Williams Arena at Minges Coliseum · at East Carolina
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ECU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ECU 74–74 · win probability ECU 50%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.1
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: UNCW has more of the edges
UNCW 3, ECU 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
UNCW hits 35.0% and allows 29.7%; ECU hits 29.3% and allows 34.9%. Threes are 38.8% and 31.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: UNCW 50.4 and allows 47.5; ECU 46.4 and allows 52.3
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UNCW 35.3%, ECU 33.4%. Defensive: UNCW 72.4%, ECU 67.5%
Context
Schedule so far
UNCW has played the 228th-hardest schedule, ECU the 123rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: UNCW plays 66.1 a game (310th fastest), ECU 70.0 (116th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
ECU at home. This season: ECU 0-0 at home, UNCW 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UNCW 35%, ECU 16%. Transfers in: UNCW 4, ECU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UNCW 14.9%, ECU 17.1%. Forced: UNCW 14.9%, ECU 16.3%
Even
UNCW offense vs ECU defense
Offense 131st of 366 against a defense 158th, on the model’s ratings
Even
ECU offense vs UNCW defense
Offense 142nd of 366 against a defense 119th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: UNCW 40.4, ECU 39.2. Allowed: UNCW 31.7, ECU 32.2
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 | — | ECU -0.1 | — |
| Total | — | 147.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | UNCW 73.5 · ECU 73.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UNCW -0.1 | — |
| 1H total | 68.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | UNCW 34.5 · ECU 34.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UNCW 3–1 ECUUNCW leads · 4 games since 2021-22 · UNCW has won the last 2 meetings · UNCW 3-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2025-26 | ECU 60 @ UNCW 85 | UNCW -6.5 | UNCW W |
| Dec 3, 2024-25 | UNCW 67 @ ECU 53 | ECU -6.5 | UNCW W |
| Nov 30, 2023-24 | UNCW 66 @ ECU 74 | ECU +2.5 | ECU W |
| Dec 6, 2022-23 | ECU 61 @ UNCW 74 | UNCW -4.5 | UNCW W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UNC Wilmington
32 games played
Straight up
25-7
78% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-14
56% overs · avg −2.2 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 10 | @ | L 77-86 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 73-60 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 85-60 | -6.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 81-73 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 70-57 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 87-57 | -8.5 | W +21.5 | 138.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 88-62 | -18.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 70-69 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 70-63 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 130.5 | O 133 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 73-70 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 136.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 66-67 | -15.5 | L −16.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 87-78 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 65-53 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 137.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 49-45 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | U 94 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 87-78 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 75-71 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 133.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 78-75 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 70-77 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 159.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 75-67 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 82-73 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 78-85 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 76-64 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 65-54 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 70-66 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 79-69 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 73-68 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 88-65 | -13.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 76-79 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 76-57 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 70-85 | -6.5 | L −21.5 | 149.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 17 | @ | W 68-67 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 61-80 | +3.5 | L −15.5 | 138.5 | O 141 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
10
@
KENT
L 77-86
−5.5
15
vs
UPST
W 73-60
−1.5
18
vs
ECU
W 85-60
+18.5
21
@
RAD
W 81-73
+3.5
26
vs
SELA
W 70-57
+1.5
28
vs
NAVY
W 87-57
+21.5
29
vs
GWEB
W 88-62
+7.5
3
vs
MRSH
W 70-69
−7.5
6
@
UL
W 70-63
−5.5
13
@
VAL
W 73-70
−1.5
20
vs
HOW
L 66-67
−16.5
29
@
NCAT
W 87-78
−1.5
31
vs
DREX
W 65-53
−0.5
3
vs
HAMP
W 49-45
−8.5
8
@
NE
W 87-78
+4.5
10
@
STBK
W 75-71
−2.5
17
vs
CAM
W 78-75
−3.5
22
@
W&M
L 70-77
−4.5
24
@
HAMP
W 75-67
+3.5
29
@
TOW
W 82-73
+10.5
5
vs
W&M
L 78-85
−11.5
9
@
COFC
W 76-64
+13.5
12
vs
ELON
W 65-54
+2.5
14
vs
HOF
W 70-66
+1.5
19
vs
MONM
W 79-69
+2.5
21
@
CAM
W 73-68
+1.5
26
vs
NCAT
W 88-65
+9.5
1
vs
COFC
L 76-79
−8.5
3
@
ELON
W 76-57
+14.5
8
vs
CAM
L 70-85
−21.5
17
@
YALE
W 68-67
+5.5
21
vs
DAY
L 61-80
−15.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
10
@
KENT
L 77-86
+6.5
15
vs
UPST
W 73-60
−22.5
18
vs
ECU
W 85-60
−0.5
21
@
RAD
W 81-73
+2.5
26
vs
SELA
W 70-57
−10.5
28
vs
NAVY
W 87-57
+5.5
29
vs
GWEB
W 88-62
+2.5
3
vs
MRSH
W 70-69
−11.5
6
@
UL
W 70-63
+2.5
13
@
VAL
W 73-70
+6.5
20
vs
HOW
L 66-67
−8.5
29
@
NCAT
W 87-78
+18.5
31
vs
DREX
W 65-53
−19.5
3
vs
HAMP
W 49-45
−46.5
8
@
NE
W 87-78
+22.5
10
@
STBK
W 75-71
+12.5
17
vs
CAM
W 78-75
+3.5
22
@
W&M
L 70-77
−12.5
24
@
HAMP
W 75-67
+5.5
29
@
TOW
W 82-73
+19.5
5
vs
W&M
L 78-85
+3.5
9
@
COFC
W 76-64
−8.5
12
vs
ELON
W 65-54
−30.5
14
vs
HOF
W 70-66
−1.5
19
vs
MONM
W 79-69
+3.5
21
@
CAM
W 73-68
−9.5
26
vs
NCAT
W 88-65
+6.5
1
vs
COFC
L 76-79
+8.5
3
@
ELON
W 76-57
−12.5
8
vs
CAM
L 70-85
+5.5
17
@
YALE
W 68-67
−13.5
21
vs
DAY
L 61-80
+2.5
over 18under 14avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
East Carolina
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −2.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +3.9 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 | vs | W 92-89 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 72-87 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 60-85 | +6.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 65-77 | -13.5 | L −25.5 | 157.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 56-89 | +19.5 | L −13.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 58-67 | +10.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 68-56 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 127.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 78-82 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 11 | vs | L 54-67 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 130.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 73-70 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 74-53 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 131.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 51-99 | +25.5 | L −22.5 | 144.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 70-79 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 67-75 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 85-87 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 71-82 | +18.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 70-73 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 60-77 | +12.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 63-59 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 134.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 77-83 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 76-75 | +10.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 73-81 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 88-72 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 85-75 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 89-92 | +7.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 56-68 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 82-81 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 1 | vs | W 84-68 | +4.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 66-93 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 156.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 83-90 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
GASO
W 92-89
−2.5
8
@
RICH
L 72-87
−9.5
18
@
UNCW
L 60-85
−18.5
21
vs
CHSO
L 65-77
−25.5
25
vs
MSU
L 56-89
−13.5
27
vs
SBU
L 58-67
+1.5
2
vs
UMES
W 68-56
−0.5
6
vs
UNCG
L 78-82
−11.5
11
vs
APP
L 54-67
−17.5
14
vs
BUF
W 73-70
+1.5
17
vs
PRES
W 74-53
+16.5
22
@
UNC
L 51-99
−22.5
31
vs
TULN
L 70-79
−7.5
7
@
TEM
L 67-75
−0.5
11
vs
UAB
L 85-87
+5.5
14
@
USF
L 71-82
+7.5
18
vs
CLT
L 70-73
−4.5
21
@
WICH
L 60-77
−4.5
23
@
UNT
W 63-59
+14.5
28
vs
RICE
L 77-83
−8.5
1
@
FAU
W 76-75
+11.5
7
vs
TEM
L 73-81
−5.5
11
vs
UTSA
W 88-72
+5.5
14
@
RICE
W 85-75
+14.5
18
vs
WICH
L 89-92
+4.5
21
@
CLT
L 56-68
−7.5
25
@
UTSA
W 82-81
−3.5
1
vs
MEM
W 84-68
+20.5
5
vs
TLSA
L 66-93
−18.5
8
@
UAB
L 83-90
+3.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
GASO
W 92-89
+29.5
8
@
RICH
L 72-87
+15.5
18
@
UNCW
L 60-85
−0.5
21
vs
CHSO
L 65-77
−15.5
25
vs
MSU
L 56-89
+4.5
27
vs
SBU
L 58-67
−19.5
2
vs
UMES
W 68-56
−3.5
6
vs
UNCG
L 78-82
+20.5
11
vs
APP
L 54-67
−9.5
14
vs
BUF
W 73-70
−3.5
17
vs
PRES
W 74-53
−4.5
22
@
UNC
L 51-99
+5.5
31
vs
TULN
L 70-79
+3.5
7
@
TEM
L 67-75
−1.5
11
vs
UAB
L 85-87
+21.5
14
@
USF
L 71-82
−5.5
18
vs
CLT
L 70-73
+3.5
21
@
WICH
L 60-77
−7.5
23
@
UNT
W 63-59
−12.5
28
vs
RICE
L 77-83
+19.5
1
@
FAU
W 76-75
−2.5
7
vs
TEM
L 73-81
+13.5
11
vs
UTSA
W 88-72
+9.5
14
@
RICE
W 85-75
+13.5
18
vs
WICH
L 89-92
+31.5
21
@
CLT
L 56-68
−21.5
25
@
UTSA
W 82-81
+9.5
1
vs
MEM
W 84-68
−0.5
5
vs
TLSA
L 66-93
+2.5
8
@
UAB
L 83-90
+21.5
over 16under 14avg +3.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
East Carolina has the better starters
Position by position: UNC Wilmington 1, East Carolina 2, even 2
UNC WilmingtonBetterEast Carolina
G W. Kermoury TR13.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 75
←UNCWBig
G C. Medley TR10.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 6.2 ast
Score 32
G T. Pettway TR8.8 pts · 2.1 reb · 2 ast
Score 64
→ECUSmall
G B. Blaine TR17.7 pts · 7.1 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 82
F G. Walsh9.1 pts · 6.3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 57
=Even
F K. Watson TR12.5 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 50
F S. Elliott TR4.1 pts · 2.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 23
→ECUBig
F K. Cooper TR8.5 pts · 7.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 76
C P. Wessler13.5 pts · 9.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 87
=No call
F J. Woodard3.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.7 ast
Not ranked
UNC WilmingtonBetterEast Carolina
UNCW offense131st of 366 · -3.7
=Even
ECU defense158th of 366 · -3.4
UNCW defense119th of 366 · -1.8
=Even
ECU offense142nd of 366 · -4.3
Backcourt+1.0 · 2 players
←UNCWSmall
Backcourt-0.7 · 2 players
Frontcourt+2.5 · 3 players
←UNCWSmall
Frontcourt+0.4 · 3 players
Bench-1.4 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-1.8 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestUNCW betterECU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
W. Kermoury27 min · TRT. Pettway22 min · TRJ. Lamothe15 minX. Brown12 min · TRM. Smith3 minC. LusterNew
Forwards
G. Walsh26 minS. Elliott17 min · TRT. NelsonNewM. ProdanovicNewW. SewardNew
Centers
P. Wessler27 min
Guards
C. Medley34 min · TRB. Blaine29 min · TRT. Best6 min · TRA. McCulloughNewM. PandovNew
Forwards
K. Watson32 min · TRK. Cooper26 min · TRJ. Woodard17 minJ. BuchananNewD. QuinnNewD. Creasy-QuirindoongoNew
Centers
E. DeLaurier15 minM. KlitschkoNewM. HintonNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.6 #174 | Points per game | 71.5 #259 |
| 1.13 #84 | Points per possession | 1.02 #305 |
| 66.1 #310 | Pace (possessions) | 70.0 #116 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.4 #220 | Effective FG% | 46.4 #346 |
| 35.0 #124 | 3-point % | 29.3 #350 |
| 38.8 #194 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.1 #337 |
| 40.4 #54 | Free throw rate | 39.2 #75 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.9 #57 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #208 |
| 35.3 #40 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.4 #79 |
| 13.1 #204 | Assists per game | 11.8 #301 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.1 #32 | Points allowed | 77.7 #262 |
| 1.03 #56 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #246 |
| 47.5 #30 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.3 #229 |
| 29.7 #6 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.9 #245 |
| 14.9 #297 | Turnovers forced | 16.3 #205 |
| 72.4 #51 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.5 #282 |
| 5.1 #330 | Steals per game | 6.5 #177 |
| 2.4 #312 | Blocks per game | 4.0 #74 |
UNC Wilmington
25-7 in 2025-26 overall · 15-4 in conference · Coastal Athletic Association
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Dayton61–80
- W@ Yale68–67
- Lvs Campbell70–85
- W@ Elon76–57
- Lvs Charleston76–79
A week or more of rest.
East Carolina
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 6-12 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ UAB83–90
- Lvs Tulsa66–93
- Wvs Memphis84–68
- W@ UTSA82–81
- L@ Charlotte56–68
A week or more of rest.