Michigan at C Michigan
Women's · Monday, November 16, 2026, 8:00 PM ET at McGuirk Arena. Michigan AP 2, our rank 3 · 3-0; C Michigan our rank 253 · 0-3.
Who will win Michigan vs C Michigan?
The model gives Michigan a >99% chance to beat Central Michigan, with a projected score of Michigan 88, C Michigan 42.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 90–100% have been right 96.1% of the time in 10,929 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 | |||||
| OlsonG · 28 min | 17.7 | 5.6 | 4.2 | 20+ 37% | |
| SwordsG · 28 min | 14.0 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 15+ 43% | |
| DelfosseG · 27 min | 13.4 | 6.4 | 2.4 | 15+ 39% | |
| LoughridgeG · 28 min | 11.3 | 3.0 | 5.8 | 10+ 58% | |
| C Michigan | |||||
| DavisG · 24 min | 6.1 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 5+ 57% | |
| SmithF · 24 min | 6.0 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 5+ 56% | |
| DavisG · 22 min | 5.2 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 5+ 49% | |
| GreenG · 20 min | 3.4 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 5+ 29% | |
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 Olivia Olson: Michigan 99%C Michigan 1%
The white mark is the call with her: Michigan >99%.
| Player | Points a game she adds | Michigan without her | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | ||||
| Olivia Olson | 8.7 | 99% | −1 | 83–47 |
| Te'Yala Delfosse | 7.5 | >99% | 0 | 84–46 |
| Syla Swords | 7.0 | >99% | 0 | 84–46 |
| Kendall Dudley | 5.3 | >99% | 0 | 85–45 |
| C Michigan | ||||
| Indya Davis | 1.0 | >99% | 0 | 88–42 |
| Summer Davis | 0.8 | >99% | 0 | 88–42 |
Change is in Michigan's win chance, in points. Scores read Michigan, then C Michigan. 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 3-0WWW
- Nov 12W 81-58at ColumbiaCovered −18.5 · Under 142.5
- Nov 8W 109-52vs Wright St
- Nov 5W 77-66vs UConnCovered +8.5 · Over 142.5
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 89.0 and allowing 58.7
- Against the spread, this season
- 2–0
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 1 under
C Michigan 0-3LLL
- Nov 8L 42-74vs Butler
- Nov 5L 36-103at Ohio StateDidn't cover +45.5 · Under 143.5
- Nov 2L 58-62vs Old Dominion
- Last 3
- 0–3, scoring 45.3 and allowing 79.7
- Against the spread, this season
- 0–1
- Totals, this season
- 0 over, 1 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
| Michigan | C Michigan | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 118.5 5th | 76.5 348th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 72.2 3rd | 89.2 97th |
| Possessions a game | 73.7 57th | 74.3 29th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 50.2% 10th | 38.7% 363rd |
| Opponents' shooting | 42.6% 28th | 46.4% 235th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 21.6% 38th | 29.4% 358th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 35.1% 77th | 30.4% 302nd |
| Free throws per shot | 0.20 236th | 0.21 173rd |
The widest gap: Michigan's defense (3rd) against C Michigan's offense (348th), of 363 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Michigan 44, C Michigan 18
- First-half margin
- Michigan by 26.2
- First-half points, both teams
- 61.6
- Projected second half
- Michigan 44, C Michigan 25
- Second-half points, both teams
- 68.4
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Michigan, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 44.3 scored, 24.7 allowed
- C Michigan, first halves so far
- Led 1 of 3 · 19.7 scored, 38.0 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
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dallas LoughridgeG | 28 | 11.3 | 3.0 | 5.8 | 1.0 |
| 10+ pts 58% · 3+ reb 53% · 6+ ast 50% | |||||
| Syla SwordsG | 28 | 14.0 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| 15+ pts 43% · 4+ reb 45% · 2+ threes 50% | |||||
| Olivia OlsonG | 28 | 17.7 | 5.6 | 4.2 | 1.2 |
| 20+ pts 37% · 6+ reb 47% · 4+ ast 59% | |||||
| Te'Yala DelfosseG | 27 | 13.4 | 6.4 | 2.4 | 1.3 |
| 15+ pts 39% · 7+ reb 44% · 3+ ast 43% | |||||
| Kendall DudleyG | 24 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 1.8 | 0.2 |
| 10+ pts 48% · 6+ reb 52% · 2+ ast 51% | |||||
| Ashley SofilkanichF | 17 | 7.5 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 69% · 4+ reb 57% · 2+ ast 16% | |||||
| Courtney OgdenG | 17 | 8.5 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 37% · 3+ reb 42% · 1+ threes 46% | |||||
| Devin CosgriffG | 14 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 37% · 2+ reb 57% · 1+ threes 41% | |||||
C Michigan
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riley SmithF | 24 | 6.0 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 |
| 5+ pts 56% · 3+ reb 43% · 1+ threes 57% | |||||
| Summer DavisG | 24 | 6.1 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 57% · 3+ reb 47% · 1+ threes 45% | |||||
| Indya DavisG | 22 | 5.2 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 49% · 4+ reb 45% · 1+ threes 27% | |||||
| Nevaeh WilliamsG | 21 | 3.3 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 28% · 2+ reb 56% · 1+ threes 25% | |||||
| Jailenn GreenG | 20 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 29% · 2+ reb 38% · 1+ threes 38% | |||||
| Lilah TurnbullG | 19 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 28% · 2+ reb 53% · 1+ threes 39% | |||||
| Rylan BuschellG | 17 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.1 |
| 2+ reb 19% · 2+ ast 20% | |||||
| Kara BartelsC | 16 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 26% · 3+ reb 54% | |||||
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…