1. NCAAB
  2. Mon, Nov 2
  3. MTST @ CSU
NCAAB · Mon, Nov 2

Montana State Bobcats at Colorado State Rams

Moby Arena · at Colorado St
#162MTSTMontana St
@
#87CSUColorado St
LineCSU -11.5moved 1 toward CSU
Total146.5up 1 from 145.5
MTSTThis seasonCSU
0-0Record0-0
0-0ATS0-0
0-0O/U0-0

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

Model: projects CSU 77–66 · win probability CSU 83%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Spread
Total
Winner
Line
CSU -11.5
moved 1 toward CSU
Total
146.5
model 143.5 · Under by 3
Model edge
Even
matches the market
Public on the spread
96% MTST
96% 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: CSU has more of the edges

MTST 1, CSU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
MTST has played the 278th-hardest schedule, CSU the 96th. A record against a soft schedule means less
MTSTBig
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MTST 14.8%, CSU 18.5%. Forced: MTST 15.6%, CSU 15.4%
CSUBig
MTST offense vs CSU defense
Offense 190th of 366 against a defense 61st, on the model’s ratings
CSUSmall
Free throws
Free throw rate: MTST 30.2, CSU 39.4. Allowed: MTST 29.6, CSU 34.2
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: MTST plays 67.9 a game (233rd fastest), CSU 64.4 (355th). Faster games mean more points
CSUSmall
CSU offense vs MTST defense
Offense 103rd of 366 against a defense 155th, on the model’s ratings
CSUSmall
Home court
CSU at home. This season: CSU 0-0 at home, MTST 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MTST 89%, CSU 67%. Transfers in: MTST 2, CSU 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MTST 27.0%, CSU 30.0%. Defensive: MTST 71.8%, CSU 70.8%
Even
Three-pointers
MTST hits 36.1% and allows 34.3%; CSU hits 38.6% and allows 34.2%. Threes are 44.6% and 49.1% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: MTST 53.6 and allows 51.6; CSU 57.5 and allows 52.9
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 10 to 14.5192888%48%52%
Non-conference games at this spread98888%50%51%
Lines that moved 1+ toward the favorite676375%50%51%
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
1 pt toward CSU
Total
Up 1 since the open
Moneyline
MTST +450 · CSU -625
Line movement
Median of 8 sportsbooks, pre-tip-off · tap a dot
Opened CSU -10.5 · now CSU -11 · moved 0.5 toward CSUmodel CSU -11 matches the line
Opened 145.5 · now 147 · moved 1.5 upmodel 143.5
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
MTST +11.5SpreadCSU -11.5
Bets
Money
MTSTWinnerCSU
Bets
Money
Sports Betting Dime, an average of sportsbooks. Read . ⓘ

Books

8 sportsbooks · current prices
BookSpreadTotalMoneyline
MTSTCSUOverUnderMTSTCSU
BetMGMMGM-11.5-115+11.5-105147.5-105147.5-115+450-625
BetOnline.agBetOnline.ag-11-110+11-110147-110147-110——
BetRiversBetRivers-11.5-106+11.5-120145.5-115145.5-110+500-835
BetUSBetUS-11-110+11-110147-110147-110——
BovadaBovada-11-110+11-110147-105147-115+500-750
DraftKingsDK-12.5-118+12.5-102144.5-118144.5-102+440-600
FanDuelFD-10.5-110+10.5-110147.5-110147.5-110+430-600
LowVig.agLowVig.ag-11-106+11-106147-108147-108——
Prices from The Odds API, updated 5:30 AM ET. Green = best price in the column.

Model vs market

MarketModelModel edge
SpreadCSU -11.5CSU -11.1MTST +0.4
Total146.5143.5Under 3.0
Projected score—MTST 66.2 · CSU 77.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›
ModelActual
1H spreadCSU -6.5—
1H total67.1—
1H projected scoreMTST 30.3 · CSU 36.8—
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.

Colorado St has the better starters

Position by position: Montana St 0, Colorado St 2, even 3
Montana StBetterColorado St
G J. Miller15.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 2.8 ast Score 82
Even
G J. Menard TR12.8 pts · 2.9 reb · 3.8 ast Score 79
G C. Holden8.3 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast Not ranked
No call
G J. Pascarelli10.2 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.3 ast Score 64
G J. Davis9.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.1 ast Score 59
Even
G J. Butler9.4 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.8 ast Score 67
G S. Amunrud7.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 53
CSUSmall
F K. Jorgensen11.5 pts · 4.3 reb · 2.2 ast Score 87
F C. King12.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast Score 41
CSUBig
F C. Booth10.7 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.7 ast Score 90
Montana StBetterColorado St
MTST offense190th of 366 · -5.8
CSUBig
CSU defense61st of 366 · +1.2
MTST defense155th of 366 · -3.4
Even
CSU offense103rd of 366 · -1.2
Backcourt-0.8 · 4 players
CSUSmall
Backcourt+1.8 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.9 · 1 player
CSUBig
Frontcourt+5.0 · 2 players
Bench-4.0 · 5 players
CSUBig
Bench-0.7 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestMTST betterCSU 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
Montana St
Guards
J. Miller36 minC. Holden28 minJ. Davis25 minS. Amunrud21 minH. Keene11 minD. Slater7 min · TR
Forwards
C. King29 minJ. Steppe15 minW. Mbatch11 minL. Praytor4 min · TRC. Rutherfurd1 minJ. StewardNew
Colorado St
Guards
J. Menard29 min · TRJ. Pascarelli27 minJ. Butler26 minJ. McIver12 minR. SawyerNewP. DunsonNew
Forwards
K. Jorgensen26 minC. Booth25 minR. Mbemba18 minC. Dortch2 minA. MillerNewD. TedeschiNew
Centers
J. ClarkNew
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
MTSTCSU
Scoring
75.7 #151Points per game74.8 #169
1.12 #107Points per possession1.16 #44
67.9 #233Pace (possessions)64.4 #355
Shooting
53.6 #80Effective FG%57.5 #12
36.1 #523-point %38.6 #9
44.6 #763-point attempt rate49.1 #19
30.2 #303Free throw rate39.4 #69
Possessions
14.8 #53Turnover rate18.5 #298
27.0 #292Offensive rebound rate30.0 #198
10.6 #347Assists per game15.6 #62
Defense
73.5 #144Points allowed71.6 #95
1.08 #158Points allowed per possession1.11 #241
51.6 #193Opponent effective FG%52.9 #263
34.3 #198Opponent 3-point %34.2 #196
15.6 #242Turnovers forced15.4 #255
71.8 #75Defensive rebound rate70.8 #123
6.5 #171Steals per game5.2 #320
2.8 #263Blocks per game2.1 #338
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.

Montana St

15-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Big Sky Conference

Last five, 2025-26
  • Lvs Idaho74–78
  • W@ N Arizona76–65
  • Wvs Sacramento St82–61
  • Wvs Portland St84–69
  • L@ Idaho St76–91

A week or more of rest.

Colorado St

20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-10 in conference · Pac-12 Conference

Last five, 2025-26
  • Lvs Saint Joseph's64–69
  • Lvs San Diego St62–71
  • Wvs Fresno St67–63
  • Lvs Boise St67–78
  • W@ New Mexico82–74

A week or more of rest.