Purcell Pavilion · at Notre Dame
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ND | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 1-0 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 1-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects ND 85–61 · win probability ND 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.7
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: ND has more of the edges
LIU 2, ND 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
LIU offense vs ND defense
Offense 339th of 366 against a defense 63rd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
LIU has played the 290th-hardest schedule, ND the 69th. A record against a soft schedule means less
ND offense vs LIU defense
Offense 76th of 366 against a defense 283rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LIU 33.9%, ND 31.2%. Defensive: LIU 67.0%, ND 73.3%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LIU 19.0%, ND 16.9%. Forced: LIU 18.7%, ND 14.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: LIU 52.8 and allows 50.0; ND 52.3 and allows 51.8
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LIU 6%, ND 38%. Transfers in: LIU 6, ND 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
ND at home. This season: ND 0-0 at home, LIU 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
LIU hits 35.8% and allows 32.2%; ND hits 35.6% and allows 33.2%. Threes are 29.3% and 43.5% of their shots
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: LIU 34.0, ND 34.1. Allowed: LIU 34.7, ND 36.2
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: LIU plays 68.5 a game (206th fastest), ND 67.7 (239th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | ND -24.1 | — |
| Total | — | 145.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | LIU 60.8 · ND 84.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ND -14.2 | — |
| 1H total | 68.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | LIU 27 · ND 41.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | 9-1 90% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LIU 0–1 NDND leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · LIU 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2025-26 | LIU 67 @ ND 89 | ND -15.5 | ND W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Long Island
35 games played
Straight up
24-11
69% wins
Against the spread
17-18
49% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-20
43% overs · avg −0.2 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 3 | @ | L 67-89 | +15.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 6 | @ | W 94-90 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 185.5 | U 184 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 76-72 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 88-79 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 53-69 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 58-98 | +34.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | @ | W 75-61 | +4.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 92-94 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 87-82 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 70-60 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 83-87 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 79-86 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 74-89 | +30.5 | W +15.5 | 179.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 84-78 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 74-55 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 60-58 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 139.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 67-63 | -15.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 66-59 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 77-83 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 66-63 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 83-61 | -8.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 80-59 | -2.5 | W +18.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 60-55 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 61-54 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 132.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 67-57 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 52-55 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 129.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 83-65 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 91-89 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 83-91 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 73-56 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-60 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 79-75 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 64-56 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 79-70 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 58-92 | +30.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
ND
L 67-89
−6.5
6
@
IUIN
W 94-90
+8.5
11
@
AF
W 76-72
−1.5
15
vs
JMU
W 88-79
+5.5
20
@
FOR
L 53-69
−11.5
22
@
ILL
L 58-98
−5.5
24
@
MOST
W 75-61
+18.5
2
vs
WIN
L 92-94
+3.5
6
@
LEH
W 87-82
+3.5
13
vs
LAS
W 70-60
+7.5
16
@
MSST
L 83-87
+12.5
20
@
FIU
L 79-86
−0.5
29
@
UGA
L 74-89
+15.5
2
vs
CCSU
W 84-78
−0.5
4
@
CHST
W 74-55
+11.5
8
vs
MERC
W 60-58
−6.5
10
vs
SFPA
W 67-63
−11.5
17
@
FDU
W 66-59
−0.5
19
@
LEM
L 77-83
−7.5
23
@
STO
W 66-63
−2.5
29
vs
LEM
W 83-61
+13.5
31
@
CCSU
W 80-59
+18.5
5
vs
NHVN
W 60-55
−4.5
7
vs
STO
W 61-54
−3.5
12
@
WAG
W 67-57
+3.5
14
@
NHVN
L 52-55
−9.5
16
vs
WAG
W 83-65
+7.5
19
@
SFPA
W 91-89
−7.5
21
@
MERC
L 83-91
−11.5
26
vs
CHST
W 73-56
+5.5
28
vs
FDU
W 74-60
+4.5
4
vs
CHST
W 79-75
−6.5
7
vs
WAG
W 64-56
+1.5
10
vs
MERC
W 79-70
+4.5
20
vs
ARIZ
L 58-92
−3.5
covered 17didn’t cover 18avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
ND
L 67-89
+20.5
6
@
IUIN
W 94-90
−1.5
11
@
AF
W 76-72
+10.5
15
vs
JMU
W 88-79
+19.5
20
@
FOR
L 53-69
−23.5
22
@
ILL
L 58-98
−4.5
24
@
MOST
W 75-61
−9.5
2
vs
WIN
L 92-94
+32.5
6
@
LEH
W 87-82
+26.5
13
vs
LAS
W 70-60
−13.5
16
@
MSST
L 83-87
+17.5
20
@
FIU
L 79-86
+3.5
29
@
UGA
L 74-89
−16.5
2
vs
CCSU
W 84-78
+15.5
4
@
CHST
W 74-55
−22.5
8
vs
MERC
W 60-58
−21.5
10
vs
SFPA
W 67-63
−18.5
17
@
FDU
W 66-59
−18.5
19
@
LEM
L 77-83
+9.5
23
@
STO
W 66-63
−8.5
29
vs
LEM
W 83-61
−3.5
31
@
CCSU
W 80-59
−3.5
5
vs
NHVN
W 60-55
−20.5
7
vs
STO
W 61-54
−17.5
12
@
WAG
W 67-57
−11.5
14
@
NHVN
L 52-55
−22.5
16
vs
WAG
W 83-65
+9.5
19
@
SFPA
W 91-89
+31.5
21
@
MERC
L 83-91
+33.5
26
vs
CHST
W 73-56
−12.5
28
vs
FDU
W 74-60
−3.5
4
vs
CHST
W 79-75
+16.5
7
vs
WAG
W 64-56
−18.5
10
vs
MERC
W 79-70
+14.5
20
vs
ARIZ
L 58-92
+2.5
over 15under 20avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Notre Dame
31 games played
Straight up
13-18
42% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-9
71% overs · avg +4.9 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 | vs | W 89-67 | -15.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 102-70 | -21.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 78-58 | -23.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 63-64 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 86-79 | -24.5 | L −17.5 | 150.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 61-71 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 68-63 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 56-66 | +11.5 | W +1.5 | 132.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 76-71 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 5 | @ | W 87-85 | +6.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 80-65 | -11.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 82-58 | -14.5 | W +9.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 69-72 | -11.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 47-40 | +6.5 | W +13.5 | 143.5 | U 87 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 71-72 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 61-76 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 133.5 | O 137 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 69-81 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 76-89 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 69-91 | +13.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 68-64 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 97-100 | +9.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 197 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 72-86 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 65-76 | +19.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 79-82 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 10 | @ | L 81-89 | +10.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 89-74 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 68-73 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 56-100 | +16.5 | L −27.5 | 141.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 96-90 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 153.5 | O 186 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 78-86 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 69-77 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
LIU
W 89-67
+6.5
7
vs
DETM
W 102-70
+10.5
11
vs
EIU
W 78-58
−3.5
16
@
OSU
L 63-64
+8.5
19
vs
BELL
W 86-79
−17.5
24
vs
KU
L 61-71
−4.5
25
vs
RUTG
W 68-63
−1.5
26
vs
HOU
L 56-66
+1.5
2
vs
MIZ
W 76-71
+6.5
5
@
TCU
W 87-85
+8.5
10
vs
IDHO
W 80-65
+3.5
13
vs
EVAN
W 82-58
+9.5
21
vs
PFW
L 69-72
−14.5
30
@
STAN
W 47-40
+13.5
2
@
CAL
L 71-72
+2.5
10
vs
CLEM
L 61-76
−11.5
13
vs
MIA
L 69-81
−6.5
17
@
VT
L 76-89
−6.5
21
@
UNC
L 69-91
−8.5
24
vs
BC
W 68-64
−3.5
27
vs
UVA
L 97-100
+6.5
31
@
SYR
L 72-86
−7.5
4
@
LOU
L 65-76
+8.5
7
vs
FSU
L 79-82
−4.5
10
@
SMU
L 81-89
+2.5
14
vs
GT
W 89-74
+9.5
21
@
PITT
L 68-73
−1.5
24
vs
DUKE
L 56-100
−27.5
28
vs
NCSU
W 96-90
+12.5
4
vs
STAN
L 78-86
−6.5
7
@
BC
L 69-77
−9.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
LIU
W 89-67
+20.5
7
vs
DETM
W 102-70
+24.5
11
vs
EIU
W 78-58
−7.5
16
@
OSU
L 63-64
−29.5
19
vs
BELL
W 86-79
+14.5
24
vs
KU
L 61-71
−11.5
25
vs
RUTG
W 68-63
−9.5
26
vs
HOU
L 56-66
−10.5
2
vs
MIZ
W 76-71
+0.5
5
@
TCU
W 87-85
+30.5
10
vs
IDHO
W 80-65
+0.5
13
vs
EVAN
W 82-58
+3.5
21
vs
PFW
L 69-72
−8.5
30
@
STAN
W 47-40
−56.5
2
@
CAL
L 71-72
+4.5
10
vs
CLEM
L 61-76
+3.5
13
vs
MIA
L 69-81
+6.5
17
@
VT
L 76-89
+21.5
21
@
UNC
L 69-91
+10.5
24
vs
BC
W 68-64
−5.5
27
vs
UVA
L 97-100
+51.5
31
@
SYR
L 72-86
+10.5
4
@
LOU
L 65-76
−14.5
7
vs
FSU
L 79-82
+6.5
10
@
SMU
L 81-89
+15.5
14
vs
GT
W 89-74
+12.5
21
@
PITT
L 68-73
+0.5
24
vs
DUKE
L 56-100
+14.5
28
vs
NCSU
W 96-90
+32.5
4
vs
STAN
L 78-86
+16.5
7
@
BC
L 69-77
+4.5
over 22under 9avg +4.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Notre Dame has the better starters
Position by position: Long Island 0, Notre Dame 3, even 2
Long IslandBetterNotre Dame
G J. Pickett TR5.7 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 2
→NDBig
G B. Shrewsberry15 pts · 6 reb · 3 ast
Score 73
G K. Jones TR4.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 13
→NDBig
G E. Roberts TR11 pts · 2 reb · 0 ast
Score 64
G D. Davis TR0.7 pts · 0.3 reb · 1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G B. Smith TR16 pts · 4 reb · 3 ast
Score 91
G D. Jean-Charles TR0.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Brown TR6.4 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 43
F J. Johnson TR6.5 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
→NDBig
C L. Duncomb TR18.2 pts · 8.7 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 99
Long IslandBetterNotre Dame
LIU offense339th of 366 · -11.1
→NDBig
ND defense63rd of 366 · +1.2
LIU defense283rd of 366 · -7.1
→NDBig
ND offense76th of 366 · +1.1
Backcourt-6.7 · 4 players
→NDBig
Backcourt+4.7 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 1 player
→NDBig
Frontcourt+7.1 · 1 player
Bench-1.6 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.9 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestLIU betterND betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Pickett27 min · TRK. Jones11 min · TRD. Davis9 min · TRD. Jean-Charles9 min · TRM. Ndlovu-Fraser8 minV. AlletteNew
Forwards
J. Johnson15 min · TRJ. Howard7 min · TRX. Li4 minM. BewleyNewR. BewleyNewT. BowlesNew
Guards
B. Shrewsberry36 minE. Roberts32 min · TRB. Smith31 min · TRD. Brown24 min · TRL. Imes21 minB. Stevens2 min
Forwards
B. Koehler16 minB. Ruglass Dortch15 min · TRY. DialloNewL. DevineNew
Centers
L. Duncomb25 min · TRT. AhnemanNewG. SolongoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.6 #214 | Points per game | 74.5 #180 |
| 1.08 #185 | Points per possession | 1.10 #143 |
| 68.5 #206 | Pace (possessions) | 67.7 #239 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.8 #112 | Effective FG% | 52.3 #133 |
| 35.8 #67 | 3-point % | 35.6 #82 |
| 29.3 #354 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.5 #101 |
| 34.0 #207 | Free throw rate | 34.1 #206 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.0 #320 | Turnover rate | 16.9 #199 |
| 33.9 #70 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.2 #155 |
| 13.7 #170 | Assists per game | 12.3 #267 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.7 #99 | Points allowed | 75.3 #197 |
| 1.04 #80 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #255 |
| 50.0 #102 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.8 #200 |
| 32.2 #72 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.2 #138 |
| 18.7 #61 | Turnovers forced | 14.0 #337 |
| 67.0 #299 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.3 #27 |
| 7.8 #56 | Steals per game | 4.5 #355 |
| 5.4 #9 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #328 |
Long Island
24-11 in 2025-26 overall · 18-3 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona58–92
- Wvs Mercyhurst79–70
- Wvs Wagner64–56
- Wvs Chicago St79–75
- Wvs FDU74–60
A week or more of rest.
Notre Dame
13-18 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Boston College69–77
- Lvs Stanford78–86
- Wvs NC State96–90
- Lvs Duke56–100
- L@ Pitt68–73
A week or more of rest.