Christl Arena · at Army
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ARMY | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ARMY 75–74 · win probability ARMY 52%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.5
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: UMBC has more of the edges
UMBC 5, ARMY 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: UMBC 54.1 and allows 49.4; ARMY 49.3 and allows 55.1
Free throws
Free throw rate: UMBC 34.1, ARMY 26.8. Allowed: UMBC 25.7, ARMY 39.6
Three-pointers
UMBC hits 36.1% and allows 32.7%; ARMY hits 32.0% and allows 35.5%. Threes are 38.8% and 53.3% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UMBC 11%, ARMY 65%. Transfers in: UMBC 2, ARMY 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UMBC 14.1%, ARMY 17.2%. Forced: UMBC 15.1%, ARMY 15.4%
Home court
ARMY at home. This season: ARMY 0-0 at home, UMBC 0-0 away
UMBC offense vs ARMY defense
Offense 255th of 366 against a defense 304th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UMBC 24.9%, ARMY 29.6%. Defensive: UMBC 74.2%, ARMY 72.3%
Context
Schedule so far
UMBC has played the 342nd-hardest schedule, ARMY the 302nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: UMBC plays 67.0 a game (278th fastest), ARMY 68.6 (200th). Faster games mean more points
Even
ARMY offense vs UMBC defense
Offense 271st of 366 against a defense 279th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | ARMY -0.6 | — |
| Total | — | 148.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | UMBC 74 · ARMY 74.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ARMY -0.2 | — |
| 1H total | 69.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | UMBC 34.6 · ARMY 34.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | |
| 2-8 20% | 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UMBC 0–1 ARMYARMY leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UMBC 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2025-26 | ARMY 63 @ UMBC 60 | UMBC -7.5 | ARMY W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UMBC
31 games played
Straight up
22-9
71% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +6.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg −0.6 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 8 | @ | L 71-77 | +25.5 | W +19.5 | 154.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 81-79 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 162.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 71-70 | -6.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 52-89 | +22.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 71-57 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 81-90 | +19.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 73-66 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 12 | vs | L 60-63 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 69-94 | +22.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 93-59 | -10.5 | W +23.5 | 148.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 69-62 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 133.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 75-74 | -6.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 74-79 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 78-60 | -4.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 87-74 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 79-56 | -2.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 55-64 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-65 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-62 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 78-62 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 135.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 85-63 | -2.5 | W +19.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 75-62 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 66-62 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 70-58 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 84-60 | -2.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 91-52 | -4.5 | W +34.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 84-69 | -12.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 91-69 | -7.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 74-59 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 17 | vs | L 83-86 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
DAY
L 71-77
+19.5
11
@
MORG
W 81-79
−2.5
16
vs
WAG
W 71-70
−5.5
19
@
GW
L 52-89
−14.5
29
vs
DSU
W 71-57
+0.5
3
@
GTWN
L 81-90
+10.5
6
@
BUCK
W 73-66
+8.5
9
vs
BUF
L 79-83
−0.5
12
vs
ARMY
L 60-63
−10.5
21
@
USF
L 69-94
−2.5
29
@
COPP
W 93-59
+23.5
8
vs
ME
W 69-62
−0.5
10
vs
UNH
W 75-74
−5.5
15
@
BRY
L 74-79
−6.5
19
@
BING
W 78-60
+13.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 87-74
+6.5
24
vs
UML
W 79-56
+20.5
29
@
UVM
L 55-64
−0.5
31
@
UALB
W 68-65
+1.5
5
vs
BING
W 79-62
+5.5
12
@
ME
W 78-62
+12.5
14
@
UNH
W 85-63
+19.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-62
+14.5
21
vs
UALB
W 66-62
−3.5
26
vs
BRY
W 70-58
+0.5
28
@
UML
W 84-60
+21.5
3
@
NJIT
W 91-52
+34.5
7
vs
UNH
W 84-69
+2.5
10
vs
UML
W 91-69
+14.5
14
vs
UVM
W 74-59
+13.5
17
vs
HOW
L 83-86
−1.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +6.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
DAY
L 71-77
−6.5
11
@
MORG
W 81-79
−2.5
16
vs
WAG
W 71-70
+0.5
19
@
GW
L 52-89
−19.5
29
vs
DSU
W 71-57
−10.5
3
@
GTWN
L 81-90
+21.5
6
@
BUCK
W 73-66
−4.5
9
vs
BUF
L 79-83
+16.5
12
vs
ARMY
L 60-63
−23.5
21
@
USF
L 69-94
+2.5
29
@
COPP
W 93-59
+3.5
8
vs
ME
W 69-62
−2.5
10
vs
UNH
W 75-74
+5.5
15
@
BRY
L 74-79
+17.5
19
@
BING
W 78-60
−2.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 87-74
+17.5
24
vs
UML
W 79-56
−16.5
29
@
UVM
L 55-64
−22.5
31
@
UALB
W 68-65
−8.5
5
vs
BING
W 79-62
+2.5
12
@
ME
W 78-62
+4.5
14
@
UNH
W 85-63
+1.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-62
−5.5
21
vs
UALB
W 66-62
−16.5
26
vs
BRY
W 70-58
−10.5
28
@
UML
W 84-60
−6.5
3
@
NJIT
W 91-52
−0.5
7
vs
UNH
W 84-69
+10.5
10
vs
UML
W 91-69
+12.5
14
vs
UVM
W 74-59
−1.5
17
vs
HOW
L 83-86
+25.5
over 14under 17avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Army
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-13
57% overs · avg +3.5 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 8 | @ | L 76-83 | +18.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 59-114 | +33.5 | L −21.5 | 152.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 52-75 | +6.5 | L −16.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 73-86 | +17.5 | W +4.5 | 164.5 | U 159 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 65-76 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 132.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 67-84 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 81-73 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 81-78 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 70-84 | +19.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 12 | @ | W 63-60 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 23 | vs | W 95-85 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 85-78 | +5.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 69-76 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 76-84 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 91-100 | +7.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | O 191 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 75-82 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 67-78 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 87-84 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 56-84 | +10.5 | L −17.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 67-64 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 69-68 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 55-69 | +10.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 60-63 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 68-85 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-75 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 87-77 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 63-81 | +8.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 73-75 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 77-83 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 55-65 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 120 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
STMN
L 76-83
+11.5
11
vs
DUKE
L 59-114
−21.5
15
vs
HARV
L 52-75
−16.5
18
@
COR
L 73-86
+4.5
21
@
MRST
L 65-76
+1.5
25
vs
ETAM
L 67-84
−14.5
26
@
FDU
W 81-73
+12.5
29
vs
MAN
W 81-78
+4.5
2
vs
GW
L 70-84
+5.5
12
@
UMBC
W 63-60
+10.5
23
vs
BING
W 95-85
−2.5
31
@
LEH
W 85-78
+12.5
3
vs
COLG
L 69-76
+0.5
7
vs
L-MD
L 76-84
−12.5
10
@
BU
L 91-100
−1.5
14
@
HC
L 75-82
−2.5
18
vs
AMER
L 67-78
−6.5
21
@
BUCK
W 87-84
+7.5
24
@
NAVY
L 56-84
−17.5
28
vs
LEH
W 67-64
+4.5
31
vs
HC
W 69-68
−1.5
4
@
COLG
L 55-69
−3.5
7
vs
LAF
L 60-63
−1.5
11
vs
BU
L 68-85
−14.5
14
@
AMER
L 63-75
−2.5
18
@
L-MD
W 87-77
+14.5
21
vs
NAVY
L 63-81
−9.5
25
vs
BUCK
L 73-75
−4.5
28
@
LAF
L 77-83
−2.5
3
@
BUCK
L 55-65
−8.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
STMN
L 76-83
+7.5
11
vs
DUKE
L 59-114
+20.5
15
vs
HARV
L 52-75
−19.5
18
@
COR
L 73-86
−5.5
21
@
MRST
L 65-76
+8.5
25
vs
ETAM
L 67-84
+7.5
26
@
FDU
W 81-73
+1.5
29
vs
MAN
W 81-78
+6.5
2
vs
GW
L 70-84
−2.5
12
@
UMBC
W 63-60
−23.5
23
vs
BING
W 95-85
+39.5
31
@
LEH
W 85-78
+16.5
3
vs
COLG
L 69-76
−2.5
7
vs
L-MD
L 76-84
+13.5
10
@
BU
L 91-100
+50.5
14
@
HC
L 75-82
+14.5
18
vs
AMER
L 67-78
−2.5
21
@
BUCK
W 87-84
+26.5
24
@
NAVY
L 56-84
−3.5
28
vs
LEH
W 67-64
−16.5
31
vs
HC
W 69-68
−7.5
4
@
COLG
L 55-69
−26.5
7
vs
LAF
L 60-63
−19.5
11
vs
BU
L 68-85
+12.5
14
@
AMER
L 63-75
−6.5
18
@
L-MD
W 87-77
+14.5
21
vs
NAVY
L 63-81
+4.5
25
vs
BUCK
L 73-75
+5.5
28
@
LAF
L 77-83
+15.5
3
@
BUCK
L 55-65
−24.5
over 17under 13avg +3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: UMBC 0, Army 0, even 5
UMBCBetterArmy
G F. Burton TR14.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 63
=Even
G R. Curry13.4 pts · 4.1 reb · 4.4 ast
Score 57
G A. Cross TR3.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 1
=Even
G K. McCarthy7.2 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 13
G D. Ceaser4.3 pts · 1 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Holloway10.7 pts · 3.6 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 37
F R. Jacobs4.2 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 24
=Even
F T. Laczkowski5.3 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 38
F R. Ciunys NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Benner1.4 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
UMBCBetterArmy
UMBC offense255th of 366 · -7.8
=Even
ARMY defense304th of 366 · -7.8
UMBC defense279th of 366 · -7.0
=Even
ARMY offense271st of 366 · -8.2
Backcourt-2.9 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-3.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
←UMBCSmall
Frontcourt-2.6 · 3 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUMBC betterARMY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
F. Burton32 min · TRA. Cross16 min · TRD. Ceaser8 minJ. RisticNewJ. ReynoldsNewT. SlatingNew
Forwards
R. Jacobs15 minR. CiunysNewA. BarryNewJ. NdongNewS. HuanNew
Guards
R. Curry34 minK. McCarthy24 minD. Watt5 minJ. Green3 minB. O'Keefe2 minJ. EllisNew
Forwards
J. Holloway29 minT. Laczkowski22 minD. Benner6 minN. Ikechi3 minD. Murans3 minH. RasmussenNew
Centers
P. HendersonNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.7 #149 | Points per game | 70.8 #268 |
| 1.13 #85 | Points per possession | 1.03 #281 |
| 67.0 #278 | Pace (possessions) | 68.6 #200 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.1 #64 | Effective FG% | 49.3 #279 |
| 36.1 #55 | 3-point % | 32.0 #278 |
| 38.8 #195 | 3-point attempt rate | 53.3 #3 |
| 34.1 #205 | Free throw rate | 26.8 #352 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.1 #25 | Turnover rate | 17.2 #221 |
| 24.9 #342 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.6 #219 |
| 11.9 #291 | Assists per game | 14.5 #118 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.5 #41 | Points allowed | 79.0 #298 |
| 1.02 #46 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #321 |
| 49.4 #79 | Opponent effective FG% | 55.1 #334 |
| 32.7 #98 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.5 #285 |
| 15.1 #283 | Turnovers forced | 15.4 #257 |
| 74.2 #18 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.3 #54 |
| 4.9 #338 | Steals per game | 5.4 #307 |
| 2.4 #314 | Blocks per game | 1.6 #359 |
UMBC
22-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-2 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Howard83–86
- Wvs Vermont74–59
- Wvs UMass Lowell91–69
- Wvs New Hampshire84–69
- W@ NJIT91–52
A week or more of rest.
Army
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Patriot League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Bucknell55–65
- L@ Lafayette77–83
- Lvs Bucknell73–75
- Lvs Navy63–81
- W@ Loyola MD87–77
A week or more of rest.