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 83–61 · win probability BC 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.1
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
NJIT 1, BC 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
NJIT offense vs BC defense
Offense 338th of 366 against a defense 83rd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
NJIT has played the 282nd-hardest schedule, BC the 79th. A record against a soft schedule means less
BC offense vs NJIT defense
Offense 96th of 366 against a defense 250th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NJIT 26.2%, BC 28.3%. Defensive: NJIT 67.9%, BC 71.4%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NJIT 39%, BC 1%. Transfers in: NJIT 4, BC 11. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
BC at home. This season: BC 0-0 at home, NJIT 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: NJIT 33.2, BC 32.4. Allowed: NJIT 37.9, BC 34.6
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: NJIT 46.7 and allows 50.0; BC 47.0 and allows 48.9
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NJIT 17.1%, BC 15.4%. Forced: NJIT 16.1%, BC 14.8%
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: NJIT plays 67.9 a game (235th fastest), BC 67.5 (257th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
NJIT hits 30.4% and allows 32.3%; BC hits 29.4% and allows 31.9%. Threes are 40.1% and 42.4% of their shots
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 -22.0 | — |
| Total | — | 143.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | NJIT 60.5 · BC 82.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BC -13.0 | — |
| 1H total | 67.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | NJIT 27 · BC 40 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 2-8 20% | |
| 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
NJIT
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −2.6 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 4 | @ | W 72-61 | +14.5 | W +25.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 53-74 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 66-64 | +10.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 93-81 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 43-75 | +13.5 | L −18.5 | 138.5 | U 118 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 70-86 | +17.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 67-94 | +34.5 | W +7.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 47-104 | +44.5 | L −12.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 55-73 | +14.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 72-89 | +28.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 70-64 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 130.5 | O 134 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 49-65 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 151.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 52-101 | +32.5 | L −16.5 | 149.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 61-80 | +14.5 | L −4.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 73-65 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 80-76 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 70-74 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 130.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 73-64 | +8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 79-55 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 132.5 | O 134 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 74-87 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 77-68 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-77 | +13.5 | W +15.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 81-56 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 73-64 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 76-70 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 67-58 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 63-81 | -3.5 | L −21.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 64-70 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 52-69 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 52-91 | +4.5 | L −34.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 60-58 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 134.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 54-63 | +10.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 117 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
FOR
W 72-61
+25.5
8
vs
FAIR
L 53-74
−14.5
11
@
L-MD
W 66-64
+12.5
15
vs
FDU
W 93-81
+9.5
18
@
DREX
L 43-75
−18.5
22
@
NAVY
L 70-86
+1.5
24
@
CIN
L 67-94
+7.5
26
@
LOU
L 47-104
−12.5
28
@
EMU
L 55-73
−3.5
5
@
HPU
L 72-89
+11.5
10
vs
NHVN
W 70-64
+8.5
13
vs
SHU
L 49-65
−9.5
22
@
BTLR
L 52-101
−16.5
31
@
PENN
L 61-80
−4.5
3
@
BING
W 73-65
+11.5
8
vs
UNH
W 80-76
+6.5
10
vs
ME
L 70-74
−5.5
15
@
UML
W 73-64
+17.5
19
vs
BRY
W 79-55
+22.5
22
@
UMBC
L 74-87
−6.5
29
@
UALB
W 77-68
+14.5
31
@
UVM
W 79-77
+15.5
5
vs
UML
W 81-56
+23.5
7
vs
BING
W 73-64
+0.5
12
@
UNH
W 76-70
+8.5
14
@
ME
W 67-58
+7.5
19
vs
UALB
L 63-81
−21.5
21
vs
UVM
L 64-70
+0.5
28
@
BRY
L 52-69
−18.5
3
vs
UMBC
L 52-91
−34.5
7
vs
ME
W 60-58
−1.5
10
@
UVM
L 54-63
+1.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
FOR
W 72-61
−14.5
8
vs
FAIR
L 53-74
−18.5
11
@
L-MD
W 66-64
−9.5
15
vs
FDU
W 93-81
+27.5
18
@
DREX
L 43-75
−20.5
22
@
NAVY
L 70-86
+15.5
24
@
CIN
L 67-94
+19.5
26
@
LOU
L 47-104
−7.5
28
@
EMU
L 55-73
−13.5
5
@
HPU
L 72-89
+5.5
10
vs
NHVN
W 70-64
+3.5
13
vs
SHU
L 49-65
−37.5
22
@
BTLR
L 52-101
+3.5
31
@
PENN
L 61-80
−10.5
3
@
BING
W 73-65
−2.5
8
vs
UNH
W 80-76
+18.5
10
vs
ME
L 70-74
+13.5
15
@
UML
W 73-64
−8.5
19
vs
BRY
W 79-55
+1.5
22
@
UMBC
L 74-87
+17.5
29
@
UALB
W 77-68
+5.5
31
@
UVM
W 79-77
+16.5
5
vs
UML
W 81-56
−12.5
7
vs
BING
W 73-64
−3.5
12
@
UNH
W 76-70
+0.5
14
@
ME
W 67-58
−12.5
19
vs
UALB
L 63-81
+1.5
21
vs
UVM
L 64-70
−8.5
28
@
BRY
L 52-69
−17.5
3
vs
UMBC
L 52-91
−0.5
7
vs
ME
W 60-58
−16.5
10
@
UVM
L 54-63
−17.5
over 14under 18avg −2.6 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: NJIT 0, Boston College 5, even 0
NJITBetterBoston College
G D. Bolden12 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 47
→BCSmall
G E. Shelton TR15.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 65
G M. Tatum TR8.1 pts · 2 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 13
→BCBig
G A. Zeigler TR12.3 pts · 4.9 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 60
G Q. Duncan4.4 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 31
→BCBig
G M. Williams TR21.6 pts · 4.3 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 96
F M. Coffi TR3.5 pts · 4.9 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 28
→BCBig
F B. Benjamin TR14.2 pts · 10.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 89
F J. Kelly4.4 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 20
→BCBig
F A. Bukumirovic TR13.7 pts · 7.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
NJITBetterBoston College
NJIT offense338th of 366 · -11.1
→BCBig
BC defense83rd of 366 · +0.1
NJIT defense250th of 366 · -6.6
→BCBig
BC offense96th of 366 · -0.7
Backcourt-4.6 · 3 players
→BCBig
Backcourt+4.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.4 · 2 players
→BCBig
Frontcourt+5.8 · 2 players
Bench-3.4 · 4 players
←NJITSmall
Bench-4.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestNJIT betterBC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Bolden30 minM. Tatum26 min · TRQ. Duncan14 minR. Awad13 minB. Stores4 min · TRA. AltobelliNew
Forwards
M. Coffi19 min · TRJ. Kelly16 minB. Oliver10 min · TRZ. Scherler7 minV. VanderstraetenNew
Centers
S. Jimenez-VojnicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.2 #344 | Points per game | 67.4 #326 |
| 0.98 #343 | Points per possession | 1.00 #323 |
| 67.9 #235 | Pace (possessions) | 67.5 #257 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.7 #342 | Effective FG% | 47.0 #338 |
| 30.4 #336 | 3-point % | 29.4 #348 |
| 40.1 #168 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.4 #130 |
| 33.2 #233 | Free throw rate | 32.4 #251 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #215 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #102 |
| 26.2 #316 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.3 #254 |
| 10.5 #350 | Assists per game | 11.3 #323 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.7 #147 | Points allowed | 70.7 #70 |
| 1.08 #167 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #81 |
| 50.0 #99 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #62 |
| 32.3 #79 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.9 #59 |
| 16.1 #214 | Turnovers forced | 14.8 #303 |
| 67.9 #264 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.4 #87 |
| 6.3 #204 | Steals per game | 4.8 #341 |
| 3.1 #197 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #62 |
NJIT
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 11-7 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Vermont54–63
- Wvs Maine60–58
- Lvs UMBC52–91
- L@ Bryant52–69
- Lvs Vermont64–70
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.