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 79–73 · win probability EMU 70%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.5
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
DEN 2, EMU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
EMU offense vs DEN defense
Offense 206th of 366 against a defense 337th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
DEN has played the 249th-hardest schedule, EMU the 157th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DEN 29.8%, EMU 27.8%. Defensive: DEN 67.2%, EMU 70.9%
Home court
EMU at home. This season: EMU 0-0 at home, DEN 0-0 away
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DEN 14.2%, EMU 17.5%. Forced: DEN 13.0%, EMU 15.5%
Free throws
Free throw rate: DEN 34.1, EMU 29.3. Allowed: DEN 36.8, EMU 35.5
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: DEN 53.6 and allows 56.0; EMU 49.6 and allows 50.3
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: DEN plays 69.4 a game (151st fastest), EMU 68.9 (190th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DEN 27%, EMU 37%. Transfers in: DEN 6, EMU 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
DEN offense vs EMU defense
Offense 184th of 366 against a defense 188th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
DEN hits 36.8% and allows 36.7%; EMU hits 32.4% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 38.6% and 31.8% of their shots
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 -6.0 | — |
| Total | — | 151.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | DEN 72.7 · EMU 78.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | EMU -3.5 | — |
| 1H total | 70.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | DEN 33.7 · EMU 37.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Denver
29 games played
Straight up
12-17
41% wins
Against the spread
18-11
62% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-9
69% overs · avg +6.9 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 73-84 | +13.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 70-84 | +27.5 | W +13.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 9 | @ | W 75-73 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 79-84 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 83-81 | +18.5 | W +20.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 73-103 | +32.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 59-101 | +9.5 | L −32.5 | 153.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 93-89 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 79-93 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 86-105 | -3.5 | L −22.5 | 165.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 86-79 | +8.5 | W +15.5 | 159.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 85-90 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 87-74 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 88-92 | +11.5 | W +7.5 | 163.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 79-87 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 162.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 72-82 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 169.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 98-87 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 77-82 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 86-93 | -5.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 69-61 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 161.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 82-84 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 78-71 | +12.5 | W +19.5 | 156.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 98-79 | +3.5 | W +22.5 | 161.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 79-61 | +2.5 | W +20.5 | 160.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 76-83 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 90-70 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 163.5 | U 160 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 82-80 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 168.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 80-102 | -2.5 | L −24.5 | 156.5 | O 182 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 67-83 | -2.5 | L −18.5 | 160.5 | U 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SEA
L 73-84
+2.5
6
@
WASH
L 70-84
+13.5
9
@
MTST
W 75-73
+9.5
15
vs
UTSA
L 79-84
−9.5
21
@
CSU
W 83-81
+20.5
24
@
ARIZ
L 73-103
+2.5
26
@
WYO
L 59-101
−32.5
3
vs
EWU
W 93-89
+2.5
6
@
IDST
L 79-93
−5.5
13
vs
CSUF
L 86-105
−22.5
20
@
UNCO
W 86-79
+15.5
22
@
TLSA
L 85-90
+11.5
31
vs
KC
W 87-74
+3.5
4
@
STMN
L 88-92
+7.5
8
@
SDST
L 79-87
+0.5
10
@
SDAK
L 72-82
−11.5
14
vs
ORU
W 98-87
+4.5
22
vs
NDSU
L 77-82
−0.5
24
vs
UND
L 86-93
−12.5
28
@
KC
W 69-61
+4.5
31
vs
OMA
L 82-84
−3.5
5
@
NDSU
W 78-71
+19.5
7
@
UND
W 98-79
+22.5
12
vs
SDST
W 79-61
+20.5
15
@
OMA
L 76-83
−4.5
19
vs
SDAK
W 90-70
+14.5
21
vs
STMN
W 82-80
+5.5
26
@
ORU
L 80-102
−24.5
6
vs
UND
L 67-83
−18.5
covered 18didn’t cover 11avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SEA
L 73-84
+20.5
6
@
WASH
L 70-84
+0.5
9
@
MTST
W 75-73
+1.5
15
vs
UTSA
L 79-84
+14.5
21
@
CSU
W 83-81
+14.5
24
@
ARIZ
L 73-103
+21.5
26
@
WYO
L 59-101
+6.5
3
vs
EWU
W 93-89
+26.5
6
@
IDST
L 79-93
+29.5
13
vs
CSUF
L 86-105
+25.5
20
@
UNCO
W 86-79
+5.5
22
@
TLSA
L 85-90
+14.5
31
vs
KC
W 87-74
+4.5
4
@
STMN
L 88-92
+16.5
8
@
SDST
L 79-87
+3.5
10
@
SDAK
L 72-82
−15.5
14
vs
ORU
W 98-87
+28.5
22
vs
NDSU
L 77-82
−1.5
24
vs
UND
L 86-93
+16.5
28
@
KC
W 69-61
−31.5
31
vs
OMA
L 82-84
+7.5
5
@
NDSU
W 78-71
−7.5
7
@
UND
W 98-79
+15.5
12
vs
SDST
W 79-61
−20.5
15
@
OMA
L 76-83
−1.5
19
vs
SDAK
W 90-70
−3.5
21
vs
STMN
W 82-80
−6.5
26
@
ORU
L 80-102
+25.5
6
vs
UND
L 67-83
−10.5
over 20under 9avg +6.9 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: Denver 0, E Michigan 2, even 3
DenverBetterE Michigan
G C. Johnson19.9 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 73
=Even
G J. Fitzpatrick TR15.4 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 75
G K. Martin TR5.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 24
=Even
G E. Richards TR9.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 32
G C. Hyland TR5 pts · 1.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 20
=Even
G B. Green4.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 9
F J. Rogers TR5.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 27
→EMUBig
F M. Habhab14.2 pts · 8.3 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 64
F S. Wysocki5.8 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 14
→EMUSmall
F K. Brockhoff TR10.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 44
DenverBetterE Michigan
DEN offense184th of 366 · -5.7
=Even
EMU defense188th of 366 · -4.4
DEN defense337th of 366 · -8.9
→EMUBig
EMU offense206th of 366 · -6.3
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
←DENSmall
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
→EMUBig
Frontcourt+0.1 · 2 players
Bench-2.4 · 3 players
→EMUSmall
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestDEN betterEMU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Johnson36 minK. Martin16 min · TRC. Hyland15 min · TRT. Cady11 min · TRL. ThreattNewJ. NelsonNew
Forwards
J. Rogers27 min · TRS. Wysocki19 minS. Mahoney5 min · TRH. BatesNewC. DimmockNewO. Wickstrom StumerNew
Centers
B. Mbengue9 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80.3 #61 | Points per game | 70.2 #282 |
| 1.16 #53 | Points per possession | 1.02 #298 |
| 69.4 #151 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #190 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.6 #79 | Effective FG% | 49.6 #264 |
| 36.8 #32 | 3-point % | 32.4 #259 |
| 38.6 #199 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.8 #332 |
| 34.1 #203 | Free throw rate | 29.3 #325 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.2 #30 | Turnover rate | 17.5 #235 |
| 29.8 #213 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.8 #273 |
| 11.2 #327 | Assists per game | 12.4 #261 |
| Defense | ||
| 84.0 #357 | Points allowed | 74.4 #169 |
| 1.21 #360 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #142 |
| 56.0 #344 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.3 #115 |
| 36.7 #338 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #111 |
| 13.0 #355 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #249 |
| 67.2 #291 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #109 |
| 4.5 #356 | Steals per game | 5.7 #269 |
| 1.9 #348 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #61 |
Denver
12-17 in 2025-26 overall · 8-9 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs North Dakota67–83
- L@ Oral Roberts80–102
- Wvs St Thomas82–80
- Wvs South Dakota90–70
- L@ Omaha76–83
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.