Hard Rock Hotel Riviera Maya · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | KENN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 KENN 76–73 · win probability KENN 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.9
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: KENN has more of the edges
EMU 0, KENN 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: EMU plays 68.9 a game (190th fastest), KENN 72.4 (27th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: EMU 29.3, KENN 45.1. Allowed: EMU 35.5, KENN 47.1
KENN offense vs EMU defense
Offense 126th of 366 against a defense 188th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: EMU 49.6 and allows 50.3; KENN 50.4 and allows 48.3
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: EMU 27.8%, KENN 35.2%. Defensive: EMU 70.9%, KENN 68.4%
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: EMU 17.5%, KENN 16.8%. Forced: EMU 15.5%, KENN 16.0%
Even
EMU offense vs KENN defense
Offense 206th of 366 against a defense 193rd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: EMU 37%, KENN 32%. Transfers in: EMU 4, KENN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Three-pointers
EMU hits 32.4% and allows 32.9%; KENN hits 33.4% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 31.8% and 42.5% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
EMU has played the 157th-hardest schedule, KENN the 156th. 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 | — | KENN -2.6 | — |
| Total | — | 148.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | EMU 73.2 · KENN 75.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | KENN -1.4 | — |
| 1H total | 69.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | EMU 34.1 · KENN 35.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Kennesaw St
32 games played
Straight up
18-14
56% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
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 8 | @ | W 92-72 | -11.5 | W +8.5 | 166.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 89-108 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 177.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 89-84 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 83-91 | -8.5 | L −16.5 | 166.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 102-100 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 160.5 | O 202 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 88-73 | -15.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 92-69 | -14.5 | W +8.5 | 158.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 67-68 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 81-92 | +20.5 | W +9.5 | 182.5 | U 173 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 73-81 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 52-67 | -8.5 | L −23.5 | 148.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 90-80 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 88-82 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 89-86 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 175.5 | U 175 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 81-65 | +7.5 | W +23.5 | 165.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 87-93 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 167.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 76-82 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 72-69 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 76-53 | -3.5 | W +19.5 | 159.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 58-77 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 87-90 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 79-83 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 91-87 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 58-55 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 74-65 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 90-82 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 71-78 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-79 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 96-87 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 159.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 79-73 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 159.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 71-60 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 64-73 | +20.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
FAMU
W 92-72
+8.5
16
vs
USF
L 89-108
−11.5
24
vs
RICE
W 89-84
+0.5
25
vs
ORU
L 83-91
−16.5
26
@
FGCU
W 102-100
+3.5
2
vs
JKST
W 88-73
−0.5
6
vs
GAST
W 92-69
+8.5
17
@
MTSU
L 67-68
+2.5
21
vs
ALA
L 81-92
+9.5
2
@
LIB
L 73-81
−0.5
4
@
DEL
L 52-67
−23.5
7
vs
MOST
W 90-80
+3.5
10
vs
JXST
W 88-82
+0.5
14
vs
FIU
W 89-86
−2.5
17
@
WKU
W 81-65
+23.5
21
@
SHSU
L 87-93
−0.5
23
@
LT
L 76-82
−7.5
28
vs
WKU
W 72-69
−1.5
31
vs
NMSU
W 76-53
+19.5
7
@
JXST
L 58-77
−20.5
12
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
−6.5
14
vs
SHSU
L 79-83
−5.5
18
@
MOST
W 91-87
+5.5
21
vs
LT
W 58-55
−2.5
26
vs
LIB
W 74-65
+10.5
28
vs
DEL
W 90-82
−3.5
5
@
UTEP
L 71-78
−10.5
7
@
NMSU
L 76-79
−1.5
12
vs
WKU
W 96-87
+10.5
13
vs
SHSU
W 79-73
+8.5
14
vs
LT
W 71-60
+9.5
19
vs
GONZ
L 64-73
+11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
FAMU
W 92-72
−2.5
16
vs
USF
L 89-108
+19.5
24
vs
RICE
W 89-84
+13.5
25
vs
ORU
L 83-91
+7.5
26
@
FGCU
W 102-100
+41.5
2
vs
JKST
W 88-73
+3.5
6
vs
GAST
W 92-69
+2.5
17
@
MTSU
L 67-68
−25.5
21
vs
ALA
L 81-92
−9.5
2
@
LIB
L 73-81
−4.5
4
@
DEL
L 52-67
−29.5
7
vs
MOST
W 90-80
+17.5
10
vs
JXST
W 88-82
+20.5
14
vs
FIU
W 89-86
−0.5
17
@
WKU
W 81-65
−19.5
21
@
SHSU
L 87-93
+12.5
23
@
LT
L 76-82
+13.5
28
vs
WKU
W 72-69
−19.5
31
vs
NMSU
W 76-53
−30.5
7
@
JXST
L 58-77
−14.5
12
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
+28.5
14
vs
SHSU
L 79-83
−0.5
18
@
MOST
W 91-87
+25.5
21
vs
LT
W 58-55
−34.5
26
vs
LIB
W 74-65
−13.5
28
vs
DEL
W 90-82
+28.5
5
@
UTEP
L 71-78
+0.5
7
@
NMSU
L 76-79
−2.5
12
vs
WKU
W 96-87
+23.5
13
vs
SHSU
W 79-73
−7.5
14
vs
LT
W 71-60
−11.5
19
vs
GONZ
L 64-73
−15.5
over 15under 17avg +0.5 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: E Michigan 2, Kennesaw St 1, even 2
E MichiganBetterKennesaw St
G J. Fitzpatrick TR15.4 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 75
←EMUSmall
G J. Hill TR10.1 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 53
G E. Richards TR9.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 32
=Even
G K. Rickard5.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 21
G B. Green4.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 9
→KENNSmall
F T. Simpson8 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 38
F M. Habhab14.2 pts · 8.3 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 64
=Even
F A. Thomas TR8.3 pts · 6.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 61
F K. Brockhoff TR10.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 44
←EMUSmall
F A. Enoh TR4.9 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 19
E MichiganBetterKennesaw St
EMU offense206th of 366 · -6.3
=Even
KENN defense193rd of 366 · -4.6
EMU defense188th of 366 · -4.4
→KENNSmall
KENN offense126th of 366 · -3.4
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-2.3 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.1 · 2 players
←EMUSmall
Frontcourt-2.5 · 3 players
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-0.4 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestEMU betterKENN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
J. Hill31 min · TRK. Rickard20 minC. Beaumont9 min · TRK. Parker6 min · TRB. TousignautNewA. DanielsNew
Forwards
T. Simpson26 minA. Thomas25 min · TRA. Enoh23 min · TRA. Taylor17 minD. Onyirimba2 minK. BerryNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.2 #282 | Points per game | 80.0 #66 |
| 1.02 #298 | Points per possession | 1.11 #122 |
| 68.9 #190 | Pace (possessions) | 72.4 #27 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #264 | Effective FG% | 50.4 #224 |
| 32.4 #259 | 3-point % | 33.4 #203 |
| 31.8 #332 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.5 #127 |
| 29.3 #325 | Free throw rate | 45.1 #5 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.5 #235 | Turnover rate | 16.8 #183 |
| 27.8 #273 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.2 #44 |
| 12.4 #261 | Assists per game | 13.3 #189 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.4 #169 | Points allowed | 78.3 #272 |
| 1.07 #142 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #159 |
| 50.3 #115 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.3 #43 |
| 32.9 #111 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #154 |
| 15.5 #249 | Turnovers forced | 16.0 #223 |
| 70.9 #109 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.4 #234 |
| 5.7 #269 | Steals per game | 6.8 #146 |
| 4.1 #61 | Blocks per game | 5.3 #10 |
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.
Kennesaw St
18-14 in 2025-26 overall · 13-10 in conference · Conference USA
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Gonzaga64–73
- Wvs Louisiana Tech71–60
- Wvs Sam Houston79–73
- Wvs Western KY96–87
- L@ New Mexico St76–79
A week or more of rest.