Stonehill Skyhawks at Notre Dame Fighting Irish: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Nov 28, 8:00 PM ETPurcell Pavilion · at Notre Dame

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Stonehill and Notre Dame
STO	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 84–56 · win probability ND 99%

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: ND has more of the edges

STO 0, ND 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

NDBig

STO offense vs ND defense

Offense 363rd of 366 against a defense 63rd, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

STO has played the 352nd-hardest schedule, ND the 69th. A record against a soft schedule means less

NDBig

ND offense vs STO defense

Offense 76th of 366 against a defense 225th, on the model’s ratings

NDBig

Three-pointers

STO hits 31.7% and allows 33.4%; ND hits 35.6% and allows 33.2%. Threes are 40.5% and 43.5% of their shots

NDSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: STO 19.4%, ND 16.9%. Forced: STO 13.4%, ND 14.0%

NDSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: STO 27.5%, ND 31.2%. Defensive: STO 72.9%, ND 73.3%

NDSmall

Home court

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

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: STO 46.9 and allows 47.8; ND 52.3 and allows 51.8

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: STO 28%, ND 38%. Transfers in: STO 6, ND 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: STO plays 67.6 a game (244th fastest), ND 67.7 (239th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: STO 27.3, ND 34.1. Allowed: STO 30.3, ND 36.2

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	—	ND -27.7	—
Total	—	139.8	—
Projected score	—	STO 56 · ND 83.7

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	ND -16.4	—
1H total	65.4	—
1H projected score	STO 24.5 · ND 40.9	—

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
STO WWLWL	16-15	52%	11-8	—
ND LLWLL	15-16	48%	8-9	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
STO OOOOU	11-20	35%	10-21
ND OOOOO	22-9	71%	13-18

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
STO	3-7 30%	4-6 40%	5-5 50%
ND	2-8 20%	4-6 40%	9-1 90%

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

Stonehill

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 1	@ PROV	L49–76LU
Dec 5	vs HC	W81–79WO
Dec 12	@ UML	L64–75LU

Notre Dame

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 2	vs VAN	No recent meeting
Dec 5	vs TCU	W87–85WO
Dec 8	vs LIU	W89–67WO

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

STO 0–1 NDND leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · STO 0-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 6, 2024-25	STO 60 @ ND 89	ND -26.5	ND W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

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

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

Straight up

13-1842%

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

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

15-1648%

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

2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

22-971%

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

8 straight overs4 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	vsLIU	W 89-67	-15.5	W +6.5	135.5	O 156
Nov 7	vsDETM	W 102-70	-21.5	W +10.5	147.5	O 172
Nov 11	vsEIU	W 78-58	-23.5	L −3.5	143.5	U 136
Nov 16	@OSU	L 63-64	+9.5	W +8.5	156.5	U 127
Nov 19	vsBELL	W 86-79	-24.5	L −17.5	150.5	O 165
Nov 24	vsKU	L 61-71	+5.5	L −4.5	143.5	U 132
Nov 25	vsRUTG	W 68-63	-6.5	L −1.5	140.5	U 131
Nov 26	vsHOU	L 56-66	+11.5	W +1.5	132.5	U 122
Dec 2	vsMIZ	W 76-71	+1.5	W +6.5	146.5	O 147
Dec 5	@TCU	W 87-85	+6.5	W +8.5	141.5	O 172
Dec 10	vsIDHO	W 80-65	-11.5	W +3.5	144.5	O 145
Dec 13	vsEVAN	W 82-58	-14.5	W +9.5	136.5	O 140
Dec 21	vsPFW	L 69-72	-11.5	L −14.5	149.5	U 141
Dec 30	@STAN	W 47-40	+6.5	W +13.5	143.5	U 87
Jan 2	@CAL	L 71-72	+3.5	W +2.5	138.5	O 143
Jan 10	vsCLEM	L 61-76	+3.5	L −11.5	133.5	O 137
Jan 13	vsMIA	L 69-81	+5.5	L −6.5	143.5	O 150
Jan 17	@VT	L 76-89	+6.5	L −6.5	143.5	O 165
Jan 21	@UNC	L 69-91	+13.5	L −8.5	149.5	O 160
Jan 24	vsBC	W 68-64	-7.5	L −3.5	137.5	U 132
Jan 27	vsUVA	L 97-100	+9.5	W +6.5	145.5	O 197
Jan 31	@SYR	L 72-86	+6.5	L −7.5	147.5	O 158
Feb 4	@LOU	L 65-76	+19.5	W +8.5	155.5	U 141
Feb 7	vsFSU	L 79-82	-1.5	L −4.5	154.5	O 161
Feb 10	@SMU	L 81-89	+10.5	W +2.5	154.5	O 170
Feb 14	vsGT	W 89-74	-5.5	W +9.5	150.5	O 163
Feb 21	@PITT	L 68-73	+3.5	L −1.5	140.5	O 141
Feb 24	vsDUKE	L 56-100	+16.5	L −27.5	141.5	O 156
Feb 28	vsNCSU	W 96-90	+6.5	W +12.5	153.5	O 186
Mar 4	vsSTAN	L 78-86	+1.5	L −6.5	147.5	O 164
Mar 7	@BC	L 69-77	-1.5	L −9.5	141.5	O 146

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

LIU

W 89-67

+6.5

DETM

W 102-70

+10.5

EIU

W 78-58

−3.5

OSU

L 63-64

+8.5

BELL

W 86-79

−17.5

L 61-71

−4.5

RUTG

W 68-63

−1.5

HOU

L 56-66

+1.5

MIZ

W 76-71

+6.5

TCU

W 87-85

+8.5

IDHO

W 80-65

+3.5

EVAN

W 82-58

+9.5

PFW

L 69-72

−14.5

STAN

W 47-40

+13.5

CAL

L 71-72

+2.5

CLEM

L 61-76

−11.5

MIA

L 69-81

−6.5

L 76-89

−6.5

UNC

L 69-91

−8.5

W 68-64

−3.5

UVA

L 97-100

+6.5

SYR

L 72-86

−7.5

LOU

L 65-76

+8.5

FSU

L 79-82

−4.5

SMU

L 81-89

+2.5

W 89-74

+9.5

PITT

L 68-73

−1.5

DUKE

L 56-100

−27.5

NCSU

W 96-90

+12.5

STAN

L 78-86

−6.5

L 69-77

−9.5

covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

LIU

W 89-67

+20.5

DETM

W 102-70

+24.5

EIU

W 78-58

−7.5

OSU

L 63-64

−29.5

BELL

W 86-79

+14.5

L 61-71

−11.5

RUTG

W 68-63

−9.5

HOU

L 56-66

−10.5

MIZ

W 76-71

+0.5

TCU

W 87-85

+30.5

IDHO

W 80-65

+0.5

EVAN

W 82-58

+3.5

PFW

L 69-72

−8.5

STAN

W 47-40

−56.5

CAL

L 71-72

+4.5

CLEM

L 61-76

+3.5

MIA

L 69-81

+6.5

L 76-89

+21.5

UNC

L 69-91

+10.5

W 68-64

−5.5

UVA

L 97-100

+51.5

SYR

L 72-86

+10.5

LOU

L 65-76

−14.5

FSU

L 79-82

+6.5

SMU

L 81-89

+15.5

W 89-74

+12.5

PITT

L 68-73

+0.5

DUKE

L 56-100

+14.5

NCSU

W 96-90

+32.5

STAN

L 78-86

+16.5

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: Stonehill 0, Notre Dame 4, even 1

StonehillBetterNotre Dame

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

No call

G B. Shrewsberry15 pts · 6 reb · 3 ast Score 73

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

NDBig

G E. Roberts TR11 pts · 2 reb · 0 ast Score 64

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

NDBig

G B. Smith TR16 pts · 4 reb · 3 ast Score 91

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

NDBig

G D. Brown TR6.4 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.5 ast Score 43

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

NDBig

C L. Duncomb TR18.2 pts · 8.7 reb · 1.6 ast Score 99

StonehillBetterNotre Dame

STO offense363rd of 366 · -14.8

NDBig

ND defense63rd of 366 · +1.2

STO defense225th of 366 · -5.9

NDBig

ND offense76th of 366 · +1.1

Backcourt-10.2 · 5 players

NDBig

Backcourt+4.7 · 4 players

FrontcourtNo numbers yet

No call

Frontcourt+7.1 · 1 player

Bench-3.6 · 5 players

NDSmall

Bench-0.9 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestSTO betterND 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

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

Notre Dame

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

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

STO64.2 #353

ND74.5 #180

Points per possession

STO0.95 #357

ND1.10 #143

Pace (possessions)

STO67.6 #244

ND67.7 #239

Shooting

Effective FG%

STO46.9 #339

ND52.3 #133

3-point %

STO31.7 #294

ND35.6 #82

3-point attempt rate

STO40.5 #158

ND43.5 #101

Free throw rate

STO27.3 #350

ND34.1 #206

Possessions

Turnover rate

STO19.4 #333

ND16.9 #199

Offensive rebound rate

STO27.5 #282

ND31.2 #155

Assists per game

STO11.8 #298

ND12.3 #267

Defense

Points allowed

STO69.5 #56

ND75.3 #197

Points allowed per possession

STO1.03 #57

ND1.11 #255

Opponent effective FG%

STO47.8 #36

ND51.8 #200

Opponent 3-point %

STO33.4 #150

ND33.2 #138

Turnovers forced

STO13.4 #347

ND14.0 #337

Defensive rebound rate

STO72.9 #40

ND73.3 #27

Steals per game

STO4.7 #347

ND4.5 #355

Blocks per game

STO4.0 #75

ND2.2 #328

STO		ND
Scoring
64.2 #353	Points per game	74.5 #180
0.95 #357	Points per possession	1.10 #143
67.6 #244	Pace (possessions)	67.7 #239
Shooting
46.9 #339	Effective FG%	52.3 #133
31.7 #294	3-point %	35.6 #82
40.5 #158	3-point attempt rate	43.5 #101
27.3 #350	Free throw rate	34.1 #206
Possessions
19.4 #333	Turnover rate	16.9 #199
27.5 #282	Offensive rebound rate	31.2 #155
11.8 #298	Assists per game	12.3 #267
Defense
69.5 #56	Points allowed	75.3 #197
1.03 #57	Points allowed per possession	1.11 #255
47.8 #36	Opponent effective FG%	51.8 #200
33.4 #150	Opponent 3-point %	33.2 #138
13.4 #347	Turnovers forced	14.0 #337
72.9 #40	Defensive rebound rate	73.3 #27
4.7 #347	Steals per game	4.5 #355
4.0 #75	Blocks per game	2.2 #328

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.

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.

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.

Stonehill Skyhawks at Notre Dame Fighting Irish

What could decide it: ND 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

Stonehill

Notre Dame

Notre Dame has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Stonehill

Notre Dame