Fifth Third Arena · at Cincinnati
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CIN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CIN 86–60 · win probability CIN 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.4
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: CIN has more of the edges
YSU 0, CIN 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
YSU has played the 304th-hardest schedule, CIN the 39th. A record against a soft schedule means less
YSU offense vs CIN defense
Offense 267th of 366 against a defense 24th, on the model’s ratings
CIN offense vs YSU defense
Offense 49th of 366 against a defense 264th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
YSU hits 33.8% and allows 35.5%; CIN hits 33.9% and allows 31.0%. Threes are 49.4% and 43.8% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: YSU 30.4%, CIN 30.6%. Defensive: YSU 69.3%, CIN 72.7%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: YSU 18.8%, CIN 17.0%. Forced: YSU 17.8%, CIN 18.2%
Home court
CIN at home. This season: CIN 0-0 at home, YSU 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: YSU 31.4, CIN 29.4. Allowed: YSU 36.0, CIN 30.0
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: YSU 53.6 and allows 52.3; CIN 50.5 and allows 47.4
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: YSU plays 68.9 a game (188th fastest), CIN 69.4 (152nd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: YSU 8%, CIN 1%. Transfers in: YSU 6, CIN 12. 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 | — | CIN -26.5 | — |
| Total | — | 146.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | YSU 59.9 · CIN 86.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CIN -15.6 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | YSU 26.4 · CIN 42.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Youngstown St
29 games played
Straight up
12-17
41% wins
Against the spread
10-19
34% covers · avg −1.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-14
52% overs · avg +0.3 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 59-74 | +14.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 90-81 | +15.5 | W +24.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 80-84 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 75-92 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 62-68 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 67-61 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 163.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 87-64 | -14.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 69-68 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 78-55 | -6.5 | W +16.5 | 171.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 77-80 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 74-65 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 68-73 | -9.5 | L −14.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 83-85 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 79-94 | +4.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 69-71 | -4.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 83-93 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 78-80 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 88-81 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 64-65 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 85-76 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 90-61 | +2.5 | W +31.5 | 147.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 66-72 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 86-82 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 70-76 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 106-82 | -11.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 64-58 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 65-78 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 63-85 | +1.5 | L −20.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 53-68 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 143.5 | U 121 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
PITT
L 59-74
−0.5
7
@
GCU
W 90-81
+24.5
15
@
SBU
L 80-84
+5.5
19
@
TOL
L 75-92
−15.5
23
vs
UNCG
L 62-68
−11.5
24
vs
GASO
W 67-61
+4.5
28
vs
CHST
W 87-64
+8.5
3
vs
WRST
W 69-68
−2.5
6
@
IUIN
W 78-55
+16.5
17
@
RMU
L 77-80
−0.5
20
vs
UPST
W 74-65
+2.5
29
vs
DETM
L 68-73
−14.5
1
vs
OAK
L 83-85
−3.5
4
@
NKU
L 79-94
−10.5
7
vs
PFW
L 69-71
−6.5
15
@
WRST
L 83-93
−5.5
17
@
CLE
L 78-80
−10.5
22
vs
GB
W 88-81
−0.5
24
vs
MILW
L 64-65
−7.5
30
vs
IUIN
W 85-76
−1.5
4
@
PFW
W 90-61
+31.5
7
vs
RMU
L 66-72
−9.5
12
@
OAK
W 86-82
+7.5
15
@
DETM
L 70-76
−10.5
18
vs
CLE
W 106-82
+12.5
22
vs
NKU
W 64-58
+3.5
25
@
MILW
L 65-78
−14.5
28
@
GB
L 63-85
−20.5
4
@
RMU
L 53-68
−11.5
covered 10didn’t cover 19avg −1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
PITT
L 59-74
−12.5
7
@
GCU
W 90-81
+18.5
15
@
SBU
L 80-84
+17.5
19
@
TOL
L 75-92
+6.5
23
vs
UNCG
L 62-68
−22.5
24
vs
GASO
W 67-61
−35.5
28
vs
CHST
W 87-64
+4.5
3
vs
WRST
W 69-68
−7.5
6
@
IUIN
W 78-55
−38.5
17
@
RMU
L 77-80
+16.5
20
vs
UPST
W 74-65
−2.5
29
vs
DETM
L 68-73
−5.5
1
vs
OAK
L 83-85
+10.5
4
@
NKU
L 79-94
+26.5
7
vs
PFW
L 69-71
−5.5
15
@
WRST
L 83-93
+34.5
17
@
CLE
L 78-80
+5.5
22
vs
GB
W 88-81
+29.5
24
vs
MILW
L 64-65
−22.5
30
vs
IUIN
W 85-76
+7.5
4
@
PFW
W 90-61
+3.5
7
vs
RMU
L 66-72
−5.5
12
@
OAK
W 86-82
+12.5
15
@
DETM
L 70-76
−5.5
18
vs
CLE
W 106-82
+30.5
22
vs
NKU
W 64-58
−30.5
25
@
MILW
L 65-78
−4.5
28
@
GB
L 63-85
+6.5
4
@
RMU
L 53-68
−22.5
over 15under 14avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Cincinnati
33 games played
Straight up
18-15
55% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-20
39% overs · avg −4.3 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
3 straight misses ATS1 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 94-63 | -22.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 74-64 | -29.5 | L −19.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 74-62 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 72-55 | -25.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 64-74 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 94-67 | -34.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 56-64 | -22.5 | L −30.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 76-58 | -24.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 74-79 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 65-84 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 88-51 | -21.5 | W +15.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 65-68 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 89-62 | -13.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 60-67 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 60-62 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 132.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 72-73 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 77-68 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 79-70 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 51-77 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 68-82 | -3.5 | L −17.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 67-57 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 54-76 | +13.5 | L −8.5 | 135.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 54-59 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 127.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 8 | vs | W 92-72 | -4.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 91-62 | -2.5 | W +26.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 69-65 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 84-68 | +8.5 | W +24.5 | 139.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 68-80 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 91-68 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 90-68 | -1.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 63-73 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 73-66 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 65-66 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
WCU
W 94-63
+8.5
7
vs
GAST
W 74-64
−19.5
11
vs
DAY
W 74-62
+6.5
16
vs
MSM
W 72-55
−8.5
21
vs
LOU
L 64-74
−1.5
24
vs
NJIT
W 94-67
−7.5
26
vs
EMU
L 56-64
−30.5
1
vs
TAR
W 76-58
−6.5
5
@
XAV
L 74-79
−6.5
13
vs
UGA
L 65-84
−13.5
17
vs
ALST
W 88-51
+15.5
21
vs
CLEM
L 65-68
+0.5
29
vs
LIP
W 89-62
+13.5
3
vs
HOU
L 60-67
−2.5
6
@
WVU
L 60-62
−3.5
11
@
UCF
L 72-73
+1.5
14
vs
COLO
W 77-68
+0.5
17
vs
ISU
W 79-70
+14.5
21
@
ARIZ
L 51-77
−12.5
24
@
ASU
L 68-82
−17.5
28
vs
BAY
W 67-57
+6.5
31
@
HOU
L 54-76
−8.5
5
vs
WVU
L 54-59
−10.5
8
vs
UCF
W 92-72
+15.5
11
@
KSU
W 91-62
+26.5
15
vs
UTAH
W 69-65
−8.5
21
@
KU
W 84-68
+24.5
24
@
TTU
L 68-80
−5.5
28
vs
OKST
W 91-68
+13.5
3
vs
BYU
W 90-68
+20.5
7
@
TCU
L 63-73
−7.5
10
vs
UTAH
W 73-66
−5.5
11
vs
UCF
L 65-66
−4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
WCU
W 94-63
+13.5
7
vs
GAST
W 74-64
−13.5
11
vs
DAY
W 74-62
−11.5
16
vs
MSM
W 72-55
−18.5
21
vs
LOU
L 64-74
−25.5
24
vs
NJIT
W 94-67
+19.5
26
vs
EMU
L 56-64
−26.5
1
vs
TAR
W 76-58
−8.5
5
@
XAV
L 74-79
+5.5
13
vs
UGA
L 65-84
−8.5
17
vs
ALST
W 88-51
−6.5
21
vs
CLEM
L 65-68
−7.5
29
vs
LIP
W 89-62
+0.5
3
vs
HOU
L 60-67
−8.5
6
@
WVU
L 60-62
−10.5
11
@
UCF
L 72-73
−5.5
14
vs
COLO
W 77-68
−0.5
17
vs
ISU
W 79-70
+7.5
21
@
ARIZ
L 51-77
−24.5
24
@
ASU
L 68-82
+3.5
28
vs
BAY
W 67-57
−21.5
31
@
HOU
L 54-76
−5.5
5
vs
WVU
L 54-59
−14.5
8
vs
UCF
W 92-72
+17.5
11
@
KSU
W 91-62
+5.5
15
vs
UTAH
W 69-65
−5.5
21
@
KU
W 84-68
+12.5
24
@
TTU
L 68-80
+4.5
28
vs
OKST
W 91-68
+7.5
3
vs
BYU
W 90-68
+6.5
7
@
TCU
L 63-73
−4.5
10
vs
UTAH
W 73-66
+0.5
11
vs
UCF
L 65-66
−18.5
over 13under 20avg −4.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Cincinnati has the better starters
Position by position: Youngstown St 0, Cincinnati 5, even 0
Youngstown StBetterCincinnati
G L. Holmstrom TR10.9 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 30
→CINBig
G J. Campbell TR19.3 pts · 4.4 reb · 5.1 ast
Score 95
G J. Haynes3.9 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 16
→CINBig
G T. Carson TR12.2 pts · 6.5 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 75
G J. Tyler TR4.3 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 18
→CINBig
G M. Collins TR17.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 94
G J. Nwankwo TR3 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 28
→CINBig
G T. Riley TR15 pts · 3.9 reb · 4.4 ast
Score 92
F J. Coleman TR3.9 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 5
→CINBig
F T. Tejada TR17.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 91
Youngstown StBetterCincinnati
YSU offense267th of 366 · -8.1
→CINBig
CIN defense24th of 366 · +4.9
YSU defense264th of 366 · -6.8
→CINBig
CIN offense49th of 366 · +3.7
Backcourt-5.5 · 4 players
→CINBig
Backcourt+12.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.8 · 1 player
→CINBig
Frontcourt+4.0 · 1 player
Bench-2.0 · 2 players
→CINBig
Bench+6.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestYSU betterCIN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
L. Holmstrom27 min · TRJ. Haynes15 minJ. Tyler13 min · TRJ. Nwankwo12 min · TRD. Aekins7 min · TRJ. LivingstonNew
Forwards
J. Coleman13 min · TRJ. Moupadele12 min · TRL. LokhmanchukNewE. Summers-LivingstonNew
Centers
K. AmoakoNew
Guards
J. Campbell35 min · TRT. Carson33 min · TRM. Collins31 min · TRT. Riley28 min · TRM. Colvin27 min · TRA. Fleming26 min · TR
Forwards
T. Tejada36 min · TRR. Allenspach25 min · TRJ. Hastings23 min · TRA. Elamin20 min · TRD. VadenNewD. IwezeNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.1 #162 | Points per game | 73.1 #221 |
| 1.09 #160 | Points per possession | 1.05 #243 |
| 68.9 #188 | Pace (possessions) | 69.4 #152 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.6 #76 | Effective FG% | 50.5 #213 |
| 33.8 #184 | 3-point % | 33.9 #175 |
| 49.4 #17 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.8 #94 |
| 31.4 #272 | Free throw rate | 29.4 #323 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.8 #314 | Turnover rate | 17.0 #203 |
| 30.4 #182 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.6 #174 |
| 14.0 #144 | Assists per game | 16.6 #35 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.9 #185 | Points allowed | 67.6 #27 |
| 1.09 #190 | Points allowed per possession | 0.97 #9 |
| 52.3 #228 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.4 #27 |
| 35.5 #280 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.0 #35 |
| 17.8 #106 | Turnovers forced | 18.2 #89 |
| 69.3 #191 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.7 #45 |
| 6.7 #151 | Steals per game | 6.3 #208 |
| 3.5 #146 | Blocks per game | 4.2 #53 |
Youngstown St
12-17 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Robert Morris53–68
- L@ Green Bay63–85
- L@ Milwaukee65–78
- Wvs N Kentucky64–58
- Wvs Cleveland St106–82
A week or more of rest.
Cincinnati
18-15 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UCF65–66
- Wvs Utah73–66
- L@ TCU63–73
- Wvs BYU90–68
- Wvs Oklahoma St91–68
A week or more of rest.