Capital One Arena · at Georgetown
LineNo line yet
Total—
| 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 87–57 · win probability GTWN 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.2
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
RID 0, GTWN 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
RID offense vs GTWN defense
Offense 348th of 366 against a defense 46th, on the model’s ratings
GTWN offense vs RID defense
Offense 75th of 366 against a defense 315th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: RID 42.8 and allows 55.2; GTWN 49.6 and allows 50.0
Context
Schedule so far
RID has played the 201st-hardest schedule, GTWN the 47th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
RID hits 27.6% and allows 38.0%; GTWN hits 31.8% and allows 33.3%. Threes are 27.5% and 35.2% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: RID 30.1, GTWN 37.3. Allowed: RID 32.5, GTWN 33.9
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RID 0%, GTWN 38%. Transfers in: RID 6, GTWN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RID 16.9%, GTWN 15.8%. Forced: RID 15.3%, GTWN 16.2%
Home court
GTWN at home. This season: GTWN 0-0 at home, RID 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: RID plays 65.7 a game (323rd fastest), GTWN 67.8 (238th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RID 32.6%, GTWN 32.5%. Defensive: RID 67.2%, GTWN 68.5%
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 | — | GTWN -29.5 | — |
| Total | — | 144.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | RID 57.4 · GTWN 86.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | GTWN -17.4 | — |
| 1H total | 67.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | RID 25 · GTWN 42.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 12 | vs UNC | L61–81LU |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Rider
28 games played
Straight up
3-25
11% wins
Against the spread
9-19
32% covers · avg −3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-19
32% overs · avg +0 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 | @ | L 53-87 | +26.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 5 | @ | L 53-81 | +18.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 65-99 | +30.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 45-91 | +40.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | O 136 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 65-68 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 4 | @ | L 66-68 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 58-72 | +14.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 38-51 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | U 89 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 57-65 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 129.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 79-100 | +30.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 71-74 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 65-74 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 9 | @ | L 62-68 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 49-71 | +10.5 | L −11.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 72-68 | +7.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 58-69 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 85-105 | +4.5 | L −15.5 | 144.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 61-71 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 90-95 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 81-78 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 52-81 | +14.5 | L −14.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 47-73 | +8.5 | L −17.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 55-65 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 75-86 | +9.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 20 | vs | L 66-72 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 131.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 67-62 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 131.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 58-80 | +11.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 61-76 | +14.5 | L −0.5 | 137.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UVA
L 53-87
−7.5
5
@
RUTG
L 53-81
−9.5
18
@
TEX
L 65-99
−3.5
20
@
HOU
L 45-91
−5.5
25
vs
COPP
L 65-68
−11.5
4
@
MRMK
L 66-68
+7.5
7
@
QUIN
L 58-72
+0.5
9
vs
BUCK
L 38-51
−10.5
16
@
DEL
L 57-65
+0.5
22
@
VCU
L 79-100
+9.5
29
vs
MAN
L 71-74
−0.5
4
vs
SIE
L 65-74
−0.5
9
@
FAIR
L 62-68
+2.5
11
vs
MRST
L 49-71
−11.5
14
vs
IONA
W 72-68
+11.5
17
@
SPU
L 58-69
−0.5
19
vs
SHU
L 85-105
−15.5
24
@
MSM
L 61-71
−0.5
30
@
MAN
L 90-95
+0.5
1
vs
SPU
W 81-78
+10.5
5
@
MRST
L 52-81
−14.5
7
vs
MRMK
L 47-73
−17.5
13
vs
MSM
L 55-65
−4.5
15
@
SHU
L 75-86
−1.5
20
vs
CAN
L 66-72
−7.5
22
vs
NIA
W 67-62
+6.5
27
@
IONA
L 58-80
−10.5
1
@
SIE
L 61-76
−0.5
covered 9didn’t cover 19avg −3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UVA
L 53-87
−8.5
5
@
RUTG
L 53-81
−5.5
18
@
TEX
L 65-99
+20.5
20
@
HOU
L 45-91
+1.5
25
vs
COPP
L 65-68
−6.5
4
@
MRMK
L 66-68
−4.5
7
@
QUIN
L 58-72
−17.5
9
vs
BUCK
L 38-51
−46.5
16
@
DEL
L 57-65
−7.5
22
@
VCU
L 79-100
+33.5
29
vs
MAN
L 71-74
−2.5
4
vs
SIE
L 65-74
+3.5
9
@
FAIR
L 62-68
−15.5
11
vs
MRST
L 49-71
−11.5
14
vs
IONA
W 72-68
−1.5
17
@
SPU
L 58-69
−7.5
19
vs
SHU
L 85-105
+45.5
24
@
MSM
L 61-71
−7.5
30
@
MAN
L 90-95
+39.5
1
vs
SPU
W 81-78
+22.5
5
@
MRST
L 52-81
−2.5
7
vs
MRMK
L 47-73
−17.5
13
vs
MSM
L 55-65
−17.5
15
@
SHU
L 75-86
+14.5
20
vs
CAN
L 66-72
+6.5
22
vs
NIA
W 67-62
−2.5
27
@
IONA
L 58-80
−3.5
1
@
SIE
L 61-76
−0.5
over 9under 19avg +0 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
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 | W 87-70 | -27.5 | L −10.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 70-60 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 83-70 | -27.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 79-74 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 92-75 | -25.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 79-84 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 65-78 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 90-81 | -19.5 | L −10.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 61-81 | +10.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 76-68 | -20.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 78-69 | +6.5 | W +15.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 77-80 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 97-67 | -33.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 83-95 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 50-56 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 106 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 67-76 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 83-86 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 62-64 | +11.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 51-66 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 81-78 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 70-61 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 77-64 | +5.5 | W +18.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 76-68 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 146.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 73-80 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 75-79 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 89-93 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 47-51 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | U 98 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 60-76 | -2.5 | L −18.5 | 150.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 84-91 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 69-72 | +15.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 80-79 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 63-56 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 136.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 78-64 | +7.5 | W +21.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 51-67 | +14.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 118 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MORG
W 87-70
−10.5
7
@
MD
W 70-60
+14.5
12
vs
BING
W 83-70
−14.5
15
vs
CLEM
W 79-74
+6.5
22
vs
WAG
W 92-75
−8.5
27
vs
DAY
L 79-84
−3.5
28
vs
MIA
L 65-78
−7.5
3
vs
UMBC
W 90-81
−10.5
7
@
UNC
L 61-81
−9.5
13
vs
SPU
W 76-68
−12.5
17
@
MARQ
W 78-69
+15.5
20
vs
XAV
L 77-80
−7.5
22
vs
COPP
W 97-67
−3.5
31
vs
SJU
L 83-95
−3.5
6
@
DEP
L 50-56
−3.5
10
vs
HALL
L 67-76
−7.5
13
@
CREI
L 83-86
+5.5
17
vs
CONN
L 62-64
+9.5
21
@
VILL
L 51-66
−6.5
24
@
PROV
W 81-78
+8.5
28
vs
DEP
W 70-61
+5.5
31
@
BTLR
W 77-64
+18.5
4
vs
CREI
W 76-68
+6.5
7
vs
VILL
L 73-80
−4.5
14
@
CONN
L 75-79
+12.5
18
vs
BTLR
L 89-93
−10.5
21
@
HALL
L 47-51
+2.5
24
vs
MARQ
L 60-76
−18.5
28
@
XAV
L 84-91
−2.5
3
@
SJU
L 69-72
+12.5
7
vs
PROV
W 80-79
−0.5
11
vs
DEP
W 63-56
+5.5
12
vs
VILL
W 78-64
+21.5
13
vs
CONN
L 51-67
−1.5
covered 14didn’t cover 20avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MORG
W 87-70
+2.5
7
@
MD
W 70-60
−14.5
12
vs
BING
W 83-70
+11.5
15
vs
CLEM
W 79-74
+10.5
22
vs
WAG
W 92-75
+26.5
27
vs
DAY
L 79-84
+17.5
28
vs
MIA
L 65-78
−8.5
3
vs
UMBC
W 90-81
+21.5
7
@
UNC
L 61-81
−7.5
13
vs
SPU
W 76-68
+3.5
17
@
MARQ
W 78-69
−2.5
20
vs
XAV
L 77-80
+7.5
22
vs
COPP
W 97-67
+13.5
31
vs
SJU
L 83-95
+25.5
6
@
DEP
L 50-56
−38.5
10
vs
HALL
L 67-76
+5.5
13
@
CREI
L 83-86
+21.5
17
vs
CONN
L 62-64
−15.5
21
@
VILL
L 51-66
−25.5
24
@
PROV
W 81-78
−0.5
28
vs
DEP
W 70-61
−8.5
31
@
BTLR
W 77-64
−8.5
4
vs
CREI
W 76-68
−2.5
7
vs
VILL
L 73-80
+12.5
14
@
CONN
L 75-79
+15.5
18
vs
BTLR
L 89-93
+34.5
21
@
HALL
L 47-51
−38.5
24
vs
MARQ
L 60-76
−14.5
28
@
XAV
L 84-91
+19.5
3
@
SJU
L 69-72
−7.5
7
vs
PROV
W 80-79
+0.5
11
vs
DEP
W 63-56
−17.5
12
vs
VILL
W 78-64
+1.5
13
vs
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: Rider 0, Georgetown 2, even 3
RiderBetterGeorgetown
G M. Butler TR10.9 pts · 2.2 reb · 4.3 ast
Score 44
→GTWNSmall
G V. Miller TR10.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 74
G K. Farmer TR3.5 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 6
→GTWNBig
F C. Williams8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 57
G B. Baker TR1.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Parker TR9.8 pts · 6.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 79
G T. Bevins TR0.6 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C V. Iwuchukwu11.6 pts · 6.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 89
F H. Simmons TR1.7 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C C. Machot TR8.8 pts · 5.4 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 78
RiderBetterGeorgetown
RID offense348th of 366 · -12.2
→GTWNBig
GTWN defense46th of 366 · +2.3
RID defense315th of 366 · -8.2
→GTWNBig
GTWN offense75th of 366 · +1.3
Backcourt-5.5 · 4 players
→GTWNBig
Backcourt+0.7 · 1 player
Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player
→GTWNBig
Frontcourt+6.5 · 4 players
Bench-0.3 · 1 player
→GTWNSmall
Bench+1.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestRID betterGTWN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Butler34 min · TRK. Farmer14 min · TRB. Baker13 min · TRT. Bevins5 min · TRN. WashingtonNewR. RosaNew
Forwards
H. Simmons6 min · TRR. Brisco2 min · TRK. WylieNewS. Ezekiel ObeNew
Centers
S. Avegah SemeyNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 62.6 #359 | Points per game | 73.6 #215 |
| 0.95 #355 | Points per possession | 1.09 #165 |
| 65.7 #323 | Pace (possessions) | 67.8 #238 |
| Shooting | ||
| 42.8 #365 | Effective FG% | 49.6 #257 |
| 27.6 #365 | 3-point % | 31.8 #285 |
| 27.5 #361 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.2 #271 |
| 30.1 #307 | Free throw rate | 37.3 #121 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.9 #197 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #120 |
| 32.6 #101 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.5 #107 |
| 10.1 #356 | Assists per game | 14.8 #101 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.8 #236 | Points allowed | 72.9 #130 |
| 1.17 #341 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #147 |
| 55.2 #335 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.0 #96 |
| 38.0 #356 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.3 #139 |
| 15.3 #266 | Turnovers forced | 16.2 #211 |
| 67.2 #294 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.5 #228 |
| 5.9 #247 | Steals per game | 6.5 #182 |
| 3.2 #188 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #130 |
Rider
3-25 in 2025-26 overall · 3-17 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Siena61–76
- L@ Iona58–80
- Wvs Niagara67–62
- Lvs Canisius66–72
- L@ Sacred Heart75–86
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.