Army Black Knights at Binghamton Bearcats: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Nov 21, 3:30 PM ETEvents Center (Binghamton) · at Binghamton

#288ARMYArmy

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Army and Binghamton
ARMY	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 76–73 · win probability BING 58%

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

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

BINGBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: ARMY 26.8, BING 41.5. Allowed: ARMY 39.6, BING 34.6

ARMYSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: ARMY 29.6%, BING 20.9%. Defensive: ARMY 72.3%, BING 70.6%

ARMYSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: ARMY 17.2%, BING 18.7%. Forced: ARMY 15.4%, BING 13.3%

BINGSmall

Home court

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

Context

Schedule so far

ARMY has played the 302nd-hardest schedule, BING the 350th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: ARMY plays 68.6 a game (200th fastest), BING 66.5 (294th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: ARMY 49.3 and allows 55.1; BING 50.0 and allows 54.3

Even

BING offense vs ARMY defense

Offense 274th of 366 against a defense 304th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Three-pointers

ARMY hits 32.0% and allows 35.5%; BING hits 32.5% and allows 35.8%. Threes are 53.3% and 30.9% of their shots

Even

ARMY offense vs BING defense

Offense 271st of 366 against a defense 273rd, on the model’s ratings

Even

Who is back

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

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 -2.5	—
Total	—	149.0	—
Projected score	—	ARMY 73.3 · BING 75.7

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	BING -1.3	—
1H total	69.7	—
1H projected score	ARMY 34.2 · BING 35.5	—

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
ARMY WLLLL	12-18	40%	8-7	—
BING WWLWW	13-15	46%	7-5	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
ARMY OOOOU	17-13	57%	9-21
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
ARMY	2-8 20%	1-9 10%	5-5 50%
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

Army

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 24	vs AF	L58–76LO
Nov 26	@ UTSA	W78–75WU
Nov 28	vs RID	No recent meeting

Binghamton

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 24	@ LEH	W80–71WO
Nov 30	@ FDU	No recent meeting
Dec 3	@ LEM	L63–78LU

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

ARMY 1–2 BINGBING leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · ARMY 1-2 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 23, 2025-26	BING 85 @ ARMY 95	ARMY -12.5	BING W
Dec 22, 2024-25	BING 78 @ ARMY 68	ARMY -3.5	BING W
Nov 25, 2023-24	ARMY 68 @ BING 75	BING -9.5	ARMY W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

Army

30 games played

Straight up

9-21

30% wins

Against the spread

12-18

40% covers · avg −1.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-13

57% overs · avg +3.5 pts vs the total

Straight up

9-2130%

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

4 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

12-1840%

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

4 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

17-1357%

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

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 8	@STMN	L 76-83	+18.5	W +11.5	151.5	O 159
Nov 11	vsDUKE	L 59-114	+33.5	L −21.5	152.5	O 173
Nov 15	vsHARV	L 52-75	+6.5	L −16.5	146.5	U 127
Nov 18	@COR	L 73-86	+17.5	W +4.5	164.5	U 159
Nov 21	@MRST	L 65-76	+12.5	W +1.5	132.5	O 141
Nov 25	vsETAM	L 67-84	+2.5	L −14.5	143.5	O 151
Nov 26	@FDU	W 81-73	+4.5	W +12.5	152.5	O 154
Nov 29	vsMAN	W 81-78	+1.5	W +4.5	152.5	O 159
Dec 2	vsGW	L 70-84	+19.5	W +5.5	156.5	U 154
Dec 12	@UMBC	W 63-60	+7.5	W +10.5	146.5	U 123
Dec 23	vsBING	W 95-85	-12.5	L −2.5	140.5	O 180
Dec 31	@LEH	W 85-78	+5.5	W +12.5	146.5	O 163
Jan 3	vsCOLG	L 69-76	+7.5	W +0.5	147.5	U 145
Jan 7	vsL-MD	L 76-84	-4.5	L −12.5	146.5	O 160
Jan 10	@BU	L 91-100	+7.5	L −1.5	140.5	O 191
Jan 14	@HC	L 75-82	+4.5	L −2.5	142.5	O 157
Jan 18	vsAMER	L 67-78	+4.5	L −6.5	147.5	U 145
Jan 21	@BUCK	W 87-84	+4.5	W +7.5	144.5	O 171
Jan 24	@NAVY	L 56-84	+10.5	L −17.5	143.5	U 140
Jan 28	vsLEH	W 67-64	+1.5	W +4.5	147.5	U 131
Jan 31	vsHC	W 69-68	-2.5	L −1.5	144.5	U 137
Feb 4	@COLG	L 55-69	+10.5	L −3.5	150.5	U 124
Feb 7	vsLAF	L 60-63	+1.5	L −1.5	142.5	U 123
Feb 11	vsBU	L 68-85	+2.5	L −14.5	140.5	O 153
Feb 14	@AMER	L 63-75	+9.5	L −2.5	144.5	U 138
Feb 18	@L-MD	W 87-77	+4.5	W +14.5	149.5	O 164
Feb 21	vsNAVY	L 63-81	+8.5	L −9.5	139.5	O 144
Feb 25	vsBUCK	L 73-75	-2.5	L −4.5	142.5	O 148
Feb 28	@LAF	L 77-83	+3.5	L −2.5	144.5	O 160
Mar 3	@BUCK	L 55-65	+1.5	L −8.5	144.5	U 120

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

STMN

L 76-83

+11.5

DUKE

L 59-114

−21.5

HARV

L 52-75

−16.5

COR

L 73-86

+4.5

MRST

L 65-76

+1.5

ETAM

L 67-84

−14.5

FDU

W 81-73

+12.5

MAN

W 81-78

+4.5

L 70-84

+5.5

UMBC

W 63-60

+10.5

BING

W 95-85

−2.5

LEH

W 85-78

+12.5

COLG

L 69-76

+0.5

L-MD

L 76-84

−12.5

L 91-100

−1.5

L 75-82

−2.5

AMER

L 67-78

−6.5

BUCK

W 87-84

+7.5

NAVY

L 56-84

−17.5

LEH

W 67-64

+4.5

W 69-68

−1.5

COLG

L 55-69

−3.5

LAF

L 60-63

−1.5

L 68-85

−14.5

AMER

L 63-75

−2.5

L-MD

W 87-77

+14.5

NAVY

L 63-81

−9.5

BUCK

L 73-75

−4.5

LAF

L 77-83

−2.5

BUCK

L 55-65

−8.5

covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

STMN

L 76-83

+7.5

DUKE

L 59-114

+20.5

HARV

L 52-75

−19.5

COR

L 73-86

−5.5

MRST

L 65-76

+8.5

ETAM

L 67-84

+7.5

FDU

W 81-73

+1.5

MAN

W 81-78

+6.5

L 70-84

−2.5

UMBC

W 63-60

−23.5

BING

W 95-85

+39.5

LEH

W 85-78

+16.5

COLG

L 69-76

−2.5

L-MD

L 76-84

+13.5

L 91-100

+50.5

L 75-82

+14.5

AMER

L 67-78

−2.5

BUCK

W 87-84

+26.5

NAVY

L 56-84

−3.5

LEH

W 67-64

−16.5

W 69-68

−7.5

COLG

L 55-69

−26.5

LAF

L 60-63

−19.5

L 68-85

+12.5

AMER

L 63-75

−6.5

L-MD

W 87-77

+14.5

NAVY

L 63-81

+4.5

BUCK

L 73-75

+5.5

LAF

L 77-83

+15.5

BUCK

L 55-65

−24.5

over 17under 13avg +3.5 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.

The starting fives are even

Position by position: Army 1, Binghamton 1, even 3

ArmyBetterBinghamton

G R. Curry13.4 pts · 4.1 reb · 4.4 ast Score 57

Even

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

G K. McCarthy7.2 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.2 ast Score 13

BINGSmall

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

F J. Holloway10.7 pts · 3.6 reb · 2.1 ast Score 37

No call

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

F T. Laczkowski5.3 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.9 ast Score 38

ARMYSmall

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

F D. Benner1.4 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.4 ast Not ranked

No call

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

ArmyBetterBinghamton

ARMY offense271st of 366 · -8.2

Even

BING defense273rd of 366 · -6.9

ARMY defense304th of 366 · -7.8

Even

BING offense274th of 366 · -8.3

Backcourt-3.1 · 2 players

Even

Backcourt-2.1 · 3 players

Frontcourt-2.6 · 3 players

Even

Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players

Bench-1.0 · 5 players

ARMYSmall

Bench-2.8 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestARMY 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

Army

Guards

R. Curry34 minK. McCarthy24 minD. Watt5 minJ. Green3 minB. O'Keefe2 minJ. EllisNew

Forwards

J. Holloway29 minT. Laczkowski22 minD. Benner6 minN. Ikechi3 minD. Murans3 minH. RasmussenNew

Centers

P. HendersonNew

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

ARMY70.8 #268

BING66.8 #338

Points per possession

ARMY1.03 #281

BING1.00 #328

Pace (possessions)

ARMY68.6 #200

BING66.5 #294

Shooting

Effective FG%

ARMY49.3 #279

BING50.0 #235

3-point %

ARMY32.0 #278

BING32.5 #254

3-point attempt rate

ARMY53.3 #3

BING30.9 #340

Free throw rate

ARMY26.8 #352

BING41.5 #37

Possessions

Turnover rate

ARMY17.2 #221

BING18.7 #308

Offensive rebound rate

ARMY29.6 #219

BING20.9 #361

Assists per game

ARMY14.5 #118

BING11.1 #331

Defense

Points allowed

ARMY79.0 #298

BING76.6 #233

Points allowed per possession

ARMY1.15 #321

BING1.16 #333

Opponent effective FG%

ARMY55.1 #334

BING54.3 #309

Opponent 3-point %

ARMY35.5 #285

BING35.8 #294

Turnovers forced

ARMY15.4 #257

BING13.3 #349

Defensive rebound rate

ARMY72.3 #54

BING70.6 #128

Steals per game

ARMY5.4 #307

BING5.0 #333

Blocks per game

ARMY1.6 #359

BING2.8 #256

ARMY		BING
Scoring
70.8 #268	Points per game	66.8 #338
1.03 #281	Points per possession	1.00 #328
68.6 #200	Pace (possessions)	66.5 #294
Shooting
49.3 #279	Effective FG%	50.0 #235
32.0 #278	3-point %	32.5 #254
53.3 #3	3-point attempt rate	30.9 #340
26.8 #352	Free throw rate	41.5 #37
Possessions
17.2 #221	Turnover rate	18.7 #308
29.6 #219	Offensive rebound rate	20.9 #361
14.5 #118	Assists per game	11.1 #331
Defense
79.0 #298	Points allowed	76.6 #233
1.15 #321	Points allowed per possession	1.16 #333
55.1 #334	Opponent effective FG%	54.3 #309
35.5 #285	Opponent 3-point %	35.8 #294
15.4 #257	Turnovers forced	13.3 #349
72.3 #54	Defensive rebound rate	70.6 #128
5.4 #307	Steals per game	5.0 #333
1.6 #359	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.

Army

9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Patriot League

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Bucknell55–65
L@ Lafayette77–83
Lvs Bucknell73–75
Lvs Navy63–81
W@ Loyola MD87–77

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.

Army Black Knights at Binghamton Bearcats

What could decide it

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Army

Binghamton

The starting fives are even

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Army

Binghamton