Holmes Convocation Center · at App State
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | APP | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 72–69 · win probability ECU 58%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.8
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: APP has more of the edges
ECU 1, APP 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
APP offense vs ECU defense
Offense 328th of 366 against a defense 158th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: ECU 46.4 and allows 52.3; APP 49.9 and allows 47.5
Context
Schedule so far
ECU has played the 123rd-hardest schedule, APP the 252nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: ECU plays 70.0 a game (116th fastest), APP 64.3 (358th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
ECU hits 29.3% and allows 34.9%; APP hits 30.4% and allows 32.2%. Threes are 31.1% and 45.9% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ECU 33.4%, APP 32.0%. Defensive: ECU 67.5%, APP 71.0%
Home court
APP at home. This season: APP 0-0 at home, ECU 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ECU 16%, APP 25%. Transfers in: ECU 5, APP 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: ECU 39.2, APP 39.1. Allowed: ECU 32.2, APP 31.2
Even
ECU offense vs APP defense
Offense 142nd of 366 against a defense 148th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ECU 17.1%, APP 15.3%. Forced: ECU 16.3%, APP 14.0%
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 -2.4 | — |
| Total | — | 140.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | ECU 71.6 · APP 69.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ECU -1.5 | — |
| 1H total | 65.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | ECU 33.7 · APP 32.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | |
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
ECU 0–1 APPAPP leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ECU 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2025-26 | APP 67 @ ECU 54 | ECU -4.5 | APP W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
App State
30 games played
Straight up
17-13
57% wins
Against the spread
17-13
57% covers · avg +0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-18
40% overs · avg −1.4 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 66-82 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 76-54 | -10.5 | W +11.5 | 136.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 53-75 | +23.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 85-77 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 65-63 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 53-88 | -5.5 | L −40.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 67-75 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 55-67 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 11 | @ | W 67-54 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 130.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 86-78 | +12.5 | W +20.5 | 144.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 67-49 | -4.5 | W +13.5 | 137.5 | U 116 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 63-70 | -7.5 | L −14.5 | 137.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 81-73 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 136.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 81-88 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 52-50 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 62-67 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 133.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 80-65 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 133.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 73-75 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 72-58 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 124.5 | O 130 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 59-43 | -16.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 70-63 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 66-44 | +7.5 | W +29.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 65-57 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 65-60 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 131.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 81-65 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 58-69 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 134.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 93-94 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | O 187 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 89-74 | -7.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 57-60 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 117 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 73-86 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CMU
L 66-82
−14.5
9
vs
NCCU
W 76-54
+11.5
11
@
OSU
L 53-75
+1.5
16
@
DART
W 85-77
+6.5
21
vs
CLT
W 65-63
+0.5
24
vs
ELON
L 53-88
−40.5
26
@
MER
L 67-75
−1.5
30
vs
UNCA
L 55-67
−10.5
11
@
ECU
W 67-54
+17.5
14
vs
HPU
W 86-78
+20.5
18
vs
CCU
W 67-49
+13.5
20
vs
GAST
L 63-70
−14.5
31
@
ODU
W 81-73
+9.5
3
@
MRSH
L 81-88
+0.5
8
@
GAST
W 52-50
+0.5
10
@
CCU
L 62-67
−6.5
15
vs
JMU
W 80-65
+12.5
17
vs
ODU
L 73-75
−9.5
22
vs
UL
W 72-58
+4.5
23
vs
ULM
W 59-43
−0.5
29
@
USM
W 70-63
+5.5
31
@
TROY
W 66-44
+29.5
4
vs
USA
W 65-57
+2.5
7
vs
EMU
W 65-60
−2.5
11
@
GASO
W 81-65
+14.5
14
@
JMU
L 58-69
−12.5
19
vs
MRSH
L 93-94
−4.5
21
vs
GASO
W 89-74
+7.5
27
@
TXST
L 57-60
−4.5
7
vs
USM
L 73-86
−17.5
covered 17didn’t cover 13avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CMU
L 66-82
+5.5
9
vs
NCCU
W 76-54
−6.5
11
@
OSU
L 53-75
−19.5
16
@
DART
W 85-77
+21.5
21
vs
CLT
W 65-63
−4.5
24
vs
ELON
L 53-88
−2.5
26
@
MER
L 67-75
−0.5
30
vs
UNCA
L 55-67
−15.5
11
@
ECU
W 67-54
−9.5
14
vs
HPU
W 86-78
+19.5
18
vs
CCU
W 67-49
−21.5
20
vs
GAST
L 63-70
−4.5
31
@
ODU
W 81-73
+17.5
3
@
MRSH
L 81-88
+27.5
8
@
GAST
W 52-50
−38.5
10
@
CCU
L 62-67
−4.5
15
vs
JMU
W 80-65
+11.5
17
vs
ODU
L 73-75
+7.5
22
vs
UL
W 72-58
+5.5
23
vs
ULM
W 59-43
−42.5
29
@
USM
W 70-63
−1.5
31
@
TROY
W 66-44
−27.5
4
vs
USA
W 65-57
−9.5
7
vs
EMU
W 65-60
−6.5
11
@
GASO
W 81-65
+2.5
14
@
JMU
L 58-69
−7.5
19
vs
MRSH
L 93-94
+43.5
21
vs
GASO
W 89-74
+15.5
27
@
TXST
L 57-60
−18.5
7
vs
USM
L 73-86
+21.5
over 12under 18avg −1.4 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: East Carolina 3, App State 0, even 2
East CarolinaBetterApp State
G C. Medley TR10.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 6.2 ast
Score 32
=Even
G H. Koffi TR12.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 30
G B. Blaine TR17.7 pts · 7.1 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 82
←ECUBig
G E. Banks6.5 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 15
F K. Watson TR12.5 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 50
←ECUBig
F C. Moodie2.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 15
F K. Cooper TR8.5 pts · 7.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 76
←ECUBig
F A. Njock2.3 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 37
F J. Woodard3.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.7 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C R. Elezaj TR0 pts · 0.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
East CarolinaBetterApp State
ECU offense142nd of 366 · -4.3
=Even
APP defense148th of 366 · -3.2
ECU defense158th of 366 · -3.4
←ECUBig
APP offense328th of 366 · -10.6
Backcourt-0.7 · 2 players
←ECUBig
Backcourt-5.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.4 · 3 players
←ECUSmall
Frontcourt-1.5 · 3 players
Bench-1.8 · 2 players
→APPSmall
Bench+0.0 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestECU betterAPP betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
H. Koffi36 min · TRE. Banks26 minC. O'Kelley1 minL. LedfordNewB. KopetzkiNewJ. ColonNew
Forwards
C. Moodie12 minA. Njock11 minD. LytchNewG. ClaytonNewT. NealNew
Centers
R. Elezaj1 min · TRB. ChretienNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.5 #259 | Points per game | 69.3 #295 |
| 1.02 #305 | Points per possession | 1.08 #187 |
| 70.0 #116 | Pace (possessions) | 64.3 #358 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.4 #346 | Effective FG% | 49.9 #240 |
| 29.3 #350 | 3-point % | 30.4 #335 |
| 31.1 #337 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.9 #48 |
| 39.2 #75 | Free throw rate | 39.1 #77 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #208 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #87 |
| 33.4 #79 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.0 #123 |
| 11.8 #301 | Assists per game | 11.4 #318 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.7 #262 | Points allowed | 67.4 #25 |
| 1.11 #246 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #87 |
| 52.3 #229 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.5 #33 |
| 34.9 #245 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.2 #71 |
| 16.3 #205 | Turnovers forced | 14.0 #336 |
| 67.5 #282 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.0 #106 |
| 6.5 #177 | Steals per game | 4.6 #351 |
| 4.0 #74 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #155 |
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.
App State
17-13 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Southern Miss73–86
- L@ Texas St57–60
- Wvs GA Southern89–74
- Lvs Marshall93–94
- L@ James Madison58–69
A week or more of rest.