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 71–69 · win probability LEM 58%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 139.8
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: LEM has more of the edges
NIA 2, LEM 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: NIA 26.6, LEM 39.5. Allowed: NIA 33.8, LEM 32.7
Shooting
Effective FG%: NIA 50.5 and allows 52.8; LEM 52.6 and allows 49.3
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NIA 24.8%, LEM 25.2%. Defensive: NIA 67.1%, LEM 71.0%
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: NIA plays 63.4 a game (364th fastest), LEM 69.2 (168th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NIA 18.9%, LEM 19.1%. Forced: NIA 16.6%, LEM 15.0%
LEM offense vs NIA defense
Offense 333rd of 366 against a defense 278th, on the model’s ratings
NIA offense vs LEM defense
Offense 355th of 366 against a defense 308th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NIA 15%, LEM 24%. Transfers in: NIA 5, LEM 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
NIA has played the 334th-hardest schedule, LEM the 344th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Three-pointers
NIA hits 33.7% and allows 35.3%; LEM hits 34.3% and allows 36.0%. Threes are 40.5% and 40.8% of their shots
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 -2.2 | — |
| Total | — | 139.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | NIA 68.8 · LEM 71 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LEM -1.2 | — |
| 1H total | 65.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | NIA 32.1 · LEM 33.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | |
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
NIA 1–1 LEMSeries tied · 2 games since 2021-22 · NIA 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2025-26 | NIA 68 @ LEM 74 | LEM -2.5 | LEM W |
| Dec 29, 2024-25 | LEM 69 @ NIA 88 | NIA -4.5 | NIA W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Niagara
29 games played
Straight up
7-22
24% wins
Against the spread
13-16
45% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg −0.9 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 63-83 | +17.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 67-59 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 68-57 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 68-74 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 42-100 | +39.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 70-80 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 66-70 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 54-83 | +12.5 | L −16.5 | 129.5 | O 137 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 43-71 | +5.5 | L −22.5 | 131.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 73-81 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 58-84 | +30.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 64-61 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 75-83 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 9 | @ | L 53-71 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 70-79 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 59-54 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 126.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 58-68 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 61-62 | +10.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 70-71 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 79-82 | +9.5 | W +6.5 | 128.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 46-58 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 128.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 65-56 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 55-56 | +12.5 | W +11.5 | 137.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 69-76 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 70-68 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 132.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 63-76 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 130.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 62-67 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 78-76 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 66-73 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 126.5 | O 139 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
DUQ
L 63-83
−2.5
8
@
BING
W 67-59
+10.5
10
vs
DSU
W 68-57
+5.5
17
@
LEM
L 68-74
−3.5
21
@
DUKE
L 42-100
−18.5
22
vs
HOW
L 70-80
−5.5
29
vs
DETM
L 66-70
−2.5
5
@
SIE
L 54-83
−16.5
7
@
SPU
L 43-71
−22.5
13
@
MORG
L 73-81
−6.5
15
@
VCU
L 58-84
+4.5
2
vs
SHU
W 64-61
+4.5
4
vs
FAIR
L 75-83
−4.5
9
@
IONA
L 53-71
−7.5
11
@
MAN
L 70-79
−3.5
14
@
CAN
W 59-54
+7.5
19
vs
MSM
L 58-68
−6.5
22
@
FAIR
L 61-62
+9.5
24
@
SHU
L 70-71
+8.5
30
vs
SIE
L 79-82
+6.5
1
vs
MRST
L 46-58
−2.5
3
vs
CAN
W 65-56
+6.5
7
@
QUIN
L 55-56
+11.5
13
vs
MAN
L 69-76
−4.5
15
vs
IONA
W 70-68
+5.5
20
@
MSM
L 63-76
−5.5
22
@
RID
L 62-67
−6.5
27
vs
QUIN
W 78-76
+10.5
1
vs
MRMK
L 66-73
+0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
DUQ
L 63-83
+6.5
8
@
BING
W 67-59
−12.5
10
vs
DSU
W 68-57
−12.5
17
@
LEM
L 68-74
+3.5
21
@
DUKE
L 42-100
−4.5
22
vs
HOW
L 70-80
+11.5
29
vs
DETM
L 66-70
−6.5
5
@
SIE
L 54-83
+7.5
7
@
SPU
L 43-71
−17.5
13
@
MORG
L 73-81
+13.5
15
@
VCU
L 58-84
−1.5
2
vs
SHU
W 64-61
−14.5
4
vs
FAIR
L 75-83
+19.5
9
@
IONA
L 53-71
−16.5
11
@
MAN
L 70-79
+8.5
14
@
CAN
W 59-54
−13.5
19
vs
MSM
L 58-68
−5.5
22
@
FAIR
L 61-62
−16.5
24
@
SHU
L 70-71
+1.5
30
vs
SIE
L 79-82
+32.5
1
vs
MRST
L 46-58
−24.5
3
vs
CAN
W 65-56
−8.5
7
@
QUIN
L 55-56
−26.5
13
vs
MAN
L 69-76
+8.5
15
vs
IONA
W 70-68
+5.5
20
@
MSM
L 63-76
+8.5
22
@
RID
L 62-67
−2.5
27
vs
QUIN
W 78-76
+17.5
1
vs
MRMK
L 66-73
+12.5
over 14under 15avg −0.9 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.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Niagara 1, Le Moyne 1, even 3
NiagaraBetterLe Moyne
G T. Walters7.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 27
=No call
G A. Moss10 pts · 7 reb · 5 ast
Not ranked
G C. Farrell TR6 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 11
=Even
G J. Clayville TR6.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 11
G L. Woods TR4.9 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 15
→LEMBig
G D. King TR4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 59
G B. Rieber TR3.9 pts · 1.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 7
=Even
F K. Stuckey TR4.4 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 5
G T. Blackshear TR6.3 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 43
←NIASmall
F T. Francis TR4.5 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 27
NiagaraBetterLe Moyne
NIA offense355th of 366 · -13.3
=Even
LEM defense308th of 366 · -8.0
NIA defense278th of 366 · -7.0
←NIASmall
LEM offense333rd of 366 · -10.8
Backcourt-8.7 · 5 players
→LEMBig
Backcourt-4.4 · 3 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
Bench-1.5 · 2 players
←NIABig
Bench-6.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestNIA betterLEM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Walters22 minC. Farrell21 min · TRL. Woods18 min · TRB. Rieber16 min · TRT. Blackshear14 min · TRG. Dalmau7 min
Forwards
V. Todorovic10 min · TRN. SlingerlandNewF. RottaNewB. AngelettiNewD. EmokhareNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 63.3 #355 | Points per game | 72.3 #234 |
| 1.00 #330 | Points per possession | 1.04 #265 |
| 63.4 #364 | Pace (possessions) | 69.2 #168 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.5 #214 | Effective FG% | 52.6 #118 |
| 33.7 #188 | 3-point % | 34.3 #152 |
| 40.5 #159 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.8 #151 |
| 26.6 #353 | Free throw rate | 39.5 #68 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.9 #318 | Turnover rate | 19.1 #323 |
| 24.8 #344 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.2 #337 |
| 13.8 #162 | Assists per game | 14.0 #149 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.7 #98 | Points allowed | 73.9 #154 |
| 1.13 #300 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #132 |
| 52.8 #260 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.3 #75 |
| 35.3 #268 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.0 #303 |
| 16.6 #177 | Turnovers forced | 15.0 #289 |
| 67.1 #297 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.0 #107 |
| 5.6 #284 | Steals per game | 5.5 #300 |
| 2.8 #254 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #177 |
Niagara
7-22 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Merrimack66–73
- Wvs Quinnipiac78–76
- L@ Rider62–67
- L@ Mount St Marys63–76
- Wvs Iona70–68
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.