Bogota Savings Bank Center · at FDU
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FDU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FDU 71–71 · win probability FDU 50%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.5
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 6, FDU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: BING 20.9%, FDU 32.0%. Defensive: BING 70.6%, FDU 72.7%
Free throws
Free throw rate: BING 41.5, FDU 32.8. Allowed: BING 34.6, FDU 36.3
FDU offense vs BING defense
Offense 356th of 366 against a defense 273rd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: BING 18.7%, FDU 18.2%. Forced: BING 13.3%, FDU 16.1%
Three-pointers
BING hits 32.5% and allows 35.8%; FDU hits 30.3% and allows 37.8%. Threes are 30.9% and 45.2% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: BING 65%, FDU 27%. Transfers in: BING 4, FDU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Shooting
Effective FG%: BING 50.0 and allows 54.3; FDU 47.1 and allows 55.2
Home court
FDU at home. This season: FDU 0-0 at home, BING 0-0 away
BING offense vs FDU defense
Offense 274th of 366 against a defense 320th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
BING has played the 350th-hardest schedule, FDU the 308th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 65 possessions: BING plays 66.5 a game (294th fastest), FDU 64.4 (356th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | BING -0.0 | — |
| Total | — | 142.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | BING 71.3 · FDU 71.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BING -0.1 | — |
| 1H total | 66.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | BING 33.4 · FDU 33.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | |
| 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% |
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
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 3 | @ | L 47-85 | +21.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 59-67 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 138.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 70-83 | +27.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 82-90 | +15.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 52-63 | -5.5 | L −16.5 | 125.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 66-75 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | O 141 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 80-71 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 63-78 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 67-84 | +7.5 | L −9.5 | 133.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 63-103 | +24.5 | L −15.5 | 134.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 61-82 | +7.5 | L −13.5 | 132.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 85-95 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 65-73 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 59-60 | +20.5 | W +19.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 68-73 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 53-69 | +8.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 60-78 | +4.5 | L −13.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 82-88 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 63-79 | +5.5 | L −10.5 | 124.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 63-60 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 130.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 62-79 | +11.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 64-73 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 65-73 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 136.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 74-77 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 79-67 | +4.5 | W +16.5 | 134.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 79-92 | +9.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 65-63 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-67 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SYR
L 47-85
−16.5
8
vs
NIA
L 59-67
−10.5
12
@
GTWN
L 70-83
+14.5
15
@
LONG
L 82-90
+7.5
22
vs
UMES
L 52-63
−16.5
23
@
CAN
L 66-75
−6.5
2
vs
LEH
W 80-71
+12.5
6
vs
LEM
L 63-78
−12.5
13
vs
CCSU
L 67-84
−9.5
17
@
PITT
L 63-103
−15.5
20
@
MERC
L 61-82
−13.5
23
@
ARMY
L 85-95
+2.5
3
vs
NJIT
L 65-73
−11.5
8
@
UVM
L 59-60
+19.5
10
vs
UML
L 68-73
+1.5
15
@
UALB
L 53-69
−7.5
19
vs
UMBC
L 60-78
−13.5
22
@
UNH
L 82-88
+3.5
24
@
ME
L 63-79
−10.5
29
vs
BRY
W 63-60
+5.5
5
@
UMBC
L 62-79
−5.5
7
@
NJIT
L 64-73
−0.5
12
vs
UVM
L 65-73
+3.5
14
vs
UALB
L 74-77
+1.5
19
@
BRY
W 79-67
+16.5
21
@
UML
L 79-92
−3.5
26
vs
UNH
W 65-63
+4.5
28
vs
ME
W 74-67
+8.5
covered 13didn’t cover 15avg −1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SYR
L 47-85
−21.5
8
vs
NIA
L 59-67
−12.5
12
@
GTWN
L 70-83
+11.5
15
@
LONG
L 82-90
+24.5
22
vs
UMES
L 52-63
−10.5
23
@
CAN
L 66-75
+11.5
2
vs
LEH
W 80-71
+11.5
6
vs
LEM
L 63-78
−3.5
13
vs
CCSU
L 67-84
+17.5
17
@
PITT
L 63-103
+31.5
20
@
MERC
L 61-82
+10.5
23
@
ARMY
L 85-95
+39.5
3
vs
NJIT
L 65-73
−2.5
8
@
UVM
L 59-60
−21.5
10
vs
UML
L 68-73
−5.5
15
@
UALB
L 53-69
−16.5
19
vs
UMBC
L 60-78
−2.5
22
@
UNH
L 82-88
+34.5
24
@
ME
L 63-79
+17.5
29
vs
BRY
W 63-60
−7.5
5
@
UMBC
L 62-79
+2.5
7
@
NJIT
L 64-73
−3.5
12
vs
UVM
L 65-73
+1.5
14
vs
UALB
L 74-77
+14.5
19
@
BRY
W 79-67
+11.5
21
@
UML
L 79-92
+24.5
26
vs
UNH
W 65-63
−13.5
28
vs
ME
W 74-67
+7.5
over 16under 12avg +5.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
FDU
29 games played
Straight up
8-21
28% wins
Against the spread
10-19
34% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
10-19
34% overs · avg −2.1 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 3 | @ | L 50-88 | +37.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 83-93 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 58-93 | +31.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 81-93 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 65-70 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 73-81 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 64-94 | +26.5 | L −3.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 54-75 | +11.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 61-72 | +16.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 43-60 | +25.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | U 103 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 74-67 | +5.5 | W +12.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 82-85 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 55-65 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 59-66 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 68-61 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 76-66 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 26 | vs | L 74-87 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 131.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 72-75 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 133.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 74-58 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 55-52 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 66-59 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 57-63 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 133.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 60-59 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 77-84 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 123.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 59-76 | +4.5 | L −12.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-74 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 61-70 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
ISU
L 50-88
−0.5
8
@
SPU
L 83-93
−3.5
12
@
TEX
L 58-93
−3.5
15
@
NJIT
L 81-93
−9.5
24
vs
ETAM
L 65-70
−1.5
26
vs
ARMY
L 73-81
−12.5
2
@
PROV
L 64-94
−3.5
10
@
FOR
L 54-75
−9.5
22
@
BC
L 61-72
+5.5
29
@
MINN
L 43-60
+8.5
2
@
MERC
W 74-67
+12.5
4
@
SFPA
L 82-85
−5.5
8
vs
CHST
W 70-63
+2.5
10
@
NHVN
L 55-65
−8.5
17
vs
LIU
L 59-66
+0.5
19
vs
WAG
W 68-61
+4.5
23
@
CCSU
W 76-66
+17.5
26
vs
LEM
L 74-87
−14.5
29
@
STO
L 57-58
+1.5
31
@
WAG
L 72-75
−1.5
5
vs
STO
W 74-58
+14.5
7
vs
MERC
W 55-52
+0.5
12
vs
SFPA
W 66-59
−0.5
14
vs
CCSU
L 57-63
−7.5
19
@
CHST
W 60-59
−0.5
21
vs
NHVN
L 77-84
−9.5
26
@
LEM
L 59-76
−12.5
28
@
LIU
L 60-74
−4.5
4
@
MERC
L 61-70
−5.5
covered 10didn’t cover 19avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
ISU
L 50-88
−9.5
8
@
SPU
L 83-93
+38.5
12
@
TEX
L 58-93
−7.5
15
@
NJIT
L 81-93
+27.5
24
vs
ETAM
L 65-70
−14.5
26
vs
ARMY
L 73-81
+1.5
2
@
PROV
L 64-94
−4.5
10
@
FOR
L 54-75
−12.5
22
@
BC
L 61-72
−8.5
29
@
MINN
L 43-60
−36.5
2
@
MERC
W 74-67
+7.5
4
@
SFPA
L 82-85
+23.5
8
vs
CHST
W 70-63
−10.5
10
@
NHVN
L 55-65
−10.5
17
vs
LIU
L 59-66
−18.5
19
vs
WAG
W 68-61
−8.5
23
@
CCSU
W 76-66
+1.5
26
vs
LEM
L 74-87
+21.5
29
@
STO
L 57-58
−16.5
31
@
WAG
L 72-75
+13.5
5
vs
STO
W 74-58
+1.5
7
vs
MERC
W 55-52
−24.5
12
vs
SFPA
W 66-59
−16.5
14
vs
CCSU
L 57-63
−13.5
19
@
CHST
W 60-59
−12.5
21
vs
NHVN
L 77-84
+37.5
26
@
LEM
L 59-76
−4.5
28
@
LIU
L 60-74
−3.5
4
@
MERC
L 61-70
−0.5
over 10under 19avg −2.1 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: Binghamton 2, FDU 0, even 3
BinghamtonBetterFDU
G J. Quigley14.6 pts · 4.9 reb · 6.3 ast
Score 68
←BINGBig
G D. Jevtic6.6 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 25
G K. Robinson TR10.4 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 40
←BINGSmall
G R. Johnson4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 10
G J. Kelsey0 pts · 1 reb · 2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G R. Elijah Godbolt1 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 1
F S. Snagg3.5 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 4
=Even
F P. Stosic TR3.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 16
C D. Lilley14.5 pts · 9.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 51
=No call
F B. Agu TR2.7 pts · 2 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
BinghamtonBetterFDU
BING offense274th of 366 · -8.3
=Even
FDU defense320th of 366 · -8.3
BING defense273rd of 366 · -6.9
←BINGSmall
FDU offense356th of 366 · -13.3
Backcourt-2.1 · 3 players
←BINGBig
Backcourt-5.8 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
Bench-2.8 · 5 players
→FDUSmall
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestBING betterFDU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
D. Jevtic21 minR. Johnson17 minR. Elijah Godbolt12 minT. McQuaid2 minJ. JacobsNewA. CandaNew
Forwards
P. Stosic16 min · TRB. Agu10 min · TRT. Torain9 min · TRA. RatliffNew
Centers
S. Haubro3 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.8 #338 | Points per game | 65.1 #349 |
| 1.00 #328 | Points per possession | 1.01 #314 |
| 66.5 #294 | Pace (possessions) | 64.4 #356 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.0 #235 | Effective FG% | 47.1 #333 |
| 32.5 #254 | 3-point % | 30.3 #339 |
| 30.9 #340 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.2 #63 |
| 41.5 #37 | Free throw rate | 32.8 #240 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.7 #308 | Turnover rate | 18.2 #280 |
| 20.9 #361 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.0 #125 |
| 11.1 #331 | Assists per game | 11.4 #316 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.6 #233 | Points allowed | 72.7 #123 |
| 1.16 #333 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #280 |
| 54.3 #309 | Opponent effective FG% | 55.2 #336 |
| 35.8 #294 | Opponent 3-point % | 37.8 #354 |
| 13.3 #349 | Turnovers forced | 16.1 #218 |
| 70.6 #128 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.7 #46 |
| 5.0 #333 | Steals per game | 4.8 #344 |
| 2.8 #256 | Blocks per game | 1.5 #362 |
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.
FDU
8-21 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Mercyhurst61–70
- L@ Long Island60–74
- L@ Le Moyne59–76
- Lvs New Haven77–84
- W@ Chicago St60–59
A week or more of rest.