TD Garden · Neutral site
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 81–70 · win probability BC 84%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.3
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: MASS has more of the edges
MASS 3, BC 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
BC offense vs MASS defense
Offense 96th of 366 against a defense 248th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MASS 33.3%, BC 28.3%. Defensive: MASS 73.9%, BC 71.4%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: MASS plays 72.7 a game (21st fastest), BC 67.5 (257th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
MASS has played the 181st-hardest schedule, BC the 79th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
MASS hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%; BC hits 29.4% and allows 31.9%. Threes are 35.4% and 42.4% of their shots
MASS offense vs BC defense
Offense 170th of 366 against a defense 83rd, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MASS 46%, BC 1%. Transfers in: MASS 2, BC 11. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: MASS 37.0, BC 32.4. Allowed: MASS 44.6, BC 34.6
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: MASS 53.1 and allows 52.9; BC 47.0 and allows 48.9
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MASS 17.8%, BC 15.4%. Forced: MASS 16.9%, BC 14.8%
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 -11.3 | — |
| Total | — | 150.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | MASS 69.5 · BC 80.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BC -6.6 | — |
| 1H total | 70.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | MASS 31.8 · BC 38.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 7-3 70% | |
| 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
MASS 1–0 BCMASS leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · MASS 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2025-26 | MASS 76 vs BC 74 | BC -1.5 | MASS W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UMass
32 games played
Straight up
16-16
50% wins
Against the spread
13-19
41% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-12
63% overs · avg +4.2 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 72-78 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 83-62 | -9.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 94-80 | -16.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 84-77 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 65-69 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 75-79 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 73-65 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 78-71 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 80-60 | -11.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 76-74 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 103-95 | +12.5 | W +20.5 | 165.5 | O 198 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 59-69 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 163.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 74-80 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 100-101 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 201 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 83-86 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 79-71 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 85-82 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 68-70 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 157.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 84-82 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 164.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 68-67 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 159.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 84-86 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 164.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 70-67 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 95-89 | -11.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 91-94 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 13 | @ | L 92-99 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | O 191 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 77-86 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | U 163 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 82-86 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 73-74 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 62-81 | +3.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 94-82 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 156.5 | O 176 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 87-83 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 161.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 67-77 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MRSH
L 72-78
−10.5
8
vs
UALB
W 83-62
+11.5
13
vs
LEM
W 94-80
−2.5
16
vs
CCSU
W 84-77
−5.5
21
vs
COFC
L 65-69
−0.5
22
vs
GB
L 75-79
−9.5
24
vs
ORST
W 73-65
+11.5
3
vs
HARV
W 78-71
+1.5
6
vs
UML
W 80-60
+8.5
10
vs
BC
W 76-74
+3.5
13
vs
FSU
W 103-95
+20.5
20
vs
KENT
L 59-69
−8.5
30
@
EMU
L 74-80
−8.5
3
vs
BGSU
L 100-101
+0.5
6
@
OHIO
L 83-86
+1.5
10
vs
BALL
W 79-71
−2.5
13
@
WMU
W 85-82
−2.5
17
@
NIU
L 68-70
−10.5
20
vs
TOL
W 84-82
−0.5
23
@
BUF
W 68-67
+2.5
27
@
M-OH
L 84-86
+7.5
31
vs
EMU
W 70-67
−5.5
3
vs
CMU
W 95-89
−5.5
7
@
CCU
L 91-94
−5.5
13
@
AKR
L 92-99
+5.5
17
vs
M-OH
L 77-86
−5.5
21
vs
BUF
L 82-86
−11.5
24
@
BALL
L 73-74
−4.5
28
@
BGSU
L 62-81
−15.5
3
vs
OHIO
W 94-82
+10.5
12
vs
M-OH
W 87-83
+10.5
13
vs
TOL
L 67-77
−7.5
covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MRSH
L 72-78
−2.5
8
vs
UALB
W 83-62
−10.5
13
vs
LEM
W 94-80
+20.5
16
vs
CCSU
W 84-77
+16.5
21
vs
COFC
L 65-69
−27.5
22
vs
GB
L 75-79
+7.5
24
vs
ORST
W 73-65
−11.5
3
vs
HARV
W 78-71
+5.5
6
vs
UML
W 80-60
−15.5
10
vs
BC
W 76-74
+6.5
13
vs
FSU
W 103-95
+32.5
20
vs
KENT
L 59-69
−35.5
30
@
EMU
L 74-80
+5.5
3
vs
BGSU
L 100-101
+48.5
6
@
OHIO
L 83-86
+8.5
10
vs
BALL
W 79-71
+2.5
13
@
WMU
W 85-82
+9.5
17
@
NIU
L 68-70
−19.5
20
vs
TOL
W 84-82
+1.5
23
@
BUF
W 68-67
−24.5
27
@
M-OH
L 84-86
+5.5
31
vs
EMU
W 70-67
−11.5
3
vs
CMU
W 95-89
+31.5
7
@
CCU
L 91-94
+37.5
13
@
AKR
L 92-99
+27.5
17
vs
M-OH
L 77-86
−0.5
21
vs
BUF
L 82-86
+16.5
24
@
BALL
L 73-74
+3.5
28
@
BGSU
L 62-81
−7.5
3
vs
OHIO
W 94-82
+19.5
12
vs
M-OH
W 87-83
+8.5
13
vs
TOL
L 67-77
−14.5
over 20under 12avg +4.2 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: UMass 0, Boston College 5, even 0
UMassBetterBoston College
G D. Carbuccia6.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 6.3 ast
Score 29
→BCBig
G E. Shelton TR15.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 65
G J. Ndjigue6.5 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 34
→BCSmall
G A. Zeigler TR12.3 pts · 4.9 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 60
G J. Clayton TR3.9 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 36
→BCBig
G M. Williams TR21.6 pts · 4.3 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 96
F J. Wang TR8.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 62
→BCSmall
F B. Benjamin TR14.2 pts · 10.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 89
F D. Wimbley2.2 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 0
→BCBig
F A. Bukumirovic TR13.7 pts · 7.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
UMassBetterBoston College
MASS offense170th of 366 · -5.2
→BCSmall
BC defense83rd of 366 · +0.1
MASS defense248th of 366 · -6.5
→BCBig
BC offense96th of 366 · -0.7
Backcourt-4.5 · 3 players
→BCBig
Backcourt+4.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.5 · 2 players
→BCBig
Frontcourt+5.8 · 2 players
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
←MASSBig
Bench-4.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestMASS betterBC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Carbuccia28 minJ. Ndjigue27 minJ. Clayton18 min · TRR. Castineyra3 minJ. EngelNewC. HaileyNew
Forwards
J. Wang20 min · TRD. Wimbley14 minL. Damjanac10 minD. Clerc9 minA. AhmedNewC. SyllaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 79.9 #68 | Points per game | 67.4 #326 |
| 1.10 #144 | Points per possession | 1.00 #323 |
| 72.7 #21 | Pace (possessions) | 67.5 #257 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.1 #99 | Effective FG% | 47.0 #338 |
| 35.2 #100 | 3-point % | 29.4 #348 |
| 35.4 #265 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.4 #130 |
| 37.0 #130 | Free throw rate | 32.4 #251 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #263 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #102 |
| 33.3 #80 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.3 #254 |
| 16.7 #30 | Assists per game | 11.3 #323 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.8 #288 | Points allowed | 70.7 #70 |
| 1.09 #189 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #81 |
| 52.9 #262 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #62 |
| 33.0 #121 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.9 #59 |
| 16.9 #162 | Turnovers forced | 14.8 #303 |
| 73.9 #20 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.4 #87 |
| 6.6 #164 | Steals per game | 4.8 #341 |
| 2.2 #334 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #62 |
UMass
16-16 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Toledo67–77
- Wvs Miami OH87–83
- Wvs Ohio94–82
- L@ Bowling Green62–81
- L@ Ball State73–74
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.