Binghamton Bearcats at Lafayette Leopards: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Nov 18, 12:00 AM ETKirby Sports Center · at Lafayette

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Binghamton and Lafayette
BING	This season	LAF
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 LAF 74–71 · win probability LAF 57%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 144.9

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

BING 3, LAF 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

LAFBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: BING 18.7%, LAF 15.3%. Forced: BING 13.3%, LAF 15.1%

Context

Schedule so far

BING has played the 350th-hardest schedule, LAF the 230th. A record against a soft schedule means less

BINGSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: BING 41.5, LAF 32.5. Allowed: BING 34.6, LAF 30.6

BINGSmall

LAF offense vs BING defense

Offense 331st of 366 against a defense 273rd, on the model’s ratings

BINGSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: BING 65%, LAF 34%. Transfers in: BING 4, LAF 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

LAFSmall

Home court

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

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: BING 20.9%, LAF 25.8%. Defensive: BING 70.6%, LAF 71.4%

Even

BING offense vs LAF defense

Offense 274th of 366 against a defense 245th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Three-pointers

BING hits 32.5% and allows 35.8%; LAF hits 32.1% and allows 36.0%. Threes are 30.9% and 39.8% of their shots

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: BING 50.0 and allows 54.3; LAF 49.3 and allows 53.6

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: BING plays 66.5 a game (294th fastest), LAF 67.2 (274th). 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	—	LAF -2.1	—
Total	—	144.9	—
Projected score	—	BING 71.4 · LAF 73.5

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	LAF -1.1	—
1H total	67.8	—
1H projected score	BING 33.3 · LAF 34.5	—

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
BING WWLWW	13-15	46%	6-9	—
LAF WLWWL	13-17	43%	3-11	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
BING OOOUO	16-12	57%	5-23
LAF OUUOO	17-13	57%	10-21

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
BING	4-6 40%	6-4 60%	7-3 70%
LAF	5-5 50%	5-5 50%	4-6 40%

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

Binghamton

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 21	vs ARMY	L85–95WO
Nov 24	@ LEH	W80–71WO
Nov 30	@ FDU	No recent meeting

Lafayette

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 21	@ SYR	L63–97LO
Nov 27	vs NIA	W59–47WU
Nov 28	vs ME	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

BING 1–0 LAFBING leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · BING 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 1, 2024-25	BING 82 @ LAF 81	LAF -6.5	BING W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

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

Lafayette

31 games played

Straight up

10-21

32% wins

Against the spread

13-17

43% covers · avg −2.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-13

57% overs · avg +0.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

10-2132%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-1743%

W L L W L L W L–W L W L W L L L W W L L W L W L L W L W W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

17-1357%

O O O O O U U O–U O O O U O U O U O U O U U U U O O U U O O

2 straight overs2 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	@JOES	L 76-85	+13.5	W +4.5	138.5	O 161
Nov 8	@TEX	L 60-97	+25.5	L −11.5	153.5	O 157
Nov 13	vsCOR	L 78-97	+4.5	L −14.5	160.5	O 175
Nov 17	@WVU	L 59-81	+24.5	W +2.5	135.5	O 140
Nov 21	@STO	L 70-74	-1.5	L −5.5	141.5	O 144
Nov 28	vsLEM	L 63-76	-4.5	L −17.5	151.5	U 139
Nov 29	vsBALL	W 55-37	+1.5	W +19.5	140.5	U 92
Nov 30	vsMONM	L 74-88	+1.5	L −12.5	141.5	O 162
Dec 5	vsMERC	W 79-71	—	—	—	—
Dec 8	@PENN	L 72-74	+7.5	W +5.5	150.5	U 146
Dec 18	@CLT	L 67-81	+11.5	L −2.5	137.5	O 148
Dec 20	@GT	L 81-95	+16.5	W +2.5	147.5	O 176
Dec 31	vsCOLG	L 77-85	+6.5	L −1.5	146.5	O 162
Jan 3	@L-MD	W 79-64	-1.5	W +13.5	152.5	U 143
Jan 7	vsBU	L 67-83	+1.5	L −14.5	142.5	O 150
Jan 10	@NAVY	L 50-76	+8.5	L −17.5	141.5	U 126
Jan 14	@BUCK	L 69-76	+2.5	L −4.5	137.5	O 145
Jan 17	vsHC	W 74-55	-2.5	W +16.5	138.5	U 129
Jan 21	@BU	L 73-77	+4.5	W +0.5	145.5	O 150
Jan 24	@LEH	L 59-64	+2.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 123
Jan 28	vsBUCK	W 81-79	-4.5	L −2.5	138.5	O 160
Jan 31	@AMER	W 67-65	+5.5	W +7.5	142.5	U 132
Feb 4	vsNAVY	L 50-65	+3.5	L −11.5	139.5	U 115
Feb 7	@ARMY	W 63-60	-1.5	W +1.5	142.5	U 123
Feb 11	vsL-MD	L 54-68	-3.5	L −17.5	147.5	U 122
Feb 14	vsLEH	L 69-78	-2.5	L −11.5	140.5	O 147
Feb 18	@HC	W 86-83	+1.5	W +4.5	139.5	O 169
Feb 22	vsAMER	L 61-75	+3.5	L −10.5	141.5	U 136
Feb 25	@COLG	W 70-69	+8.5	W +9.5	148.5	U 139
Feb 28	vsARMY	W 83-77	-3.5	W +2.5	144.5	O 160
Mar 3	vsHC	L 77-82	-4.5	L −9.5	141.5	O 159

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

JOES

L 76-85

+4.5

TEX

L 60-97

−11.5

COR

L 78-97

−14.5

WVU

L 59-81

+2.5

STO

L 70-74

−5.5

LEM

L 63-76

−17.5

BALL

W 55-37

+19.5

MONM

L 74-88

−12.5

PENN

L 72-74

+5.5

CLT

L 67-81

−2.5

L 81-95

+2.5

COLG

L 77-85

−1.5

L-MD

W 79-64

+13.5

L 67-83

−14.5

NAVY

L 50-76

−17.5

BUCK

L 69-76

−4.5

W 74-55

+16.5

L 73-77

+0.5

LEH

L 59-64

−2.5

BUCK

W 81-79

−2.5

AMER

W 67-65

+7.5

NAVY

L 50-65

−11.5

ARMY

W 63-60

+1.5

L-MD

L 54-68

−17.5

LEH

L 69-78

−11.5

W 86-83

+4.5

AMER

L 61-75

−10.5

COLG

W 70-69

+9.5

ARMY

W 83-77

+2.5

L 77-82

−9.5

covered 13didn’t cover 17avg −2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

JOES

L 76-85

+22.5

TEX

L 60-97

+3.5

COR

L 78-97

+14.5

WVU

L 59-81

+4.5

STO

L 70-74

+2.5

LEM

L 63-76

−12.5

BALL

W 55-37

−48.5

MONM

L 74-88

+20.5

PENN

L 72-74

−4.5

CLT

L 67-81

+10.5

L 81-95

+28.5

COLG

L 77-85

+15.5

L-MD

W 79-64

−9.5

L 67-83

+7.5

NAVY

L 50-76

−15.5

BUCK

L 69-76

+7.5

W 74-55

−9.5

L 73-77

+4.5

LEH

L 59-64

−20.5

BUCK

W 81-79

+21.5

AMER

W 67-65

−10.5

NAVY

L 50-65

−24.5

ARMY

W 63-60

−19.5

L-MD

L 54-68

−25.5

LEH

L 69-78

+6.5

W 86-83

+29.5

AMER

L 61-75

−5.5

COLG

W 70-69

−9.5

ARMY

W 83-77

+15.5

L 77-82

+17.5

over 17under 13avg +0.6 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: Binghamton 1, Lafayette 1, even 3

BinghamtonBetterLafayette

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

No call

G P. D'Arcy TR1.1 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast Not ranked

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

LAFSmall

F S. Jackson10.2 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast Score 67

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

No call

F K. Murdock2.7 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast Score 16

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

Even

F L. Bevilacqua2.7 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.5 ast Score 13

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

BINGBig

C M. Bednostin1.5 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast Score 8

BinghamtonBetterLafayette

BING offense274th of 366 · -8.3

Even

LAF defense245th of 366 · -6.5

BING defense273rd of 366 · -6.9

BINGSmall

LAF offense331st of 366 · -10.8

Backcourt-2.1 · 3 players

LAFSmall

Backcourt-0.7 · 1 player

Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players

Even

Frontcourt-2.4 · 4 players

Bench-2.8 · 5 players

LAFSmall

Bench-1.4 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestBING betterLAF 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

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

Lafayette

Guards

P. D'Arcy7 min · TRF. Fayemi6 minA. Wallace4 minB. CurrieNewC. KeslerNewS. HentonNew

Forwards

S. Jackson22 minK. Murdock10 minL. Bevilacqua9 minM. Rasul4 minL. Azzinaro2 minJ. GillNew

Centers

M. Bednostin10 min

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

BING66.8 #338

LAF69.1 #297

Points per possession

BING1.00 #328

LAF1.03 #289

Pace (possessions)

BING66.5 #294

LAF67.2 #274

Shooting

Effective FG%

BING50.0 #235

LAF49.3 #278

3-point %

BING32.5 #254

LAF32.1 #273

3-point attempt rate

BING30.9 #340

LAF39.8 #173

Free throw rate

BING41.5 #37

LAF32.5 #249

Possessions

Turnover rate

BING18.7 #308

LAF15.3 #89

Offensive rebound rate

BING20.9 #361

LAF25.8 #326

Assists per game

BING11.1 #331

LAF13.6 #175

Defense

Points allowed

BING76.6 #233

LAF75.4 #200

Points allowed per possession

BING1.16 #333

LAF1.12 #275

Opponent effective FG%

BING54.3 #309

LAF53.6 #286

Opponent 3-point %

BING35.8 #294

LAF36.0 #298

Turnovers forced

BING13.3 #349

LAF15.1 #273

Defensive rebound rate

BING70.6 #128

LAF71.4 #88

Steals per game

BING5.0 #333

LAF5.3 #316

Blocks per game

BING2.8 #256

LAF2.3 #324

BING		LAF
Scoring
66.8 #338	Points per game	69.1 #297
1.00 #328	Points per possession	1.03 #289
66.5 #294	Pace (possessions)	67.2 #274
Shooting
50.0 #235	Effective FG%	49.3 #278
32.5 #254	3-point %	32.1 #273
30.9 #340	3-point attempt rate	39.8 #173
41.5 #37	Free throw rate	32.5 #249
Possessions
18.7 #308	Turnover rate	15.3 #89
20.9 #361	Offensive rebound rate	25.8 #326
11.1 #331	Assists per game	13.6 #175
Defense
76.6 #233	Points allowed	75.4 #200
1.16 #333	Points allowed per possession	1.12 #275
54.3 #309	Opponent effective FG%	53.6 #286
35.8 #294	Opponent 3-point %	36.0 #298
13.3 #349	Turnovers forced	15.1 #273
70.6 #128	Defensive rebound rate	71.4 #88
5.0 #333	Steals per game	5.3 #316
2.8 #256	Blocks per game	2.3 #324

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.

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.

Lafayette

10-21 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Patriot League

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Holy Cross77–82
Wvs Army83–77
W@ Colgate70–69
Lvs American61–75
W@ Holy Cross86–83

A week or more of rest.

Binghamton Bearcats at Lafayette Leopards

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

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Binghamton

Lafayette

The starting fives are even

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Binghamton

Lafayette