Mizzou Arena · at Missouri
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MIZ | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MIZ 91–64 · win probability MIZ 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.4
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: MIZ has more of the edges
CLE 1, MIZ 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MIZ offense vs CLE defense
Offense 52nd of 366 against a defense 356th, on the model’s ratings
CLE offense vs MIZ defense
Offense 248th of 366 against a defense 49th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CLE 27.0%, MIZ 34.9%. Defensive: CLE 63.4%, MIZ 68.3%
Context
Schedule so far
CLE has played the 222nd-hardest schedule, MIZ the 45th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: CLE 54.2 and allows 57.2; MIZ 55.0 and allows 51.5
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: CLE plays 71.4 a game (56th fastest), MIZ 68.8 (191st). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
CLE hits 37.5% and allows 36.1%; MIZ hits 35.0% and allows 36.8%. Threes are 50.8% and 36.4% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CLE 0%, MIZ 33%. Transfers in: CLE 7, MIZ 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CLE 17.9%, MIZ 17.7%. Forced: CLE 15.1%, MIZ 16.6%
Home court
MIZ at home. This season: MIZ 0-0 at home, CLE 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CLE 37.9, MIZ 42.1. Allowed: CLE 35.5, MIZ 35.5
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 | — | MIZ -26.6 | — |
| Total | — | 155.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | CLE 64.4 · MIZ 91 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MIZ -15.7 | — |
| 1H total | 72.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | CLE 28.4 · MIZ 44.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CLE 0–1 MIZMIZ leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CLE 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2025-26 | CLE 59 @ MIZ 86 | MIZ -31.5 | CLE W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Cleveland St
30 games played
Straight up
8-22
27% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-11
63% overs · avg +6.2 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 | @ | L 88-91 | +17.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 63-110 | +23.5 | L −23.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 95-102 | +11.5 | W +4.5 | 165.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 87-82 | +8.5 | W +13.5 | 162.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 75-90 | -2.5 | L −17.5 | 158.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 71-91 | +15.5 | L −4.5 | 172.5 | U 162 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 59-86 | +31.5 | W +4.5 | 170.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 80-95 | +14.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 59-71 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 158.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 77-101 | +18.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 71-81 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 160.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 99-86 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 172.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 71-74 | +11.5 | W +8.5 | 159.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 9 | @ | L 74-97 | +15.5 | L −7.5 | 169.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 84-94 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 162.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 73-88 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 80-78 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 85-79 | +15.5 | W +21.5 | 156.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 89-82 | +7.5 | W +14.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 90-88 | +9.5 | W +11.5 | 160.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 91-78 | +7.5 | W +20.5 | 170.5 | U 169 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 74-82 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 169.5 | U 156 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 68-85 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 90-102 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 157.5 | O 192 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 82-106 | +11.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 86-92 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 163.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 70-81 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 166.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 64-83 | +12.5 | L −6.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 101-93 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 169.5 | O 194 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 61-90 | +14.5 | L −14.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
LUC
L 88-91
+14.5
10
@
NU
L 63-110
−23.5
15
vs
KENT
L 95-102
+4.5
16
vs
RAD
W 87-82
+13.5
19
vs
VAL
L 75-90
−17.5
22
@
KENT
L 71-91
−4.5
28
@
MIZ
L 59-86
+4.5
3
@
NKU
L 80-95
−0.5
6
vs
DETM
L 59-71
−13.5
17
@
UAB
L 77-101
−5.5
21
vs
MILW
L 71-81
−3.5
29
vs
IUIN
W 99-86
+11.5
4
@
PFW
L 71-74
+8.5
9
@
OAK
L 74-97
−7.5
11
@
DETM
L 84-94
−3.5
15
vs
GB
L 73-88
−11.5
17
vs
YSU
W 80-78
+10.5
21
@
WRST
W 85-79
+21.5
30
@
GB
W 89-82
+14.5
1
@
MILW
W 90-88
+11.5
4
vs
OAK
W 91-78
+20.5
7
@
IUIN
L 74-82
−5.5
12
vs
RMU
L 68-85
−13.5
15
vs
WRST
L 90-102
−4.5
18
@
YSU
L 82-106
−12.5
22
vs
PFW
L 86-92
−2.5
25
vs
NKU
L 70-81
−2.5
28
@
RMU
L 64-83
−6.5
2
vs
IUIN
W 101-93
+10.5
4
@
WRST
L 61-90
−14.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
LUC
L 88-91
+27.5
10
@
NU
L 63-110
+21.5
15
vs
KENT
L 95-102
+31.5
16
vs
RAD
W 87-82
+6.5
19
vs
VAL
L 75-90
+6.5
22
@
KENT
L 71-91
−10.5
28
@
MIZ
L 59-86
−25.5
3
@
NKU
L 80-95
+16.5
6
vs
DETM
L 59-71
−28.5
17
@
UAB
L 77-101
+21.5
21
vs
MILW
L 71-81
−8.5
29
vs
IUIN
W 99-86
+12.5
4
@
PFW
L 71-74
−14.5
9
@
OAK
L 74-97
+1.5
11
@
DETM
L 84-94
+15.5
15
vs
GB
L 73-88
+10.5
17
vs
YSU
W 80-78
+5.5
21
@
WRST
W 85-79
+7.5
30
@
GB
W 89-82
+20.5
1
@
MILW
W 90-88
+17.5
4
vs
OAK
W 91-78
−1.5
7
@
IUIN
L 74-82
−13.5
12
vs
RMU
L 68-85
−1.5
15
vs
WRST
L 90-102
+34.5
18
@
YSU
L 82-106
+30.5
22
vs
PFW
L 86-92
+14.5
25
vs
NKU
L 70-81
−15.5
28
@
RMU
L 64-83
−10.5
2
vs
IUIN
W 101-93
+24.5
4
@
WRST
L 61-90
−11.5
over 19under 11avg +6.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Missouri
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg −0.3 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
4 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered
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 88-67 | -20.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 89-84 | -25.5 | L −20.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 106-68 | -23.5 | W +14.5 | 161.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 83-60 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 91-73 | -35.5 | L −17.5 | 166.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 102-68 | -24.5 | W +9.5 | 171.5 | U 170 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 98-66 | -34.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-59 | -31.5 | L −4.5 | 170.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 71-76 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 60-80 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 11 | vs | W 85-77 | -26.5 | L −18.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 82-60 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 22 | vs | L 48-91 | +8.5 | L −34.5 | 153.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 76-74 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 73-68 | +12.5 | W +17.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 69-76 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 84-74 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 70-78 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 72-74 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 163.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 88-87 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 64-90 | +10.5 | L −15.5 | 167.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 84-79 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 78-59 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 86-85 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 68-85 | -2.5 | L −19.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 81-80 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 86-94 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 73-69 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 88-64 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 64-80 | -1.5 | L −17.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 84-88 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 72-78 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 66-80 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
HOW
W 88-67
+0.5
7
vs
SEMO
W 89-84
−20.5
9
vs
VMI
W 106-68
+14.5
12
vs
MINN
W 83-60
+15.5
17
vs
PV
W 91-73
−17.5
20
vs
SDAK
W 102-68
+9.5
25
vs
SCST
W 98-66
−2.5
28
vs
CLE
W 86-59
−4.5
2
@
ND
L 71-76
−6.5
7
vs
KU
L 60-80
−14.5
11
vs
ALST
W 85-77
−18.5
14
vs
BCU
W 82-60
+1.5
22
vs
ILL
L 48-91
−34.5
3
vs
FLA
W 76-74
+9.5
7
@
UK
W 73-68
+17.5
10
@
MISS
L 69-76
−5.5
14
vs
AUB
W 84-74
+11.5
17
@
LSU
L 70-78
−6.5
20
vs
UGA
L 72-74
−3.5
24
vs
OU
W 88-87
−3.5
27
@
ALA
L 64-90
−15.5
31
vs
MSST
W 84-79
−1.5
7
@
SC
W 78-59
+15.5
11
@
TA&M
W 86-85
+8.5
14
vs
TEX
L 68-85
−19.5
18
vs
VAN
W 81-80
+4.5
21
@
ARK
L 86-94
+1.5
24
vs
TENN
W 73-69
+7.5
28
@
MSST
W 88-64
+22.5
3
@
OU
L 64-80
−17.5
7
vs
ARK
L 84-88
−6.5
12
vs
UK
L 72-78
−3.5
20
vs
MIA
L 66-80
−12.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
HOW
W 88-67
−3.5
7
vs
SEMO
W 89-84
+15.5
9
vs
VMI
W 106-68
+12.5
12
vs
MINN
W 83-60
−15.5
17
vs
PV
W 91-73
−2.5
20
vs
SDAK
W 102-68
−1.5
25
vs
SCST
W 98-66
+3.5
28
vs
CLE
W 86-59
−25.5
2
@
ND
L 71-76
+0.5
7
vs
KU
L 60-80
−10.5
11
vs
ALST
W 85-77
+6.5
14
vs
BCU
W 82-60
−4.5
22
vs
ILL
L 48-91
−14.5
3
vs
FLA
W 76-74
−4.5
7
@
UK
W 73-68
−9.5
10
@
MISS
L 69-76
+1.5
14
vs
AUB
W 84-74
+4.5
17
@
LSU
L 70-78
−0.5
20
vs
UGA
L 72-74
−17.5
24
vs
OU
W 88-87
+23.5
27
@
ALA
L 64-90
−13.5
31
vs
MSST
W 84-79
+16.5
7
@
SC
W 78-59
−10.5
11
@
TA&M
W 86-85
+10.5
14
vs
TEX
L 68-85
+2.5
18
vs
VAN
W 81-80
+6.5
21
@
ARK
L 86-94
+20.5
24
vs
TENN
W 73-69
−1.5
28
@
MSST
W 88-64
−2.5
3
@
OU
L 64-80
−9.5
7
vs
ARK
L 84-88
+8.5
12
vs
UK
L 72-78
+1.5
20
vs
MIA
L 66-80
+1.5
over 16under 17avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Missouri has the better starters
Position by position: Cleveland St 0, Missouri 4, even 1
Cleveland StBetterMissouri
G O. Bronston TR10.3 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 55
=Even
G J. Crawford TR14.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 44
G J. Lowery TR4.4 pts · 1.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 30
→MIZBig
G C. Stansberry TR14.6 pts · 4 reb · 2 ast
Score 69
G R. Griffith TR3.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 18
→MIZSmall
G K. Davis TR8.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 48
G C. Stinson TR1.2 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 14
→MIZBig
G T. Pierce10.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 80
C D. Vorst TR7.7 pts · 3.7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 50
→MIZSmall
F B. Tiller TR7.9 pts · 6.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 68
Cleveland StBetterMissouri
CLE offense248th of 366 · -7.5
→MIZBig
MIZ defense49th of 366 · +2.0
CLE defense356th of 366 · -10.1
→MIZBig
MIZ offense52nd of 366 · +3.3
Backcourt-3.5 · 4 players
→MIZBig
Backcourt-0.0 · 4 players
Frontcourt+0.2 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt+0.8 · 1 player
Bench+0.0 · 2 players
→MIZSmall
Bench+2.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCLE betterMIZ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
O. Bronston21 min · TRJ. Lowery15 min · TRR. Griffith14 min · TRC. Stinson8 min · TRA. Bruskotter7 min · TRM. BaysNew
Forwards
D. Jones2 min · TRG. HeadingsNewB. McCruterNew
Centers
D. Vorst21 min · TRB. WhiteNew
Guards
J. Crawford32 min · TRC. Stansberry30 min · TRK. Davis30 min · TRT. Pierce28 minJ. Jones26 min · TRA. Boateng12 min
Forwards
B. Tiller26 min · TRJ. Carey18 min · TRL. Northweather12 minN. Randall6 minT. BryantNew
Centers
T. Burns9 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.6 #89 | Points per game | 79.2 #78 |
| 1.10 #133 | Points per possession | 1.15 #65 |
| 71.4 #56 | Pace (possessions) | 68.8 #191 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.2 #62 | Effective FG% | 55.0 #36 |
| 37.5 #21 | 3-point % | 35.0 #112 |
| 50.8 #11 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.4 #240 |
| 37.9 #105 | Free throw rate | 42.1 #28 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.9 #264 | Turnover rate | 17.7 #255 |
| 27.0 #294 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.9 #48 |
| 14.8 #100 | Assists per game | 14.2 #132 |
| Defense | ||
| 88.6 #363 | Points allowed | 75.5 #204 |
| 1.24 #363 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #224 |
| 57.2 #360 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.5 #183 |
| 36.1 #309 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.8 #341 |
| 15.1 #279 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #182 |
| 63.4 #356 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #238 |
| 5.5 #289 | Steals per game | 6.6 #162 |
| 2.6 #297 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #140 |
Cleveland St
8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Wright St61–90
- Wvs IU Indy101–93
- L@ Robert Morris64–83
- Lvs N Kentucky70–81
- Lvs Purdue FW86–92
A week or more of rest.
Missouri
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Miami66–80
- Lvs Kentucky72–78
- Lvs Arkansas84–88
- L@ Oklahoma64–80
- W@ Mississippi St88–64
A week or more of rest.