1. NCAAB
  2. Mon, Nov 2
  3. QUIN @ MSU
NCAAB · Mon, Nov 2

Quinnipiac Bobcats at Michigan State Spartans

Breslin Center · at Michigan St
#241QUINQuinnipiac
@
#10MSUMichigan St AP #6
LineMSU -29.5no move
Total149.5no move
QUINThis seasonMSU
0-0Record0-0
0-0ATS0-0
0-0O/U0-0

ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders

Model: projects MSU 91–55 · win probability MSU 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Spread
Total
Winner
Line
MSU -29.5
no move since the open
Total
149.5
model 146.6 · Under by 3
Model edge
MSU by 6.5
model vs market
Public on the spread
96% QUIN
87% of the money
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: MSU has more of the edges

QUIN 1, MSU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
QUIN has played the 324th-hardest schedule, MSU the 16th. A record against a soft schedule means less
MSUBig
QUIN offense vs MSU defense
Offense 243rd of 366 against a defense 5th, on the model’s ratings
MSUBig
MSU offense vs QUIN defense
Offense 21st of 366 against a defense 232nd, on the model’s ratings
MSUBig
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: QUIN 34.1%, MSU 37.8%. Defensive: QUIN 68.0%, MSU 77.6%
QUINBig
Turnovers
Turnover rate: QUIN 15.8%, MSU 17.1%. Forced: QUIN 17.4%, MSU 14.9%
MSUBig
Three-pointers
QUIN hits 34.0% and allows 34.9%; MSU hits 36.3% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 33.7% and 36.4% of their shots
MSUBig
Shooting
Effective FG%: QUIN 48.1 and allows 48.9; MSU 53.8 and allows 48.9
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: QUIN plays 70.3 a game (100th fastest), MSU 67.3 (264th). Faster games mean more points
MSUSmall
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: QUIN 31%, MSU 63%. Transfers in: QUIN 2, MSU 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
MSUSmall
Home court
MSU at home. This season: MSU 0-0 at home, QUIN 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: QUIN 33.8, MSU 35.9. Allowed: QUIN 30.6, MSU 30.2
Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

How games like this went

Division I games since 2023-24, closing lines
SituationGamesFavorite wonFavorite coveredWent over
Home favorites of 20 or more116599%50%52%
Non-conference games at this spread109099%50%52%
Games with a total of 145 to 149.5354774%49%50%
A bet at standard prices needs 52.4% to break even, and most situations sit near 50%. Past rates, not a prediction.

Market

Open → current
Spread
No change since the open
Total
No change since the open
Moneyline
QUIN +5000 · MSU -100000
Line movement
Median of 8 sportsbooks, pre-tip-off · tap a dot
Opened MSU -29.5 · unchangedmodel MSU -36
Opened 149.5 · now 150 · moved 0.5 upmodel 146.5
Openline modelNow

Pre-game lines only (ESPN, DraftKings first). After tip-off the line shown is the closing line.

Public betting

Share of bets and of money
QUIN +29.5SpreadMSU -29.5
Bets
Money
Over 149.5TotalUnder 149.5
Bets
Money
QUINWinnerMSU
Bets
Money
Sports Betting Dime, an average of sportsbooks. Read . ⓘ

Books

8 sportsbooks · current prices
BookSpreadTotalMoneyline
QUINMSUOverUnderQUINMSU
BetMGMMGM-29.5-105+29.5-115150.5-105150.5-115+3300-10000
BetOnline.agBetOnline.ag-30-110+30-110149.5-115149.5-105——
BetRiversBetRivers-29.5-110+29.5-113150.5-114150.5-109——
BetUSBetUS-30-110+30-110149.5-115149.5-105——
BovadaBovada-29.5+100+29.5-120150-115150-105——
DraftKingsDK-29.5-108+29.5-112149.5-115149.5-105+5000-100000
FanDuelFD-29.5-110+29.5-110150.5-110150.5-110+7000-100000
LowVig.agLowVig.ag-30-106+30-106149.5-113149.5-103——
Prices from The Odds API, updated 5:30 AM ET. Green = best price in the column.

Model vs market

MarketModelModel edge
SpreadMSU -29.5MSU -35.8MSU +6.3
Total149.5146.6Under 2.9
Projected score—QUIN 55.4 · MSU 91.2

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›
ModelActual
1H spreadMSU -21.2—
1H total68.6—
1H projected scoreQUIN 23.7 · MSU 44.9—
The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Michigan St has the better starters

Position by position: Quinnipiac 0, Michigan St 4, even 1
QuinnipiacBetterMichigan St
G N. Guerengomba2.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast Score 4
MSUBig
G J. Fears15.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 9.4 ast Score 99
G T. Turnage3.4 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast Score 36
MSUSmall
G K. Teng7.3 pts · 2 reb · 1 ast Score 63
F K. McKnight10.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.1 ast Score 79
Even
F C. Carr12 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast Score 85
F H. Pierre-Louis TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1 ast Score 1
MSUBig
F J. Scott5.8 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.2 ast Score 53
F N. Hart TR2.2 pts · 3.1 reb · 0 ast Score 27
MSUBig
C A. Bonke TR10.4 pts · 8.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 80
QuinnipiacBetterMichigan St
QUIN offense243rd of 366 · -7.3
MSUBig
MSU defense5th of 366 · +9.3
QUIN defense232nd of 366 · -6.2
MSUBig
MSU offense21st of 366 · +7.6
Backcourt-2.7 · 2 players
MSUBig
Backcourt+7.0 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.8 · 3 players
MSUBig
Frontcourt+4.8 · 3 players
Bench-0.6 · 3 players
MSUSmall
Bench+0.9 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestQUIN betterMSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Quinnipiac
Guards
N. Guerengomba14 minT. Turnage12 minM. ParrottaNewT. Cunningham-PembertonNewL. SekasiNewM. FieldsNew
Forwards
K. McKnight25 minH. Pierre-Louis15 min · TRN. Hart11 min · TRB. Ritvo7 minA. Akinniyi2 minC. Skenderi2 min
Michigan St
Guards
J. Fears32 minK. Teng18 minM. WatkinsNewJ. JervisNewC. MedlockNew
Forwards
C. Carr29 minJ. Scott21 minC. Ward15 minJ. McCulloch7 minB. Walton1 minC. Walton1 min
Centers
A. Bonke26 min · TRE. TaylorNew
In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams
Scoring
Shooting
Possessions
Defense
QUINMSU
Scoring
74.2 #190Points per game78.8 #84
1.05 #246Points per possession1.17 #40
70.3 #100Pace (possessions)67.3 #264
Shooting
48.1 #310Effective FG%53.8 #72
34.0 #1713-point %36.3 #47
33.7 #3043-point attempt rate36.4 #241
33.8 #217Free throw rate35.9 #157
Possessions
15.8 #125Turnover rate17.1 #217
34.1 #65Offensive rebound rate37.8 #10
13.0 #211Assists per game18.6 #4
Defense
72.6 #121Points allowed68.3 #37
1.04 #68Points allowed per possession1.02 #40
48.9 #65Opponent effective FG%48.9 #61
34.9 #242Opponent 3-point %33.0 #119
17.4 #122Turnovers forced14.9 #296
68.0 #253Defensive rebound rate77.6 #1
7.8 #55Steals per game5.1 #328
4.5 #37Blocks per game4.1 #59
From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Quinnipiac

18-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Metro Conference

Last five, 2025-26
  • Lvs Marist75–77
  • W@ Canisius67–63
  • L@ Niagara76–78
  • Lvs Fairfield79–85
  • Lvs Merrimack49–56

A week or more of rest.

Michigan St

27-8 in 2025-26 overall · 15-6 in conference · Big Ten Conference

Last five, 2025-26
  • Lvs UConn63–67
  • Wvs Louisville77–69
  • Wvs N Dakota St92–67
  • Lvs UCLA84–88
  • L@ Michigan80–90

A week or more of rest.