Conte Forum · at Boston College
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 BC 83–59 · win probability BC 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 141.3
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: BC has more of the edges
WAG 2, BC 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
WAG offense vs BC defense
Offense 359th of 366 against a defense 83rd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
WAG has played the 349th-hardest schedule, BC the 79th. A record against a soft schedule means less
BC offense vs WAG defense
Offense 96th of 366 against a defense 293rd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WAG 18.6%, BC 15.4%. Forced: WAG 14.9%, BC 14.8%
Three-pointers
WAG hits 36.6% and allows 34.3%; BC hits 29.4% and allows 31.9%. Threes are 36.1% and 42.4% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: WAG 32.4, BC 32.4. Allowed: WAG 40.8, BC 34.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WAG 32.8%, BC 28.3%. Defensive: WAG 70.5%, BC 71.4%
Home court
BC at home. This season: BC 0-0 at home, WAG 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: WAG plays 66.4 a game (299th fastest), BC 67.5 (257th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WAG 49.6 and allows 50.4; BC 47.0 and allows 48.9
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WAG 0%, BC 1%. Transfers in: WAG 8, BC 11. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | BC -24.1 | — |
| Total | — | 141.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | WAG 58.6 · BC 82.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BC -14.2 | — |
| 1H total | 66.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | WAG 26 · BC 40.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | |
| 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Wagner
28 games played
Straight up
11-17
39% wins
Against the spread
16-12
57% covers · avg +1.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +4.5 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 74-103 | +25.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 61-68 | +21.5 | W +14.5 | 134.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 61-63 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 70-71 | +6.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 75-92 | +25.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 103-101 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 204 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 63-89 | +22.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 78-64 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 131.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 79-72 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 60-69 | -7.5 | L −16.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 69-71 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 69-70 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 132.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 74-80 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 129.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-68 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 67-69 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 55-62 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-78 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 67-84 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 57-67 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 68-57 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 128.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 65-83 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 83-80 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 133.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 65-56 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 65-62 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 80-61 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 134.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 70-60 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 56-64 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 120 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
VCU
L 74-103
−3.5
7
@
HALL
L 61-68
+14.5
11
@
FOR
L 61-63
+10.5
16
@
UMBC
L 70-71
+5.5
22
@
GTWN
L 75-92
+8.5
26
@
MAN
W 103-101
+4.5
2
@
MD
L 63-89
−3.5
17
vs
UMES
W 78-64
+9.5
2
@
CHST
W 79-72
+5.5
4
vs
STO
L 60-69
−16.5
8
vs
SFPA
L 69-71
−9.5
10
vs
MERC
L 69-70
−2.5
17
@
NHVN
L 74-80
−4.5
19
@
FDU
L 61-68
−4.5
23
@
LEM
L 67-69
+5.5
29
vs
CCSU
L 55-62
−4.5
31
vs
FDU
W 75-72
+1.5
5
vs
LEM
W 79-78
+2.5
7
@
CCSU
L 67-84
−11.5
12
vs
LIU
L 57-67
−3.5
14
@
STO
W 68-57
+14.5
16
@
LIU
L 65-83
−7.5
19
@
MERC
W 83-80
+6.5
21
@
SFPA
W 65-56
+7.5
26
vs
NHVN
W 65-62
+0.5
28
vs
CHST
W 80-61
+14.5
4
@
CCSU
W 70-60
+13.5
7
@
LIU
L 56-64
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 12avg +1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
VCU
L 74-103
+43.5
7
@
HALL
L 61-68
−5.5
11
@
FOR
L 61-63
−15.5
16
@
UMBC
L 70-71
+0.5
22
@
GTWN
L 75-92
+26.5
26
@
MAN
W 103-101
+59.5
2
@
MD
L 63-89
+8.5
17
vs
UMES
W 78-64
+10.5
2
@
CHST
W 79-72
+4.5
4
vs
STO
L 60-69
−10.5
8
vs
SFPA
L 69-71
−4.5
10
vs
MERC
L 69-70
+6.5
17
@
NHVN
L 74-80
+24.5
19
@
FDU
L 61-68
−8.5
23
@
LEM
L 67-69
−7.5
29
vs
CCSU
L 55-62
−19.5
31
vs
FDU
W 75-72
+13.5
5
vs
LEM
W 79-78
+18.5
7
@
CCSU
L 67-84
+14.5
12
vs
LIU
L 57-67
−11.5
14
@
STO
W 68-57
−3.5
16
@
LIU
L 65-83
+9.5
19
@
MERC
W 83-80
+29.5
21
@
SFPA
W 65-56
−30.5
26
vs
NHVN
W 65-62
−4.5
28
vs
CHST
W 80-61
+6.5
4
@
CCSU
W 70-60
−9.5
7
@
LIU
L 56-64
−18.5
over 15under 13avg +4.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Boston College
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg −4 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 78-83 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 76-47 | -15.5 | W +13.5 | 144.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 59-60 | -17.5 | L −18.5 | 136.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 76-71 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 63-52 | -12.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 49-59 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | U 108 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 90-93 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 73-60 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 69-78 | +7.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 67-63 | -17.5 | L −13.5 | 126.5 | O 130 |
| Dec 10 | vs | L 74-76 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 72-61 | -16.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 72-64 | -12.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 53-65 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 71-79 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 62-75 | +21.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 50-74 | +15.5 | L −8.5 | 136.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 81-73 | +5.5 | W +13.5 | 141.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 65-62 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 64-68 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 66-73 | +13.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 49-67 | +26.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 68-74 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 64-70 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 75-86 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 72-80 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 70-94 | +15.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 68-67 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 54-76 | +15.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 63-72 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 77-69 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
FAU
L 78-83
−3.5
6
vs
CIT
W 76-47
+13.5
11
vs
CCSU
L 59-60
−18.5
15
@
TEM
W 76-71
+8.5
18
vs
HAMP
W 63-52
−1.5
21
vs
DAV
L 49-59
−11.5
23
vs
TULN
L 90-93
−5.5
26
vs
HARV
W 73-60
+5.5
3
vs
LSU
L 69-78
−1.5
6
vs
NHVN
W 67-63
−13.5
10
vs
MASS
L 74-76
−3.5
22
vs
FDU
W 72-61
−5.5
28
vs
LEM
W 72-64
−4.5
3
@
GT
L 53-65
−5.5
6
vs
NCSU
L 71-79
+3.5
10
@
LOU
L 62-75
+8.5
13
@
CLEM
L 50-74
−8.5
17
vs
SYR
W 81-73
+13.5
21
vs
PITT
W 65-62
+5.5
24
@
ND
L 64-68
+3.5
31
vs
UVA
L 66-73
+6.5
3
@
DUKE
L 49-67
+8.5
7
vs
MIA
L 68-74
+2.5
11
vs
STAN
L 64-70
−2.5
14
vs
CAL
L 75-86
−7.5
17
@
FSU
L 72-80
+3.5
21
@
SMU
L 70-94
−8.5
25
vs
WAKE
W 68-67
+4.5
28
@
MIA
L 54-76
−6.5
3
@
VT
L 63-72
+2.5
7
vs
ND
W 77-69
+9.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
FAU
L 78-83
+12.5
6
vs
CIT
W 76-47
−21.5
11
vs
CCSU
L 59-60
−17.5
15
@
TEM
W 76-71
+4.5
18
vs
HAMP
W 63-52
−20.5
21
vs
DAV
L 49-59
−32.5
23
vs
TULN
L 90-93
+42.5
26
vs
HARV
W 73-60
−5.5
3
vs
LSU
L 69-78
−2.5
6
vs
NHVN
W 67-63
+3.5
10
vs
MASS
L 74-76
+6.5
22
vs
FDU
W 72-61
−8.5
28
vs
LEM
W 72-64
−10.5
3
@
GT
L 53-65
−27.5
6
vs
NCSU
L 71-79
+8.5
10
@
LOU
L 62-75
−13.5
13
@
CLEM
L 50-74
−12.5
17
vs
SYR
W 81-73
+12.5
21
vs
PITT
W 65-62
−10.5
24
@
ND
L 64-68
−5.5
31
vs
UVA
L 66-73
−2.5
3
@
DUKE
L 49-67
−25.5
7
vs
MIA
L 68-74
+0.5
11
vs
STAN
L 64-70
−5.5
14
vs
CAL
L 75-86
+16.5
17
@
FSU
L 72-80
+3.5
21
@
SMU
L 70-94
+13.5
25
vs
WAKE
W 68-67
−10.5
28
@
MIA
L 54-76
−13.5
3
@
VT
L 63-72
−7.5
7
vs
ND
W 77-69
+4.5
over 12under 19avg −4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Boston College has the better starters
Position by position: Wagner 0, Boston College 3, even 2
WagnerBetterBoston College
G T. Bryant TR3.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 8
→BCBig
G E. Shelton TR15.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 65
G C. Estevez TR3.4 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 14
→BCBig
G A. Zeigler TR12.3 pts · 4.9 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 60
G R. Pettis TR1.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Williams TR21.6 pts · 4.3 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 96
F K. Watson TR4.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 31
→BCBig
F B. Benjamin TR14.2 pts · 10.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 89
C B. Smith TR1.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Bukumirovic TR13.7 pts · 7.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
WagnerBetterBoston College
WAG offense359th of 366 · -14.0
→BCBig
BC defense83rd of 366 · +0.1
WAG defense293rd of 366 · -7.4
→BCBig
BC offense96th of 366 · -0.7
Backcourt-3.1 · 3 players
→BCBig
Backcourt+4.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.5 · 2 players
→BCBig
Frontcourt+5.8 · 2 players
Bench-1.9 · 3 players
←WAGSmall
Bench-4.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestWAG betterBC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Bryant14 min · TRC. Estevez12 min · TRR. Pettis10 min · TRL. McGradyNewJ. CurtisNewG. EdwardsNew
Forwards
K. Watson12 min · TRT. Jones5 min · TRA. RodriguezNewD. KabaNewF. HassanNew
Centers
B. Smith8 min · TRY. Singar8 min · TRW. Patterson4 min · TR
Guards
E. Shelton37 min · TRA. Zeigler33 min · TRM. Williams32 min · TRJ. Frankel21 min · TRJ. O'Toole3 min · TRJ. Furphy3 min · TR
Forwards
B. Benjamin31 min · TRA. Bukumirovic30 min · TRC. Duggan28 min · TRL. Hunger19 min · TRA. Tounkara18 min · TRJ. BaileyNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 69.6 #292 | Points per game | 67.4 #326 |
| 1.05 #250 | Points per possession | 1.00 #323 |
| 66.4 #299 | Pace (possessions) | 67.5 #257 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #262 | Effective FG% | 47.0 #338 |
| 36.6 #36 | 3-point % | 29.4 #348 |
| 36.1 #249 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.4 #130 |
| 32.4 #252 | Free throw rate | 32.4 #251 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.6 #303 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #102 |
| 32.8 #96 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.3 #254 |
| 11.9 #289 | Assists per game | 11.3 #323 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #126 | Points allowed | 70.7 #70 |
| 1.09 #208 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #81 |
| 50.4 #123 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #62 |
| 34.3 #202 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.9 #59 |
| 14.9 #295 | Turnovers forced | 14.8 #303 |
| 70.5 #139 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.4 #87 |
| 5.2 #321 | Steals per game | 4.8 #341 |
| 2.3 #320 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #62 |
Wagner
11-17 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Long Island56–64
- W@ C Connecticut70–60
- Wvs Chicago St80–61
- Wvs New Haven65–62
- W@ Saint Francis Red Wolves65–56
A week or more of rest.
Boston College
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Wvs Notre Dame77–69
- L@ Virginia Tech63–72
- L@ Miami54–76
- Wvs Wake Forest68–67
- L@ SMU70–94
A week or more of rest.