Breslin Center · at Michigan St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MSU 93–57 · win probability MSU 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.3
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: MSU has more of the edges
DETM 0, MSU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MSU offense vs DETM defense
Offense 21st of 366 against a defense 309th, on the model’s ratings
DETM offense vs MSU defense
Offense 236th of 366 against a defense 5th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
DETM has played the 208th-hardest schedule, MSU the 16th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: DETM 49.5 and allows 52.2; MSU 53.8 and allows 48.9
Free throws
Free throw rate: DETM 32.6, MSU 35.9. Allowed: DETM 37.6, MSU 30.2
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DETM 33.3%, MSU 37.8%. Defensive: DETM 69.2%, MSU 77.6%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: DETM plays 69.7 a game (132nd fastest), MSU 67.3 (264th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
MSU at home. This season: MSU 0-0 at home, DETM 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
DETM hits 35.1% and allows 33.3%; MSU hits 36.3% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 30.7% and 36.4% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DETM 49%, MSU 63%. Transfers in: DETM 0, MSU 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DETM 16.0%, MSU 17.1%. Forced: DETM 14.4%, MSU 14.9%
Market vs model
The model’s numbers beside the market’s
MarketModelModel edge
Spread
Market—
ModelMSU -36.2
Model edge—
Total
Market—
Model149.3
Model edge—
Projected score
DETM 56.6 · MSU 92.7
Win probability
MSU 100%
1st half
Spread
MSU -21.4
Total
69.8
Projected score
DETM 24.2 · MSU 45.6
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.
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | 2-8 20% | |
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
DETM 0–1 MSUMSU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · DETM 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2025-26 | DETM 56 @ MSU 84 | MSU -30.5 | DETM W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Detroit Mercy
30 games played
Straight up
15-15
50% wins
Against the spread
20-10
67% covers · avg +3.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
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 3 | @ | L 71-91 | +9.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 70-102 | +21.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 83-90 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 62-72 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 56-84 | +30.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 75-95 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 29 | @ | W 70-66 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 92-78 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 180.5 | U 170 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 71-59 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 158.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 77-81 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 73-68 | +9.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 77-85 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 82-84 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 94-84 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 162.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 71-96 | +10.5 | L −14.5 | 159.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-77 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 169.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 76-83 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 87-95 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 90-77 | +5.5 | W +18.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 76-63 | +6.5 | W +19.5 | 155.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 63-76 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-74 | +11.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 76-70 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 91-86 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 74-70 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 62-73 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 95-89 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 84-63 | -1.5 | W +19.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 70-64 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 63-66 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 129 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UIC
L 71-91
−10.5
7
@
ND
L 70-102
−10.5
15
@
TOL
L 83-90
+3.5
18
vs
EMU
L 62-72
−11.5
21
@
MSU
L 56-84
+2.5
23
@
DEP
L 75-95
−0.5
29
@
NIA
W 70-66
+2.5
3
vs
IUIN
W 92-78
+10.5
6
@
CLE
W 71-59
+13.5
14
@
PFW
L 77-81
+5.5
29
@
YSU
W 73-68
+14.5
2
vs
RMU
L 77-85
−4.5
9
vs
WRST
L 82-84
+3.5
11
vs
CLE
W 94-84
+3.5
15
@
NKU
L 71-96
−14.5
17
@
IUIN
W 80-77
+4.5
21
vs
PFW
L 76-83
−4.5
24
vs
OAK
L 87-95
−1.5
30
vs
NKU
W 90-77
+18.5
4
@
MILW
W 76-63
+19.5
7
@
GB
L 63-76
−9.5
12
@
WRST
W 77-74
+14.5
15
vs
YSU
W 76-70
+10.5
20
vs
MILW
W 91-86
+6.5
22
vs
GB
W 74-70
+2.5
25
@
RMU
L 62-73
−2.5
28
@
OAK
W 95-89
+14.5
4
vs
MILW
W 84-63
+19.5
9
vs
RMU
W 70-64
+10.5
10
vs
WRST
L 63-66
+1.5
covered 20didn’t cover 10avg +3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UIC
L 71-91
+19.5
7
@
ND
L 70-102
+24.5
15
@
TOL
L 83-90
+13.5
18
vs
EMU
L 62-72
−23.5
21
@
MSU
L 56-84
−9.5
23
@
DEP
L 75-95
+18.5
29
@
NIA
W 70-66
−6.5
3
vs
IUIN
W 92-78
−10.5
6
@
CLE
W 71-59
−28.5
14
@
PFW
L 77-81
+4.5
29
@
YSU
W 73-68
−5.5
2
vs
RMU
L 77-85
+13.5
9
vs
WRST
L 82-84
+17.5
11
vs
CLE
W 94-84
+15.5
15
@
NKU
L 71-96
+7.5
17
@
IUIN
W 80-77
−12.5
21
vs
PFW
L 76-83
+3.5
24
vs
OAK
L 87-95
+14.5
30
vs
NKU
W 90-77
+5.5
4
@
MILW
W 76-63
−16.5
7
@
GB
L 63-76
−10.5
12
@
WRST
W 77-74
−0.5
15
vs
YSU
W 76-70
−5.5
20
vs
MILW
W 91-86
+23.5
22
vs
GB
W 74-70
−3.5
25
@
RMU
L 62-73
−15.5
28
@
OAK
W 95-89
+23.5
4
vs
MILW
W 84-63
−4.5
9
vs
RMU
W 70-64
−12.5
10
vs
WRST
L 63-66
−24.5
over 14under 16avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Michigan St
35 games played
Straight up
27-8
77% wins
Against the spread
18-17
51% covers · avg +1.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-19
46% overs · avg +1.5 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 | W 80-69 | -22.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 69-66 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 79-60 | -24.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 83-66 | +3.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 84-56 | -30.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 89-56 | -19.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 74-58 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 152.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 71-52 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 133.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 60-66 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 76-72 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 92-69 | -23.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 79-70 | -19.5 | L −10.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 114-97 | -23.5 | L −6.5 | 160.5 | O 211 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 56-58 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 80-51 | -11.5 | W +17.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 76-66 | -13.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 81-60 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-63 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 68-52 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 91-48 | -18.5 | W +24.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 88-79 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 71-83 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 73-76 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 85-82 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 142.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 13 | @ | L 71-92 | -1.5 | L −22.5 | 149.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 82-59 | -8.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 66-60 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 76-74 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 77-64 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 91-87 | -20.5 | L −16.5 | 141.5 | O 178 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 80-90 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 84-88 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 92-67 | -16.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 77-69 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 27 | vs | L 63-67 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 136.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
COLG
W 80-69
−11.5
8
vs
ARK
W 69-66
+0.5
13
vs
SJSU
W 79-60
−5.5
18
vs
UK
W 83-66
+20.5
21
vs
DETM
W 84-56
−2.5
25
vs
ECU
W 89-56
+13.5
27
vs
UNC
W 74-58
+14.5
2
vs
IOWA
W 71-52
+13.5
6
vs
DUKE
L 60-66
−4.5
13
@
PSU
W 76-72
−8.5
16
vs
TOL
W 92-69
−0.5
20
vs
OAK
W 79-70
−10.5
29
vs
COR
W 114-97
−6.5
2
@
NEB
L 56-58
+0.5
5
vs
USC
W 80-51
+17.5
8
vs
NU
W 76-66
−3.5
13
vs
IU
W 81-60
+14.5
17
@
WASH
W 80-63
+13.5
20
@
ORE
W 68-52
+5.5
24
vs
MD
W 91-48
+24.5
27
@
RUTG
W 88-79
−5.5
30
vs
MICH
L 71-83
−9.5
4
@
MINN
L 73-76
−11.5
7
vs
ILL
W 85-82
+1.5
13
@
WIS
L 71-92
−22.5
17
vs
UCLA
W 82-59
+14.5
22
vs
OSU
W 66-60
−4.5
26
@
PUR
W 76-74
+7.5
1
@
IU
W 77-64
+10.5
5
vs
RUTG
W 91-87
−16.5
8
@
MICH
L 80-90
+0.5
13
vs
UCLA
L 84-88
−9.5
19
vs
NDSU
W 92-67
+8.5
21
vs
LOU
W 77-69
+2.5
27
vs
CONN
L 63-67
−1.5
covered 18didn’t cover 17avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
COLG
W 80-69
+4.5
8
vs
ARK
W 69-66
−20.5
13
vs
SJSU
W 79-60
−4.5
18
vs
UK
W 83-66
−3.5
21
vs
DETM
W 84-56
−9.5
25
vs
ECU
W 89-56
+4.5
27
vs
UNC
W 74-58
−20.5
2
vs
IOWA
W 71-52
−10.5
6
vs
DUKE
L 60-66
−15.5
13
@
PSU
W 76-72
+2.5
16
vs
TOL
W 92-69
+10.5
20
vs
OAK
W 79-70
−6.5
29
vs
COR
W 114-97
+50.5
2
@
NEB
L 56-58
−32.5
5
vs
USC
W 80-51
−20.5
8
vs
NU
W 76-66
−1.5
13
vs
IU
W 81-60
−4.5
17
@
WASH
W 80-63
−2.5
20
@
ORE
W 68-52
−19.5
24
vs
MD
W 91-48
−2.5
27
@
RUTG
W 88-79
+28.5
30
vs
MICH
L 71-83
+4.5
4
@
MINN
L 73-76
+12.5
7
vs
ILL
W 85-82
+24.5
13
@
WIS
L 71-92
+13.5
17
vs
UCLA
W 82-59
+1.5
22
vs
OSU
W 66-60
−20.5
26
@
PUR
W 76-74
+6.5
1
@
IU
W 77-64
−3.5
5
vs
RUTG
W 91-87
+36.5
8
@
MICH
L 80-90
+17.5
13
vs
UCLA
L 84-88
+30.5
19
vs
NDSU
W 92-67
+14.5
21
vs
LOU
W 77-69
−5.5
27
vs
CONN
L 63-67
−6.5
over 16under 19avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Michigan St has the better starters
Position by position: Detroit Mercy 0, Michigan St 3, even 2
Detroit MercyBetterMichigan St
G T. Spratt10.1 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 54
→MSUBig
G J. Fears15.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 9.4 ast
Score 99
G A. Carter11.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G K. Teng7.3 pts · 2 reb · 1 ast
Score 63
G L. Stone6.6 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 9
→MSUBig
F C. Carr12 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 85
F L. Maiden6.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 28
→MSUSmall
F J. Scott5.8 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 53
C X. Istomin-Monroe1.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C A. Bonke TR10.4 pts · 8.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 80
Detroit MercyBetterMichigan St
DETM offense236th of 366 · -7.2
→MSUBig
MSU defense5th of 366 · +9.3
DETM defense309th of 366 · -8.1
→MSUBig
MSU offense21st of 366 · +7.6
Backcourt-2.0 · 3 players
→MSUBig
Backcourt+7.0 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.9 · 2 players
→MSUBig
Frontcourt+4.8 · 3 players
Bench-0.7 · 1 player
→MSUSmall
Bench+0.9 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestDETM betterMSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Spratt25 minA. Carter21 minL. Stone21 minJ. Cotton7 minJ. BriggsNewE. PalssonNew
Forwards
L. Maiden16 minD. FavorNewV. SemerychNewC. HouserNewT. OwensNew
Centers
X. Istomin-Monroe8 min
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.3 #135 | Points per game | 78.8 #84 |
| 1.09 #153 | Points per possession | 1.17 #40 |
| 69.7 #132 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #264 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #267 | Effective FG% | 53.8 #72 |
| 35.1 #108 | 3-point % | 36.3 #47 |
| 30.7 #343 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.4 #241 |
| 32.6 #247 | Free throw rate | 35.9 #157 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.0 #138 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #217 |
| 33.3 #81 | Offensive rebound rate | 37.8 #10 |
| 13.1 #208 | Assists per game | 18.6 #4 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.7 #285 | Points allowed | 68.3 #37 |
| 1.13 #290 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #40 |
| 52.2 #223 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #61 |
| 33.3 #140 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.0 #119 |
| 14.4 #324 | Turnovers forced | 14.9 #296 |
| 69.2 #193 | Defensive rebound rate | 77.6 #1 |
| 5.8 #264 | Steals per game | 5.1 #328 |
| 3.3 #182 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #59 |
Detroit Mercy
15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 14-9 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wright St63–66
- Wvs Robert Morris70–64
- Wvs Milwaukee84–63
- W@ Oakland95–89
- L@ Robert Morris62–73
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.