Cameron Hall · at VMI · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | VMI | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VMI 76–76 · win probability VMI 50%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.2
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: UNCG has more of the edges
UNCG 5, VMI 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: UNCG 42.0, VMI 30.6. Allowed: UNCG 30.6, VMI 34.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UNCG 28.1%, VMI 25.6%. Defensive: UNCG 71.0%, VMI 62.8%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UNCG 5%, VMI 59%. Transfers in: UNCG 6, VMI 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Three-pointers
UNCG hits 35.6% and allows 38.0%; VMI hits 31.5% and allows 36.5%. Threes are 40.2% and 53.6% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: UNCG 52.0 and allows 56.2; VMI 47.5 and allows 57.0
UNCG offense vs VMI defense
Offense 260th of 366 against a defense 342nd, on the model’s ratings
Home court
VMI at home. This season: VMI 0-0 at home, UNCG 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: UNCG plays 69.3 a game (157th fastest), VMI 67.6 (251st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UNCG 15.0%, VMI 15.3%. Forced: UNCG 13.6%, VMI 15.7%
Even
VMI offense vs UNCG defense
Offense 288th of 366 against a defense 299th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UNCG has played the 256th-hardest schedule, VMI the 253rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | VMI -0.1 | — |
| Total | — | 151.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | UNCG 75.5 · VMI 75.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UNCG -0.1 | — |
| 1H total | 70.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | UNCG 35.4 · VMI 35.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | |
| 0-10 0% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 12 since 2021-22
UNCG 10–2 VMIUNCG leads · 12 games since 2021-22 · UNCG has won the last 3 meetings · UNCG 7-5 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6, 2025-26 | VMI 70 vs UNCG 84 | UNCG -7.5 | UNCG W |
| Feb 11, 2025-26 | VMI 71 @ UNCG 92 | UNCG -8.5 | UNCG W |
| Jan 21, 2025-26 | UNCG 85 @ VMI 78 | VMI +2.5 | UNCG W |
| Mar 8, 2024-25 | VMI 64 vs UNCG 57 | UNCG -9.5 | VMI W |
| Feb 12, 2024-25 | VMI 54 @ UNCG 80 | UNCG -8.5 | UNCG W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UNC Greensboro
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
13-19
41% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-10
69% overs · avg +8.1 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 4 | @ | L 64-93 | +18.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 90-92 | -4.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 64-110 | +30.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 63-69 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 94-101 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | O 195 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 68-62 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 60-73 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 71-82 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 77-82 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 82-78 | +7.5 | W +11.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 65-71 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 77-72 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 89-82 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 85-97 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 60-86 | +11.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 69-66 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 92-102 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 194 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 85-78 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 66-89 | +4.5 | L −18.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 77-95 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 66-71 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 81-78 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 67-64 | +10.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 92-71 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 99-89 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 154.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 77-91 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 75-87 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 85-80 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 78-87 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 84-70 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 75-72 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 75-81 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
KSU
L 64-93
−10.5
8
vs
ELON
L 90-92
−6.5
12
@
NCSU
L 64-110
−15.5
15
vs
APSU
L 63-69
−7.5
20
@
QUC
L 94-101
+0.5
23
vs
YSU
W 68-62
+11.5
25
vs
DEL
L 60-73
−14.5
26
vs
M-OH
L 71-82
−0.5
2
vs
UNCA
L 77-82
−0.5
6
@
ECU
W 82-78
+11.5
16
vs
NCAT
L 65-71
−12.5
1
vs
UTC
W 77-72
+7.5
3
vs
SAM
W 89-82
+9.5
7
@
WOF
L 85-97
−4.5
10
@
ETSU
L 60-86
−14.5
15
vs
CIT
W 69-66
−6.5
17
vs
MER
L 92-102
−4.5
21
@
VMI
W 85-78
+4.5
23
vs
FUR
L 66-89
−18.5
29
@
MER
L 77-95
−7.5
31
@
CIT
L 66-71
−7.5
4
vs
WCU
W 81-78
+4.5
8
@
FUR
W 67-64
+13.5
11
vs
VMI
W 92-71
+12.5
14
vs
WOF
W 99-89
+12.5
18
@
WCU
L 77-91
−8.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 75-87
−5.5
26
@
UTC
W 85-80
+9.5
28
@
SAM
L 78-87
−0.5
6
vs
VMI
W 84-70
+6.5
7
vs
WOF
W 75-72
+7.5
8
vs
FUR
L 75-81
−0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
KSU
L 64-93
+8.5
8
vs
ELON
L 90-92
+39.5
12
@
NCSU
L 64-110
+20.5
15
vs
APSU
L 63-69
−13.5
20
@
QUC
L 94-101
+44.5
23
vs
YSU
W 68-62
−22.5
25
vs
DEL
L 60-73
−9.5
26
vs
M-OH
L 71-82
+2.5
2
vs
UNCA
L 77-82
+15.5
6
@
ECU
W 82-78
+20.5
16
vs
NCAT
L 65-71
−11.5
1
vs
UTC
W 77-72
+1.5
3
vs
SAM
W 89-82
+19.5
7
@
WOF
L 85-97
+28.5
10
@
ETSU
L 60-86
−2.5
15
vs
CIT
W 69-66
−13.5
17
vs
MER
L 92-102
+38.5
21
@
VMI
W 85-78
+11.5
23
vs
FUR
L 66-89
+4.5
29
@
MER
L 77-95
+13.5
31
@
CIT
L 66-71
−10.5
4
vs
WCU
W 81-78
+3.5
8
@
FUR
W 67-64
−18.5
11
vs
VMI
W 92-71
+12.5
14
vs
WOF
W 99-89
+33.5
18
@
WCU
L 77-91
+12.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 75-87
+13.5
26
@
UTC
W 85-80
+7.5
28
@
SAM
L 78-87
+8.5
6
vs
VMI
W 84-70
−0.5
7
vs
WOF
W 75-72
−8.5
8
vs
FUR
L 75-81
+8.5
over 22under 10avg +8.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
VMI
29 games played
Straight up
3-26
10% wins
Against the spread
9-20
31% covers · avg −5.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-16
45% overs · avg −0.2 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 | @ | W 78-74 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 68-106 | +23.5 | L −14.5 | 161.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 67-69 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 54-87 | +14.5 | L −18.5 | 152.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 80-99 | -2.5 | L −21.5 | 148.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 70-78 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 48-81 | +11.5 | L −21.5 | 148.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 57-82 | +25.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 86-70 | +2.5 | W +18.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 90-97 | +11.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | O 187 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 58-78 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 79-71 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 67-81 | +16.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 48-69 | +12.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 67-77 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-82 | -6.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 78-85 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 58-88 | +8.5 | L −21.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 56-80 | +2.5 | L −21.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 81-95 | +18.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 67-81 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 70-87 | +14.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 71-92 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 72-90 | +11.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 76-82 | +13.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 62-81 | +8.5 | L −10.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 61-80 | +17.5 | L −1.5 | 155.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 79-86 | +11.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 70-84 | +7.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
USI
W 78-74
+1.5
9
@
MIZ
L 68-106
−14.5
15
vs
JAX
L 67-69
−0.5
19
@
RICH
L 54-87
−18.5
22
@
STET
L 80-99
−21.5
24
vs
BUF
L 70-78
−2.5
26
vs
BGSU
L 48-81
−21.5
29
@
UCF
L 57-82
+0.5
9
vs
L-MD
W 86-70
+18.5
21
@
RAD
L 90-97
+4.5
1
vs
SAM
L 58-78
−13.5
3
vs
UTC
W 79-71
+14.5
7
@
ETSU
L 67-81
+2.5
10
@
FUR
L 48-69
−8.5
15
vs
MER
L 67-77
−1.5
17
vs
CIT
L 68-82
−20.5
21
vs
UNCG
L 78-85
−4.5
24
@
WCU
L 58-88
−21.5
29
@
CIT
L 56-80
−21.5
31
@
MER
L 81-95
+4.5
4
vs
WOF
L 67-81
−5.5
7
vs
ETSU
L 70-87
−2.5
11
@
UNCG
L 71-92
−12.5
14
vs
FUR
L 72-90
−6.5
18
@
WOF
L 76-82
+7.5
21
vs
WCU
L 62-81
−10.5
26
@
SAM
L 61-80
−1.5
28
@
UTC
L 79-86
+4.5
6
vs
UNCG
L 70-84
−6.5
covered 9didn’t cover 20avg −5.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
USI
W 78-74
−1.5
9
@
MIZ
L 68-106
+12.5
15
vs
JAX
L 67-69
−15.5
19
@
RICH
L 54-87
−11.5
22
@
STET
L 80-99
+30.5
24
vs
BUF
L 70-78
−2.5
26
vs
BGSU
L 48-81
−19.5
29
@
UCF
L 57-82
−20.5
9
vs
L-MD
W 86-70
+4.5
21
@
RAD
L 90-97
+28.5
1
vs
SAM
L 58-78
−18.5
3
vs
UTC
W 79-71
+0.5
7
@
ETSU
L 67-81
+1.5
10
@
FUR
L 48-69
−32.5
15
vs
MER
L 67-77
−9.5
17
vs
CIT
L 68-82
+6.5
21
vs
UNCG
L 78-85
+11.5
24
@
WCU
L 58-88
−6.5
29
@
CIT
L 56-80
−6.5
31
@
MER
L 81-95
+22.5
4
vs
WOF
L 67-81
−1.5
7
vs
ETSU
L 70-87
+13.5
11
@
UNCG
L 71-92
+12.5
14
vs
FUR
L 72-90
+13.5
18
@
WOF
L 76-82
−0.5
21
vs
WCU
L 62-81
−11.5
26
@
SAM
L 61-80
−14.5
28
@
UTC
L 79-86
+10.5
6
vs
UNCG
L 70-84
−0.5
over 13under 16avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
VMI has the better starters
Position by position: UNC Greensboro 0, VMI 1, even 4
UNC GreensboroBetterVMI
G B. Stacker TR11.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 47
=Even
G A. Clark6.6 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 35
G C. Grant TR2.2 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 9
=Even
G W. Andrews3.9 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 20
F Z. Fitch TR6.1 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 31
→VMIBig
F T. Johnson18.1 pts · 7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 75
F V. Collins TR1 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F C. Liston4.7 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 2
F A. Beljan TR2.2 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Daushvili6.8 pts · 4.2 reb · 1 ast
Not ranked
UNC GreensboroBetterVMI
UNCG offense260th of 366 · -8.0
←UNCGSmall
VMI defense342nd of 366 · -9.1
UNCG defense299th of 366 · -7.7
=Even
VMI offense288th of 366 · -8.9
Backcourt-2.1 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt-2.6 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.9 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.5 · 3 players
Bench-0.5 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.8 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestUNCG betterVMI betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Stacker29 min · TRC. Grant11 min · TRC. Bailey6 minR. Greer6 min · TRB. MishakNewJ. ManiNew
Forwards
Z. Fitch23 min · TRV. Collins7 min · TRA. Beljan7 min · TRC. Bynum4 minC. LaFrentzNew
Guards
A. Clark27 minW. Andrews12 minT. Johnson9 min · TRB. Edmonds2 minM. Lawson2 minR. BradleyNew
Forwards
T. Johnson37 minC. Liston22 minA. Daushvili17 minR. PetersNewP. NarvilasNewJ. PanzoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.6 #128 | Points per game | 68.5 #306 |
| 1.11 #125 | Points per possession | 1.01 #311 |
| 69.3 #157 | Pace (possessions) | 67.6 #251 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.0 #146 | Effective FG% | 47.5 #325 |
| 35.6 #80 | 3-point % | 31.5 #306 |
| 40.2 #165 | 3-point attempt rate | 53.6 #2 |
| 42.0 #31 | Free throw rate | 30.6 #293 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.0 #63 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #88 |
| 28.1 #259 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.6 #330 |
| 12.1 #283 | Assists per game | 11.6 #309 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.9 #341 | Points allowed | 83.2 #348 |
| 1.18 #347 | Points allowed per possession | 1.23 #362 |
| 56.2 #347 | Opponent effective FG% | 57.0 #357 |
| 38.0 #357 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.5 #327 |
| 13.6 #343 | Turnovers forced | 15.7 #239 |
| 71.0 #104 | Defensive rebound rate | 62.8 #360 |
| 5.5 #301 | Steals per game | 6.6 #160 |
| 1.9 #350 | Blocks per game | 2.0 #343 |
UNC Greensboro
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Furman75–81
- Wvs Wofford75–72
- Wvs VMI84–70
- L@ Samford78–87
- W@ Chattanooga85–80
A week or more of rest.
VMI
3-26 in 2025-26 overall · 1-18 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UNC Greensboro70–84
- L@ Chattanooga79–86
- L@ Samford61–80
- Lvs W Carolina62–81
- L@ Wofford76–82
A week or more of rest.