Stephen C. O'Connell Center · at Florida
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FLA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FLA 97–54 · win probability FLA 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.0
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: FLA has more of the edges
UVM 1, FLA 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
UVM has played the 325th-hardest schedule, FLA the 9th. A record against a soft schedule means less
UVM offense vs FLA defense
Offense 264th of 366 against a defense 4th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UVM 26.2%, FLA 43.4%. Defensive: UVM 77.0%, FLA 75.2%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UVM plays 65.2 a game (342nd fastest), FLA 72.0 (34th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: UVM 31.1, FLA 39.0. Allowed: UVM 36.4, FLA 34.0
FLA offense vs UVM defense
Offense 1st of 366 against a defense 134th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UVM 31%, FLA 85%. Transfers in: UVM 4, FLA 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Shooting
Effective FG%: UVM 53.1 and allows 50.4; FLA 54.1 and allows 46.1
Home court
FLA at home. This season: FLA 0-0 at home, UVM 0-0 away
Three-pointers
UVM hits 33.3% and allows 35.3%; FLA hits 31.2% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 44.6% and 37.0% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UVM 14.3%, FLA 16.4%. Forced: UVM 14.8%, FLA 15.2%
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 | — | FLA -43.3 | — |
| Total | — | 151.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | UVM 53.8 · FLA 97.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FLA -25.6 | — |
| 1H total | 70.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | UVM 22.5 · FLA 48.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | |
| 8-2 80% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Vermont
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg −2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +2 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 9 | @ | W 89-84 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 85-74 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 134.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 90-94 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 73-79 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 65-80 | +4.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 79-74 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 74-77 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 58-80 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 65-56 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 142.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 66-59 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 136.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 83-69 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 134.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 78-83 | -6.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 69-75 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 80-61 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 60-59 | -20.5 | L −19.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 67-62 | -14.5 | L −9.5 | 130.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 68-75 | -5.5 | L −12.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 77-68 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 62-52 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 64-55 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 77-79 | -13.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 70-76 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 130.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 80-57 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 73-65 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 136.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 90-63 | -13.5 | W +13.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 62-75 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 70-64 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 66-64 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 69-56 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 136.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 77-57 | -11.5 | W +8.5 | 130.5 | O 134 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 63-54 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 134.5 | U 117 |
| Mar 14 | @ | L 59-74 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
9
@
BRWN
W 89-84
−0.5
15
@
NE
W 85-74
+12.5
18
@
BUF
L 90-94
−5.5
24
vs
LIB
L 73-79
+2.5
25
vs
URI
L 65-80
−10.5
26
vs
PRIN
W 79-74
−0.5
30
vs
YALE
L 74-77
+3.5
3
@
ORST
L 58-80
−18.5
6
@
PEPP
W 65-56
+7.5
14
vs
MRMK
W 66-59
+0.5
17
vs
SIE
W 83-69
+11.5
20
vs
IONA
L 78-83
−11.5
30
@
PRIN
L 69-75
−9.5
3
@
UNH
W 80-61
+11.5
8
vs
BING
W 60-59
−19.5
15
vs
ME
W 67-62
−9.5
19
@
UALB
L 68-75
−12.5
22
@
UML
W 77-68
+4.5
24
@
BRY
W 62-52
+1.5
29
vs
UMBC
W 64-55
+0.5
31
vs
NJIT
L 77-79
−15.5
5
@
ME
L 70-76
−14.5
7
vs
UNH
W 80-57
+13.5
12
@
BING
W 73-65
−3.5
14
vs
BRY
W 90-63
+13.5
19
@
UMBC
L 62-75
−14.5
21
@
NJIT
W 70-64
−0.5
26
vs
UML
W 66-64
−7.5
3
vs
UALB
W 69-56
+3.5
7
vs
BRY
W 77-57
+8.5
10
vs
NJIT
W 63-54
−1.5
14
@
UMBC
L 59-74
−13.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
9
@
BRWN
W 89-84
+41.5
15
@
NE
W 85-74
+24.5
18
@
BUF
L 90-94
+42.5
24
vs
LIB
L 73-79
+10.5
25
vs
URI
L 65-80
+0.5
26
vs
PRIN
W 79-74
+12.5
30
vs
YALE
L 74-77
+3.5
3
@
ORST
L 58-80
−5.5
6
@
PEPP
W 65-56
−21.5
14
vs
MRMK
W 66-59
−11.5
17
vs
SIE
W 83-69
+17.5
20
vs
IONA
L 78-83
+8.5
30
@
PRIN
L 69-75
+7.5
3
@
UNH
W 80-61
+1.5
8
vs
BING
W 60-59
−21.5
15
vs
ME
W 67-62
−1.5
19
@
UALB
L 68-75
+3.5
22
@
UML
W 77-68
−0.5
24
@
BRY
W 62-52
−19.5
29
vs
UMBC
W 64-55
−22.5
31
vs
NJIT
L 77-79
+16.5
5
@
ME
L 70-76
+15.5
7
vs
UNH
W 80-57
−1.5
12
@
BING
W 73-65
+1.5
14
vs
BRY
W 90-63
+19.5
19
@
UMBC
L 62-75
−5.5
21
@
NJIT
W 70-64
−8.5
26
vs
UML
W 66-64
−16.5
3
vs
UALB
W 69-56
−11.5
7
vs
BRY
W 77-57
+3.5
10
vs
NJIT
W 63-54
−17.5
14
@
UMBC
L 59-74
−1.5
over 17under 15avg +2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Florida
35 games played
Straight up
27-8
77% wins
Against the spread
19-16
54% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-20
43% overs · avg −2 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 87-93 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 104-64 | -43.5 | L −3.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 78-76 | -17.5 | L −15.5 | 180.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 82-68 | -10.5 | W +3.5 | 171.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 80-45 | -36.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 80-84 | -11.5 | L −15.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 90-78 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 66-67 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 73-77 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 80-70 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 102-61 | -44.5 | L −3.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 90-60 | -27.5 | W +2.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 94-72 | -35.5 | L −13.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 74-76 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 92-77 | -9.5 | W +5.5 | 172.5 | U 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 91-67 | -4.5 | W +19.5 | 151.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 96-79 | -7.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 98-94 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 164.5 | O 192 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 79-61 | -15.5 | W +2.5 | 158.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 67-76 | -11.5 | L −20.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 95-48 | -13.5 | W +33.5 | 151.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 100-77 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 176.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 86-67 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 167.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 86-66 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 164.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 92-83 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 76-62 | -23.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 94-75 | -13.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 84-71 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 111-77 | -9.5 | W +24.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 108-74 | -20.5 | W +13.5 | 161.5 | O 182 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 84-77 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 71-63 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 74-91 | -7.5 | L −24.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 114-55 | -35.5 | W +23.5 | 154.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 72-73 | -10.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
ARIZ
L 87-93
−9.5
6
vs
UNF
W 104-64
−3.5
11
vs
FSU
W 78-76
−15.5
16
vs
MIA
W 82-68
+3.5
21
vs
MRMK
W 80-45
−1.5
27
vs
TCU
L 80-84
−15.5
28
vs
PROV
W 90-78
−0.5
2
@
DUKE
L 66-67
+8.5
9
vs
CONN
L 73-77
+0.5
13
vs
GW
W 80-70
−4.5
17
vs
SFPA
W 102-61
−3.5
21
vs
COLG
W 90-60
+2.5
29
vs
DART
W 94-72
−13.5
3
@
MIZ
L 74-76
−9.5
6
vs
UGA
W 92-77
+5.5
10
vs
TENN
W 91-67
+19.5
13
@
OU
W 96-79
+9.5
17
@
VAN
W 98-94
+2.5
20
vs
LSU
W 79-61
+2.5
24
vs
AUB
L 67-76
−20.5
28
@
SC
W 95-48
+33.5
1
vs
ALA
W 100-77
+13.5
7
@
TA&M
W 86-67
+13.5
11
@
UGA
W 86-66
+11.5
14
vs
UK
W 92-83
−3.5
17
vs
SC
W 76-62
−9.5
21
@
MISS
W 94-75
+5.5
25
@
TEX
W 84-71
+6.5
28
vs
ARK
W 111-77
+24.5
3
vs
MSST
W 108-74
+13.5
7
@
UK
W 84-77
+1.5
13
vs
UK
W 71-63
−2.5
14
vs
VAN
L 74-91
−24.5
20
vs
PV
W 114-55
+23.5
22
vs
IOWA
L 72-73
−11.5
covered 19didn’t cover 16avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
ARIZ
L 87-93
+15.5
6
vs
UNF
W 104-64
−1.5
11
vs
FSU
W 78-76
−26.5
16
vs
MIA
W 82-68
−21.5
21
vs
MRMK
W 80-45
−33.5
27
vs
TCU
L 80-84
+8.5
28
vs
PROV
W 90-78
−1.5
2
@
DUKE
L 66-67
−24.5
9
vs
CONN
L 73-77
+4.5
13
vs
GW
W 80-70
−12.5
17
vs
SFPA
W 102-61
+6.5
21
vs
COLG
W 90-60
−6.5
29
vs
DART
W 94-72
+5.5
3
@
MIZ
L 74-76
−4.5
6
vs
UGA
W 92-77
−3.5
10
vs
TENN
W 91-67
+6.5
13
@
OU
W 96-79
+17.5
17
@
VAN
W 98-94
+27.5
20
vs
LSU
W 79-61
−18.5
24
vs
AUB
L 67-76
−16.5
28
@
SC
W 95-48
−8.5
1
vs
ALA
W 100-77
+0.5
7
@
TA&M
W 86-67
−14.5
11
@
UGA
W 86-66
−12.5
14
vs
UK
W 92-83
+20.5
17
vs
SC
W 76-62
−18.5
21
@
MISS
W 94-75
+16.5
25
@
TEX
W 84-71
−2.5
28
vs
ARK
W 111-77
+18.5
3
vs
MSST
W 108-74
+20.5
7
@
UK
W 84-77
−1.5
13
vs
UK
W 71-63
−27.5
14
vs
VAN
L 74-91
+3.5
20
vs
PV
W 114-55
+14.5
22
vs
IOWA
L 72-73
−0.5
over 15under 20avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Florida has the better starters
Position by position: Vermont 0, Florida 4, even 1
VermontBetterFlorida
G D. Yepdo TR10.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 24
→FLABig
G D. Aberdeen TR13.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 90
G J. Broom TR2 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 14
→FLABig
G B. Fland11.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 89
G M. Nkugwa2.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
→FLABig
F T. Haugh17.1 pts · 6.1 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 97
F G. Yalden16.1 pts · 5.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 96
=Even
F A. Condon15.1 pts · 7.5 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 98
F N. Barnett5.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 41
→FLABig
C R. Chinyelu10.9 pts · 11.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 97
VermontBetterFlorida
UVM offense264th of 366 · -8.1
→FLABig
FLA defense4th of 366 · +10.4
UVM defense134th of 366 · -2.5
→FLABig
FLA offense1st of 366 · +17.0
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
→FLABig
Backcourt+5.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt+3.3 · 2 players
→FLABig
Frontcourt+17.1 · 3 players
Bench-1.4 · 3 players
→FLABig
Bench+3.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUVM betterFLA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Yepdo32 min · TRJ. Broom15 min · TRM. Nkugwa13 minD. Glazkov13 min · TRK. Badru10 min · TRS. Clemons2 min
Forwards
G. Yalden26 minN. Barnett22 minM. BrunettoNewM. MasicNewS. GbiegbaNew
Guards
D. Aberdeen31 min · TRB. Fland30 minU. Klavzar21 minI. Brown13 minC. Ingram6 minA. Lloyd5 min
Forwards
T. Haugh33 minA. Condon31 minD. PetrovicNewA. ButajevasNew
Centers
R. Chinyelu25 minV. Mikic3 minJ. LayNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.1 #237 | Points per game | 87.1 #5 |
| 1.11 #124 | Points per possession | 1.21 #7 |
| 65.2 #342 | Pace (possessions) | 72.0 #34 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.1 #95 | Effective FG% | 54.1 #63 |
| 33.3 #208 | 3-point % | 31.2 #315 |
| 44.6 #77 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.0 #230 |
| 31.1 #279 | Free throw rate | 39.0 #80 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #34 | Turnover rate | 16.4 #162 |
| 26.2 #318 | Offensive rebound rate | 43.4 #2 |
| 12.3 #266 | Assists per game | 17.0 #26 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.8 #44 | Points allowed | 71.5 #93 |
| 1.05 #96 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #19 |
| 50.4 #121 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.1 #10 |
| 35.3 #267 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #66 |
| 14.8 #307 | Turnovers forced | 15.2 #269 |
| 77.0 #2 | Defensive rebound rate | 75.2 #7 |
| 4.5 #354 | Steals per game | 6.6 #158 |
| 2.7 #279 | Blocks per game | 5.0 #16 |
Vermont
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-5 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ UMBC59–74
- Wvs NJIT63–54
- Wvs Bryant77–57
- Wvs UAlbany69–56
- Wvs UMass Lowell66–64
A week or more of rest.
Florida
27-8 in 2025-26 overall · 17-3 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Iowa72–73
- Wvs Prairie View114–55
- Lvs Vanderbilt74–91
- Wvs Kentucky71–63
- W@ Kentucky84–77
A week or more of rest.