Koessler Athletic Center · at Canisius
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MERC 70–68 · win probability MERC 57%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 137.9
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: MERC has more of the edges
MERC 4, CAN 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MERC 14.3%, CAN 19.6%. Forced: MERC 18.6%, CAN 16.0%
Free throws
Free throw rate: MERC 25.6, CAN 31.4. Allowed: MERC 42.6, CAN 35.2
Shooting
Effective FG%: MERC 49.5 and allows 50.1; CAN 46.3 and allows 52.2
CAN offense vs MERC defense
Offense 358th of 366 against a defense 272nd, on the model’s ratings
Home court
CAN at home. This season: CAN 0-0 at home, MERC 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MERC 26%, CAN 1%. Transfers in: MERC 3, CAN 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MERC 26.4%, CAN 29.3%. Defensive: MERC 70.1%, CAN 70.2%
Even
MERC offense vs CAN defense
Offense 346th of 366 against a defense 321st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
MERC has played the 356th-hardest schedule, CAN the 337th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 65 possessions: MERC plays 65.6 a game (327th fastest), CAN 64.6 (353rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
MERC hits 32.1% and allows 32.3%; CAN hits 33.3% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 31.1% and 39.5% 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 | — | MERC -2.1 | — |
| Total | — | 137.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | MERC 70 · CAN 67.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MERC -1.4 | — |
| 1H total | 64.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | MERC 33 · CAN 31.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
MERC 1–1 CANSeries tied · 2 games since 2021-22 · MERC 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2025-26 | MERC 55 @ CAN 58 | CAN +1.5 | CAN W |
| Nov 13, 2024-25 | CAN 52 @ MERC 62 | MERC +1.5 | MERC W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Mercyhurst
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
21-10
68% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg +1.3 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 47-70 | +26.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 6 | @ | W 73-65 | +21.5 | W +29.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 55-58 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 86-72 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 71-76 | +15.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 60-69 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 38-70 | +21.5 | L −10.5 | 127.5 | U 108 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 71-79 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 47-80 | +11.5 | L −21.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 62-76 | +24.5 | W +10.5 | 131.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-61 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 132.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 67-74 | -5.5 | L −12.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 74-60 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 58-60 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 70-69 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 132.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 57-62 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 128.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 79-61 | -1.5 | W +16.5 | 132.5 | O 140 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 61-57 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 122.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 25 | vs | W 61-59 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 70-51 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 122.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-78 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 98-89 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | O 187 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 52-55 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 94-79 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 80-83 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 133.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 91-83 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 78-80 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 70-61 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 56-51 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 107 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 70-79 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
NU
L 47-70
+3.5
6
@
LUC
W 73-65
+29.5
12
@
CAN
L 55-58
−4.5
15
vs
MORG
W 86-72
+7.5
20
@
M-OH
L 71-76
+10.5
23
@
MRSH
L 60-69
+2.5
30
@
WVU
L 38-70
−10.5
13
@
DAV
L 47-80
−21.5
17
@
SYR
L 62-76
+10.5
20
vs
BING
W 82-61
+13.5
2
vs
FDU
L 67-74
−12.5
4
vs
LEM
W 74-60
+11.5
8
@
LIU
L 58-60
+6.5
10
@
WAG
W 70-69
+2.5
17
vs
STO
L 57-62
−9.5
19
vs
CCSU
W 79-61
+16.5
23
@
NHVN
W 61-57
+2.5
25
vs
CHST
W 61-59
−7.5
29
vs
NHVN
W 70-51
+13.5
31
@
CHST
L 74-78
−6.5
5
vs
SFPA
W 98-89
+2.5
7
@
FDU
L 52-55
−0.5
12
@
LEM
L 57-58
+1.5
14
@
SFPA
W 94-79
+12.5
19
vs
WAG
L 80-83
−6.5
21
vs
LIU
W 91-83
+11.5
26
@
CCSU
L 78-80
+1.5
28
@
STO
W 75-72
+1.5
4
vs
FDU
W 70-61
+5.5
7
vs
STO
W 56-51
+0.5
10
@
LIU
L 70-79
−4.5
covered 21didn’t cover 10avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
NU
L 47-70
−23.5
6
@
LUC
W 73-65
−6.5
12
@
CAN
L 55-58
−22.5
15
vs
MORG
W 86-72
+11.5
20
@
M-OH
L 71-76
+7.5
23
@
MRSH
L 60-69
−18.5
30
@
WVU
L 38-70
−19.5
13
@
DAV
L 47-80
−5.5
17
@
SYR
L 62-76
+6.5
20
vs
BING
W 82-61
+10.5
2
vs
FDU
L 67-74
+7.5
4
vs
LEM
W 74-60
−7.5
8
@
LIU
L 58-60
−21.5
10
@
WAG
W 70-69
+6.5
17
vs
STO
L 57-62
−9.5
19
vs
CCSU
W 79-61
+7.5
23
@
NHVN
W 61-57
−4.5
25
vs
CHST
W 61-59
−11.5
29
vs
NHVN
W 70-51
−1.5
31
@
CHST
L 74-78
+22.5
5
vs
SFPA
W 98-89
+49.5
7
@
FDU
L 52-55
−24.5
12
@
LEM
L 57-58
−23.5
14
@
SFPA
W 94-79
+34.5
19
vs
WAG
L 80-83
+29.5
21
vs
LIU
W 91-83
+33.5
26
@
CCSU
L 78-80
+16.5
28
@
STO
W 75-72
+9.5
4
vs
FDU
W 70-61
−0.5
7
vs
STO
W 56-51
−27.5
10
@
LIU
L 70-79
+14.5
over 15under 16avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Canisius
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-21
30% overs · avg −3.3 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 48-88 | +25.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 70-89 | +21.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 58-55 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 50-93 | +23.5 | L −19.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 60-57 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 128.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 75-66 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 53-71 | +9.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 57-69 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 129.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 52-74 | +17.5 | L −4.5 | 131.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 70-43 | +6.5 | W +33.5 | 127.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 45-62 | +21.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 107 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 59-103 | +19.5 | L −24.5 | 143.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 85-81 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 82-78 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 70-64 | +7.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 48-74 | +11.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 54-59 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 126.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-78 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 66-69 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 55-61 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 86-88 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 129.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 63-78 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 56-65 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 60-75 | +15.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 63-69 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 65-69 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 72-66 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 131.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 47-68 | +7.5 | L −13.5 | 137.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 67-62 | +8.5 | W +13.5 | 129.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 63-67 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
DAY
L 48-88
−14.5
8
@
SBU
L 70-89
+2.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-55
+4.5
17
@
HPU
L 50-93
−19.5
21
vs
UMES
W 60-57
−0.5
23
vs
BING
W 75-66
+6.5
29
vs
BUF
L 53-71
−8.5
5
@
SPU
L 57-69
−2.5
7
@
SIE
L 52-74
−4.5
13
@
ME
W 70-43
+33.5
16
@
URI
L 45-62
+4.5
22
@
DUQ
L 59-103
−24.5
2
vs
FAIR
W 85-81
+10.5
4
vs
SHU
W 82-78
+9.5
9
@
MAN
W 70-64
+13.5
11
@
IONA
L 48-74
−14.5
14
vs
NIA
L 54-59
−7.5
17
vs
MSM
L 68-78
−6.5
22
@
SHU
L 66-69
+7.5
24
@
FAIR
L 55-61
+4.5
30
vs
MRST
L 86-88
+7.5
1
vs
SIE
L 63-78
−6.5
3
@
NIA
L 56-65
−6.5
5
@
QUIN
L 60-75
+0.5
13
vs
IONA
L 63-69
−1.5
15
vs
MAN
L 65-69
−2.5
20
@
RID
W 72-66
+7.5
22
@
MSM
L 47-68
−13.5
27
vs
MRMK
W 67-62
+13.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 63-67
+3.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
DAY
L 48-88
−6.5
8
@
SBU
L 70-89
+22.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-55
−22.5
17
@
HPU
L 50-93
−9.5
21
vs
UMES
W 60-57
−11.5
23
vs
BING
W 75-66
+11.5
29
vs
BUF
L 53-71
−15.5
5
@
SPU
L 57-69
−3.5
7
@
SIE
L 52-74
−5.5
13
@
ME
W 70-43
−14.5
16
@
URI
L 45-62
−31.5
22
@
DUQ
L 59-103
+18.5
2
vs
FAIR
W 85-81
+25.5
4
vs
SHU
W 82-78
+18.5
9
@
MAN
W 70-64
−11.5
11
@
IONA
L 48-74
−19.5
14
vs
NIA
L 54-59
−13.5
17
vs
MSM
L 68-78
+10.5
22
@
SHU
L 66-69
−10.5
24
@
FAIR
L 55-61
−25.5
30
vs
MRST
L 86-88
+44.5
1
vs
SIE
L 63-78
+5.5
3
@
NIA
L 56-65
−8.5
5
@
QUIN
L 60-75
−6.5
13
vs
IONA
L 63-69
−5.5
15
vs
MAN
L 65-69
−8.5
20
@
RID
W 72-66
+6.5
22
@
MSM
L 47-68
−22.5
27
vs
MRMK
W 67-62
−0.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 63-67
−8.5
over 9under 21avg −3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Mercyhurst has the better starters
Position by position: Mercyhurst 2, Canisius 0, even 3
MercyhurstBetterCanisius
G J. Lemelman14.4 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 61
←MERCBig
G V. Sigona TR7.5 pts · 1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 22
G D. Kelly TR5 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 6
=Even
G M. Wilson TR4.9 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 18
G M. Jackson TR0.5 pts · 2 reb · 0.7 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Winters TR1.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
F T. Rainwater TR9.7 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 48
←MERCBig
F P. Ryan TR6.8 pts · 4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 7
F C. Johnson2.8 pts · 2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 2
=Even
F C. Efinda TR4.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 8
MercyhurstBetterCanisius
MERC offense346th of 366 · -11.9
=Even
CAN defense321st of 366 · -8.3
MERC defense272nd of 366 · -6.9
←MERCSmall
CAN offense358th of 366 · -14.0
Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-3.5 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
←MERCSmall
Frontcourt-4.4 · 2 players
Bench-0.9 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.4 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestMERC betterCAN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Lemelman31 minD. Kelly21 min · TRM. Jackson7 min · TRO. Faran4 minB. Conner3 minM. Maxwell-GrimesNew
Forwards
T. Rainwater25 min · TRC. Johnson12 minC. Leman2 minD. AgbaosiNewS. KirkerNew
Guards
V. Sigona20 min · TRM. Wilson13 min · TRD. Winters6 min · TRT. Augustine2 minC. FrancisNewW. FowlerNew
Forwards
P. Ryan23 min · TRC. Efinda15 min · TRN. Deer3 min · TRN. FoutsNewW. TaylorNewA. RiakNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.3 #310 | Points per game | 62.2 #361 |
| 1.04 #260 | Points per possession | 0.96 #349 |
| 65.6 #327 | Pace (possessions) | 64.6 #353 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #269 | Effective FG% | 46.3 #348 |
| 32.1 #276 | 3-point % | 33.3 #213 |
| 31.1 #338 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.5 #182 |
| 25.6 #361 | Free throw rate | 31.4 #271 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #35 | Turnover rate | 19.6 #341 |
| 26.4 #312 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.3 #226 |
| 14.0 #148 | Assists per game | 11.9 #293 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.7 #43 | Points allowed | 71.4 #87 |
| 1.04 #76 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #228 |
| 50.1 #107 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.2 #225 |
| 32.3 #80 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.0 #124 |
| 18.6 #68 | Turnovers forced | 16.0 #222 |
| 70.1 #153 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.2 #151 |
| 7.0 #130 | Steals per game | 4.8 #342 |
| 3.8 #94 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #292 |
Mercyhurst
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Long Island70–79
- Wvs Stonehill56–51
- Wvs FDU70–61
- W@ Stonehill75–72
- L@ C Connecticut78–80
A week or more of rest.
Canisius
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Quinnipiac63–67
- Wvs Merrimack67–62
- L@ Mount St Marys47–68
- W@ Rider72–66
- Lvs Manhattan65–69
A week or more of rest.