Canisius Golden Griffins at Buffalo Bulls: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 15, 5:30 PM ETBroadview Arena · at Buffalo

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Canisius and Buffalo
CAN	This season	BUF
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 BUF 79–65 · win probability BUF 89%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 144.2

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: BUF has more of the edges

CAN 1, BUF 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

BUFBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CAN 19.6%, BUF 16.2%. Forced: CAN 16.0%, BUF 17.8%

BUFBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: CAN 31.4, BUF 39.6. Allowed: CAN 35.2, BUF 31.4

Context

Schedule so far

CAN has played the 337th-hardest schedule, BUF the 198th. A record against a soft schedule means less

BUFSmall

BUF offense vs CAN defense

Offense 215th of 366 against a defense 321st, on the model’s ratings

BUFSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: CAN 46.3 and allows 52.2; BUF 55.4 and allows 55.1

BUFSmall

CAN offense vs BUF defense

Offense 358th of 366 against a defense 257th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 66 possessions: CAN plays 64.6 a game (353rd fastest), BUF 68.2 (219th). Faster games mean more points

CANSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CAN 29.3%, BUF 27.1%. Defensive: CAN 70.2%, BUF 68.9%

BUFSmall

Home court

BUF at home. This season: BUF 0-0 at home, CAN 0-0 away

Even

Three-pointers

CAN hits 33.3% and allows 33.0%; BUF hits 37.9% and allows 35.1%. Threes are 39.5% and 45.5% of their shots

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CAN 1%, BUF 8%. Transfers in: CAN 6, BUF 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	BUF -14.3	—
Total	—	144.2	—
Projected score	—	CAN 64.9 · BUF 79.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	BUF -8.4	—
1H total	67.5	—
1H projected score	CAN 29.5 · BUF 37.9	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
CAN LWLWW	15-15	50%	8-8	—
BUF WLLLW	17-13	57%	5-8	—

Venue/role: CAN away; BUF home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CAN UOUUU	9-21	30%	9-21
BUF OUUOU	16-14	53%	15-15

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
CAN	2-8 20%	5-5 50%	3-7 30%
BUF	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	4-6 40%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Canisius

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 20	vs MERC	W58–55WU
Nov 21	vs UALB	No recent meeting
Nov 22	vs WIU	No recent meeting

Buffalo

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 19	@ SBU	L69–77LO
Nov 28	vs TOW	No recent meeting
Dec 2	@ WMU	W88–71WO

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

CAN 1–2 BUFBUF leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · BUF has won the last 2 meetings · CAN 1-2 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 29, 2025-26	BUF 71 @ CAN 53	CAN +9.5	BUF W
Nov 27, 2022-23	CAN 66 @ BUF 86	BUF -5.5	BUF W
Dec 18, 2021-22	BUF 64 vs CAN 65	CAN +16.5	CAN W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Canisius

30 games played

Straight up

9-21

30% wins

Against the spread

15-15

50% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

9-21

30% overs · avg −3.3 pts vs the total

Straight up

9-2130%

L L W L W W L L L W L L W W W L L L L L L L L L L L W L W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

15-1550%

L W W L L W L L L W W L W W W L L L W W W L L W L L W L W W

2 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

9-2130%

U O U U U O U U U U U O O O U U U O U U O O U U U U O U U U

3 straight unders1 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@DAY	L 48-88	+25.5	L −14.5	142.5	U 136
Nov 8	@SBU	L 70-89	+21.5	W +2.5	136.5	O 159
Nov 12	vsMERC	W 58-55	+1.5	W +4.5	135.5	U 113
Nov 17	@HPU	L 50-93	+23.5	L −19.5	152.5	U 143
Nov 21	vsUMES	W 60-57	-3.5	L −0.5	128.5	U 117
Nov 23	vsBING	W 75-66	-2.5	W +6.5	129.5	O 141
Nov 29	vsBUF	L 53-71	+9.5	L −8.5	139.5	U 124
Dec 5	@SPU	L 57-69	+9.5	L −2.5	129.5	U 126
Dec 7	@SIE	L 52-74	+17.5	L −4.5	131.5	U 126
Dec 13	@ME	W 70-43	+6.5	W +33.5	127.5	U 113
Dec 16	@URI	L 45-62	+21.5	W +4.5	138.5	U 107
Dec 22	@DUQ	L 59-103	+19.5	L −24.5	143.5	O 162
Jan 2	vsFAIR	W 85-81	+6.5	W +10.5	140.5	O 166
Jan 4	vsSHU	W 82-78	+5.5	W +9.5	141.5	O 160
Jan 9	@MAN	W 70-64	+7.5	W +13.5	145.5	U 134
Jan 11	@IONA	L 48-74	+11.5	L −14.5	141.5	U 122
Jan 14	vsNIA	L 54-59	-2.5	L −7.5	126.5	U 113
Jan 17	vsMSM	L 68-78	+3.5	L −6.5	135.5	O 146
Jan 22	@SHU	L 66-69	+10.5	W +7.5	145.5	U 135
Jan 24	@FAIR	L 55-61	+10.5	W +4.5	141.5	U 116
Jan 30	vsMRST	L 86-88	+9.5	W +7.5	129.5	O 174
Feb 1	vsSIE	L 63-78	+8.5	L −6.5	135.5	O 141
Feb 3	@NIA	L 56-65	+2.5	L −6.5	129.5	U 121
Feb 5	@QUIN	L 60-75	+15.5	W +0.5	141.5	U 135
Feb 13	vsIONA	L 63-69	+4.5	L −1.5	137.5	U 132
Feb 15	vsMAN	L 65-69	+1.5	L −2.5	142.5	U 134
Feb 20	@RID	W 72-66	+1.5	W +7.5	131.5	O 138
Feb 22	@MSM	L 47-68	+7.5	L −13.5	137.5	U 115
Feb 27	vsMRMK	W 67-62	+8.5	W +13.5	129.5	U 129
Mar 1	vsQUIN	L 63-67	+7.5	W +3.5	138.5	U 130

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

DAY

L 48-88

−14.5

SBU

L 70-89

+2.5

MERC

W 58-55

+4.5

HPU

L 50-93

−19.5

UMES

W 60-57

−0.5

BING

W 75-66

+6.5

BUF

L 53-71

−8.5

SPU

L 57-69

−2.5

SIE

L 52-74

−4.5

W 70-43

+33.5

URI

L 45-62

+4.5

DUQ

L 59-103

−24.5

FAIR

W 85-81

+10.5

SHU

W 82-78

+9.5

MAN

W 70-64

+13.5

IONA

L 48-74

−14.5

NIA

L 54-59

−7.5

MSM

L 68-78

−6.5

SHU

L 66-69

+7.5

FAIR

L 55-61

+4.5

MRST

L 86-88

+7.5

SIE

L 63-78

−6.5

NIA

L 56-65

−6.5

QUIN

L 60-75

+0.5

IONA

L 63-69

−1.5

MAN

L 65-69

−2.5

RID

W 72-66

+7.5

MSM

L 47-68

−13.5

MRMK

W 67-62

+13.5

QUIN

L 63-67

+3.5

covered 15didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

DAY

L 48-88

−6.5

SBU

L 70-89

+22.5

MERC

W 58-55

−22.5

HPU

L 50-93

−9.5

UMES

W 60-57

−11.5

BING

W 75-66

+11.5

BUF

L 53-71

−15.5

SPU

L 57-69

−3.5

SIE

L 52-74

−5.5

W 70-43

−14.5

URI

L 45-62

−31.5

DUQ

L 59-103

+18.5

FAIR

W 85-81

+25.5

SHU

W 82-78

+18.5

MAN

W 70-64

−11.5

IONA

L 48-74

−19.5

NIA

L 54-59

−13.5

MSM

L 68-78

+10.5

SHU

L 66-69

−10.5

FAIR

L 55-61

−25.5

MRST

L 86-88

+44.5

SIE

L 63-78

+5.5

NIA

L 56-65

−8.5

QUIN

L 60-75

−6.5

IONA

L 63-69

−5.5

MAN

L 65-69

−8.5

RID

W 72-66

+6.5

MSM

L 47-68

−22.5

MRMK

W 67-62

−0.5

QUIN

L 63-67

−8.5

over 9under 21avg −3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Buffalo

30 games played

Straight up

15-15

50% wins

Against the spread

17-13

57% covers · avg +1.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

16-14

53% overs · avg +2.7 pts vs the total

Straight up

15-1550%

W W W W W W W L W L W W W L L L L L W L L L W L W L L W L L

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1357%

W W W W W L W L W L W W W L L W L L W L W L W L W W L L L W

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

16-1453%

O O U O U U U O O U O U O O O O U U O O U O U U O O U U O U

1 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsUSM	W 85-79	-3.5	W +2.5	153.5	O 164
Nov 7	vsGB	W 83-76	-3.5	W +3.5	147.5	O 159
Nov 11	@DEP	W 66-53	+18.5	W +31.5	153.5	U 119
Nov 18	vsUVM	W 94-90	+1.5	W +5.5	141.5	O 184
Nov 24	vsVMI	W 78-70	-5.5	W +2.5	150.5	U 148
Nov 26	vsBUCK	W 73-71	-4.5	L −2.5	146.5	U 144
Nov 29	@CAN	W 71-53	-9.5	W +8.5	139.5	U 124
Dec 6	vsSBU	L 69-77	+5.5	L −2.5	144.5	O 146
Dec 9	@UMBC	W 83-79	-3.5	W +0.5	145.5	O 162
Dec 14	@ECU	L 70-73	+1.5	L −1.5	146.5	U 143
Dec 20	@WMU	W 88-71	-2.5	W +14.5	150.5	O 159
Dec 31	@NIU	W 81-67	-6.5	W +7.5	152.5	U 148
Jan 3	vsBALL	W 85-72	-6.5	W +6.5	145.5	O 157
Jan 10	@OHIO	L 80-91	+4.5	L −6.5	156.5	O 171
Jan 13	vsKENT	L 81-87	+2.5	L −3.5	165.5	O 168
Jan 17	@M-OH	L 102-105	+10.5	W +7.5	162.5	O 207
Jan 20	vsAKR	L 63-82	+8.5	L −10.5	166.5	U 145
Jan 23	vsMASS	L 67-68	-1.5	L −2.5	159.5	U 135
Jan 27	@BGSU	W 89-78	+7.5	W +18.5	150.5	O 167
Jan 31	vsOHIO	L 83-95	-2.5	L −14.5	156.5	O 178
Feb 3	vsM-OH	L 71-73	+4.5	W +2.5	165.5	U 144
Feb 7	@USA	L 69-81	+3.5	L −8.5	145.5	O 150
Feb 11	@BALL	W 63-53	+1.5	W +11.5	141.5	U 116
Feb 17	vsNIU	L 70-72	-9.5	L −11.5	145.5	U 142
Feb 21	@MASS	W 86-82	+7.5	W +11.5	151.5	O 168
Feb 24	@AKR	L 85-99	+15.5	W +1.5	160.5	O 184
Feb 28	vsCMU	L 70-75	-5.5	L −10.5	151.5	U 145
Mar 3	vsEMU	W 72-67	-5.5	L −0.5	143.5	U 139
Mar 6	@TOL	L 78-99	+5.5	L −15.5	155.5	O 177
Mar 12	vsAKR	L 70-73	+12.5	W +9.5	158.5	U 143

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

USM

W 85-79

+2.5

W 83-76

+3.5

DEP

W 66-53

+31.5

UVM

W 94-90

+5.5

VMI

W 78-70

+2.5

BUCK

W 73-71

−2.5

CAN

W 71-53

+8.5

SBU

L 69-77

−2.5

UMBC

W 83-79

+0.5

ECU

L 70-73

−1.5

WMU

W 88-71

+14.5

NIU

W 81-67

+7.5

BALL

W 85-72

+6.5

OHIO

L 80-91

−6.5

KENT

L 81-87

−3.5

M-OH

L 102-105

+7.5

AKR

L 63-82

−10.5

MASS

L 67-68

−2.5

BGSU

W 89-78

+18.5

OHIO

L 83-95

−14.5

M-OH

L 71-73

+2.5

USA

L 69-81

−8.5

BALL

W 63-53

+11.5

NIU

L 70-72

−11.5

MASS

W 86-82

+11.5

AKR

L 85-99

+1.5

CMU

L 70-75

−10.5

EMU

W 72-67

−0.5

TOL

L 78-99

−15.5

AKR

L 70-73

+9.5

covered 17didn’t cover 13avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

USM

W 85-79

+10.5

W 83-76

+11.5

DEP

W 66-53

−34.5

UVM

W 94-90

+42.5

VMI

W 78-70

−2.5

BUCK

W 73-71

−2.5

CAN

W 71-53

−15.5

SBU

L 69-77

+1.5

UMBC

W 83-79

+16.5

ECU

L 70-73

−3.5

WMU

W 88-71

+8.5

NIU

W 81-67

−4.5

BALL

W 85-72

+11.5

OHIO

L 80-91

+14.5

KENT

L 81-87

+2.5

M-OH

L 102-105

+44.5

AKR

L 63-82

−21.5

MASS

L 67-68

−24.5

BGSU

W 89-78

+16.5

OHIO

L 83-95

+21.5

M-OH

L 71-73

−21.5

USA

L 69-81

+4.5

BALL

W 63-53

−25.5

NIU

L 70-72

−3.5

MASS

W 86-82

+16.5

AKR

L 85-99

+23.5

CMU

L 70-75

−6.5

EMU

W 72-67

−4.5

TOL

L 78-99

+21.5

AKR

L 70-73

−15.5

over 16under 14avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Buffalo has the better starters

Position by position: Canisius 0, Buffalo 3, even 2

CanisiusBetterBuffalo

G V. Sigona TR7.5 pts · 1 reb · 1.7 ast Score 22

BUFSmall

G D. Steffe TR9.9 pts · 3 reb · 2.5 ast Score 39

G M. Wilson TR4.9 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast Score 18

Even

G D. Ducommun TR10.8 pts · 2.8 reb · 3.3 ast Score 15

G D. Winters TR1.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast Not ranked

No call

G J. Starling TR10.9 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.4 ast Score 55

F P. Ryan TR6.8 pts · 4 reb · 1.1 ast Score 7

BUFSmall

F J. Pitre TR5.9 pts · 6.4 reb · 0.9 ast Score 30

F C. Efinda TR4.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast Score 8

BUFBig

F A. Lorick TR10.2 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 75

CanisiusBetterBuffalo

CAN offense358th of 366 · -14.0

BUFSmall

BUF defense257th of 366 · -6.7

CAN defense321st of 366 · -8.3

BUFSmall

BUF offense215th of 366 · -6.6

Backcourt-3.5 · 3 players

CANSmall

Backcourt-5.1 · 3 players

Frontcourt-4.4 · 2 players

BUFBig

Frontcourt-0.2 · 2 players

Bench-0.4 · 2 players

CANBig

Bench-3.9 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestCAN betterBUF betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Canisius

Guards

V. Sigona20 min · TRM. Wilson13 min · TRD. Winters6 min · TRT. Augustine2 minC. FrancisNewW. FowlerNew

Forwards

P. Ryan23 min · TRC. Efinda15 min · TRN. Deer3 min · TRN. FoutsNewW. TaylorNewA. RiakNew

Buffalo

Guards

D. Steffe31 min · TRD. Ducommun31 min · TRJ. Starling29 min · TRM. Tyne19 min · TRK. Jones10 minH. Reede9 min · TR

Forwards

J. Pitre25 min · TRA. Lorick22 min · TRM. Buteliauskas6 minB. JohnNewT. KuskaNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

CAN62.2 #361

BUF77.5 #106

Points per possession

CAN0.96 #349

BUF1.14 #73

Pace (possessions)

CAN64.6 #353

BUF68.2 #219

Shooting

Effective FG%

CAN46.3 #348

BUF55.4 #30

3-point %

CAN33.3 #213

BUF37.9 #20

3-point attempt rate

CAN39.5 #182

BUF45.5 #57

Free throw rate

CAN31.4 #271

BUF39.6 #65

Possessions

Turnover rate

CAN19.6 #341

BUF16.2 #152

Offensive rebound rate

CAN29.3 #226

BUF27.1 #291

Assists per game

CAN11.9 #293

BUF14.1 #138

Defense

Points allowed

CAN71.4 #87

BUF77.0 #244

Points allowed per possession

CAN1.10 #228

BUF1.13 #279

Opponent effective FG%

CAN52.2 #225

BUF55.1 #333

Opponent 3-point %

CAN33.0 #124

BUF35.1 #252

Turnovers forced

CAN16.0 #222

BUF17.8 #105

Defensive rebound rate

CAN70.2 #151

BUF68.9 #209

Steals per game

CAN4.8 #342

BUF7.6 #72

Blocks per game

CAN2.6 #292

BUF2.8 #262

CAN		BUF
Scoring
62.2 #361	Points per game	77.5 #106
0.96 #349	Points per possession	1.14 #73
64.6 #353	Pace (possessions)	68.2 #219
Shooting
46.3 #348	Effective FG%	55.4 #30
33.3 #213	3-point %	37.9 #20
39.5 #182	3-point attempt rate	45.5 #57
31.4 #271	Free throw rate	39.6 #65
Possessions
19.6 #341	Turnover rate	16.2 #152
29.3 #226	Offensive rebound rate	27.1 #291
11.9 #293	Assists per game	14.1 #138
Defense
71.4 #87	Points allowed	77.0 #244
1.10 #228	Points allowed per possession	1.13 #279
52.2 #225	Opponent effective FG%	55.1 #333
33.0 #124	Opponent 3-point %	35.1 #252
16.0 #222	Turnovers forced	17.8 #105
70.2 #151	Defensive rebound rate	68.9 #209
4.8 #342	Steals per game	7.6 #72
2.6 #292	Blocks per game	2.8 #262

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Canisius

9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Metro Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Quinnipiac63–67
Wvs Merrimack67–62
L@ Mount St Marys47–68
W@ Rider72–66
Lvs Manhattan65–69

A week or more of rest.

Buffalo

15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Mid-American Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Akron70–73
L@ Toledo78–99
Wvs E Michigan72–67
Lvs C Michigan70–75
L@ Akron85–99

A week or more of rest.

Canisius Golden Griffins at Buffalo Bulls

What could decide it: BUF has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Canisius

Buffalo

Buffalo has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Canisius

Buffalo