Robins Center · at Richmond
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | RICH | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RICH 81–69 · win probability RICH 85%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.8
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: RICH has more of the edges
BCU 1, RICH 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: BCU 19.2%, RICH 14.3%. Forced: BCU 15.8%, RICH 17.8%
Context
Schedule so far
BCU has played the 244th-hardest schedule, RICH the 125th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
BCU hits 33.0% and allows 32.9%; RICH hits 37.1% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 29.7% and 42.6% of their shots
RICH offense vs BCU defense
Offense 113th of 366 against a defense 218th, on the model’s ratings
BCU offense vs RICH defense
Offense 188th of 366 against a defense 105th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: BCU plays 71.8 a game (43rd fastest), RICH 68.8 (194th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: BCU 30.1%, RICH 25.0%. Defensive: BCU 68.3%, RICH 69.0%
Home court
RICH at home. This season: RICH 0-0 at home, BCU 0-0 away
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: BCU 51.0 and allows 49.7; RICH 52.7 and allows 52.0
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: BCU 25%, RICH 29%. Transfers in: BCU 9, RICH 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: BCU 40.9, RICH 36.9. Allowed: BCU 38.6, RICH 35.1
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 | — | RICH -12.0 | — |
| Total | — | 149.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | BCU 68.9 · RICH 80.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | RICH -7.0 | — |
| 1H total | 70.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | BCU 31.5 · RICH 38.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | |
| 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Bethune
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% overs · avg +2.1 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 | @ | L 90-95 | +24.5 | W +19.5 | 153.5 | O 185 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 61-101 | +16.5 | L −23.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 82-91 | +21.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 76-73 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 64-69 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 54-61 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 56-100 | +29.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 80-59 | -13.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 60-82 | +20.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 53-112 | +26.5 | L −32.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 71-107 | +39.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 77-103 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 87-83 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 74-65 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 12 | vs | L 73-77 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 79-63 | -16.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 87-82 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-48 | -8.5 | W +28.5 | 156.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 26 | vs | W 82-73 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 69-54 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 152.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 80-62 | -2.5 | W +15.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-76 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 79-69 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 55-57 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | U 112 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 86-91 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 82-71 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 85-76 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 76-71 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 82-79 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 77-81 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 67-71 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
AUB
L 90-95
+19.5
6
@
MIA
L 61-101
−23.5
15
@
DAY
L 82-91
+12.5
19
@
OHIO
W 76-73
+9.5
24
vs
JAX
L 64-69
−8.5
25
vs
STBK
L 54-61
−11.5
29
@
IU
L 56-100
−14.5
5
vs
SCST
W 80-59
+7.5
14
@
MIZ
L 60-82
−1.5
17
@
SLU
L 53-112
−32.5
22
@
ARIZ
L 71-107
+3.5
29
@
OKST
L 77-103
−5.5
3
vs
FAMU
W 87-83
−3.5
10
vs
GRAM
W 74-65
+5.5
12
vs
SOU
L 73-77
−7.5
17
@
MVSU
W 79-63
−0.5
19
@
UAPB
W 87-82
+2.5
24
vs
JKST
W 85-48
+28.5
26
vs
ALCN
W 82-73
−4.5
31
@
ALST
W 69-54
+13.5
2
@
AAMU
W 80-62
+15.5
7
vs
PV
W 82-76
−4.5
9
vs
TXSO
W 79-69
+2.5
14
@
ALCN
L 55-57
−10.5
16
@
JKST
L 86-91
−9.5
19
vs
ALST
W 82-71
+5.5
21
vs
AAMU
W 85-76
+2.5
26
@
GRAM
W 76-71
+6.5
28
@
SOU
W 82-79
+5.5
5
@
FAMU
L 77-81
−6.5
11
vs
PV
L 67-71
−9.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
AUB
L 90-95
+31.5
6
@
MIA
L 61-101
+7.5
15
@
DAY
L 82-91
+24.5
19
@
OHIO
W 76-73
−8.5
24
vs
JAX
L 64-69
−10.5
25
vs
STBK
L 54-61
−30.5
29
@
IU
L 56-100
+7.5
5
vs
SCST
W 80-59
−9.5
14
@
MIZ
L 60-82
−4.5
17
@
SLU
L 53-112
+7.5
22
@
ARIZ
L 71-107
+23.5
29
@
OKST
L 77-103
+15.5
3
vs
FAMU
W 87-83
+24.5
10
vs
GRAM
W 74-65
−5.5
12
vs
SOU
L 73-77
−1.5
17
@
MVSU
W 79-63
−2.5
19
@
UAPB
W 87-82
+13.5
24
vs
JKST
W 85-48
−23.5
26
vs
ALCN
W 82-73
+7.5
31
@
ALST
W 69-54
−29.5
2
@
AAMU
W 80-62
+0.5
7
vs
PV
W 82-76
+0.5
9
vs
TXSO
W 79-69
−4.5
14
@
ALCN
L 55-57
−32.5
16
@
JKST
L 86-91
+26.5
19
vs
ALST
W 82-71
+5.5
21
vs
AAMU
W 85-76
+18.5
26
@
GRAM
W 76-71
+2.5
28
@
SOU
W 82-79
+7.5
5
@
FAMU
L 77-81
+12.5
11
vs
PV
L 67-71
−9.5
over 18under 13avg +2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Richmond has the better starters
Position by position: Bethune 0, Richmond 2, even 3
BethuneBetterRichmond
G K. Branch TR11.7 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 24
→RICHSmall
G D. Saran TR11.3 pts · 5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 52
G J. Morris TR11.2 pts · 2.5 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 49
→RICHBig
G A. Argabright10.8 pts · 2 reb · 2 ast
Score 87
G J. Jones TR9.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 43
=Even
G D. Stewart TR6.6 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 44
F Q. Heady10.2 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 55
=Even
F J. Kaiser TR9.5 pts · 4.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 60
F D. Johnson TR10 pts · 5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 52
=Even
C A. Dorries TR16.2 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 62
BethuneBetterRichmond
BCU offense188th of 366 · -5.8
→RICHSmall
RICH defense105th of 366 · -1.0
BCU defense218th of 366 · -5.7
→RICHSmall
RICH offense113th of 366 · -2.0
Backcourt-4.2 · 3 players
→RICHBig
Backcourt+0.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.3 · 2 players
→RICHSmall
Frontcourt+1.5 · 2 players
Bench-1.6 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestBCU betterRICH betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Branch30 min · TRJ. Morris30 min · TRJ. Jones28 min · TRM. Jordan13 min · TRK. Patton8 min · TRK. MurphyNew
Forwards
Q. Heady26 minD. Johnson26 min · TRD. Perez-Rouzan24 minV. Boskovic21 min · TRI. Ezuma8 min · TRJ. SmithNew
Centers
M. Martinez16 min · TR
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.5 #175 | Points per game | 76.5 #132 |
| 1.04 #273 | Points per possession | 1.11 #119 |
| 71.8 #43 | Pace (possessions) | 68.8 #194 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.0 #195 | Effective FG% | 52.7 #115 |
| 33.0 #230 | 3-point % | 37.1 #28 |
| 29.7 #353 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.6 #126 |
| 40.9 #48 | Free throw rate | 36.9 #133 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.2 #329 | Turnover rate | 14.3 #32 |
| 30.1 #194 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.0 #340 |
| 13.3 #195 | Assists per game | 14.0 #145 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.5 #251 | Points allowed | 74.5 #175 |
| 1.08 #157 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #183 |
| 49.7 #88 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.0 #216 |
| 32.9 #112 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #103 |
| 15.8 #229 | Turnovers forced | 17.8 #111 |
| 68.3 #242 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.0 #200 |
| 6.8 #147 | Steals per game | 6.8 #139 |
| 4.5 #34 | Blocks per game | 2.3 #323 |
Bethune
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 14-5 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Prairie View67–71
- L@ Florida A&M77–81
- W@ Southern82–79
- W@ Grambling76–71
- Wvs Alabama A&M85–76
A week or more of rest.
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.