Finneran Pavilion · at Villanova
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | VILL | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 0-1 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 0-1 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 1-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects VILL 89–56 · win probability VILL 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.4
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: VILL has more of the edges
FDU 1, VILL 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
FDU offense vs VILL defense
Offense 356th of 366 against a defense 30th, on the model’s ratings
VILL offense vs FDU defense
Offense 39th of 366 against a defense 320th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
FDU has played the 308th-hardest schedule, VILL the 35th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
FDU hits 30.3% and allows 37.8%; VILL hits 35.7% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 45.2% and 45.7% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: FDU 47.1 and allows 55.2; VILL 53.8 and allows 51.4
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FDU 18.2%, VILL 15.0%. Forced: FDU 16.1%, VILL 18.6%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FDU 32.0%, VILL 32.2%. Defensive: FDU 72.7%, VILL 68.2%
Free throws
Free throw rate: FDU 32.8, VILL 30.9. Allowed: FDU 36.3, VILL 30.0
Home court
VILL at home. This season: VILL 0-0 at home, FDU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: FDU plays 64.4 a game (356th fastest), VILL 67.3 (270th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FDU 27%, VILL 33%. Transfers in: FDU 3, VILL 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | VILL -32.5 | — |
| Total | — | 144.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | FDU 56 · VILL 88.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | VILL -19.2 | — |
| 1H total | 67.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | FDU 24.2 · VILL 43.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | |
| 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | 7-3 70% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 12 | vs WIS | W76–66WU |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
FDU 0–1 VILLVILL leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · FDU 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2024-25 | FDU 72 @ VILL 86 | VILL -28.5 | FDU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
FDU
29 games played
Straight up
8-21
28% wins
Against the spread
10-19
34% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
10-19
34% overs · avg −2.1 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 | @ | L 50-88 | +37.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 83-93 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 58-93 | +31.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 81-93 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 65-70 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 73-81 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 64-94 | +26.5 | L −3.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 54-75 | +11.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 61-72 | +16.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 43-60 | +25.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | U 103 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 74-67 | +5.5 | W +12.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 82-85 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 55-65 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 59-66 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 68-61 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 76-66 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 26 | vs | L 74-87 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 131.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 72-75 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 133.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 74-58 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 55-52 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 66-59 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 57-63 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 133.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 60-59 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 77-84 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 123.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 59-76 | +4.5 | L −12.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-74 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 61-70 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
ISU
L 50-88
−0.5
8
@
SPU
L 83-93
−3.5
12
@
TEX
L 58-93
−3.5
15
@
NJIT
L 81-93
−9.5
24
vs
ETAM
L 65-70
−1.5
26
vs
ARMY
L 73-81
−12.5
2
@
PROV
L 64-94
−3.5
10
@
FOR
L 54-75
−9.5
22
@
BC
L 61-72
+5.5
29
@
MINN
L 43-60
+8.5
2
@
MERC
W 74-67
+12.5
4
@
SFPA
L 82-85
−5.5
8
vs
CHST
W 70-63
+2.5
10
@
NHVN
L 55-65
−8.5
17
vs
LIU
L 59-66
+0.5
19
vs
WAG
W 68-61
+4.5
23
@
CCSU
W 76-66
+17.5
26
vs
LEM
L 74-87
−14.5
29
@
STO
L 57-58
+1.5
31
@
WAG
L 72-75
−1.5
5
vs
STO
W 74-58
+14.5
7
vs
MERC
W 55-52
+0.5
12
vs
SFPA
W 66-59
−0.5
14
vs
CCSU
L 57-63
−7.5
19
@
CHST
W 60-59
−0.5
21
vs
NHVN
L 77-84
−9.5
26
@
LEM
L 59-76
−12.5
28
@
LIU
L 60-74
−4.5
4
@
MERC
L 61-70
−5.5
covered 10didn’t cover 19avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
ISU
L 50-88
−9.5
8
@
SPU
L 83-93
+38.5
12
@
TEX
L 58-93
−7.5
15
@
NJIT
L 81-93
+27.5
24
vs
ETAM
L 65-70
−14.5
26
vs
ARMY
L 73-81
+1.5
2
@
PROV
L 64-94
−4.5
10
@
FOR
L 54-75
−12.5
22
@
BC
L 61-72
−8.5
29
@
MINN
L 43-60
−36.5
2
@
MERC
W 74-67
+7.5
4
@
SFPA
L 82-85
+23.5
8
vs
CHST
W 70-63
−10.5
10
@
NHVN
L 55-65
−10.5
17
vs
LIU
L 59-66
−18.5
19
vs
WAG
W 68-61
−8.5
23
@
CCSU
W 76-66
+1.5
26
vs
LEM
L 74-87
+21.5
29
@
STO
L 57-58
−16.5
31
@
WAG
L 72-75
+13.5
5
vs
STO
W 74-58
+1.5
7
vs
MERC
W 55-52
−24.5
12
vs
SFPA
W 66-59
−16.5
14
vs
CCSU
L 57-63
−13.5
19
@
CHST
W 60-59
−12.5
21
vs
NHVN
L 77-84
+37.5
26
@
LEM
L 59-76
−4.5
28
@
LIU
L 60-74
−3.5
4
@
MERC
L 61-70
−0.5
over 10under 19avg −2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Villanova
33 games played
Straight up
24-9
73% wins
Against the spread
19-14
58% covers · avg +1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-13
61% overs · avg +1.8 pts vs the total
Against the spread
19-1458%
2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered
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 | L 66-71 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 94-74 | -17.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 94-60 | -19.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 87-77 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 70-55 | -12.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 89-75 | -22.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 74-56 | -14.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 90-63 | -18.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 61-89 | +17.5 | L −10.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 79-61 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 140 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 76-66 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 152.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 23 | @ | W 64-56 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 71-66 | -12.5 | L −7.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 85-67 | +2.5 | W +20.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 72-76 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 76-73 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 88-82 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 79-86 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 66-51 | -8.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 67-75 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 87-73 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 72-60 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 134.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 80-73 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 77-74 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 80-69 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 92-89 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 152.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 63-73 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 82-73 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 57-89 | +7.5 | L −24.5 | 147.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 76-57 | -1.5 | W +17.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 91-78 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 64-78 | -7.5 | L −21.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 76-86 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
BYU
L 66-71
+4.5
8
vs
QUC
W 94-74
+2.5
11
vs
SHU
W 94-60
+14.5
15
vs
DUQ
W 87-77
−0.5
19
@
LAS
W 70-55
+2.5
25
vs
ODU
W 89-75
−8.5
1
vs
TEM
W 74-56
+3.5
6
vs
PENN
W 90-63
+8.5
9
@
MICH
L 61-89
−10.5
13
vs
PITT
W 79-61
+7.5
19
vs
WIS
W 76-66
+13.5
23
@
HALL
W 64-56
+9.5
31
vs
DEP
W 71-66
−7.5
3
@
BTLR
W 85-67
+20.5
7
vs
CREI
L 72-76
−8.5
10
@
MARQ
W 76-73
−0.5
13
@
PROV
W 88-82
+3.5
17
vs
SJU
L 79-86
−4.5
21
vs
GTWN
W 66-51
+6.5
24
@
CONN
L 67-75
+3.5
30
vs
PROV
W 87-73
+5.5
4
vs
HALL
W 72-60
+6.5
7
@
GTWN
W 80-73
+4.5
10
vs
MARQ
W 77-74
−6.5
14
@
CREI
W 80-69
+9.5
17
@
XAV
W 92-89
−1.5
21
vs
CONN
L 63-73
−6.5
25
vs
BTLR
W 82-73
−1.5
28
@
SJU
L 57-89
−24.5
4
@
DEP
W 76-57
+17.5
7
vs
XAV
W 91-78
+1.5
12
vs
GTWN
L 64-78
−21.5
20
vs
USU
L 76-86
−8.5
covered 19didn’t cover 14avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
BYU
L 66-71
−16.5
8
vs
QUC
W 94-74
+17.5
11
vs
SHU
W 94-60
−6.5
15
vs
DUQ
W 87-77
+12.5
19
@
LAS
W 70-55
−19.5
25
vs
ODU
W 89-75
+16.5
1
vs
TEM
W 74-56
−16.5
6
vs
PENN
W 90-63
+2.5
9
@
MICH
L 61-89
−6.5
13
vs
PITT
W 79-61
+1.5
19
vs
WIS
W 76-66
−10.5
23
@
HALL
W 64-56
−15.5
31
vs
DEP
W 71-66
−2.5
3
@
BTLR
W 85-67
+2.5
7
vs
CREI
L 72-76
+5.5
10
@
MARQ
W 76-73
+2.5
13
@
PROV
W 88-82
+13.5
17
vs
SJU
L 79-86
+17.5
21
vs
GTWN
W 66-51
−25.5
24
@
CONN
L 67-75
+4.5
30
vs
PROV
W 87-73
+2.5
4
vs
HALL
W 72-60
−2.5
7
@
GTWN
W 80-73
+12.5
10
vs
MARQ
W 77-74
+6.5
14
@
CREI
W 80-69
+3.5
17
@
XAV
W 92-89
+28.5
21
vs
CONN
L 63-73
−5.5
25
vs
BTLR
W 82-73
+7.5
28
@
SJU
L 57-89
−1.5
4
@
DEP
W 76-57
−2.5
7
vs
XAV
W 91-78
+15.5
12
vs
GTWN
L 64-78
+1.5
20
vs
USU
L 76-86
+15.5
over 20under 13avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Villanova has the better starters
Position by position: FDU 0, Villanova 4, even 1
FDUBetterVillanova
G D. Jevtic6.6 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 25
→VILLBig
G J. Fiegen TR11 pts · 5 reb · 1 ast
Score 82
G R. Johnson4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 10
→VILLBig
G D. Simmons TR16.3 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 63
G R. Elijah Godbolt1 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 1
→VILLBig
G T. Perkins18 pts · 4 reb · 3 ast
Score 100
F P. Stosic TR3.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 16
→VILLBig
F D. Royal TR5 pts · 8 reb · 0 ast
Score 100
F B. Agu TR2.7 pts · 2 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F K. Evans TR13.3 pts · 7.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 95
FDUBetterVillanova
FDU offense356th of 366 · -13.3
→VILLBig
VILL defense30th of 366 · +3.5
FDU defense320th of 366 · -8.3
→VILLBig
VILL offense39th of 366 · +5.0
Backcourt-5.8 · 3 players
→VILLBig
Backcourt+7.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
→VILLBig
Frontcourt+6.1 · 2 players
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
→VILLBig
Bench+3.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestFDU betterVILL betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Jevtic21 minR. Johnson17 minR. Elijah Godbolt12 minT. McQuaid2 minJ. JacobsNewA. CandaNew
Forwards
P. Stosic16 min · TRB. Agu10 min · TRT. Torain9 min · TRA. RatliffNew
Centers
S. Haubro3 min
Guards
J. Fiegen38 min · TRD. Simmons36 min · TRT. Perkins35 minE. Crawford26 min · TRW. Chiddick3 minB. MullerNew
Forwards
D. Royal32 min · TRK. Evans31 min · TRM. Hodge28 minA. Samb6 min · TR
Centers
N. OnyekwereNewL. SuigoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 65.1 #349 | Points per game | 77.1 #113 |
| 1.01 #314 | Points per possession | 1.15 #64 |
| 64.4 #356 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #270 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.1 #333 | Effective FG% | 53.8 #74 |
| 30.3 #339 | 3-point % | 35.7 #77 |
| 45.2 #63 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.7 #52 |
| 32.8 #240 | Free throw rate | 30.9 #284 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.2 #280 | Turnover rate | 15.0 #65 |
| 32.0 #125 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.2 #118 |
| 11.4 #316 | Assists per game | 15.5 #66 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #123 | Points allowed | 71.2 #82 |
| 1.13 #280 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #105 |
| 55.2 #336 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.4 #181 |
| 37.8 #354 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #148 |
| 16.1 #218 | Turnovers forced | 18.6 #70 |
| 72.7 #46 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.2 #246 |
| 4.8 #344 | Steals per game | 7.4 #93 |
| 1.5 #362 | Blocks per game | 2.1 #340 |
FDU
8-21 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Mercyhurst61–70
- L@ Long Island60–74
- L@ Le Moyne59–76
- Lvs New Haven77–84
- W@ Chicago St60–59
A week or more of rest.
Villanova
24-9 in 2025-26 overall · 15-6 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Utah State76–86
- Lvs Georgetown64–78
- Wvs Xavier91–78
- W@ DePaul76–57
- L@ St John's57–89
A week or more of rest.