Carver Arena · at Bradley
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | BRAD | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 BRAD 79–71 · win probability BRAD 76%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.4
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: BRAD has more of the edges
PFW 1, BRAD 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PFW 22.9%, BRAD 27.4%. Defensive: PFW 65.5%, BRAD 72.2%
BRAD offense vs PFW defense
Offense 175th of 366 against a defense 291st, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
PFW hits 34.2% and allows 37.9%; BRAD hits 36.1% and allows 36.6%. Threes are 45.4% and 40.5% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
PFW has played the 209th-hardest schedule, BRAD the 155th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
BRAD at home. This season: BRAD 0-0 at home, PFW 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: PFW 30.6, BRAD 35.9. Allowed: PFW 28.6, BRAD 38.2
Even
PFW offense vs BRAD defense
Offense 218th of 366 against a defense 185th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: PFW plays 69.0 a game (179th fastest), BRAD 69.9 (125th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PFW 29%, BRAD 16%. Transfers in: PFW 2, BRAD 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: PFW 52.6 and allows 56.1; BRAD 51.1 and allows 52.8
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PFW 14.5%, BRAD 13.9%. Forced: PFW 19.1%, BRAD 18.9%
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 | — | BRAD -8.3 | — |
| Total | — | 150.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | PFW 71.1 · BRAD 79.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BRAD -4.8 | — |
| 1H total | 70.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | PFW 32.8 · BRAD 37.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Purdue FW
29 games played
Straight up
14-15
48% wins
Against the spread
13-16
45% covers · avg −3.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-13
55% overs · avg −1 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 71-90 | +14.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 68-94 | +24.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 71-83 | -3.5 | L −15.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 77-85 | +13.5 | W +5.5 | 161.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 60-91 | +19.5 | L −11.5 | 166.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 90-77 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 92-101 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | O 193 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 79-77 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 80-65 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 81-77 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 72-69 | +11.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 55-77 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 54-72 | -8.5 | L −26.5 | 145.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 74-71 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 71-69 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 79-74 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 18 | vs | W 100-82 | -3.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 83-76 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 65-74 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 83-71 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 61-90 | -2.5 | L −31.5 | 147.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-73 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 59-76 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 144.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-78 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 71-87 | +5.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 22 | @ | W 92-86 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 163.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 70-74 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 87-81 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 163.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 56-64 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 120 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
GCU
L 71-90
−4.5
7
@
OSU
L 68-94
−1.5
12
@
WMU
L 71-83
−15.5
18
@
UTAH
L 77-85
+5.5
21
@
SLU
L 60-91
−11.5
25
vs
CHST
W 90-77
+0.5
3
@
OAK
L 92-101
−4.5
6
vs
NKU
W 79-77
+0.5
10
vs
EMU
W 80-65
+11.5
14
vs
DETM
W 81-77
−5.5
21
@
ND
W 72-69
+14.5
29
@
MILW
L 55-77
−18.5
1
vs
GB
L 54-72
−26.5
4
vs
CLE
W 74-71
−8.5
7
@
YSU
W 71-69
+6.5
11
@
RMU
W 79-74
+9.5
18
vs
MILW
W 100-82
+14.5
21
@
DETM
W 83-76
+4.5
28
vs
OAK
L 65-74
−7.5
31
vs
RMU
W 83-71
+9.5
4
vs
YSU
L 61-90
−31.5
7
@
WRST
L 68-73
+1.5
12
@
GB
L 59-76
−18.5
15
vs
IUIN
W 83-78
−2.5
18
@
NKU
L 71-87
−10.5
22
@
CLE
W 92-86
+2.5
25
vs
WRST
L 70-74
−2.5
28
@
IUIN
W 87-81
+4.5
3
@
GB
L 56-64
−4.5
covered 13didn’t cover 16avg −3.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
GCU
L 71-90
+5.5
7
@
OSU
L 68-94
+2.5
12
@
WMU
L 71-83
−7.5
18
@
UTAH
L 77-85
+0.5
21
@
SLU
L 60-91
−15.5
25
vs
CHST
W 90-77
+17.5
3
@
OAK
L 92-101
+30.5
6
vs
NKU
W 79-77
+2.5
10
vs
EMU
W 80-65
−2.5
14
vs
DETM
W 81-77
+4.5
21
@
ND
W 72-69
−8.5
29
@
MILW
L 55-77
−24.5
1
vs
GB
L 54-72
−19.5
4
vs
CLE
W 74-71
−14.5
7
@
YSU
W 71-69
−5.5
11
@
RMU
W 79-74
+6.5
18
vs
MILW
W 100-82
+33.5
21
@
DETM
W 83-76
+3.5
28
vs
OAK
L 65-74
−23.5
31
vs
RMU
W 83-71
+8.5
4
vs
YSU
L 61-90
+3.5
7
@
WRST
L 68-73
−9.5
12
@
GB
L 59-76
−9.5
15
vs
IUIN
W 83-78
+1.5
18
@
NKU
L 71-87
+4.5
22
@
CLE
W 92-86
+14.5
25
vs
WRST
L 70-74
−6.5
28
@
IUIN
W 87-81
+4.5
3
@
GB
L 56-64
−25.5
over 16under 13avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Bradley
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-14
58% overs · avg +5.5 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 | L 63-69 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 85-54 | -9.5 | W +21.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 12 | vs | L 67-78 | -15.5 | L −26.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 64-75 | +9.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 87-77 | -21.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 88-64 | -9.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 77-87 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-64 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 64-60 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 84-55 | -18.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 108-99 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | O 207 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 73-69 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 76-68 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 78-88 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 66-86 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 162.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 93-66 | -6.5 | W +20.5 | 144.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 75-69 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 131.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 94-90 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 62-88 | +5.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 75-68 | -8.5 | L −1.5 | 155.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 70-85 | -7.5 | L −22.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 87-73 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 72-65 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 6 | @ | L 49-61 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 134.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 95-84 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 70-60 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 72-79 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 74-60 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 86-93 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 1 | vs | W 87-78 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 90-84 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 139.5 | O 174 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 69-73 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 127.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 18 | vs | L 66-80 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SBU
L 63-69
−4.5
8
vs
CMU
W 85-54
+21.5
12
vs
UTM
L 67-78
−26.5
15
@
SF
L 64-75
−1.5
19
vs
UML
W 87-77
−11.5
24
vs
PRIN
W 88-64
+14.5
25
vs
UCSD
L 77-87
−11.5
26
vs
LIB
W 74-64
+14.5
2
vs
WSU
W 64-60
−1.5
6
vs
NIU
W 84-55
+10.5
18
@
INST
W 108-99
+3.5
21
vs
SIU
W 73-69
−2.5
29
vs
EVAN
W 76-68
−3.5
1
@
BEL
L 78-88
−6.5
4
@
MUR
L 66-86
−14.5
7
vs
DRKE
W 93-66
+20.5
10
vs
UNI
W 75-69
+1.5
13
@
EVAN
W 94-90
−3.5
17
@
ILST
L 62-88
−20.5
21
vs
INST
W 75-68
−1.5
24
vs
UIC
L 70-85
−22.5
31
@
DRKE
W 87-73
+11.5
3
vs
VAL
W 72-65
−0.5
6
@
UNI
L 49-61
−8.5
9
vs
BEL
W 95-84
+12.5
15
@
SIU
W 70-60
+12.5
18
@
VAL
L 72-79
−9.5
21
vs
ILST
W 74-60
+10.5
24
@
UIC
L 86-93
−5.5
1
vs
MUR
W 87-78
+5.5
6
vs
VAL
W 90-84
+0.5
7
vs
UNI
L 69-73
+0.5
18
vs
DAY
L 66-80
−11.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SBU
L 63-69
−7.5
8
vs
CMU
W 85-54
−8.5
12
vs
UTM
L 67-78
+0.5
15
@
SF
L 64-75
−7.5
19
vs
UML
W 87-77
+14.5
24
vs
PRIN
W 88-64
+10.5
25
vs
UCSD
L 77-87
+18.5
26
vs
LIB
W 74-64
−6.5
2
vs
WSU
W 64-60
−24.5
6
vs
NIU
W 84-55
−7.5
18
@
INST
W 108-99
+56.5
21
vs
SIU
W 73-69
−10.5
29
vs
EVAN
W 76-68
−0.5
1
@
BEL
L 78-88
+12.5
4
@
MUR
L 66-86
−10.5
7
vs
DRKE
W 93-66
+14.5
10
vs
UNI
W 75-69
+12.5
13
@
EVAN
W 94-90
+41.5
17
@
ILST
L 62-88
+2.5
21
vs
INST
W 75-68
−12.5
24
vs
UIC
L 70-85
+10.5
31
@
DRKE
W 87-73
+9.5
3
vs
VAL
W 72-65
−7.5
6
@
UNI
L 49-61
−24.5
9
vs
BEL
W 95-84
+26.5
15
@
SIU
W 70-60
−16.5
18
@
VAL
L 72-79
+8.5
21
vs
ILST
W 74-60
−11.5
24
@
UIC
L 86-93
+37.5
1
vs
MUR
W 87-78
+7.5
6
vs
VAL
W 90-84
+34.5
7
vs
UNI
L 69-73
+14.5
18
vs
DAY
L 66-80
+4.5
over 19under 14avg +5.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Purdue FW 1, Bradley 1, even 3
Purdue FWBetterBradley
G D. Craig13.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 68
←PFWBig
G T. Payton TR9.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 15
G A. Williamson TR7.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 16
=Even
G T. van der Knaap6.5 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 30
G C. Morgan2.3 pts · 1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 2
=No call
G D. Richardson2.2 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
G E. Mosley2.8 pts · 1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 9
→BRADBig
F X. Alarie TR10.3 pts · 7.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 50
F A. Isaac TR9.5 pts · 7.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 63
=No call
F J. Ibukunoluwa TR2.3 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
Purdue FWBetterBradley
PFW offense218th of 366 · -6.7
=Even
BRAD defense185th of 366 · -4.3
PFW defense291st of 366 · -7.3
→BRADSmall
BRAD offense175th of 366 · -5.4
Backcourt-5.6 · 4 players
=Even
Backcourt-5.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt+0.4 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-0.2 · 2 players
Bench-0.2 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestPFW betterBRAD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Craig30 minA. Williamson23 min · TRC. Morgan14 minE. Mosley12 minM. Shrout3 minD. LewisNew
Forwards
A. Isaac24 min · TRE. OrtizNewQ. MorganNewA. WalkerNew
Guards
T. Payton34 min · TRT. van der Knaap23 minD. Richardson7 minG. Rugaard1 minK. GrillNewG. GerganovNew
Forwards
X. Alarie28 min · TRJ. Ibukunoluwa6 min · TRB. ThornbrueNew
Centers
G. GuimaresNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.2 #189 | Points per game | 77.0 #117 |
| 1.07 #204 | Points per possession | 1.10 #129 |
| 69.0 #179 | Pace (possessions) | 69.9 #125 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.6 #125 | Effective FG% | 51.1 #189 |
| 34.2 #163 | 3-point % | 36.1 #53 |
| 45.4 #60 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.5 #161 |
| 30.6 #292 | Free throw rate | 35.9 #156 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.5 #43 | Turnover rate | 13.9 #19 |
| 22.9 #351 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.4 #285 |
| 13.1 #207 | Assists per game | 13.3 #191 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.8 #286 | Points allowed | 74.2 #162 |
| 1.14 #311 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #109 |
| 56.1 #345 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.8 #259 |
| 37.9 #355 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.6 #334 |
| 19.1 #44 | Turnovers forced | 18.9 #53 |
| 65.5 #327 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.2 #62 |
| 7.9 #42 | Steals per game | 7.5 #86 |
| 3.0 #224 | Blocks per game | 3.2 #192 |
Purdue FW
14-15 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Green Bay56–64
- W@ IU Indy87–81
- Lvs Wright St70–74
- W@ Cleveland St92–86
- L@ N Kentucky71–87
A week or more of rest.
Bradley
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 14-8 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Dayton66–80
- Lvs Northern Iowa69–73
- Wvs Valparaiso90–84
- Wvs Murray St87–78
- L@ UIC86–93
A week or more of rest.