Holy Cross Crusaders at Stonehill Skyhawks: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Dec 5, 1:00 PM ETMerkert Gymnasium · at Stonehill

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Holy Cross and Stonehill
HC	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 STO 68–67 · win probability STO 54%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 135.4

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

HC 3, STO 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

HCBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: HC 15.3%, STO 19.4%. Forced: HC 14.1%, STO 13.4%

Context

Schedule so far

HC has played the 225th-hardest schedule, STO the 352nd. A record against a soft schedule means less

STOBig

HC offense vs STO defense

Offense 335th of 366 against a defense 225th, on the model’s ratings

STOSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: HC 49.8 and allows 54.8; STO 46.9 and allows 47.8

HCSmall

STO offense vs HC defense

Offense 363rd of 366 against a defense 269th, on the model’s ratings

HCSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: HC 31.5, STO 27.3. Allowed: HC 27.6, STO 30.3

STOSmall

Home court

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

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: HC 51%, STO 28%. Transfers in: HC 0, STO 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: HC plays 65.8 a game (320th fastest), STO 67.6 (244th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: HC 21.9%, STO 27.5%. Defensive: HC 73.0%, STO 72.9%

Even

Three-pointers

HC hits 32.5% and allows 34.0%; STO hits 31.7% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 37.3% and 40.5% of their shots

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	—	STO -1.3	—
Total	—	135.4	—
Projected score	—	HC 67.1 · STO 68.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	STO -0.6	—
1H total	63.4	—
1H projected score	HC 31.4 · STO 32	—

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
HC WLLWW	16-15	52%	9-9	—
STO WWLWL	16-15	52%	5-6	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
HC UUUOU	15-16	48%	9-22
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
HC	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	5-5 50%
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

Holy Cross

No more games listed yet.

Stonehill

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 12	@ UML	L64–75LU

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

HC 0–1 STOSTO leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · HC 0-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 19, 2022-23	STO 81 vs HC 79	HC -2	STO W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

Holy Cross

31 games played

Straight up

9-22

29% wins

Against the spread

16-15

52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-16

48% overs · avg −0.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

9-2229%

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

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1552%

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

2 straight covers2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1648%

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

1 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 3	@PROV	L 79-89	+23.5	W +13.5	152.5	O 168
Nov 8	@BYU	L 53-98	+38.5	L −6.5	165.5	U 151
Nov 10	@UTAH	L 69-87	+21.5	W +3.5	155.5	O 156
Nov 16	vsHAMP	W 67-61	+4.5	W +10.5	148.5	U 128
Nov 18	@BRWN	L 49-68	+2.5	L −16.5	141.5	U 117
Nov 21	@SHU	L 66-79	+7.5	L −5.5	152.5	U 145
Nov 24	vsSIE	L 69-73	+9.5	W +5.5	137.5	O 142
Dec 3	vsNE	W 76-59	+8.5	W +25.5	145.5	U 135
Dec 6	@FOR	W 70-69	+10.5	W +11.5	138.5	O 139
Dec 16	vsDART	L 64-89	+1.5	L −23.5	147.5	O 153
Dec 20	@HARV	L 53-81	+10.5	L −17.5	136.5	U 134
Dec 31	vsBUCK	W 65-58	+1.5	W +8.5	133.5	U 123
Jan 3	vsNAVY	L 58-65	+5.5	L −1.5	137.5	U 123
Jan 7	@LEH	L 58-66	+2.5	L −5.5	137.5	U 124
Jan 10	@AMER	W 84-73	+8.5	W +19.5	137.5	O 157
Jan 14	vsARMY	W 82-75	-4.5	W +2.5	142.5	O 157
Jan 17	@LAF	L 55-74	+2.5	L −16.5	138.5	U 129
Jan 21	@NAVY	L 68-85	+11.5	L −5.5	134.5	O 153
Jan 24	vsAMER	L 67-76	+4.5	L −4.5	139.5	O 143
Jan 28	@COLG	L 74-79	+10.5	W +5.5	144.5	O 153
Jan 31	@ARMY	L 68-69	+2.5	W +1.5	144.5	U 137
Feb 2	vsBU	L 64-72	+2.5	L −5.5	139.5	U 136
Feb 7	vsLEH	W 76-67	+1.5	W +10.5	137.5	O 143
Feb 11	vsCOLG	L 70-74	+8.5	W +4.5	142.5	O 144
Feb 15	@L-MD	L 73-83	+4.5	L −5.5	146.5	O 156
Feb 18	vsLAF	L 83-86	-1.5	L −4.5	139.5	O 169
Feb 22	@BUCK	W 72-63	+2.5	W +11.5	142.5	U 135
Feb 25	@BU	L 63-78	+8.5	L −6.5	141.5	U 141
Feb 28	vsL-MD	L 62-76	-1.5	L −15.5	151.5	U 138
Mar 3	@LAF	W 82-77	+4.5	W +9.5	141.5	O 159
Mar 5	@LEH	L 66-69	+5.5	W +2.5	142.5	U 135

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

PROV

L 79-89

+13.5

BYU

L 53-98

−6.5

UTAH

L 69-87

+3.5

HAMP

W 67-61

+10.5

BRWN

L 49-68

−16.5

SHU

L 66-79

−5.5

SIE

L 69-73

+5.5

W 76-59

+25.5

FOR

W 70-69

+11.5

DART

L 64-89

−23.5

HARV

L 53-81

−17.5

BUCK

W 65-58

+8.5

NAVY

L 58-65

−1.5

LEH

L 58-66

−5.5

AMER

W 84-73

+19.5

ARMY

W 82-75

+2.5

LAF

L 55-74

−16.5

NAVY

L 68-85

−5.5

AMER

L 67-76

−4.5

COLG

L 74-79

+5.5

ARMY

L 68-69

+1.5

L 64-72

−5.5

LEH

W 76-67

+10.5

COLG

L 70-74

+4.5

L-MD

L 73-83

−5.5

LAF

L 83-86

−4.5

BUCK

W 72-63

+11.5

L 63-78

−6.5

L-MD

L 62-76

−15.5

LAF

W 82-77

+9.5

LEH

L 66-69

+2.5

covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

PROV

L 79-89

+15.5

BYU

L 53-98

−14.5

UTAH

L 69-87

+0.5

HAMP

W 67-61

−20.5

BRWN

L 49-68

−24.5

SHU

L 66-79

−7.5

SIE

L 69-73

+4.5

W 76-59

−10.5

FOR

W 70-69

+0.5

DART

L 64-89

+5.5

HARV

L 53-81

−2.5

BUCK

W 65-58

−10.5

NAVY

L 58-65

−14.5

LEH

L 58-66

−13.5

AMER

W 84-73

+19.5

ARMY

W 82-75

+14.5

LAF

L 55-74

−9.5

NAVY

L 68-85

+18.5

AMER

L 67-76

+3.5

COLG

L 74-79

+8.5

ARMY

L 68-69

−7.5

L 64-72

−3.5

LEH

W 76-67

+5.5

COLG

L 70-74

+1.5

L-MD

L 73-83

+9.5

LAF

L 83-86

+29.5

BUCK

W 72-63

−7.5

L 63-78

−0.5

L-MD

L 62-76

−13.5

LAF

W 82-77

+17.5

LEH

L 66-69

−7.5

over 15under 16avg −0.4 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.

Holy Cross has the better starters

Position by position: Holy Cross 2, Stonehill 0, even 3

Holy CrossBetterStonehill

G J. St. Germain4.5 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.9 ast Score 22

No call

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

F J. Nugent11.8 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.7 ast Score 53

HCSmall

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

F A. Richard4.9 pts · 4 reb · 0.9 ast Score 1

Even

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

F D. Ryan4.7 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 21

HCSmall

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

F C. Hare2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

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

Holy CrossBetterStonehill

HC offense335th of 366 · -10.9

STOSmall

STO defense225th of 366 · -5.9

HC defense269th of 366 · -6.8

HCSmall

STO offense363rd of 366 · -14.8

Backcourt-1.3 · 1 player

HCBig

Backcourt-10.2 · 5 players

Frontcourt-6.1 · 4 players

No call

FrontcourtNo numbers yet

Bench-0.7 · 3 players

HCSmall

Bench-3.6 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestHC 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

Holy Cross

Guards

J. St. Germain15 minA. Mejia1 minA. AlijosiusNewK. HansonNewT. WilsonNewJ. GermanyNew

Forwards

J. Nugent30 minA. Richard27 minD. Ryan13 minC. Hare7 minJ. Haigh6 minE. Clark1 min

Centers

K. MgbejioforNew

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

HC67.9 #314

STO64.2 #353

Points per possession

HC1.03 #288

STO0.95 #357

Pace (possessions)

HC65.8 #320

STO67.6 #244

Shooting

Effective FG%

HC49.8 #248

STO46.9 #339

3-point %

HC32.5 #252

STO31.7 #294

3-point attempt rate

HC37.3 #225

STO40.5 #158

Free throw rate

HC31.5 #268

STO27.3 #350

Possessions

Turnover rate

HC15.3 #83

STO19.4 #333

Offensive rebound rate

HC21.9 #356

STO27.5 #282

Assists per game

HC10.7 #346

STO11.8 #298

Defense

Points allowed

HC74.8 #182

STO69.5 #56

Points allowed per possession

HC1.14 #305

STO1.03 #57

Opponent effective FG%

HC54.8 #324

STO47.8 #36

Opponent 3-point %

HC34.0 #181

STO33.4 #150

Turnovers forced

HC14.1 #330

STO13.4 #347

Defensive rebound rate

HC73.0 #37

STO72.9 #40

Steals per game

HC5.5 #304

STO4.7 #347

Blocks per game

HC1.7 #355

STO4.0 #75

HC		STO
Scoring
67.9 #314	Points per game	64.2 #353
1.03 #288	Points per possession	0.95 #357
65.8 #320	Pace (possessions)	67.6 #244
Shooting
49.8 #248	Effective FG%	46.9 #339
32.5 #252	3-point %	31.7 #294
37.3 #225	3-point attempt rate	40.5 #158
31.5 #268	Free throw rate	27.3 #350
Possessions
15.3 #83	Turnover rate	19.4 #333
21.9 #356	Offensive rebound rate	27.5 #282
10.7 #346	Assists per game	11.8 #298
Defense
74.8 #182	Points allowed	69.5 #56
1.14 #305	Points allowed per possession	1.03 #57
54.8 #324	Opponent effective FG%	47.8 #36
34.0 #181	Opponent 3-point %	33.4 #150
14.1 #330	Turnovers forced	13.4 #347
73.0 #37	Defensive rebound rate	72.9 #40
5.5 #304	Steals per game	4.7 #347
1.7 #355	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.

Holy Cross

9-22 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · Patriot League

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Lehigh66–69
W@ Lafayette82–77
Lvs Loyola MD62–76
L@ Boston U63–78
W@ Bucknell72–63

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.

Holy Cross Crusaders at Stonehill Skyhawks

What could decide it

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Holy Cross

Stonehill

Holy Cross has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Holy Cross

Stonehill