Cassell Coliseum · at Virginia Tech
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | VT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VT 84–62 · win probability VT 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.1
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: VT has more of the edges
MSM 1, VT 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MSM offense vs VT defense
Offense 319th of 366 against a defense 72nd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MSM 22.4%, VT 14.9%. Forced: MSM 15.3%, VT 17.3%
Context
Schedule so far
MSM has played the 291st-hardest schedule, VT the 74th. A record against a soft schedule means less
VT offense vs MSM defense
Offense 68th of 366 against a defense 199th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: MSM 33.3, VT 34.0. Allowed: MSM 37.3, VT 28.8
Three-pointers
MSM hits 32.7% and allows 32.3%; VT hits 35.5% and allows 30.6%. Threes are 42.6% and 39.7% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MSM 32.3%, VT 31.9%. Defensive: MSM 70.9%, VT 67.4%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: MSM plays 68.0 a game (231st fastest), VT 69.8 (127th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
VT at home. This season: VT 0-0 at home, MSM 0-0 away
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: MSM 50.6 and allows 47.2; VT 52.2 and allows 50.9
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MSM 42%, VT 47%. Transfers in: MSM 3, VT 8. 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 | — | VT -22.6 | — |
| Total | — | 146.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | MSM 61.7 · VT 84.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | VT -13.3 | — |
| 1H total | 68.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | MSM 27.5 · VT 40.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Mount St Marys
31 games played
Straight up
14-17
45% wins
Against the spread
18-13
58% covers · avg −0 pts vs the line
Over / Under
10-21
32% overs · avg −3.9 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 4 | @ | L 54-70 | +19.5 | W +3.5 | 136.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 62-73 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 74-66 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 55-72 | +25.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 90-95 | +17.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 185 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 60-83 | +1.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 60-113 | +30.5 | L −22.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 79-75 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 80-87 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 56-64 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 136.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 81-73 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 67-75 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 66-59 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 153.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 65-75 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 69-80 | +7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 70-65 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 50-67 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 78-68 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 68-58 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 131.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 62-77 | +4.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 71-61 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 58-66 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 72-65 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 70-87 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 134.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 83-76 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 65-55 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 76-63 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 130.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 68-47 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 137.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 69-77 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 69-47 | +4.5 | W +26.5 | 145.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 58-63 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 121 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
WVU
L 54-70
+3.5
7
vs
BUCK
L 62-73
−12.5
11
@
SFPA
W 74-66
+1.5
16
@
CIN
L 55-72
+8.5
19
@
MD
L 90-95
+12.5
23
@
WMU
L 60-83
−21.5
25
@
OSU
L 60-113
−22.5
29
vs
HOW
W 79-75
+1.5
3
vs
SHU
L 80-87
−5.5
5
@
MRST
L 56-64
+0.5
13
@
L-MD
W 81-73
+5.5
19
@
DREX
L 67-75
−3.5
29
vs
IONA
W 66-59
+9.5
2
@
MRMK
L 65-75
−6.5
4
@
QUIN
L 69-80
−3.5
9
vs
SPU
W 70-65
+6.5
11
vs
SIE
L 50-67
−14.5
17
@
CAN
W 78-68
+6.5
19
@
NIA
W 68-58
+6.5
22
vs
QUIN
L 62-77
−10.5
24
vs
RID
W 71-61
+0.5
30
@
SPU
L 58-66
−2.5
1
vs
MAN
W 72-65
+0.5
5
vs
MRMK
L 70-87
−14.5
7
@
IONA
W 83-76
+10.5
13
@
RID
W 65-55
+4.5
20
vs
NIA
W 76-63
+5.5
22
vs
CAN
W 68-47
+13.5
27
@
SHU
L 69-77
−5.5
1
@
FAIR
W 69-47
+26.5
7
vs
SIE
L 58-63
−2.5
covered 18didn’t cover 13avg −0 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
WVU
L 54-70
−12.5
7
vs
BUCK
L 62-73
−8.5
11
@
SFPA
W 74-66
−9.5
16
@
CIN
L 55-72
−18.5
19
@
MD
L 90-95
+39.5
23
@
WMU
L 60-83
−7.5
25
@
OSU
L 60-113
+21.5
29
vs
HOW
W 79-75
+7.5
3
vs
SHU
L 80-87
+14.5
5
@
MRST
L 56-64
−16.5
13
@
L-MD
W 81-73
+2.5
19
@
DREX
L 67-75
+4.5
29
vs
IONA
W 66-59
−28.5
2
@
MRMK
L 65-75
−1.5
4
@
QUIN
L 69-80
−1.5
9
vs
SPU
W 70-65
−6.5
11
vs
SIE
L 50-67
−22.5
17
@
CAN
W 78-68
+10.5
19
@
NIA
W 68-58
−5.5
22
vs
QUIN
L 62-77
−9.5
24
vs
RID
W 71-61
−7.5
30
@
SPU
L 58-66
−14.5
1
vs
MAN
W 72-65
−10.5
5
vs
MRMK
L 70-87
+22.5
7
@
IONA
W 83-76
+17.5
13
@
RID
W 65-55
−17.5
20
vs
NIA
W 76-63
+8.5
22
vs
CAN
W 68-47
−22.5
27
@
SHU
L 69-77
−4.5
1
@
FAIR
W 69-47
−29.5
7
vs
SIE
L 58-63
−14.5
over 10under 21avg −3.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Virginia Tech
32 games played
Straight up
19-13
59% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% 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 | vs | W 98-67 | -18.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 107-101 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | O 208 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 94-59 | -12.5 | W +22.5 | 158.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 84-76 | -18.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 78-61 | -24.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 66-64 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 66-77 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 68-86 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 86-83 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 73-62 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 11 | vs | W 96-74 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 82-53 | -27.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-81 | -12.5 | L −11.5 | 158.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 95-85 | +5.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 78-81 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 68-69 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 78-75 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 76-77 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 89-76 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 76-74 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 71-85 | +14.5 | W +0.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 71-65 | -9.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 58-72 | +13.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 73-82 | +10.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 76-66 | +8.5 | W +18.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 69-92 | -4.5 | L −27.5 | 156.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 66-67 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 82-63 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 82-89 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 72-63 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 72-76 | +11.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 89-95 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 150.5 | O 184 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CHSO
W 98-67
+12.5
8
vs
PROV
W 107-101
+8.5
12
vs
JOES
W 94-59
+22.5
16
vs
CLT
W 84-76
−10.5
19
vs
BRY
W 78-61
−7.5
26
vs
CSU
W 66-64
−2.5
27
vs
SMC
L 66-77
−5.5
28
vs
VCU
L 68-86
−15.5
2
@
SC
W 86-83
+5.5
6
vs
GMU
W 73-62
+6.5
11
vs
WCU
W 96-74
+1.5
14
vs
UMES
W 82-53
+1.5
20
vs
ELON
W 82-81
−11.5
31
vs
UVA
W 95-85
+15.5
3
@
WAKE
L 78-81
+2.5
7
vs
STAN
L 68-69
−4.5
10
vs
CAL
W 78-75
−2.5
14
@
SMU
L 76-77
+7.5
17
vs
ND
W 89-76
+6.5
21
@
SYR
W 76-74
+5.5
24
@
LOU
L 71-85
+0.5
27
vs
GT
W 71-65
−3.5
31
vs
DUKE
L 58-72
−0.5
7
@
NCSU
L 73-82
+1.5
11
@
CLEM
W 76-66
+18.5
14
vs
FSU
L 69-92
−27.5
17
@
MIA
L 66-67
+7.5
21
vs
WAKE
W 82-63
+15.5
28
@
UNC
L 82-89
+0.5
3
vs
BC
W 72-63
−2.5
7
@
UVA
L 72-76
+7.5
10
vs
WAKE
L 89-95
−4.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CHSO
W 98-67
+18.5
8
vs
PROV
W 107-101
+50.5
12
vs
JOES
W 94-59
−5.5
16
vs
CLT
W 84-76
+14.5
19
vs
BRY
W 78-61
−12.5
26
vs
CSU
W 66-64
−23.5
27
vs
SMC
L 66-77
−1.5
28
vs
VCU
L 68-86
+0.5
2
@
SC
W 86-83
+19.5
6
vs
GMU
W 73-62
−9.5
11
vs
WCU
W 96-74
+17.5
14
vs
UMES
W 82-53
−4.5
20
vs
ELON
W 82-81
+4.5
31
vs
UVA
W 95-85
+26.5
3
@
WAKE
L 78-81
+5.5
7
vs
STAN
L 68-69
−11.5
10
vs
CAL
W 78-75
+4.5
14
@
SMU
L 76-77
−2.5
17
vs
ND
W 89-76
+21.5
21
@
SYR
W 76-74
−2.5
24
@
LOU
L 71-85
−4.5
27
vs
GT
W 71-65
−19.5
31
vs
DUKE
L 58-72
−18.5
7
@
NCSU
L 73-82
+0.5
11
@
CLEM
W 76-66
+3.5
14
vs
FSU
L 69-92
+4.5
17
@
MIA
L 66-67
−15.5
21
vs
WAKE
W 82-63
−5.5
28
@
UNC
L 82-89
+21.5
3
vs
BC
W 72-63
−7.5
7
@
UVA
L 72-76
+2.5
10
vs
WAKE
L 89-95
+33.5
over 17under 15avg +3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Virginia Tech has the better starters
Position by position: Mount St Marys 0, Virginia Tech 4, even 1
Mount St MarysBetterVirginia Tech
G A. Khadre Kebe7.5 pts · 5.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 55
=Even
G E. Copeland TR14.5 pts · 3.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 67
G R. Thompson TR10.4 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 49
→VTBig
G B. Hammond13.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 89
G A. Arrington5.5 pts · 2.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 2
→VTBig
G I. Elohim TR12.2 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 71
G M. So3.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 13
→VTBig
G T. Johnson8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 77
F W. Jr. Exacte TR7 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 43
→VTBig
F A. Hansberry14.3 pts · 7.4 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 92
Mount St MarysBetterVirginia Tech
MSM offense319th of 366 · -10.5
→VTBig
VT defense72nd of 366 · +0.8
MSM defense199th of 366 · -4.8
→VTBig
VT offense68th of 366 · +1.8
Backcourt-5.9 · 4 players
→VTBig
Backcourt+4.7 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
→VTBig
Frontcourt+3.8 · 1 player
Bench-2.4 · 4 players
→VTBig
Bench+1.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestMSM betterVT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Khadre Kebe22 minR. Thompson22 min · TRA. Arrington19 minM. So18 minA. Rozakeas14 minC. Orness3 min · TR
Forwards
W. Jr. Exacte19 min · TRY. Diop9 minL. JoyceNewR. BrzezanskiNewN. LimolNewC. GardNew
Guards
E. Copeland32 min · TRB. Hammond32 minI. Elohim29 min · TRT. Johnson26 minJ. Curry24 min · TRB. Johnson21 min · TR
Forwards
A. Hansberry31 minM. Heide19 min · TRK. Atak14 min · TRS. Jones7 min
Centers
M. Sagnia12 min · TRS. DavisNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.9 #315 | Points per game | 78.8 #85 |
| 1.00 #327 | Points per possession | 1.13 #89 |
| 68.0 #231 | Pace (possessions) | 69.8 #127 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.6 #208 | Effective FG% | 52.2 #134 |
| 32.7 #244 | 3-point % | 35.5 #88 |
| 42.6 #125 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.7 #179 |
| 33.3 #230 | Free throw rate | 34.0 #209 |
| Possessions | ||
| 22.4 #364 | Turnover rate | 14.9 #60 |
| 32.3 #115 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.9 #129 |
| 13.2 #196 | Assists per game | 14.4 #122 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.0 #74 | Points allowed | 74.9 #184 |
| 1.05 #84 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #141 |
| 47.2 #23 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #147 |
| 32.3 #81 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.6 #26 |
| 15.3 #262 | Turnovers forced | 17.3 #131 |
| 70.9 #114 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.4 #284 |
| 5.8 #261 | Steals per game | 6.4 #187 |
| 2.9 #248 | Blocks per game | 3.2 #190 |
Mount St Marys
14-17 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Siena58–63
- W@ Fairfield69–47
- L@ Sacred Heart69–77
- Wvs Canisius68–47
- Wvs Niagara76–63
A week or more of rest.
Virginia Tech
19-13 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wake Forest89–95
- L@ Virginia72–76
- Wvs Boston College72–63
- L@ North Carolina82–89
- Wvs Wake Forest82–63
A week or more of rest.