Cassell Coliseum · at Virginia Tech
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | VT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VT 81–71 · win probability VT 81%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.2
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: VT has more of the edges
RICH 0, VT 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RICH 25.0%, VT 31.9%. Defensive: RICH 69.0%, VT 67.4%
Home court
VT at home. This season: VT 0-0 at home, RICH 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
RICH has played the 125th-hardest schedule, VT the 74th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
RICH offense vs VT defense
Offense 113th of 366 against a defense 72nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
VT offense vs RICH defense
Offense 68th of 366 against a defense 105th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: RICH plays 68.8 a game (194th fastest), VT 69.8 (127th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RICH 29%, VT 47%. Transfers in: RICH 6, VT 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: RICH 36.9, VT 34.0. Allowed: RICH 35.1, VT 28.8
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: RICH 52.7 and allows 52.0; VT 52.2 and allows 50.9
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RICH 14.3%, VT 14.9%. Forced: RICH 17.8%, VT 17.3%
Even
Three-pointers
RICH hits 37.1% and allows 32.7%; VT hits 35.5% and allows 30.6%. Threes are 42.6% and 39.7% of their shots
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 | — | VT -10.1 | — |
| Total | — | 151.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | RICH 70.5 · VT 80.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | VT -5.9 | — |
| 1H total | 70.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | RICH 32.4 · VT 38.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
RICH 0–1 VTVT leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · RICH 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2023-24 | RICH 58 @ VT 74 | VT -5.5 | VT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Richmond
31 games played
Straight up
14-17
45% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg +0.7 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 | vs | W 87-72 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 90-86 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 164.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 87-54 | -14.5 | W +18.5 | 152.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 102-67 | -19.5 | W +15.5 | 154.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 72-73 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 71-66 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 84-76 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 156.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 86-77 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 93-84 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 70-73 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 80-56 | -18.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 72-77 | -11.5 | L −16.5 | 159.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 85-99 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 162.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 83-75 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 89-80 | +6.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 65-67 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 74-53 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 63-88 | +14.5 | L −10.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 68-69 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 69-85 | +10.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 69-77 | +12.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 54-79 | -1.5 | L −26.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 77-82 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 82-70 | +3.5 | W +15.5 | 139.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 67-78 | +7.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 63-65 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 99-94 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 66-69 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 60-65 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 77-79 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 67-75 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
vs
ECU
W 87-72
+9.5
11
vs
W&M
W 90-86
−5.5
19
vs
VMI
W 87-54
+18.5
22
vs
GWEB
W 102-67
+15.5
27
vs
FUR
L 72-73
−4.5
28
vs
CLT
W 71-66
−1.5
3
@
BEL
W 84-76
+14.5
6
vs
ODU
W 86-77
−3.5
13
vs
SIU
W 93-84
+5.5
17
@
ELON
L 70-73
−6.5
20
vs
CIT
W 80-56
+5.5
28
vs
CHSO
L 72-77
−16.5
31
vs
GW
L 85-99
−11.5
4
@
FOR
W 83-75
+5.5
7
@
SBU
W 89-80
+15.5
11
vs
JOES
L 65-67
−9.5
14
vs
LAS
W 74-53
+12.5
17
@
SLU
L 63-88
−10.5
21
vs
URI
L 68-69
−4.5
24
@
GW
L 69-85
−5.5
27
@
VCU
L 69-77
+4.5
31
vs
DAV
L 54-79
−26.5
7
@
URI
L 77-82
+0.5
10
vs
GMU
W 82-70
+15.5
14
vs
VCU
L 67-78
−3.5
18
@
DAV
L 63-65
+3.5
21
vs
SBU
W 99-94
+3.5
28
@
LUC
L 66-69
−5.5
3
vs
DAY
L 60-65
+0.5
7
@
DUQ
L 77-79
+2.5
11
vs
LUC
L 67-75
−12.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
vs
ECU
W 87-72
+15.5
11
vs
W&M
W 90-86
+11.5
19
vs
VMI
W 87-54
−11.5
22
vs
GWEB
W 102-67
+14.5
27
vs
FUR
L 72-73
−2.5
28
vs
CLT
W 71-66
−4.5
3
@
BEL
W 84-76
+3.5
6
vs
ODU
W 86-77
+9.5
13
vs
SIU
W 93-84
+23.5
17
@
ELON
L 70-73
−18.5
20
vs
CIT
W 80-56
−10.5
28
vs
CHSO
L 72-77
−10.5
31
vs
GW
L 85-99
+21.5
4
@
FOR
W 83-75
+15.5
7
@
SBU
W 89-80
+15.5
11
vs
JOES
L 65-67
−18.5
14
vs
LAS
W 74-53
−20.5
17
@
SLU
L 63-88
−11.5
21
vs
URI
L 68-69
−7.5
24
@
GW
L 69-85
−5.5
27
@
VCU
L 69-77
−9.5
31
vs
DAV
L 54-79
−7.5
7
@
URI
L 77-82
+16.5
10
vs
GMU
W 82-70
+12.5
14
vs
VCU
L 67-78
−9.5
18
@
DAV
L 63-65
−13.5
21
vs
SBU
W 99-94
+45.5
28
@
LUC
L 66-69
−11.5
3
vs
DAY
L 60-65
−19.5
7
@
DUQ
L 77-79
+8.5
11
vs
LUC
L 67-75
+0.5
over 14under 17avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Virginia Tech
32 games played
Straight up
19-13
59% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +3.3 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 3 | vs | W 98-67 | -18.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 107-101 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | O 208 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 94-59 | -12.5 | W +22.5 | 158.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 84-76 | -18.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 78-61 | -24.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 66-64 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 66-77 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 68-86 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 86-83 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 73-62 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 11 | vs | W 96-74 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 82-53 | -27.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-81 | -12.5 | L −11.5 | 158.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 95-85 | +5.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 78-81 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 68-69 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 78-75 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 76-77 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 89-76 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 76-74 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 71-85 | +14.5 | W +0.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 71-65 | -9.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 58-72 | +13.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 73-82 | +10.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 76-66 | +8.5 | W +18.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 69-92 | -4.5 | L −27.5 | 156.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 66-67 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 82-63 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 82-89 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 72-63 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 72-76 | +11.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 89-95 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 150.5 | O 184 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CHSO
W 98-67
+12.5
8
vs
PROV
W 107-101
+8.5
12
vs
JOES
W 94-59
+22.5
16
vs
CLT
W 84-76
−10.5
19
vs
BRY
W 78-61
−7.5
26
vs
CSU
W 66-64
−2.5
27
vs
SMC
L 66-77
−5.5
28
vs
VCU
L 68-86
−15.5
2
@
SC
W 86-83
+5.5
6
vs
GMU
W 73-62
+6.5
11
vs
WCU
W 96-74
+1.5
14
vs
UMES
W 82-53
+1.5
20
vs
ELON
W 82-81
−11.5
31
vs
UVA
W 95-85
+15.5
3
@
WAKE
L 78-81
+2.5
7
vs
STAN
L 68-69
−4.5
10
vs
CAL
W 78-75
−2.5
14
@
SMU
L 76-77
+7.5
17
vs
ND
W 89-76
+6.5
21
@
SYR
W 76-74
+5.5
24
@
LOU
L 71-85
+0.5
27
vs
GT
W 71-65
−3.5
31
vs
DUKE
L 58-72
−0.5
7
@
NCSU
L 73-82
+1.5
11
@
CLEM
W 76-66
+18.5
14
vs
FSU
L 69-92
−27.5
17
@
MIA
L 66-67
+7.5
21
vs
WAKE
W 82-63
+15.5
28
@
UNC
L 82-89
+0.5
3
vs
BC
W 72-63
−2.5
7
@
UVA
L 72-76
+7.5
10
vs
WAKE
L 89-95
−4.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CHSO
W 98-67
+18.5
8
vs
PROV
W 107-101
+50.5
12
vs
JOES
W 94-59
−5.5
16
vs
CLT
W 84-76
+14.5
19
vs
BRY
W 78-61
−12.5
26
vs
CSU
W 66-64
−23.5
27
vs
SMC
L 66-77
−1.5
28
vs
VCU
L 68-86
+0.5
2
@
SC
W 86-83
+19.5
6
vs
GMU
W 73-62
−9.5
11
vs
WCU
W 96-74
+17.5
14
vs
UMES
W 82-53
−4.5
20
vs
ELON
W 82-81
+4.5
31
vs
UVA
W 95-85
+26.5
3
@
WAKE
L 78-81
+5.5
7
vs
STAN
L 68-69
−11.5
10
vs
CAL
W 78-75
+4.5
14
@
SMU
L 76-77
−2.5
17
vs
ND
W 89-76
+21.5
21
@
SYR
W 76-74
−2.5
24
@
LOU
L 71-85
−4.5
27
vs
GT
W 71-65
−19.5
31
vs
DUKE
L 58-72
−18.5
7
@
NCSU
L 73-82
+0.5
11
@
CLEM
W 76-66
+3.5
14
vs
FSU
L 69-92
+4.5
17
@
MIA
L 66-67
−15.5
21
vs
WAKE
W 82-63
−5.5
28
@
UNC
L 82-89
+21.5
3
vs
BC
W 72-63
−7.5
7
@
UVA
L 72-76
+2.5
10
vs
WAKE
L 89-95
+33.5
over 17under 15avg +3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Virginia Tech has the better starters
Position by position: Richmond 0, Virginia Tech 4, even 1
RichmondBetterVirginia Tech
G D. Saran TR11.3 pts · 5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 52
→VTSmall
G E. Copeland TR14.5 pts · 3.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 67
G A. Argabright10.8 pts · 2 reb · 2 ast
Score 87
=Even
G B. Hammond13.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 89
G D. Stewart TR6.6 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 44
→VTSmall
G I. Elohim TR12.2 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 71
F J. Kaiser TR9.5 pts · 4.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 60
→VTSmall
G T. Johnson8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 77
C A. Dorries TR16.2 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 62
→VTSmall
F A. Hansberry14.3 pts · 7.4 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 92
RichmondBetterVirginia Tech
RICH offense113th of 366 · -2.0
=Even
VT defense72nd of 366 · +0.8
RICH defense105th of 366 · -1.0
=Even
VT offense68th of 366 · +1.8
Backcourt+0.4 · 3 players
→VTBig
Backcourt+4.7 · 4 players
Frontcourt+1.5 · 2 players
→VTSmall
Frontcourt+3.8 · 1 player
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
→VTSmall
Bench+1.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestRICH betterVT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Saran30 min · TRA. Argabright24 minD. Stewart23 min · TRC. Tanner18 minW. Harper11 minK. Mooney5 min
Forwards
J. Kaiser29 min · TRA. Ball21 min · TRJ. McCaffery10 min · TRC. CookNewD. CaldwellNew
Centers
A. Dorries33 min · TRD. HomenickNew
Guards
E. Copeland32 min · TRB. Hammond32 minI. Elohim29 min · TRT. Johnson26 minJ. Curry24 min · TRB. Johnson21 min · TR
Forwards
A. Hansberry31 minM. Heide19 min · TRK. Atak14 min · TRS. Jones7 min
Centers
M. Sagnia12 min · TRS. DavisNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.5 #132 | Points per game | 78.8 #85 |
| 1.11 #119 | Points per possession | 1.13 #89 |
| 68.8 #194 | Pace (possessions) | 69.8 #127 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.7 #115 | Effective FG% | 52.2 #134 |
| 37.1 #28 | 3-point % | 35.5 #88 |
| 42.6 #126 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.7 #179 |
| 36.9 #133 | Free throw rate | 34.0 #209 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #32 | Turnover rate | 14.9 #60 |
| 25.0 #340 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.9 #129 |
| 14.0 #145 | Assists per game | 14.4 #122 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.5 #175 | Points allowed | 74.9 #184 |
| 1.09 #183 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #141 |
| 52.0 #216 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #147 |
| 32.7 #103 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.6 #26 |
| 17.8 #111 | Turnovers forced | 17.3 #131 |
| 69.0 #200 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.4 #284 |
| 6.8 #139 | Steals per game | 6.4 #187 |
| 2.3 #323 | Blocks per game | 3.2 #190 |
Richmond
14-17 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Loyola Chicago67–75
- L@ Duquesne77–79
- Lvs Dayton60–65
- L@ Loyola Chicago66–69
- Wvs St Bonaventure99–94
A week or more of rest.
Virginia Tech
19-13 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wake Forest89–95
- L@ Virginia72–76
- Wvs Boston College72–63
- L@ North Carolina82–89
- Wvs Wake Forest82–63
A week or more of rest.