Williams Arena at Minges Coliseum · at East Carolina
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ECU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 76–74 · win probability RICH 57%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.0
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
RICH 4, ECU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
RICH hits 37.1% and allows 32.7%; ECU hits 29.3% and allows 34.9%. Threes are 42.6% and 31.1% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RICH 14.3%, ECU 17.1%. Forced: RICH 17.8%, ECU 16.3%
Shooting
Effective FG%: RICH 52.7 and allows 52.0; ECU 46.4 and allows 52.3
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RICH 25.0%, ECU 33.4%. Defensive: RICH 69.0%, ECU 67.5%
Free throws
Free throw rate: RICH 36.9, ECU 39.2. Allowed: RICH 35.1, ECU 32.2
Home court
ECU at home. This season: ECU 0-0 at home, RICH 0-0 away
RICH offense vs ECU defense
Offense 113th of 366 against a defense 158th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: RICH plays 68.8 a game (194th fastest), ECU 70.0 (116th). Faster games mean more points
Even
ECU offense vs RICH defense
Offense 142nd of 366 against a defense 105th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RICH 29%, ECU 16%. Transfers in: RICH 6, ECU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
RICH has played the 125th-hardest schedule, ECU the 123rd. 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 | — | RICH -2.0 | — |
| Total | — | 149.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | RICH 75.5 · ECU 73.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | RICH -1.3 | — |
| 1H total | 69.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | RICH 35.5 · ECU 34.2 | — |
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% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
RICH 1–0 ECURICH leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · RICH 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2025-26 | ECU 72 @ RICH 87 | RICH -5.5 | RICH 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
East Carolina
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −2.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +3.9 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 | W 92-89 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 72-87 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 60-85 | +6.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 65-77 | -13.5 | L −25.5 | 157.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 56-89 | +19.5 | L −13.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 58-67 | +10.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 68-56 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 127.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 78-82 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 11 | vs | L 54-67 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 130.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 73-70 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 74-53 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 131.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 51-99 | +25.5 | L −22.5 | 144.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 70-79 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 67-75 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 85-87 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 71-82 | +18.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 70-73 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 60-77 | +12.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 63-59 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 134.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 77-83 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 76-75 | +10.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 73-81 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 88-72 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 85-75 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 89-92 | +7.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 56-68 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 82-81 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 1 | vs | W 84-68 | +4.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 66-93 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 156.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 83-90 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
GASO
W 92-89
−2.5
8
@
RICH
L 72-87
−9.5
18
@
UNCW
L 60-85
−18.5
21
vs
CHSO
L 65-77
−25.5
25
vs
MSU
L 56-89
−13.5
27
vs
SBU
L 58-67
+1.5
2
vs
UMES
W 68-56
−0.5
6
vs
UNCG
L 78-82
−11.5
11
vs
APP
L 54-67
−17.5
14
vs
BUF
W 73-70
+1.5
17
vs
PRES
W 74-53
+16.5
22
@
UNC
L 51-99
−22.5
31
vs
TULN
L 70-79
−7.5
7
@
TEM
L 67-75
−0.5
11
vs
UAB
L 85-87
+5.5
14
@
USF
L 71-82
+7.5
18
vs
CLT
L 70-73
−4.5
21
@
WICH
L 60-77
−4.5
23
@
UNT
W 63-59
+14.5
28
vs
RICE
L 77-83
−8.5
1
@
FAU
W 76-75
+11.5
7
vs
TEM
L 73-81
−5.5
11
vs
UTSA
W 88-72
+5.5
14
@
RICE
W 85-75
+14.5
18
vs
WICH
L 89-92
+4.5
21
@
CLT
L 56-68
−7.5
25
@
UTSA
W 82-81
−3.5
1
vs
MEM
W 84-68
+20.5
5
vs
TLSA
L 66-93
−18.5
8
@
UAB
L 83-90
+3.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
GASO
W 92-89
+29.5
8
@
RICH
L 72-87
+15.5
18
@
UNCW
L 60-85
−0.5
21
vs
CHSO
L 65-77
−15.5
25
vs
MSU
L 56-89
+4.5
27
vs
SBU
L 58-67
−19.5
2
vs
UMES
W 68-56
−3.5
6
vs
UNCG
L 78-82
+20.5
11
vs
APP
L 54-67
−9.5
14
vs
BUF
W 73-70
−3.5
17
vs
PRES
W 74-53
−4.5
22
@
UNC
L 51-99
+5.5
31
vs
TULN
L 70-79
+3.5
7
@
TEM
L 67-75
−1.5
11
vs
UAB
L 85-87
+21.5
14
@
USF
L 71-82
−5.5
18
vs
CLT
L 70-73
+3.5
21
@
WICH
L 60-77
−7.5
23
@
UNT
W 63-59
−12.5
28
vs
RICE
L 77-83
+19.5
1
@
FAU
W 76-75
−2.5
7
vs
TEM
L 73-81
+13.5
11
vs
UTSA
W 88-72
+9.5
14
@
RICE
W 85-75
+13.5
18
vs
WICH
L 89-92
+31.5
21
@
CLT
L 56-68
−21.5
25
@
UTSA
W 82-81
+9.5
1
vs
MEM
W 84-68
−0.5
5
vs
TLSA
L 66-93
+2.5
8
@
UAB
L 83-90
+21.5
over 16under 14avg +3.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Richmond 1, East Carolina 1, even 3
RichmondBetterEast Carolina
G D. Saran TR11.3 pts · 5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 52
←RICHSmall
G C. Medley TR10.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 6.2 ast
Score 32
G A. Argabright10.8 pts · 2 reb · 2 ast
Score 87
=Even
G B. Blaine TR17.7 pts · 7.1 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 82
G D. Stewart TR6.6 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 44
=Even
F K. Watson TR12.5 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 50
F J. Kaiser TR9.5 pts · 4.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 60
→ECUSmall
F K. Cooper TR8.5 pts · 7.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 76
C A. Dorries TR16.2 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 62
=No call
F J. Woodard3.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.7 ast
Not ranked
RichmondBetterEast Carolina
RICH offense113th of 366 · -2.0
=Even
ECU defense158th of 366 · -3.4
RICH defense105th of 366 · -1.0
=Even
ECU offense142nd of 366 · -4.3
Backcourt+0.4 · 3 players
←RICHSmall
Backcourt-0.7 · 2 players
Frontcourt+1.5 · 2 players
←RICHSmall
Frontcourt+0.4 · 3 players
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-1.8 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestRICH betterECU 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
C. Medley34 min · TRB. Blaine29 min · TRT. Best6 min · TRA. McCulloughNewM. PandovNew
Forwards
K. Watson32 min · TRK. Cooper26 min · TRJ. Woodard17 minJ. BuchananNewD. QuinnNewD. Creasy-QuirindoongoNew
Centers
E. DeLaurier15 minM. KlitschkoNewM. HintonNew
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 | 71.5 #259 |
| 1.11 #119 | Points per possession | 1.02 #305 |
| 68.8 #194 | Pace (possessions) | 70.0 #116 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.7 #115 | Effective FG% | 46.4 #346 |
| 37.1 #28 | 3-point % | 29.3 #350 |
| 42.6 #126 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.1 #337 |
| 36.9 #133 | Free throw rate | 39.2 #75 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #32 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #208 |
| 25.0 #340 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.4 #79 |
| 14.0 #145 | Assists per game | 11.8 #301 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.5 #175 | Points allowed | 77.7 #262 |
| 1.09 #183 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #246 |
| 52.0 #216 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.3 #229 |
| 32.7 #103 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.9 #245 |
| 17.8 #111 | Turnovers forced | 16.3 #205 |
| 69.0 #200 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.5 #282 |
| 6.8 #139 | Steals per game | 6.5 #177 |
| 2.3 #323 | Blocks per game | 4.0 #74 |
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.
East Carolina
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 6-12 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ UAB83–90
- Lvs Tulsa66–93
- Wvs Memphis84–68
- W@ UTSA82–81
- L@ Charlotte56–68
A week or more of rest.