74
−9.5
14
@
CBU
L 59-69
−12.5
21
vs
CCU
L 64-84
+9.5
23
vs
UND
L 69-78
+0.5
2
@
DRKE
L 57-108
+26.5
13
@
UND
W 69-66
−10.5
18
@
LIN
L 76-92
+21.5
22
vs
SIUE
L 61-66
−11.5
1
@
UTM
L 60-67
−13.5
3
@
SEMO
L 50-73
−24.5
8
vs
TNST
L 68-90
+12.5
10
vs
TNTC
L 54-59
−30.5
13
@
EIU
L 55-57
−20.5
17
@
LR
L 79-86
+29.5
22
@
MORE
L 66-71
−1.5
23
@
USI
L 64-96
+23.5
29
vs
SEMO
L 74-78
+9.5
31
vs
UTM
L 44-84
−9.5
5
@
TNTC
L 72-97
+25.5
7
@
TNST
L 56-83
−12.5
10
vs
EIU
W 79-70
+15.5
12
vs
LR
L 58-77
−6.5
19
vs
USI
L 70-77
+6.5
21
vs
MORE
L 59-81
−3.5
26
@
SIUE
L 47-67
−21.5
28
vs
LIN
L 69-91
+10.5
over 13under 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Mercyhurst has the better starters
Position by position: Mercyhurst 1, W Illinois 0, even 4
MercyhurstBetterW Illinois
G J. Lemelman14.4 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 61
←MERCBig
G M. Kvamme5 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 9
G D. Kelly TR5 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 6
=Even
F D. Stephens5.5 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 13
G M. Jackson TR0.5 pts · 2 reb · 0.7 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Riley NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F T. Rainwater TR9.7 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 48
=No call
F I. Davis NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F C. Johnson2.8 pts · 2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 2
=No call
F D. Traylor NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
MercyhurstBetterW Illinois
MERC offense346th of 366 · -11.9
=Even
WIU defense362nd of 366 · -11.6
MERC defense272nd of 366 · -6.9
←MERCSmall
WIU offense365th of 366 · -15.6
Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-3.1 · 1 player
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.7 · 4 players
Bench-0.9 · 3 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestMERC betterWIU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Lemelman31 minD. Kelly21 min · TRM. Jackson7 min · TRO. Faran4 minB. Conner3 minM. Maxwell-GrimesNew
Forwards
T. Rainwater25 min · TRC. Johnson12 minC. Leman2 minD. AgbaosiNewS. KirkerNew
Guards
M. Kvamme26 minD. FlowersNewH. VaughnNewA. KonateNewJ. CainNewT. MooreNew
Forwards
D. Stephens17 minJ. RileyNewI. DavisNewD. TraylorNewM. BiembongoNewS. HigginsNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.3 #310 | Points per game | 63.2 #357 |
| 1.04 #260 | Points per possession | 0.94 #359 |
| 65.6 #327 | Pace (possessions) | 67.6 #246 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #269 | Effective FG% | 44.5 #361 |
| 32.1 #276 | 3-point % | 30.9 #322 |
| 31.1 #338 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.3 #311 |
| 25.6 #361 | Free throw rate | 37.7 #108 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #35 | Turnover rate | 17.5 #239 |
| 26.4 #312 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.0 #293 |
| 14.0 #148 | Assists per game | 8.1 #365 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.7 #43 | Points allowed | 78.5 #281 |
| 1.04 #76 | Points allowed per possession | 1.16 #334 |
| 50.1 #107 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.2 #303 |
| 32.3 #80 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.6 #288 |
| 18.6 #68 | Turnovers forced | 14.9 #300 |
| 70.1 #153 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.2 #334 |
| 7.0 #130 | Steals per game | 5.1 #331 |
| 3.8 #94 | Blocks per game | 2.0 #346 |
Mercyhurst
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Long Island70–79
- Wvs Stonehill56–51
- Wvs FDU70–61
- W@ Stonehill75–72
- L@ C Connecticut78–80
A week or more of rest.
W Illinois
2-26 in 2025-26 overall · 1-19 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Lindenwood Lions69–91
- L@ SIUE47–67
- Lvs Morehead St59–81
- Lvs Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles70–77
- Lvs Little Rock58–77
A week or more of rest.