Cal State Bakersfield Roadrunners at Western Illinois Leathernecks: Model Line and Edge

Thu, Nov 12, 7:00 PM ETWestern Hall · at W Illinois

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Bakersfield and W Illinois
CSUB	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 CSUB 77–71 · win probability CSUB 72%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 148.0

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: CSUB has more of the edges

CSUB 3, WIU 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Schedule so far

CSUB has played the 211th-hardest schedule, WIU the 361st. A record against a soft schedule means less

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: CSUB plays 72.7 a game (22nd fastest), WIU 67.6 (246th). Faster games mean more points

CSUBSmall

CSUB offense vs WIU defense

Offense 287th of 366 against a defense 362nd, on the model’s ratings

CSUBSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CSUB 18.8%, WIU 17.5%. Forced: CSUB 17.9%, WIU 14.9%

WIUSmall

Home court

WIU at home. This season: WIU 0-0 at home, CSUB 0-0 away

CSUBSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CSUB 30.4%, WIU 27.0%. Defensive: CSUB 64.4%, WIU 65.2%

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: CSUB 42.2, WIU 37.7. Allowed: CSUB 42.6, WIU 34.8

Even

Three-pointers

CSUB hits 29.0% and allows 36.0%; WIU hits 30.9% and allows 35.6%. Threes are 28.9% and 33.3% of their shots

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CSUB 10%, WIU 21%. Transfers in: CSUB 4, WIU 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

WIU offense vs CSUB defense

Offense 365th of 366 against a defense 348th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: CSUB 45.7 and allows 54.0; WIU 44.5 and allows 54.2

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	—	CSUB -6.6	—
Total	—	148.0	—
Projected score	—	CSUB 77.3 · WIU 70.7

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	CSUB -4.0	—
1H total	69.2	—
1H projected score	CSUB 36.6 · WIU 32.6	—

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
CSUB LWWWL	12-18	40%	5-9	—
WIU LLLLL	11-17	39%	3-9	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CSUB OOOOO	16-14	53%	6-24
WIU UOUUO	13-15	46%	2-26

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
CSUB	0-10 0%	4-6 40%	7-3 70%
WIU	1-9 10%	2-8 20%	5-5 50%

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

Bakersfield

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 15	@ NDSU	L69–80LU
Nov 20	@ IDHO	W64–63WU
Nov 25	@ PEPP	L62–70LU

W Illinois

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 16	@ MINN	No recent meeting
Nov 20	vs UALB	No recent meeting
Nov 21	vs MERC	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

CSUB 1–0 WIUCSUB leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CSUB 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 11, 2025-26	WIU 58 @ CSUB 74	CSUB -7.5	CSUB W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Bakersfield

30 games played

Straight up

6-24

20% wins

Against the spread

12-18

40% covers · avg −3.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

16-14

53% overs · avg +5.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

6-2420%

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

15 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

12-1840%

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

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

16-1453%

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

7 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	@CAL	L 60-87	+15.5	L −11.5	147.5	U 147
Nov 11	vsWIU	W 74-58	-7.5	W +8.5	141.5	U 132
Nov 14	@MISS	L 60-82	+23.5	W +1.5	140.5	O 142
Nov 17	@PRST	L 80-93	+8.5	L −4.5	141.5	O 173
Nov 22	vsMVSU	W 86-70	-21.5	L −5.5	138.5	O 156
Nov 25	@FSU	L 59-89	+26.5	L −3.5	159.5	U 148
Nov 30	vsFRES	W 76-71	+10.5	W +15.5	150.5	U 147
Dec 4	@CSUN	L 66-87	+5.5	L −15.5	155.5	U 153
Dec 6	@UCSB	L 84-109	+12.5	L −12.5	145.5	O 193
Dec 11	vsNDSU	L 69-80	+7.5	L −3.5	149.5	U 149
Dec 13	vsPEPP	L 62-70	-1.5	L −9.5	147.5	U 132
Dec 23	vsIDHO	W 64-63	+7.5	W +8.5	150.5	U 127
Jan 1	vsUCI	L 77-81	+11.5	W +7.5	143.5	O 158
Jan 3	@UCD	W 81-79	+9.5	W +11.5	151.5	O 160
Jan 8	vsUCR	W 67-66	-3.5	L −2.5	147.5	U 133
Jan 10	@LBSU	L 75-81	+6.5	W +0.5	142.5	O 156
Jan 15	vsUCSB	L 69-75	+7.5	W +1.5	144.5	U 144
Jan 17	vsUCSD	L 62-83	+8.5	L −12.5	147.5	U 145
Jan 22	@HAW	L 71-98	+17.5	L −9.5	144.5	O 169
Jan 29	vsCP	L 79-104	+1.5	L −23.5	161.5	O 183
Jan 31	vsUCD	L 72-80	+5.5	L −2.5	152.5	U 152
Feb 5	@UCI	L 62-78	+16.5	W +0.5	144.5	U 140
Feb 7	@CSUF	L 66-82	+9.5	L −6.5	157.5	U 148
Feb 12	vsHAW	L 74-89	+13.5	L −1.5	151.5	O 163
Feb 19	@UCR	L 65-93	+6.5	L −21.5	150.5	O 158
Feb 21	vsCSUF	L 80-88	+5.5	L −2.5	160.5	O 168
Feb 26	@UCSD	L 72-84	+14.5	W +2.5	148.5	O 156
Feb 28	vsLBSU	L 87-88	+3.5	W +2.5	152.5	O 175
Mar 5	vsCSUN	L 84-86	+8.5	W +6.5	163.5	O 170
Mar 7	@CP	L 76-108	+8.5	L −23.5	174.5	O 184

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

CAL

L 60-87

−11.5

WIU

W 74-58

+8.5

MISS

L 60-82

+1.5

PRST

L 80-93

−4.5

MVSU

W 86-70

−5.5

FSU

L 59-89

−3.5

FRES

W 76-71

+15.5

CSUN

L 66-87

−15.5

UCSB

L 84-109

−12.5

NDSU

L 69-80

−3.5

PEPP

L 62-70

−9.5

IDHO

W 64-63

+8.5

UCI

L 77-81

+7.5

UCD

W 81-79

+11.5

UCR

W 67-66

−2.5

LBSU

L 75-81

+0.5

UCSB

L 69-75

+1.5

UCSD

L 62-83

−12.5

HAW

L 71-98

−9.5

L 79-104

−23.5

UCD

L 72-80

−2.5

UCI

L 62-78

+0.5

CSUF

L 66-82

−6.5

HAW

L 74-89

−1.5

UCR

L 65-93

−21.5

CSUF

L 80-88

−2.5

UCSD

L 72-84

+2.5

LBSU

L 87-88

+2.5

CSUN

L 84-86

+6.5

L 76-108

−23.5

covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

CAL

L 60-87

−0.5

WIU

W 74-58

−9.5

MISS

L 60-82

+1.5

PRST

L 80-93

+31.5

MVSU

W 86-70

+17.5

FSU

L 59-89

−11.5

FRES

W 76-71

−3.5

CSUN

L 66-87

−2.5

UCSB

L 84-109

+47.5

NDSU

L 69-80

−0.5

PEPP

L 62-70

−15.5

IDHO

W 64-63

−23.5

UCI

L 77-81

+14.5

UCD

W 81-79

+8.5

UCR

W 67-66

−14.5

LBSU

L 75-81

+13.5

UCSB

L 69-75

−0.5

UCSD

L 62-83

−2.5

HAW

L 71-98

+24.5

L 79-104

+21.5

UCD

L 72-80

−0.5

UCI

L 62-78

−4.5

CSUF

L 66-82

−9.5

HAW

L 74-89

+11.5

UCR

L 65-93

+7.5

CSUF

L 80-88

+7.5

UCSD

L 72-84

+7.5

LBSU

L 87-88

+22.5

CSUN

L 84-86

+6.5

L 76-108

+9.5

over 16under 14avg +5.1 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

Straight up

2-267%

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

5 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

11-1739%

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

5 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

13-1546%

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

2 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 3	@RAD	L 75-80	+16.5	W +11.5	151.5	O 155
Nov 7	@IOWA	L 58-77	+30.5	W +11.5	145.5	U 135
Nov 11	@CSUB	L 58-74	+7.5	L −8.5	141.5	U 132
Nov 14	@CBU	L 59-69	+15.5	W +5.5	140.5	U 128
Nov 21	vsCCU	L 64-84	+3.5	L −16.5	138.5	O 148
Nov 23	vsUND	L 69-78	+2.5	L −6.5	146.5	O 147
Dec 2	@DRKE	L 57-108	+17.5	L −33.5	138.5	O 165
Dec 13	@UND	W 69-66	+7.5	W +10.5	145.5	U 135
Dec 18	@LIN	L 76-92	+12.5	L −3.5	146.5	O 168
Dec 22	vsSIUE	L 61-66	+6.5	W +1.5	138.5	U 127
Jan 1	@UTM	L 60-67	+13.5	W +6.5	140.5	U 127
Jan 3	@SEMO	L 50-73	+13.5	L −9.5	147.5	U 123
Jan 8	vsTNST	L 68-90	+6.5	L −15.5	145.5	O 158
Jan 10	vsTNTC	L 54-59	+3.5	L −1.5	143.5	U 113
Jan 13	@EIU	L 55-57	+6.5	W +4.5	132.5	U 112
Jan 17	@LR	L 79-86	+10.5	W +3.5	135.5	O 165
Jan 22	@MORE	L 66-71	+8.5	W +3.5	138.5	U 137
Jan 23	@USI	L 64-96	+6.5	L −25.5	136.5	O 160
Jan 29	vsSEMO	L 74-78	+10.5	W +6.5	142.5	O 152
Jan 31	vsUTM	L 44-84	+10.5	L −29.5	137.5	U 128
Feb 5	@TNTC	L 72-97	+9.5	L −15.5	143.5	O 169
Feb 7	@TNST	L 56-83	+15.5	L −11.5	151.5	U 139
Feb 10	vsEIU	W 79-70	+4.5	W +13.5	133.5	O 149
Feb 12	vsLR	L 58-77	+7.5	L −11.5	141.5	U 135
Feb 19	vsUSI	L 70-77	+3.5	L −3.5	140.5	O 147
Feb 21	vsMORE	L 59-81	+8.5	L −13.5	143.5	U 140
Feb 26	@SIUE	L 47-67	+13.5	L −6.5	135.5	U 114
Feb 28	vsLIN	L 69-91	+11.5	L −10.5	149.5	O 160

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

RAD

L 75-80

+11.5

IOWA

L 58-77

+11.5

CSUB

L 58-74

−8.5

CBU

L 59-69

+5.5

CCU

L 64-84

−16.5

UND

L 69-78

−6.5

DRKE

L 57-108

−33.5

UND

W 69-66

+10.5

LIN

L 76-92

−3.5

SIUE

L 61-66

+1.5

UTM

L 60-67

+6.5

SEMO

L 50-73

−9.5

TNST

L 68-90

−15.5

TNTC

L 54-59

−1.5

EIU

L 55-57

+4.5

L 79-86

+3.5

L 66-71

+3.5

USI

L 64-96

−25.5

SEMO

L 74-78

+6.5

UTM

L 44-84

−29.5

TNTC

L 72-97

−15.5

TNST

L 56-83

−11.5

EIU

W 79-70

+13.5

L 58-77

−11.5

USI

L 70-77

−3.5

L 59-81

−13.5

SIUE

L 47-67

−6.5

LIN

L 69-91

−10.5

covered 11didn’t cover 17avg −5.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

RAD

L 75-80

+3.5

IOWA

L 58-77

−10.5

CSUB

L 58-74

−9.5

CBU

L 59-69

−12.5

CCU

L 64-84

+9.5

UND

L 69-78

+0.5

DRKE

L 57-108

+26.5

UND

W 69-66

−10.5

LIN

L 76-92

+21.5

SIUE

L 61-66

−11.5

UTM

L 60-67

−13.5

SEMO

L 50-73

−24.5

TNST

L 68-90

+12.5

TNTC

L 54-59

−30.5

EIU

L 55-57

−20.5

L 79-86

+29.5

L 66-71

−1.5

USI

L 64-96

+23.5

SEMO

L 74-78

+9.5

UTM

L 44-84

−9.5

TNTC

L 72-97

+25.5

TNST

L 56-83

−12.5

EIU

W 79-70

+15.5

L 58-77

−6.5

USI

L 70-77

+6.5

L 59-81

−3.5

SIUE

L 47-67

−21.5

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.

Bakersfield has the better starters

Position by position: Bakersfield 2, W Illinois 0, even 3

BakersfieldBetterW Illinois

G B. Cofield TR9.8 pts · 4.8 reb · 2.2 ast Score 42

CSUBSmall

G M. Kvamme5 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.6 ast Score 9

G J. Alexander9.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 0.6 ast Score 62

CSUBBig

F D. Stephens5.5 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.5 ast Score 13

G S. Pouedet TR0.6 pts · 0.2 reb · 0.4 ast Not ranked

No call

F J. Riley NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

F C. Dioramma TR4.8 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 38

No call

F I. Davis NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

F C. Barnes TR0.3 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast Not ranked

No call

F D. Traylor NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

BakersfieldBetterW Illinois

CSUB offense287th of 366 · -8.9

CSUBSmall

WIU defense362nd of 366 · -11.6

CSUB defense348th of 366 · -9.5

Even

WIU offense365th of 366 · -15.6

Backcourt-1.4 · 3 players

CSUBSmall

Backcourt-3.1 · 1 player

Frontcourt-0.9 · 2 players

Even

Frontcourt-1.7 · 4 players

BenchNo numbers yet

No call

BenchNo numbers yet

Score, worst to bestCSUB betterWIU 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

Bakersfield

Guards

B. Cofield21 min · TRJ. Alexander20 minS. Pouedet5 min · TRS. WigingtonNewK. BradleyNewE. BrysonNew

Forwards

C. Dioramma15 min · TRC. Barnes6 min · TRT. KoppensNewP. IvancicNew

W Illinois

Guards

M. Kvamme26 minD. FlowersNewH. VaughnNewA. KonateNewJ. CainNewT. MooreNew

Forwards

D. Stephens17 minJ. RileyNewI. DavisNewD. TraylorNewM. BiembongoNewS. HigginsNew

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

CSUB72.0 #244

WIU63.2 #357

Points per possession

CSUB0.99 #336

WIU0.94 #359

Pace (possessions)

CSUB72.7 #22

WIU67.6 #246

Shooting

Effective FG%

CSUB45.7 #355

WIU44.5 #361

3-point %

CSUB29.0 #353

WIU30.9 #322

3-point attempt rate

CSUB28.9 #356

WIU33.3 #311

Free throw rate

CSUB42.2 #27

WIU37.7 #108

Possessions

Turnover rate

CSUB18.8 #313

WIU17.5 #239

Offensive rebound rate

CSUB30.4 #181

WIU27.0 #293

Assists per game

CSUB10.9 #340

WIU8.1 #365

Defense

Points allowed

CSUB83.4 #351

WIU78.5 #281

Points allowed per possession

CSUB1.15 #326

WIU1.16 #334

Opponent effective FG%

CSUB54.0 #301

WIU54.2 #303

Opponent 3-point %

CSUB36.0 #306

WIU35.6 #288

Turnovers forced

CSUB17.9 #101

WIU14.9 #300

Defensive rebound rate

CSUB64.4 #349

WIU65.2 #334

Steals per game

CSUB7.4 #91

WIU5.1 #331

Blocks per game

CSUB5.0 #18

WIU2.0 #346

CSUB		WIU
Scoring
72.0 #244	Points per game	63.2 #357
0.99 #336	Points per possession	0.94 #359
72.7 #22	Pace (possessions)	67.6 #246
Shooting
45.7 #355	Effective FG%	44.5 #361
29.0 #353	3-point %	30.9 #322
28.9 #356	3-point attempt rate	33.3 #311
42.2 #27	Free throw rate	37.7 #108
Possessions
18.8 #313	Turnover rate	17.5 #239
30.4 #181	Offensive rebound rate	27.0 #293
10.9 #340	Assists per game	8.1 #365
Defense
83.4 #351	Points allowed	78.5 #281
1.15 #326	Points allowed per possession	1.16 #334
54.0 #301	Opponent effective FG%	54.2 #303
36.0 #306	Opponent 3-point %	35.6 #288
17.9 #101	Turnovers forced	14.9 #300
64.4 #349	Defensive rebound rate	65.2 #334
7.4 #91	Steals per game	5.1 #331
5.0 #18	Blocks per game	2.0 #346

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.

Bakersfield

6-24 in 2025-26 overall · 2-18 in conference · Big West Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Cal Poly76–108
Lvs CSU Northridge84–86
Lvs Long Beach St87–88
L@ UC San Diego72–84
Lvs Fullerton80–88

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.

Cal State Bakersfield Roadrunners at Western Illinois Leathernecks

What could decide it: CSUB 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

Bakersfield

W Illinois

Bakersfield has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Bakersfield

W Illinois