UPMC Cooper Fieldhouse · at Duquesne
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DUQ | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 DUQ 84–61 · win probability DUQ 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.6
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: DUQ has more of the edges
CAN 1, DUQ 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CAN offense vs DUQ defense
Offense 358th of 366 against a defense 118th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CAN has played the 337th-hardest schedule, DUQ the 108th. A record against a soft schedule means less
DUQ offense vs CAN defense
Offense 107th of 366 against a defense 321st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: CAN plays 64.6 a game (353rd fastest), DUQ 70.4 (99th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CAN 19.6%, DUQ 17.6%. Forced: CAN 16.0%, DUQ 18.4%
Shooting
Effective FG%: CAN 46.3 and allows 52.2; DUQ 52.3 and allows 52.5
Three-pointers
CAN hits 33.3% and allows 33.0%; DUQ hits 33.1% and allows 36.2%. Threes are 39.5% and 44.4% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CAN 1%, DUQ 49%. Transfers in: CAN 6, DUQ 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
DUQ at home. This season: DUQ 0-0 at home, CAN 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CAN 31.4, DUQ 38.3. Allowed: CAN 35.2, DUQ 39.9
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CAN 29.3%, DUQ 30.4%. Defensive: CAN 70.2%, DUQ 70.4%
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 | — | DUQ -22.6 | — |
| Total | — | 144.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | CAN 61 · DUQ 83.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | DUQ -13.3 | — |
| 1H total | 67.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | CAN 27.2 · DUQ 40.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | |
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 15 | vs DEL | W80–66WO |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CAN 0–1 DUQDUQ leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CAN 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2025-26 | CAN 59 @ DUQ 103 | DUQ -19.5 | DUQ W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Canisius
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-21
30% overs · avg −3.3 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 | @ | L 48-88 | +25.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 70-89 | +21.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 58-55 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 50-93 | +23.5 | L −19.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 60-57 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 128.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 75-66 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 53-71 | +9.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 57-69 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 129.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 52-74 | +17.5 | L −4.5 | 131.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 70-43 | +6.5 | W +33.5 | 127.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 45-62 | +21.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 107 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 59-103 | +19.5 | L −24.5 | 143.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 85-81 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 82-78 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 70-64 | +7.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 48-74 | +11.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 54-59 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 126.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-78 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 66-69 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 55-61 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 86-88 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 129.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 63-78 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 56-65 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 60-75 | +15.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 63-69 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 65-69 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 72-66 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 131.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 47-68 | +7.5 | L −13.5 | 137.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 67-62 | +8.5 | W +13.5 | 129.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 63-67 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
DAY
L 48-88
−14.5
8
@
SBU
L 70-89
+2.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-55
+4.5
17
@
HPU
L 50-93
−19.5
21
vs
UMES
W 60-57
−0.5
23
vs
BING
W 75-66
+6.5
29
vs
BUF
L 53-71
−8.5
5
@
SPU
L 57-69
−2.5
7
@
SIE
L 52-74
−4.5
13
@
ME
W 70-43
+33.5
16
@
URI
L 45-62
+4.5
22
@
DUQ
L 59-103
−24.5
2
vs
FAIR
W 85-81
+10.5
4
vs
SHU
W 82-78
+9.5
9
@
MAN
W 70-64
+13.5
11
@
IONA
L 48-74
−14.5
14
vs
NIA
L 54-59
−7.5
17
vs
MSM
L 68-78
−6.5
22
@
SHU
L 66-69
+7.5
24
@
FAIR
L 55-61
+4.5
30
vs
MRST
L 86-88
+7.5
1
vs
SIE
L 63-78
−6.5
3
@
NIA
L 56-65
−6.5
5
@
QUIN
L 60-75
+0.5
13
vs
IONA
L 63-69
−1.5
15
vs
MAN
L 65-69
−2.5
20
@
RID
W 72-66
+7.5
22
@
MSM
L 47-68
−13.5
27
vs
MRMK
W 67-62
+13.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 63-67
+3.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
DAY
L 48-88
−6.5
8
@
SBU
L 70-89
+22.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-55
−22.5
17
@
HPU
L 50-93
−9.5
21
vs
UMES
W 60-57
−11.5
23
vs
BING
W 75-66
+11.5
29
vs
BUF
L 53-71
−15.5
5
@
SPU
L 57-69
−3.5
7
@
SIE
L 52-74
−5.5
13
@
ME
W 70-43
−14.5
16
@
URI
L 45-62
−31.5
22
@
DUQ
L 59-103
+18.5
2
vs
FAIR
W 85-81
+25.5
4
vs
SHU
W 82-78
+18.5
9
@
MAN
W 70-64
−11.5
11
@
IONA
L 48-74
−19.5
14
vs
NIA
L 54-59
−13.5
17
vs
MSM
L 68-78
+10.5
22
@
SHU
L 66-69
−10.5
24
@
FAIR
L 55-61
−25.5
30
vs
MRST
L 86-88
+44.5
1
vs
SIE
L 63-78
+5.5
3
@
NIA
L 56-65
−8.5
5
@
QUIN
L 60-75
−6.5
13
vs
IONA
L 63-69
−5.5
15
vs
MAN
L 65-69
−8.5
20
@
RID
W 72-66
+6.5
22
@
MSM
L 47-68
−22.5
27
vs
MRMK
W 67-62
−0.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 63-67
−8.5
over 9under 21avg −3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Duquesne
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
14-17
45% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg +1.5 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 3 | vs | W 83-63 | -17.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 92-80 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 87-81 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 77-87 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 92-78 | -14.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 86-93 | -7.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 79-83 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 170.5 | U 162 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 84-75 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 64-86 | +14.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 75-78 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 103-59 | -19.5 | W +24.5 | 143.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 89-83 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 80-93 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 90-97 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | O 187 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 65-71 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 74-63 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 77-81 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 165.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 71-59 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 79-87 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 76-61 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 71-65 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 88-86 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-73 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 62-61 | -11.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 66-78 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 56-67 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 76-91 | +13.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 52-64 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 143.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 79-77 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 67-61 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 66-71 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NIA
W 83-63
+2.5
7
vs
SHU
W 92-80
−0.5
11
vs
QUC
W 87-81
−6.5
15
@
VILL
L 77-87
+0.5
19
vs
L-MD
W 92-78
−0.5
22
vs
NE
L 86-93
−14.5
2
vs
W&M
L 79-83
−9.5
6
vs
STBK
W 84-75
−0.5
10
@
BOIS
L 64-86
−7.5
13
@
NEV
L 75-78
+2.5
22
vs
CAN
W 103-59
+24.5
30
@
DAV
W 89-83
+8.5
3
vs
VCU
L 80-93
−7.5
7
@
JOES
L 90-97
−8.5
13
vs
DAY
L 65-71
−3.5
17
@
FOR
W 74-63
+9.5
20
vs
SLU
L 77-81
+4.5
24
@
LUC
W 71-59
+6.5
28
vs
SBU
L 79-87
−11.5
1
vs
URI
W 76-61
+12.5
4
@
GMU
W 71-65
+14.5
7
vs
GW
W 88-86
+3.5
14
@
SBU
W 78-73
+6.5
18
vs
LAS
W 62-61
−10.5
21
@
DAY
L 66-78
−5.5
25
vs
DAV
L 56-67
−14.5
28
@
SLU
L 76-91
−1.5
4
@
URI
L 52-64
−9.5
7
vs
RICH
W 79-77
−2.5
12
vs
URI
W 67-61
+4.5
13
vs
VCU
L 66-71
+1.5
covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NIA
W 83-63
+6.5
7
vs
SHU
W 92-80
+14.5
11
vs
QUC
W 87-81
+5.5
15
@
VILL
L 77-87
+12.5
19
vs
L-MD
W 92-78
+19.5
22
vs
NE
L 86-93
+31.5
2
vs
W&M
L 79-83
−8.5
6
vs
STBK
W 84-75
+8.5
10
@
BOIS
L 64-86
−0.5
13
@
NEV
L 75-78
+1.5
22
vs
CAN
W 103-59
+18.5
30
@
DAV
W 89-83
+21.5
3
vs
VCU
L 80-93
+7.5
7
@
JOES
L 90-97
+37.5
13
vs
DAY
L 65-71
−16.5
17
@
FOR
W 74-63
−8.5
20
vs
SLU
L 77-81
−7.5
24
@
LUC
W 71-59
−22.5
28
vs
SBU
L 79-87
+15.5
1
vs
URI
W 76-61
−9.5
4
@
GMU
W 71-65
−7.5
7
vs
GW
W 88-86
+15.5
14
@
SBU
W 78-73
−1.5
18
vs
LAS
W 62-61
−22.5
21
@
DAY
L 66-78
−4.5
25
vs
DAV
L 56-67
−19.5
28
@
SLU
L 76-91
+6.5
4
@
URI
L 52-64
−27.5
7
vs
RICH
W 79-77
+8.5
12
vs
URI
W 67-61
−10.5
13
vs
VCU
L 66-71
−16.5
over 16under 15avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Duquesne has the better starters
Position by position: Canisius 0, Duquesne 4, even 1
CanisiusBetterDuquesne
G V. Sigona TR7.5 pts · 1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 22
→DUQBig
G T. Guinyard16.9 pts · 3.2 reb · 4.7 ast
Score 93
G M. Wilson TR4.9 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 18
→DUQBig
G J. Smith TR15.9 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 63
G D. Winters TR1.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G B. Hall3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 6
F P. Ryan TR6.8 pts · 4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 7
→DUQSmall
G J. DiMichele3.5 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 31
F C. Efinda TR4.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 8
→DUQBig
F Y. Berman12.3 pts · 3.9 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 49
CanisiusBetterDuquesne
CAN offense358th of 366 · -14.0
→DUQBig
DUQ defense118th of 366 · -1.8
CAN defense321st of 366 · -8.3
→DUQBig
DUQ offense107th of 366 · -1.6
Backcourt-3.5 · 3 players
→DUQBig
Backcourt+0.1 · 4 players
Frontcourt-4.4 · 2 players
→DUQBig
Frontcourt-0.4 · 1 player
Bench-0.4 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-0.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCAN betterDUQ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
V. Sigona20 min · TRM. Wilson13 min · TRD. Winters6 min · TRT. Augustine2 minC. FrancisNewW. FowlerNew
Forwards
P. Ryan23 min · TRC. Efinda15 min · TRN. Deer3 min · TRN. FoutsNewW. TaylorNewA. RiakNew
Guards
T. Guinyard34 minJ. Smith27 min · TRB. Hall19 minJ. DiMichele14 minI. Pasha8 min · TRE. Anish2 min
Forwards
Y. Berman29 minK. Konan8 min · TRS. Olowoniyi5 min · TRF. JellumNewZ. OwinjeNewC. GalbutNew
Centers
E. Demir9 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 62.2 #361 | Points per game | 76.9 #118 |
| 0.96 #349 | Points per possession | 1.09 #164 |
| 64.6 #353 | Pace (possessions) | 70.4 #99 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.3 #348 | Effective FG% | 52.3 #131 |
| 33.3 #213 | 3-point % | 33.1 #223 |
| 39.5 #182 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.4 #81 |
| 31.4 #271 | Free throw rate | 38.3 #94 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.6 #341 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #243 |
| 29.3 #226 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.4 #184 |
| 11.9 #293 | Assists per game | 14.7 #107 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.4 #87 | Points allowed | 75.9 #214 |
| 1.10 #228 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #171 |
| 52.2 #225 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.5 #241 |
| 33.0 #124 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.2 #314 |
| 16.0 #222 | Turnovers forced | 18.4 #83 |
| 70.2 #151 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.4 #142 |
| 4.8 #342 | Steals per game | 7.6 #71 |
| 2.6 #292 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #214 |
Canisius
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Quinnipiac63–67
- Wvs Merrimack67–62
- L@ Mount St Marys47–68
- W@ Rider72–66
- Lvs Manhattan65–69
A week or more of rest.
Duquesne
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs VCU66–71
- Wvs Rhode Island67–61
- Wvs Richmond79–77
- L@ Rhode Island52–64
- L@ Saint Louis76–91
A week or more of rest.