McKenzie Arena · at Chattanooga
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UTC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UTC 78–75 · win probability UTC 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.7
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
RAD 4, UTC 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: RAD 42.4, UTC 29.7. Allowed: RAD 40.0, UTC 42.6
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: RAD plays 73.6 a game (13th fastest), UTC 67.6 (249th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: RAD 51.4 and allows 53.0; UTC 54.2 and allows 51.7
UTC offense vs RAD defense
Offense 193rd of 366 against a defense 286th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
RAD hits 33.5% and allows 35.5%; UTC hits 35.0% and allows 34.2%. Threes are 45.4% and 49.2% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
RAD has played the 243rd-hardest schedule, UTC the 306th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RAD 29.8%, UTC 21.8%. Defensive: RAD 67.8%, UTC 68.3%
RAD offense vs UTC defense
Offense 213th of 366 against a defense 270th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RAD 17.1%, UTC 14.5%. Forced: RAD 18.5%, UTC 13.1%
Home court
UTC at home. This season: UTC 0-0 at home, RAD 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RAD 12%, UTC 32%. Transfers in: RAD 6, UTC 2. 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 | — | UTC -2.7 | — |
| Total | — | 152.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | RAD 75 · UTC 77.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UTC -1.5 | — |
| 1H total | 71.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | RAD 35 · UTC 36.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Radford
29 games played
Straight up
13-16
45% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg −2.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-12
59% overs · avg +3.1 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 80-75 | -16.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 74-89 | +20.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 59-92 | -6.5 | L −39.5 | 156.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 82-87 | -8.5 | L −13.5 | 162.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 58-87 | +10.5 | L −18.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 73-81 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 72-89 | +23.5 | W +6.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 75-82 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 89-56 | -13.5 | W +19.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 107-77 | -20.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 83-96 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 170.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 97-90 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 158.5 | O 187 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 76-69 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 158.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 80-61 | -6.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 72-91 | -4.5 | L −23.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 89-80 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 85-83 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 75-76 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 165.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 83-93 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 84-75 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 93-84 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 78-80 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 161.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 77-86 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 90-80 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 161.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 82-70 | -18.5 | L −6.5 | 162.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 73-74 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 71-59 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 74-90 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-91 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
WIU
W 80-75
−11.5
11
@
UNC
L 74-89
+5.5
15
vs
WRST
L 59-92
−39.5
16
vs
CLE
L 82-87
−13.5
18
@
SC
L 58-87
−18.5
21
vs
UNCW
L 73-81
−3.5
24
@
SMU
L 72-89
+6.5
3
vs
USM
L 75-82
−10.5
7
vs
SFPA
W 89-56
+19.5
14
vs
COPP
W 107-77
+9.5
18
@
W&M
L 83-96
−4.5
21
vs
VMI
W 97-90
−4.5
31
@
UPST
W 76-69
+8.5
7
vs
PRES
W 80-61
+12.5
10
vs
UNCA
L 72-91
−23.5
14
@
GWEB
W 89-80
−4.5
17
vs
LONG
W 85-83
−2.5
21
@
WIN
L 75-76
+8.5
23
vs
HPU
L 83-93
−2.5
29
@
CHSO
W 84-75
+7.5
31
@
PRES
W 93-84
+10.5
4
vs
WIN
L 78-80
+2.5
7
@
HPU
L 77-86
+5.5
14
vs
CHSO
W 90-80
+5.5
19
vs
GWEB
W 82-70
−6.5
21
@
UNCA
L 73-74
+1.5
26
vs
UPST
W 71-59
+4.5
28
@
LONG
L 74-90
−14.5
6
vs
PRES
L 85-91
−8.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
WIU
W 80-75
+3.5
11
@
UNC
L 74-89
+0.5
15
vs
WRST
L 59-92
−5.5
16
vs
CLE
L 82-87
+6.5
18
@
SC
L 58-87
−8.5
21
vs
UNCW
L 73-81
+2.5
24
@
SMU
L 72-89
−4.5
3
vs
USM
L 75-82
+4.5
7
vs
SFPA
W 89-56
−9.5
14
vs
COPP
W 107-77
+29.5
18
@
W&M
L 83-96
+8.5
21
vs
VMI
W 97-90
+28.5
31
@
UPST
W 76-69
−13.5
7
vs
PRES
W 80-61
−6.5
10
vs
UNCA
L 72-91
+11.5
14
@
GWEB
W 89-80
+3.5
17
vs
LONG
W 85-83
+10.5
21
@
WIN
L 75-76
−14.5
23
vs
HPU
L 83-93
+10.5
29
@
CHSO
W 84-75
−3.5
31
@
PRES
W 93-84
+25.5
4
vs
WIN
L 78-80
−3.5
7
@
HPU
L 77-86
+0.5
14
vs
CHSO
W 90-80
+8.5
19
vs
GWEB
W 82-70
−10.5
21
@
UNCA
L 73-74
−2.5
26
vs
UPST
W 71-59
−22.5
28
@
LONG
L 74-90
+9.5
6
vs
PRES
L 85-91
+29.5
over 17under 12avg +3.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
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: Radford 1, Chattanooga 1, even 3
RadfordBetterChattanooga
G J. Robinson TR6.3 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 52
=Even
G T. Darner9.8 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 49
G T. Gross TR3.5 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 21
=No call
G S. Cusano2.5 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
F C. Jackson TR4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 36
→UTCSmall
F T. Houser TR14.4 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
F P. Kabamba TR5.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 38
←RADSmall
F Y. Levy TR5 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 18
F F. Erichsen4.7 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 27
=Even
F J. Bowman3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 22
RadfordBetterChattanooga
RAD offense213th of 366 · -6.5
←RADSmall
UTC defense270th of 366 · -6.8
RAD defense286th of 366 · -7.2
→UTCSmall
UTC offense193rd of 366 · -5.9
Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt-1.6 · 2 players
Frontcourt-2.1 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.6 · 3 players
Bench-1.0 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestRAD betterUTC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Robinson17 min · TRT. Gross13 min · TRW. Keel6 minM. Grujicic6 min · TRJ. Kee3 min · TRK. PruettNew
Forwards
C. Jackson17 min · TRP. Kabamba17 min · TRF. Erichsen13 minA. NokesNew
Centers
G. Ferreira5 min
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 79.9 #70 | Points per game | 74.1 #192 |
| 1.09 #168 | Points per possession | 1.10 #132 |
| 73.6 #13 | Pace (possessions) | 67.6 #249 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #181 | Effective FG% | 54.2 #60 |
| 33.5 #199 | 3-point % | 35.0 #116 |
| 45.4 #59 | 3-point attempt rate | 49.2 #18 |
| 42.4 #25 | Free throw rate | 29.7 #319 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #210 | Turnover rate | 14.5 #40 |
| 29.8 #207 | Offensive rebound rate | 21.8 #358 |
| 12.0 #284 | Assists per game | 14.3 #127 |
| Defense | ||
| 80.8 #330 | Points allowed | 78.1 #269 |
| 1.10 #216 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #325 |
| 53.0 #271 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.7 #195 |
| 35.5 #279 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.2 #195 |
| 18.5 #72 | Turnovers forced | 13.1 #351 |
| 67.8 #267 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #240 |
| 7.5 #79 | Steals per game | 5.0 #336 |
| 3.4 #158 | Blocks per game | 2.5 #305 |
Radford
13-16 in 2025-26 overall · 9-8 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Presbyterian85–91
- L@ Longwood74–90
- Wvs SC Upstate71–59
- L@ UNC Asheville73–74
- Wvs Gardner-Webb82–70
A week or more of rest.
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.