UMass Lowell River Hawks at Georgetown Hoyas: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Dec 2, 6:30 PM ETCapital One Arena · at Georgetown

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: UMass Lowell and Georgetown
UML	This season	GTWN
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 GTWN 88–61 · win probability GTWN 99%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 148.7

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: GTWN has more of the edges

UML 1, GTWN 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Schedule so far

UML has played the 312th-hardest schedule, GTWN the 47th. A record against a soft schedule means less

GTWNBig

GTWN offense vs UML defense

Offense 75th of 366 against a defense 318th, on the model’s ratings

GTWNBig

UML offense vs GTWN defense

Offense 286th of 366 against a defense 46th, on the model’s ratings

GTWNBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: UML 18.0%, GTWN 15.8%. Forced: UML 14.2%, GTWN 16.2%

GTWNSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: UML 49.8 and allows 53.5; GTWN 49.6 and allows 50.0

UMLSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: UML 32.7%, GTWN 32.5%. Defensive: UML 70.7%, GTWN 68.5%

GTWNSmall

Home court

GTWN at home. This season: GTWN 0-0 at home, UML 0-0 away

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: UML 16%, GTWN 38%. Transfers in: UML 3, GTWN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Three-pointers

UML hits 32.2% and allows 34.6%; GTWN hits 31.8% and allows 33.3%. Threes are 31.3% and 35.2% of their shots

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: UML 34.9, GTWN 37.3. Allowed: UML 28.3, GTWN 33.9

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: UML plays 68.9 a game (189th fastest), GTWN 67.8 (238th). Faster games mean more points

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	GTWN -26.5	—
Total	—	148.7	—
Projected score	—	UML 61.1 · GTWN 87.6

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	GTWN -15.6	—
1H total	69.5	—
1H projected score	UML 27 · GTWN 42.6	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
UML WLWWL	16-14	53%	9-10	—
GTWN WLWWL	14-20	41%	4-13	—

Venue/role: UML away; GTWN home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
UML UUUOO	14-16	47%	12-18
GTWN UOUOU	18-16	53%	16-18

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
UML	6-4 60%	7-3 70%	5-5 50%
GTWN	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	5-5 50%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

UMass Lowell

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 5	@ BC	No recent meeting
Dec 9	@ SHU	W87–82WO
Dec 12	vs STO	W75–64WU

Georgetown

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 9	vs RID	No recent meeting
Dec 12	vs UNC	L61–81LU

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

UMass Lowell

30 games played

Straight up

12-18

40% wins

Against the spread

16-14

53% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

14-16

47% overs · avg +1.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

12-1840%

L L L L L L W L L W L L W W W L L L L W L W W W W L L W W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1453%

L L L L W W W L W W L W W W L L L L L W L W W W W W L W W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

14-1647%

O U O O O U U U U O O O O U U U U U U O U O O U O U U U O O

2 straight overs2 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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 7	@CONN	L 47-110	+36.5	L −26.5	151.5	O 157
Nov 10	vsNHVN	L 67-73	-10.5	L −16.5	142.5	U 140
Nov 13	@COLU	L 72-86	+13.5	L −0.5	156.5	O 158
Nov 16	@WAKE	L 75-109	+30.5	L −3.5	165.5	O 184
Nov 19	@BRAD	L 77-87	+21.5	W +11.5	149.5	O 164
Nov 22	@SPU	L 66-68	+8.5	W +6.5	147.5	U 134
Nov 26	@STO	W 75-64	+2.5	W +13.5	148.5	U 139
Dec 6	@MASS	L 60-80	+11.5	L −8.5	155.5	U 140
Dec 13	@QUIN	L 71-75	+12.5	W +8.5	153.5	U 146
Dec 16	vsSHU	W 87-82	+2.5	W +7.5	151.5	O 169
Dec 21	@BU	L 76-88	+5.5	L −6.5	145.5	O 164
Dec 29	@IOWA	L 62-90	+33.5	W +5.5	145.5	O 152
Jan 3	vsUALB	W 83-71	-2.5	W +9.5	150.5	O 154
Jan 8	@BRY	W 77-63	+2.5	W +16.5	143.5	U 140
Jan 10	@BING	W 73-68	-6.5	L −1.5	146.5	U 141
Jan 15	vsNJIT	L 64-73	-8.5	L −17.5	145.5	U 137
Jan 22	vsUVM	L 68-77	+4.5	L −4.5	145.5	U 145
Jan 24	@UMBC	L 56-79	+2.5	L −20.5	151.5	U 135
Jan 29	@UNH	L 61-66	+3.5	L −1.5	146.5	U 127
Jan 31	vsME	W 91-77	-4.5	W +9.5	136.5	O 168
Feb 5	@NJIT	L 56-81	+1.5	L −23.5	149.5	U 137
Feb 7	@UALB	W 89-79	+4.5	W +14.5	143.5	O 168
Feb 12	vsBRY	W 88-69	-4.5	W +14.5	141.5	O 157
Feb 19	vsUNH	W 78-56	-3.5	W +18.5	151.5	U 134
Feb 21	vsBING	W 92-79	-9.5	W +3.5	146.5	O 171
Feb 26	@UVM	L 64-66	+9.5	W +7.5	146.5	U 130
Feb 28	vsUMBC	L 60-84	+2.5	L −21.5	150.5	U 144
Mar 3	@ME	W 67-56	-1.5	W +9.5	139.5	U 123
Mar 7	vsUALB	W 81-76	-2.5	W +2.5	146.5	O 157
Mar 10	@UMBC	L 69-91	+7.5	L −14.5	147.5	O 160

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

CONN

L 47-110

−26.5

NHVN

L 67-73

−16.5

COLU

L 72-86

−0.5

WAKE

L 75-109

−3.5

BRAD

L 77-87

+11.5

SPU

L 66-68

+6.5

STO

W 75-64

+13.5

MASS

L 60-80

−8.5

QUIN

L 71-75

+8.5

SHU

W 87-82

+7.5

L 76-88

−6.5

IOWA

L 62-90

+5.5

UALB

W 83-71

+9.5

BRY

W 77-63

+16.5

BING

W 73-68

−1.5

NJIT

L 64-73

−17.5

UVM

L 68-77

−4.5

UMBC

L 56-79

−20.5

UNH

L 61-66

−1.5

W 91-77

+9.5

NJIT

L 56-81

−23.5

UALB

W 89-79

+14.5

BRY

W 88-69

+14.5

UNH

W 78-56

+18.5

BING

W 92-79

+3.5

UVM

L 64-66

+7.5

UMBC

L 60-84

−21.5

W 67-56

+9.5

UALB

W 81-76

+2.5

UMBC

L 69-91

−14.5

covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

CONN

L 47-110

+5.5

NHVN

L 67-73

−2.5

COLU

L 72-86

+1.5

WAKE

L 75-109

+18.5

BRAD

L 77-87

+14.5

SPU

L 66-68

−13.5

STO

W 75-64

−9.5

MASS

L 60-80

−15.5

QUIN

L 71-75

−7.5

SHU

W 87-82

+17.5

L 76-88

+18.5

IOWA

L 62-90

+6.5

UALB

W 83-71

+3.5

BRY

W 77-63

−3.5

BING

W 73-68

−5.5

NJIT

L 64-73

−8.5

UVM

L 68-77

−0.5

UMBC

L 56-79

−16.5

UNH

L 61-66

−19.5

W 91-77

+31.5

NJIT

L 56-81

−12.5

UALB

W 89-79

+24.5

BRY

W 88-69

+15.5

UNH

W 78-56

−17.5

BING

W 92-79

+24.5

UVM

L 64-66

−16.5

UMBC

L 60-84

−6.5

W 67-56

−16.5

UALB

W 81-76

+10.5

UMBC

L 69-91

+12.5

over 14under 16avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Georgetown

34 games played

Straight up

16-18

47% wins

Against the spread

14-20

41% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

18-16

53% overs · avg +0.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1847%

W W W W W L L W L W W L W L L L L L L W W W W L L L L L L L W W W L

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

14-2041%

L W L W L L L L L L W L L L L L W W L W W W W L W L W L L W L W W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

18-1653%

O U O O O O U O U O U O O O U O O U U U U U U O O O U U O U O U O U

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsMORG	W 87-70	-27.5	L −10.5	154.5	O 157
Nov 7	@MD	W 70-60	+4.5	W +14.5	144.5	U 130
Nov 12	vsBING	W 83-70	-27.5	L −14.5	141.5	O 153
Nov 15	vsCLEM	W 79-74	+1.5	W +6.5	142.5	O 153
Nov 22	vsWAG	W 92-75	-25.5	L −8.5	140.5	O 167
Nov 27	vsDAY	L 79-84	+1.5	L −3.5	145.5	O 163
Nov 28	vsMIA	L 65-78	+5.5	L −7.5	151.5	U 143
Dec 3	vsUMBC	W 90-81	-19.5	L −10.5	149.5	O 171
Dec 7	@UNC	L 61-81	+10.5	L −9.5	149.5	U 142
Dec 13	vsSPU	W 76-68	-20.5	L −12.5	140.5	O 144
Dec 17	@MARQ	W 78-69	+6.5	W +15.5	149.5	U 147
Dec 20	vsXAV	L 77-80	-4.5	L −7.5	149.5	O 157
Dec 22	vsCOPP	W 97-67	-33.5	L −3.5	150.5	O 164
Dec 31	vsSJU	L 83-95	+8.5	L −3.5	152.5	O 178
Jan 6	@DEP	L 50-56	+2.5	L −3.5	144.5	U 106
Jan 10	vsHALL	L 67-76	+1.5	L −7.5	137.5	O 143
Jan 13	@CREI	L 83-86	+8.5	W +5.5	147.5	O 169
Jan 17	vsCONN	L 62-64	+11.5	W +9.5	141.5	U 126
Jan 21	@VILL	L 51-66	+8.5	L −6.5	142.5	U 117
Jan 24	@PROV	W 81-78	+5.5	W +8.5	159.5	U 159
Jan 28	vsDEP	W 70-61	-3.5	W +5.5	139.5	U 131
Jan 31	@BTLR	W 77-64	+5.5	W +18.5	149.5	U 141
Feb 4	vsCREI	W 76-68	-1.5	W +6.5	146.5	U 144
Feb 7	vsVILL	L 73-80	+2.5	L −4.5	140.5	O 153
Feb 14	@CONN	L 75-79	+16.5	W +12.5	138.5	O 154
Feb 18	vsBTLR	L 89-93	-6.5	L −10.5	147.5	O 182
Feb 21	@HALL	L 47-51	+6.5	W +2.5	136.5	U 98
Feb 24	vsMARQ	L 60-76	-2.5	L −18.5	150.5	U 136
Feb 28	@XAV	L 84-91	+4.5	L −2.5	155.5	O 175
Mar 3	@SJU	L 69-72	+15.5	W +12.5	148.5	U 141
Mar 7	vsPROV	W 80-79	-1.5	L −0.5	158.5	O 159
Mar 11	vsDEP	W 63-56	-1.5	W +5.5	136.5	U 119
Mar 12	vsVILL	W 78-64	+7.5	W +21.5	140.5	O 142
Mar 13	vsCONN	L 51-67	+14.5	L −1.5	138.5	U 118

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

MORG

W 87-70

−10.5

W 70-60

+14.5

BING

W 83-70

−14.5

CLEM

W 79-74

+6.5

WAG

W 92-75

−8.5

DAY

L 79-84

−3.5

MIA

L 65-78

−7.5

UMBC

W 90-81

−10.5

UNC

L 61-81

−9.5

SPU

W 76-68

−12.5

MARQ

W 78-69

+15.5

XAV

L 77-80

−7.5

COPP

W 97-67

−3.5

SJU

L 83-95

−3.5

DEP

L 50-56

−3.5

HALL

L 67-76

−7.5

CREI

L 83-86

+5.5

CONN

L 62-64

+9.5

VILL

L 51-66

−6.5

PROV

W 81-78

+8.5

DEP

W 70-61

+5.5

BTLR

W 77-64

+18.5

CREI

W 76-68

+6.5

VILL

L 73-80

−4.5

CONN

L 75-79

+12.5

BTLR

L 89-93

−10.5

HALL

L 47-51

+2.5

MARQ

L 60-76

−18.5

XAV

L 84-91

−2.5

SJU

L 69-72

+12.5

PROV

W 80-79

−0.5

DEP

W 63-56

+5.5

VILL

W 78-64

+21.5

CONN

L 51-67

−1.5

covered 14didn’t cover 20avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

MORG

W 87-70

+2.5

W 70-60

−14.5

BING

W 83-70

+11.5

CLEM

W 79-74

+10.5

WAG

W 92-75

+26.5

DAY

L 79-84

+17.5

MIA

L 65-78

−8.5

UMBC

W 90-81

+21.5

UNC

L 61-81

−7.5

SPU

W 76-68

+3.5

MARQ

W 78-69

−2.5

XAV

L 77-80

+7.5

COPP

W 97-67

+13.5

SJU

L 83-95

+25.5

DEP

L 50-56

−38.5

HALL

L 67-76

+5.5

CREI

L 83-86

+21.5

CONN

L 62-64

−15.5

VILL

L 51-66

−25.5

PROV

W 81-78

−0.5

DEP

W 70-61

−8.5

BTLR

W 77-64

−8.5

CREI

W 76-68

−2.5

VILL

L 73-80

+12.5

CONN

L 75-79

+15.5

BTLR

L 89-93

+34.5

HALL

L 47-51

−38.5

MARQ

L 60-76

−14.5

XAV

L 84-91

+19.5

SJU

L 69-72

−7.5

PROV

W 80-79

+0.5

DEP

W 63-56

−17.5

VILL

W 78-64

+1.5

CONN

L 51-67

−20.5

over 18under 16avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Georgetown has the better starters

Position by position: UMass Lowell 0, Georgetown 3, even 2

UMass LowellBetterGeorgetown

G C. Jones TR4.3 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.2 ast Score 6

GTWNBig

G V. Miller TR10.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.8 ast Score 74

G J. Newton TR7.1 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.6 ast Score 55

Even

F C. Williams8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.5 ast Score 57

G I. Walter1.6 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.4 ast Not ranked

No call

F J. Parker TR9.8 pts · 6.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 79

F V. Okojie4.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.7 ast Score 11

GTWNBig

C V. Iwuchukwu11.6 pts · 6.1 reb · 0.5 ast Score 89

F J. Harris TR5.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.4 ast Score 59

GTWNSmall

C C. Machot TR8.8 pts · 5.4 reb · 0.2 ast Score 78

UMass LowellBetterGeorgetown

UML offense286th of 366 · -8.9

GTWNBig

GTWN defense46th of 366 · +2.3

UML defense318th of 366 · -8.2

GTWNBig

GTWN offense75th of 366 · +1.3

Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players

GTWNBig

Backcourt+0.7 · 1 player

Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players

GTWNBig

Frontcourt+6.5 · 4 players

Bench-0.7 · 1 player

GTWNSmall

Bench+1.4 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestUML betterGTWN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

UMass Lowell

Guards

C. Jones18 min · TRJ. Newton17 min · TRI. Walter8 minK. GilesNewJ. CannadyNewM. EllisNew

Forwards

V. Okojie18 minJ. Harris11 min · TRJ. Roberson7 minD. HandNewE. DialloNew

Georgetown

Guards

V. Miller26 min · TRJ. Lowe19 min · TRE. Jackson18 min · TRK. Mulready17 minM. Moses1 minM. Van Raaphorst1 min

Forwards

C. Williams30 minJ. Parker22 min · TRJ. CaldwellNewP. PastreNew

Centers

V. Iwuchukwu23 minC. Machot20 min · TRS. Diouf4 min

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

UML71.7 #253

GTWN73.6 #215

Points per possession

UML1.04 #272

GTWN1.09 #165

Pace (possessions)

UML68.9 #189

GTWN67.8 #238

Shooting

Effective FG%

UML49.8 #247

GTWN49.6 #257

3-point %

UML32.2 #269

GTWN31.8 #285

3-point attempt rate

UML31.3 #336

GTWN35.2 #271

Free throw rate

UML34.9 #183

GTWN37.3 #121

Possessions

Turnover rate

UML18.0 #269

GTWN15.8 #120

Offensive rebound rate

UML32.7 #98

GTWN32.5 #107

Assists per game

UML11.9 #294

GTWN14.8 #101

Defense

Points allowed

UML77.4 #249

GTWN72.9 #130

Points allowed per possession

UML1.13 #277

GTWN1.08 #147

Opponent effective FG%

UML53.5 #284

GTWN50.0 #96

Opponent 3-point %

UML34.6 #226

GTWN33.3 #139

Turnovers forced

UML14.2 #329

GTWN16.2 #211

Defensive rebound rate

UML70.7 #126

GTWN68.5 #228

Steals per game

UML5.1 #326

GTWN6.5 #182

Blocks per game

UML3.0 #222

GTWN3.6 #130

UML		GTWN
Scoring
71.7 #253	Points per game	73.6 #215
1.04 #272	Points per possession	1.09 #165
68.9 #189	Pace (possessions)	67.8 #238
Shooting
49.8 #247	Effective FG%	49.6 #257
32.2 #269	3-point %	31.8 #285
31.3 #336	3-point attempt rate	35.2 #271
34.9 #183	Free throw rate	37.3 #121
Possessions
18.0 #269	Turnover rate	15.8 #120
32.7 #98	Offensive rebound rate	32.5 #107
11.9 #294	Assists per game	14.8 #101
Defense
77.4 #249	Points allowed	72.9 #130
1.13 #277	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #147
53.5 #284	Opponent effective FG%	50.0 #96
34.6 #226	Opponent 3-point %	33.3 #139
14.2 #329	Turnovers forced	16.2 #211
70.7 #126	Defensive rebound rate	68.5 #228
5.1 #326	Steals per game	6.5 #182
3.0 #222	Blocks per game	3.6 #130

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

UMass Lowell

12-18 in 2025-26 overall · 10-8 in conference · America East Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ UMBC69–91
Wvs UAlbany81–76
W@ Maine67–56
Lvs UMBC60–84
L@ Vermont64–66

A week or more of rest.

Georgetown

16-18 in 2025-26 overall · 8-15 in conference · Big East Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs UConn51–67
Wvs Villanova78–64
Wvs DePaul63–56
Wvs Providence80–79
L@ St John's69–72

A week or more of rest.

UMass Lowell River Hawks at Georgetown Hoyas

What could decide it: GTWN has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

UMass Lowell

Georgetown

Georgetown has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

UMass Lowell

Georgetown