Lavietes Pavilion · at Harvard
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | HARV | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 72–68 · win probability BC 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 139.4
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: HARV has more of the edges
BC 1, HARV 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: BC 1%, HARV 81%. Transfers in: BC 11, HARV 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
HARV offense vs BC defense
Offense 216th of 366 against a defense 83rd, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: BC 47.0 and allows 48.9; HARV 53.2 and allows 50.4
Three-pointers
BC hits 29.4% and allows 31.9%; HARV hits 34.7% and allows 32.6%. Threes are 42.4% and 40.2% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
BC has played the 79th-hardest schedule, HARV the 153rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
HARV at home. This season: HARV 0-0 at home, BC 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: BC plays 67.5 a game (257th fastest), HARV 64.7 (350th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: BC 32.4, HARV 25.7. Allowed: BC 34.6, HARV 26.6
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: BC 28.3%, HARV 26.8%. Defensive: BC 71.4%, HARV 71.8%
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: BC 15.4%, HARV 17.5%. Forced: BC 14.8%, HARV 17.1%
Even
BC offense vs HARV defense
Offense 96th of 366 against a defense 94th, on the model’s ratings
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 -3.9 | — |
| Total | — | 139.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | BC 71.7 · HARV 67.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BC -2.5 | — |
| 1H total | 65.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | BC 33.9 · HARV 31.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 2-8 20% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
BC 2–0 HARVBC leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · BC has won the last 2 meetings · BC 2-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2025-26 | HARV 60 @ BC 73 | BC -7.5 | BC W |
| Nov 18, 2023-24 | HARV 64 @ BC 73 | BC -5.5 | BC W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Harvard
28 games played
Straight up
16-12
57% wins
Against the spread
14-14
50% covers · avg +2.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
10-18
36% overs · avg −4.3 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 | vs | W 86-75 | -15.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 60-77 | -5.5 | L −22.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 75-52 | -6.5 | W +16.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 56-54 | +6.5 | W +8.5 | 130.5 | U 110 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 80-84 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 74-75 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 136.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 60-73 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 56-53 | -7.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | U 109 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 71-78 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 69-79 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 81-53 | -10.5 | W +17.5 | 136.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 59-85 | +26.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 28 | @ | W 78-69 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 141.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 5 | vs | L 68-76 | -7.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 79-54 | +5.5 | W +30.5 | 145.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 87-80 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 133.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 64-63 | -5.5 | L −4.5 | 150.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 79-86 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 160.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 69-59 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 67-65 | +11.5 | W +13.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 71-58 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 56-53 | -7.5 | L −4.5 | 131.5 | U 109 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 75-76 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 73-54 | +4.5 | W +23.5 | 155.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 58-56 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 130.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 61-64 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 81-71 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 136.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 60-62 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | U 122 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
9
vs
UNH
W 86-75
−4.5
11
vs
NE
L 60-77
−22.5
15
@
ARMY
W 75-52
+16.5
16
@
MRST
W 56-54
+8.5
19
@
PSU
L 80-84
+8.5
22
vs
BU
L 74-75
−5.5
26
@
BC
L 60-73
−5.5
29
vs
BRY
W 56-53
−4.5
3
@
MASS
L 71-78
−1.5
6
@
FUR
L 69-79
−5.5
20
vs
HC
W 81-53
+17.5
23
@
SJU
L 59-85
+0.5
28
@
COLG
W 78-69
+12.5
5
vs
DART
L 68-76
−15.5
10
@
COLU
W 79-54
+30.5
17
vs
PRIN
W 87-80
+2.5
19
vs
PENN
W 64-63
−4.5
24
vs
COR
L 79-86
−8.5
30
@
BRWN
W 69-59
+8.5
31
@
YALE
W 67-65
+13.5
7
@
DART
W 71-58
+11.5
13
vs
BRWN
W 56-53
−4.5
14
vs
YALE
L 75-76
+3.5
21
@
COR
W 73-54
+23.5
27
@
PRIN
W 58-56
−1.5
28
@
PENN
L 61-64
−1.5
6
vs
COLU
W 81-71
+5.5
14
vs
PENN
L 60-62
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 14avg +2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
9
vs
UNH
W 86-75
+13.5
11
vs
NE
L 60-77
−7.5
15
@
ARMY
W 75-52
−19.5
16
@
MRST
W 56-54
−20.5
19
@
PSU
L 80-84
+21.5
22
vs
BU
L 74-75
+12.5
26
@
BC
L 60-73
−5.5
29
vs
BRY
W 56-53
−28.5
3
@
MASS
L 71-78
+5.5
6
@
FUR
L 69-79
+6.5
20
vs
HC
W 81-53
−2.5
23
@
SJU
L 59-85
−1.5
28
@
COLG
W 78-69
+5.5
5
vs
DART
L 68-76
−4.5
10
@
COLU
W 79-54
−12.5
17
vs
PRIN
W 87-80
+33.5
19
vs
PENN
W 64-63
−23.5
24
vs
COR
L 79-86
+4.5
30
@
BRWN
W 69-59
−4.5
31
@
YALE
W 67-65
−9.5
7
@
DART
W 71-58
−11.5
13
vs
BRWN
W 56-53
−22.5
14
vs
YALE
L 75-76
+12.5
21
@
COR
W 73-54
−28.5
27
@
PRIN
W 58-56
−16.5
28
@
PENN
L 61-64
−13.5
6
vs
COLU
W 81-71
+15.5
14
vs
PENN
L 60-62
−17.5
over 10under 18avg −4.3 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: Boston College 3, Harvard 1, even 1
Boston CollegeBetterHarvard
G E. Shelton TR15.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 65
=Even
G T. Barbour13.6 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 74
G A. Zeigler TR12.3 pts · 4.9 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 60
→HARVSmall
G R. Hinton17 pts · 4.9 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 88
G M. Williams TR21.6 pts · 4.3 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 96
←BCBig
G B. Eisendrath5.3 pts · 2.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 16
F B. Benjamin TR14.2 pts · 10.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 89
←BCBig
G A. Hunt6.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 42
F A. Bukumirovic TR13.7 pts · 7.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
←BCBig
G F. Mannino1.8 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 36
Boston CollegeBetterHarvard
BC offense96th of 366 · -0.7
=Even
HARV defense94th of 366 · -0.4
BC defense83rd of 366 · +0.1
←BCBig
HARV offense216th of 366 · -6.6
Backcourt+4.7 · 3 players
←BCBig
Backcourt-0.7 · 5 players
Frontcourt+5.8 · 2 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-4.5 · 5 players
→HARVSmall
Bench-2.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestBC betterHARV betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
T. Barbour34 minR. Hinton34 minB. Eisendrath29 minA. Hunt23 minF. Mannino9 minX. Nesbitt5 min
Forwards
R. Sullivan7 minK. Parrish6 minL. Ace-Nasteski6 minA. Dror2 minT. BattiesNewA. TouomouNew
Centers
J. AdigunNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.4 #326 | Points per game | 69.8 #290 |
| 1.00 #323 | Points per possession | 1.08 #184 |
| 67.5 #257 | Pace (possessions) | 64.7 #350 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.0 #338 | Effective FG% | 53.2 #94 |
| 29.4 #348 | 3-point % | 34.7 #135 |
| 42.4 #130 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.2 #167 |
| 32.4 #251 | Free throw rate | 25.7 #359 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.4 #102 | Turnover rate | 17.5 #236 |
| 28.3 #254 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.8 #302 |
| 11.3 #323 | Assists per game | 14.2 #129 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.7 #70 | Points allowed | 67.3 #22 |
| 1.04 #81 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #70 |
| 48.9 #62 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.4 #122 |
| 31.9 #59 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.6 #94 |
| 14.8 #303 | Turnovers forced | 17.1 #147 |
| 71.4 #87 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.8 #69 |
| 4.8 #341 | Steals per game | 7.1 #111 |
| 4.1 #62 | Blocks per game | 3.7 #109 |
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.
Harvard
16-12 in 2025-26 overall · 10-5 in conference · Ivy League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Penn60–62
- Wvs Columbia81–71
- L@ Penn61–64
- W@ Princeton58–56
- W@ Cornell73–54
A week or more of rest.