Pizzitola Sports Center · at Brown
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | BRWN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 BRWN 77–61 · win probability BRWN 92%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 137.8
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: BRWN has more of the edges
CAN 2, BRWN 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CAN offense vs BRWN defense
Offense 358th of 366 against a defense 124th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CAN 1%, BRWN 100%. Transfers in: CAN 6, BRWN 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
CAN has played the 337th-hardest schedule, BRWN the 176th. A record against a soft schedule means less
BRWN offense vs CAN defense
Offense 220th of 366 against a defense 321st, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CAN 19.6%, BRWN 19.4%. Forced: CAN 16.0%, BRWN 18.8%
Three-pointers
CAN hits 33.3% and allows 33.0%; BRWN hits 30.3% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 39.5% and 36.3% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: CAN 31.4, BRWN 28.1. Allowed: CAN 35.2, BRWN 37.6
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: CAN plays 64.6 a game (353rd fastest), BRWN 68.0 (229th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
BRWN at home. This season: BRWN 0-0 at home, CAN 0-0 away
Shooting
Effective FG%: CAN 46.3 and allows 52.2; BRWN 48.6 and allows 51.3
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CAN 29.3%, BRWN 29.0%. Defensive: CAN 70.2%, BRWN 70.0%
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 | — | BRWN -15.8 | — |
| Total | — | 137.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | CAN 61 · BRWN 76.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BRWN -9.3 | — |
| 1H total | 64.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | CAN 27.6 · BRWN 36.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | |
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CAN 0–1 BRWNBRWN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CAN 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2024-25 | BRWN 83 @ CAN 76 | CAN +7.5 | CAN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Canisius
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-21
30% overs · avg −3.3 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 48-88 | +25.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 70-89 | +21.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 58-55 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 50-93 | +23.5 | L −19.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 60-57 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 128.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 75-66 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 53-71 | +9.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 57-69 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 129.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 52-74 | +17.5 | L −4.5 | 131.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 70-43 | +6.5 | W +33.5 | 127.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 45-62 | +21.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 107 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 59-103 | +19.5 | L −24.5 | 143.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 85-81 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 82-78 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 70-64 | +7.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 48-74 | +11.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 54-59 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 126.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-78 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 66-69 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 55-61 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 86-88 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 129.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 63-78 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 56-65 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 60-75 | +15.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 63-69 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 65-69 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 72-66 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 131.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 47-68 | +7.5 | L −13.5 | 137.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 67-62 | +8.5 | W +13.5 | 129.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 63-67 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
DAY
L 48-88
−14.5
8
@
SBU
L 70-89
+2.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-55
+4.5
17
@
HPU
L 50-93
−19.5
21
vs
UMES
W 60-57
−0.5
23
vs
BING
W 75-66
+6.5
29
vs
BUF
L 53-71
−8.5
5
@
SPU
L 57-69
−2.5
7
@
SIE
L 52-74
−4.5
13
@
ME
W 70-43
+33.5
16
@
URI
L 45-62
+4.5
22
@
DUQ
L 59-103
−24.5
2
vs
FAIR
W 85-81
+10.5
4
vs
SHU
W 82-78
+9.5
9
@
MAN
W 70-64
+13.5
11
@
IONA
L 48-74
−14.5
14
vs
NIA
L 54-59
−7.5
17
vs
MSM
L 68-78
−6.5
22
@
SHU
L 66-69
+7.5
24
@
FAIR
L 55-61
+4.5
30
vs
MRST
L 86-88
+7.5
1
vs
SIE
L 63-78
−6.5
3
@
NIA
L 56-65
−6.5
5
@
QUIN
L 60-75
+0.5
13
vs
IONA
L 63-69
−1.5
15
vs
MAN
L 65-69
−2.5
20
@
RID
W 72-66
+7.5
22
@
MSM
L 47-68
−13.5
27
vs
MRMK
W 67-62
+13.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 63-67
+3.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
DAY
L 48-88
−6.5
8
@
SBU
L 70-89
+22.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-55
−22.5
17
@
HPU
L 50-93
−9.5
21
vs
UMES
W 60-57
−11.5
23
vs
BING
W 75-66
+11.5
29
vs
BUF
L 53-71
−15.5
5
@
SPU
L 57-69
−3.5
7
@
SIE
L 52-74
−5.5
13
@
ME
W 70-43
−14.5
16
@
URI
L 45-62
−31.5
22
@
DUQ
L 59-103
+18.5
2
vs
FAIR
W 85-81
+25.5
4
vs
SHU
W 82-78
+18.5
9
@
MAN
W 70-64
−11.5
11
@
IONA
L 48-74
−19.5
14
vs
NIA
L 54-59
−13.5
17
vs
MSM
L 68-78
+10.5
22
@
SHU
L 66-69
−10.5
24
@
FAIR
L 55-61
−25.5
30
vs
MRST
L 86-88
+44.5
1
vs
SIE
L 63-78
+5.5
3
@
NIA
L 56-65
−8.5
5
@
QUIN
L 60-75
−6.5
13
vs
IONA
L 63-69
−5.5
15
vs
MAN
L 65-69
−8.5
20
@
RID
W 72-66
+6.5
22
@
MSM
L 47-68
−22.5
27
vs
MRMK
W 67-62
−0.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 63-67
−8.5
over 9under 21avg −3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Brown
25 games played
Straight up
7-18
28% wins
Against the spread
13-12
52% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-12
52% overs · avg +0.1 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 7 | vs | L 46-62 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 142.5 | U 108 |
| Nov 9 | vs | L 84-89 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 77-90 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 129.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 63-72 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 68-49 | -2.5 | W +16.5 | 141.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 70-80 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 136.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 58-53 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 127.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 59-47 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 136.5 | U 106 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 56-66 | +13.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 75-56 | -6.5 | W +12.5 | 130.5 | O 131 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 79-86 | +19.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 5 | vs | L 53-70 | +8.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 73-81 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 86-80 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 67-89 | +2.5 | L −19.5 | 163.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 53-63 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 59-69 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 70-77 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 6 | @ | L 69-81 | +15.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 13 | @ | L 53-56 | +7.5 | W +4.5 | 131.5 | U 109 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 79-76 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 80-71 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 62-80 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 80-86 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 61-82 | -1.5 | L −22.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
SIE
L 46-62
−12.5
9
vs
UVM
L 84-89
+0.5
12
@
BU
L 77-90
−9.5
14
vs
HAMP
L 63-72
−10.5
18
vs
HC
W 68-49
+16.5
20
@
STBK
L 70-80
−6.5
23
@
ME
W 58-53
+3.5
26
@
UNH
W 59-47
+6.5
2
@
URI
L 56-66
+3.5
5
vs
BRY
W 75-56
+12.5
9
@
PROV
L 79-86
+12.5
5
vs
YALE
L 53-70
−8.5
10
@
PENN
L 73-81
−2.5
17
vs
COLU
W 86-80
+8.5
19
vs
COR
L 67-89
−19.5
24
@
PRIN
L 53-63
−5.5
30
vs
HARV
L 59-69
−8.5
31
vs
DART
L 70-77
−8.5
6
@
YALE
L 69-81
+3.5
13
@
HARV
L 53-56
+4.5
14
@
DART
W 79-76
+5.5
20
vs
PRIN
W 80-71
+6.5
27
@
COLU
L 62-80
−12.5
28
@
COR
L 80-86
+3.5
6
vs
PENN
L 61-82
−22.5
covered 13didn’t cover 12avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
SIE
L 46-62
−34.5
9
vs
UVM
L 84-89
+41.5
12
@
BU
L 77-90
+37.5
14
vs
HAMP
L 63-72
−4.5
18
vs
HC
W 68-49
−24.5
20
@
STBK
L 70-80
+13.5
23
@
ME
W 58-53
−16.5
26
@
UNH
W 59-47
−30.5
2
@
URI
L 56-66
−16.5
5
vs
BRY
W 75-56
+0.5
9
@
PROV
L 79-86
+19.5
5
vs
YALE
L 53-70
−19.5
10
@
PENN
L 73-81
+8.5
17
vs
COLU
W 86-80
+22.5
19
vs
COR
L 67-89
−7.5
24
@
PRIN
L 53-63
−18.5
30
vs
HARV
L 59-69
−4.5
31
vs
DART
L 70-77
+4.5
6
@
YALE
L 69-81
+9.5
13
@
HARV
L 53-56
−22.5
14
@
DART
W 79-76
+15.5
20
vs
PRIN
W 80-71
+21.5
27
@
COLU
L 62-80
+1.5
28
@
COR
L 80-86
+9.5
6
vs
PENN
L 61-82
−3.5
over 13under 12avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Brown has the better starters
Position by position: Canisius 0, Brown 3, even 2
CanisiusBetterBrown
G V. Sigona TR7.5 pts · 1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 22
→BRWNSmall
G J. Jenkins8.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 5.3 ast
Score 47
G M. Wilson TR4.9 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 18
=Even
G A. Uchidiuno9.1 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 20
G D. Winters TR1.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Wrisby-Jefferson4.4 pts · 3.6 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 25
F P. Ryan TR6.8 pts · 4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 7
→BRWNSmall
G D. Rochester5.6 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 27
F C. Efinda TR4.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 8
→BRWNBig
F N. Dabo7.1 pts · 5.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 72
CanisiusBetterBrown
CAN offense358th of 366 · -14.0
→BRWNBig
BRWN defense124th of 366 · -2.2
CAN defense321st of 366 · -8.3
→BRWNSmall
BRWN offense220th of 366 · -6.7
Backcourt-3.5 · 3 players
←CANBig
Backcourt-6.6 · 4 players
Frontcourt-4.4 · 2 players
→BRWNBig
Frontcourt+1.0 · 1 player
Bench-0.4 · 2 players
←CANSmall
Bench-2.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCAN betterBRWN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
V. Sigona20 min · TRM. Wilson13 min · TRD. Winters6 min · TRT. Augustine2 minC. FrancisNewW. FowlerNew
Forwards
P. Ryan23 min · TRC. Efinda15 min · TRN. Deer3 min · TRN. FoutsNewW. TaylorNewA. RiakNew
Guards
J. Jenkins31 minA. Uchidiuno26 minM. Wrisby-Jefferson23 minD. Rochester22 minI. Langham21 minB. Loughlin18 min
Forwards
N. Dabo24 minC. O'Sullivan11 minW. DeGraaf8 minE. JamgbadiNewL. JonesNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 62.2 #361 | Points per game | 67.2 #330 |
| 0.96 #349 | Points per possession | 0.98 #338 |
| 64.6 #353 | Pace (possessions) | 68.0 #229 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.3 #348 | Effective FG% | 48.6 #299 |
| 33.3 #213 | 3-point % | 30.3 #338 |
| 39.5 #182 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.3 #244 |
| 31.4 #271 | Free throw rate | 28.1 #342 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.6 #341 | Turnover rate | 19.4 #334 |
| 29.3 #226 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.0 #236 |
| 11.9 #293 | Assists per game | 14.8 #99 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.4 #87 | Points allowed | 72.4 #115 |
| 1.10 #228 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #134 |
| 52.2 #225 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.3 #176 |
| 33.0 #124 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #157 |
| 16.0 #222 | Turnovers forced | 18.8 #57 |
| 70.2 #151 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.0 #164 |
| 4.8 #342 | Steals per game | 7.5 #82 |
| 2.6 #292 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #104 |
Canisius
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Quinnipiac63–67
- Wvs Merrimack67–62
- L@ Mount St Marys47–68
- W@ Rider72–66
- Lvs Manhattan65–69
A week or more of rest.
Brown
7-18 in 2025-26 overall · 3-11 in conference · Ivy League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Penn61–82
- L@ Cornell80–86
- L@ Columbia62–80
- Wvs Princeton80–71
- W@ Dartmouth79–76
A week or more of rest.