Gervin GameAbove Center · at E Michigan
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | EMU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 EMU 78–71 · win probability EMU 74%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.3
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: EMU has more of the edges
DETM 2, EMU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
EMU offense vs DETM defense
Offense 206th of 366 against a defense 310th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
DETM hits 35.1% and allows 33.3%; EMU hits 32.4% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 30.7% and 31.8% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: DETM 49.5 and allows 52.2; EMU 49.6 and allows 50.3
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DETM 33.3%, EMU 27.8%. Defensive: DETM 69.2%, EMU 70.9%
Home court
EMU at home. This season: EMU 0-0 at home, DETM 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
DETM has played the 208th-hardest schedule, EMU the 157th. A record against a soft schedule means less
DETM offense vs EMU defense
Offense 236th of 366 against a defense 188th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: DETM plays 69.7 a game (132nd fastest), EMU 68.9 (190th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DETM 49%, EMU 37%. Transfers in: DETM 0, EMU 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DETM 16.0%, EMU 17.5%. Forced: DETM 14.4%, EMU 15.5%
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: DETM 32.6, EMU 29.3. Allowed: DETM 37.6, EMU 35.5
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 | — | EMU -7.3 | — |
| Total | — | 148.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | DETM 70.5 · EMU 77.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | EMU -4.2 | — |
| 1H total | 69.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | DETM 32.6 · EMU 36.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | 2-8 20% | |
| 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
DETM 1–3 EMUEMU leads · 4 games since 2021-22 · DETM 1-3 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2025-26 | EMU 72 @ DETM 62 | DETM -1.5 | EMU W |
| Nov 30, 2024-25 | DETM 98 @ EMU 89 | EMU -7.5 | DETM W |
| Nov 21, 2023-24 | EMU 76 @ DETM 72 | DETM -2.5 | EMU W |
| Dec 18, 2022-23 | DETM 77 @ EMU 79 | EMU +4.5 | EMU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Detroit Mercy
30 games played
Straight up
15-15
50% wins
Against the spread
20-10
67% covers · avg +3.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg +0.5 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 71-91 | +9.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 70-102 | +21.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 83-90 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 62-72 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 56-84 | +30.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 75-95 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 29 | @ | W 70-66 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 92-78 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 180.5 | U 170 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 71-59 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 158.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 77-81 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 73-68 | +9.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 77-85 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 82-84 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 94-84 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 162.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 71-96 | +10.5 | L −14.5 | 159.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-77 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 169.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 76-83 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 87-95 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 90-77 | +5.5 | W +18.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 76-63 | +6.5 | W +19.5 | 155.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 63-76 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-74 | +11.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 76-70 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 91-86 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 74-70 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 62-73 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 95-89 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 84-63 | -1.5 | W +19.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 70-64 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 63-66 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 129 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UIC
L 71-91
−10.5
7
@
ND
L 70-102
−10.5
15
@
TOL
L 83-90
+3.5
18
vs
EMU
L 62-72
−11.5
21
@
MSU
L 56-84
+2.5
23
@
DEP
L 75-95
−0.5
29
@
NIA
W 70-66
+2.5
3
vs
IUIN
W 92-78
+10.5
6
@
CLE
W 71-59
+13.5
14
@
PFW
L 77-81
+5.5
29
@
YSU
W 73-68
+14.5
2
vs
RMU
L 77-85
−4.5
9
vs
WRST
L 82-84
+3.5
11
vs
CLE
W 94-84
+3.5
15
@
NKU
L 71-96
−14.5
17
@
IUIN
W 80-77
+4.5
21
vs
PFW
L 76-83
−4.5
24
vs
OAK
L 87-95
−1.5
30
vs
NKU
W 90-77
+18.5
4
@
MILW
W 76-63
+19.5
7
@
GB
L 63-76
−9.5
12
@
WRST
W 77-74
+14.5
15
vs
YSU
W 76-70
+10.5
20
vs
MILW
W 91-86
+6.5
22
vs
GB
W 74-70
+2.5
25
@
RMU
L 62-73
−2.5
28
@
OAK
W 95-89
+14.5
4
vs
MILW
W 84-63
+19.5
9
vs
RMU
W 70-64
+10.5
10
vs
WRST
L 63-66
+1.5
covered 20didn’t cover 10avg +3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UIC
L 71-91
+19.5
7
@
ND
L 70-102
+24.5
15
@
TOL
L 83-90
+13.5
18
vs
EMU
L 62-72
−23.5
21
@
MSU
L 56-84
−9.5
23
@
DEP
L 75-95
+18.5
29
@
NIA
W 70-66
−6.5
3
vs
IUIN
W 92-78
−10.5
6
@
CLE
W 71-59
−28.5
14
@
PFW
L 77-81
+4.5
29
@
YSU
W 73-68
−5.5
2
vs
RMU
L 77-85
+13.5
9
vs
WRST
L 82-84
+17.5
11
vs
CLE
W 94-84
+15.5
15
@
NKU
L 71-96
+7.5
17
@
IUIN
W 80-77
−12.5
21
vs
PFW
L 76-83
+3.5
24
vs
OAK
L 87-95
+14.5
30
vs
NKU
W 90-77
+5.5
4
@
MILW
W 76-63
−16.5
7
@
GB
L 63-76
−10.5
12
@
WRST
W 77-74
−0.5
15
vs
YSU
W 76-70
−5.5
20
vs
MILW
W 91-86
+23.5
22
vs
GB
W 74-70
−3.5
25
@
RMU
L 62-73
−15.5
28
@
OAK
W 95-89
+23.5
4
vs
MILW
W 84-63
−4.5
9
vs
RMU
W 70-64
−12.5
10
vs
WRST
L 63-66
−24.5
over 14under 16avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
E Michigan
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
20-10
67% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-21
30% overs · avg −3.6 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 | vs | W 71-49 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 149.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 66-78 | +15.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 83-90 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 186.5 | U 173 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 72-62 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 97-91 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 46-87 | +33.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 64-56 | +22.5 | W +30.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 73-55 | -14.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 68-84 | +17.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 65-80 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 72-93 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 64-70 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 80-74 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 67-68 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 74-52 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 137.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 62-79 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 77-59 | -7.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 79-85 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 75-76 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 65-100 | -2.5 | L −37.5 | 139.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 67-70 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 64-66 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 60-65 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 131.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 91-95 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 186 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 62-76 | -6.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 66-54 | -4.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-94 | +8.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 64-74 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 67-72 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 69-77 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
GAST
W 71-49
+18.5
10
@
PITT
L 66-78
+3.5
14
vs
IUIN
L 83-90
−11.5
18
@
DETM
W 72-62
+11.5
21
vs
OAK
W 97-91
+7.5
24
@
LOU
L 46-87
−7.5
26
@
CIN
W 64-56
+30.5
28
vs
NJIT
W 73-55
+3.5
2
@
BTLR
L 68-84
+1.5
10
@
PFW
L 65-80
−11.5
19
@
AKR
L 72-93
−5.5
22
@
WRST
L 64-70
+4.5
30
vs
MASS
W 80-74
+8.5
3
vs
OHIO
L 67-68
+1.5
6
@
BALL
W 74-52
+23.5
10
@
WMU
L 62-79
−18.5
13
vs
NIU
W 77-59
+10.5
17
@
BGSU
L 79-85
+5.5
24
vs
KENT
L 75-76
+3.5
27
@
CMU
L 65-100
−37.5
31
@
MASS
L 67-70
+5.5
3
vs
AKR
L 64-66
+10.5
7
@
APP
L 60-65
+2.5
11
@
KENT
L 91-95
+6.5
14
vs
WMU
L 62-76
−20.5
17
vs
CMU
W 66-54
+7.5
21
@
TOL
L 75-94
−10.5
24
vs
M-OH
L 64-74
−1.5
3
@
BUF
L 67-72
+0.5
6
vs
BGSU
L 69-77
−2.5
covered 20didn’t cover 10avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
GAST
W 71-49
−29.5
10
@
PITT
L 66-78
+2.5
14
vs
IUIN
L 83-90
−13.5
18
@
DETM
W 72-62
−23.5
21
vs
OAK
W 97-91
+34.5
24
@
LOU
L 46-87
−29.5
26
@
CIN
W 64-56
−26.5
28
vs
NJIT
W 73-55
−13.5
2
@
BTLR
L 68-84
−1.5
10
@
PFW
L 65-80
−2.5
19
@
AKR
L 72-93
+9.5
22
@
WRST
L 64-70
−8.5
30
vs
MASS
W 80-74
+5.5
3
vs
OHIO
L 67-68
−15.5
6
@
BALL
W 74-52
−11.5
10
@
WMU
L 62-79
−4.5
13
vs
NIU
W 77-59
−5.5
17
@
BGSU
L 79-85
+22.5
24
vs
KENT
L 75-76
−3.5
27
@
CMU
L 65-100
+25.5
31
@
MASS
L 67-70
−11.5
3
vs
AKR
L 64-66
−23.5
7
@
APP
L 60-65
−6.5
11
@
KENT
L 91-95
+40.5
14
vs
WMU
L 62-76
−5.5
17
vs
CMU
W 66-54
−20.5
21
@
TOL
L 75-94
+23.5
24
vs
M-OH
L 64-74
−13.5
3
@
BUF
L 67-72
−4.5
6
vs
BGSU
L 69-77
+3.5
over 9under 21avg −3.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
E Michigan has the better starters
Position by position: Detroit Mercy 0, E Michigan 2, even 3
Detroit MercyBetterE Michigan
G T. Spratt10.1 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 54
→EMUSmall
G J. Fitzpatrick TR15.4 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 75
G A. Carter11.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G E. Richards TR9.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 32
G L. Stone6.6 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 9
=Even
G B. Green4.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 9
F L. Maiden6.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 28
→EMUBig
F M. Habhab14.2 pts · 8.3 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 64
C X. Istomin-Monroe1.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F K. Brockhoff TR10.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 44
Detroit MercyBetterE Michigan
DETM offense236th of 366 · -7.2
=Even
EMU defense188th of 366 · -4.4
DETM defense310th of 366 · -8.1
→EMUSmall
EMU offense206th of 366 · -6.3
Backcourt-2.0 · 3 players
←DETMSmall
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.9 · 2 players
→EMUSmall
Frontcourt+0.1 · 2 players
Bench-0.7 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestDETM betterEMU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Spratt25 minA. Carter21 minL. Stone21 minJ. Cotton7 minJ. BriggsNewE. PalssonNew
Forwards
L. Maiden16 minD. FavorNewV. SemerychNewC. HouserNewT. OwensNew
Centers
X. Istomin-Monroe8 min
Guards
J. Fitzpatrick36 min · TRE. Richards27 min · TRB. Green20 minG. Lawson18 minS. Harris17 min · TRD. PorterNew
Forwards
M. Habhab36 minK. Brockhoff22 min · TRK. JohnsonNewJ. WrightNewO. SuleimanNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.3 #135 | Points per game | 70.2 #282 |
| 1.09 #153 | Points per possession | 1.02 #298 |
| 69.7 #132 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #190 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #267 | Effective FG% | 49.6 #264 |
| 35.1 #108 | 3-point % | 32.4 #259 |
| 30.7 #343 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.8 #332 |
| 32.6 #247 | Free throw rate | 29.3 #325 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.0 #138 | Turnover rate | 17.5 #235 |
| 33.3 #81 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.8 #273 |
| 13.1 #208 | Assists per game | 12.4 #261 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.7 #285 | Points allowed | 74.4 #169 |
| 1.13 #290 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #142 |
| 52.2 #223 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.3 #115 |
| 33.3 #140 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #111 |
| 14.4 #324 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #249 |
| 69.2 #193 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #109 |
| 5.8 #264 | Steals per game | 5.7 #269 |
| 3.3 #182 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #61 |
Detroit Mercy
15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 14-9 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wright St63–66
- Wvs Robert Morris70–64
- Wvs Milwaukee84–63
- W@ Oakland95–89
- L@ Robert Morris62–73
A week or more of rest.
E Michigan
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Bowling Green69–77
- L@ Buffalo67–72
- Lvs Miami OH64–74
- L@ Toledo75–94
- Wvs C Michigan66–54
A week or more of rest.