Cameron Indoor Stadium · at Duke
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DUKE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 DUKE 87–53 · win probability DUKE 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.3
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: DUKE has more of the edges
HARV 1, DUKE 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
HARV offense vs DUKE defense
Offense 216th of 366 against a defense 3rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HARV 26.8%, DUKE 38.4%. Defensive: HARV 71.8%, DUKE 74.8%
Free throws
Free throw rate: HARV 25.7, DUKE 38.2. Allowed: HARV 26.6, DUKE 22.8
Context
Schedule so far
HARV has played the 153rd-hardest schedule, DUKE the 23rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: HARV 53.2 and allows 50.4; DUKE 56.6 and allows 46.2
DUKE offense vs HARV defense
Offense 11th of 366 against a defense 94th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HARV 81%, DUKE 47%. Transfers in: HARV 0, DUKE 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HARV 17.5%, DUKE 16.0%. Forced: HARV 17.1%, DUKE 17.2%
Home court
DUKE at home. This season: DUKE 0-0 at home, HARV 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
HARV hits 34.7% and allows 32.6%; DUKE hits 34.7% and allows 30.6%. Threes are 40.2% and 43.5% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: HARV plays 64.7 a game (350th fastest), DUKE 66.8 (285th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | DUKE -33.5 | — |
| Total | — | 140.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | HARV 53.4 · DUKE 86.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | DUKE -19.8 | — |
| 1H total | 65.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | HARV 22.9 · DUKE 42.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 2-8 20% | |
| 9-1 90% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Duke
38 games played
Straight up
35-3
92% wins
Against the spread
21-17
55% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-24
37% overs · avg −3.4 pts vs the total
Against the spread
21-1755%
2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered
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 | vs | W 75-60 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 95-54 | -36.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 114-59 | -33.5 | W +21.5 | 152.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 100-62 | -37.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | U 162 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 78-66 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 100-42 | -39.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 93-56 | -43.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 80-71 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 67-66 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 66-60 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 97-73 | -32.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 81-82 | -9.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 85-79 | -27.5 | L −21.5 | 153.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 91-87 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 163.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 84-73 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 161.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 82-75 | -15.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 71-56 | -14.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-50 | -11.5 | W +18.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 90-69 | -19.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 26 | vs | W 83-52 | -8.5 | W +22.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 72-58 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 67-49 | -26.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-71 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 70-54 | -17.5 | L −1.5 | 136.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 67-54 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 101-64 | -20.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 68-63 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 100-56 | -16.5 | W +27.5 | 141.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 77-51 | -9.5 | W +16.5 | 143.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 93-64 | -8.5 | W +20.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 76-61 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-79 | -16.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 73-61 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 74-70 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 71-65 | -28.5 | L −22.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 81-58 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 27 | vs | W 80-75 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 29 | vs | L 72-73 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | O 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
TEX
W 75-60
+4.5
8
vs
WCU
W 95-54
+4.5
11
@
ARMY
W 114-59
+21.5
14
vs
INST
W 100-62
+0.5
18
vs
KU
W 78-66
+1.5
21
vs
NIA
W 100-42
+18.5
23
vs
HOW
W 93-56
−6.5
27
vs
ARK
W 80-71
−3.5
2
vs
FLA
W 67-66
−8.5
6
@
MSU
W 66-60
+4.5
16
vs
LIP
W 97-73
−8.5
20
vs
TTU
L 81-82
−10.5
31
vs
GT
W 85-79
−21.5
3
@
FSU
W 91-87
−12.5
6
@
LOU
W 84-73
+9.5
10
vs
SMU
W 82-75
−8.5
14
@
CAL
W 71-56
+0.5
17
@
STAN
W 80-50
+18.5
24
vs
WAKE
W 90-69
+1.5
26
vs
LOU
W 83-52
+22.5
31
@
VT
W 72-58
+0.5
3
vs
BC
W 67-49
−8.5
7
@
UNC
L 68-71
−9.5
10
@
PITT
W 70-54
−1.5
14
vs
CLEM
W 67-54
+0.5
16
vs
SYR
W 101-64
+16.5
21
vs
MICH
W 68-63
+8.5
24
@
ND
W 100-56
+27.5
28
vs
UVA
W 77-51
+16.5
2
@
NCSU
W 93-64
+20.5
7
vs
UNC
W 76-61
−3.5
12
vs
FSU
W 80-79
−15.5
13
vs
CLEM
W 73-61
+1.5
14
vs
UVA
W 74-70
−2.5
19
vs
SIE
W 71-65
−22.5
21
vs
TCU
W 81-58
+10.5
27
vs
SJU
W 80-75
−1.5
29
vs
CONN
L 72-73
−5.5
covered 21didn’t cover 17avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
TEX
W 75-60
−18.5
8
vs
WCU
W 95-54
−3.5
11
@
ARMY
W 114-59
+20.5
14
vs
INST
W 100-62
−1.5
18
vs
KU
W 78-66
−5.5
21
vs
NIA
W 100-42
−4.5
23
vs
HOW
W 93-56
−5.5
27
vs
ARK
W 80-71
−8.5
2
vs
FLA
W 67-66
−24.5
6
@
MSU
W 66-60
−15.5
16
vs
LIP
W 97-73
+18.5
20
vs
TTU
L 81-82
+10.5
31
vs
GT
W 85-79
+10.5
3
@
FSU
W 91-87
+14.5
6
@
LOU
W 84-73
−4.5
10
vs
SMU
W 82-75
+1.5
14
@
CAL
W 71-56
−22.5
17
@
STAN
W 80-50
−18.5
24
vs
WAKE
W 90-69
+5.5
26
vs
LOU
W 83-52
−22.5
31
@
VT
W 72-58
−18.5
3
vs
BC
W 67-49
−25.5
7
@
UNC
L 68-71
−13.5
10
@
PITT
W 70-54
−12.5
14
vs
CLEM
W 67-54
−13.5
16
vs
SYR
W 101-64
+20.5
21
vs
MICH
W 68-63
−20.5
24
@
ND
W 100-56
+14.5
28
vs
UVA
W 77-51
−15.5
2
@
NCSU
W 93-64
+6.5
7
vs
UNC
W 76-61
−10.5
12
vs
FSU
W 80-79
+8.5
13
vs
CLEM
W 73-61
−0.5
14
vs
UVA
W 74-70
+3.5
19
vs
SIE
W 71-65
−1.5
21
vs
TCU
W 81-58
−1.5
27
vs
SJU
W 80-75
+14.5
29
vs
CONN
L 72-73
+9.5
over 14under 24avg −3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Duke has the better starters
Position by position: Harvard 0, Duke 4, even 1
HarvardBetterDuke
G T. Barbour13.6 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 74
→DUKESmall
G J. Blackwell TR19.1 pts · 5.1 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 97
G R. Hinton17 pts · 4.9 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 88
=Even
G C. Foster8.3 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 76
G B. Eisendrath5.3 pts · 2.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 16
→DUKEBig
G J. Theodosiou TR12.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
G A. Hunt6.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 42
→DUKEBig
G C. Boozer7.7 pts · 2.3 reb · 3 ast
Score 85
G F. Mannino1.8 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 36
→DUKESmall
F D. Sarr6.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 52
HarvardBetterDuke
HARV offense216th of 366 · -6.6
→DUKEBig
DUKE defense3rd of 366 · +11.4
HARV defense94th of 366 · -0.4
→DUKESmall
DUKE offense11th of 366 · +10.1
Backcourt-0.7 · 5 players
→DUKEBig
Backcourt+9.2 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-0.2 · 1 player
Bench-2.0 · 5 players
→DUKEBig
Bench+7.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestHARV betterDUKE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
J. Blackwell34 min · TRC. Foster25 minJ. Theodosiou23 min · TRC. Boozer23 minB. DavisNewD. RippeyNew
Forwards
D. Sarr24 minD. Scharnowski22 min · TRS. WilkinsNewC. WilliamsNew
Centers
P. Ngongba22 minM. MeyerNewJ. Boumtje BoumtjeNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 69.8 #290 | Points per game | 81.6 #36 |
| 1.08 #184 | Points per possession | 1.23 #4 |
| 64.7 #350 | Pace (possessions) | 66.8 #285 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.2 #94 | Effective FG% | 56.6 #13 |
| 34.7 #135 | 3-point % | 34.7 #133 |
| 40.2 #167 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.5 #100 |
| 25.7 #359 | Free throw rate | 38.2 #97 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.5 #236 | Turnover rate | 16.0 #139 |
| 26.8 #302 | Offensive rebound rate | 38.4 #4 |
| 14.2 #129 | Assists per game | 16.7 #32 |
| Defense | ||
| 67.3 #22 | Points allowed | 63.6 #3 |
| 1.04 #70 | Points allowed per possession | 0.95 #2 |
| 50.4 #122 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.2 #13 |
| 32.6 #94 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.6 #27 |
| 17.1 #147 | Turnovers forced | 17.2 #133 |
| 71.8 #69 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.8 #10 |
| 7.1 #111 | Steals per game | 7.4 #92 |
| 3.7 #109 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #164 |
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.
Duke
35-3 in 2025-26 overall · 20-1 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn72–73
- Wvs St John's80–75
- Wvs TCU81–58
- Wvs Siena71–65
- Wvs Virginia74–70
A week or more of rest.