Kennedy Family Athletic Complex · at UMass Lowell
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UML | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UML 72–68 · win probability UML 66%
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: UML has more of the edges
STO 2, UML 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: STO 27.3, UML 34.9. Allowed: STO 30.3, UML 28.3
Shooting
Effective FG%: STO 46.9 and allows 47.8; UML 49.8 and allows 53.5
UML offense vs STO defense
Offense 286th of 366 against a defense 225th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
UML at home. This season: UML 0-0 at home, STO 0-0 away
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: STO 27.5%, UML 32.7%. Defensive: STO 72.9%, UML 70.7%
STO offense vs UML defense
Offense 363rd of 366 against a defense 318th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: STO 19.4%, UML 18.0%. Forced: STO 13.4%, UML 14.2%
Context
Schedule so far
STO has played the 352nd-hardest schedule, UML the 312th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: STO plays 67.6 a game (244th fastest), UML 68.9 (189th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
STO hits 31.7% and allows 33.4%; UML hits 32.2% and allows 34.6%. Threes are 40.5% and 31.3% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: STO 28%, UML 16%. Transfers in: STO 6, UML 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | UML -4.7 | — |
| Total | — | 139.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | STO 67.6 · UML 72.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UML -2.7 | — |
| 1H total | 65.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | STO 31.4 · UML 34.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
STO 0–4 UMLUML leads · 4 games since 2021-22 · UML has won the last 4 meetings · STO 2-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2025-26 | UML 75 @ STO 64 | STO -2.5 | UML W |
| Dec 18, 2024-25 | STO 67 @ UML 78 | UML -14.5 | STO W |
| Nov 29, 2023-24 | UML 80 @ STO 74 | STO +15.5 | STO W |
| Nov 27, 2022-23 | STO 59 @ UML 73 | UML -13.5 | UML 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
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 7 | @ | L 64-72 | +22.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 57-80 | +16.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 71-73 | +6.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 63-74 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 57-96 | +40.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 74-70 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 64-75 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 62-76 | +15.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 65-77 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 58-59 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 48-77 | +22.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 55-70 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 128.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 69-60 | +7.5 | W +16.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 69-76 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 85-82 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 62-57 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 128.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-63 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 63-66 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 26 | vs | W 61-59 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 58-57 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 131.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 65-54 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 58-74 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 54-61 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 132.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 55-68 | -2.5 | L −15.5 | 131.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 57-68 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 128.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 51-64 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 121.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 77-68 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 103-77 | -4.5 | W +21.5 | 140.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 72-75 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 81-71 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 51-56 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | U 107 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
DEP
L 64-72
+14.5
11
@
URI
L 57-80
−6.5
14
@
FAIR
L 71-73
+4.5
15
vs
L-MD
L 63-74
−4.5
17
@
ISU
L 57-96
+1.5
21
vs
LAF
W 74-70
+5.5
26
vs
UML
L 64-75
−13.5
30
@
QUIN
L 62-76
+1.5
2
@
BRY
L 65-77
−5.5
17
@
UNH
L 58-59
+2.5
22
@
SYR
L 48-77
−6.5
2
vs
NHVN
L 55-70
−16.5
4
@
WAG
W 69-60
+16.5
8
@
CCSU
L 69-76
+0.5
10
vs
CHST
W 85-82
−1.5
17
@
MERC
W 62-57
+9.5
19
@
SFPA
L 61-63
−0.5
23
vs
LIU
L 63-66
+2.5
26
vs
CCSU
W 61-59
+3.5
29
vs
FDU
W 58-57
−1.5
31
@
LEM
W 65-54
+13.5
5
@
FDU
L 58-74
−14.5
7
@
LIU
L 54-61
+3.5
12
@
CHST
L 55-68
−15.5
14
vs
WAG
L 57-68
−14.5
19
@
NHVN
L 51-64
−10.5
21
vs
LEM
W 77-68
+10.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 103-77
+21.5
28
vs
MERC
L 72-75
−1.5
4
@
LEM
W 81-71
+14.5
7
@
MERC
L 51-56
−0.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
DEP
L 64-72
−11.5
11
@
URI
L 57-80
−14.5
14
@
FAIR
L 71-73
+0.5
15
vs
L-MD
L 63-74
−1.5
17
@
ISU
L 57-96
+6.5
21
vs
LAF
W 74-70
+2.5
26
vs
UML
L 64-75
−9.5
30
@
QUIN
L 62-76
−10.5
2
@
BRY
L 65-77
+7.5
17
@
UNH
L 58-59
−21.5
22
@
SYR
L 48-77
−15.5
2
vs
NHVN
L 55-70
−3.5
4
@
WAG
W 69-60
−10.5
8
@
CCSU
L 69-76
+10.5
10
vs
CHST
W 85-82
+31.5
17
@
MERC
W 62-57
−9.5
19
@
SFPA
L 61-63
−17.5
23
vs
LIU
L 63-66
−8.5
26
vs
CCSU
W 61-59
−15.5
29
vs
FDU
W 58-57
−16.5
31
@
LEM
W 65-54
−21.5
5
@
FDU
L 58-74
+1.5
7
@
LIU
L 54-61
−17.5
12
@
CHST
L 55-68
−8.5
14
vs
WAG
L 57-68
−3.5
19
@
NHVN
L 51-64
−6.5
21
vs
LEM
W 77-68
+7.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 103-77
+39.5
28
vs
MERC
L 72-75
+9.5
4
@
LEM
W 81-71
+11.5
7
@
MERC
L 51-56
−27.5
over 11under 20avg −4 ptslonger = bigger margin
UMass Lowell
30 games played
Straight up
12-18
40% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg +1.1 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 7 | @ | L 47-110 | +36.5 | L −26.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 10 | vs | L 67-73 | -10.5 | L −16.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 72-86 | +13.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 75-109 | +30.5 | L −3.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 77-87 | +21.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 66-68 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 75-64 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 60-80 | +11.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 71-75 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 87-82 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 76-88 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 62-90 | +33.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 83-71 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 77-63 | +2.5 | W +16.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 73-68 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 64-73 | -8.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 68-77 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 56-79 | +2.5 | L −20.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-66 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 91-77 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 136.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 56-81 | +1.5 | L −23.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 89-79 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 88-69 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 78-56 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 92-79 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 64-66 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 60-84 | +2.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 67-56 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 81-76 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 69-91 | +7.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
CONN
L 47-110
−26.5
10
vs
NHVN
L 67-73
−16.5
13
@
COLU
L 72-86
−0.5
16
@
WAKE
L 75-109
−3.5
19
@
BRAD
L 77-87
+11.5
22
@
SPU
L 66-68
+6.5
26
@
STO
W 75-64
+13.5
6
@
MASS
L 60-80
−8.5
13
@
QUIN
L 71-75
+8.5
16
vs
SHU
W 87-82
+7.5
21
@
BU
L 76-88
−6.5
29
@
IOWA
L 62-90
+5.5
3
vs
UALB
W 83-71
+9.5
8
@
BRY
W 77-63
+16.5
10
@
BING
W 73-68
−1.5
15
vs
NJIT
L 64-73
−17.5
22
vs
UVM
L 68-77
−4.5
24
@
UMBC
L 56-79
−20.5
29
@
UNH
L 61-66
−1.5
31
vs
ME
W 91-77
+9.5
5
@
NJIT
L 56-81
−23.5
7
@
UALB
W 89-79
+14.5
12
vs
BRY
W 88-69
+14.5
19
vs
UNH
W 78-56
+18.5
21
vs
BING
W 92-79
+3.5
26
@
UVM
L 64-66
+7.5
28
vs
UMBC
L 60-84
−21.5
3
@
ME
W 67-56
+9.5
7
vs
UALB
W 81-76
+2.5
10
@
UMBC
L 69-91
−14.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
CONN
L 47-110
+5.5
10
vs
NHVN
L 67-73
−2.5
13
@
COLU
L 72-86
+1.5
16
@
WAKE
L 75-109
+18.5
19
@
BRAD
L 77-87
+14.5
22
@
SPU
L 66-68
−13.5
26
@
STO
W 75-64
−9.5
6
@
MASS
L 60-80
−15.5
13
@
QUIN
L 71-75
−7.5
16
vs
SHU
W 87-82
+17.5
21
@
BU
L 76-88
+18.5
29
@
IOWA
L 62-90
+6.5
3
vs
UALB
W 83-71
+3.5
8
@
BRY
W 77-63
−3.5
10
@
BING
W 73-68
−5.5
15
vs
NJIT
L 64-73
−8.5
22
vs
UVM
L 68-77
−0.5
24
@
UMBC
L 56-79
−16.5
29
@
UNH
L 61-66
−19.5
31
vs
ME
W 91-77
+31.5
5
@
NJIT
L 56-81
−12.5
7
@
UALB
W 89-79
+24.5
12
vs
BRY
W 88-69
+15.5
19
vs
UNH
W 78-56
−17.5
21
vs
BING
W 92-79
+24.5
26
@
UVM
L 64-66
−16.5
28
vs
UMBC
L 60-84
−6.5
3
@
ME
W 67-56
−16.5
7
vs
UALB
W 81-76
+10.5
10
@
UMBC
L 69-91
+12.5
over 14under 16avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UMass Lowell has the better starters
Position by position: Stonehill 0, UMass Lowell 2, even 3
StonehillBetterUMass Lowell
G W. Batchelder8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Jones TR4.3 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 6
G A. Boldin TR5.3 pts · 2.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 29
→UMLSmall
G J. Newton TR7.1 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 55
G D. Arlington TR2.7 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 5
=No call
G I. Walter1.6 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
G E. Greenberg TR2.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 0
=Even
F V. Okojie4.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 11
G A. Allen TR3.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 15
→UMLBig
F J. Harris TR5.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 59
StonehillBetterUMass Lowell
STO offense363rd of 366 · -14.8
=Even
UML defense318th of 366 · -8.2
STO defense225th of 366 · -5.9
←STOSmall
UML offense286th of 366 · -8.9
Backcourt-10.2 · 5 players
→UMLBig
Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players
Bench-3.6 · 5 players
→UMLSmall
Bench-0.7 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestSTO betterUML betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
C. Jones18 min · TRJ. Newton17 min · TRI. Walter8 minK. GilesNewJ. CannadyNewM. EllisNew
Forwards
V. Okojie18 minJ. Harris11 min · TRJ. Roberson7 minD. HandNewE. DialloNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 64.2 #353 | Points per game | 71.7 #253 |
| 0.95 #357 | Points per possession | 1.04 #272 |
| 67.6 #244 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #189 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.9 #339 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #247 |
| 31.7 #294 | 3-point % | 32.2 #269 |
| 40.5 #158 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.3 #336 |
| 27.3 #350 | Free throw rate | 34.9 #183 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.4 #333 | Turnover rate | 18.0 #269 |
| 27.5 #282 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.7 #98 |
| 11.8 #298 | Assists per game | 11.9 #294 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.5 #56 | Points allowed | 77.4 #249 |
| 1.03 #57 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #277 |
| 47.8 #36 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.5 #284 |
| 33.4 #150 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.6 #226 |
| 13.4 #347 | Turnovers forced | 14.2 #329 |
| 72.9 #40 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.7 #126 |
| 4.7 #347 | Steals per game | 5.1 #326 |
| 4.0 #75 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #222 |
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.
UMass Lowell
12-18 in 2025-26 overall · 10-8 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ UMBC69–91
- Wvs UAlbany81–76
- W@ Maine67–56
- Lvs UMBC60–84
- L@ Vermont64–66
A week or more of rest.