Fifth Third Arena · at Cincinnati
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CIN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CIN 85–62 · win probability CIN 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.9
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: CIN has more of the edges
GB 2, CIN 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
GB has played the 255th-hardest schedule, CIN the 39th. A record against a soft schedule means less
GB offense vs CIN defense
Offense 219th of 366 against a defense 24th, on the model’s ratings
CIN offense vs GB defense
Offense 49th of 366 against a defense 227th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: GB 25.1%, CIN 30.6%. Defensive: GB 70.4%, CIN 72.7%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: GB 15.9%, CIN 17.0%. Forced: GB 13.2%, CIN 18.2%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: GB plays 65.2 a game (339th fastest), CIN 69.4 (152nd). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
GB hits 36.4% and allows 36.3%; CIN hits 33.9% and allows 31.0%. Threes are 37.3% and 43.8% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: GB 40%, CIN 1%. Transfers in: GB 3, CIN 12. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
CIN at home. This season: CIN 0-0 at home, GB 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: GB 41.6, CIN 29.4. Allowed: GB 37.4, CIN 30.0
Shooting
Effective FG%: GB 54.9 and allows 53.6; CIN 50.5 and allows 47.4
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 | — | CIN -23.1 | — |
| Total | — | 146.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | GB 61.9 · CIN 85 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CIN -13.6 | — |
| 1H total | 68.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | GB 27.6 · CIN 41.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Green Bay
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +3.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg +2.3 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 51-94 | +30.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 76-83 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 61-80 | +13.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 65-72 | +25.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 67-73 | +17.5 | W +11.5 | 148.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 79-75 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 80-75 | +5.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 4 | vs | L 78-80 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 58-86 | +6.5 | L −21.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 11 | @ | W 85-75 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 165.5 | U 160 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 67-64 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 79-102 | +5.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 72-54 | +8.5 | W +26.5 | 145.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 79-76 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 75-59 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 156.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 80-78 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 88-73 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 63-88 | +4.5 | L −20.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 81-88 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 139.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 71-67 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 82-89 | -7.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 75-83 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 87-84 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 76-63 | -3.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 76-59 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 144.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 72-75 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 73-68 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 70-74 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 85-63 | -1.5 | W +20.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 64-56 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 76-96 | +3.5 | L −16.5 | 146.5 | O 172 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
KU
L 51-94
−12.5
7
@
BUF
L 76-83
−3.5
13
@
STMN
L 61-80
−5.5
15
@
MINN
L 65-72
+18.5
21
vs
YALE
L 67-73
+11.5
22
vs
MASS
W 79-75
+9.5
24
vs
IONA
W 80-75
+10.5
4
vs
RMU
L 78-80
−0.5
7
@
WRST
L 58-86
−21.5
11
@
IUIN
W 85-75
+13.5
17
vs
UCSB
W 67-64
+10.5
23
@
CAM
L 79-102
−17.5
1
@
PFW
W 72-54
+26.5
5
vs
MILW
W 79-76
+6.5
9
vs
IUIN
W 75-59
+9.5
11
vs
NKU
W 80-78
+6.5
15
@
CLE
W 88-73
+11.5
18
vs
OAK
L 63-88
−20.5
22
@
YSU
L 81-88
+0.5
24
@
RMU
W 71-67
+10.5
30
vs
CLE
L 82-89
−14.5
1
vs
WRST
L 75-83
−4.5
4
@
NKU
W 87-84
+10.5
7
vs
DETM
W 76-63
+9.5
12
vs
PFW
W 76-59
+18.5
15
@
MILW
L 72-75
−0.5
20
@
OAK
W 73-68
+11.5
22
@
DETM
L 70-74
−2.5
28
vs
YSU
W 85-63
+20.5
3
vs
PFW
W 64-56
+4.5
8
vs
NKU
L 76-96
−16.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +3.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
KU
L 51-94
−7.5
7
@
BUF
L 76-83
+11.5
13
@
STMN
L 61-80
−9.5
15
@
MINN
L 65-72
−9.5
21
vs
YALE
L 67-73
−8.5
22
vs
MASS
W 79-75
+7.5
24
vs
IONA
W 80-75
+4.5
4
vs
RMU
L 78-80
+17.5
7
@
WRST
L 58-86
+1.5
11
@
IUIN
W 85-75
−5.5
17
vs
UCSB
W 67-64
−9.5
23
@
CAM
L 79-102
+35.5
1
@
PFW
W 72-54
−19.5
5
vs
MILW
W 79-76
+10.5
9
vs
IUIN
W 75-59
−22.5
11
vs
NKU
W 80-78
+13.5
15
@
CLE
W 88-73
+10.5
18
vs
OAK
L 63-88
−2.5
22
@
YSU
L 81-88
+29.5
24
@
RMU
W 71-67
−4.5
30
vs
CLE
L 82-89
+20.5
1
vs
WRST
L 75-83
+13.5
4
@
NKU
W 87-84
+21.5
7
vs
DETM
W 76-63
−10.5
12
vs
PFW
W 76-59
−9.5
15
@
MILW
L 72-75
+1.5
20
@
OAK
W 73-68
−12.5
22
@
DETM
L 70-74
−3.5
28
vs
YSU
W 85-63
+6.5
3
vs
PFW
W 64-56
−25.5
8
vs
NKU
L 76-96
+25.5
over 16under 15avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Cincinnati
33 games played
Straight up
18-15
55% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-20
39% overs · avg −4.3 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
3 straight misses ATS1 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 | vs | W 94-63 | -22.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 74-64 | -29.5 | L −19.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 74-62 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 72-55 | -25.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 64-74 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 94-67 | -34.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 56-64 | -22.5 | L −30.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 76-58 | -24.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 74-79 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 65-84 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 88-51 | -21.5 | W +15.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 65-68 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 89-62 | -13.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 60-67 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 60-62 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 132.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 72-73 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 77-68 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 79-70 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 51-77 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 68-82 | -3.5 | L −17.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 67-57 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 54-76 | +13.5 | L −8.5 | 135.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 54-59 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 127.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 8 | vs | W 92-72 | -4.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 91-62 | -2.5 | W +26.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 69-65 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 84-68 | +8.5 | W +24.5 | 139.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 68-80 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 91-68 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 90-68 | -1.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 63-73 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 73-66 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 65-66 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
WCU
W 94-63
+8.5
7
vs
GAST
W 74-64
−19.5
11
vs
DAY
W 74-62
+6.5
16
vs
MSM
W 72-55
−8.5
21
vs
LOU
L 64-74
−1.5
24
vs
NJIT
W 94-67
−7.5
26
vs
EMU
L 56-64
−30.5
1
vs
TAR
W 76-58
−6.5
5
@
XAV
L 74-79
−6.5
13
vs
UGA
L 65-84
−13.5
17
vs
ALST
W 88-51
+15.5
21
vs
CLEM
L 65-68
+0.5
29
vs
LIP
W 89-62
+13.5
3
vs
HOU
L 60-67
−2.5
6
@
WVU
L 60-62
−3.5
11
@
UCF
L 72-73
+1.5
14
vs
COLO
W 77-68
+0.5
17
vs
ISU
W 79-70
+14.5
21
@
ARIZ
L 51-77
−12.5
24
@
ASU
L 68-82
−17.5
28
vs
BAY
W 67-57
+6.5
31
@
HOU
L 54-76
−8.5
5
vs
WVU
L 54-59
−10.5
8
vs
UCF
W 92-72
+15.5
11
@
KSU
W 91-62
+26.5
15
vs
UTAH
W 69-65
−8.5
21
@
KU
W 84-68
+24.5
24
@
TTU
L 68-80
−5.5
28
vs
OKST
W 91-68
+13.5
3
vs
BYU
W 90-68
+20.5
7
@
TCU
L 63-73
−7.5
10
vs
UTAH
W 73-66
−5.5
11
vs
UCF
L 65-66
−4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
WCU
W 94-63
+13.5
7
vs
GAST
W 74-64
−13.5
11
vs
DAY
W 74-62
−11.5
16
vs
MSM
W 72-55
−18.5
21
vs
LOU
L 64-74
−25.5
24
vs
NJIT
W 94-67
+19.5
26
vs
EMU
L 56-64
−26.5
1
vs
TAR
W 76-58
−8.5
5
@
XAV
L 74-79
+5.5
13
vs
UGA
L 65-84
−8.5
17
vs
ALST
W 88-51
−6.5
21
vs
CLEM
L 65-68
−7.5
29
vs
LIP
W 89-62
+0.5
3
vs
HOU
L 60-67
−8.5
6
@
WVU
L 60-62
−10.5
11
@
UCF
L 72-73
−5.5
14
vs
COLO
W 77-68
−0.5
17
vs
ISU
W 79-70
+7.5
21
@
ARIZ
L 51-77
−24.5
24
@
ASU
L 68-82
+3.5
28
vs
BAY
W 67-57
−21.5
31
@
HOU
L 54-76
−5.5
5
vs
WVU
L 54-59
−14.5
8
vs
UCF
W 92-72
+17.5
11
@
KSU
W 91-62
+5.5
15
vs
UTAH
W 69-65
−5.5
21
@
KU
W 84-68
+12.5
24
@
TTU
L 68-80
+4.5
28
vs
OKST
W 91-68
+7.5
3
vs
BYU
W 90-68
+6.5
7
@
TCU
L 63-73
−4.5
10
vs
UTAH
W 73-66
+0.5
11
vs
UCF
L 65-66
−18.5
over 13under 20avg −4.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Cincinnati has the better starters
Position by position: Green Bay 0, Cincinnati 4, even 1
Green BayBetterCincinnati
G O. Lovejoy TR16 pts · 3.6 reb · 3.7 ast
Score 85
=Even
G J. Campbell TR19.3 pts · 4.4 reb · 5.1 ast
Score 95
G L. Thomas4.2 pts · 2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 31
→CINBig
G T. Carson TR12.2 pts · 6.5 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 75
G M. Wrecke2.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 8
→CINBig
G M. Collins TR17.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 94
F M. Hall13.7 pts · 5 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 49
→CINBig
G T. Riley TR15 pts · 3.9 reb · 4.4 ast
Score 92
F A. Hadaway TR14.5 pts · 7.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 71
→CINSmall
F T. Tejada TR17.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 91
Green BayBetterCincinnati
GB offense219th of 366 · -6.7
→CINBig
CIN defense24th of 366 · +4.9
GB defense227th of 366 · -6.0
→CINBig
CIN offense49th of 366 · +3.7
Backcourt-0.1 · 3 players
→CINBig
Backcourt+12.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt+0.7 · 2 players
→CINBig
Frontcourt+4.0 · 1 player
Bench-3.9 · 4 players
→CINBig
Bench+6.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestGB betterCIN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
O. Lovejoy31 min · TRL. Thomas12 minM. Wrecke11 minK. Van Kauwenberg10 minB. Fitzgerald1 minS. ErhartNew
Forwards
M. Hall35 minA. Hadaway33 min · TRI. Sutherland10 min · TRH. GruetzmacherNewT. ColnaricNew
Centers
M. Cicic11 min
Guards
J. Campbell35 min · TRT. Carson33 min · TRM. Collins31 min · TRT. Riley28 min · TRM. Colvin27 min · TRA. Fleming26 min · TR
Forwards
T. Tejada36 min · TRR. Allenspach25 min · TRJ. Hastings23 min · TRA. Elamin20 min · TRD. VadenNewD. IwezeNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #201 | Points per game | 73.1 #221 |
| 1.13 #83 | Points per possession | 1.05 #243 |
| 65.2 #339 | Pace (possessions) | 69.4 #152 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.9 #41 | Effective FG% | 50.5 #213 |
| 36.4 #42 | 3-point % | 33.9 #175 |
| 37.3 #224 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.8 #94 |
| 41.6 #36 | Free throw rate | 29.4 #323 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.9 #133 | Turnover rate | 17.0 #203 |
| 25.1 #339 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.6 #174 |
| 13.7 #172 | Assists per game | 16.6 #35 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.9 #215 | Points allowed | 67.6 #27 |
| 1.17 #338 | Points allowed per possession | 0.97 #9 |
| 53.6 #287 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.4 #27 |
| 36.3 #316 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.0 #35 |
| 13.2 #350 | Turnovers forced | 18.2 #89 |
| 70.4 #140 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.7 #45 |
| 4.2 #361 | Steals per game | 6.3 #208 |
| 2.7 #282 | Blocks per game | 4.2 #53 |
Green Bay
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs N Kentucky76–96
- Wvs Purdue FW64–56
- Wvs Youngstown St85–63
- L@ Detroit Mercy70–74
- W@ Oakland73–68
A week or more of rest.
Cincinnati
18-15 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UCF65–66
- Wvs Utah73–66
- L@ TCU63–73
- Wvs BYU90–68
- Wvs Oklahoma St91–68
A week or more of rest.