Brooklyn Athletic Center · at Long Island
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LIU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PRIN 73–67 · win probability PRIN 70%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.1
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
PRIN 3, LIU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
LIU offense vs PRIN defense
Offense 339th of 366 against a defense 115th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PRIN 100%, LIU 6%. Transfers in: PRIN 0, LIU 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
PRIN has played the 137th-hardest schedule, LIU the 290th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: PRIN 49.6 and allows 52.0; LIU 52.8 and allows 50.0
PRIN offense vs LIU defense
Offense 177th of 366 against a defense 283rd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PRIN 17.1%, LIU 19.0%. Forced: PRIN 14.2%, LIU 18.7%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: PRIN plays 65.0 a game (344th fastest), LIU 68.5 (206th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
LIU at home. This season: LIU 0-0 at home, PRIN 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
PRIN hits 33.9% and allows 31.1%; LIU hits 35.8% and allows 32.2%. Threes are 44.5% and 29.3% of their shots
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: PRIN 34.6, LIU 34.0. Allowed: PRIN 34.0, LIU 34.7
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PRIN 27.2%, LIU 33.9%. Defensive: PRIN 71.5%, LIU 67.0%
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 | — | PRIN -6.1 | — |
| Total | — | 140.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | PRIN 73.1 · LIU 67 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PRIN -3.8 | — |
| 1H total | 65.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | PRIN 34.7 · LIU 30.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | |
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Princeton
28 games played
Straight up
8-20
29% wins
Against the spread
16-12
57% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-15
46% overs · avg −2.5 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 8 | @ | L 69-104 | +13.5 | L −21.5 | 156.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 73-63 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 57-76 | +22.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 69-89 | +2.5 | L −17.5 | 154.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 70-57 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 64-88 | +9.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 75-79 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 74-79 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 58-60 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 118 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 58-63 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 139.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 68-73 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | O 141 |
| Dec 10 | vs | L 56-59 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 61-65 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 75-69 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 136.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 78-76 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 76-60 | +7.5 | W +23.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 80-87 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 133.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 69-71 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 63-53 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 134.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 64-87 | +7.5 | L −15.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 80-68 | +5.5 | W +17.5 | 139.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 60-61 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 65-89 | +3.5 | L −20.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 65-75 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 71-80 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 56-58 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 130.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 82-61 | -1.5 | W +19.5 | 142.5 | O 143 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 53-78 | +14.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
AKR
L 69-104
−21.5
11
vs
BUCK
W 73-63
+5.5
15
@
KU
L 57-76
+3.5
18
@
IONA
L 69-89
−17.5
20
vs
NE
W 70-57
+10.5
24
vs
BRAD
L 64-88
−14.5
25
vs
TEM
L 75-79
+4.5
26
vs
UVM
L 74-79
+0.5
30
vs
JOES
L 58-60
+3.5
3
@
MONM
L 58-63
+0.5
6
@
LUC
L 68-73
+1.5
10
vs
MRMK
L 56-59
−5.5
22
@
TEM
L 61-65
+4.5
30
vs
UVM
W 75-69
+9.5
5
vs
PENN
W 78-76
−1.5
10
vs
YALE
W 76-60
+23.5
17
@
HARV
L 80-87
−2.5
19
@
DART
L 69-71
−3.5
24
vs
BRWN
W 63-53
+5.5
30
@
COR
L 64-87
−15.5
31
@
COLU
W 80-68
+17.5
7
@
PENN
L 60-61
+2.5
13
vs
COR
L 65-89
−20.5
14
vs
COLU
L 65-75
−8.5
20
@
BRWN
L 71-80
−6.5
27
vs
HARV
L 56-58
+1.5
28
vs
DART
W 82-61
+19.5
7
@
YALE
L 53-78
−10.5
covered 16didn’t cover 12avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
AKR
L 69-104
+16.5
11
vs
BUCK
W 73-63
−10.5
15
@
KU
L 57-76
−11.5
18
@
IONA
L 69-89
+3.5
20
vs
NE
W 70-57
−18.5
24
vs
BRAD
L 64-88
+10.5
25
vs
TEM
L 75-79
+8.5
26
vs
UVM
L 74-79
+12.5
30
vs
JOES
L 58-60
−28.5
3
@
MONM
L 58-63
−18.5
6
@
LUC
L 68-73
+4.5
10
vs
MRMK
L 56-59
−19.5
22
@
TEM
L 61-65
−13.5
30
vs
UVM
W 75-69
+7.5
5
vs
PENN
W 78-76
+8.5
10
vs
YALE
W 76-60
−6.5
17
@
HARV
L 80-87
+33.5
19
@
DART
L 69-71
−7.5
24
vs
BRWN
W 63-53
−18.5
30
@
COR
L 64-87
−7.5
31
@
COLU
W 80-68
+8.5
7
@
PENN
L 60-61
−23.5
13
vs
COR
L 65-89
−1.5
14
vs
COLU
L 65-75
+2.5
20
@
BRWN
L 71-80
+21.5
27
vs
HARV
L 56-58
−16.5
28
vs
DART
W 82-61
+0.5
7
@
YALE
L 53-78
−6.5
over 13under 15avg −2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Princeton has the better starters
Position by position: Princeton 3, Long Island 0, even 2
PrincetonBetterLong Island
G J. Hicke15.8 pts · 5.2 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 85
←PRINBig
G J. Pickett TR5.7 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 2
G J. Stanton11.1 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 64
←PRINBig
G K. Jones TR4.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 13
G L. Clark6.2 pts · 4 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 29
=No call
G D. Davis TR0.7 pts · 0.3 reb · 1 ast
Not ranked
G D. Davis14.8 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 69
=No call
G D. Jean-Charles TR0.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
F M. Abdullahi9.5 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 54
←PRINSmall
F J. Johnson TR6.5 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
PrincetonBetterLong Island
PRIN offense177th of 366 · -5.5
←PRINSmall
LIU defense283rd of 366 · -7.1
PRIN defense115th of 366 · -1.5
←PRINBig
LIU offense339th of 366 · -11.1
Backcourt+0.9 · 4 players
←PRINBig
Backcourt-6.7 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.1 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-0.8 · 1 player
Bench-4.6 · 5 players
→LIUSmall
Bench-1.6 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestPRIN betterLIU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Hicke35 minJ. Stanton32 minL. Clark29 minD. Davis28 minS. Whitfield12 minP. Seals8 min
Forwards
M. Abdullahi29 minJ. Huggins22 minC. Happy19 minJ. Hammond7 minC. McSweeney5 minW. Kutzler1 min
Centers
W. HiggsNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.5 #324 | Points per game | 73.6 #214 |
| 1.04 #268 | Points per possession | 1.08 #185 |
| 65.0 #344 | Pace (possessions) | 68.5 #206 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #260 | Effective FG% | 52.8 #112 |
| 33.9 #177 | 3-point % | 35.8 #67 |
| 44.5 #78 | 3-point attempt rate | 29.3 #354 |
| 34.6 #192 | Free throw rate | 34.0 #207 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #216 | Turnover rate | 19.0 #320 |
| 27.2 #287 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.9 #70 |
| 12.5 #254 | Assists per game | 13.7 #170 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.4 #114 | Points allowed | 71.7 #99 |
| 1.11 #242 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #80 |
| 52.0 #209 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.0 #102 |
| 31.1 #36 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.2 #72 |
| 14.2 #328 | Turnovers forced | 18.7 #61 |
| 71.5 #82 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.0 #299 |
| 4.6 #349 | Steals per game | 7.8 #56 |
| 2.1 #341 | Blocks per game | 5.4 #9 |
Princeton
8-20 in 2025-26 overall · 5-9 in conference · Ivy League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Yale53–78
- Wvs Dartmouth82–61
- Lvs Harvard56–58
- L@ Brown71–80
- Lvs Columbia65–75
A week or more of rest.
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.