MassMutual Center · Neutral site
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 74–64 · win probability BRWN 80%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 137.6
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
CCSU 3, BRWN 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CCSU offense vs BRWN defense
Offense 353rd of 366 against a defense 124th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CCSU has played the 358th-hardest schedule, BRWN the 176th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: CCSU 31.2, BRWN 28.1. Allowed: CCSU 26.9, BRWN 37.6
Three-pointers
CCSU hits 35.8% and allows 33.4%; BRWN hits 30.3% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 34.9% and 36.3% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: CCSU 51.6 and allows 50.2; BRWN 48.6 and allows 51.3
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CCSU 55%, BRWN 100%. Transfers in: CCSU 0, BRWN 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CCSU 16.3%, BRWN 19.4%. Forced: CCSU 14.0%, BRWN 18.8%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: CCSU plays 65.5 a game (329th fastest), BRWN 68.0 (229th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CCSU 27.5%, BRWN 29.0%. Defensive: CCSU 69.6%, BRWN 70.0%
Even
BRWN offense vs CCSU defense
Offense 220th of 366 against a defense 247th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 -9.8 | — |
| Total | — | 137.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | CCSU 63.9 · BRWN 73.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BRWN -5.7 | — |
| 1H total | 64.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | CCSU 29.4 · BRWN 35.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CCSU 0–2 BRWNBRWN leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · BRWN has won the last 2 meetings · CCSU 0-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29, 2022-23 | BRWN 59 @ CCSU 51 | CCSU +4.5 | BRWN W |
| Nov 14, 2021-22 | CCSU 57 @ BRWN 75 | BRWN -15.5 | BRWN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
C Connecticut
28 games played
Straight up
16-12
57% wins
Against the spread
14-14
50% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +2.5 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 6 | @ | L 49-71 | +9.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 60-59 | +17.5 | W +18.5 | 136.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 77-84 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 67-54 | +15.5 | W +28.5 | 137.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 108-106 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 214 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 61-77 | +18.5 | W +2.5 | 128.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 56-73 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 138.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 84-67 | -7.5 | W +9.5 | 133.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 70-84 | -6.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 78-84 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 72-61 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 130.5 | O 133 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 76-69 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 69-59 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 98-90 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-79 | +1.5 | L −16.5 | 132.5 | O 140 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 66-76 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 26 | @ | L 59-61 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 62-55 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 59-80 | +2.5 | L −18.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-67 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-67 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 81-76 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 128.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 63-57 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 133.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 78-77 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 51-70 | -3.5 | L −22.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 80-78 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 69-64 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 60-70 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
QUIN
L 49-71
−12.5
11
@
BC
W 60-59
+18.5
16
@
MASS
L 77-84
+5.5
21
@
RUTG
W 67-54
+28.5
24
vs
SHU
W 108-106
−1.5
3
@
HALL
L 61-77
+2.5
7
@
NE
L 56-73
−15.5
13
@
BING
W 84-67
+9.5
18
vs
FAIR
L 70-84
−20.5
2
@
LIU
L 78-84
+0.5
4
vs
NHVN
W 72-61
+3.5
8
vs
STO
W 76-69
−0.5
10
@
LEM
W 69-59
+11.5
17
@
SFPA
W 98-90
+1.5
19
@
MERC
L 61-79
−16.5
23
vs
FDU
L 66-76
−17.5
26
@
STO
L 59-61
−3.5
29
@
WAG
W 62-55
+4.5
31
vs
LIU
L 59-80
−18.5
5
vs
CHST
W 78-67
+2.5
7
vs
WAG
W 84-67
+11.5
12
@
NHVN
W 81-76
+1.5
14
@
FDU
W 63-57
+7.5
19
vs
LEM
W 78-77
−7.5
21
@
CHST
L 51-70
−22.5
26
vs
MERC
W 80-78
−1.5
28
vs
SFPA
W 69-64
−3.5
4
vs
WAG
L 60-70
−13.5
covered 14didn’t cover 14avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
QUIN
L 49-71
−30.5
11
@
BC
W 60-59
−17.5
16
@
MASS
L 77-84
+16.5
21
@
RUTG
W 67-54
−16.5
24
vs
SHU
W 108-106
+70.5
3
@
HALL
L 61-77
+9.5
7
@
NE
L 56-73
−9.5
13
@
BING
W 84-67
+17.5
18
vs
FAIR
L 70-84
+10.5
2
@
LIU
L 78-84
+15.5
4
vs
NHVN
W 72-61
+2.5
8
vs
STO
W 76-69
+10.5
10
@
LEM
W 69-59
−18.5
17
@
SFPA
W 98-90
+43.5
19
@
MERC
L 61-79
+7.5
23
vs
FDU
L 66-76
+1.5
26
@
STO
L 59-61
−15.5
29
@
WAG
W 62-55
−19.5
31
vs
LIU
L 59-80
−3.5
5
vs
CHST
W 78-67
+6.5
7
vs
WAG
W 84-67
+14.5
12
@
NHVN
W 81-76
+28.5
14
@
FDU
W 63-57
−13.5
19
vs
LEM
W 78-77
−10.5
21
@
CHST
L 51-70
−17.5
26
vs
MERC
W 80-78
+16.5
28
vs
SFPA
W 69-64
−19.5
4
vs
WAG
L 60-70
−9.5
over 15under 13avg +2.5 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: C Connecticut 0, Brown 3, even 2
C ConnecticutBetterBrown
G J. Jones4.1 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 4
→BRWNBig
G J. Jenkins8.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 5.3 ast
Score 47
G V. Payne6.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 16
=Even
G A. Uchidiuno9.1 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 20
G E. Parker2 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 0
→BRWNSmall
G M. Wrisby-Jefferson4.4 pts · 3.6 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 25
G R. Jones3.8 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 20
=Even
G D. Rochester5.6 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 27
F D. James3.2 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 13
→BRWNBig
F N. Dabo7.1 pts · 5.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 72
C ConnecticutBetterBrown
CCSU offense353rd of 366 · -13.2
→BRWNBig
BRWN defense124th of 366 · -2.2
CCSU defense247th of 366 · -6.5
=Even
BRWN offense220th of 366 · -6.7
Backcourt-10.6 · 4 players
→BRWNBig
Backcourt-6.6 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 1 player
→BRWNSmall
Frontcourt+1.0 · 1 player
Bench-2.0 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-2.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCCSU betterBRWN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Jones30 minV. Payne24 minE. Parker14 minR. Jones10 minA. Reynolds10 minR. LaurentNew
Forwards
D. James13 minJ. Mott8 minB. JacksonNewJ. ErvinNewR. TibbyNewC. LangdonNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.6 #272 | Points per game | 67.2 #330 |
| 1.08 #192 | Points per possession | 0.98 #338 |
| 65.5 #329 | Pace (possessions) | 68.0 #229 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.6 #165 | Effective FG% | 48.6 #299 |
| 35.8 #69 | 3-point % | 30.3 #338 |
| 34.9 #278 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.3 #244 |
| 31.2 #276 | Free throw rate | 28.1 #342 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.3 #154 | Turnover rate | 19.4 #334 |
| 27.5 #281 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.0 #236 |
| 12.8 #229 | Assists per game | 14.8 #99 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.0 #105 | Points allowed | 72.4 #115 |
| 1.10 #218 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #134 |
| 50.2 #113 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.3 #176 |
| 33.4 #146 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #157 |
| 14.0 #338 | Turnovers forced | 18.8 #57 |
| 69.6 #179 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.0 #164 |
| 5.4 #311 | Steals per game | 7.5 #82 |
| 3.9 #83 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #104 |
C Connecticut
16-12 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wagner60–70
- Wvs Saint Francis Red Wolves69–64
- Wvs Mercyhurst80–78
- L@ Chicago St51–70
- Wvs Le Moyne78–77
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.