McCamish Pavilion · at Georgia Tech
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | GT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GT 82–70 · win probability GT 85%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.4
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: GT has more of the edges
HAMP 2, GT 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
HAMP has played the 217th-hardest schedule, GT the 78th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: HAMP plays 66.5 a game (295th fastest), GT 71.9 (38th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: HAMP 45.7 and allows 52.0; GT 50.0 and allows 49.9
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HAMP 17.1%, GT 18.6%. Forced: HAMP 17.2%, GT 15.6%
Three-pointers
HAMP hits 28.8% and allows 32.1%; GT hits 35.1% and allows 33.1%. Threes are 37.0% and 33.1% of their shots
GT offense vs HAMP defense
Offense 71st of 366 against a defense 153rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HAMP 32.9%, GT 29.9%. Defensive: HAMP 70.0%, GT 69.3%
HAMP offense vs GT defense
Offense 186th of 366 against a defense 123rd, on the model’s ratings
Home court
GT at home. This season: GT 0-0 at home, HAMP 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: HAMP 39.2, GT 33.3. Allowed: HAMP 46.5, GT 34.2
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HAMP 18%, GT 16%. Transfers in: HAMP 6, GT 5. 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 | — | GT -12.0 | — |
| Total | — | 151.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | HAMP 69.7 · GT 81.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | GT -7.0 | — |
| 1H total | 70.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | HAMP 31.9 · GT 38.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | |
| 0-10 0% | 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Hampton
30 games played
Straight up
11-19
37% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% 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 | @ | L 86-90 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 53-91 | +24.5 | L −13.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 72-63 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 61-67 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 52-63 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 60-62 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 133.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 74-68 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 124.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 93-71 | -6.5 | W +15.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 57-61 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 118 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 84-77 | -8.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 19 | vs | L 72-81 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 62-59 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 63-62 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 136.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 45-49 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | U 94 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 72-86 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 70-74 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 65-63 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 67-75 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 51-58 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 127.5 | U 109 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 50-82 | +8.5 | L −23.5 | 131.5 | O 132 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 87-79 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 77-74 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 70-71 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 43-79 | +11.5 | L −24.5 | 133.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 72-79 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 71-85 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 76-65 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 85-94 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 163.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 68-74 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 132.5 | O 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MILW
L 86-90
+1.5
11
@
UVA
L 53-91
−13.5
14
@
BRWN
W 72-63
+10.5
16
vs
HC
L 61-67
−10.5
18
@
BC
L 52-63
+1.5
21
@
NORF
L 60-62
+0.5
25
@
UMES
W 74-68
−0.5
3
vs
L-MD
W 93-71
+15.5
13
vs
HOW
L 57-61
−6.5
18
vs
JKST
W 84-77
−1.5
19
vs
GRAM
L 72-81
−10.5
29
vs
STBK
W 62-59
+0.5
31
vs
TOW
W 63-62
+7.5
3
@
UNCW
L 45-49
+8.5
8
@
CAM
L 72-86
−7.5
10
@
COFC
L 70-74
+5.5
19
vs
NCAT
W 82-61
+14.5
22
vs
MONM
W 65-63
+0.5
24
vs
UNCW
L 67-75
−3.5
29
@
DREX
L 51-58
−4.5
31
@
TOW
L 50-82
−23.5
5
vs
ELON
W 87-79
+9.5
7
vs
W&M
W 77-74
+8.5
13
vs
NCAT
L 70-71
−4.5
19
@
HOF
L 43-79
−24.5
21
@
STBK
L 72-79
−1.5
26
vs
COFC
L 71-85
−8.5
28
vs
NE
W 76-65
+7.5
3
@
W&M
L 85-94
+2.5
7
vs
TOW
L 68-74
+1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MILW
L 86-90
+29.5
11
@
UVA
L 53-91
−4.5
14
@
BRWN
W 72-63
−4.5
16
vs
HC
L 61-67
−20.5
18
@
BC
L 52-63
−20.5
21
@
NORF
L 60-62
−11.5
25
@
UMES
W 74-68
+17.5
3
vs
L-MD
W 93-71
+21.5
13
vs
HOW
L 57-61
−24.5
18
vs
JKST
W 84-77
+25.5
19
vs
GRAM
L 72-81
+15.5
29
vs
STBK
W 62-59
−19.5
31
vs
TOW
W 63-62
−11.5
3
@
UNCW
L 45-49
−46.5
8
@
CAM
L 72-86
+12.5
10
@
COFC
L 70-74
−1.5
19
vs
NCAT
W 82-61
−0.5
22
vs
MONM
W 65-63
−7.5
24
vs
UNCW
L 67-75
+5.5
29
@
DREX
L 51-58
−18.5
31
@
TOW
L 50-82
+0.5
5
vs
ELON
W 87-79
+23.5
7
vs
W&M
W 77-74
−1.5
13
vs
NCAT
L 70-71
+3.5
19
@
HOF
L 43-79
−11.5
21
@
STBK
L 72-79
+15.5
26
vs
COFC
L 71-85
+16.5
28
vs
NE
W 76-65
−4.5
3
@
W&M
L 85-94
+15.5
7
vs
TOW
L 68-74
+9.5
over 14under 16avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Georgia Tech
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −2.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% 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 56-52 | -28.5 | L −24.5 | 139.5 | U 108 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 74-45 | -15.5 | W +13.5 | 138.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 70-60 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 133.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 87-92 | +15.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 68-66 | -10.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 82-66 | -18.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 61-75 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 74-84 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 137.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 73-85 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 79-67 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 87-76 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 95-81 | -16.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 89-65 | -19.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 79-85 | +27.5 | W +21.5 | 153.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 65-53 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 72-82 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 81-91 | +15.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 66-89 | +1.5 | L −21.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 78-74 | +17.5 | W +21.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 63-77 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 65-71 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 75-91 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 85-90 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 72-95 | +9.5 | L −13.5 | 151.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 67-83 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 74-89 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 68-94 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 70-87 | +23.5 | W +6.5 | 167.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 71-80 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 65-76 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 154.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-79 | +15.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UMES
W 56-52
−24.5
7
vs
BRY
W 74-45
+13.5
10
vs
SELA
W 70-60
−4.5
14
@
UGA
L 87-92
+10.5
18
vs
GASO
W 68-66
−8.5
23
vs
WGA
W 82-66
−2.5
28
vs
DEP
L 61-75
−12.5
29
vs
DRKE
L 74-84
−14.5
3
vs
MSST
L 73-85
−10.5
6
vs
MONM
W 79-67
+1.5
16
vs
MRST
W 87-76
+4.5
20
vs
LAF
W 95-81
−2.5
28
vs
FAMU
W 89-65
+4.5
31
@
DUKE
L 79-85
+21.5
3
vs
BC
W 65-53
+5.5
6
vs
SYR
L 72-82
−7.5
10
@
MIA
L 81-91
+5.5
14
vs
PITT
L 66-89
−21.5
17
@
NCSU
W 78-74
+21.5
24
vs
CLEM
L 63-77
−5.5
27
@
VT
L 65-71
+3.5
31
vs
UNC
L 75-91
−6.5
4
@
CAL
L 85-90
+2.5
7
@
STAN
L 72-95
−13.5
11
vs
WAKE
L 67-83
−12.5
14
@
ND
L 74-89
−9.5
18
vs
UVA
L 68-94
−12.5
21
@
LOU
L 70-87
+6.5
28
vs
FSU
L 71-80
−3.5
4
vs
CAL
L 65-76
−8.5
7
@
CLEM
L 76-79
+12.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UMES
W 56-52
−31.5
7
vs
BRY
W 74-45
−19.5
10
vs
SELA
W 70-60
−3.5
14
@
UGA
L 87-92
+23.5
18
vs
GASO
W 68-66
−30.5
23
vs
WGA
W 82-66
+3.5
28
vs
DEP
L 61-75
−11.5
29
vs
DRKE
L 74-84
+20.5
3
vs
MSST
L 73-85
+7.5
6
vs
MONM
W 79-67
+1.5
16
vs
MRST
W 87-76
+21.5
20
vs
LAF
W 95-81
+28.5
28
vs
FAMU
W 89-65
+7.5
31
@
DUKE
L 79-85
+10.5
3
vs
BC
W 65-53
−27.5
6
vs
SYR
L 72-82
+7.5
10
@
MIA
L 81-91
+15.5
14
vs
PITT
L 66-89
+9.5
17
@
NCSU
W 78-74
−2.5
24
vs
CLEM
L 63-77
−2.5
27
@
VT
L 65-71
−19.5
31
vs
UNC
L 75-91
+5.5
4
@
CAL
L 85-90
+22.5
7
@
STAN
L 72-95
+15.5
11
vs
WAKE
L 67-83
−8.5
14
@
ND
L 74-89
+12.5
18
vs
UVA
L 68-94
+11.5
21
@
LOU
L 70-87
−10.5
28
vs
FSU
L 71-80
−7.5
4
vs
CAL
L 65-76
−13.5
7
@
CLEM
L 76-79
+9.5
over 18under 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Georgia Tech has the better starters
Position by position: Hampton 1, Georgia Tech 2, even 2
HamptonBetterGeorgia Tech
G J. Mitchell TR14.5 pts · 4.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 56
→GTSmall
G N. Whitlock TR20.4 pts · 3.3 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 87
G S. Hubbard TR16.5 pts · 2.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 70
→GTSmall
G C. Garland TR20.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 98
G A. Davis TR9.3 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 59
←HAMPSmall
G K. Craft7.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 43
F M. Frazier TR12 pts · 7.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 77
=Even
F V. Valdes TR14.9 pts · 4 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 74
F C. Robinson TR8.2 pts · 4 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 25
=No call
F J. Fields TR4.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Not ranked
HamptonBetterGeorgia Tech
HAMP offense186th of 366 · -5.7
→GTSmall
GT defense123rd of 366 · -2.1
HAMP defense153rd of 366 · -3.4
→GTSmall
GT offense71st of 366 · +1.7
Backcourt+0.1 · 3 players
→GTBig
Backcourt+7.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.1 · 2 players
→GTSmall
Frontcourt+2.6 · 2 players
Bench-2.1 · 5 players
→GTSmall
Bench-1.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestHAMP betterGT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Mitchell33 min · TRS. Hubbard31 min · TRA. Davis24 min · TRE. Strothers19 minT. Jackson17 min · TRA. Haskins10 min
Forwards
M. Frazier29 min · TRC. Robinson26 min · TRP. Da CruzNewW. PrestonNewZ. IbekweNewS. TabeNew
Guards
N. Whitlock35 min · TRC. Garland35 min · TRK. Craft21 minC. Muldrew14 min · TRK. BaileyNewK. AllenNew
Forwards
V. Valdes30 min · TRJ. Fields14 min · TRT. JordanNewM. DiopNewI. KurucsNew
Centers
C. Kirouac12 minJ. McVeyNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.0 #312 | Points per game | 73.8 #208 |
| 1.02 #301 | Points per possession | 1.03 #292 |
| 66.5 #295 | Pace (possessions) | 71.9 #38 |
| Shooting | ||
| 45.7 #356 | Effective FG% | 50.0 #234 |
| 28.8 #357 | 3-point % | 35.1 #109 |
| 37.0 #229 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.1 #313 |
| 39.2 #73 | Free throw rate | 33.3 #229 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #205 | Turnover rate | 18.6 #306 |
| 32.9 #90 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.9 #203 |
| 11.2 #329 | Assists per game | 15.8 #55 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.1 #108 | Points allowed | 77.4 #247 |
| 1.08 #176 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #148 |
| 52.0 #212 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.9 #94 |
| 32.1 #65 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.1 #134 |
| 17.2 #137 | Turnovers forced | 15.6 #244 |
| 70.0 #165 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.3 #189 |
| 6.3 #207 | Steals per game | 6.1 #229 |
| 3.0 #232 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #80 |
Hampton
11-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Coastal Athletic Association
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Towson68–74
- L@ William & Mary85–94
- Wvs Northeastern76–65
- Lvs Charleston71–85
- L@ Stony Brook72–79
A week or more of rest.
Georgia Tech
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 2-16 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Clemson76–79
- Lvs California65–76
- Lvs Florida St71–80
- L@ Louisville70–87
- Lvs Virginia68–94
A week or more of rest.