Charles E. Smith Center · at G Washington
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | GW | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GW 82–66 · win probability GW 92%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.6
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: GW has more of the edges
UMBC 3, GW 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
UMBC has played the 342nd-hardest schedule, GW the 95th. A record against a soft schedule means less
GW offense vs UMBC defense
Offense 112th of 366 against a defense 279th, on the model’s ratings
UMBC offense vs GW defense
Offense 255th of 366 against a defense 95th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UMBC 24.9%, GW 35.8%. Defensive: UMBC 74.2%, GW 71.3%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UMBC plays 67.0 a game (278th fastest), GW 70.2 (107th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: UMBC 34.1, GW 34.9. Allowed: UMBC 25.7, GW 35.0
Shooting
Effective FG%: UMBC 54.1 and allows 49.4; GW 54.4 and allows 52.4
Three-pointers
UMBC hits 36.1% and allows 32.7%; GW hits 35.1% and allows 33.9%. Threes are 38.8% and 47.0% of their shots
Home court
GW at home. This season: GW 0-0 at home, UMBC 0-0 away
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UMBC 14.1%, GW 18.1%. Forced: UMBC 15.1%, GW 17.8%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UMBC 11%, GW 13%. Transfers in: UMBC 2, GW 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | GW -16.2 | — |
| Total | — | 147.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | UMBC 65.7 · GW 81.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | GW -9.5 | — |
| 1H total | 69.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | UMBC 29.8 · GW 39.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UMBC 0–1 GWGW leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UMBC 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2025-26 | UMBC 52 @ GW 89 | GW -22.5 | GW W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UMBC
31 games played
Straight up
22-9
71% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +6.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% 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 8 | @ | L 71-77 | +25.5 | W +19.5 | 154.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 81-79 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 162.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 71-70 | -6.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 52-89 | +22.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 71-57 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 81-90 | +19.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 73-66 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 12 | vs | L 60-63 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 69-94 | +22.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 93-59 | -10.5 | W +23.5 | 148.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 69-62 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 133.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 75-74 | -6.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 74-79 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 78-60 | -4.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 87-74 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 79-56 | -2.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 55-64 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-65 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-62 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 78-62 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 135.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 85-63 | -2.5 | W +19.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 75-62 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 66-62 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 70-58 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 84-60 | -2.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 91-52 | -4.5 | W +34.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 84-69 | -12.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 91-69 | -7.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 74-59 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 17 | vs | L 83-86 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
DAY
L 71-77
+19.5
11
@
MORG
W 81-79
−2.5
16
vs
WAG
W 71-70
−5.5
19
@
GW
L 52-89
−14.5
29
vs
DSU
W 71-57
+0.5
3
@
GTWN
L 81-90
+10.5
6
@
BUCK
W 73-66
+8.5
9
vs
BUF
L 79-83
−0.5
12
vs
ARMY
L 60-63
−10.5
21
@
USF
L 69-94
−2.5
29
@
COPP
W 93-59
+23.5
8
vs
ME
W 69-62
−0.5
10
vs
UNH
W 75-74
−5.5
15
@
BRY
L 74-79
−6.5
19
@
BING
W 78-60
+13.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 87-74
+6.5
24
vs
UML
W 79-56
+20.5
29
@
UVM
L 55-64
−0.5
31
@
UALB
W 68-65
+1.5
5
vs
BING
W 79-62
+5.5
12
@
ME
W 78-62
+12.5
14
@
UNH
W 85-63
+19.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-62
+14.5
21
vs
UALB
W 66-62
−3.5
26
vs
BRY
W 70-58
+0.5
28
@
UML
W 84-60
+21.5
3
@
NJIT
W 91-52
+34.5
7
vs
UNH
W 84-69
+2.5
10
vs
UML
W 91-69
+14.5
14
vs
UVM
W 74-59
+13.5
17
vs
HOW
L 83-86
−1.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +6.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
DAY
L 71-77
−6.5
11
@
MORG
W 81-79
−2.5
16
vs
WAG
W 71-70
+0.5
19
@
GW
L 52-89
−19.5
29
vs
DSU
W 71-57
−10.5
3
@
GTWN
L 81-90
+21.5
6
@
BUCK
W 73-66
−4.5
9
vs
BUF
L 79-83
+16.5
12
vs
ARMY
L 60-63
−23.5
21
@
USF
L 69-94
+2.5
29
@
COPP
W 93-59
+3.5
8
vs
ME
W 69-62
−2.5
10
vs
UNH
W 75-74
+5.5
15
@
BRY
L 74-79
+17.5
19
@
BING
W 78-60
−2.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 87-74
+17.5
24
vs
UML
W 79-56
−16.5
29
@
UVM
L 55-64
−22.5
31
@
UALB
W 68-65
−8.5
5
vs
BING
W 79-62
+2.5
12
@
ME
W 78-62
+4.5
14
@
UNH
W 85-63
+1.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-62
−5.5
21
vs
UALB
W 66-62
−16.5
26
vs
BRY
W 70-58
−10.5
28
@
UML
W 84-60
−6.5
3
@
NJIT
W 91-52
−0.5
7
vs
UNH
W 84-69
+10.5
10
vs
UML
W 91-69
+12.5
14
vs
UVM
W 74-59
−1.5
17
vs
HOW
L 83-86
+25.5
over 14under 17avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
G Washington
34 games played
Straight up
18-16
53% wins
Against the spread
15-19
44% covers · avg −0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-18
47% overs · avg +0.2 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 | W 67-47 | -20.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 114 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 99-95 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 107-67 | -17.5 | W +22.5 | 151.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 96-73 | -15.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 89-52 | -22.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 86-92 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 92-79 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 95-96 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 167.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 84-70 | -19.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 99-86 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 174.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 10 | vs | L 58-70 | -21.5 | L −33.5 | 152.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 70-80 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 99-85 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 162.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 77-55 | -16.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 72-79 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 101-66 | -14.5 | W +20.5 | 154.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 79-84 | -9.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 64-69 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-69 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 76-79 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 167.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 65-79 | -11.5 | L −25.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 73-76 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 86-88 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 75-70 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 72-53 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 149.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 75-89 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 161.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 104-77 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 66-68 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 91-82 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 62-68 | -9.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 66-62 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 81-88 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 18 | @ | W 79-78 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 22 | @ | L 61-86 | +6.5 | L −18.5 | 161.5 | U 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
ME
W 67-47
−0.5
8
vs
USF
W 99-95
+5.5
12
vs
AMER
W 107-67
+22.5
15
vs
ODU
W 96-73
+7.5
19
vs
UMBC
W 89-52
+14.5
23
vs
MCN
L 86-92
−11.5
24
vs
MTSU
W 92-79
+3.5
25
vs
MUR
L 95-96
−8.5
2
@
ARMY
W 84-70
−5.5
6
vs
W&M
W 99-86
−0.5
10
vs
DEL
L 58-70
−33.5
13
vs
FLA
L 70-80
+4.5
31
@
RICH
W 99-85
+11.5
3
vs
LAS
W 77-55
+5.5
6
@
DAY
L 72-79
−4.5
10
vs
LUC
W 101-66
+20.5
14
vs
DAV
L 79-84
−14.5
19
@
GMU
L 64-69
−3.5
24
vs
RICH
W 85-69
+5.5
27
@
SLU
L 76-79
+7.5
31
vs
FOR
L 65-79
−25.5
4
@
JOES
L 73-76
−4.5
7
@
DUQ
L 86-88
−3.5
10
vs
URI
W 75-70
−0.5
13
vs
GMU
W 72-53
+15.5
17
@
VCU
L 75-89
−7.5
24
@
LAS
W 104-77
+18.5
27
vs
DAY
L 66-68
−4.5
4
vs
SBU
W 91-82
+1.5
7
@
LUC
L 62-68
−15.5
12
vs
FOR
W 66-62
−3.5
13
vs
SLU
L 81-88
−0.5
18
@
UVU
W 79-78
+2.5
22
@
UNM
L 61-86
−18.5
covered 15didn’t cover 19avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
ME
W 67-47
−29.5
8
vs
USF
W 99-95
+34.5
12
vs
AMER
W 107-67
+22.5
15
vs
ODU
W 96-73
+13.5
19
vs
UMBC
W 89-52
−19.5
23
vs
MCN
L 86-92
+20.5
24
vs
MTSU
W 92-79
+12.5
25
vs
MUR
L 95-96
+23.5
2
@
ARMY
W 84-70
−2.5
6
vs
W&M
W 99-86
+10.5
10
vs
DEL
L 58-70
−24.5
13
vs
FLA
L 70-80
−12.5
31
@
RICH
W 99-85
+21.5
3
vs
LAS
W 77-55
−18.5
6
@
DAY
L 72-79
−3.5
10
vs
LUC
W 101-66
+12.5
14
vs
DAV
L 79-84
+12.5
19
@
GMU
L 64-69
−20.5
24
vs
RICH
W 85-69
−5.5
27
@
SLU
L 76-79
−12.5
31
vs
FOR
L 65-79
−6.5
4
@
JOES
L 73-76
−6.5
7
@
DUQ
L 86-88
+15.5
10
vs
URI
W 75-70
−6.5
13
vs
GMU
W 72-53
−24.5
17
@
VCU
L 75-89
+2.5
24
@
LAS
W 104-77
+34.5
27
vs
DAY
L 66-68
−18.5
4
vs
SBU
W 91-82
+15.5
7
@
LUC
L 62-68
−18.5
12
vs
FOR
W 66-62
−16.5
13
vs
SLU
L 81-88
+10.5
18
@
UVU
W 79-78
+4.5
22
@
UNM
L 61-86
−14.5
over 16under 18avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
G Washington has the better starters
Position by position: UMBC 0, G Washington 1, even 4
UMBCBetterG Washington
G F. Burton TR14.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 63
=Even
G A. Phillips TR13.8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 50
G A. Cross TR3.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 1
→GWSmall
G O. Witherspoon TR7.5 pts · 3 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 34
G D. Ceaser4.3 pts · 1 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Aranguren8.1 pts · 4.1 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 70
F R. Jacobs4.2 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 24
=Even
G F. Kossaras TR4.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 37
F R. Ciunys NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Shaw TR4.5 pts · 6.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 48
UMBCBetterG Washington
UMBC offense255th of 366 · -7.8
→GWBig
GW defense95th of 366 · -0.5
UMBC defense279th of 366 · -7.0
→GWBig
GW offense112th of 366 · -1.9
Backcourt-2.9 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-2.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.4 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUMBC betterGW betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
F. Burton32 min · TRA. Cross16 min · TRD. Ceaser8 minJ. RisticNewJ. ReynoldsNewT. SlatingNew
Forwards
R. Jacobs15 minR. CiunysNewA. BarryNewJ. NdongNewS. HuanNew
Guards
A. Phillips34 min · TRO. Witherspoon28 min · TRJ. Aranguren24 minF. Kossaras16 min · TRT. Arceneaux16 min · TRA. Arrington1 min
Forwards
A. Shaw26 min · TRA. Vukovic15 min · TRD. James15 min · TRM. Arrington14 min · TRR. Frost7 min · TRL. UrbihaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.7 #149 | Points per game | 80.9 #46 |
| 1.13 #85 | Points per possession | 1.15 #63 |
| 67.0 #278 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #107 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.1 #64 | Effective FG% | 54.4 #55 |
| 36.1 #55 | 3-point % | 35.1 #106 |
| 38.8 #195 | 3-point attempt rate | 47.0 #33 |
| 34.1 #205 | Free throw rate | 34.9 #184 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.1 #25 | Turnover rate | 18.1 #276 |
| 24.9 #342 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.8 #26 |
| 11.9 #291 | Assists per game | 15.4 #69 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.5 #41 | Points allowed | 75.2 #195 |
| 1.02 #46 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #149 |
| 49.4 #79 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #234 |
| 32.7 #98 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.9 #175 |
| 15.1 #283 | Turnovers forced | 17.8 #110 |
| 74.2 #18 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.3 #91 |
| 4.9 #338 | Steals per game | 7.2 #103 |
| 2.4 #314 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #142 |
UMBC
22-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-2 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Howard83–86
- Wvs Vermont74–59
- Wvs UMass Lowell91–69
- Wvs New Hampshire84–69
- W@ NJIT91–52
A week or more of rest.
G Washington
18-16 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ New Mexico61–86
- W@ Utah Valley79–78
- Lvs Saint Louis81–88
- Wvs Fordham66–62
- L@ Loyola Chicago62–68
A week or more of rest.