State Farm Field House · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WRST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 AKR 80–74 · win probability AKR 69%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.4
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: AKR has more of the edges
AKR 3, WRST 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
AKR offense vs WRST defense
Offense 101st of 366 against a defense 215th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
AKR has played the 159th-hardest schedule, WRST the 264th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: AKR 29.2, WRST 37.4. Allowed: AKR 30.4, WRST 33.3
Turnovers
Turnover rate: AKR 15.5%, WRST 16.1%. Forced: AKR 18.3%, WRST 16.6%
Shooting
Effective FG%: AKR 58.1 and allows 51.2; WRST 54.3 and allows 52.4
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: AKR plays 71.1 a game (70th fastest), WRST 69.1 (171st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
AKR hits 38.2% and allows 35.5%; WRST hits 36.4% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 44.8% and 34.2% of their shots
Even
WRST offense vs AKR defense
Offense 148th of 366 against a defense 168th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: AKR 28%, WRST 32%. Transfers in: AKR 5, WRST 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: AKR 33.4%, WRST 32.8%. Defensive: AKR 70.1%, WRST 70.6%
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 | — | AKR -5.8 | — |
| Total | — | 154.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | AKR 80.1 · WRST 74.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | AKR -3.6 | — |
| 1H total | 72.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | AKR 37.9 · WRST 34.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
AKR 2–0 WRSTAKR leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · AKR has won the last 2 meetings · AKR 2-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2022-23 | WRST 54 @ AKR 66 | AKR -6.5 | AKR W |
| Dec 15, 2021-22 | AKR 66 @ WRST 48 | WRST -3.5 | AKR W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Akron
33 games played
Straight up
27-6
82% wins
Against the spread
17-16
52% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-18
45% overs · avg +0.2 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-1652%
2 straight misses ATS1 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 85-71 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 104-69 | -13.5 | W +21.5 | 156.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 79-97 | +18.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 96-75 | -11.5 | W +9.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 97-59 | -11.5 | W +26.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 94-97 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 156.5 | O 191 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 105-81 | -12.5 | W +11.5 | 166.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 97-77 | -23.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | O 174 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 88-71 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 100-115 | -4.5 | L −19.5 | 168.5 | O 215 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 93-72 | -15.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 73-76 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 177.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 82-69 | -23.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 77-67 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 87-77 | -20.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 104-89 | -21.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 82-63 | -8.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 86-65 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 167.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 91-81 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 168.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 69-52 | -10.5 | W +6.5 | 166.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 66-64 | -12.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 69-79 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 99-92 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 191 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 90-73 | -14.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 78-65 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 99-85 | -15.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 92-70 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 166.5 | U 162 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 77-64 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 94-55 | -23.5 | W +15.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 73-70 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 75-68 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 79-76 | -7.5 | L −4.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 71-91 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
JMU
W 85-71
+5.5
8
vs
PRIN
W 104-69
+21.5
16
@
PUR
L 79-97
+0.5
21
vs
IONA
W 96-75
+9.5
23
vs
EVAN
W 97-59
+26.5
24
vs
YALE
L 94-97
−4.5
29
vs
MILW
W 105-81
+11.5
3
vs
BUCK
W 97-77
−3.5
6
@
TULN
W 88-71
+10.5
13
vs
MUR
L 100-115
−19.5
19
vs
EMU
W 93-72
+5.5
3
@
M-OH
L 73-76
−7.5
6
vs
CMU
W 82-69
−10.5
9
@
BGSU
W 77-67
+5.5
13
vs
BALL
W 87-77
−10.5
17
vs
WMU
W 104-89
−6.5
20
@
BUF
W 82-63
+10.5
23
@
OHIO
W 86-65
+14.5
27
vs
TOL
W 91-81
−2.5
30
vs
KENT
W 69-52
+6.5
3
@
EMU
W 66-64
−10.5
7
@
TROY
L 69-79
−12.5
13
vs
MASS
W 99-92
−5.5
17
@
WMU
W 90-73
+2.5
20
@
BALL
W 78-65
−0.5
24
vs
BUF
W 99-85
−1.5
27
@
KENT
W 92-70
+18.5
3
@
CMU
W 77-64
+1.5
6
vs
NIU
W 94-55
+15.5
12
vs
BUF
W 73-70
−9.5
13
vs
KENT
W 75-68
+0.5
14
vs
TOL
W 79-76
−4.5
20
vs
TTU
L 71-91
−13.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
JMU
W 85-71
+2.5
8
vs
PRIN
W 104-69
+16.5
16
@
PUR
L 79-97
+12.5
21
vs
IONA
W 96-75
−2.5
23
vs
EVAN
W 97-59
−0.5
24
vs
YALE
L 94-97
+34.5
29
vs
MILW
W 105-81
+19.5
3
vs
BUCK
W 97-77
+16.5
6
@
TULN
W 88-71
−3.5
13
vs
MUR
L 100-115
+46.5
19
vs
EMU
W 93-72
+9.5
3
@
M-OH
L 73-76
−28.5
6
vs
CMU
W 82-69
−13.5
9
@
BGSU
W 77-67
−19.5
13
vs
BALL
W 87-77
+11.5
17
vs
WMU
W 104-89
+29.5
20
@
BUF
W 82-63
−21.5
23
@
OHIO
W 86-65
−16.5
27
vs
TOL
W 91-81
+3.5
30
vs
KENT
W 69-52
−45.5
3
@
EMU
W 66-64
−23.5
7
@
TROY
L 69-79
−9.5
13
vs
MASS
W 99-92
+27.5
17
@
WMU
W 90-73
+2.5
20
@
BALL
W 78-65
−4.5
24
vs
BUF
W 99-85
+23.5
27
@
KENT
W 92-70
−4.5
3
@
CMU
W 77-64
−17.5
6
vs
NIU
W 94-55
−6.5
12
vs
BUF
W 73-70
−15.5
13
vs
KENT
W 75-68
−20.5
14
vs
TOL
W 79-76
−2.5
20
vs
TTU
L 71-91
+7.5
over 15under 18avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Wright St
33 games played
Straight up
21-12
64% wins
Against the spread
21-12
64% covers · avg +2.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg +3.4 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 6 | @ | L 67-77 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 71-81 | -5.5 | L −15.5 | 159.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 92-59 | +6.5 | W +39.5 | 156.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 72-76 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 79-62 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 69-94 | +14.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 68-69 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 86-58 | -6.5 | W +21.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 74-76 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 76-83 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 70-64 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 88-73 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 76-70 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 81-77 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 84-82 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 94-84 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 161.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 93-83 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 79-85 | -15.5 | L −21.5 | 156.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 88-80 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 76-69 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 83-75 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 66-72 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 73-68 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 74-77 | -11.5 | L −14.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 102-90 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 157.5 | O 192 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 85-73 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 160.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 68-81 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 74-70 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 92-91 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 90-61 | -14.5 | W +14.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 103-90 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 157.5 | O 193 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 66-63 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 73-82 | +17.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
CAL
L 67-77
+4.5
11
vs
TOL
L 71-81
−15.5
15
vs
RAD
W 92-59
+39.5
16
vs
KENT
L 72-76
+0.5
25
@
STET
W 79-62
+7.5
28
@
BTLR
L 69-94
−10.5
3
@
YSU
L 68-69
+2.5
7
vs
GB
W 86-58
+21.5
13
@
MRSH
L 74-76
+1.5
16
vs
M-OH
L 76-83
−5.5
22
vs
EMU
W 70-64
−4.5
29
vs
OAK
W 88-73
+11.5
1
vs
MILW
W 76-70
+2.5
4
@
IUIN
W 81-77
−4.5
9
@
DETM
W 84-82
−3.5
11
@
OAK
W 94-84
+14.5
15
vs
YSU
W 93-83
+5.5
21
vs
CLE
L 79-85
−21.5
24
vs
NKU
W 88-80
+6.5
30
@
MILW
W 76-69
+4.5
1
@
GB
W 83-75
+4.5
4
@
RMU
L 66-72
−7.5
7
vs
PFW
W 73-68
−1.5
12
vs
DETM
L 74-77
−14.5
15
@
CLE
W 102-90
+4.5
19
vs
IUIN
W 85-73
+0.5
22
vs
RMU
L 68-81
−17.5
25
@
PFW
W 74-70
+2.5
28
@
NKU
W 92-91
+4.5
4
vs
CLE
W 90-61
+14.5
9
vs
NKU
W 103-90
+14.5
10
vs
DETM
W 66-63
−1.5
20
vs
UVA
L 73-82
+8.5
covered 21didn’t cover 12avg +2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
CAL
L 67-77
−4.5
11
vs
TOL
L 71-81
−7.5
15
vs
RAD
W 92-59
−5.5
16
vs
KENT
L 72-76
−9.5
25
@
STET
W 79-62
−6.5
28
@
BTLR
L 69-94
+12.5
3
@
YSU
L 68-69
−7.5
7
vs
GB
W 86-58
+1.5
13
@
MRSH
L 74-76
+0.5
16
vs
M-OH
L 76-83
+9.5
22
vs
EMU
W 70-64
−8.5
29
vs
OAK
W 88-73
+1.5
1
vs
MILW
W 76-70
−1.5
4
@
IUIN
W 81-77
−4.5
9
@
DETM
W 84-82
+17.5
11
@
OAK
W 94-84
+16.5
15
vs
YSU
W 93-83
+34.5
21
vs
CLE
L 79-85
+7.5
24
vs
NKU
W 88-80
+12.5
30
@
MILW
W 76-69
−6.5
1
@
GB
W 83-75
+13.5
4
@
RMU
L 66-72
−9.5
7
vs
PFW
W 73-68
−9.5
12
vs
DETM
L 74-77
−0.5
15
@
CLE
W 102-90
+34.5
19
vs
IUIN
W 85-73
−2.5
22
vs
RMU
L 68-81
+2.5
25
@
PFW
W 74-70
−6.5
28
@
NKU
W 92-91
+29.5
4
vs
CLE
W 90-61
−11.5
9
vs
NKU
W 103-90
+35.5
10
vs
DETM
W 66-63
−24.5
20
vs
UVA
L 73-82
+8.5
over 16under 17avg +3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Akron has the better starters
Position by position: Akron 2, Wright St 1, even 2
AkronBetterWright St
G T. Staveskie TR17.3 pts · 3.6 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 74
=Even
G C. O'Hara TR14.2 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 66
G T. Pence TR9.5 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 86
←AKRBig
G D. Pangonis8.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 30
F E. Mahaffey9.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 69
←AKRBig
G C. Traylor TR3.8 pts · 1.1 reb · 2 ast
Score 21
F M. Burton TR5.5 pts · 5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 14
→WRSTBig
G A. Holden5.8 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 78
F B. Hammer TR4.1 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 55
=Even
F K. Pickett8.5 pts · 5.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 67
AkronBetterWright St
AKR offense101st of 366 · -1.1
←AKRSmall
WRST defense215th of 366 · -5.6
AKR defense168th of 366 · -3.7
=Even
WRST offense148th of 366 · -4.5
Backcourt+2.7 · 2 players
←AKRBig
Backcourt-2.5 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.4 · 3 players
→WRSTSmall
Frontcourt+0.6 · 1 player
Bench-2.6 · 4 players
→WRSTSmall
Bench-0.7 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestAKR betterWRST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Staveskie36 min · TRT. Pence24 min · TRC. HeadNewT. PerkinsNewJ. HendersonNewE. WilsonNew
Forwards
E. Mahaffey29 minM. Burton25 min · TRB. Hammer14 min · TRZ. Halligan12 minC. White9 min · TRM. Musiime-Kamali9 min
Guards
C. O'Hara33 min · TRD. Pangonis27 minC. Traylor17 min · TRA. Holden14 minI. Milijasevic8 min · TRP. DouglasNew
Forwards
K. Pickett23 minS. JohnsonNewN. LewisNew
Centers
N. Djapa10 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 86.4 #8 | Points per game | 79.8 #72 |
| 1.22 #6 | Points per possession | 1.16 #54 |
| 71.1 #70 | Pace (possessions) | 69.1 #171 |
| Shooting | ||
| 58.1 #9 | Effective FG% | 54.3 #56 |
| 38.2 #15 | 3-point % | 36.4 #44 |
| 44.8 #74 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.2 #290 |
| 29.2 #327 | Free throw rate | 37.4 #120 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.5 #104 | Turnover rate | 16.1 #149 |
| 33.4 #78 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.8 #91 |
| 17.7 #12 | Assists per game | 13.2 #199 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.0 #188 | Points allowed | 75.6 #206 |
| 1.06 #98 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #201 |
| 51.2 #173 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #238 |
| 35.5 #284 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #203 |
| 18.3 #86 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #179 |
| 70.1 #156 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.6 #129 |
| 7.2 #108 | Steals per game | 7.1 #114 |
| 2.9 #240 | Blocks per game | 4.4 #47 |
Akron
27-6 in 2025-26 overall · 20-1 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Texas Tech71–91
- Wvs Toledo79–76
- Wvs Kent State75–68
- Wvs Buffalo73–70
- Wvs N Illinois94–55
A week or more of rest.
Wright St
21-12 in 2025-26 overall · 18-5 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Virginia73–82
- Wvs Detroit Mercy66–63
- Wvs N Kentucky103–90
- Wvs Cleveland St90–61
- W@ N Kentucky92–91
A week or more of rest.