Little Caesars Arena · Neutral site
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 82–77 · win probability MSU 68%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 158.3
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
ARK 2, MSU 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ARK 32.0%, MSU 37.8%. Defensive: ARK 69.1%, MSU 77.6%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ARK 12.2%, MSU 17.1%. Forced: ARK 15.5%, MSU 14.9%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: ARK plays 73.8 a game (12th fastest), MSU 67.3 (264th). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ARK 19%, MSU 63%. Transfers in: ARK 2, MSU 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Three-pointers
ARK hits 38.2% and allows 31.8%; MSU hits 36.3% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 33.0% and 36.4% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: ARK 56.4 and allows 51.8; MSU 53.8 and allows 48.9
Even
MSU offense vs ARK defense
Offense 21st of 366 against a defense 47th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: ARK 35.9, MSU 35.9. Allowed: ARK 31.2, MSU 30.2
Context
Schedule so far
ARK has played the 8th-hardest schedule, MSU the 16th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
ARK offense vs MSU defense
Offense 6th of 366 against a defense 5th, 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 | — | MSU -5.3 | — |
| Total | — | 158.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | ARK 76.5 · MSU 81.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MSU -3.0 | — |
| 1H total | 74.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | ARK 35.5 · MSU 38.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% | 8-2 80% | |
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
ARK 0–1 MSUMSU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ARK 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2025-26 | ARK 66 @ MSU 69 | MSU -2.5 | MSU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Arkansas
37 games played
Straight up
28-9
76% wins
Against the spread
23-14
62% covers · avg +1.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-15
59% overs · avg +8.1 pts vs the total
Against the spread
23-1462%
2 straight misses ATS2 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 109-77 | -26.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 186 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 66-69 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 93-56 | -35.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 79-75 | -24.5 | L −20.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 84-83 | -23.5 | L −22.5 | 168.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 115-61 | -29.5 | W +24.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 71-80 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 89-80 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 82-58 | -19.5 | W +4.5 | 161.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 93-86 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 108-80 | -23.5 | W +4.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 85-94 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 103-74 | -23.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 86-75 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 94-87 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 73-95 | +2.5 | L −19.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 108-74 | -12.5 | W +21.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 76-90 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 181.5 | U 166 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 93-68 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 173.5 | U 161 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-81 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 83-79 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 167.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 77-85 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 88-68 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 163.5 | U 156 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 91-62 | -4.5 | W +24.5 | 159.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 88-75 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 165.5 | U 163 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 115-117 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 181.5 | O 232 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 94-86 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 99-84 | -7.5 | W +7.5 | 170.5 | O 183 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 77-111 | +9.5 | L −24.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 105-85 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 163.5 | O 190 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 88-84 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 82-79 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 166.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 93-90 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 15 | vs | W 86-75 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 97-78 | -14.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 94-88 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 171.5 | O 182 |
| Mar 26 | vs | L 88-109 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 166.5 | O 197 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SOU
W 109-77
+5.5
8
@
MSU
L 66-69
−0.5
11
vs
CARK
W 93-56
+1.5
14
vs
SAM
W 79-75
−20.5
18
vs
WIN
W 84-83
−22.5
21
vs
JKST
W 115-61
+24.5
27
vs
DUKE
L 71-80
+3.5
3
vs
LOU
W 89-80
+10.5
6
vs
FRES
W 82-58
+4.5
13
vs
TTU
W 93-86
+9.5
16
vs
QUC
W 108-80
+4.5
20
vs
HOU
L 85-94
−3.5
29
vs
JMU
W 103-74
+5.5
3
vs
TENN
W 86-75
+12.5
7
@
MISS
W 94-87
+3.5
10
@
AUB
L 73-95
−19.5
14
vs
SC
W 108-74
+21.5
17
@
UGA
L 76-90
−11.5
20
vs
VAN
W 93-68
+23.5
24
vs
LSU
W 85-81
−6.5
27
@
OU
W 83-79
+0.5
31
vs
UK
L 77-85
−14.5
7
@
MSST
W 88-68
+14.5
10
@
LSU
W 91-62
+24.5
14
vs
AUB
W 88-75
+5.5
18
@
ALA
L 115-117
+1.5
21
vs
MIZ
W 94-86
−1.5
25
vs
TA&M
W 99-84
+7.5
28
@
FLA
L 77-111
−24.5
4
vs
TEX
W 105-85
+13.5
7
@
MIZ
W 88-84
+6.5
13
vs
OU
W 82-79
−3.5
14
vs
MISS
W 93-90
−5.5
15
vs
VAN
W 86-75
+13.5
19
vs
HAW
W 97-78
+4.5
21
vs
HPU
W 94-88
−6.5
26
vs
ARIZ
L 88-109
−12.5
covered 23didn’t cover 14avg +1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SOU
W 109-77
+35.5
8
@
MSU
L 66-69
−20.5
11
vs
CARK
W 93-56
−9.5
14
vs
SAM
W 79-75
−4.5
18
vs
WIN
W 84-83
−1.5
21
vs
JKST
W 115-61
+16.5
27
vs
DUKE
L 71-80
−8.5
3
vs
LOU
W 89-80
+2.5
6
vs
FRES
W 82-58
−21.5
13
vs
TTU
W 93-86
+23.5
16
vs
QUC
W 108-80
+18.5
20
vs
HOU
L 85-94
+32.5
29
vs
JMU
W 103-74
+17.5
3
vs
TENN
W 86-75
+2.5
7
@
MISS
W 94-87
+27.5
10
@
AUB
L 73-95
−1.5
14
vs
SC
W 108-74
+26.5
17
@
UGA
L 76-90
−15.5
20
vs
VAN
W 93-68
−12.5
24
vs
LSU
W 85-81
+2.5
27
@
OU
W 83-79
−5.5
31
vs
UK
L 77-85
+2.5
7
@
MSST
W 88-68
−7.5
10
@
LSU
W 91-62
−6.5
14
vs
AUB
W 88-75
−2.5
18
@
ALA
L 115-117
+50.5
21
vs
MIZ
W 94-86
+20.5
25
vs
TA&M
W 99-84
+12.5
28
@
FLA
L 77-111
+18.5
4
vs
TEX
W 105-85
+26.5
7
@
MIZ
W 88-84
+8.5
13
vs
OU
W 82-79
−5.5
14
vs
MISS
W 93-90
+23.5
15
vs
VAN
W 86-75
−4.5
19
vs
HAW
W 97-78
+16.5
21
vs
HPU
W 94-88
+10.5
26
vs
ARIZ
L 88-109
+30.5
over 22under 15avg +8.1 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.
Arkansas has the better starters
Position by position: Arkansas 2, Michigan St 0, even 3
ArkansasBetterMichigan St
G B. Richmond11.2 pts · 4.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 85
=Even
G J. Fears15.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 9.4 ast
Score 99
G J. Wilkinson TR17.4 pts · 2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 98
←ARKBig
G K. Teng7.3 pts · 2 reb · 1 ast
Score 63
G A. Brown0.1 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F C. Carr12 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 85
F C. Bowser TR13.7 pts · 5.8 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 91
←ARKBig
F J. Scott5.8 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 53
F I. Sealy2.9 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C A. Bonke TR10.4 pts · 8.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 80
ArkansasBetterMichigan St
ARK offense6th of 366 · +10.8
=Even
MSU defense5th of 366 · +9.3
ARK defense47th of 366 · +2.2
=Even
MSU offense21st of 366 · +7.6
Backcourt+5.9 · 3 players
→MSUSmall
Backcourt+7.0 · 2 players
Frontcourt+3.7 · 2 players
→MSUSmall
Frontcourt+4.8 · 3 players
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
=Even
Bench+0.9 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestARK betterMSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Richmond28 minJ. Wilkinson26 min · TRA. Brown2 minA. Kelley2 minJ. SmithNewD. ThompsonNew
Forwards
C. Bowser30 min · TRI. Sealy7 minP. SemedoNewM. MakerNewJ. AndrewsNewM. MuurinenNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 90.2 #2 | Points per game | 78.8 #84 |
| 1.23 #3 | Points per possession | 1.17 #40 |
| 73.8 #12 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #264 |
| Shooting | ||
| 56.4 #16 | Effective FG% | 53.8 #72 |
| 38.2 #16 | 3-point % | 36.3 #47 |
| 33.0 #315 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.4 #241 |
| 35.9 #155 | Free throw rate | 35.9 #157 |
| Possessions | ||
| 12.2 #1 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #217 |
| 32.0 #121 | Offensive rebound rate | 37.8 #10 |
| 17.2 #20 | Assists per game | 18.6 #4 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.0 #333 | Points allowed | 68.3 #37 |
| 1.09 #213 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #40 |
| 51.8 #201 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #61 |
| 31.8 #54 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.0 #119 |
| 15.5 #246 | Turnovers forced | 14.9 #296 |
| 69.1 #197 | Defensive rebound rate | 77.6 #1 |
| 7.3 #96 | Steals per game | 5.1 #328 |
| 5.2 #12 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #59 |
Arkansas
28-9 in 2025-26 overall · 16-5 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona88–109
- Wvs High Point94–88
- Wvs Hawai'i97–78
- Wvs Vanderbilt86–75
- Wvs Ole Miss93–90
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.