Winthrop Coliseum · at Winthrop
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WIN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WIN 81–75 · win probability WIN 71%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.8
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: WIN has more of the edges
UTC 2, WIN 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UTC 21.8%, WIN 34.1%. Defensive: UTC 68.3%, WIN 72.3%
Free throws
Free throw rate: UTC 29.7, WIN 44.0. Allowed: UTC 42.6, WIN 39.0
WIN offense vs UTC defense
Offense 135th of 366 against a defense 270th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UTC plays 67.6 a game (249th fastest), WIN 72.0 (35th). Faster games mean more points
UTC offense vs WIN defense
Offense 193rd of 366 against a defense 298th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UTC has played the 306th-hardest schedule, WIN the 206th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: UTC 54.2 and allows 51.7; WIN 49.7 and allows 51.5
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UTC 14.5%, WIN 14.7%. Forced: UTC 13.1%, WIN 16.6%
Home court
WIN at home. This season: WIN 0-0 at home, UTC 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UTC 32%, WIN 13%. Transfers in: UTC 2, WIN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Three-pointers
UTC hits 35.0% and allows 34.2%; WIN hits 33.2% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 49.2% and 44.1% 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 | — | WIN -6.3 | — |
| Total | — | 155.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | UTC 74.8 · WIN 81 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WIN -3.6 | — |
| 1H total | 72.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | UTC 34.6 · WIN 38.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | |
| 7-3 70% | 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Chattanooga
29 games played
Straight up
10-19
34% wins
Against the spread
12-17
41% covers · avg −3.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-13
55% overs · avg +2.6 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 7 | @ | L 66-87 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 69-101 | +7.5 | L −24.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 73-91 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 78-66 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 154.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 71-57 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 64-70 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 155.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 70-74 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 78-92 | +19.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-79 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 73-66 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 72-77 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 71-79 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 67-78 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 88-79 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 76-67 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 90-82 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 66-67 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 64-75 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 55-81 | -1.5 | L −27.5 | 150.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 70-75 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-75 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 71-78 | -9.5 | L −16.5 | 142.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 61-73 | +10.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 76-81 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 94-90 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 93-72 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 80-85 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 86-79 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-88 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
SMC
L 66-87
−5.5
8
@
UNLV
L 69-101
−24.5
15
@
FGCU
L 73-91
−19.5
19
@
SCST
W 78-66
+0.5
22
vs
UNA
W 71-57
+4.5
30
vs
TNST
L 64-70
−14.5
6
vs
SEMO
L 70-74
−7.5
13
vs
AUB
L 78-92
+5.5
17
@
BELL
L 64-79
−16.5
21
@
AAMU
W 73-66
+4.5
1
@
UNCG
L 72-77
−7.5
3
@
VMI
L 71-79
−14.5
7
vs
FUR
L 67-78
−8.5
10
vs
SAM
W 88-79
+7.5
14
@
WOF
W 76-67
+14.5
17
@
WCU
W 90-82
+9.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 66-67
+3.5
24
@
SAM
L 64-75
−6.5
29
vs
WOF
L 55-81
−27.5
1
@
FUR
L 70-75
+2.5
5
vs
MER
W 79-75
+8.5
7
vs
CIT
L 71-78
−16.5
11
@
ETSU
L 61-73
−1.5
14
vs
WCU
L 76-81
−6.5
19
@
MER
W 94-90
+14.5
21
@
CIT
W 93-72
+16.5
26
vs
UNCG
L 80-85
−9.5
28
vs
VMI
W 86-79
−4.5
6
vs
CIT
L 85-88
−10.5
covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
SMC
L 66-87
+7.5
8
@
UNLV
L 69-101
+14.5
15
@
FGCU
L 73-91
+11.5
19
@
SCST
W 78-66
−10.5
22
vs
UNA
W 71-57
−21.5
30
vs
TNST
L 64-70
−21.5
6
vs
SEMO
L 70-74
−5.5
13
vs
AUB
L 78-92
+19.5
17
@
BELL
L 64-79
−3.5
21
@
AAMU
W 73-66
+0.5
1
@
UNCG
L 72-77
+1.5
3
@
VMI
L 71-79
+0.5
7
vs
FUR
L 67-78
−1.5
10
vs
SAM
W 88-79
+18.5
14
@
WOF
W 76-67
−11.5
17
@
WCU
W 90-82
+21.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 66-67
−10.5
24
@
SAM
L 64-75
−13.5
29
vs
WOF
L 55-81
−14.5
1
@
FUR
L 70-75
−1.5
5
vs
MER
W 79-75
−1.5
7
vs
CIT
L 71-78
+6.5
11
@
ETSU
L 61-73
−11.5
14
vs
WCU
L 76-81
+5.5
19
@
MER
W 94-90
+32.5
21
@
CIT
W 93-72
+20.5
26
vs
UNCG
L 80-85
+7.5
28
vs
VMI
W 86-79
+10.5
6
vs
CIT
L 85-88
+24.5
over 16under 13avg +2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Winthrop
31 games played
Straight up
20-11
65% wins
Against the spread
12-19
39% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg +0.2 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 81-74 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 163.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 90-96 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 186 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 66-72 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 105-69 | -2.5 | W +33.5 | 162.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 83-84 | +23.5 | W +22.5 | 168.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 80-62 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 73-80 | +14.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 101-79 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 94-92 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 84-88 | -16.5 | L −20.5 | 153.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 88-90 | -12.5 | L −14.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 57-87 | +17.5 | L −12.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 70-82 | -7.5 | L −19.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 88-77 | -23.5 | L −12.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 81-77 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 166.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 71-50 | -5.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 92-75 | +2.5 | W +19.5 | 162.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-67 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 76-75 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 82-72 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 84-71 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 80-78 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-74 | -10.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 103-85 | -20.5 | L −2.5 | 156.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 68-64 | -13.5 | L −9.5 | 158.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 87-89 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 84-86 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-70 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 86-81 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 164.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 73-71 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 76-91 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
QUC
W 81-74
+3.5
7
@
GMU
L 90-96
+3.5
11
@
CCU
L 66-72
−8.5
15
vs
MER
W 105-69
+33.5
18
@
ARK
L 83-84
+22.5
23
@
JKST
W 80-62
+7.5
25
@
NEB
L 73-80
+7.5
29
vs
SCST
W 101-79
+1.5
2
@
LIU
W 94-92
−3.5
6
vs
CCU
L 84-88
−20.5
18
@
UND
L 88-90
−14.5
28
@
TTU
L 57-87
−12.5
31
@
LONG
L 70-82
−19.5
3
vs
GWEB
W 88-77
−12.5
7
vs
CHSO
W 81-77
−4.5
10
@
UPST
W 71-50
+15.5
14
vs
HPU
W 92-75
+19.5
17
@
UNCA
W 69-67
−3.5
21
vs
RAD
W 76-75
−8.5
24
@
PRES
W 82-72
+4.5
31
vs
UNCA
W 84-71
+3.5
4
@
RAD
W 80-78
−2.5
7
vs
LONG
W 79-74
−5.5
12
@
GWEB
W 103-85
−2.5
19
vs
UPST
W 68-64
−9.5
21
@
HPU
L 87-89
+7.5
26
@
CHSO
L 84-86
−10.5
28
vs
PRES
W 74-70
−3.5
6
vs
CHSO
W 86-81
−1.5
7
vs
PRES
W 73-71
−5.5
8
vs
HPU
L 76-91
−8.5
covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
QUC
W 81-74
−8.5
7
@
GMU
L 90-96
+39.5
11
@
CCU
L 66-72
−27.5
15
vs
MER
W 105-69
+11.5
18
@
ARK
L 83-84
−1.5
23
@
JKST
W 80-62
−21.5
25
@
NEB
L 73-80
−13.5
29
vs
SCST
W 101-79
+22.5
2
@
LIU
W 94-92
+32.5
6
vs
CCU
L 84-88
+18.5
18
@
UND
L 88-90
+20.5
28
@
TTU
L 57-87
−19.5
31
@
LONG
L 70-82
−9.5
3
vs
GWEB
W 88-77
+0.5
7
vs
CHSO
W 81-77
−8.5
10
@
UPST
W 71-50
−36.5
14
vs
HPU
W 92-75
+4.5
17
@
UNCA
W 69-67
−16.5
21
vs
RAD
W 76-75
−14.5
24
@
PRES
W 82-72
+7.5
31
vs
UNCA
W 84-71
+7.5
4
@
RAD
W 80-78
−3.5
7
vs
LONG
W 79-74
−0.5
12
@
GWEB
W 103-85
+31.5
19
vs
UPST
W 68-64
−26.5
21
@
HPU
L 87-89
+9.5
26
@
CHSO
L 84-86
+5.5
28
vs
PRES
W 74-70
−6.5
6
vs
CHSO
W 86-81
+2.5
7
vs
PRES
W 73-71
−1.5
8
vs
HPU
L 76-91
+9.5
over 15under 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Chattanooga 1, Winthrop 1, even 3
ChattanoogaBetterWinthrop
G T. Darner9.8 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 49
←UTCBig
G M. Davis TR9.5 pts · 2.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 12
G S. Cusano2.5 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G S. Sims TR9.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 30
F T. Houser TR14.4 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
=Even
G A. Smith TR7.6 pts · 2 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 60
F Y. Levy TR5 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 18
=Even
G S. Hendawy5.2 pts · 4 reb · 1 ast
Score 30
F J. Bowman3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 22
→WINSmall
F G. Natsvlishvili TR7.7 pts · 4.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 43
ChattanoogaBetterWinthrop
UTC offense193rd of 366 · -5.9
←UTCSmall
WIN defense298th of 366 · -7.6
UTC defense270th of 366 · -6.8
→WINBig
WIN offense135th of 366 · -3.9
Backcourt-1.6 · 2 players
←UTCBig
Backcourt-5.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 3 players
→WINSmall
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-1.7 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUTC betterWIN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Darner29 minS. Cusano13 minH. Holland11 minL. VittersNewM. HamptonNewT. PowellNew
Forwards
T. Houser33 min · TRY. Levy21 min · TRJ. Bowman12 minA. SwiftNewC. HardawayNew
Centers
J. FleemanNew
Guards
M. Davis26 min · TRS. Sims25 min · TRA. Smith18 min · TRS. Hendawy16 minK. Fisher11 min · TRH. Harrison2 min
Forwards
G. Natsvlishvili20 min · TRT. Hamilton7 minT. HarrisNewJ. CwikNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.1 #192 | Points per game | 81.5 #40 |
| 1.10 #132 | Points per possession | 1.13 #79 |
| 67.6 #249 | Pace (possessions) | 72.0 #35 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.2 #60 | Effective FG% | 49.7 #250 |
| 35.0 #116 | 3-point % | 33.2 #217 |
| 49.2 #18 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.1 #88 |
| 29.7 #319 | Free throw rate | 44.0 #10 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.5 #40 | Turnover rate | 14.7 #52 |
| 21.8 #358 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #63 |
| 14.3 #127 | Assists per game | 13.6 #177 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.1 #269 | Points allowed | 77.7 #261 |
| 1.15 #325 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #154 |
| 51.7 #195 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.5 #182 |
| 34.2 #195 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #113 |
| 13.1 #351 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #174 |
| 68.3 #240 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.3 #55 |
| 5.0 #336 | Steals per game | 6.6 #161 |
| 2.5 #305 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #281 |
Chattanooga
10-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs The Citadel85–88
- Wvs VMI86–79
- Lvs UNC Greensboro80–85
- W@ The Citadel93–72
- W@ Mercer94–90
A week or more of rest.
Winthrop
20-11 in 2025-26 overall · 15-4 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs High Point76–91
- Wvs Presbyterian73–71
- Wvs Charleston So86–81
- Wvs Presbyterian74–70
- L@ Charleston So84–86
A week or more of rest.