Oakland Golden Grizzlies at Purdue Boilermakers: Model Line and Edge

Fri, Nov 20, 7:00 PM ETMackey Arena · at Purdue

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Oakland and Purdue
OAK	This season	PUR
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 PUR 88–64 · win probability PUR 98%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 152.3

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: PUR has more of the edges

OAK 1, PUR 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

PURBig

PUR offense vs OAK defense

Offense 38th of 366 against a defense 266th, on the model’s ratings

PURBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: OAK 31.3%, PUR 36.4%. Defensive: OAK 65.6%, PUR 72.9%

Context

Schedule so far

OAK has played the 150th-hardest schedule, PUR the 6th. A record against a soft schedule means less

PURBig

OAK offense vs PUR defense

Offense 159th of 366 against a defense 18th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: OAK plays 71.1 a game (67th fastest), PUR 65.4 (333rd). Faster games mean more points

OAKBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: OAK 38.1, PUR 28.6. Allowed: OAK 24.6, PUR 25.5

PURSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: OAK 52.7 and allows 54.7; PUR 57.6 and allows 52.4

PURSmall

Three-pointers

OAK hits 34.7% and allows 34.3%; PUR hits 38.3% and allows 34.1%. Threes are 34.0% and 40.2% of their shots

PURSmall

Home court

PUR at home. This season: PUR 0-0 at home, OAK 0-0 away

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: OAK 20%, PUR 43%. Transfers in: OAK 5, PUR 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: OAK 14.7%, PUR 13.7%. Forced: OAK 15.1%, PUR 15.3%

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	PUR -24.0	—
Total	—	152.3	—
Projected score	—	OAK 64.2 · PUR 88.2

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	PUR -14.1	—
1H total	71.2	—
1H projected score	OAK 28.5 · PUR 42.7	—

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
OAK LWWLL	17-14	55%	10-7	—
PUR WWWLL	17-22	44%	5-12	—

Venue/role: OAK away; PUR home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
OAK UUUOO	19-12	61%	15-16
PUR OOOOU	20-19	51%	30-9

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
OAK	4-6 40%	4-6 40%	4-6 40%
PUR	8-2 80%	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

Oakland

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 27	@ HOU	L45–78LU
Dec 2	vs NKU	L84–85LO
Dec 5	@ IUIN	W86–74WU

Purdue

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 24	vs DEP	No recent meeting
Nov 26	vs OU	No recent meeting
Dec 1	vs IOWA	W78–57WU

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

OAK 0–1 PURPUR leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · OAK 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 7, 2025-26	OAK 77 @ PUR 87	PUR -31.5	OAK W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

Oakland

31 games played

Straight up

15-16

48% wins

Against the spread

17-14

55% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-12

61% overs · avg +4.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

15-1648%

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

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1455%

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

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

19-1261%

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

2 straight overs2 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 3	@MICH	L 78-121	+24.5	L −18.5	156.5	O 199
Nov 7	@PUR	L 77-87	+31.5	W +21.5	158.5	O 164
Nov 12	@HOU	L 45-78	+30.5	L −2.5	138.5	U 123
Nov 17	@UCF	L 83-87	+13.5	W +9.5	163.5	O 170
Nov 21	@EMU	L 91-97	-1.5	L −7.5	153.5	O 188
Nov 24	vsLAM	W 83-68	-3.5	W +11.5	148.5	O 151
Nov 25	@MONT	W 95-87	+4.5	W +12.5	162.5	O 182
Dec 3	vsPFW	W 101-92	-4.5	W +4.5	162.5	O 193
Dec 6	vsTOL	W 98-97	-4.5	L −3.5	166.5	O 195
Dec 13	@UNI	L 63-75	+8.5	L −3.5	149.5	U 138
Dec 17	@NKU	W 82-77	+3.5	W +8.5	163.5	U 159
Dec 20	vsMSU	L 70-79	+19.5	W +10.5	155.5	U 149
Dec 29	@WRST	L 73-88	+3.5	L −11.5	159.5	O 161
Jan 1	@YSU	W 85-83	+1.5	W +3.5	157.5	O 168
Jan 4	vsRMU	W 96-73	-1.5	W +21.5	161.5	O 169
Jan 9	vsCLE	W 97-74	-15.5	W +7.5	169.5	O 171
Jan 11	vsWRST	L 84-94	-4.5	L −14.5	161.5	O 178
Jan 15	@MILW	W 73-60	-2.5	W +10.5	166.5	U 133
Jan 18	@GB	W 88-63	-4.5	W +20.5	153.5	U 151
Jan 21	vsIUIN	L 85-103	-14.5	L −32.5	176.5	O 188
Jan 24	@DETM	W 95-87	-6.5	W +1.5	167.5	O 182
Jan 28	@PFW	W 74-65	-1.5	W +7.5	162.5	U 139
Feb 1	vsNKU	W 76-65	-3.5	W +7.5	166.5	U 141
Feb 4	@CLE	L 78-91	-7.5	L −20.5	170.5	U 169
Feb 12	vsYSU	L 82-86	-3.5	L −7.5	155.5	O 168
Feb 15	@RMU	L 69-93	+1.5	L −22.5	156.5	O 162
Feb 20	vsGB	L 68-73	-6.5	L −11.5	153.5	U 141
Feb 22	vsMILW	W 81-70	-5.5	W +5.5	159.5	U 151
Feb 25	@IUIN	W 86-74	-5.5	W +6.5	169.5	U 160
Feb 28	vsDETM	L 89-95	-8.5	L −14.5	160.5	O 184
Mar 4	vsNKU	L 84-85	-1.5	L −2.5	161.5	O 169

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

MICH

L 78-121

−18.5

PUR

L 77-87

+21.5

HOU

L 45-78

−2.5

UCF

L 83-87

+9.5

EMU

L 91-97

−7.5

LAM

W 83-68

+11.5

MONT

W 95-87

+12.5

PFW

W 101-92

+4.5

TOL

W 98-97

−3.5

UNI

L 63-75

−3.5

NKU

W 82-77

+8.5

MSU

L 70-79

+10.5

WRST

L 73-88

−11.5

YSU

W 85-83

+3.5

RMU

W 96-73

+21.5

CLE

W 97-74

+7.5

WRST

L 84-94

−14.5

MILW

W 73-60

+10.5

W 88-63

+20.5

IUIN

L 85-103

−32.5

DETM

W 95-87

+1.5

PFW

W 74-65

+7.5

NKU

W 76-65

+7.5

CLE

L 78-91

−20.5

YSU

L 82-86

−7.5

RMU

L 69-93

−22.5

L 68-73

−11.5

MILW

W 81-70

+5.5

IUIN

W 86-74

+6.5

DETM

L 89-95

−14.5

NKU

L 84-85

−2.5

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

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

MICH

L 78-121

+42.5

PUR

L 77-87

+5.5

HOU

L 45-78

−15.5

UCF

L 83-87

+6.5

EMU

L 91-97

+34.5

LAM

W 83-68

+2.5

MONT

W 95-87

+19.5

PFW

W 101-92

+30.5

TOL

W 98-97

+28.5

UNI

L 63-75

−11.5

NKU

W 82-77

−4.5

MSU

L 70-79

−6.5

WRST

L 73-88

+1.5

YSU

W 85-83

+10.5

RMU

W 96-73

+7.5

CLE

W 97-74

+1.5

WRST

L 84-94

+16.5

MILW

W 73-60

−33.5

W 88-63

−2.5

IUIN

L 85-103

+11.5

DETM

W 95-87

+14.5

PFW

W 74-65

−23.5

NKU

W 76-65

−25.5

CLE

L 78-91

−1.5

YSU

L 82-86

+12.5

RMU

L 69-93

+5.5

L 68-73

−12.5

MILW

W 81-70

−8.5

IUIN

W 86-74

−9.5

DETM

L 89-95

+23.5

NKU

L 84-85

+7.5

over 19under 12avg +4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Purdue

39 games played

Straight up

30-9

77% wins

Against the spread

17-22

44% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

20-19

51% overs · avg +1.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

30-977%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

17-2244%

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

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

20-1951%

U O U O U U O U U U U U O O U O O U U O U O U O U O O O O U O O U 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 4	vsEVAN	W 82-51	-33.5	L −2.5	150.5	U 133
Nov 7	vsOAK	W 87-77	-31.5	L −21.5	158.5	O 164
Nov 13	@ALA	W 87-80	+3.5	W +10.5	172.5	U 167
Nov 16	vsAKR	W 97-79	-18.5	L −0.5	163.5	O 176
Nov 20	vsMEM	W 80-71	-14.5	L −5.5	156.5	U 151
Nov 21	vsTTU	W 86-56	-3.5	W +26.5	153.5	U 142
Nov 28	vsEIU	W 109-62	-40.5	W +6.5	141.5	O 171
Dec 2	@RUTG	W 81-65	-13.5	W +2.5	146.5	U 146
Dec 6	vsISU	L 58-81	-4.5	L −27.5	154.5	U 139
Dec 10	vsMINN	W 85-57	-19.5	W +8.5	143.5	U 142
Dec 13	vsMARQ	W 79-59	-16.5	W +3.5	154.5	U 138
Dec 20	vsAUB	W 88-60	-7.5	W +20.5	152.5	U 148
Dec 29	vsKENT	W 101-60	-24.5	W +16.5	155.5	O 161
Jan 3	@WIS	W 89-73	-5.5	W +10.5	153.5	O 162
Jan 7	vsWASH	W 81-73	-16.5	L −8.5	154.5	U 154
Jan 10	vsPSU	W 93-85	-22.5	L −14.5	152.5	O 178
Jan 14	vsIOWA	W 79-72	-10.5	L −3.5	145.5	O 151
Jan 17	@USC	W 69-64	-9.5	L −4.5	155.5	U 133
Jan 20	@UCLA	L 67-69	-5.5	L −7.5	147.5	U 136
Jan 24	vsILL	L 82-88	-5.5	L −11.5	152.5	O 170
Jan 27	@IU	L 67-72	-4.5	L −9.5	150.5	U 139
Feb 1	@MD	W 93-63	-15.5	W +14.5	148.5	O 156
Feb 7	vsORE	W 68-64	-19.5	L −15.5	144.5	U 132
Feb 10	@NEB	W 80-77	+2.5	W +5.5	146.5	O 157
Feb 14	@IOWA	W 78-57	-2.5	W +18.5	142.5	U 135
Feb 17	vsMICH	L 80-91	+2.5	L −8.5	156.5	O 171
Feb 20	vsIU	W 93-64	-11.5	W +17.5	150.5	O 157
Feb 26	vsMSU	L 74-76	-5.5	L −7.5	143.5	O 150
Mar 1	@OSU	L 74-82	-6.5	L −14.5	149.5	O 156
Mar 4	@NU	W 70-66	-12.5	L −8.5	145.5	U 136
Mar 7	vsWIS	L 93-97	-9.5	L −13.5	154.5	O 190
Mar 12	vsNU	W 81-68	-13.5	L −0.5	139.5	O 149
Mar 13	vsNEB	W 74-58	-4.5	W +11.5	145.5	U 132
Mar 14	vsUCLA	W 73-66	-7.5	L −0.5	143.5	U 139
Mar 15	vsMICH	W 80-72	+4.5	W +12.5	149.5	O 152
Mar 20	vsQUC	W 104-71	-25.5	W +7.5	159.5	O 175
Mar 22	vsMIA	W 79-69	-8.5	W +1.5	146.5	O 148
Mar 26	vsTEX	W 79-77	-8.5	L −6.5	146.5	O 156
Mar 28	vsARIZ	L 64-79	+5.5	L −9.5	152.5	U 143

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

EVAN

W 82-51

−2.5

OAK

W 87-77

−21.5

ALA

W 87-80

+10.5

AKR

W 97-79

−0.5

MEM

W 80-71

−5.5

TTU

W 86-56

+26.5

EIU

W 109-62

+6.5

RUTG

W 81-65

+2.5

ISU

L 58-81

−27.5

MINN

W 85-57

+8.5

MARQ

W 79-59

+3.5

AUB

W 88-60

+20.5

KENT

W 101-60

+16.5

WIS

W 89-73

+10.5

WASH

W 81-73

−8.5

PSU

W 93-85

−14.5

IOWA

W 79-72

−3.5

USC

W 69-64

−4.5

UCLA

L 67-69

−7.5

ILL

L 82-88

−11.5

L 67-72

−9.5

W 93-63

+14.5

ORE

W 68-64

−15.5

NEB

W 80-77

+5.5

IOWA

W 78-57

+18.5

MICH

L 80-91

−8.5

W 93-64

+17.5

MSU

L 74-76

−7.5

OSU

L 74-82

−14.5

W 70-66

−8.5

WIS

L 93-97

−13.5

W 81-68

−0.5

NEB

W 74-58

+11.5

UCLA

W 73-66

−0.5

MICH

W 80-72

+12.5

QUC

W 104-71

+7.5

MIA

W 79-69

+1.5

TEX

W 79-77

−6.5

ARIZ

L 64-79

−9.5

covered 17didn’t cover 22avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

EVAN

W 82-51

−17.5

OAK

W 87-77

+5.5

ALA

W 87-80

−5.5

AKR

W 97-79

+12.5

MEM

W 80-71

−5.5

TTU

W 86-56

−11.5

EIU

W 109-62

+29.5

RUTG

W 81-65

−0.5

ISU

L 58-81

−15.5

MINN

W 85-57

−1.5

MARQ

W 79-59

−16.5

AUB

W 88-60

−4.5

KENT

W 101-60

+5.5

WIS

W 89-73

+8.5

WASH

W 81-73

−0.5

PSU

W 93-85

+25.5

IOWA

W 79-72

+5.5

USC

W 69-64

−22.5

UCLA

L 67-69

−11.5

ILL

L 82-88

+17.5

L 67-72

−11.5

W 93-63

+7.5

ORE

W 68-64

−12.5

NEB

W 80-77

+10.5

IOWA

W 78-57

−7.5

MICH

L 80-91

+14.5

W 93-64

+6.5

MSU

L 74-76

+6.5

OSU

L 74-82

+6.5

W 70-66

−9.5

WIS

L 93-97

+35.5

W 81-68

+9.5

NEB

W 74-58

−13.5

UCLA

W 73-66

−4.5

MICH

W 80-72

+2.5

QUC

W 104-71

+15.5

MIA

W 79-69

+1.5

TEX

W 79-77

+9.5

ARIZ

L 64-79

−9.5

over 20under 19avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Purdue has the better starters

Position by position: Oakland 1, Purdue 4, even 0

OaklandBetterPurdue

G N. Mashhour9 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.4 ast Score 22

PURBig

G C. Cox8.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.3 ast Score 82

G B. Swartz TR7.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.3 ast Score 41

PURSmall

G G. Harris4.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.8 ast Score 75

F B. El Shakery TR11.2 pts · 8 reb · 1.4 ast Score 59

PURSmall

G J. Benter4.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.8 ast Score 75

F C. Fields TR9.1 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.2 ast Score 79

OAKSmall

G O. Mayer5.5 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.2 ast Score 64

F J. Hill TR7 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.4 ast Score 16

PURBig

C D. Jacobsen5.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast Score 88

OaklandBetterPurdue

OAK offense159th of 366 · -4.8

PURBig

PUR defense18th of 366 · +6.0

OAK defense266th of 366 · -6.8

PURBig

PUR offense38th of 366 · +5.0

Backcourt-3.2 · 2 players

PURBig

Backcourt+2.4 · 4 players

Frontcourt-0.2 · 3 players

PURSmall

Frontcourt+1.8 · 1 player

Bench-1.7 · 2 players

PURSmall

Bench-0.0 · 2 players

Score, worst to bestOAK betterPUR 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

Oakland

Guards

N. Mashhour28 minB. Swartz21 min · TRW. Marshall12 minR. Taylor11 min · TRW. KassiNewH. MashhourNew

Forwards

B. El Shakery27 min · TRC. Fields18 min · TRJ. Hill17 min · TRN. AhnerNewC. ThompsonNewI. TheodileNew

Purdue

Guards

C. Cox24 minG. Harris16 minJ. Benter15 minO. Mayer14 minJ. Rayl2 minJ. Lusk2 min

Forwards

S. KingNewC. PierceNewE. ShahrvinNewR. BurgessNewR. KnightNew

Centers

D. Jacobsen13 minS. HuanNew

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

OAK81.6 #37

PUR81.6 #35

Points per possession

OAK1.14 #66

PUR1.25 #2

Pace (possessions)

OAK71.1 #67

PUR65.4 #333

Shooting

Effective FG%

OAK52.7 #114

PUR57.6 #10

3-point %

OAK34.7 #131

PUR38.3 #11

3-point attempt rate

OAK34.0 #294

PUR40.2 #164

Free throw rate

OAK38.1 #100

PUR28.6 #336

Possessions

Turnover rate

OAK14.7 #47

PUR13.7 #16

Offensive rebound rate

OAK31.3 #152

PUR36.4 #19

Assists per game

OAK15.7 #60

PUR19.6 #2

Defense

Points allowed

OAK82.8 #344

PUR70.5 #65

Points allowed per possession

OAK1.17 #340

PUR1.08 #162

Opponent effective FG%

OAK54.7 #322

PUR52.4 #232

Opponent 3-point %

OAK34.3 #206

PUR34.1 #192

Turnovers forced

OAK15.1 #275

PUR15.3 #263

Defensive rebound rate

OAK65.6 #324

PUR72.9 #39

Steals per game

OAK7.2 #106

PUR5.5 #297

Blocks per game

OAK3.7 #110

PUR2.8 #257

OAK		PUR
Scoring
81.6 #37	Points per game	81.6 #35
1.14 #66	Points per possession	1.25 #2
71.1 #67	Pace (possessions)	65.4 #333
Shooting
52.7 #114	Effective FG%	57.6 #10
34.7 #131	3-point %	38.3 #11
34.0 #294	3-point attempt rate	40.2 #164
38.1 #100	Free throw rate	28.6 #336
Possessions
14.7 #47	Turnover rate	13.7 #16
31.3 #152	Offensive rebound rate	36.4 #19
15.7 #60	Assists per game	19.6 #2
Defense
82.8 #344	Points allowed	70.5 #65
1.17 #340	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #162
54.7 #322	Opponent effective FG%	52.4 #232
34.3 #206	Opponent 3-point %	34.1 #192
15.1 #275	Turnovers forced	15.3 #263
65.6 #324	Defensive rebound rate	72.9 #39
7.2 #106	Steals per game	5.5 #297
3.7 #110	Blocks per game	2.8 #257

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.

Oakland

15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Horizon League

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs N Kentucky84–85
Lvs Detroit Mercy89–95
W@ IU Indy86–74
Wvs Milwaukee81–70
Lvs Green Bay68–73

A week or more of rest.

Purdue

30-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-7 in conference · Big Ten Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Arizona64–79
Wvs Texas79–77
Wvs Miami79–69
Wvs Queens University Royals104–71
Wvs Michigan80–72

A week or more of rest.

Oakland Golden Grizzlies at Purdue Boilermakers

What could decide it: PUR has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Oakland

Purdue

Purdue has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Oakland

Purdue