Ocean Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | KENT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WYO 78–74 · win probability WYO 65%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.6
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: WYO has more of the edges
WYO 3, KENT 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: WYO plays 67.6 a game (252nd fastest), KENT 73.3 (17th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: WYO 35.5, KENT 43.5. Allowed: WYO 47.9, KENT 39.5
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WYO 16.3%, KENT 17.9%. Forced: WYO 16.8%, KENT 16.1%
Context
Schedule so far
WYO has played the 105th-hardest schedule, KENT the 179th. A record against a soft schedule means less
WYO offense vs KENT defense
Offense 124th of 366 against a defense 196th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WYO 45%, KENT 19%. Transfers in: WYO 4, KENT 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WYO 34.0%, KENT 35.3%. Defensive: WYO 72.0%, KENT 70.7%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WYO 51.8 and allows 52.0; KENT 51.4 and allows 52.1
Even
Three-pointers
WYO hits 33.0% and allows 32.8%; KENT hits 35.0% and allows 35.0%. Threes are 43.0% and 44.9% of their shots
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
KENT offense vs WYO defense
Offense 128th of 366 against a defense 130th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | WYO -4.3 | — |
| Total | — | 151.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | WYO 77.9 · KENT 73.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WYO -2.7 | — |
| 1H total | 70.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | WYO 36.8 · KENT 34.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Wyoming
32 games played
Straight up
17-15
53% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% 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 8 | vs | W 92-82 | -15.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 79-65 | -5.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 93-56 | -11.5 | W +25.5 | 160.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 70-78 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 75-67 | -15.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 101-59 | -9.5 | W +32.5 | 153.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 72-76 | +19.5 | W +15.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 93-80 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 156.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 106-79 | -14.5 | W +12.5 | 161.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 15 | vs | W 87-72 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 70-82 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 68-56 | -14.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 58-78 | +7.5 | L −12.5 | 151.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 98-66 | -4.5 | W +27.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 83-92 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 57-74 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 60-63 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 65-81 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 66-62 | -13.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 62-94 | +13.5 | L −18.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 68-57 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 63-72 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 83-85 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 68-79 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 92-82 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 70-65 | +7.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 62-72 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 66-62 | -20.5 | L −16.5 | 145.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 83-73 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 88-78 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 70-73 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 70-74 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
vs
CSUF
W 92-82
−5.5
11
vs
APSU
W 79-65
+8.5
15
vs
PORT
W 93-56
+25.5
19
@
SHSU
L 70-78
−6.5
23
vs
NORF
W 75-67
−7.5
26
vs
DEN
W 101-59
+32.5
30
@
TTU
L 72-76
+15.5
6
vs
DART
W 93-80
−1.5
9
vs
SDAK
W 106-79
+12.5
15
vs
SDST
W 87-72
+11.5
20
vs
GCU
L 70-82
−14.5
30
@
AF
W 68-56
−2.5
3
@
UNM
L 58-78
−12.5
6
vs
UNLV
W 98-66
+27.5
10
@
NEV
L 83-92
−5.5
14
vs
SDSU
L 57-74
−15.5
17
@
FRES
L 60-63
−6.5
20
vs
BOIS
L 65-81
−14.5
24
vs
SJSU
W 66-62
−9.5
28
@
USU
L 62-94
−18.5
31
vs
CSU
W 68-57
+9.5
3
@
SDSU
L 63-72
+3.5
7
vs
USU
L 83-85
+7.5
14
@
CSU
L 68-79
−7.5
17
vs
FRES
W 92-82
+0.5
21
@
GCU
W 70-65
+12.5
24
@
BOIS
L 62-72
−1.5
28
vs
AF
W 66-62
−16.5
3
vs
NEV
W 83-73
+11.5
7
@
SJSU
W 88-78
+3.5
11
vs
UNLV
L 70-73
−0.5
17
@
WICH
L 70-74
+1.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
vs
CSUF
W 92-82
+19.5
11
vs
APSU
W 79-65
−9.5
15
vs
PORT
W 93-56
−11.5
19
@
SHSU
L 70-78
−8.5
23
vs
NORF
W 75-67
+0.5
26
vs
DEN
W 101-59
+6.5
30
@
TTU
L 72-76
−4.5
6
vs
DART
W 93-80
+16.5
9
vs
SDAK
W 106-79
+23.5
15
vs
SDST
W 87-72
+9.5
20
vs
GCU
L 70-82
+4.5
30
@
AF
W 68-56
−22.5
3
@
UNM
L 58-78
−15.5
6
vs
UNLV
W 98-66
+9.5
10
@
NEV
L 83-92
+31.5
14
vs
SDSU
L 57-74
−17.5
17
@
FRES
L 60-63
−22.5
20
vs
BOIS
L 65-81
+0.5
24
vs
SJSU
W 66-62
−13.5
28
@
USU
L 62-94
+7.5
31
vs
CSU
W 68-57
−17.5
3
@
SDSU
L 63-72
−6.5
7
vs
USU
L 83-85
+18.5
14
@
CSU
L 68-79
+6.5
17
vs
FRES
W 92-82
+25.5
21
@
GCU
W 70-65
−9.5
24
@
BOIS
L 62-72
−12.5
28
vs
AF
W 66-62
−17.5
3
vs
NEV
W 83-73
+12.5
7
@
SJSU
W 88-78
+17.5
11
vs
UNLV
L 70-73
−10.5
17
@
WICH
L 70-74
−4.5
over 16under 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
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: Wyoming 0, Kent State 2, even 3
WyomingBetterKent State
G C. Jefferson TR12.7 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 48
→KENTSmall
G C. Henry TR11.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 5.1 ast
Score 66
G K. Bennett10.1 pts · 4.8 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 76
=No call
G C. Willis TR6.3 pts · 3 reb · 3.3 ast
Not ranked
G N. Meyer12.7 pts · 4.9 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 83
=Even
G Q. Woidke9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 69
F R. Sondors TR10.4 pts · 4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 15
→KENTBig
F C. Williams TR9.9 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 52
F G. Gores7.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 65
=Even
F G. Nwabude TR5.1 pts · 5.4 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 57
WyomingBetterKent State
WYO offense124th of 366 · -3.3
←WYOSmall
KENT defense196th of 366 · -4.8
WYO defense130th of 366 · -2.4
=Even
KENT offense128th of 366 · -3.5
Backcourt+1.8 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt+0.8 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.2 · 2 players
→KENTSmall
Frontcourt-0.2 · 2 players
Bench-1.4 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-2.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestWYO betterKENT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Jefferson31 min · TRK. Bennett28 minN. Meyer28 minU. Rojas17 minP. Gerrits10 min · TRM. De MartinNew
Forwards
R. Sondors29 min · TRG. Gores18 minM. Curtis9 min · TRM. MoraNewN. SummersNewC. PohlNew
Centers
L. RufNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.2 #137 | Points per game | 82.3 #31 |
| 1.13 #92 | Points per possession | 1.12 #102 |
| 67.6 #252 | Pace (possessions) | 73.3 #17 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.8 #154 | Effective FG% | 51.4 #175 |
| 33.0 #234 | 3-point % | 35.0 #118 |
| 43.0 #116 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.9 #69 |
| 35.5 #166 | Free throw rate | 43.5 #15 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.3 #155 | Turnover rate | 17.9 #268 |
| 34.0 #66 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.3 #39 |
| 14.1 #141 | Assists per game | 15.1 #81 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.9 #131 | Points allowed | 80.6 #328 |
| 1.08 #169 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #221 |
| 52.0 #211 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.1 #219 |
| 32.8 #108 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.0 #246 |
| 16.8 #164 | Turnovers forced | 16.1 #219 |
| 72.0 #66 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.7 #124 |
| 6.6 #169 | Steals per game | 6.5 #174 |
| 2.4 #318 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #184 |
Wyoming
17-15 in 2025-26 overall · 9-12 in conference · Mountain West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Wichita St70–74
- Lvs UNLV70–73
- W@ San José St88–78
- Wvs Nevada83–73
- Wvs Air Force66–62
A week or more of rest.
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.