Rose Hill Gym · at Fordham
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FOR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FOR 78–56 · win probability FOR 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 134.1
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: FOR has more of the edges
STO 0, FOR 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
STO offense vs FOR defense
Offense 363rd of 366 against a defense 71st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
STO has played the 352nd-hardest schedule, FOR the 136th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: STO 19.4%, FOR 17.2%. Forced: STO 13.4%, FOR 17.2%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: STO 27.5%, FOR 34.1%. Defensive: STO 72.9%, FOR 73.2%
FOR offense vs STO defense
Offense 119th of 366 against a defense 225th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: STO 28%, FOR 63%. Transfers in: STO 6, FOR 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: STO plays 67.6 a game (244th fastest), FOR 64.8 (349th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
FOR at home. This season: FOR 0-0 at home, STO 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
STO hits 31.7% and allows 33.4%; FOR hits 28.9% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 40.5% and 38.3% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: STO 46.9 and allows 47.8; FOR 48.6 and allows 49.9
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: STO 27.3, FOR 26.4. Allowed: STO 30.3, FOR 30.3
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 | — | FOR -22.3 | — |
| Total | — | 134.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | STO 55.9 · FOR 78.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FOR -13.1 | — |
| 1H total | 62.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | STO 24.8 · FOR 38 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
STO 0–1 FORFOR leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · STO 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2022-23 | STO 60 @ FOR 71 | FOR -11.5 | STO W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Stonehill
31 games played
Straight up
10-21
32% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg +0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-20
35% overs · avg −4 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 7 | @ | L 64-72 | +22.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 57-80 | +16.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 71-73 | +6.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 63-74 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 57-96 | +40.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 74-70 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 64-75 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 62-76 | +15.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 65-77 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 58-59 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 48-77 | +22.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 55-70 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 128.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 69-60 | +7.5 | W +16.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 69-76 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 85-82 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 62-57 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 128.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-63 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 63-66 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 26 | vs | W 61-59 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 58-57 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 131.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 65-54 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 58-74 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 54-61 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 132.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 55-68 | -2.5 | L −15.5 | 131.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 57-68 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 128.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 51-64 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 121.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 77-68 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 103-77 | -4.5 | W +21.5 | 140.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 72-75 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 81-71 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 51-56 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | U 107 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
DEP
L 64-72
+14.5
11
@
URI
L 57-80
−6.5
14
@
FAIR
L 71-73
+4.5
15
vs
L-MD
L 63-74
−4.5
17
@
ISU
L 57-96
+1.5
21
vs
LAF
W 74-70
+5.5
26
vs
UML
L 64-75
−13.5
30
@
QUIN
L 62-76
+1.5
2
@
BRY
L 65-77
−5.5
17
@
UNH
L 58-59
+2.5
22
@
SYR
L 48-77
−6.5
2
vs
NHVN
L 55-70
−16.5
4
@
WAG
W 69-60
+16.5
8
@
CCSU
L 69-76
+0.5
10
vs
CHST
W 85-82
−1.5
17
@
MERC
W 62-57
+9.5
19
@
SFPA
L 61-63
−0.5
23
vs
LIU
L 63-66
+2.5
26
vs
CCSU
W 61-59
+3.5
29
vs
FDU
W 58-57
−1.5
31
@
LEM
W 65-54
+13.5
5
@
FDU
L 58-74
−14.5
7
@
LIU
L 54-61
+3.5
12
@
CHST
L 55-68
−15.5
14
vs
WAG
L 57-68
−14.5
19
@
NHVN
L 51-64
−10.5
21
vs
LEM
W 77-68
+10.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 103-77
+21.5
28
vs
MERC
L 72-75
−1.5
4
@
LEM
W 81-71
+14.5
7
@
MERC
L 51-56
−0.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
DEP
L 64-72
−11.5
11
@
URI
L 57-80
−14.5
14
@
FAIR
L 71-73
+0.5
15
vs
L-MD
L 63-74
−1.5
17
@
ISU
L 57-96
+6.5
21
vs
LAF
W 74-70
+2.5
26
vs
UML
L 64-75
−9.5
30
@
QUIN
L 62-76
−10.5
2
@
BRY
L 65-77
+7.5
17
@
UNH
L 58-59
−21.5
22
@
SYR
L 48-77
−15.5
2
vs
NHVN
L 55-70
−3.5
4
@
WAG
W 69-60
−10.5
8
@
CCSU
L 69-76
+10.5
10
vs
CHST
W 85-82
+31.5
17
@
MERC
W 62-57
−9.5
19
@
SFPA
L 61-63
−17.5
23
vs
LIU
L 63-66
−8.5
26
vs
CCSU
W 61-59
−15.5
29
vs
FDU
W 58-57
−16.5
31
@
LEM
W 65-54
−21.5
5
@
FDU
L 58-74
+1.5
7
@
LIU
L 54-61
−17.5
12
@
CHST
L 55-68
−8.5
14
vs
WAG
L 57-68
−3.5
19
@
NHVN
L 51-64
−6.5
21
vs
LEM
W 77-68
+7.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 103-77
+39.5
28
vs
MERC
L 72-75
+9.5
4
@
LEM
W 81-71
+11.5
7
@
MERC
L 51-56
−27.5
over 11under 20avg −4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Fordham
29 games played
Straight up
14-15
48% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
7-22
24% overs · avg −7.3 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 4 | vs | L 61-72 | -14.5 | L −25.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 63-61 | -12.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 71-76 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 69-53 | -4.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 88-68 | -10.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 62-72 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 69-70 | -10.5 | L −11.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 75-54 | -11.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 82-53 | -8.5 | W +20.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 65-47 | -13.5 | W +4.5 | 127.5 | U 112 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 56-63 | +16.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 75-83 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 58-67 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 134.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 81-77 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 56-78 | +17.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 63-74 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 63-68 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 64-58 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 136.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-65 | +11.5 | W +25.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 59-63 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 67-70 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 68-64 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 135.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 70-66 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 134.5 | O 136 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 62-59 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 63-59 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 63-82 | +12.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 84-87 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 61-49 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | U 110 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 62-66 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
NJIT
L 61-72
−25.5
11
vs
WAG
W 63-61
−10.5
14
@
IONA
L 71-76
+0.5
20
vs
LIU
W 69-53
+11.5
29
vs
UALB
W 88-68
+9.5
30
vs
COLG
L 62-72
−8.5
6
vs
HC
L 69-70
−11.5
10
vs
FDU
W 75-54
+9.5
13
vs
MAN
W 82-53
+20.5
22
vs
NHVN
W 65-47
+4.5
31
@
DAY
L 56-63
+9.5
4
vs
RICH
L 75-83
−5.5
7
vs
GMU
L 58-67
−3.5
10
@
SBU
W 81-77
+12.5
14
@
SLU
L 56-78
−4.5
17
vs
DUQ
L 63-74
−9.5
21
@
DAV
L 63-68
−0.5
28
vs
LAS
W 64-58
+0.5
31
@
GW
W 79-65
+25.5
3
vs
VCU
L 59-63
+3.5
7
vs
SBU
L 67-70
−1.5
10
@
JOES
W 68-64
+7.5
14
@
URI
W 70-66
+8.5
18
vs
LUC
W 62-59
−5.5
21
vs
DAV
W 63-59
+5.5
28
@
VCU
L 63-82
−6.5
4
@
LAS
L 84-87
−6.5
7
vs
URI
W 61-49
+10.5
12
vs
GW
L 62-66
+3.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
NJIT
L 61-72
−14.5
11
vs
WAG
W 63-61
−15.5
14
@
IONA
L 71-76
−10.5
20
vs
LIU
W 69-53
−23.5
29
vs
UALB
W 88-68
+12.5
30
vs
COLG
L 62-72
−8.5
6
vs
HC
L 69-70
+0.5
10
vs
FDU
W 75-54
−12.5
13
vs
MAN
W 82-53
−12.5
22
vs
NHVN
W 65-47
−15.5
31
@
DAY
L 56-63
−20.5
4
vs
RICH
L 75-83
+15.5
7
vs
GMU
L 58-67
−9.5
10
@
SBU
W 81-77
+15.5
14
@
SLU
L 56-78
−20.5
17
vs
DUQ
L 63-74
−8.5
21
@
DAV
L 63-68
−4.5
28
vs
LAS
W 64-58
−14.5
31
@
GW
W 79-65
−6.5
3
vs
VCU
L 59-63
−24.5
7
vs
SBU
L 67-70
−4.5
10
@
JOES
W 68-64
−3.5
14
@
URI
W 70-66
+1.5
18
vs
LUC
W 62-59
−14.5
21
vs
DAV
W 63-59
−9.5
28
@
VCU
L 63-82
+0.5
4
@
LAS
L 84-87
+39.5
7
vs
URI
W 61-49
−26.5
12
vs
GW
L 62-66
−16.5
over 7under 22avg −7.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Fordham has the better starters
Position by position: Stonehill 0, Fordham 4, even 1
StonehillBetterFordham
G W. Batchelder8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G A. Lindsey TR17.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 79
G A. Boldin TR5.3 pts · 2.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 29
→FORBig
G L. Patrick TR15 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
G D. Arlington TR2.7 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 5
→FORBig
F R. Schulte10.4 pts · 9.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 82
G E. Greenberg TR2.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 0
→FORSmall
F A. Jacobs7.2 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 27
G A. Allen TR3.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 15
→FORBig
C J. Whitbourn8.4 pts · 8.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 63
StonehillBetterFordham
STO offense363rd of 366 · -14.8
→FORBig
FOR defense71st of 366 · +0.8
STO defense225th of 366 · -5.9
→FORSmall
FOR offense119th of 366 · -2.7
Backcourt-10.2 · 5 players
→FORBig
Backcourt+2.1 · 2 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+1.3 · 3 players
Bench-3.6 · 5 players
→FORBig
Bench+0.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSTO betterFOR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
W. Batchelder32 minA. Boldin18 min · TRD. Arlington14 min · TRE. Greenberg14 min · TRA. Allen14 min · TRT. Ruth11 min
Forwards
P. McGuinn9 minE. Steele4 min · TRJ. MedalieNewB. LeonsNew
Centers
D. ChengNew
Guards
A. Lindsey38 min · TRL. Patrick29 min · TRK. Odih5 min · TRJ. Laboy4 min · TRA. Crotty1 minM. Miller1 min
Forwards
R. Schulte31 minA. Jacobs29 minA. Bodija19 minR. Akhuar19 minF. Siaca BeyNew
Centers
J. Whitbourn24 minO. EssamNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 64.2 #353 | Points per game | 67.5 #323 |
| 0.95 #357 | Points per possession | 1.04 #262 |
| 67.6 #244 | Pace (possessions) | 64.8 #349 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.9 #339 | Effective FG% | 48.6 #300 |
| 31.7 #294 | 3-point % | 28.9 #356 |
| 40.5 #158 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.3 #205 |
| 27.3 #350 | Free throw rate | 26.4 #354 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.4 #333 | Turnover rate | 17.2 #219 |
| 27.5 #282 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #64 |
| 11.8 #298 | Assists per game | 13.2 #200 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.5 #56 | Points allowed | 66.3 #17 |
| 1.03 #57 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #47 |
| 47.8 #36 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.9 #95 |
| 33.4 #150 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #149 |
| 13.4 #347 | Turnovers forced | 17.2 #138 |
| 72.9 #40 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.2 #29 |
| 4.7 #347 | Steals per game | 7.0 #126 |
| 4.0 #75 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #335 |
Stonehill
10-21 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Mercyhurst51–56
- W@ Le Moyne81–71
- Lvs Mercyhurst72–75
- Wvs Saint Francis Red Wolves103–77
- Wvs Le Moyne77–68
A week or more of rest.
Fordham
14-15 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs G Washington62–66
- Wvs Rhode Island61–49
- L@ La Salle84–87
- L@ VCU63–82
- Wvs Davidson63–59
A week or more of rest.