Wolstein Center · at Cleveland St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CLE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 KENT 82–75 · win probability KENT 74%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.7
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: KENT has more of the edges
KENT 3, CLE 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: KENT 35.3%, CLE 27.0%. Defensive: KENT 70.7%, CLE 63.4%
KENT offense vs CLE defense
Offense 128th of 366 against a defense 356th, on the model’s ratings
CLE offense vs KENT defense
Offense 248th of 366 against a defense 196th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
CLE at home. This season: CLE 0-0 at home, KENT 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
KENT has played the 179th-hardest schedule, CLE the 222nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: KENT 19%, CLE 0%. Transfers in: KENT 5, CLE 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: KENT 17.9%, CLE 17.9%. Forced: KENT 16.1%, CLE 15.1%
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: KENT plays 73.3 a game (17th fastest), CLE 71.4 (56th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
KENT hits 35.0% and allows 35.0%; CLE hits 37.5% and allows 36.1%. Threes are 44.9% and 50.8% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: KENT 51.4 and allows 52.1; CLE 54.2 and allows 57.2
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: KENT 43.5, CLE 37.9. Allowed: KENT 39.5, CLE 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 | — | KENT -7.3 | — |
| Total | — | 156.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | KENT 82 · CLE 74.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | KENT -4.5 | — |
| 1H total | 73.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | KENT 38.9 · CLE 34.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
KENT 5–0 CLEKENT leads · 5 games since 2021-22 · KENT has won the last 5 meetings · KENT 3-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2025-26 | CLE 71 @ KENT 91 | KENT -15.5 | KENT W |
| Nov 15, 2025-26 | KENT 102 vs CLE 95 | CLE +11.5 | CLE W |
| Nov 23, 2024-25 | KENT 68 @ CLE 52 | CLE +2.5 | KENT W |
| Dec 9, 2023-24 | CLE 77 @ KENT 83 | KENT -11.5 | CLE W |
| Dec 10, 2022-23 | KENT 67 @ CLE 58 | CLE +8.5 | KENT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Kent State
32 games played
Straight up
22-10
69% wins
Against the spread
12-20
38% covers · avg −2.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +4.5 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 3 | vs | L 97-103 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 142.5 | O 200 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 110-102 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 164.5 | O 212 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 86-77 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 102-95 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 76-72 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 93-78 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 161.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 91-71 | -15.5 | W +4.5 | 172.5 | U 162 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 96-84 | -8.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 78-88 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 69-59 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 163.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 60-101 | +24.5 | L −16.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 77-73 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 96-93 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | O 189 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 85-87 | -10.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 87-81 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 16 | vs | W 87-84 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 168.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 101-107 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 167.5 | O 208 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 76-75 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 72-57 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 52-69 | +10.5 | L −6.5 | 166.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 161.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 65-66 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 95-91 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 186 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 75-68 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 78-71 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 83-81 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 70-92 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 166.5 | U 162 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 102-76 | -10.5 | W +15.5 | 148.5 | O 178 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 86-78 | -13.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 86-75 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 161.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 68-75 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 163.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 58-79 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TROY
L 97-103
−9.5
7
vs
COR
W 110-102
+1.5
10
vs
UNCW
W 86-77
+5.5
15
vs
CLE
W 102-95
−4.5
16
vs
WRST
W 76-72
−0.5
18
vs
EKU
W 93-78
+4.5
22
vs
CLE
W 91-71
+4.5
3
vs
APSU
W 96-84
+3.5
14
@
PORT
L 78-88
−17.5
20
@
MASS
W 69-59
+8.5
29
@
PUR
L 60-101
−16.5
3
vs
NIU
W 77-73
−12.5
6
vs
BGSU
W 96-93
−0.5
10
@
CMU
L 85-87
−12.5
13
@
BUF
W 87-81
+3.5
16
vs
TOL
W 87-84
−2.5
20
vs
M-OH
L 101-107
−7.5
24
@
EMU
W 76-75
−3.5
27
vs
OHIO
W 72-57
+9.5
30
@
AKR
L 52-69
−6.5
3
@
TOL
W 75-72
+1.5
7
@
USM
L 65-66
−5.5
11
vs
EMU
W 95-91
−6.5
14
@
BALL
W 75-68
−0.5
17
@
BGSU
W 78-71
+8.5
24
vs
CMU
W 83-81
−9.5
27
vs
AKR
L 70-92
−18.5
3
@
NIU
W 102-76
+15.5
6
vs
WMU
W 86-78
−5.5
12
vs
OHIO
W 86-75
+7.5
13
vs
AKR
L 68-75
−0.5
18
@
ILST
L 58-79
−16.5
covered 12didn’t cover 20avg −2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TROY
L 97-103
+57.5
7
vs
COR
W 110-102
+47.5
10
vs
UNCW
W 86-77
+6.5
15
vs
CLE
W 102-95
+31.5
16
vs
WRST
W 76-72
−9.5
18
vs
EKU
W 93-78
+9.5
22
vs
CLE
W 91-71
−10.5
3
vs
APSU
W 96-84
+26.5
14
@
PORT
L 78-88
+5.5
20
@
MASS
W 69-59
−35.5
29
@
PUR
L 60-101
+5.5
3
vs
NIU
W 77-73
−7.5
6
vs
BGSU
W 96-93
+33.5
10
@
CMU
L 85-87
+15.5
13
@
BUF
W 87-81
+2.5
16
vs
TOL
W 87-84
+2.5
20
vs
M-OH
L 101-107
+40.5
24
@
EMU
W 76-75
−3.5
27
vs
OHIO
W 72-57
−33.5
30
@
AKR
L 52-69
−45.5
3
@
TOL
W 75-72
−14.5
7
@
USM
L 65-66
−19.5
11
vs
EMU
W 95-91
+40.5
14
@
BALL
W 75-68
−0.5
17
@
BGSU
W 78-71
−2.5
24
vs
CMU
W 83-81
+7.5
27
vs
AKR
L 70-92
−4.5
3
@
NIU
W 102-76
+29.5
6
vs
WMU
W 86-78
+6.5
12
vs
OHIO
W 86-75
−0.5
13
vs
AKR
L 68-75
−20.5
18
@
ILST
L 58-79
−17.5
over 17under 15avg +4.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Kent State has the better starters
Position by position: Kent State 2, Cleveland St 0, even 3
Kent StateBetterCleveland St
G C. Henry TR11.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 5.1 ast
Score 66
=Even
G O. Bronston TR10.3 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 55
G C. Willis TR6.3 pts · 3 reb · 3.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Lowery TR4.4 pts · 1.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 30
G Q. Woidke9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 69
←KENTBig
G R. Griffith TR3.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 18
F C. Williams TR9.9 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 52
←KENTBig
G C. Stinson TR1.2 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 14
F G. Nwabude TR5.1 pts · 5.4 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 57
=Even
C D. Vorst TR7.7 pts · 3.7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 50
Kent StateBetterCleveland St
KENT offense128th of 366 · -3.5
←KENTBig
CLE defense356th of 366 · -10.1
KENT defense196th of 366 · -4.8
=Even
CLE offense248th of 366 · -7.5
Backcourt+0.8 · 3 players
←KENTBig
Backcourt-3.5 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.2 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt+0.2 · 1 player
Bench-2.3 · 5 players
→CLESmall
Bench+0.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestKENT betterCLE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Henry29 min · TRC. Willis27 min · TRQ. Woidke20 minB. Moss5 minD. Lakatos1 minJ. SumlinNew
Forwards
C. Williams24 min · TRG. Nwabude19 min · TRL. Diouf13 min · TRD. Briscoe8 minL. Vanderwarker4 minJ. TownsendNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 82.3 #31 | Points per game | 78.6 #89 |
| 1.12 #102 | Points per possession | 1.10 #133 |
| 73.3 #17 | Pace (possessions) | 71.4 #56 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #175 | Effective FG% | 54.2 #62 |
| 35.0 #118 | 3-point % | 37.5 #21 |
| 44.9 #69 | 3-point attempt rate | 50.8 #11 |
| 43.5 #15 | Free throw rate | 37.9 #105 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.9 #268 | Turnover rate | 17.9 #264 |
| 35.3 #39 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.0 #294 |
| 15.1 #81 | Assists per game | 14.8 #100 |
| Defense | ||
| 80.6 #328 | Points allowed | 88.6 #363 |
| 1.10 #221 | Points allowed per possession | 1.24 #363 |
| 52.1 #219 | Opponent effective FG% | 57.2 #360 |
| 35.0 #246 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.1 #309 |
| 16.1 #219 | Turnovers forced | 15.1 #279 |
| 70.7 #124 | Defensive rebound rate | 63.4 #356 |
| 6.5 #174 | Steals per game | 5.5 #289 |
| 3.3 #184 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #297 |
Kent State
22-10 in 2025-26 overall · 15-5 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Illinois St58–79
- Lvs Akron68–75
- Wvs Ohio86–75
- Wvs W Michigan86–78
- W@ N Illinois102–76
A week or more of rest.
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.