Binghamton Bearcats at Lehigh Mountain Hawks: Model Line and Edge

Tue, Nov 24, 7:00 PM ETStabler Arena · at Lehigh

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Binghamton and Lehigh
BING	This season	LEH
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 LEH 76–69 · win probability LEH 74%

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: LEH has more of the edges

BING 1, LEH 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

LEHBig

Three-pointers

BING hits 32.5% and allows 35.8%; LEH hits 36.1% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 30.9% and 38.3% of their shots

LEHBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: BING 50.0 and allows 54.3; LEH 52.9 and allows 50.6

Context

Schedule so far

BING has played the 350th-hardest schedule, LEH the 218th. A record against a soft schedule means less

LEHSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: BING 18.7%, LEH 17.7%. Forced: BING 13.3%, LEH 16.2%

LEHSmall

BING offense vs LEH defense

Offense 274th of 366 against a defense 179th, on the model’s ratings

BINGSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: BING 41.5, LEH 31.8. Allowed: BING 34.6, LEH 32.5

LEHSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: BING 65%, LEH 100%. Transfers in: BING 4, LEH 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

LEHSmall

Home court

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

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: BING plays 66.5 a game (294th fastest), LEH 68.7 (197th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: BING 20.9%, LEH 23.2%. Defensive: BING 70.6%, LEH 68.5%

Even

LEH offense vs BING defense

Offense 257th of 366 against a defense 273rd, on the model’s ratings

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	—	LEH -7.5	—
Total	—	144.9	—
Projected score	—	BING 68.7 · LEH 76.2

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	LEH -4.3	—
1H total	67.8	—
1H projected score	BING 31.7 · LEH 36.1	—

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	—
LEH WLWWL	19-14	58%	11-4	—

Venue/role: BING away; LEH 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
LEH OUUUU	18-15	55%	16-17

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%
LEH	8-2 80%	7-3 70%	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 30	@ FDU	No recent meeting
Dec 3	@ LEM	L63–78LU
Dec 8	@ DSU	No recent meeting

Lehigh

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 27	vs UCSB	L70–72WU
Nov 28	vs PEPP	No recent meeting
Dec 5	vs MONM	L62–76LU

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

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

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 2, 2025-26	LEH 71 @ BING 80	BING +3.5	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

Lehigh

33 games played

Straight up

16-17

48% wins

Against the spread

19-14

58% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

18-15

55% overs · avg +4.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1748%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

19-1458%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

18-1555%

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

4 straight unders0 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	@HOU	L 57-75	+36.5	W +18.5	136.5	U 132
Nov 9	@WVU	L 47-69	+17.5	L −4.5	139.5	U 116
Nov 14	@RUTG	L 72-84	+18.5	W +6.5	136.5	O 156
Nov 18	vsSFPA	W 79-62	-10.5	W +6.5	151.5	U 141
Nov 21	vsCOLU	L 67-82	+2.5	L −12.5	143.5	O 149
Nov 25	@MRST	L 55-78	+7.5	L −15.5	132.5	O 133
Nov 28	vsUCSB	L 70-72	+10.5	W +8.5	146.5	U 142
Nov 29	vsTXST	W 78-74	+6.5	W +10.5	135.5	O 152
Dec 2	@BING	L 71-80	-3.5	L −12.5	139.5	O 151
Dec 6	vsLIU	L 82-87	+1.5	L −3.5	142.5	O 169
Dec 21	@MONM	L 62-76	+9.5	L −4.5	143.5	U 138
Dec 31	vsARMY	L 78-85	-5.5	L −12.5	146.5	O 163
Jan 3	@BUCK	L 65-72	+4.5	L −2.5	137.5	U 137
Jan 7	vsHC	W 66-58	-2.5	W +5.5	137.5	U 124
Jan 10	@COLG	W 78-77	+11.5	W +12.5	142.5	O 155
Jan 14	@BU	W 93-91	+4.5	W +6.5	144.5	O 184
Jan 17	vsNAVY	L 79-82	+3.5	W +0.5	137.5	O 161
Jan 19	vsL-MD	W 88-81	-3.5	W +3.5	149.5	O 169
Jan 24	vsLAF	W 64-59	-2.5	W +2.5	143.5	U 123
Jan 28	@ARMY	L 64-67	-1.5	L −4.5	147.5	U 131
Jan 31	vsCOLG	W 77-76	+3.5	W +4.5	146.5	O 153
Feb 4	@L-MD	L 84-89	+2.5	L −2.5	149.5	O 173
Feb 7	@HC	L 67-76	-1.5	L −10.5	137.5	O 143
Feb 11	vsAMER	W 90-82	+1.5	W +9.5	140.5	O 172
Feb 14	@LAF	W 78-69	+2.5	W +11.5	140.5	O 147
Feb 18	@NAVY	L 49-72	+9.5	L −13.5	139.5	U 121
Feb 22	vsBU	W 70-67	+2.5	W +5.5	141.5	U 137
Feb 25	@AMER	W 78-73	+7.5	W +12.5	140.5	O 151
Feb 28	vsBUCK	W 89-79	-5.5	W +4.5	138.5	O 168
Mar 5	vsHC	W 69-66	-5.5	L −2.5	142.5	U 135
Mar 8	vsCOLG	W 76-69	+2.5	W +9.5	146.5	U 145
Mar 11	vsBU	W 74-60	+2.5	W +16.5	138.5	U 134
Mar 18	vsPV	L 55-67	-3.5	L −15.5	140.5	U 122

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

HOU

L 57-75

+18.5

WVU

L 47-69

−4.5

RUTG

L 72-84

+6.5

SFPA

W 79-62

+6.5

COLU

L 67-82

−12.5

MRST

L 55-78

−15.5

UCSB

L 70-72

+8.5

TXST

W 78-74

+10.5

BING

L 71-80

−12.5

LIU

L 82-87

−3.5

MONM

L 62-76

−4.5

ARMY

L 78-85

−12.5

BUCK

L 65-72

−2.5

W 66-58

+5.5

COLG

W 78-77

+12.5

W 93-91

+6.5

NAVY

L 79-82

+0.5

L-MD

W 88-81

+3.5

LAF

W 64-59

+2.5

ARMY

L 64-67

−4.5

COLG

W 77-76

+4.5

L-MD

L 84-89

−2.5

L 67-76

−10.5

AMER

W 90-82

+9.5

LAF

W 78-69

+11.5

NAVY

L 49-72

−13.5

W 70-67

+5.5

AMER

W 78-73

+12.5

BUCK

W 89-79

+4.5

W 69-66

−2.5

COLG

W 76-69

+9.5

W 74-60

+16.5

L 55-67

−15.5

covered 19didn’t cover 14avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

HOU

L 57-75

−4.5

WVU

L 47-69

−23.5

RUTG

L 72-84

+19.5

SFPA

W 79-62

−10.5

COLU

L 67-82

+5.5

MRST

L 55-78

+0.5

UCSB

L 70-72

−4.5

TXST

W 78-74

+16.5

BING

L 71-80

+11.5

LIU

L 82-87

+26.5

MONM

L 62-76

−5.5

ARMY

L 78-85

+16.5

BUCK

L 65-72

−0.5

W 66-58

−13.5

COLG

W 78-77

+12.5

W 93-91

+39.5

NAVY

L 79-82

+23.5

L-MD

W 88-81

+19.5

LAF

W 64-59

−20.5

ARMY

L 64-67

−16.5

COLG

W 77-76

+6.5

L-MD

L 84-89

+23.5

L 67-76

+5.5

AMER

W 90-82

+31.5

LAF

W 78-69

+6.5

NAVY

L 49-72

−18.5

W 70-67

−4.5

AMER

W 78-73

+10.5

BUCK

W 89-79

+29.5

W 69-66

−7.5

COLG

W 76-69

−1.5

W 74-60

−4.5

L 55-67

−18.5

over 18under 15avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Lehigh has the better starters

Position by position: Binghamton 1, Lehigh 2, even 2

BinghamtonBetterLehigh

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

Even

G J. Ingram10.7 pts · 5.1 reb · 3.3 ast Score 54

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

BINGBig

G C. Thomas5.3 pts · 1.3 reb · 1.8 ast Score 2

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

No call

G J. Vazquez4 pts · 2.6 reb · 2 ast Score 11

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

LEHSmall

F E. Benoit10.2 pts · 6 reb · 1.1 ast Score 24

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

LEHBig

C H. Alvey15.4 pts · 7 reb · 2.1 ast Score 86

BinghamtonBetterLehigh

BING offense274th of 366 · -8.3

LEHSmall

LEH defense179th of 366 · -4.1

BING defense273rd of 366 · -6.9

Even

LEH offense257th of 366 · -7.9

Backcourt-2.1 · 3 players

BINGBig

Backcourt-6.9 · 3 players

Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players

LEHBig

Frontcourt+2.3 · 2 players

Bench-2.8 · 5 players

BINGBig

Bench-7.6 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestBING betterLEH 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

Lehigh

Guards

J. Ingram36 minC. Thomas23 minJ. Vazquez22 minP. Kramer19 minA. Urosevic19 minC. BurrowsNew

Forwards

E. Benoit29 minJ. Pike12 minA. Addesa8 minR. RudusansNewN. DjanoglyNew

Centers

H. Alvey31 minC. CohenNew

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

LEH71.8 #249

Points per possession

BING1.00 #328

LEH1.05 #257

Pace (possessions)

BING66.5 #294

LEH68.7 #197

Shooting

Effective FG%

BING50.0 #235

LEH52.9 #107

3-point %

BING32.5 #254

LEH36.1 #56

3-point attempt rate

BING30.9 #340

LEH38.3 #206

Free throw rate

BING41.5 #37

LEH31.8 #258

Possessions

Turnover rate

BING18.7 #308

LEH17.7 #250

Offensive rebound rate

BING20.9 #361

LEH23.2 #349

Assists per game

BING11.1 #331

LEH13.9 #153

Defense

Points allowed

BING76.6 #233

LEH74.4 #171

Points allowed per possession

BING1.16 #333

LEH1.08 #175

Opponent effective FG%

BING54.3 #309

LEH50.6 #133

Opponent 3-point %

BING35.8 #294

LEH32.9 #109

Turnovers forced

BING13.3 #349

LEH16.2 #212

Defensive rebound rate

BING70.6 #128

LEH68.5 #226

Steals per game

BING5.0 #333

LEH6.6 #163

Blocks per game

BING2.8 #256

LEH3.1 #209

BING		LEH
Scoring
66.8 #338	Points per game	71.8 #249
1.00 #328	Points per possession	1.05 #257
66.5 #294	Pace (possessions)	68.7 #197
Shooting
50.0 #235	Effective FG%	52.9 #107
32.5 #254	3-point %	36.1 #56
30.9 #340	3-point attempt rate	38.3 #206
41.5 #37	Free throw rate	31.8 #258
Possessions
18.7 #308	Turnover rate	17.7 #250
20.9 #361	Offensive rebound rate	23.2 #349
11.1 #331	Assists per game	13.9 #153
Defense
76.6 #233	Points allowed	74.4 #171
1.16 #333	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #175
54.3 #309	Opponent effective FG%	50.6 #133
35.8 #294	Opponent 3-point %	32.9 #109
13.3 #349	Turnovers forced	16.2 #212
70.6 #128	Defensive rebound rate	68.5 #226
5.0 #333	Steals per game	6.6 #163
2.8 #256	Blocks per game	3.1 #209

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.

Lehigh

16-17 in 2025-26 overall · 14-7 in conference · Patriot League

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Prairie View55–67
Wvs Boston U74–60
Wvs Colgate76–69
Wvs Holy Cross69–66
Wvs Bucknell89–79

A week or more of rest.

Binghamton Bearcats at Lehigh Mountain Hawks

What could decide it: LEH 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

Lehigh

Lehigh has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Binghamton

Lehigh