MassMutual Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MASS | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WAKE 83–71 · win probability WAKE 86%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.2
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: WAKE has more of the edges
WAKE 4, MASS 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WAKE 30.1%, MASS 33.3%. Defensive: WAKE 67.0%, MASS 73.9%
WAKE offense vs MASS defense
Offense 80th of 366 against a defense 248th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
WAKE has played the 64th-hardest schedule, MASS the 181st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WAKE 15.5%, MASS 17.8%. Forced: WAKE 17.7%, MASS 16.9%
MASS offense vs WAKE defense
Offense 170th of 366 against a defense 96th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WAKE 9%, MASS 46%. Transfers in: WAKE 6, MASS 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Free throws
Free throw rate: WAKE 35.2, MASS 37.0. Allowed: WAKE 35.7, MASS 44.6
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: WAKE plays 70.2 a game (112th fastest), MASS 72.7 (21st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
WAKE hits 34.1% and allows 32.9%; MASS hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 43.6% and 35.4% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WAKE 52.7 and allows 51.8; MASS 53.1 and allows 52.9
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 | — | WAKE -12.3 | — |
| Total | — | 154.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | WAKE 83.2 · MASS 71 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WAKE -7.4 | — |
| 1H total | 72.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | WAKE 39.7 · MASS 32.3 | — |
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% | 5-5 50% | |
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Wake Forest
35 games played
Straight up
18-17
51% wins
Against the spread
16-19
46% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-15
57% overs · avg +0.6 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 3 | vs | W 88-74 | -19.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 81-65 | -22.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 84-85 | +15.5 | W +14.5 | 168.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 109-75 | -30.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 83-84 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 69-68 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 99-51 | -17.5 | W +30.5 | 159.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-73 | -17.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 68-86 | -4.5 | L −22.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 75-66 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 111-73 | -18.5 | W +19.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 71-68 | -24.5 | L −21.5 | 163.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 67-98 | +5.5 | L −25.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 57-70 | +10.5 | L −2.5 | 159.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 81-78 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 77-81 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 84-87 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-68 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 79-91 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 69-90 | +19.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 76-80 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 78-96 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 80-88 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 83-67 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 68-63 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 85-77 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 63-82 | +3.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 67-68 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-83 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 70-75 | +14.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 80-73 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 95-89 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 62-71 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 18 | vs | W 82-72 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 75-78 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
AMER
W 88-74
−5.5
7
vs
MORE
W 81-65
−6.5
11
vs
MICH
L 84-85
+14.5
16
vs
UML
W 109-75
+3.5
20
vs
TTU
L 83-84
+8.5
21
vs
MEM
W 69-68
−1.5
25
vs
CAM
W 99-51
+30.5
28
vs
NE
W 86-73
−4.5
2
vs
OU
L 68-86
−22.5
6
vs
WVU
W 75-66
+11.5
14
vs
QUC
W 111-73
+19.5
17
vs
LONG
W 71-68
−21.5
21
vs
VAN
L 67-98
−25.5
31
@
NCSU
L 57-70
−2.5
3
vs
VT
W 81-78
−2.5
7
vs
MIA
L 77-81
−5.5
10
@
UNC
L 84-87
+7.5
17
@
FSU
W 69-68
−0.5
20
vs
SMU
L 79-91
−13.5
24
@
DUKE
L 69-90
−1.5
27
@
PITT
L 76-80
−2.5
31
vs
NCSU
L 78-96
−12.5
7
vs
LOU
L 80-88
+1.5
11
@
GT
W 83-67
+12.5
14
vs
STAN
W 68-63
+0.5
18
vs
CLEM
W 85-77
+12.5
21
@
VT
L 63-82
−15.5
25
@
BC
L 67-68
−4.5
28
vs
SYR
W 88-83
+1.5
3
@
UVA
L 70-75
+9.5
7
vs
CAL
W 80-73
+1.5
10
vs
VT
W 95-89
+4.5
11
vs
CLEM
L 62-71
−3.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 82-72
+0.5
22
vs
ILST
L 75-78
−11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 19avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
AMER
W 88-74
+22.5
7
vs
MORE
W 81-65
−6.5
11
vs
MICH
L 84-85
+0.5
16
vs
UML
W 109-75
+18.5
20
vs
TTU
L 83-84
+6.5
21
vs
MEM
W 69-68
−23.5
25
vs
CAM
W 99-51
−9.5
28
vs
NE
W 86-73
+4.5
2
vs
OU
L 68-86
−5.5
6
vs
WVU
W 75-66
−2.5
14
vs
QUC
W 111-73
+18.5
17
vs
LONG
W 71-68
−24.5
21
vs
VAN
L 67-98
+0.5
31
@
NCSU
L 57-70
−32.5
3
vs
VT
W 81-78
+5.5
7
vs
MIA
L 77-81
+0.5
10
@
UNC
L 84-87
+16.5
17
@
FSU
W 69-68
−31.5
20
vs
SMU
L 79-91
+12.5
24
@
DUKE
L 69-90
+5.5
27
@
PITT
L 76-80
+5.5
31
vs
NCSU
L 78-96
+17.5
7
vs
LOU
L 80-88
+5.5
11
@
GT
W 83-67
−8.5
14
vs
STAN
W 68-63
−19.5
18
vs
CLEM
W 85-77
+21.5
21
@
VT
L 63-82
−5.5
25
@
BC
L 67-68
−10.5
28
vs
SYR
W 88-83
+18.5
3
@
UVA
L 70-75
−5.5
7
vs
CAL
W 80-73
−1.5
10
vs
VT
W 95-89
+33.5
11
vs
CLEM
L 62-71
−10.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 82-72
+5.5
22
vs
ILST
L 75-78
+0.5
over 20under 15avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Wake Forest has the better starters
Position by position: Wake Forest 3, UMass 1, even 1
Wake ForestBetterUMass
G K. Kennedy TR18.4 pts · 4.6 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 91
←WAKEBig
G D. Carbuccia6.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 6.3 ast
Score 29
G J. Ray TR11.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 56
←WAKESmall
G J. Ndjigue6.5 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 34
G J. McDowell TR3.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 40
=Even
G J. Clayton TR3.9 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 36
F R. Nyeri TR8.4 pts · 6.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 34
→MASSSmall
F J. Wang TR8.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 62
F X. Pintelon TR5.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 47
←WAKEBig
F D. Wimbley2.2 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 0
Wake ForestBetterUMass
WAKE offense80th of 366 · +0.5
←WAKEBig
MASS defense248th of 366 · -6.5
WAKE defense96th of 366 · -0.5
←WAKESmall
MASS offense170th of 366 · -5.2
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
←WAKEBig
Backcourt-4.5 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-2.5 · 2 players
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestWAKE betterMASS betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Kennedy37 min · TRJ. Ray29 min · TRJ. McDowell17 min · TRI. Carr13 minA. Beard2 minW. Underwood2 min
Forwards
R. Nyeri26 min · TRX. Pintelon18 min · TRV. Ricchiuti2 minJ. AbsonNewV. ChaudhriNewG. PlacideNew
Centers
A. Dorn9 min · TR
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.8 #83 | Points per game | 79.9 #68 |
| 1.12 #94 | Points per possession | 1.10 #144 |
| 70.2 #112 | Pace (possessions) | 72.7 #21 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.7 #117 | Effective FG% | 53.1 #99 |
| 34.1 #166 | 3-point % | 35.2 #100 |
| 43.6 #99 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #265 |
| 35.2 #170 | Free throw rate | 37.0 #130 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.5 #107 | Turnover rate | 17.8 #263 |
| 30.1 #196 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.3 #80 |
| 14.4 #123 | Assists per game | 16.7 #30 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.9 #239 | Points allowed | 78.8 #288 |
| 1.10 #214 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #189 |
| 51.8 #202 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.9 #262 |
| 32.9 #117 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.0 #121 |
| 17.7 #114 | Turnovers forced | 16.9 #162 |
| 67.0 #298 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.9 #20 |
| 7.7 #59 | Steals per game | 6.6 #164 |
| 3.5 #136 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #334 |
Wake Forest
18-17 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Illinois St75–78
- Wvs Navy82–72
- Lvs Clemson62–71
- Wvs Virginia Tech95–89
- Wvs California80–73
A week or more of rest.
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.