Central Connecticut Blue Devils at Temple Owls: Model Line and Edge

Mon, Nov 2, 6:30 PM ETLiacouras Center · at Temple

LineTEM -15.5no move

Total143.5no move

Season records: C Connecticut and Temple
CCSU	This season	TEM
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 TEM 80–61 · win probability TEM 95%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Spread

Total

Winner

Line

TEM -15.5

no move since the open

Total

143.5

model 141.2 · Under by 2.5

Model edge

TEM by 4

model vs market

Public on the spread

88% CCSU

86% 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: TEM has more of the edges

CCSU 1, TEM 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Schedule so far

CCSU has played the 358th-hardest schedule, TEM the 110th. A record against a soft schedule means less

TEMBig

CCSU offense vs TEM defense

Offense 353rd of 366 against a defense 108th, on the model’s ratings

TEMBig

TEM offense vs CCSU defense

Offense 116th of 366 against a defense 247th, on the model’s ratings

TEMBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CCSU 16.3%, TEM 13.7%. Forced: CCSU 14.0%, TEM 15.5%

TEMSmall

Home court

TEM at home. This season: TEM 0-0 at home, CCSU 0-0 away

CCSUSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: CCSU 51.6 and allows 50.2; TEM 50.2 and allows 50.7

Even

Three-pointers

CCSU hits 35.8% and allows 33.4%; TEM hits 33.6% and allows 32.8%. Threes are 34.9% and 35.7% of their shots

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CCSU 27.5%, TEM 29.8%. Defensive: CCSU 69.6%, TEM 69.7%

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CCSU 55%, TEM 38%. Transfers in: CCSU 0, TEM 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: CCSU 31.2, TEM 40.6. Allowed: CCSU 26.9, TEM 35.5

Context

Tempo

About 66 possessions: CCSU plays 65.5 a game (329th fastest), TEM 65.6 (325th). Faster games mean more points

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

Situation	Games	Favorite won	Favorite covered	Went over
Home favorites of 15 to 19.5	993	94%	48%	52%
Non-conference games at this spread	632	93%	49%	53%
Games with a total of 140 to 144.5	3570	72%	50%	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

OpenTEM -15.5

no move

NowTEM -15.5

No change since the open

Total

Open143.5

no move

Now143.5

No change since the open

Moneyline

CCSU +950 · TEM -2050

Line movement

Median of 7 sportsbooks, pre-tip-off · tap a dot

Opened TEM -15.5 · unchangedmodel TEM -19.5

model TEM -19.5

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

CCSU +15.5Spread

TEM -15.5

Bets

88%12%

Money

86%14%

Over 143.5TotalUnder 143.5

Bets

31%69%

Money

31%69%

CCSUWinner

TEM

Bets

97%

Money

20%80%

Money is 17 pts ahead of bets on CCSU

Sports Betting Dime, an average of sportsbooks. Read Mon, Nov 2, 4:41 AM ET. ⓘ

Books

7 sportsbooks · current prices

SpreadTotalMoneyline

Book	Spread		Total		Moneyline
Book	CCSU	TEM	Over	Under	CCSU	TEM
BetMGMMGM	-15.5-110	+15.5-110	143.5-105	143.5-115	+900	-1600
BetOnline.agBetOnline.ag	-15.5-110	+15.5-110	142.5-110	142.5-110	—	—
BetRiversBetRivers	-15.5-115	+15.5-109	144.5-106	144.5-121	+800	-2000
BovadaBovada	-15.5-110	+15.5-110	142.5-110	142.5-110	—	—
DraftKingsDK	-15.5-112	+15.5-108	143.5-105	143.5-115	+1100	-2100
FanDuelFD	-15.5-110	+15.5-110	143.5-115	143.5-105	+1000	-2100
LowVig.agLowVig.ag	-15.5-106	+15.5-106	142.5-108	142.5-108	—	—

Prices from The Odds API, updated 5:30 AM ET. Green = best price in the column.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	TEM -15.5	TEM -19.3	TEM +3.8
Total	143.5	141.2	Under 2.3
Projected score	—	CCSU 61 · TEM 80.2

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	TEM -11.3	—
1H total	66.1	—
1H projected score	CCSU 27.4 · TEM 38.7	—

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.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
CCSU LLLLL	14-14	50%	11-5	7-4
TEM WLWWL	14-17	45%	7-8	7-12

Venue/role: CCSU away, as underdog; TEM home, as favorite. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CCSU UUOUU	15-13	54%	16-12
TEM OOOOU	17-14	55%	15-16

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
CCSU	7-3 70%	4-6 40%	4-6 40%
TEM	2-8 20%	4-6 40%	6-4 60%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

C Connecticut

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 5	@ SYR	No recent meeting
Nov 8	@ DART	W59–50WU
Nov 12	@ SHU	W108–106LO

Temple

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 8	vs RICH	L49–61LU
Nov 11	vs COFC	No recent meeting
Nov 15	@ LAS	W90–63WO

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

C Connecticut

28 games played

Straight up

16-12

57% wins

Against the spread

14-14

50% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-13

54% overs · avg +2.5 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1257%

L W L W W L L W L L W W W W L L L W L W W W W W L W W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

14-1450%

L W W W L W L W L W W L W W L L L W L W W W W L L L L L

5 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1354%

U U O U O O U O O O O O U O O O U U U O O O U U U O U U

2 straight unders1 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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 6	@QUIN	L 49-71	+9.5	L −12.5	150.5	U 120
Nov 11	@BC	W 60-59	+17.5	W +18.5	136.5	U 119
Nov 16	@MASS	L 77-84	+12.5	W +5.5	144.5	O 161
Nov 21	@RUTG	W 67-54	+15.5	W +28.5	137.5	U 121
Nov 24	vsSHU	W 108-106	-3.5	L −1.5	143.5	O 214
Dec 3	@HALL	L 61-77	+18.5	W +2.5	128.5	O 138
Dec 7	@NE	L 56-73	+1.5	L −15.5	138.5	U 129
Dec 13	@BING	W 84-67	-7.5	W +9.5	133.5	O 151
Dec 18	vsFAIR	L 70-84	-6.5	L −20.5	143.5	O 154
Jan 2	@LIU	L 78-84	+6.5	W +0.5	146.5	O 162
Jan 4	vsNHVN	W 72-61	-7.5	W +3.5	130.5	O 133
Jan 8	vsSTO	W 76-69	-7.5	L −0.5	134.5	O 145
Jan 10	@LEM	W 69-59	+1.5	W +11.5	146.5	U 128
Jan 17	@SFPA	W 98-90	-6.5	W +1.5	144.5	O 188
Jan 19	@MERC	L 61-79	+1.5	L −16.5	132.5	O 140
Jan 23	vsFDU	L 66-76	-7.5	L −17.5	140.5	O 142
Jan 26	@STO	L 59-61	-1.5	L −3.5	135.5	U 120
Jan 29	@WAG	W 62-55	-2.5	W +4.5	136.5	U 117
Jan 31	vsLIU	L 59-80	+2.5	L −18.5	142.5	U 139
Feb 5	vsCHST	W 78-67	-8.5	W +2.5	138.5	O 145
Feb 7	vsWAG	W 84-67	-5.5	W +11.5	136.5	O 151
Feb 12	@NHVN	W 81-76	-3.5	W +1.5	128.5	O 157
Feb 14	@FDU	W 63-57	+1.5	W +7.5	133.5	U 120
Feb 19	vsLEM	W 78-77	-8.5	L −7.5	165.5	U 155
Feb 21	@CHST	L 51-70	-3.5	L −22.5	138.5	U 121
Feb 26	vsMERC	W 80-78	-3.5	L −1.5	141.5	O 158
Feb 28	vsSFPA	W 69-64	-8.5	L −3.5	152.5	U 133
Mar 4	vsWAG	L 60-70	-3.5	L −13.5	139.5	U 130

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

QUIN

L 49-71

−12.5

W 60-59

+18.5

MASS

L 77-84

+5.5

RUTG

W 67-54

+28.5

SHU

W 108-106

−1.5

HALL

L 61-77

+2.5

L 56-73

−15.5

BING

W 84-67

+9.5

FAIR

L 70-84

−20.5

LIU

L 78-84

+0.5

NHVN

W 72-61

+3.5

STO

W 76-69

−0.5

LEM

W 69-59

+11.5

SFPA

W 98-90

+1.5

MERC

L 61-79

−16.5

FDU

L 66-76

−17.5

STO

L 59-61

−3.5

WAG

W 62-55

+4.5

LIU

L 59-80

−18.5

CHST

W 78-67

+2.5

WAG

W 84-67

+11.5

NHVN

W 81-76

+1.5

FDU

W 63-57

+7.5

LEM

W 78-77

−7.5

CHST

L 51-70

−22.5

MERC

W 80-78

−1.5

SFPA

W 69-64

−3.5

WAG

L 60-70

−13.5

covered 14didn’t cover 14avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

QUIN

L 49-71

−30.5

W 60-59

−17.5

MASS

L 77-84

+16.5

RUTG

W 67-54

−16.5

SHU

W 108-106

+70.5

HALL

L 61-77

+9.5

L 56-73

−9.5

BING

W 84-67

+17.5

FAIR

L 70-84

+10.5

LIU

L 78-84

+15.5

NHVN

W 72-61

+2.5

STO

W 76-69

+10.5

LEM

W 69-59

−18.5

SFPA

W 98-90

+43.5

MERC

L 61-79

+7.5

FDU

L 66-76

+1.5

STO

L 59-61

−15.5

WAG

W 62-55

−19.5

LIU

L 59-80

−3.5

CHST

W 78-67

+6.5

WAG

W 84-67

+14.5

NHVN

W 81-76

+28.5

FDU

W 63-57

−13.5

LEM

W 78-77

−10.5

CHST

L 51-70

−17.5

MERC

W 80-78

+16.5

SFPA

W 69-64

−19.5

WAG

L 60-70

−9.5

over 15under 13avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Temple

31 games played

Straight up

15-16

48% wins

Against the spread

14-17

45% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-14

55% overs · avg −1 pts vs the total

Straight up

15-1648%

W W L W L W L L L W W W W W W L L W W L W W L L L L L L W L L

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1745%

W W L L L L L L L W W L W W W W L W L L W W L L L L W L W W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

17-1455%

U O O O O O O U U O U U O U U U O U U O O O U U O U O O O O U

3 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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 5	vsDSU	W 83-65	-16.5	W +1.5	154.5	U 148
Nov 11	vsLAS	W 90-63	-6.5	W +20.5	148.5	O 153
Nov 15	vsBC	L 71-76	-3.5	L −8.5	142.5	O 147
Nov 19	vsHOF	W 81-76	-5.5	L −0.5	145.5	O 157
Nov 24	vsUCSD	L 76-91	-1.5	L −16.5	148.5	O 167
Nov 25	vsPRIN	W 79-75	-8.5	L −4.5	145.5	O 154
Nov 26	vsURI	L 75-90	+3.5	L −11.5	149.5	O 165
Dec 1	@VILL	L 56-74	+14.5	L −3.5	146.5	U 130
Dec 6	vsJOES	L 69-70	-1.5	L −2.5	147.5	U 139
Dec 14	vsSFPA	W 95-67	-20.5	W +7.5	150.5	O 162
Dec 18	@DAV	W 68-63	+5.5	W +10.5	141.5	U 131
Dec 22	vsPRIN	W 65-61	-8.5	L −4.5	139.5	U 126
Dec 30	@CLT	W 76-73	+1.5	W +4.5	138.5	O 149
Jan 3	vsUTSA	W 76-57	-10.5	W +8.5	149.5	U 133
Jan 7	vsECU	W 75-67	-7.5	W +0.5	143.5	U 142
Jan 14	@MEM	L 53-55	+7.5	W +5.5	143.5	U 108
Jan 18	vsFAU	L 73-79	+2.5	L −3.5	148.5	O 152
Jan 21	@RICE	W 69-65	+1.5	W +5.5	142.5	U 134
Jan 24	@UTSA	W 70-64	-10.5	L −4.5	145.5	U 134
Jan 28	vsCLT	L 76-80	-4.5	L −8.5	139.5	O 156
Jan 31	vsUSF	W 79-78	+9.5	W +10.5	154.5	O 157
Feb 7	@ECU	W 81-73	-2.5	W +5.5	140.5	O 154
Feb 11	@TULN	L 66-77	+1.5	L −9.5	144.5	U 143
Feb 15	vsUNT	L 62-65	-2.5	L −5.5	135.5	U 127
Feb 18	vsUAB	L 71-76	-1.5	L −6.5	143.5	O 147
Feb 21	@WICH	L 57-69	+8.5	L −3.5	144.5	U 126
Feb 26	@FAU	L 73-77	+4.5	W +0.5	145.5	O 150
Mar 1	vsRICE	L 74-80	-6.5	L −12.5	142.5	O 154
Mar 5	vsTULN	W 89-60	-4.5	W +24.5	144.5	O 149
Mar 8	@TLSA	L 76-78	+11.5	W +9.5	149.5	O 154
Mar 11	vsFAU	L 59-63	-1.5	L −5.5	144.5	U 122

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

DSU

W 83-65

+1.5

LAS

W 90-63

+20.5

L 71-76

−8.5

HOF

W 81-76

−0.5

UCSD

L 76-91

−16.5

PRIN

W 79-75

−4.5

URI

L 75-90

−11.5

VILL

L 56-74

−3.5

JOES

L 69-70

−2.5

SFPA

W 95-67

+7.5

DAV

W 68-63

+10.5

PRIN

W 65-61

−4.5

CLT

W 76-73

+4.5

UTSA

W 76-57

+8.5

ECU

W 75-67

+0.5

MEM

L 53-55

+5.5

FAU

L 73-79

−3.5

RICE

W 69-65

+5.5

UTSA

W 70-64

−4.5

CLT

L 76-80

−8.5

USF

W 79-78

+10.5

ECU

W 81-73

+5.5

TULN

L 66-77

−9.5

UNT

L 62-65

−5.5

UAB

L 71-76

−6.5

WICH

L 57-69

−3.5

FAU

L 73-77

+0.5

RICE

L 74-80

−12.5

TULN

W 89-60

+24.5

TLSA

L 76-78

+9.5

FAU

L 59-63

−5.5

covered 14didn’t cover 17avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

DSU

W 83-65

−6.5

LAS

W 90-63

+4.5

L 71-76

+4.5

HOF

W 81-76

+11.5

UCSD

L 76-91

+18.5

PRIN

W 79-75

+8.5

URI

L 75-90

+15.5

VILL

L 56-74

−16.5

JOES

L 69-70

−8.5

SFPA

W 95-67

+11.5

DAV

W 68-63

−10.5

PRIN

W 65-61

−13.5

CLT

W 76-73

+10.5

UTSA

W 76-57

−16.5

ECU

W 75-67

−1.5

MEM

L 53-55

−35.5

FAU

L 73-79

+3.5

RICE

W 69-65

−8.5

UTSA

W 70-64

−11.5

CLT

L 76-80

+16.5

USF

W 79-78

+2.5

ECU

W 81-73

+13.5

TULN

L 66-77

−1.5

UNT

L 62-65

−8.5

UAB

L 71-76

+3.5

WICH

L 57-69

−18.5

FAU

L 73-77

+4.5

RICE

L 74-80

+11.5

TULN

W 89-60

+4.5

TLSA

L 76-78

+4.5

FAU

L 59-63

−22.5

over 17under 14avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Temple has the better starters

Position by position: C Connecticut 0, Temple 5, even 0

C ConnecticutBetterTemple

G J. Jones4.1 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.3 ast Score 4

TEMBig

G D. Ford18.1 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.9 ast Score 86

G V. Payne6.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast Score 16

TEMSmall

G D. White TR9.7 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.1 ast Score 44

G E. Parker2 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast Score 0

TEMBig

G G. Griffiths10 pts · 4.9 reb · 1.3 ast Score 68

G R. Jones3.8 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.1 ast Score 20

TEMSmall

F B. Njie TR9.6 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.3 ast Score 45

F D. James3.2 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast Score 13

TEMBig

F E. Suarez TR9.3 pts · 6.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 54

C ConnecticutBetterTemple

CCSU offense353rd of 366 · -13.2

TEMBig

TEM defense108th of 366 · -1.1

CCSU defense247th of 366 · -6.5

TEMBig

TEM offense116th of 366 · -2.5

Backcourt-10.6 · 4 players

TEMBig

Backcourt+1.9 · 3 players

Frontcourt-1.2 · 1 player

Even

Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players

Bench-2.0 · 2 players

Even

Bench-1.1 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestCCSU betterTEM 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

C Connecticut

Guards

J. Jones30 minV. Payne24 minE. Parker14 minR. Jones10 minA. Reynolds10 minR. LaurentNew

Forwards

D. James13 minJ. Mott8 minB. JacksonNewJ. ErvinNewR. TibbyNewC. LangdonNew

Temple

Guards

D. Ford36 minD. White30 min · TRG. Griffiths29 minJ. Marsh18 min · TRC. Wallace6 minD. DrakeNew

Forwards

B. Njie26 min · TRE. Suarez22 min · TRS. Issac Herron13 min · TR

Centers

C. Beam16 min · TRM. Keita5 min

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

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

CCSU70.6 #272

TEM73.0 #224

Points per possession

CCSU1.08 #192

TEM1.11 #115

Pace (possessions)

CCSU65.5 #329

TEM65.6 #325

Shooting

Effective FG%

CCSU51.6 #165

TEM50.2 #229

3-point %

CCSU35.8 #69

TEM33.6 #194

3-point attempt rate

CCSU34.9 #278

TEM35.7 #255

Free throw rate

CCSU31.2 #276

TEM40.6 #52

Possessions

Turnover rate

CCSU16.3 #154

TEM13.7 #18

Offensive rebound rate

CCSU27.5 #281

TEM29.8 #209

Assists per game

CCSU12.8 #229

TEM11.9 #290

Defense

Points allowed

CCSU72.0 #105

TEM71.2 #77

Points allowed per possession

CCSU1.10 #218

TEM1.08 #177

Opponent effective FG%

CCSU50.2 #113

TEM50.7 #137

Opponent 3-point %

CCSU33.4 #146

TEM32.8 #107

Turnovers forced

CCSU14.0 #338

TEM15.5 #245

Defensive rebound rate

CCSU69.6 #179

TEM69.7 #177

Steals per game

CCSU5.4 #311

TEM5.7 #279

Blocks per game

CCSU3.9 #83

TEM4.0 #71

CCSU		TEM
Scoring
70.6 #272	Points per game	73.0 #224
1.08 #192	Points per possession	1.11 #115
65.5 #329	Pace (possessions)	65.6 #325
Shooting
51.6 #165	Effective FG%	50.2 #229
35.8 #69	3-point %	33.6 #194
34.9 #278	3-point attempt rate	35.7 #255
31.2 #276	Free throw rate	40.6 #52
Possessions
16.3 #154	Turnover rate	13.7 #18
27.5 #281	Offensive rebound rate	29.8 #209
12.8 #229	Assists per game	11.9 #290
Defense
72.0 #105	Points allowed	71.2 #77
1.10 #218	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #177
50.2 #113	Opponent effective FG%	50.7 #137
33.4 #146	Opponent 3-point %	32.8 #107
14.0 #338	Turnovers forced	15.5 #245
69.6 #179	Defensive rebound rate	69.7 #177
5.4 #311	Steals per game	5.7 #279
3.9 #83	Blocks per game	4.0 #71

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.

C Connecticut

16-12 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Northeast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Wagner60–70
Wvs Saint Francis Red Wolves69–64
Wvs Mercyhurst80–78
L@ Chicago St51–70
Wvs Le Moyne78–77

A week or more of rest.

Temple

15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · American Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs FAU59–63
L@ Tulsa76–78
Wvs Tulane89–60
Lvs Rice74–80
L@ FAU73–77

A week or more of rest.