VyStar Arena · at Kennesaw St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | KENN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 KENN 82–75 · win probability KENN 71%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 157.1
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
WIN 3, KENN 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
KENN offense vs WIN defense
Offense 126th of 366 against a defense 298th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WIN 14.7%, KENN 16.8%. Forced: WIN 16.6%, KENN 16.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: WIN 49.7 and allows 51.5; KENN 50.4 and allows 48.3
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WIN 34.1%, KENN 35.2%. Defensive: WIN 72.3%, KENN 68.4%
WIN offense vs KENN defense
Offense 135th of 366 against a defense 193rd, on the model’s ratings
Home court
KENN at home. This season: KENN 0-0 at home, WIN 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
WIN has played the 206th-hardest schedule, KENN the 156th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WIN 13%, KENN 32%. Transfers in: WIN 5, KENN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: WIN 44.0, KENN 45.1. Allowed: WIN 39.0, KENN 47.1
Even
Three-pointers
WIN hits 33.2% and allows 32.9%; KENN hits 33.4% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 44.1% and 42.5% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: WIN plays 72.0 a game (35th fastest), KENN 72.4 (27th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | KENN -6.3 | — |
| Total | — | 157.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | WIN 75.4 · KENN 81.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | KENN -3.6 | — |
| 1H total | 73.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | WIN 34.9 · KENN 38.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Winthrop
31 games played
Straight up
20-11
65% wins
Against the spread
12-19
39% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% 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 3 | vs | W 81-74 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 163.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 90-96 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 186 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 66-72 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 105-69 | -2.5 | W +33.5 | 162.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 83-84 | +23.5 | W +22.5 | 168.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 80-62 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 73-80 | +14.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 101-79 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 94-92 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 84-88 | -16.5 | L −20.5 | 153.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 88-90 | -12.5 | L −14.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 57-87 | +17.5 | L −12.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 70-82 | -7.5 | L −19.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 88-77 | -23.5 | L −12.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 81-77 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 166.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 71-50 | -5.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 92-75 | +2.5 | W +19.5 | 162.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-67 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 76-75 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 82-72 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 84-71 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 80-78 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-74 | -10.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 103-85 | -20.5 | L −2.5 | 156.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 68-64 | -13.5 | L −9.5 | 158.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 87-89 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 84-86 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-70 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 86-81 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 164.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 73-71 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 76-91 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
QUC
W 81-74
+3.5
7
@
GMU
L 90-96
+3.5
11
@
CCU
L 66-72
−8.5
15
vs
MER
W 105-69
+33.5
18
@
ARK
L 83-84
+22.5
23
@
JKST
W 80-62
+7.5
25
@
NEB
L 73-80
+7.5
29
vs
SCST
W 101-79
+1.5
2
@
LIU
W 94-92
−3.5
6
vs
CCU
L 84-88
−20.5
18
@
UND
L 88-90
−14.5
28
@
TTU
L 57-87
−12.5
31
@
LONG
L 70-82
−19.5
3
vs
GWEB
W 88-77
−12.5
7
vs
CHSO
W 81-77
−4.5
10
@
UPST
W 71-50
+15.5
14
vs
HPU
W 92-75
+19.5
17
@
UNCA
W 69-67
−3.5
21
vs
RAD
W 76-75
−8.5
24
@
PRES
W 82-72
+4.5
31
vs
UNCA
W 84-71
+3.5
4
@
RAD
W 80-78
−2.5
7
vs
LONG
W 79-74
−5.5
12
@
GWEB
W 103-85
−2.5
19
vs
UPST
W 68-64
−9.5
21
@
HPU
L 87-89
+7.5
26
@
CHSO
L 84-86
−10.5
28
vs
PRES
W 74-70
−3.5
6
vs
CHSO
W 86-81
−1.5
7
vs
PRES
W 73-71
−5.5
8
vs
HPU
L 76-91
−8.5
covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
QUC
W 81-74
−8.5
7
@
GMU
L 90-96
+39.5
11
@
CCU
L 66-72
−27.5
15
vs
MER
W 105-69
+11.5
18
@
ARK
L 83-84
−1.5
23
@
JKST
W 80-62
−21.5
25
@
NEB
L 73-80
−13.5
29
vs
SCST
W 101-79
+22.5
2
@
LIU
W 94-92
+32.5
6
vs
CCU
L 84-88
+18.5
18
@
UND
L 88-90
+20.5
28
@
TTU
L 57-87
−19.5
31
@
LONG
L 70-82
−9.5
3
vs
GWEB
W 88-77
+0.5
7
vs
CHSO
W 81-77
−8.5
10
@
UPST
W 71-50
−36.5
14
vs
HPU
W 92-75
+4.5
17
@
UNCA
W 69-67
−16.5
21
vs
RAD
W 76-75
−14.5
24
@
PRES
W 82-72
+7.5
31
vs
UNCA
W 84-71
+7.5
4
@
RAD
W 80-78
−3.5
7
vs
LONG
W 79-74
−0.5
12
@
GWEB
W 103-85
+31.5
19
vs
UPST
W 68-64
−26.5
21
@
HPU
L 87-89
+9.5
26
@
CHSO
L 84-86
+5.5
28
vs
PRES
W 74-70
−6.5
6
vs
CHSO
W 86-81
+2.5
7
vs
PRES
W 73-71
−1.5
8
vs
HPU
L 76-91
+9.5
over 15under 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Kennesaw St
32 games played
Straight up
18-14
56% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% overs · avg +0.5 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 8 | @ | W 92-72 | -11.5 | W +8.5 | 166.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 89-108 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 177.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 89-84 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 83-91 | -8.5 | L −16.5 | 166.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 102-100 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 160.5 | O 202 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 88-73 | -15.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 92-69 | -14.5 | W +8.5 | 158.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 67-68 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 81-92 | +20.5 | W +9.5 | 182.5 | U 173 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 73-81 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 52-67 | -8.5 | L −23.5 | 148.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 90-80 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 88-82 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 89-86 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 175.5 | U 175 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 81-65 | +7.5 | W +23.5 | 165.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 87-93 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 167.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 76-82 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 72-69 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 76-53 | -3.5 | W +19.5 | 159.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 58-77 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 87-90 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 79-83 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 91-87 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 58-55 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 74-65 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 90-82 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 71-78 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-79 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 96-87 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 159.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 79-73 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 159.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 71-60 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 64-73 | +20.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
FAMU
W 92-72
+8.5
16
vs
USF
L 89-108
−11.5
24
vs
RICE
W 89-84
+0.5
25
vs
ORU
L 83-91
−16.5
26
@
FGCU
W 102-100
+3.5
2
vs
JKST
W 88-73
−0.5
6
vs
GAST
W 92-69
+8.5
17
@
MTSU
L 67-68
+2.5
21
vs
ALA
L 81-92
+9.5
2
@
LIB
L 73-81
−0.5
4
@
DEL
L 52-67
−23.5
7
vs
MOST
W 90-80
+3.5
10
vs
JXST
W 88-82
+0.5
14
vs
FIU
W 89-86
−2.5
17
@
WKU
W 81-65
+23.5
21
@
SHSU
L 87-93
−0.5
23
@
LT
L 76-82
−7.5
28
vs
WKU
W 72-69
−1.5
31
vs
NMSU
W 76-53
+19.5
7
@
JXST
L 58-77
−20.5
12
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
−6.5
14
vs
SHSU
L 79-83
−5.5
18
@
MOST
W 91-87
+5.5
21
vs
LT
W 58-55
−2.5
26
vs
LIB
W 74-65
+10.5
28
vs
DEL
W 90-82
−3.5
5
@
UTEP
L 71-78
−10.5
7
@
NMSU
L 76-79
−1.5
12
vs
WKU
W 96-87
+10.5
13
vs
SHSU
W 79-73
+8.5
14
vs
LT
W 71-60
+9.5
19
vs
GONZ
L 64-73
+11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
FAMU
W 92-72
−2.5
16
vs
USF
L 89-108
+19.5
24
vs
RICE
W 89-84
+13.5
25
vs
ORU
L 83-91
+7.5
26
@
FGCU
W 102-100
+41.5
2
vs
JKST
W 88-73
+3.5
6
vs
GAST
W 92-69
+2.5
17
@
MTSU
L 67-68
−25.5
21
vs
ALA
L 81-92
−9.5
2
@
LIB
L 73-81
−4.5
4
@
DEL
L 52-67
−29.5
7
vs
MOST
W 90-80
+17.5
10
vs
JXST
W 88-82
+20.5
14
vs
FIU
W 89-86
−0.5
17
@
WKU
W 81-65
−19.5
21
@
SHSU
L 87-93
+12.5
23
@
LT
L 76-82
+13.5
28
vs
WKU
W 72-69
−19.5
31
vs
NMSU
W 76-53
−30.5
7
@
JXST
L 58-77
−14.5
12
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
+28.5
14
vs
SHSU
L 79-83
−0.5
18
@
MOST
W 91-87
+25.5
21
vs
LT
W 58-55
−34.5
26
vs
LIB
W 74-65
−13.5
28
vs
DEL
W 90-82
+28.5
5
@
UTEP
L 71-78
+0.5
7
@
NMSU
L 76-79
−2.5
12
vs
WKU
W 96-87
+23.5
13
vs
SHSU
W 79-73
−7.5
14
vs
LT
W 71-60
−11.5
19
vs
GONZ
L 64-73
−15.5
over 15under 17avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Winthrop 2, Kennesaw St 2, even 1
WinthropBetterKennesaw St
G M. Davis TR9.5 pts · 2.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 12
→KENNBig
G J. Hill TR10.1 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 53
G S. Sims TR9.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 30
=Even
G K. Rickard5.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 21
G A. Smith TR7.6 pts · 2 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 60
←WINSmall
F T. Simpson8 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 38
G S. Hendawy5.2 pts · 4 reb · 1 ast
Score 30
→KENNSmall
F A. Thomas TR8.3 pts · 6.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 61
F G. Natsvlishvili TR7.7 pts · 4.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 43
←WINSmall
F A. Enoh TR4.9 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 19
WinthropBetterKennesaw St
WIN offense135th of 366 · -3.9
←WINSmall
KENN defense193rd of 366 · -4.6
WIN defense298th of 366 · -7.6
→KENNBig
KENN offense126th of 366 · -3.4
Backcourt-5.8 · 4 players
→KENNBig
Backcourt-2.3 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
←WINSmall
Frontcourt-2.5 · 3 players
Bench-1.7 · 4 players
→KENNSmall
Bench-0.4 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestWIN betterKENN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Davis26 min · TRS. Sims25 min · TRA. Smith18 min · TRS. Hendawy16 minK. Fisher11 min · TRH. Harrison2 min
Forwards
G. Natsvlishvili20 min · TRT. Hamilton7 minT. HarrisNewJ. CwikNew
Guards
J. Hill31 min · TRK. Rickard20 minC. Beaumont9 min · TRK. Parker6 min · TRB. TousignautNewA. DanielsNew
Forwards
T. Simpson26 minA. Thomas25 min · TRA. Enoh23 min · TRA. Taylor17 minD. Onyirimba2 minK. BerryNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.5 #40 | Points per game | 80.0 #66 |
| 1.13 #79 | Points per possession | 1.11 #122 |
| 72.0 #35 | Pace (possessions) | 72.4 #27 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.7 #250 | Effective FG% | 50.4 #224 |
| 33.2 #217 | 3-point % | 33.4 #203 |
| 44.1 #88 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.5 #127 |
| 44.0 #10 | Free throw rate | 45.1 #5 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.7 #52 | Turnover rate | 16.8 #183 |
| 34.1 #63 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.2 #44 |
| 13.6 #177 | Assists per game | 13.3 #189 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.7 #261 | Points allowed | 78.3 #272 |
| 1.08 #154 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #159 |
| 51.5 #182 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.3 #43 |
| 32.9 #113 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #154 |
| 16.6 #174 | Turnovers forced | 16.0 #223 |
| 72.3 #55 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.4 #234 |
| 6.6 #161 | Steals per game | 6.8 #146 |
| 2.7 #281 | Blocks per game | 5.3 #10 |
Winthrop
20-11 in 2025-26 overall · 15-4 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs High Point76–91
- Wvs Presbyterian73–71
- Wvs Charleston So86–81
- Wvs Presbyterian74–70
- L@ Charleston So84–86
A week or more of rest.
Kennesaw St
18-14 in 2025-26 overall · 13-10 in conference · Conference USA
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Gonzaga64–73
- Wvs Louisiana Tech71–60
- Wvs Sam Houston79–73
- Wvs Western KY96–87
- L@ New Mexico St76–79
A week or more of rest.