XFINITY Center · at Maryland
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MD | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MD 87–57 · win probability MD 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.1
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: MD has more of the edges
WAG 2, MD 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
WAG offense vs MD defense
Offense 359th of 366 against a defense 34th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
WAG has played the 349th-hardest schedule, MD the 28th. A record against a soft schedule means less
MD offense vs WAG defense
Offense 63rd of 366 against a defense 293rd, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
WAG hits 36.6% and allows 34.3%; MD hits 31.7% and allows 36.3%. Threes are 36.1% and 46.9% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: WAG 49.6 and allows 50.4; MD 48.1 and allows 54.4
Free throws
Free throw rate: WAG 32.4, MD 36.4. Allowed: WAG 40.8, MD 35.8
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WAG 0%, MD 47%. Transfers in: WAG 8, MD 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
MD at home. This season: MD 0-0 at home, WAG 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WAG 32.8%, MD 33.8%. Defensive: WAG 70.5%, MD 70.9%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: WAG plays 66.4 a game (299th fastest), MD 67.0 (281st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WAG 18.6%, MD 18.6%. Forced: WAG 14.9%, MD 14.9%
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 | — | MD -30.0 | — |
| Total | — | 143.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | WAG 56.5 · MD 86.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MD -17.7 | — |
| 1H total | 67.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | WAG 24.6 · MD 42.3 | — |
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% | 4-6 40% | |
| 3-7 30% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
WAG 0–1 MDMD leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · WAG 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2025-26 | WAG 63 @ MD 89 | MD -22.5 | MD W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Wagner
28 games played
Straight up
11-17
39% wins
Against the spread
16-12
57% covers · avg +1.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +4.5 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 3 | @ | L 74-103 | +25.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 61-68 | +21.5 | W +14.5 | 134.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 61-63 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 70-71 | +6.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 75-92 | +25.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 103-101 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 204 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 63-89 | +22.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 78-64 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 131.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 79-72 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 60-69 | -7.5 | L −16.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 69-71 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 69-70 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 132.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 74-80 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 129.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-68 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 67-69 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 55-62 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-78 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 67-84 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 57-67 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 68-57 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 128.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 65-83 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 83-80 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 133.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 65-56 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 65-62 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 80-61 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 134.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 70-60 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 56-64 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 120 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
VCU
L 74-103
−3.5
7
@
HALL
L 61-68
+14.5
11
@
FOR
L 61-63
+10.5
16
@
UMBC
L 70-71
+5.5
22
@
GTWN
L 75-92
+8.5
26
@
MAN
W 103-101
+4.5
2
@
MD
L 63-89
−3.5
17
vs
UMES
W 78-64
+9.5
2
@
CHST
W 79-72
+5.5
4
vs
STO
L 60-69
−16.5
8
vs
SFPA
L 69-71
−9.5
10
vs
MERC
L 69-70
−2.5
17
@
NHVN
L 74-80
−4.5
19
@
FDU
L 61-68
−4.5
23
@
LEM
L 67-69
+5.5
29
vs
CCSU
L 55-62
−4.5
31
vs
FDU
W 75-72
+1.5
5
vs
LEM
W 79-78
+2.5
7
@
CCSU
L 67-84
−11.5
12
vs
LIU
L 57-67
−3.5
14
@
STO
W 68-57
+14.5
16
@
LIU
L 65-83
−7.5
19
@
MERC
W 83-80
+6.5
21
@
SFPA
W 65-56
+7.5
26
vs
NHVN
W 65-62
+0.5
28
vs
CHST
W 80-61
+14.5
4
@
CCSU
W 70-60
+13.5
7
@
LIU
L 56-64
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 12avg +1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
VCU
L 74-103
+43.5
7
@
HALL
L 61-68
−5.5
11
@
FOR
L 61-63
−15.5
16
@
UMBC
L 70-71
+0.5
22
@
GTWN
L 75-92
+26.5
26
@
MAN
W 103-101
+59.5
2
@
MD
L 63-89
+8.5
17
vs
UMES
W 78-64
+10.5
2
@
CHST
W 79-72
+4.5
4
vs
STO
L 60-69
−10.5
8
vs
SFPA
L 69-71
−4.5
10
vs
MERC
L 69-70
+6.5
17
@
NHVN
L 74-80
+24.5
19
@
FDU
L 61-68
−8.5
23
@
LEM
L 67-69
−7.5
29
vs
CCSU
L 55-62
−19.5
31
vs
FDU
W 75-72
+13.5
5
vs
LEM
W 79-78
+18.5
7
@
CCSU
L 67-84
+14.5
12
vs
LIU
L 57-67
−11.5
14
@
STO
W 68-57
−3.5
16
@
LIU
L 65-83
+9.5
19
@
MERC
W 83-80
+29.5
21
@
SFPA
W 65-56
−30.5
26
vs
NHVN
W 65-62
−4.5
28
vs
CHST
W 80-61
+6.5
4
@
CCSU
W 70-60
−9.5
7
@
LIU
L 56-64
−18.5
over 15under 13avg +4.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Maryland
33 games played
Straight up
12-21
36% wins
Against the spread
16-17
48% covers · avg −2.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-15
55% overs · avg −1.1 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 | vs | W 83-61 | -28.5 | L −6.5 | 139.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 60-70 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 84-64 | -29.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 89-82 | +8.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 95-90 | -17.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | O 185 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 74-67 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 164.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 61-100 | +14.5 | L −24.5 | 157.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 72-105 | +14.5 | L −18.5 | 166.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 89-63 | -22.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 64-83 | +10.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 83-101 | +19.5 | W +1.5 | 163.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 72-80 | +16.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 73-58 | -14.5 | W +0.5 | 154.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 54-64 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 66-84 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 55-67 | +13.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 71-88 | +9.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 18 | vs | W 96-73 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 148.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 70-89 | +18.5 | L −0.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 48-91 | +18.5 | L −24.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 63-93 | +15.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 62-82 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 67-62 | +10.5 | W +15.5 | 138.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 77-70 | +10.5 | W +17.5 | 138.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 57-68 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 74-78 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 64-60 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 61-74 | +16.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 65-69 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 45-78 | +14.5 | L −18.5 | 153.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 72-78 | +14.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 70-60 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 64-75 | +11.5 | W +0.5 | 133.5 | O 139 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
COPP
W 83-61
−6.5
7
vs
GTWN
L 60-70
−14.5
11
vs
ALCN
W 84-64
−9.5
15
@
MARQ
W 89-82
+15.5
19
vs
MSM
W 95-90
−12.5
24
vs
UNLV
W 74-67
+4.5
25
vs
GONZ
L 61-100
−24.5
26
vs
ALA
L 72-105
−18.5
2
vs
WAG
W 89-63
+3.5
6
@
IOWA
L 64-83
−8.5
13
vs
MICH
L 83-101
+1.5
20
@
UVA
L 72-80
+8.5
28
vs
ODU
W 73-58
+0.5
2
vs
ORE
L 54-64
−8.5
7
vs
IU
L 66-84
−10.5
10
@
UCLA
L 55-67
+1.5
13
@
USC
L 71-88
−7.5
18
vs
PSU
W 96-73
+21.5
21
@
ILL
L 70-89
−0.5
24
@
MSU
L 48-91
−24.5
1
vs
PUR
L 63-93
−14.5
5
vs
OSU
L 62-82
−13.5
8
@
MINN
W 67-62
+15.5
11
vs
IOWA
W 77-70
+17.5
15
@
RUTG
L 57-68
−8.5
18
@
NU
L 74-78
+3.5
21
vs
WASH
W 64-60
+8.5
25
@
NEB
L 61-74
+3.5
1
vs
RUTG
L 65-69
−8.5
4
@
WIS
L 45-78
−18.5
8
vs
ILL
L 72-78
+8.5
10
vs
ORE
W 70-60
+14.5
11
vs
IOWA
L 64-75
+0.5
covered 16didn’t cover 17avg −2.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
COPP
W 83-61
+4.5
7
vs
GTWN
L 60-70
−14.5
11
vs
ALCN
W 84-64
+1.5
15
@
MARQ
W 89-82
+24.5
19
vs
MSM
W 95-90
+39.5
24
vs
UNLV
W 74-67
−23.5
25
vs
GONZ
L 61-100
+3.5
26
vs
ALA
L 72-105
+10.5
2
vs
WAG
W 89-63
+8.5
6
@
IOWA
L 64-83
+9.5
13
vs
MICH
L 83-101
+20.5
20
@
UVA
L 72-80
−1.5
28
vs
ODU
W 73-58
−23.5
2
vs
ORE
L 54-64
−28.5
7
vs
IU
L 66-84
+2.5
10
@
UCLA
L 55-67
−25.5
13
@
USC
L 71-88
+8.5
18
vs
PSU
W 96-73
+20.5
21
@
ILL
L 70-89
+6.5
24
@
MSU
L 48-91
−2.5
1
vs
PUR
L 63-93
+7.5
5
vs
OSU
L 62-82
−6.5
8
@
MINN
W 67-62
−9.5
11
vs
IOWA
W 77-70
+8.5
15
@
RUTG
L 57-68
−19.5
18
@
NU
L 74-78
+9.5
21
vs
WASH
W 64-60
−19.5
25
@
NEB
L 61-74
−7.5
1
vs
RUTG
L 65-69
−9.5
4
@
WIS
L 45-78
−30.5
8
vs
ILL
L 72-78
+4.5
10
vs
ORE
W 70-60
−9.5
11
vs
IOWA
L 64-75
+5.5
over 18under 15avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Maryland has the better starters
Position by position: Wagner 0, Maryland 3, even 2
WagnerBetterMaryland
G T. Bryant TR3.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 8
→MDBig
G M. McNair TR16.9 pts · 5.2 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 84
G C. Estevez TR3.4 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 14
→MDBig
G A. Mills12.2 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 89
G R. Pettis TR1.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G B. Boswell TR6.2 pts · 4.4 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 70
F K. Watson TR4.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 31
→MDBig
F P. Payne17.5 pts · 7.2 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 100
C B. Smith TR1.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F T. Buljan TR13.1 pts · 10.3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 97
WagnerBetterMaryland
WAG offense359th of 366 · -14.0
→MDBig
MD defense34th of 366 · +3.3
WAG defense293rd of 366 · -7.4
→MDBig
MD offense63rd of 366 · +2.4
Backcourt-3.1 · 3 players
→MDBig
Backcourt+4.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.5 · 2 players
→MDBig
Frontcourt+11.4 · 2 players
Bench-1.9 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-2.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestWAG betterMD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Bryant14 min · TRC. Estevez12 min · TRR. Pettis10 min · TRL. McGradyNewJ. CurtisNewG. EdwardsNew
Forwards
K. Watson12 min · TRT. Jones5 min · TRA. RodriguezNewD. KabaNewF. HassanNew
Centers
B. Smith8 min · TRY. Singar8 min · TRW. Patterson4 min · TR
Guards
M. McNair37 min · TRA. Mills27 minB. Boswell27 min · TRD. Wagner24 min · TRM. Jabriel20 minG. Turkson11 min
Forwards
P. Payne27 minT. Buljan26 min · TRR. Jennings13 min · TRA. BrownNewB. OladotunNewA. TambedouNew
Centers
A. K'MedehoutoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 69.6 #292 | Points per game | 69.7 #291 |
| 1.05 #250 | Points per possession | 1.04 #270 |
| 66.4 #299 | Pace (possessions) | 67.0 #281 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #262 | Effective FG% | 48.1 #311 |
| 36.6 #36 | 3-point % | 31.7 #293 |
| 36.1 #249 | 3-point attempt rate | 46.9 #35 |
| 32.4 #252 | Free throw rate | 36.4 #142 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.6 #303 | Turnover rate | 18.6 #300 |
| 32.8 #96 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.8 #73 |
| 11.9 #289 | Assists per game | 10.4 #351 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #126 | Points allowed | 76.6 #232 |
| 1.09 #208 | Points allowed per possession | 1.14 #312 |
| 50.4 #123 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.4 #312 |
| 34.3 #202 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.3 #317 |
| 14.9 #295 | Turnovers forced | 14.9 #294 |
| 70.5 #139 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #111 |
| 5.2 #321 | Steals per game | 4.8 #345 |
| 2.3 #320 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #237 |
Wagner
11-17 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Long Island56–64
- W@ C Connecticut70–60
- Wvs Chicago St80–61
- Wvs New Haven65–62
- W@ Saint Francis Red Wolves65–56
A week or more of rest.
Maryland
12-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-17 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Iowa64–75
- Wvs Oregon70–60
- Lvs Illinois72–78
- L@ Wisconsin45–78
- Lvs Rutgers65–69
A week or more of rest.