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 TROY 77–74 · win probability TROY 62%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.6
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: TROY has more of the edges
TROY 3, UTC 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: TROY 36.2, UTC 29.7. Allowed: TROY 31.4, UTC 42.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: TROY 34.5%, UTC 21.8%. Defensive: TROY 68.3%, UTC 68.3%
Context
Schedule so far
TROY has played the 166th-hardest schedule, UTC the 306th. A record against a soft schedule means less
TROY offense vs UTC defense
Offense 143rd of 366 against a defense 270th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: TROY plays 69.6 a game (141st fastest), UTC 67.6 (249th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
UTC at home. This season: UTC 0-0 at home, TROY 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: TROY 11%, UTC 32%. Transfers in: TROY 6, UTC 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
UTC offense vs TROY defense
Offense 193rd of 366 against a defense 162nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
TROY hits 33.0% and allows 31.6%; UTC hits 35.0% and allows 34.2%. Threes are 45.9% and 49.2% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: TROY 51.5 and allows 50.2; UTC 54.2 and allows 51.7
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: TROY 17.3%, UTC 14.5%. Forced: TROY 16.7%, UTC 13.1%
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 | — | TROY -3.4 | — |
| Total | — | 150.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | TROY 77 · UTC 73.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TROY -2.1 | — |
| 1H total | 70.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | TROY 36.3 · UTC 34.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Troy
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
18-14
56% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg +2.9 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 | @ | W 103-97 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 200 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 64-61 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 63-74 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 108-107 | +14.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 215 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 106-107 | +18.5 | W +17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-75 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-64 | -21.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 1 | vs | L 89-93 | -17.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 86-85 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 100-80 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 59-49 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 74-86 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 160.5 | U 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-70 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 91-65 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 99-74 | -3.5 | W +21.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 83-77 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 83-78 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 64-73 | -9.5 | L −18.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 44-66 | -7.5 | L −29.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-69 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 62-74 | -5.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-69 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 77-76 | -17.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 54-65 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 78-59 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 134.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-65 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-70 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 77-61 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 47-76 | +13.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+9.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
+5.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−6.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
−13.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+15.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+17.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−9.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−11.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
−21.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+7.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
+2.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+11.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
+0.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−7.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+10.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+17.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+21.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+0.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+0.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−18.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−29.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
+4.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
+12.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−17.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−9.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−16.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−13.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+7.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−3.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+2.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
+10.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−15.5
covered 18didn’t cover 14avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+57.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
−27.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−3.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
+21.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+77.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+53.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−16.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−13.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
+31.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+15.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
−22.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+34.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
−40.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−0.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+23.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+10.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+7.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+7.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+1.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−10.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−27.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
−7.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
−9.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−4.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−10.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−0.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−23.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+2.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−8.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+5.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
−14.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−16.5
over 14under 18avg +2.9 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: Troy 1, Chattanooga 1, even 3
TroyBetterChattanooga
G R. Davis TR9.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 14
→UTCBig
G T. Darner9.8 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 49
G D. Oday TR18.9 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 95
=No call
G S. Cusano2.5 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
G J. Hutchinson TR12.1 pts · 3.4 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 76
=Even
F T. Houser TR14.4 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
F C. Diggs TR10.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
←TROYBig
F Y. Levy TR5 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 18
F K. Kiel3.6 pts · 3.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 23
=Even
F J. Bowman3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 22
TroyBetterChattanooga
TROY offense143rd of 366 · -4.3
←TROYBig
UTC defense270th of 366 · -6.8
TROY defense162nd of 366 · -3.6
=Even
UTC offense193rd of 366 · -5.9
Backcourt+1.4 · 3 players
←TROYBig
Backcourt-1.6 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.6 · 3 players
Bench-2.0 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestTROY betterUTC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
R. Davis31 min · TRD. Oday30 min · TRJ. Hutchinson29 min · TRH. Awata2 minJ. KontuniemiNewR. ValakouNew
Forwards
C. Diggs23 min · TRK. Kiel16 minM. Ikegwuruka13 min · TRS. Walters9 min · TRE. Griffin5 min
Centers
A. PachecoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.3 #110 | Points per game | 74.1 #192 |
| 1.11 #113 | Points per possession | 1.10 #132 |
| 69.6 #141 | Pace (possessions) | 67.6 #249 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.5 #171 | Effective FG% | 54.2 #60 |
| 33.0 #229 | 3-point % | 35.0 #116 |
| 45.9 #47 | 3-point attempt rate | 49.2 #18 |
| 36.2 #147 | Free throw rate | 29.7 #319 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.3 #226 | Turnover rate | 14.5 #40 |
| 34.5 #59 | Offensive rebound rate | 21.8 #358 |
| 15.0 #86 | Assists per game | 14.3 #127 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.5 #178 | Points allowed | 78.1 #269 |
| 1.07 #128 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #325 |
| 50.2 #111 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.7 #195 |
| 31.6 #47 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.2 #195 |
| 16.7 #173 | Turnovers forced | 13.1 #351 |
| 68.3 #243 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #240 |
| 7.2 #107 | Steals per game | 5.0 #336 |
| 3.3 #169 | Blocks per game | 2.5 #305 |
Troy
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Nebraska47–76
- Wvs GA Southern77–61
- Wvs Southern Miss78–70
- Wvs UL Monroe80–65
- Wvs Louisiana78–59
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.