Rider Broncs at Binghamton Bearcats: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 8, 4:00 PM ETEvents Center (Binghamton) · at Binghamton

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Rider and Binghamton
RID	This season	BING
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 BING 76–68 · win probability BING 73%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 144.0

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: BING has more of the edges

RID 2, BING 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Schedule so far

RID has played the 201st-hardest schedule, BING the 350th. A record against a soft schedule means less

BINGBig

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: RID 0%, BING 65%. Transfers in: RID 6, BING 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

BINGSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: RID 30.1, BING 41.5. Allowed: RID 32.5, BING 34.6

RIDSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: RID 16.9%, BING 18.7%. Forced: RID 15.3%, BING 13.3%

BINGSmall

Three-pointers

RID hits 27.6% and allows 38.0%; BING hits 32.5% and allows 35.8%. Threes are 27.5% and 30.9% of their shots

BINGSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: RID 42.8 and allows 55.2; BING 50.0 and allows 54.3

BINGSmall

RID offense vs BING defense

Offense 348th of 366 against a defense 273rd, on the model’s ratings

BINGSmall

Home court

BING at home. This season: BING 0-0 at home, RID 0-0 away

RIDSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: RID 32.6%, BING 20.9%. Defensive: RID 67.2%, BING 70.6%

Even

BING offense vs RID defense

Offense 274th of 366 against a defense 315th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 66 possessions: RID plays 65.7 a game (323rd fastest), BING 66.5 (294th). Faster games mean more points

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	BING -7.1	—
Total	—	144.0	—
Projected score	—	RID 68.4 · BING 75.6

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	BING -4.1	—
1H total	67.4	—
1H projected score	RID 31.6 · BING 35.7	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
RID LLWLL	9-19	32%	6-10	—
BING WWLWW	13-15	46%	7-5	—

Venue/role: RID away; BING home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
RID OOUUU	9-19	32%	3-25
BING OOOUO	16-12	57%	5-23

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
RID	2-8 20%	3-7 30%	4-6 40%
BING	4-6 40%	6-4 60%	7-3 70%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Rider

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 14	@ VILL	L48–72LU
Nov 17	@ MIA	No recent meeting
Nov 21	vs NAVY	W90–79WO

Binghamton

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 14	@ DUQ	No recent meeting
Nov 18	@ LAF	W82–81WO
Nov 21	vs ARMY	L85–95WO

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Rider

28 games played

Straight up

3-25

11% wins

Against the spread

9-19

32% covers · avg −3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

9-19

32% overs · avg +0 pts vs the total

Straight up

3-2511%

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L W L L L L W L L L L L W L L

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

9-1932%

L L L L L W W L W W L L W L W L L L W W L L L L L W L L

2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

9-1932%

U U O O U U U U U O U O U U U U O U O O U U U O O U U U

3 straight unders1 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@UVA	L 53-87	+26.5	L −7.5	148.5	U 140
Nov 5	@RUTG	L 53-81	+18.5	L −9.5	139.5	U 134
Nov 18	@TEX	L 65-99	+30.5	L −3.5	143.5	O 164
Nov 20	@HOU	L 45-91	+40.5	L −5.5	134.5	O 136
Nov 25	vsCOPP	L 65-68	-8.5	L −11.5	139.5	U 133
Dec 4	@MRMK	L 66-68	+9.5	W +7.5	138.5	U 134
Dec 7	@QUIN	L 58-72	+14.5	W +0.5	147.5	U 130
Dec 9	vsBUCK	L 38-51	+2.5	L −10.5	135.5	U 89
Dec 16	@DEL	L 57-65	+8.5	W +0.5	129.5	U 122
Dec 22	@VCU	L 79-100	+30.5	W +9.5	145.5	O 179
Dec 29	vsMAN	L 71-74	+2.5	L −0.5	147.5	U 145
Jan 4	vsSIE	L 65-74	+8.5	L −0.5	135.5	O 139
Jan 9	@FAIR	L 62-68	+8.5	W +2.5	145.5	U 130
Jan 11	vsMRST	L 49-71	+10.5	L −11.5	131.5	U 120
Jan 14	vsIONA	W 72-68	+7.5	W +11.5	141.5	U 140
Jan 17	@SPU	L 58-69	+10.5	L −0.5	134.5	U 127
Jan 19	vsSHU	L 85-105	+4.5	L −15.5	144.5	O 190
Jan 24	@MSM	L 61-71	+9.5	L −0.5	139.5	U 132
Jan 30	@MAN	L 90-95	+5.5	W +0.5	145.5	O 185
Feb 1	vsSPU	W 81-78	+7.5	W +10.5	136.5	O 159
Feb 5	@MRST	L 52-81	+14.5	L −14.5	135.5	U 133
Feb 7	vsMRMK	L 47-73	+8.5	L −17.5	137.5	U 120
Feb 13	vsMSM	L 55-65	+5.5	L −4.5	137.5	U 120
Feb 15	@SHU	L 75-86	+9.5	L −1.5	146.5	O 161
Feb 20	vsCAN	L 66-72	-1.5	L −7.5	131.5	O 138
Feb 22	vsNIA	W 67-62	+1.5	W +6.5	131.5	U 129
Feb 27	@IONA	L 58-80	+11.5	L −10.5	141.5	U 138
Mar 1	@SIE	L 61-76	+14.5	L −0.5	137.5	U 137

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UVA

L 53-87

−7.5

RUTG

L 53-81

−9.5

TEX

L 65-99

−3.5

HOU

L 45-91

−5.5

COPP

L 65-68

−11.5

MRMK

L 66-68

+7.5

QUIN

L 58-72

+0.5

BUCK

L 38-51

−10.5

DEL

L 57-65

+0.5

VCU

L 79-100

+9.5

MAN

L 71-74

−0.5

SIE

L 65-74

−0.5

FAIR

L 62-68

+2.5

MRST

L 49-71

−11.5

IONA

W 72-68

+11.5

SPU

L 58-69

−0.5

SHU

L 85-105

−15.5

MSM

L 61-71

−0.5

MAN

L 90-95

+0.5

SPU

W 81-78

+10.5

MRST

L 52-81

−14.5

MRMK

L 47-73

−17.5

MSM

L 55-65

−4.5

SHU

L 75-86

−1.5

CAN

L 66-72

−7.5

NIA

W 67-62

+6.5

IONA

L 58-80

−10.5

SIE

L 61-76

−0.5

covered 9didn’t cover 19avg −3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UVA

L 53-87

−8.5

RUTG

L 53-81

−5.5

TEX

L 65-99

+20.5

HOU

L 45-91

+1.5

COPP

L 65-68

−6.5

MRMK

L 66-68

−4.5

QUIN

L 58-72

−17.5

BUCK

L 38-51

−46.5

DEL

L 57-65

−7.5

VCU

L 79-100

+33.5

MAN

L 71-74

−2.5

SIE

L 65-74

+3.5

FAIR

L 62-68

−15.5

MRST

L 49-71

−11.5

IONA

W 72-68

−1.5

SPU

L 58-69

−7.5

SHU

L 85-105

+45.5

MSM

L 61-71

−7.5

MAN

L 90-95

+39.5

SPU

W 81-78

+22.5

MRST

L 52-81

−2.5

MRMK

L 47-73

−17.5

MSM

L 55-65

−17.5

SHU

L 75-86

+14.5

CAN

L 66-72

+6.5

NIA

W 67-62

−2.5

IONA

L 58-80

−3.5

SIE

L 61-76

−0.5

over 9under 19avg +0 ptslonger = bigger margin

Binghamton

28 games played

Straight up

5-23

18% wins

Against the spread

13-15

46% covers · avg −1.9 pts vs the line

Over / Under

16-12

57% overs · avg +5.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

5-2318%

L L L L L L W L L L L L L L L L L L L W L L L L W L W W

2 straight wins3 of last 4 won

Against the spread

13-1546%

L L W W L L W L L L L W L W W L L W L W L L W W W L W W

2 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

16-1257%

U U O O U O O U O O O O U U U U U O O U O U O O O O U O

3 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@SYR	L 47-85	+21.5	L −16.5	153.5	U 132
Nov 8	vsNIA	L 59-67	-2.5	L −10.5	138.5	U 126
Nov 12	@GTWN	L 70-83	+27.5	W +14.5	141.5	O 153
Nov 15	@LONG	L 82-90	+15.5	W +7.5	147.5	O 172
Nov 22	vsUMES	L 52-63	-5.5	L −16.5	125.5	U 115
Nov 23	@CAN	L 66-75	+2.5	L −6.5	129.5	O 141
Dec 2	vsLEH	W 80-71	+3.5	W +12.5	139.5	O 151
Dec 6	vsLEM	L 63-78	+2.5	L −12.5	144.5	U 141
Dec 13	vsCCSU	L 67-84	+7.5	L −9.5	133.5	O 151
Dec 17	@PITT	L 63-103	+24.5	L −15.5	134.5	O 166
Dec 20	@MERC	L 61-82	+7.5	L −13.5	132.5	O 143
Dec 23	@ARMY	L 85-95	+12.5	W +2.5	140.5	O 180
Jan 3	vsNJIT	L 65-73	-3.5	L −11.5	140.5	U 138
Jan 8	@UVM	L 59-60	+20.5	W +19.5	140.5	U 119
Jan 10	vsUML	L 68-73	+6.5	W +1.5	146.5	U 141
Jan 15	@UALB	L 53-69	+8.5	L −7.5	138.5	U 122
Jan 19	vsUMBC	L 60-78	+4.5	L −13.5	140.5	U 138
Jan 22	@UNH	L 82-88	+9.5	W +3.5	135.5	O 170
Jan 24	@ME	L 63-79	+5.5	L −10.5	124.5	O 142
Jan 29	vsBRY	W 63-60	+2.5	W +5.5	130.5	U 123
Feb 5	@UMBC	L 62-79	+11.5	L −5.5	138.5	O 141
Feb 7	@NJIT	L 64-73	+8.5	L −0.5	140.5	U 137
Feb 12	vsUVM	L 65-73	+11.5	W +3.5	136.5	O 138
Feb 14	vsUALB	L 74-77	+4.5	W +1.5	136.5	O 151
Feb 19	@BRY	W 79-67	+4.5	W +16.5	134.5	O 146
Feb 21	@UML	L 79-92	+9.5	L −3.5	146.5	O 171
Feb 26	vsUNH	W 65-63	+2.5	W +4.5	141.5	U 128
Feb 28	vsME	W 74-67	+1.5	W +8.5	133.5	O 141

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

SYR

L 47-85

−16.5

NIA

L 59-67

−10.5

GTWN

L 70-83

+14.5

LONG

L 82-90

+7.5

UMES

L 52-63

−16.5

CAN

L 66-75

−6.5

LEH

W 80-71

+12.5

LEM

L 63-78

−12.5

CCSU

L 67-84

−9.5

PITT

L 63-103

−15.5

MERC

L 61-82

−13.5

ARMY

L 85-95

+2.5

NJIT

L 65-73

−11.5

UVM

L 59-60

+19.5

UML

L 68-73

+1.5

UALB

L 53-69

−7.5

UMBC

L 60-78

−13.5

UNH

L 82-88

+3.5

L 63-79

−10.5

BRY

W 63-60

+5.5

UMBC

L 62-79

−5.5

NJIT

L 64-73

−0.5

UVM

L 65-73

+3.5

UALB

L 74-77

+1.5

BRY

W 79-67

+16.5

UML

L 79-92

−3.5

UNH

W 65-63

+4.5

W 74-67

+8.5

covered 13didn’t cover 15avg −1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

SYR

L 47-85

−21.5

NIA

L 59-67

−12.5

GTWN

L 70-83

+11.5

LONG

L 82-90

+24.5

UMES

L 52-63

−10.5

CAN

L 66-75

+11.5

LEH

W 80-71

+11.5

LEM

L 63-78

−3.5

CCSU

L 67-84

+17.5

PITT

L 63-103

+31.5

MERC

L 61-82

+10.5

ARMY

L 85-95

+39.5

NJIT

L 65-73

−2.5

UVM

L 59-60

−21.5

UML

L 68-73

−5.5

UALB

L 53-69

−16.5

UMBC

L 60-78

−2.5

UNH

L 82-88

+34.5

L 63-79

+17.5

BRY

W 63-60

−7.5

UMBC

L 62-79

+2.5

NJIT

L 64-73

−3.5

UVM

L 65-73

+1.5

UALB

L 74-77

+14.5

BRY

W 79-67

+11.5

UML

L 79-92

+24.5

UNH

W 65-63

−13.5

W 74-67

+7.5

over 16under 12avg +5.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Binghamton has the better starters

Position by position: Rider 0, Binghamton 2, even 3

RiderBetterBinghamton

G M. Butler TR10.9 pts · 2.2 reb · 4.3 ast Score 44

BINGSmall

G J. Quigley14.6 pts · 4.9 reb · 6.3 ast Score 68

G K. Farmer TR3.5 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast Score 6

BINGSmall

G K. Robinson TR10.4 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.2 ast Score 40

G B. Baker TR1.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast Not ranked

No call

G J. Kelsey0 pts · 1 reb · 2 ast Not ranked

G T. Bevins TR0.6 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.1 ast Not ranked

No call

F S. Snagg3.5 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.3 ast Score 4

F H. Simmons TR1.7 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.2 ast Not ranked

No call

C D. Lilley14.5 pts · 9.2 reb · 0.7 ast Score 51

RiderBetterBinghamton

RID offense348th of 366 · -12.2

BINGSmall

BING defense273rd of 366 · -6.9

RID defense315th of 366 · -8.2

Even

BING offense274th of 366 · -8.3

Backcourt-5.5 · 4 players

BINGBig

Backcourt-2.1 · 3 players

Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player

RIDSmall

Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players

Bench-0.3 · 1 player

RIDSmall

Bench-2.8 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestRID betterBING betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Rider

Guards

M. Butler34 min · TRK. Farmer14 min · TRB. Baker13 min · TRT. Bevins5 min · TRN. WashingtonNewR. RosaNew

Forwards

H. Simmons6 min · TRR. Brisco2 min · TRK. WylieNewS. Ezekiel ObeNew

Centers

S. Avegah SemeyNew

Binghamton

Guards

J. Quigley37 minK. Robinson26 min · TRJ. Kelsey21 minJ. Blackburn16 minB. Montgomery4 min · TRN. Ibroci3 min

Forwards

S. Snagg20 minD. Godfrey9 min · TRS. SenghoreNew

Centers

D. Lilley33 minJ. Karram4 min · TR

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

RID62.6 #359

BING66.8 #338

Points per possession

RID0.95 #355

BING1.00 #328

Pace (possessions)

RID65.7 #323

BING66.5 #294

Shooting

Effective FG%

RID42.8 #365

BING50.0 #235

3-point %

RID27.6 #365

BING32.5 #254

3-point attempt rate

RID27.5 #361

BING30.9 #340

Free throw rate

RID30.1 #307

BING41.5 #37

Possessions

Turnover rate

RID16.9 #197

BING18.7 #308

Offensive rebound rate

RID32.6 #101

BING20.9 #361

Assists per game

RID10.1 #356

BING11.1 #331

Defense

Points allowed

RID76.8 #236

BING76.6 #233

Points allowed per possession

RID1.17 #341

BING1.16 #333

Opponent effective FG%

RID55.2 #335

BING54.3 #309

Opponent 3-point %

RID38.0 #356

BING35.8 #294

Turnovers forced

RID15.3 #266

BING13.3 #349

Defensive rebound rate

RID67.2 #294

BING70.6 #128

Steals per game

RID5.9 #247

BING5.0 #333

Blocks per game

RID3.2 #188

BING2.8 #256

RID		BING
Scoring
62.6 #359	Points per game	66.8 #338
0.95 #355	Points per possession	1.00 #328
65.7 #323	Pace (possessions)	66.5 #294
Shooting
42.8 #365	Effective FG%	50.0 #235
27.6 #365	3-point %	32.5 #254
27.5 #361	3-point attempt rate	30.9 #340
30.1 #307	Free throw rate	41.5 #37
Possessions
16.9 #197	Turnover rate	18.7 #308
32.6 #101	Offensive rebound rate	20.9 #361
10.1 #356	Assists per game	11.1 #331
Defense
76.8 #236	Points allowed	76.6 #233
1.17 #341	Points allowed per possession	1.16 #333
55.2 #335	Opponent effective FG%	54.3 #309
38.0 #356	Opponent 3-point %	35.8 #294
15.3 #266	Turnovers forced	13.3 #349
67.2 #294	Defensive rebound rate	70.6 #128
5.9 #247	Steals per game	5.0 #333
3.2 #188	Blocks per game	2.8 #256

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Rider

3-25 in 2025-26 overall · 3-17 in conference · Metro Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Siena61–76
L@ Iona58–80
Wvs Niagara67–62
Lvs Canisius66–72
L@ Sacred Heart75–86

A week or more of rest.

Binghamton

5-23 in 2025-26 overall · 4-12 in conference · America East Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Wvs Maine74–67
Wvs New Hampshire65–63
L@ UMass Lowell79–92
W@ Bryant79–67
Lvs UAlbany74–77

A week or more of rest.

Rider Broncs at Binghamton Bearcats

What could decide it: BING has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Rider

Binghamton

Binghamton has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Rider

Binghamton