C Michigan at Notre Dame
Tuesday, November 24, 2026, 8:00 PM ET at Purcell Pavilion. C Michigan our rank 209 · 3-0; Notre Dame our rank 59 · 4-0.
Who will win C Michigan vs Notre Dame?
The model gives Notre Dame a 96% chance to beat Central Michigan, with a projected score of Notre Dame 86, C Michigan 66.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 90–100% have been right 95.4% of the time in 11,767 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 8.8 points. After the final, the result is pinned to this strip. As of 2:23 AM ET on November 13, 2026. Updated three times a day until tip-off.
Players to watch
| Player | Pts | Reb | Ast | Last games | Chance of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notre Dame | |||||
| RobertsG · 24 min | 19.4 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 20+ 46% | |
| DuncombC · 22 min | 13.7 | 7.7 | 1.5 | 15+ 41% | |
| KoehlerF · 24 min | 12.8 | 5.7 | 1.5 | 15+ 36% | |
| ShrewsberryG · 27 min | 11.8 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 10+ 61% | |
| C Michigan | |||||
| Phat BrooksG · 27 min | 13.9 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 15+ 42% | |
| GarnerF · 24 min | 8.2 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 10+ 35% | |
| KampenG · 24 min | 7.8 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 10+ 32% | |
| PettyG · 19 min | 7.1 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 5+ 65% | |
Bars: points in the player's latest games this season. Blue line: tonight's projection. Every regular's line
The game without one player
Without Braeden Smith: C Michigan 7%Notre Dame 93%
The white mark is the call with him: Notre Dame 96%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | Notre Dame without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notre Dame | ||||
| Braeden Smith | 3.3 | 93% | −3 | 68–84 |
| Logan Duncomb | 3.1 | 93% | −3 | 68–84 |
| Brady Koehler | 2.1 | 94% | −2 | 67–85 |
| Braeden Shrewsberry | 2.0 | 94% | −2 | 67–85 |
| C Michigan | ||||
| Phat Phat Brooks | 0.6 | 96% | 0 | 66–86 |
Change is in Notre Dame's win chance, in points. Scores read C Michigan, then Notre Dame. A player's value is what the team is better by with him than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
C Michigan 3-0WWW
- Nov 10W 91-78vs Youngstown StCovered −3.5 · Over 152.5
- Nov 6W 93-50vs Alma
- Nov 2W 83-78at UL Monroe
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 89.0 and allowing 68.7
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–0
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 0 under
Notre Dame 4-0WWWW
- Nov 11W 99-59vs SC StateCovered −26.5 · Over 149.5
- Nov 9W 94-70vs E IllinoisDidn't cover −28.5 · Over 139.5
- Nov 5W 83-56vs MercyhurstCovered −21.5 · Over 137.5
- Nov 1W 74-72vs Villanova
- Last 4
- 4–0, scoring 87.5 and allowing 64.2
- Against the spread, this season
- 2–1
- Totals, this season
- 3 over, 0 under
The spread and the total are the lines logged with each prediction. Form is what happened; the ratings above already count recent games more.
Offense against defense
| C Michigan | Notre Dame | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 104.4 174th | 113.1 67th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 111.2 268th | 99.2 46th |
| Possessions a game | 71.0 157th | 70.7 196th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 53.7% 20th | 54.9% 6th |
| Opponents' shooting | 50.7% 200th | 50.2% 162nd |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 18.4% 222nd | 18.0% 177th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 33.6% 78th | 31.5% 197th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.28 76th | 0.25 249th |
The widest gap: Notre Dame's offense (67th) against C Michigan's defense (268th), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- C Michigan 30, Notre Dame 41
- First-half margin
- Notre Dame by 10.8
- First-half points, both teams
- 71.5
- Projected second half
- C Michigan 36, Notre Dame 45
- Second-half points, both teams
- 80.9
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- C Michigan, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 3 · 41.7 scored, 33.3 allowed
- Notre Dame, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 44.7 scored, 28.0 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 11,516 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 67.2% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.1 points on average. This season: 366 of 476 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
C Michigan
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phat Phat BrooksG | 27 | 13.9 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 0.7 |
| 15+ pts 42% · 3+ reb 48% · 1+ threes 48% | |||||
| Keenan GarnerF | 24 | 8.2 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 0.6 |
| 10+ pts 35% · 5+ reb 57% · 2+ ast 45% | |||||
| Jalen KampenG | 24 | 7.8 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 32% · 3+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 54% | |||||
| Jaxson WhitakerG | 24 | 6.5 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 5+ pts 60% · 2+ ast 38% · 2+ threes 39% | |||||
| Jayson PettyG | 19 | 7.1 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 65% · 3+ reb 49% · 1+ threes 49% | |||||
| Conrad LuczynskiC | 18 | 7.0 | 4.3 | 0.9 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 65% · 4+ reb 58% · 2+ ast 24% | |||||
| Brock MendozaC | 17 | 5.3 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 49% · 3+ reb 59% · 2+ ast 17% | |||||
| Jake BascomF | 17 | 5.7 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 53% · 3+ reb 57% · 1+ threes 23% | |||||
Notre Dame
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braeden ShrewsberryG | 27 | 11.8 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
| 10+ pts 61% · 3+ ast 49% · 3+ threes 48% | |||||
| Braeden SmithG | 24 | 7.5 | 2.7 | 6.1 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 68% · 3+ reb 47% · 6+ ast 55% | |||||
| Ethan RobertsG | 24 | 19.4 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 2.5 |
| 20+ pts 46% · 4+ reb 44% · 2+ ast 54% | |||||
| Brady KoehlerF | 24 | 12.8 | 5.7 | 1.5 | 1.2 |
| 15+ pts 36% · 6+ reb 48% · 2+ ast 42% | |||||
| Logan DuncombC | 22 | 13.7 | 7.7 | 1.5 | 0.0 |
| 15+ pts 41% · 8+ reb 48% · 2+ ast 42% | |||||
| Logan ImesG | 16 | 6.6 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 1.0 |
| 5+ pts 61% · 3+ reb 42% · 1+ threes 59% | |||||
| Jonathan SandersonG | 15 | 5.4 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 5+ pts 50% · 2+ reb 53% · 1+ threes 56% | |||||
| Bryce Ruglass DortchF | 14 | 2.1 | 3.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 16% · 3+ reb 55% | |||||
Our own projections from each player's minutes and production, this opponent and the game's pace: not a sportsbook's lines. Under each name, the round numbers the player is about as likely as not to reach. How they have done
Win probability
Game chat
Loading the chat…