Mullins Center · at UMass · Conference game
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 MASS 78–77 · win probability MASS 54%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.6
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
WMU 1, MASS 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
WMU offense vs MASS defense
Offense 137th of 366 against a defense 248th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: WMU 49.9 and allows 54.4; MASS 53.1 and allows 52.9
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WMU 30.5%, MASS 33.3%. Defensive: WMU 70.9%, MASS 73.9%
Three-pointers
WMU hits 35.3% and allows 36.1%; MASS hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 36.1% and 35.4% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WMU 0%, MASS 46%. Transfers in: WMU 9, MASS 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
MASS offense vs WMU defense
Offense 170th of 366 against a defense 253rd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: WMU plays 69.3 a game (160th fastest), MASS 72.7 (21st). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WMU 16.8%, MASS 17.8%. Forced: WMU 13.4%, MASS 16.9%
Home court
MASS at home. This season: MASS 0-0 at home, WMU 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: WMU 32.8, MASS 37.0. Allowed: WMU 37.5, MASS 44.6
Context
Schedule so far
WMU has played the 175th-hardest schedule, MASS the 181st. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | MASS -1.1 | — |
| Total | — | 155.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | WMU 77.2 · MASS 78.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MASS -0.6 | — |
| 1H total | 72.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | WMU 36.1 · MASS 36.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | |
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
WMU 0–1 MASSMASS leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · WMU 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2025-26 | MASS 85 @ WMU 82 | WMU +5.5 | WMU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
W Michigan
29 games played
Straight up
9-20
31% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-11
62% overs · avg +1.5 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 76-71 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 82-91 | +9.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 83-71 | +3.5 | W +15.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 78-83 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 172.5 | U 161 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 58-91 | +26.5 | L −6.5 | 159.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 83-60 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 55-84 | +4.5 | L −24.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 88-74 | -5.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 83-73 | +5.5 | W +15.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 51-91 | +25.5 | L −14.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 71-88 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 79-84 | +10.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 76-87 | +14.5 | W +3.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 79-62 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 82-85 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 89-104 | +21.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 54-72 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 77-65 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 65-85 | +1.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 71-91 | +10.5 | L −9.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 61-77 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 79-90 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 76-62 | +6.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 73-90 | +14.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 70-83 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 88-79 | +11.5 | W +20.5 | 149.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 67-69 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 161.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 71-74 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 6 | @ | L 78-86 | +13.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CCU
W 76-71
+2.5
9
@
CAM
L 82-91
+0.5
12
vs
PFW
W 83-71
+15.5
16
@
SDAK
L 78-83
−1.5
20
@
OSU
L 58-91
−6.5
23
vs
MSM
W 83-60
+21.5
29
@
VAL
L 55-84
−24.5
3
vs
USI
W 88-74
+8.5
6
@
SIUE
W 83-73
+15.5
14
@
IOWA
L 51-91
−14.5
20
vs
BUF
L 71-88
−14.5
30
@
TOL
L 79-84
+5.5
6
@
M-OH
L 76-87
+3.5
10
vs
EMU
W 79-62
+18.5
13
vs
MASS
L 82-85
+2.5
17
@
AKR
L 89-104
+6.5
20
vs
BGSU
L 54-72
−11.5
24
vs
CMU
W 77-65
+6.5
27
@
NIU
L 65-85
−18.5
3
@
OHIO
L 71-91
−9.5
7
@
TXST
L 61-77
−9.5
11
vs
TOL
L 79-90
−4.5
14
@
EMU
W 76-62
+20.5
17
vs
AKR
L 73-90
−2.5
21
@
CMU
L 70-83
−9.5
24
@
BGSU
W 88-79
+20.5
27
vs
M-OH
L 67-69
+10.5
3
vs
BALL
L 71-74
−4.5
6
@
KENT
L 78-86
+5.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CCU
W 76-71
+0.5
9
@
CAM
L 82-91
+20.5
12
vs
PFW
W 83-71
−7.5
16
@
SDAK
L 78-83
−11.5
20
@
OSU
L 58-91
−10.5
23
vs
MSM
W 83-60
−7.5
29
@
VAL
L 55-84
−7.5
3
vs
USI
W 88-74
+11.5
6
@
SIUE
W 83-73
+16.5
14
@
IOWA
L 51-91
+4.5
20
vs
BUF
L 71-88
+8.5
30
@
TOL
L 79-84
+2.5
6
@
M-OH
L 76-87
+2.5
10
vs
EMU
W 79-62
−4.5
13
vs
MASS
L 82-85
+9.5
17
@
AKR
L 89-104
+29.5
20
vs
BGSU
L 54-72
−26.5
24
vs
CMU
W 77-65
−6.5
27
@
NIU
L 65-85
+3.5
3
@
OHIO
L 71-91
+6.5
7
@
TXST
L 61-77
−8.5
11
vs
TOL
L 79-90
+14.5
14
@
EMU
W 76-62
−5.5
17
vs
AKR
L 73-90
+2.5
21
@
CMU
L 70-83
+2.5
24
@
BGSU
W 88-79
+17.5
27
vs
M-OH
L 67-69
−25.5
3
vs
BALL
L 71-74
+6.5
6
@
KENT
L 78-86
+6.5
over 18under 11avg +1.5 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.
W Michigan has the better starters
Position by position: W Michigan 2, UMass 0, even 3
W MichiganBetterUMass
G T. Hayhurst TR10 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 41
=Even
G D. Carbuccia6.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 6.3 ast
Score 29
G M. Bendinger TR14.4 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 37
=Even
G J. Ndjigue6.5 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 34
G R. Lee TR15.9 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 79
←WMUBig
G J. Clayton TR3.9 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 36
G J. Washington TR10 pts · 2.3 reb · 4 ast
Score 73
=Even
F J. Wang TR8.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 62
F I. Finlinson TR9.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 56
←WMUBig
F D. Wimbley2.2 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 0
W MichiganBetterUMass
WMU offense137th of 366 · -4.0
←WMUSmall
MASS defense248th of 366 · -6.5
WMU defense253rd of 366 · -6.6
→MASSSmall
MASS offense170th of 366 · -5.2
Backcourt-1.0 · 4 players
←WMUBig
Backcourt-4.5 · 3 players
Frontcourt0.0 · 1 player
←WMUSmall
Frontcourt-2.5 · 2 players
Bench-1.7 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestWMU betterMASS betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Hayhurst31 min · TRM. Bendinger31 min · TRR. Lee29 min · TRJ. Washington27 min · TRJ. Gomez23 min · TRA. Harakow19 min · TR
Forwards
I. Finlinson23 min · TRJ. Eli15 min · TRA. Kiudulas14 min · TRD. WatkinsNew
Centers
J. JünemannNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #203 | Points per game | 79.9 #68 |
| 1.06 #225 | Points per possession | 1.10 #144 |
| 69.3 #160 | Pace (possessions) | 72.7 #21 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.9 #241 | Effective FG% | 53.1 #99 |
| 35.3 #95 | 3-point % | 35.2 #100 |
| 36.1 #248 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #265 |
| 32.8 #241 | Free throw rate | 37.0 #130 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #191 | Turnover rate | 17.8 #263 |
| 30.5 #177 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.3 #80 |
| 12.4 #256 | Assists per game | 16.7 #30 |
| Defense | ||
| 80.1 #320 | Points allowed | 78.8 #288 |
| 1.16 #336 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #189 |
| 54.4 #310 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.9 #262 |
| 36.1 #307 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.0 #121 |
| 13.4 #346 | Turnovers forced | 16.9 #162 |
| 70.9 #110 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.9 #20 |
| 4.1 #362 | Steals per game | 6.6 #164 |
| 2.5 #301 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #334 |
W Michigan
9-20 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Kent State78–86
- Lvs Ball State71–74
- Lvs Miami OH67–69
- W@ Bowling Green88–79
- L@ C Michigan70–83
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.