Kirby Sports Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LEM 69–67 · win probability LEM 57%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 136.5
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
ME 3, LEM 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
LEM offense vs ME defense
Offense 333rd of 366 against a defense 191st, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ME 19.2%, LEM 19.1%. Forced: ME 19.3%, LEM 15.0%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ME 19.7%, LEM 25.2%. Defensive: ME 65.7%, LEM 71.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: ME 49.6 and allows 50.6; LEM 52.6 and allows 49.3
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: ME plays 64.9 a game (348th fastest), LEM 69.2 (168th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
ME hits 31.2% and allows 29.4%; LEM hits 34.3% and allows 36.0%. Threes are 37.0% and 40.8% of their shots
ME offense vs LEM defense
Offense 357th of 366 against a defense 308th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: ME 38.4, LEM 39.5. Allowed: ME 33.9, LEM 32.7
Context
Schedule so far
ME has played the 319th-hardest schedule, LEM the 344th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ME 31%, LEM 24%. Transfers in: ME 4, LEM 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | LEM -2.1 | — |
| Total | — | 136.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | ME 67.2 · LEM 69.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LEM -1.1 | — |
| 1H total | 63.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | ME 31.4 · LEM 32.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Maine
31 games played
Straight up
7-24
23% wins
Against the spread
14-17
45% covers · avg −1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg −2.9 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 3 | @ | L 47-67 | +20.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 114 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 60-71 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 60-72 | +18.5 | W +6.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 64-70 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 65-72 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 130.5 | O 137 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 53-58 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 127.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 61-74 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 133.5 | O 135 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 61-65 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 60-64 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 127.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 57-79 | +12.5 | L −9.5 | 138.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 61-93 | +17.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 10 | @ | W 69-59 | +8.5 | W +18.5 | 128.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 43-70 | -6.5 | L −33.5 | 127.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 56-74 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 129.5 | O 130 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 51-56 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 125.5 | U 107 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 62-69 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 133.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 74-70 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 130.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 62-67 | +14.5 | W +9.5 | 130.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 48-65 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 129.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 52-49 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 101 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 79-63 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 124.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 77-91 | +4.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 76-70 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 130.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 67-73 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 128.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 62-78 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 135.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 58-67 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 61-58 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 70-59 | +4.5 | W +15.5 | 130.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-74 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 56-67 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 58-60 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 118 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
GW
L 47-67
+0.5
8
@
STBK
L 60-71
−7.5
10
@
RUTG
L 60-72
+6.5
16
vs
QUIN
L 64-70
−2.5
19
@
MRMK
L 65-72
−0.5
23
vs
BRWN
L 53-58
−3.5
28
@
AMER
L 61-74
−5.5
29
vs
LONG
L 61-65
+1.5
30
vs
SIE
L 60-64
+5.5
3
@
OHIO
L 57-79
−9.5
6
@
M-OH
L 61-93
−14.5
10
@
BU
W 69-59
+18.5
13
vs
CAN
L 43-70
−33.5
21
@
DREX
L 56-74
−7.5
3
vs
BRY
L 51-56
−3.5
8
@
UMBC
L 62-69
+0.5
10
@
NJIT
W 74-70
+5.5
15
@
UVM
L 62-67
+9.5
19
vs
UNH
L 48-65
−18.5
22
vs
UALB
W 52-49
+5.5
24
vs
BING
W 79-63
+10.5
31
@
UML
L 77-91
−9.5
5
vs
UVM
W 76-70
+14.5
7
@
BRY
L 67-73
−3.5
12
vs
UMBC
L 62-78
−12.5
14
vs
NJIT
L 58-67
−7.5
21
@
UNH
W 61-58
+6.5
26
@
UALB
W 70-59
+15.5
28
@
BING
L 67-74
−8.5
3
vs
UML
L 56-67
−9.5
7
@
NJIT
L 58-60
+1.5
covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
GW
L 47-67
−29.5
8
@
STBK
L 60-71
−0.5
10
@
RUTG
L 60-72
+1.5
16
vs
QUIN
L 64-70
−3.5
19
@
MRMK
L 65-72
+6.5
23
vs
BRWN
L 53-58
−16.5
28
@
AMER
L 61-74
+1.5
29
vs
LONG
L 61-65
−12.5
30
vs
SIE
L 60-64
−3.5
3
@
OHIO
L 57-79
−2.5
6
@
M-OH
L 61-93
+14.5
10
@
BU
W 69-59
−0.5
13
vs
CAN
L 43-70
−14.5
21
@
DREX
L 56-74
+0.5
3
vs
BRY
L 51-56
−18.5
8
@
UMBC
L 62-69
−2.5
10
@
NJIT
W 74-70
+13.5
15
@
UVM
L 62-67
−1.5
19
vs
UNH
L 48-65
−16.5
22
vs
UALB
W 52-49
−30.5
24
vs
BING
W 79-63
+17.5
31
@
UML
L 77-91
+31.5
5
vs
UVM
W 76-70
+15.5
7
@
BRY
L 67-73
+11.5
12
vs
UMBC
L 62-78
+4.5
14
vs
NJIT
L 58-67
−12.5
21
@
UNH
W 61-58
−16.5
26
@
UALB
W 70-59
−1.5
28
@
BING
L 67-74
+7.5
3
vs
UML
L 56-67
−16.5
7
@
NJIT
L 58-60
−16.5
over 12under 19avg −2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Le Moyne
31 games played
Straight up
14-17
45% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg +0.4 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 6 | @ | L 69-74 | +24.5 | W +19.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 60-83 | +11.5 | L −11.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 80-94 | +16.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 74-68 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 83-97 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 28 | @ | W 76-63 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 83-79 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 85-96 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | O 181 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 78-63 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 53-95 | +29.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 81-92 | +21.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 64-72 | +12.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 84-58 | -5.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 60-74 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 141.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 73-47 | -5.5 | W +20.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 59-69 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 72-57 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 83-77 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 69-67 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 26 | @ | W 87-74 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-83 | +8.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 54-65 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 78-79 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 86-84 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 58-57 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 81-63 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 77-78 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 68-77 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 76-59 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 59-66 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 71-81 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
XAV
L 69-74
+19.5
9
@
BGSU
L 60-83
−11.5
13
@
MASS
L 80-94
+2.5
17
vs
NIA
W 74-68
+3.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 83-97
−12.5
28
@
LAF
W 76-63
+17.5
29
vs
MONM
W 83-79
+10.5
30
vs
BALL
L 85-96
−12.5
6
@
BING
W 78-63
+12.5
16
@
TEX
L 53-95
−12.5
20
@
SBU
L 81-92
+10.5
28
@
BC
L 64-72
+4.5
2
@
SFPA
W 84-58
+20.5
4
@
MERC
L 60-74
−11.5
8
vs
NHVN
W 73-47
+20.5
10
vs
CCSU
L 59-69
−11.5
17
@
CHST
W 72-57
+8.5
19
vs
LIU
W 83-77
+7.5
23
vs
WAG
W 69-67
−5.5
26
@
FDU
W 87-74
+14.5
29
@
LIU
L 61-83
−13.5
31
vs
STO
L 54-65
−13.5
5
@
WAG
L 78-79
−2.5
7
vs
SFPA
W 86-84
−5.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-57
−1.5
14
vs
CHST
W 81-63
+11.5
19
@
CCSU
L 77-78
+7.5
21
@
STO
L 68-77
−10.5
26
vs
FDU
W 76-59
+12.5
28
@
NHVN
L 59-66
−8.5
4
vs
STO
L 71-81
−14.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
XAV
L 69-74
−13.5
9
@
BGSU
L 60-83
−11.5
13
@
MASS
L 80-94
+20.5
17
vs
NIA
W 74-68
+3.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 83-97
+34.5
28
@
LAF
W 76-63
−12.5
29
vs
MONM
W 83-79
+16.5
30
vs
BALL
L 85-96
+40.5
6
@
BING
W 78-63
−3.5
16
@
TEX
L 53-95
−4.5
20
@
SBU
L 81-92
+21.5
28
@
BC
L 64-72
−10.5
2
@
SFPA
W 84-58
−9.5
4
@
MERC
L 60-74
−7.5
8
vs
NHVN
W 73-47
−17.5
10
vs
CCSU
L 59-69
−18.5
17
@
CHST
W 72-57
−17.5
19
vs
LIU
W 83-77
+9.5
23
vs
WAG
W 69-67
−7.5
26
@
FDU
W 87-74
+21.5
29
@
LIU
L 61-83
−3.5
31
vs
STO
L 54-65
−21.5
5
@
WAG
L 78-79
+18.5
7
vs
SFPA
W 86-84
+16.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-57
−23.5
14
vs
CHST
W 81-63
−0.5
19
@
CCSU
L 77-78
−10.5
21
@
STO
L 68-77
+7.5
26
vs
FDU
W 76-59
−4.5
28
@
NHVN
L 59-66
−12.5
4
vs
STO
L 71-81
+11.5
over 12under 19avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Le Moyne has the better starters
Position by position: Maine 1, Le Moyne 2, even 2
MaineBetterLe Moyne
G D. Williams TR8 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 23
=No call
G A. Moss10 pts · 7 reb · 5 ast
Not ranked
G C. Crawford4.2 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 14
=Even
G J. Clayville TR6.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 11
G V. Garcia Adsten TR3.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 11
→LEMBig
G D. King TR4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 59
F A. Flagg6.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 33
←MESmall
F K. Stuckey TR4.4 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 5
F Y. Bamba2.8 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 11
→LEMSmall
F T. Francis TR4.5 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 27
MaineBetterLe Moyne
ME offense357th of 366 · -13.7
=Even
LEM defense308th of 366 · -8.0
ME defense191st of 366 · -4.5
←MEBig
LEM offense333rd of 366 · -10.8
Backcourt-6.4 · 3 players
→LEMSmall
Backcourt-4.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
←MESmall
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
Bench-0.7 · 4 players
←MEBig
Bench-6.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestME betterLEM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Williams25 min · TRC. Crawford20 minV. Garcia Adsten18 min · TRD. LopesNewK. BedardNewH. FranzNew
Forwards
A. Flagg25 minY. Bamba12 minA. Evans8 min · TRK. Gribben3 minE. Byther2 minO. Faubert2 min · TR
Guards
A. Moss37 minJ. Clayville20 min · TRD. King14 min · TRJ. Teat14 min · TRK. Williams12 min · TRJ. Lee4 min
Forwards
K. Stuckey19 min · TRT. Francis15 min · TRT. Roe7 minI. BrownNewC. SchreinerNewC. JohnsonNew
Centers
P. Hartman9 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 61.2 #364 | Points per game | 72.3 #234 |
| 0.95 #356 | Points per possession | 1.04 #265 |
| 64.9 #348 | Pace (possessions) | 69.2 #168 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #263 | Effective FG% | 52.6 #118 |
| 31.2 #314 | 3-point % | 34.3 #152 |
| 37.0 #231 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.8 #151 |
| 38.4 #93 | Free throw rate | 39.5 #68 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.2 #328 | Turnover rate | 19.1 #323 |
| 19.7 #364 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.2 #337 |
| 11.8 #300 | Assists per game | 14.0 #149 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.5 #39 | Points allowed | 73.9 #154 |
| 1.05 #90 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #132 |
| 50.6 #136 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.3 #75 |
| 29.4 #4 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.0 #303 |
| 19.3 #38 | Turnovers forced | 15.0 #289 |
| 65.7 #322 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.0 #107 |
| 7.7 #57 | Steals per game | 5.5 #300 |
| 3.2 #194 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #177 |
Maine
7-24 in 2025-26 overall · 6-11 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ NJIT58–60
- Lvs UMass Lowell56–67
- L@ Binghamton67–74
- W@ UAlbany70–59
- W@ New Hampshire61–58
A week or more of rest.
Le Moyne
14-17 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Stonehill71–81
- L@ New Haven59–66
- Wvs FDU76–59
- L@ Stonehill68–77
- L@ C Connecticut77–78
A week or more of rest.