Siegel Center · at VCU
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | VCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VCU 87–58 · win probability VCU 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.8
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: VCU has more of the edges
CCSU 0, VCU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CCSU offense vs VCU defense
Offense 353rd of 366 against a defense 50th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CCSU has played the 358th-hardest schedule, VCU the 88th. A record against a soft schedule means less
VCU offense vs CCSU defense
Offense 65th of 366 against a defense 247th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CCSU 16.3%, VCU 15.1%. Forced: CCSU 14.0%, VCU 17.0%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: CCSU plays 65.5 a game (329th fastest), VCU 69.5 (147th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CCSU 27.5%, VCU 31.6%. Defensive: CCSU 69.6%, VCU 70.0%
Free throws
Free throw rate: CCSU 31.2, VCU 42.0. Allowed: CCSU 26.9, VCU 32.8
Shooting
Effective FG%: CCSU 51.6 and allows 50.2; VCU 53.6 and allows 49.0
Home court
VCU at home. This season: VCU 0-0 at home, CCSU 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
CCSU hits 35.8% and allows 33.4%; VCU hits 36.3% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 34.9% and 43.8% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CCSU 55%, VCU 65%. Transfers in: CCSU 0, VCU 4. 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 | — | VCU -28.2 | — |
| Total | — | 144.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | CCSU 58.3 · VCU 86.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | VCU -16.6 | — |
| 1H total | 67.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | CCSU 25.5 · VCU 42.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 8-2 80% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
C Connecticut
28 games played
Straight up
16-12
57% wins
Against the spread
14-14
50% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +2.5 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 6 | @ | L 49-71 | +9.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 60-59 | +17.5 | W +18.5 | 136.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 77-84 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 67-54 | +15.5 | W +28.5 | 137.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 108-106 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 214 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 61-77 | +18.5 | W +2.5 | 128.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 56-73 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 138.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 84-67 | -7.5 | W +9.5 | 133.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 70-84 | -6.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 78-84 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 72-61 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 130.5 | O 133 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 76-69 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 69-59 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 98-90 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-79 | +1.5 | L −16.5 | 132.5 | O 140 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 66-76 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 26 | @ | L 59-61 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 62-55 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 59-80 | +2.5 | L −18.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-67 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-67 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 81-76 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 128.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 63-57 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 133.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 78-77 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 51-70 | -3.5 | L −22.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 80-78 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 69-64 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 60-70 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
QUIN
L 49-71
−12.5
11
@
BC
W 60-59
+18.5
16
@
MASS
L 77-84
+5.5
21
@
RUTG
W 67-54
+28.5
24
vs
SHU
W 108-106
−1.5
3
@
HALL
L 61-77
+2.5
7
@
NE
L 56-73
−15.5
13
@
BING
W 84-67
+9.5
18
vs
FAIR
L 70-84
−20.5
2
@
LIU
L 78-84
+0.5
4
vs
NHVN
W 72-61
+3.5
8
vs
STO
W 76-69
−0.5
10
@
LEM
W 69-59
+11.5
17
@
SFPA
W 98-90
+1.5
19
@
MERC
L 61-79
−16.5
23
vs
FDU
L 66-76
−17.5
26
@
STO
L 59-61
−3.5
29
@
WAG
W 62-55
+4.5
31
vs
LIU
L 59-80
−18.5
5
vs
CHST
W 78-67
+2.5
7
vs
WAG
W 84-67
+11.5
12
@
NHVN
W 81-76
+1.5
14
@
FDU
W 63-57
+7.5
19
vs
LEM
W 78-77
−7.5
21
@
CHST
L 51-70
−22.5
26
vs
MERC
W 80-78
−1.5
28
vs
SFPA
W 69-64
−3.5
4
vs
WAG
L 60-70
−13.5
covered 14didn’t cover 14avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
QUIN
L 49-71
−30.5
11
@
BC
W 60-59
−17.5
16
@
MASS
L 77-84
+16.5
21
@
RUTG
W 67-54
−16.5
24
vs
SHU
W 108-106
+70.5
3
@
HALL
L 61-77
+9.5
7
@
NE
L 56-73
−9.5
13
@
BING
W 84-67
+17.5
18
vs
FAIR
L 70-84
+10.5
2
@
LIU
L 78-84
+15.5
4
vs
NHVN
W 72-61
+2.5
8
vs
STO
W 76-69
+10.5
10
@
LEM
W 69-59
−18.5
17
@
SFPA
W 98-90
+43.5
19
@
MERC
L 61-79
+7.5
23
vs
FDU
L 66-76
+1.5
26
@
STO
L 59-61
−15.5
29
@
WAG
W 62-55
−19.5
31
vs
LIU
L 59-80
−3.5
5
vs
CHST
W 78-67
+6.5
7
vs
WAG
W 84-67
+14.5
12
@
NHVN
W 81-76
+28.5
14
@
FDU
W 63-57
−13.5
19
vs
LEM
W 78-77
−10.5
21
@
CHST
L 51-70
−17.5
26
vs
MERC
W 80-78
+16.5
28
vs
SFPA
W 69-64
−19.5
4
vs
WAG
L 60-70
−9.5
over 15under 13avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
VCU
36 games played
Straight up
28-8
78% wins
Against the spread
18-18
50% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-20
44% overs · avg −0.1 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 3 | vs | W 103-74 | -25.5 | W +3.5 | 133.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 77-80 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 163.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 78-61 | -20.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 79-85 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 164.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 101-58 | -32.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 78-66 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 172.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 74-89 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 161.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-68 | -2.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 83-57 | -19.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 10 | vs | L 78-81 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 15 | vs | W 84-58 | -30.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 105-83 | -19.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 100-79 | -30.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 89-82 | -9.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 93-80 | -5.5 | W +7.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 62-71 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 171.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 80-86 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 84-75 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 79-72 | -14.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 75-69 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 77-69 | -12.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 89-75 | -18.5 | L −4.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 63-59 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 6 | vs | W 99-73 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 147.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 77-68 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-67 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 89-75 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 161.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 75-88 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 164.5 | U 163 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 82-63 | -12.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 70-65 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 6 | @ | W 68-62 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 71-66 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 77-64 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 15 | vs | W 70-62 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 82-78 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 55-76 | +12.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
WAG
W 103-74
+3.5
7
vs
USU
L 77-80
−0.5
12
vs
SPU
W 78-61
−3.5
17
@
NCSU
L 79-85
+5.5
22
vs
COPP
W 101-58
+10.5
26
vs
USF
W 78-66
+10.5
27
vs
VAN
L 74-89
−8.5
28
vs
VT
W 86-68
+15.5
5
vs
SAM
W 83-57
+6.5
10
vs
UNM
L 78-81
−11.5
15
vs
NIA
W 84-58
−4.5
18
vs
AMER
W 105-83
+2.5
22
vs
RID
W 100-79
−9.5
31
vs
SBU
W 89-82
−2.5
3
@
DUQ
W 93-80
+7.5
7
vs
SLU
L 62-71
−10.5
10
@
GMU
L 80-86
−7.5
14
@
URI
W 84-75
+5.5
19
vs
JOES
W 79-72
−7.5
24
@
DAV
W 75-69
+0.5
27
vs
RICH
W 77-69
−4.5
30
vs
LUC
W 89-75
−4.5
3
@
FOR
W 63-59
−3.5
6
vs
DAY
W 99-73
+17.5
11
@
LAS
W 77-68
−3.5
14
@
RICH
W 78-67
+3.5
17
vs
GW
W 89-75
+7.5
20
@
SLU
L 75-88
−5.5
28
vs
FOR
W 82-63
+6.5
3
vs
GMU
W 70-65
−4.5
6
@
DAY
W 68-62
+7.5
13
vs
DUQ
W 71-66
−1.5
14
vs
JOES
W 77-64
+6.5
15
vs
DAY
W 70-62
+4.5
19
vs
UNC
W 82-78
+6.5
21
vs
ILL
L 55-76
−8.5
covered 18didn’t cover 18avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
WAG
W 103-74
+43.5
7
vs
USU
L 77-80
−6.5
12
vs
SPU
W 78-61
−8.5
17
@
NCSU
L 79-85
−0.5
22
vs
COPP
W 101-58
+7.5
26
vs
USF
W 78-66
−28.5
27
vs
VAN
L 74-89
+1.5
28
vs
VT
W 86-68
+0.5
5
vs
SAM
W 83-57
−14.5
10
vs
UNM
L 78-81
+1.5
15
vs
NIA
W 84-58
−1.5
18
vs
AMER
W 105-83
+33.5
22
vs
RID
W 100-79
+33.5
31
vs
SBU
W 89-82
+13.5
3
@
DUQ
W 93-80
+7.5
7
vs
SLU
L 62-71
−38.5
10
@
GMU
L 80-86
+21.5
14
@
URI
W 84-75
+11.5
19
vs
JOES
W 79-72
−0.5
24
@
DAV
W 75-69
−4.5
27
vs
RICH
W 77-69
−9.5
30
vs
LUC
W 89-75
+13.5
3
@
FOR
W 63-59
−24.5
6
vs
DAY
W 99-73
+24.5
11
@
LAS
W 77-68
−2.5
14
@
RICH
W 78-67
−9.5
17
vs
GW
W 89-75
+2.5
20
@
SLU
L 75-88
−1.5
28
vs
FOR
W 82-63
+0.5
3
vs
GMU
W 70-65
−12.5
6
@
DAY
W 68-62
−16.5
13
vs
DUQ
W 71-66
−16.5
14
vs
JOES
W 77-64
−4.5
15
vs
DAY
W 70-62
−7.5
19
vs
UNC
W 82-78
+9.5
21
vs
ILL
L 55-76
−20.5
over 16under 20avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
VCU has the better starters
Position by position: C Connecticut 0, VCU 5, even 0
C ConnecticutBetterVCU
G J. Jones4.1 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 4
→VCUBig
G N. Ralph-Beyer TR14.3 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 61
G V. Payne6.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 16
→VCUBig
G B. Jennings8.5 pts · 3.6 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 79
G E. Parker2 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 0
→VCUBig
G N. Lewis8.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 79
G R. Jones3.8 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 20
→VCUBig
F T. Alston TR13.3 pts · 8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 85
F D. James3.2 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 13
→VCUBig
F L. Djokovic13.2 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 90
C ConnecticutBetterVCU
CCSU offense353rd of 366 · -13.2
→VCUBig
VCU defense50th of 366 · +2.0
CCSU defense247th of 366 · -6.5
→VCUBig
VCU offense65th of 366 · +2.0
Backcourt-10.6 · 4 players
→VCUBig
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 1 player
→VCUBig
Frontcourt+5.5 · 2 players
Bench-2.0 · 2 players
→VCUBig
Bench+3.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCCSU betterVCU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Jones30 minV. Payne24 minE. Parker14 minR. Jones10 minA. Reynolds10 minR. LaurentNew
Forwards
D. James13 minJ. Mott8 minB. JacksonNewJ. ErvinNewR. TibbyNewC. LangdonNew
Guards
N. Ralph-Beyer31 min · TRB. Jennings25 minN. Lewis24 minB. Harper18 min · TRT. Ward14 minA. Nowell11 min
Forwards
T. Alston30 min · TRL. Djokovic28 minM. Belle22 minJ. Wyche7 min · TRC. RossNewS. PlisnicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.6 #272 | Points per game | 80.8 #50 |
| 1.08 #192 | Points per possession | 1.16 #47 |
| 65.5 #329 | Pace (possessions) | 69.5 #147 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.6 #165 | Effective FG% | 53.6 #78 |
| 35.8 #69 | 3-point % | 36.3 #46 |
| 34.9 #278 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.8 #91 |
| 31.2 #276 | Free throw rate | 42.0 #30 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.3 #154 | Turnover rate | 15.1 #70 |
| 27.5 #281 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.6 #139 |
| 12.8 #229 | Assists per game | 13.9 #158 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.0 #105 | Points allowed | 71.8 #100 |
| 1.10 #218 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #66 |
| 50.2 #113 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.0 #69 |
| 33.4 #146 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.0 #125 |
| 14.0 #338 | Turnovers forced | 17.0 #151 |
| 69.6 #179 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.0 #162 |
| 5.4 #311 | Steals per game | 7.3 #99 |
| 3.9 #83 | Blocks per game | 4.3 #50 |
C Connecticut
16-12 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wagner60–70
- Wvs Saint Francis Red Wolves69–64
- Wvs Mercyhurst80–78
- L@ Chicago St51–70
- Wvs Le Moyne78–77
A week or more of rest.
VCU
28-8 in 2025-26 overall · 18-3 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Illinois55–76
- Wvs North Carolina82–78
- Wvs Dayton70–62
- Wvs Saint Joseph's77–64
- Wvs Duquesne71–66
A week or more of rest.