Gervin GameAbove Center · at E Michigan · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | EMU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 EMU 77–72 · win probability EMU 65%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.4
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: MASS has more of the edges
MASS 2, EMU 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MASS 33.3%, EMU 27.8%. Defensive: MASS 73.9%, EMU 70.9%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: MASS plays 72.7 a game (21st fastest), EMU 68.9 (190th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
MASS hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%; EMU hits 32.4% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 35.4% and 31.8% of their shots
Home court
EMU at home. This season: EMU 0-0 at home, MASS 0-0 away
Even
EMU offense vs MASS defense
Offense 206th of 366 against a defense 248th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MASS 17.8%, EMU 17.5%. Forced: MASS 16.9%, EMU 15.5%
Context
Schedule so far
MASS has played the 181st-hardest schedule, EMU the 157th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: MASS 37.0, EMU 29.3. Allowed: MASS 44.6, EMU 35.5
Even
MASS offense vs EMU defense
Offense 170th of 366 against a defense 188th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MASS 46%, EMU 37%. Transfers in: MASS 2, EMU 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: MASS 53.1 and allows 52.9; EMU 49.6 and allows 50.3
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 | — | EMU -4.5 | — |
| Total | — | 149.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | MASS 72.4 · EMU 77 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | EMU -2.6 | — |
| 1H total | 69.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | MASS 33.6 · EMU 36.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 7-3 70% | |
| 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
MASS 1–1 EMUSeries tied · 2 games since 2021-22 · MASS 0-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 31, 2025-26 | EMU 67 @ MASS 70 | MASS -8.5 | EMU W |
| Dec 30, 2025-26 | MASS 74 @ EMU 80 | EMU +2.5 | EMU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
E Michigan
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
20-10
67% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-21
30% overs · avg −3.6 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 71-49 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 149.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 66-78 | +15.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 83-90 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 186.5 | U 173 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 72-62 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 97-91 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 46-87 | +33.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 64-56 | +22.5 | W +30.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 73-55 | -14.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 68-84 | +17.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 65-80 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 72-93 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 64-70 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 80-74 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 67-68 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 74-52 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 137.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 62-79 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 77-59 | -7.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 79-85 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 75-76 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 65-100 | -2.5 | L −37.5 | 139.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 67-70 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 64-66 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 60-65 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 131.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 91-95 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 186 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 62-76 | -6.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 66-54 | -4.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-94 | +8.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 64-74 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 67-72 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 69-77 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
GAST
W 71-49
+18.5
10
@
PITT
L 66-78
+3.5
14
vs
IUIN
L 83-90
−11.5
18
@
DETM
W 72-62
+11.5
21
vs
OAK
W 97-91
+7.5
24
@
LOU
L 46-87
−7.5
26
@
CIN
W 64-56
+30.5
28
vs
NJIT
W 73-55
+3.5
2
@
BTLR
L 68-84
+1.5
10
@
PFW
L 65-80
−11.5
19
@
AKR
L 72-93
−5.5
22
@
WRST
L 64-70
+4.5
30
vs
MASS
W 80-74
+8.5
3
vs
OHIO
L 67-68
+1.5
6
@
BALL
W 74-52
+23.5
10
@
WMU
L 62-79
−18.5
13
vs
NIU
W 77-59
+10.5
17
@
BGSU
L 79-85
+5.5
24
vs
KENT
L 75-76
+3.5
27
@
CMU
L 65-100
−37.5
31
@
MASS
L 67-70
+5.5
3
vs
AKR
L 64-66
+10.5
7
@
APP
L 60-65
+2.5
11
@
KENT
L 91-95
+6.5
14
vs
WMU
L 62-76
−20.5
17
vs
CMU
W 66-54
+7.5
21
@
TOL
L 75-94
−10.5
24
vs
M-OH
L 64-74
−1.5
3
@
BUF
L 67-72
+0.5
6
vs
BGSU
L 69-77
−2.5
covered 20didn’t cover 10avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
GAST
W 71-49
−29.5
10
@
PITT
L 66-78
+2.5
14
vs
IUIN
L 83-90
−13.5
18
@
DETM
W 72-62
−23.5
21
vs
OAK
W 97-91
+34.5
24
@
LOU
L 46-87
−29.5
26
@
CIN
W 64-56
−26.5
28
vs
NJIT
W 73-55
−13.5
2
@
BTLR
L 68-84
−1.5
10
@
PFW
L 65-80
−2.5
19
@
AKR
L 72-93
+9.5
22
@
WRST
L 64-70
−8.5
30
vs
MASS
W 80-74
+5.5
3
vs
OHIO
L 67-68
−15.5
6
@
BALL
W 74-52
−11.5
10
@
WMU
L 62-79
−4.5
13
vs
NIU
W 77-59
−5.5
17
@
BGSU
L 79-85
+22.5
24
vs
KENT
L 75-76
−3.5
27
@
CMU
L 65-100
+25.5
31
@
MASS
L 67-70
−11.5
3
vs
AKR
L 64-66
−23.5
7
@
APP
L 60-65
−6.5
11
@
KENT
L 91-95
+40.5
14
vs
WMU
L 62-76
−5.5
17
vs
CMU
W 66-54
−20.5
21
@
TOL
L 75-94
+23.5
24
vs
M-OH
L 64-74
−13.5
3
@
BUF
L 67-72
−4.5
6
vs
BGSU
L 69-77
+3.5
over 9under 21avg −3.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
E Michigan has the better starters
Position by position: UMass 1, E Michigan 2, even 2
UMassBetterE Michigan
G D. Carbuccia6.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 6.3 ast
Score 29
→EMUBig
G J. Fitzpatrick TR15.4 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 75
G J. Ndjigue6.5 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 34
=Even
G E. Richards TR9.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 32
G J. Clayton TR3.9 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 36
←MASSSmall
G B. Green4.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 9
F J. Wang TR8.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 62
=Even
F M. Habhab14.2 pts · 8.3 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 64
F D. Wimbley2.2 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 0
→EMUBig
F K. Brockhoff TR10.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 44
UMassBetterE Michigan
MASS offense170th of 366 · -5.2
=Even
EMU defense188th of 366 · -4.4
MASS defense248th of 366 · -6.5
=Even
EMU offense206th of 366 · -6.3
Backcourt-4.5 · 3 players
→EMUSmall
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.5 · 2 players
→EMUSmall
Frontcourt+0.1 · 2 players
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
→EMUSmall
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestMASS betterEMU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
J. Fitzpatrick36 min · TRE. Richards27 min · TRB. Green20 minG. Lawson18 minS. Harris17 min · TRD. PorterNew
Forwards
M. Habhab36 minK. Brockhoff22 min · TRK. JohnsonNewJ. WrightNewO. SuleimanNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 79.9 #68 | Points per game | 70.2 #282 |
| 1.10 #144 | Points per possession | 1.02 #298 |
| 72.7 #21 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #190 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.1 #99 | Effective FG% | 49.6 #264 |
| 35.2 #100 | 3-point % | 32.4 #259 |
| 35.4 #265 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.8 #332 |
| 37.0 #130 | Free throw rate | 29.3 #325 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #263 | Turnover rate | 17.5 #235 |
| 33.3 #80 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.8 #273 |
| 16.7 #30 | Assists per game | 12.4 #261 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.8 #288 | Points allowed | 74.4 #169 |
| 1.09 #189 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #142 |
| 52.9 #262 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.3 #115 |
| 33.0 #121 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #111 |
| 16.9 #162 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #249 |
| 73.9 #20 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #109 |
| 6.6 #164 | Steals per game | 5.7 #269 |
| 2.2 #334 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #61 |
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.
E Michigan
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Bowling Green69–77
- L@ Buffalo67–72
- Lvs Miami OH64–74
- L@ Toledo75–94
- Wvs C Michigan66–54
A week or more of rest.