Michigan St at Harvard
Women's · Sunday, November 15, 2026, 2:00 PM ET at Lavietes Pavilion. Michigan St our rank 25 · 3-0; Harvard our rank 44 · 3-1.
Who will win Michigan St vs Harvard?
The model gives Michigan State a 51% chance to beat Harvard, with a projected score of Michigan St 69, Harvard 69.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 50–60% have been right 55.7% of the time in 7,540 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 9.5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan St | |||||
| BlairG · 29 min | 13.7 | 6.2 | 4.8 | 15+ 41% | |
| HallockG · 27 min | 11.3 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 10+ 58% | |
| BobongieG · 26 min | 9.0 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 10+ 40% | |
| OttoF · 22 min | 7.9 | 5.8 | 1.0 | 10+ 33% | |
| Harvard | |||||
| WhiteG · 30 min | 16.1 | 5.3 | 2.9 | 15+ 56% | |
| WrightF · 28 min | 15.3 | 6.2 | 1.9 | 15+ 51% | |
| JonesG · 33 min | 10.1 | 7.7 | 2.9 | 10+ 49% | |
| ChatiraG · 33 min | 6.6 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 5+ 62% | |
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 Kennedy Blair: Michigan St 28%Harvard 72%
The white mark is the call with her: Michigan St 51%.
| Player | Points a game she adds | Michigan St without her | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan St | ||||
| Kennedy Blair | 6.5 | 28% | −23 | 66–72 |
| Theryn Hallock | 4.6 | 34% | −17 | 67–71 |
| Amy Terrian | 3.5 | 38% | −13 | 67–71 |
| Tabitha Betson | 3.1 | 40% | −11 | 68–70 |
| Harvard | ||||
| Karlee White | 4.6 | 68% | +17 | 71–67 |
| Olivia Jones | 3.6 | 64% | +13 | 71–67 |
| Abigail Wright | 3.5 | 64% | +13 | 71–67 |
| Mary Hollensteiner | 2.2 | 59% | +8 | 70–68 |
Change is in Michigan St's win chance, in points. Scores read Michigan St, then Harvard. A player's value is what the team is better by with her than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
Michigan St 3-0WWW
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 87.0 and allowing 52.7
Harvard 3-1LWWW
- Nov 11W 78-65vs UMass
- Nov 9W 63-42at Holy Cross
- Nov 5W 81-51vs Boston College
- Nov 2L 62-82at Minnesota
- Last 4
- 3–1, scoring 71.0 and allowing 60.0
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
| Michigan St | Harvard | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 107.1 29th | 103.6 45th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 81.2 27th | 83.7 52nd |
| Possessions a game | 74.2 37th | 70.5 318th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 46.9% 100th | 46.1% 135th |
| Opponents' shooting | 42.6% 30th | 43.2% 51st |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 21.2% 30th | 22.0% 58th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 33.9% 129th | 37.5% 25th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.23 72nd | 0.22 123rd |
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Michigan St 33, Harvard 33
- First-half margin
- Michigan St by 0.2
- First-half points, both teams
- 65.4
- Projected second half
- Michigan St 36, Harvard 36
- Second-half points, both teams
- 72.6
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Michigan St, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 43.0 scored, 19.3 allowed
- Harvard, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 4 · 34.8 scored, 26.0 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 10,911 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 73.0% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.0 points on average. This season: 404 of 492 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
Michigan St
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kennedy BlairG | 29 | 13.7 | 6.2 | 4.8 | 0.5 |
| 15+ pts 41% · 6+ reb 54% · 5+ ast 51% | |||||
| Theryn HallockG | 27 | 11.3 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 58% · 3+ reb 57% · 1+ threes 56% | |||||
| Monique BobongieG | 26 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 40% · 4+ reb 52% · 2+ ast 50% | |||||
| Tabitha BetsonF | 24 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 48% · 5+ reb 50% · 2+ ast 42% | |||||
| Kathy-Emma OttoF | 22 | 7.9 | 5.8 | 1.0 | 0.2 |
| 10+ pts 33% · 6+ reb 50% · 2+ ast 25% | |||||
| Amy TerrianG | 20 | 5.4 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 1.4 |
| 5+ pts 50% · 2+ reb 50% · 2+ threes 37% | |||||
| Emma BrolironG | 16 | 5.0 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 47% · 2+ reb 43% · 1+ threes 45% | |||||
| Anna WypychG | 10 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 34% · 2+ reb 28% · 1+ threes 42% | |||||
Harvard
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lydia ChatiraG | 33 | 6.6 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 62% · 3+ ast 48% · 1+ threes 50% | |||||
| Olivia JonesG | 33 | 10.1 | 7.7 | 2.9 | 1.0 |
| 10+ pts 49% · 8+ reb 48% · 3+ ast 53% | |||||
| Karlee WhiteG | 30 | 16.1 | 5.3 | 2.9 | 1.7 |
| 15+ pts 56% · 3+ ast 53% · 2+ threes 46% | |||||
| Abigail WrightF | 28 | 15.3 | 6.2 | 1.9 | 0.1 |
| 15+ pts 51% · 6+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 53% | |||||
| Mary HollensteinerG | 23 | 6.6 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| 5+ pts 62% · 3+ reb 55% · 1+ threes 61% | |||||
| Sam WillsF | 15 | 3.8 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 33% · 3+ reb 51% · 1+ threes 29% | |||||
| Alayna RoccoG | 12 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 22% · 2+ reb 28% · 1+ threes 46% | |||||
| Asani CeaserF | 11 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 17% · 3+ reb 47% · 2+ ast 17% | |||||
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…