New Hampshire Wildcats at Stonehill Skyhawks: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Nov 18, 8:00 PM ETMerkert Gymnasium · at Stonehill

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: New Hampshire and Stonehill
UNH	This season	STO
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 UNH 69–68 · win probability UNH 53%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 137.3

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: STO has more of the edges

UNH 2, STO 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

UNHBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: UNH 16.5%, STO 19.4%. Forced: UNH 15.8%, STO 13.4%

STOBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: UNH 46.7 and allows 53.5; STO 46.9 and allows 47.8

Context

Schedule so far

UNH has played the 237th-hardest schedule, STO the 352nd. A record against a soft schedule means less

UNHSmall

STO offense vs UNH defense

Offense 363rd of 366 against a defense 255th, on the model’s ratings

STOSmall

UNH offense vs STO defense

Offense 300th of 366 against a defense 225th, on the model’s ratings

STOSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: UNH 28.5, STO 27.3. Allowed: UNH 35.8, STO 30.3

STOSmall

Home court

STO at home. This season: STO 0-0 at home, UNH 0-0 away

STOSmall

Three-pointers

UNH hits 30.5% and allows 34.3%; STO hits 31.7% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 43.1% and 40.5% of their shots

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: UNH 47%, STO 28%. Transfers in: UNH 3, STO 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: UNH plays 68.9 a game (186th fastest), STO 67.6 (244th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: UNH 25.7%, STO 27.5%. Defensive: UNH 73.1%, STO 72.9%

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	UNH -0.8	—
Total	—	137.3	—
Projected score	—	UNH 69 · STO 68.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	UNH -0.6	—
1H total	64.3	—
1H projected score	UNH 32.4 · STO 31.9	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
UNH LLLWL	12-16	43%	8-9	—
STO WWLWL	16-15	52%	5-6	—

Venue/role: UNH away; STO home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
UNH UUOOO	15-13	54%	7-21
STO OOOOU	11-20	35%	10-21

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
UNH	1-9 10%	1-9 10%	6-4 60%
STO	3-7 30%	4-6 40%	5-5 50%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

New Hampshire

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 21	@ NHVN	No recent meeting
Nov 24	@ HALL	No recent meeting
Nov 29	@ HC	L72–74WO

Stonehill

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 21	vs NE	No recent meeting
Nov 28	@ ND	L60–89LO
Dec 1	@ PROV	L49–76LU

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

UNH 2–1 STOUNH leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · UNH 1-2 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 17, 2025-26	STO 58 @ UNH 59	UNH -3.5	STO W
Dec 22, 2024-25	UNH 83 @ STO 90	STO -8.5	UNH W
Dec 11, 2023-24	STO 62 @ UNH 75	UNH -14.5	STO W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

New Hampshire

28 games played

Straight up

7-21

25% wins

Against the spread

12-16

43% covers · avg −2.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-13

54% overs · avg +0.7 pts vs the total

Straight up

7-2125%

L L L L L L L W W L L L L L W W W W L L L L L L L L W L

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

12-1643%

L W W L L W W W L W W L L W W L W W L L L L L L L L W L

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1354%

U O U O U U U O U O U O O O U O O U O U O O U U U O O O

3 straight overs3 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@CLEM	L 38-88	+29.5	L −20.5	146.5	U 126
Nov 9	@HARV	L 75-86	+15.5	W +4.5	147.5	O 161
Nov 15	@GMU	L 44-61	+24.5	W +7.5	144.5	U 105
Nov 18	@PROV	L 66-98	+29.5	L −2.5	161.5	O 164
Nov 26	vsBRWN	L 47-59	+5.5	L −6.5	136.5	U 106
Nov 30	@FAIR	L 68-72	+9.5	W +5.5	147.5	U 140
Dec 3	@DART	L 68-69	+8.5	W +7.5	147.5	U 137
Dec 6	vsBU	W 88-82	+5.5	W +11.5	134.5	O 170
Dec 17	vsSTO	W 59-58	-3.5	L −2.5	138.5	U 117
Dec 21	@SLU	L 79-93	+34.5	W +20.5	157.5	O 172
Dec 30	@NEB	L 55-86	+31.5	W +0.5	146.5	U 141
Jan 3	vsUVM	L 61-80	+7.5	L −11.5	139.5	O 141
Jan 8	@NJIT	L 76-80	-2.5	L −6.5	137.5	O 156
Jan 10	@UMBC	L 74-75	+6.5	W +5.5	143.5	O 149
Jan 19	@ME	W 65-48	+1.5	W +18.5	129.5	U 113
Jan 22	vsBING	W 88-82	-9.5	L −3.5	135.5	O 170
Jan 24	vsUALB	W 80-72	-2.5	W +5.5	137.5	O 152
Jan 29	vsUML	W 66-61	-3.5	W +1.5	146.5	U 127
Jan 31	@BRY	L 84-92	+1.5	L −6.5	131.5	O 176
Feb 7	@UVM	L 57-80	+9.5	L −13.5	138.5	U 137
Feb 12	vsNJIT	L 70-76	-2.5	L −8.5	145.5	O 146
Feb 14	vsUMBC	L 63-85	+2.5	L −19.5	146.5	O 148
Feb 19	@UML	L 56-78	+3.5	L −18.5	151.5	U 134
Feb 21	vsME	L 58-61	-3.5	L −6.5	135.5	U 119
Feb 26	@BING	L 63-65	-2.5	L −4.5	141.5	U 128
Feb 28	@UALB	L 61-84	+3.5	L −19.5	138.5	O 145
Mar 3	vsBRY	W 88-83	-2.5	W +2.5	135.5	O 171
Mar 7	@UMBC	L 69-84	+12.5	L −2.5	142.5	O 153

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

CLEM

L 38-88

−20.5

HARV

L 75-86

+4.5

GMU

L 44-61

+7.5

PROV

L 66-98

−2.5

BRWN

L 47-59

−6.5

FAIR

L 68-72

+5.5

DART

L 68-69

+7.5

W 88-82

+11.5

STO

W 59-58

−2.5

SLU

L 79-93

+20.5

NEB

L 55-86

+0.5

UVM

L 61-80

−11.5

NJIT

L 76-80

−6.5

UMBC

L 74-75

+5.5

W 65-48

+18.5

BING

W 88-82

−3.5

UALB

W 80-72

+5.5

UML

W 66-61

+1.5

BRY

L 84-92

−6.5

UVM

L 57-80

−13.5

NJIT

L 70-76

−8.5

UMBC

L 63-85

−19.5

UML

L 56-78

−18.5

L 58-61

−6.5

BING

L 63-65

−4.5

UALB

L 61-84

−19.5

BRY

W 88-83

+2.5

UMBC

L 69-84

−2.5

covered 12didn’t cover 16avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

CLEM

L 38-88

−20.5

HARV

L 75-86

+13.5

GMU

L 44-61

−39.5

PROV

L 66-98

+2.5

BRWN

L 47-59

−30.5

FAIR

L 68-72

−7.5

DART

L 68-69

−10.5

W 88-82

+35.5

STO

W 59-58

−21.5

SLU

L 79-93

+14.5

NEB

L 55-86

−5.5

UVM

L 61-80

+1.5

NJIT

L 76-80

+18.5

UMBC

L 74-75

+5.5

W 65-48

−16.5

BING

W 88-82

+34.5

UALB

W 80-72

+14.5

UML

W 66-61

−19.5

BRY

L 84-92

+44.5

UVM

L 57-80

−1.5

NJIT

L 70-76

+0.5

UMBC

L 63-85

+1.5

UML

L 56-78

−17.5

L 58-61

−16.5

BING

L 63-65

−13.5

UALB

L 61-84

+6.5

BRY

W 88-83

+35.5

UMBC

L 69-84

+10.5

over 15under 13avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

Stonehill

31 games played

Straight up

10-21

32% wins

Against the spread

16-15

52% covers · avg +0.4 pts vs the line

Over / Under

11-20

35% overs · avg −4 pts vs the total

Straight up

10-2132%

L L L L L W L L L L L L W L W W L L W W W L L L L L W W L W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1552%

W L W L W W L W L W L L W W L W L W W L W L W L L L W W L W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

11-2035%

U U O U O O U U O U U U U O O U U U U U U O U U U U O O O O U

3 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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 7	@DEP	L 64-72	+22.5	W +14.5	147.5	U 136
Nov 11	@URI	L 57-80	+16.5	L −6.5	151.5	U 137
Nov 14	@FAIR	L 71-73	+6.5	W +4.5	143.5	O 144
Nov 15	vsL-MD	L 63-74	+6.5	L −4.5	138.5	U 137
Nov 17	@ISU	L 57-96	+40.5	W +1.5	146.5	O 153
Nov 21	vsLAF	W 74-70	+1.5	W +5.5	141.5	O 144
Nov 26	vsUML	L 64-75	-2.5	L −13.5	148.5	U 139
Nov 30	@QUIN	L 62-76	+15.5	W +1.5	148.5	U 138
Dec 2	@BRY	L 65-77	+6.5	L −5.5	134.5	O 142
Dec 17	@UNH	L 58-59	+3.5	W +2.5	138.5	U 117
Dec 22	@SYR	L 48-77	+22.5	L −6.5	140.5	U 125
Jan 2	vsNHVN	L 55-70	-1.5	L −16.5	128.5	U 125
Jan 4	@WAG	W 69-60	+7.5	W +16.5	139.5	U 129
Jan 8	@CCSU	L 69-76	+7.5	W +0.5	134.5	O 145
Jan 10	vsCHST	W 85-82	-4.5	L −1.5	135.5	O 167
Jan 17	@MERC	W 62-57	+4.5	W +9.5	128.5	U 119
Jan 19	@SFPA	L 61-63	+1.5	L −0.5	141.5	U 124
Jan 23	vsLIU	L 63-66	+5.5	W +2.5	137.5	U 129
Jan 26	vsCCSU	W 61-59	+1.5	W +3.5	135.5	U 120
Jan 29	vsFDU	W 58-57	-2.5	L −1.5	131.5	U 115
Jan 31	@LEM	W 65-54	+2.5	W +13.5	140.5	U 119
Feb 5	@FDU	L 58-74	+1.5	L −14.5	130.5	O 132
Feb 7	@LIU	L 54-61	+10.5	W +3.5	132.5	U 115
Feb 12	@CHST	L 55-68	-2.5	L −15.5	131.5	U 123
Feb 14	vsWAG	L 57-68	-3.5	L −14.5	128.5	U 125
Feb 19	@NHVN	L 51-64	+2.5	L −10.5	121.5	U 115
Feb 21	vsLEM	W 77-68	+1.5	W +10.5	137.5	O 145
Feb 26	vsSFPA	W 103-77	-4.5	W +21.5	140.5	O 180
Feb 28	vsMERC	L 72-75	+1.5	L −1.5	137.5	O 147
Mar 4	@LEM	W 81-71	+4.5	W +14.5	140.5	O 152
Mar 7	@MERC	L 51-56	+4.5	L −0.5	134.5	U 107

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

DEP

L 64-72

+14.5

URI

L 57-80

−6.5

FAIR

L 71-73

+4.5

L-MD

L 63-74

−4.5

ISU

L 57-96

+1.5

LAF

W 74-70

+5.5

UML

L 64-75

−13.5

QUIN

L 62-76

+1.5

BRY

L 65-77

−5.5

UNH

L 58-59

+2.5

SYR

L 48-77

−6.5

NHVN

L 55-70

−16.5

WAG

W 69-60

+16.5

CCSU

L 69-76

+0.5

CHST

W 85-82

−1.5

MERC

W 62-57

+9.5

SFPA

L 61-63

−0.5

LIU

L 63-66

+2.5

CCSU

W 61-59

+3.5

FDU

W 58-57

−1.5

LEM

W 65-54

+13.5

FDU

L 58-74

−14.5

LIU

L 54-61

+3.5

CHST

L 55-68

−15.5

WAG

L 57-68

−14.5

NHVN

L 51-64

−10.5

LEM

W 77-68

+10.5

SFPA

W 103-77

+21.5

MERC

L 72-75

−1.5

LEM

W 81-71

+14.5

MERC

L 51-56

−0.5

covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

DEP

L 64-72

−11.5

URI

L 57-80

−14.5

FAIR

L 71-73

+0.5

L-MD

L 63-74

−1.5

ISU

L 57-96

+6.5

LAF

W 74-70

+2.5

UML

L 64-75

−9.5

QUIN

L 62-76

−10.5

BRY

L 65-77

+7.5

UNH

L 58-59

−21.5

SYR

L 48-77

−15.5

NHVN

L 55-70

−3.5

WAG

W 69-60

−10.5

CCSU

L 69-76

+10.5

CHST

W 85-82

+31.5

MERC

W 62-57

−9.5

SFPA

L 61-63

−17.5

LIU

L 63-66

−8.5

CCSU

W 61-59

−15.5

FDU

W 58-57

−16.5

LEM

W 65-54

−21.5

FDU

L 58-74

+1.5

LIU

L 54-61

−17.5

CHST

L 55-68

−8.5

WAG

L 57-68

−3.5

NHVN

L 51-64

−6.5

LEM

W 77-68

+7.5

SFPA

W 103-77

+39.5

MERC

L 72-75

+9.5

LEM

W 81-71

+11.5

MERC

L 51-56

−27.5

over 11under 20avg −4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

New Hampshire has the better starters

Position by position: New Hampshire 2, Stonehill 1, even 2

New HampshireBetterStonehill

G T. Bike7.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.9 ast Score 34

No call

G W. Batchelder8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.5 ast Not ranked

G E. Oliver-Bush TR3.2 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast Score 7

STOSmall

G A. Boldin TR5.3 pts · 2.8 reb · 1 ast Score 29

F D. Poser6.9 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.6 ast Score 11

Even

G D. Arlington TR2.7 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.3 ast Score 5

F J. Squire5.8 pts · 5.8 reb · 1.4 ast Score 34

UNHSmall

G E. Greenberg TR2.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1.5 ast Score 0

F D. McKenna TR3.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.6 ast Score 47

UNHSmall

G A. Allen TR3.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast Score 15

New HampshireBetterStonehill

UNH offense300th of 366 · -9.3

STOSmall

STO defense225th of 366 · -5.9

UNH defense255th of 366 · -6.7

UNHSmall

STO offense363rd of 366 · -14.8

Backcourt-3.5 · 2 players

UNHBig

Backcourt-10.2 · 5 players

Frontcourt-4.5 · 3 players

No call

FrontcourtNo numbers yet

Bench-2.3 · 4 players

UNHSmall

Bench-3.6 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestUNH betterSTO betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

New Hampshire

Guards

T. Bike24 minE. Oliver-Bush16 min · TRM. Blackley2 minA. SquireNewJ. ColemanNewJ. FaumuinaNew

Forwards

D. Poser29 minJ. Squire27 minD. McKenna11 min · TRR. Zan8 min · TRJ. O'Neill6 minK. MyersNew

Centers

G. Xanthopoulos6 min

Stonehill

Guards

W. Batchelder32 minA. Boldin18 min · TRD. Arlington14 min · TRE. Greenberg14 min · TRA. Allen14 min · TRT. Ruth11 min

Forwards

P. McGuinn9 minE. Steele4 min · TRJ. MedalieNewB. LeonsNew

Centers

D. ChengNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

UNH66.6 #339

STO64.2 #353

Points per possession

UNH0.96 #347

STO0.95 #357

Pace (possessions)

UNH68.9 #186

STO67.6 #244

Shooting

Effective FG%

UNH46.7 #344

STO46.9 #339

3-point %

UNH30.5 #333

STO31.7 #294

3-point attempt rate

UNH43.1 #110

STO40.5 #158

Free throw rate

UNH28.5 #338

STO27.3 #350

Possessions

Turnover rate

UNH16.5 #166

STO19.4 #333

Offensive rebound rate

UNH25.7 #329

STO27.5 #282

Assists per game

UNH10.6 #348

STO11.8 #298

Defense

Points allowed

UNH76.4 #227

STO69.5 #56

Points allowed per possession

UNH1.11 #247

STO1.03 #57

Opponent effective FG%

UNH53.5 #282

STO47.8 #36

Opponent 3-point %

UNH34.3 #204

STO33.4 #150

Turnovers forced

UNH15.8 #227

STO13.4 #347

Defensive rebound rate

UNH73.1 #32

STO72.9 #40

Steals per game

UNH6.1 #222

STO4.7 #347

Blocks per game

UNH2.0 #345

STO4.0 #75

UNH		STO
Scoring
66.6 #339	Points per game	64.2 #353
0.96 #347	Points per possession	0.95 #357
68.9 #186	Pace (possessions)	67.6 #244
Shooting
46.7 #344	Effective FG%	46.9 #339
30.5 #333	3-point %	31.7 #294
43.1 #110	3-point attempt rate	40.5 #158
28.5 #338	Free throw rate	27.3 #350
Possessions
16.5 #166	Turnover rate	19.4 #333
25.7 #329	Offensive rebound rate	27.5 #282
10.6 #348	Assists per game	11.8 #298
Defense
76.4 #227	Points allowed	69.5 #56
1.11 #247	Points allowed per possession	1.03 #57
53.5 #282	Opponent effective FG%	47.8 #36
34.3 #204	Opponent 3-point %	33.4 #150
15.8 #227	Turnovers forced	13.4 #347
73.1 #32	Defensive rebound rate	72.9 #40
6.1 #222	Steals per game	4.7 #347
2.0 #345	Blocks per game	4.0 #75

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

New Hampshire

7-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-12 in conference · America East Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ UMBC69–84
Wvs Bryant88–83
L@ UAlbany61–84
L@ Binghamton63–65
Lvs Maine58–61

A week or more of rest.

Stonehill

10-21 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Northeast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Mercyhurst51–56
W@ Le Moyne81–71
Lvs Mercyhurst72–75
Wvs Saint Francis Red Wolves103–77
Wvs Le Moyne77–68

A week or more of rest.

New Hampshire Wildcats at Stonehill Skyhawks

What could decide it: STO has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

New Hampshire

Stonehill

New Hampshire has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

New Hampshire

Stonehill