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 87–67 · win probability VT 96%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 153.7
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
RAD 0, VT 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
VT offense vs RAD defense
Offense 68th of 366 against a defense 286th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
RAD hits 33.5% and allows 35.5%; VT hits 35.5% and allows 30.6%. Threes are 45.4% and 39.7% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
RAD has played the 243rd-hardest schedule, VT the 74th. A record against a soft schedule means less
RAD offense vs VT defense
Offense 213th of 366 against a defense 72nd, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: RAD 51.4 and allows 53.0; VT 52.2 and allows 50.9
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RAD 12%, VT 47%. Transfers in: RAD 6, VT 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: RAD plays 73.6 a game (13th fastest), VT 69.8 (127th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
VT at home. This season: VT 0-0 at home, RAD 0-0 away
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RAD 17.1%, VT 14.9%. Forced: RAD 18.5%, VT 17.3%
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: RAD 42.4, VT 34.0. Allowed: RAD 40.0, VT 28.8
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RAD 29.8%, VT 31.9%. Defensive: RAD 67.8%, VT 67.4%
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 | — | VT -20.7 | — |
| Total | — | 153.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | RAD 66.5 · VT 87.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | VT -12.2 | — |
| 1H total | 71.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | RAD 29.8 · VT 42 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | |
| 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
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
RAD 0–1 VTVT leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · RAD 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2021-22 | RAD 39 @ VT 65 | VT -20.5 | VT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Radford
29 games played
Straight up
13-16
45% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg −2.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-12
59% overs · avg +3.1 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 80-75 | -16.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 74-89 | +20.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 59-92 | -6.5 | L −39.5 | 156.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 82-87 | -8.5 | L −13.5 | 162.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 58-87 | +10.5 | L −18.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 73-81 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 72-89 | +23.5 | W +6.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 75-82 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 89-56 | -13.5 | W +19.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 107-77 | -20.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 83-96 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 170.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 97-90 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 158.5 | O 187 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 76-69 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 158.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 80-61 | -6.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 72-91 | -4.5 | L −23.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 89-80 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 85-83 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 75-76 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 165.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 83-93 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 84-75 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 93-84 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 78-80 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 161.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 77-86 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 90-80 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 161.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 82-70 | -18.5 | L −6.5 | 162.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 73-74 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 71-59 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 74-90 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-91 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
WIU
W 80-75
−11.5
11
@
UNC
L 74-89
+5.5
15
vs
WRST
L 59-92
−39.5
16
vs
CLE
L 82-87
−13.5
18
@
SC
L 58-87
−18.5
21
vs
UNCW
L 73-81
−3.5
24
@
SMU
L 72-89
+6.5
3
vs
USM
L 75-82
−10.5
7
vs
SFPA
W 89-56
+19.5
14
vs
COPP
W 107-77
+9.5
18
@
W&M
L 83-96
−4.5
21
vs
VMI
W 97-90
−4.5
31
@
UPST
W 76-69
+8.5
7
vs
PRES
W 80-61
+12.5
10
vs
UNCA
L 72-91
−23.5
14
@
GWEB
W 89-80
−4.5
17
vs
LONG
W 85-83
−2.5
21
@
WIN
L 75-76
+8.5
23
vs
HPU
L 83-93
−2.5
29
@
CHSO
W 84-75
+7.5
31
@
PRES
W 93-84
+10.5
4
vs
WIN
L 78-80
+2.5
7
@
HPU
L 77-86
+5.5
14
vs
CHSO
W 90-80
+5.5
19
vs
GWEB
W 82-70
−6.5
21
@
UNCA
L 73-74
+1.5
26
vs
UPST
W 71-59
+4.5
28
@
LONG
L 74-90
−14.5
6
vs
PRES
L 85-91
−8.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
WIU
W 80-75
+3.5
11
@
UNC
L 74-89
+0.5
15
vs
WRST
L 59-92
−5.5
16
vs
CLE
L 82-87
+6.5
18
@
SC
L 58-87
−8.5
21
vs
UNCW
L 73-81
+2.5
24
@
SMU
L 72-89
−4.5
3
vs
USM
L 75-82
+4.5
7
vs
SFPA
W 89-56
−9.5
14
vs
COPP
W 107-77
+29.5
18
@
W&M
L 83-96
+8.5
21
vs
VMI
W 97-90
+28.5
31
@
UPST
W 76-69
−13.5
7
vs
PRES
W 80-61
−6.5
10
vs
UNCA
L 72-91
+11.5
14
@
GWEB
W 89-80
+3.5
17
vs
LONG
W 85-83
+10.5
21
@
WIN
L 75-76
−14.5
23
vs
HPU
L 83-93
+10.5
29
@
CHSO
W 84-75
−3.5
31
@
PRES
W 93-84
+25.5
4
vs
WIN
L 78-80
−3.5
7
@
HPU
L 77-86
+0.5
14
vs
CHSO
W 90-80
+8.5
19
vs
GWEB
W 82-70
−10.5
21
@
UNCA
L 73-74
−2.5
26
vs
UPST
W 71-59
−22.5
28
@
LONG
L 74-90
+9.5
6
vs
PRES
L 85-91
+29.5
over 17under 12avg +3.1 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: Radford 0, Virginia Tech 5, even 0
RadfordBetterVirginia Tech
G J. Robinson TR6.3 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 52
→VTSmall
G E. Copeland TR14.5 pts · 3.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 67
G T. Gross TR3.5 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 21
→VTBig
G B. Hammond13.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 89
F C. Jackson TR4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 36
→VTBig
G I. Elohim TR12.2 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 71
F P. Kabamba TR5.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 38
→VTBig
G T. Johnson8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 77
F F. Erichsen4.7 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 27
→VTBig
F A. Hansberry14.3 pts · 7.4 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 92
RadfordBetterVirginia Tech
RAD offense213th of 366 · -6.5
→VTBig
VT defense72nd of 366 · +0.8
RAD defense286th of 366 · -7.2
→VTBig
VT offense68th of 366 · +1.8
Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players
→VTBig
Backcourt+4.7 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.1 · 3 players
→VTBig
Frontcourt+3.8 · 1 player
Bench-1.0 · 4 players
→VTSmall
Bench+1.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestRAD betterVT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Robinson17 min · TRT. Gross13 min · TRW. Keel6 minM. Grujicic6 min · TRJ. Kee3 min · TRK. PruettNew
Forwards
C. Jackson17 min · TRP. Kabamba17 min · TRF. Erichsen13 minA. NokesNew
Centers
G. Ferreira5 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 79.9 #70 | Points per game | 78.8 #85 |
| 1.09 #168 | Points per possession | 1.13 #89 |
| 73.6 #13 | Pace (possessions) | 69.8 #127 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #181 | Effective FG% | 52.2 #134 |
| 33.5 #199 | 3-point % | 35.5 #88 |
| 45.4 #59 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.7 #179 |
| 42.4 #25 | Free throw rate | 34.0 #209 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #210 | Turnover rate | 14.9 #60 |
| 29.8 #207 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.9 #129 |
| 12.0 #284 | Assists per game | 14.4 #122 |
| Defense | ||
| 80.8 #330 | Points allowed | 74.9 #184 |
| 1.10 #216 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #141 |
| 53.0 #271 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #147 |
| 35.5 #279 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.6 #26 |
| 18.5 #72 | Turnovers forced | 17.3 #131 |
| 67.8 #267 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.4 #284 |
| 7.5 #79 | Steals per game | 6.4 #187 |
| 3.4 #158 | Blocks per game | 3.2 #190 |
Radford
13-16 in 2025-26 overall · 9-8 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Presbyterian85–91
- L@ Longwood74–90
- Wvs SC Upstate71–59
- L@ UNC Asheville73–74
- Wvs Gardner-Webb82–70
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.