Qubein Center · at High Point
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | HPU | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 1-0 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 0-1 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects HPU 88–58 · win probability HPU 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.3
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: HPU has more of the edges
UMES 0, HPU 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
HPU offense vs UMES defense
Offense 64th of 366 against a defense 350th, on the model’s ratings
UMES offense vs HPU defense
Offense 364th of 366 against a defense 127th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UMES 23.7%, HPU 12.8%. Forced: UMES 18.0%, HPU 21.3%
Free throws
Free throw rate: UMES 29.4, HPU 40.8. Allowed: UMES 43.0, HPU 35.5
Shooting
Effective FG%: UMES 47.8 and allows 50.8; HPU 54.5 and allows 50.5
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UMES plays 65.8 a game (321st fastest), HPU 71.7 (47th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
UMES hits 29.0% and allows 33.5%; HPU hits 34.2% and allows 32.6%. Threes are 33.5% and 43.6% of their shots
Home court
HPU at home. This season: HPU 0-0 at home, UMES 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UMES 9%, HPU 36%. Transfers in: UMES 1, HPU 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
UMES has played the 240th-hardest schedule, HPU the 288th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UMES 32.4%, HPU 31.8%. Defensive: UMES 66.4%, HPU 68.9%
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 | — | HPU -29.8 | — |
| Total | — | 146.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | UMES 58.3 · HPU 88 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HPU -17.6 | — |
| 1H total | 68.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | UMES 25.4 · HPU 43 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | |
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
MD Eastern
30 games played
Straight up
7-23
23% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-17
43% overs · avg +0.4 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 52-56 | +28.5 | W +24.5 | 139.5 | U 108 |
| Nov 5 | @ | L 29-94 | +33.5 | L −31.5 | 142.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 50-69 | +35.5 | W +16.5 | 146.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 45-84 | +33.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 83-82 | +17.5 | W +18.5 | 138.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 57-60 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 128.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 63-52 | +5.5 | W +16.5 | 125.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 68-74 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 124.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 56-68 | +12.5 | W +0.5 | 127.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 60-78 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 130.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 60-84 | +36.5 | W +12.5 | 134.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 12 | @ | L 79-82 | +7.5 | W +4.5 | 130.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 53-82 | +27.5 | L −1.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-78 | +4.5 | L −9.5 | 131.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 71-94 | +33.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 66-49 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 69-57 | +2.5 | W +14.5 | 130.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 12 | @ | W 74-70 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 132.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 70-67 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 133.5 | O 137 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 57-65 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 128.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 63-65 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 54-63 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 133.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 71-79 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 53-79 | +10.5 | L −15.5 | 132.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 16 | vs | L 66-70 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 65-71 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 128.5 | O 136 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 69-57 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 132.5 | U 126 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 73-77 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 133.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 56-57 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 124.5 | U 113 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 76-83 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 131.5 | O 159 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
GT
L 52-56
+24.5
5
@
UGA
L 29-94
−31.5
11
@
NEB
L 50-69
+16.5
14
@
CREI
L 45-84
−5.5
18
@
LONG
W 83-82
+18.5
21
@
CAN
L 57-60
+0.5
22
vs
BING
W 63-52
+16.5
25
vs
HAMP
L 68-74
+0.5
2
@
ECU
L 56-68
+0.5
6
@
AMER
L 60-78
−7.5
9
@
UVA
L 60-84
+12.5
12
@
NCAT
L 79-82
+4.5
14
@
VT
L 53-82
−1.5
17
@
WAG
L 64-78
−9.5
22
@
TEX
L 71-94
+10.5
3
vs
MORG
W 66-49
+10.5
10
vs
HOW
W 69-57
+14.5
12
@
NORF
W 74-70
+9.5
17
vs
COPP
W 70-67
−7.5
31
@
DSU
L 57-65
−10.5
2
@
NCCU
L 63-65
+0.5
4
@
SCST
L 54-63
−12.5
7
@
MORG
L 71-79
−9.5
14
@
HOW
L 53-79
−15.5
16
vs
NORF
L 66-70
−2.5
21
@
COPP
L 65-71
−9.5
28
vs
SCST
W 69-57
+6.5
2
vs
NCCU
L 73-77
−6.5
5
vs
DSU
L 56-57
−6.5
12
vs
NCCU
L 76-83
−8.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
GT
L 52-56
−31.5
5
@
UGA
L 29-94
−19.5
11
@
NEB
L 50-69
−27.5
14
@
CREI
L 45-84
−6.5
18
@
LONG
W 83-82
+26.5
21
@
CAN
L 57-60
−11.5
22
vs
BING
W 63-52
−10.5
25
vs
HAMP
L 68-74
+17.5
2
@
ECU
L 56-68
−3.5
6
@
AMER
L 60-78
+7.5
9
@
UVA
L 60-84
+9.5
12
@
NCAT
L 79-82
+30.5
14
@
VT
L 53-82
−4.5
17
@
WAG
L 64-78
+10.5
22
@
TEX
L 71-94
+26.5
3
vs
MORG
W 66-49
−23.5
10
vs
HOW
W 69-57
−4.5
12
@
NORF
W 74-70
+11.5
17
vs
COPP
W 70-67
+3.5
31
@
DSU
L 57-65
−6.5
2
@
NCCU
L 63-65
−6.5
4
@
SCST
L 54-63
−16.5
7
@
MORG
L 71-79
+9.5
14
@
HOW
L 53-79
−0.5
16
vs
NORF
L 66-70
−0.5
21
@
COPP
L 65-71
+7.5
28
vs
SCST
W 69-57
−6.5
2
vs
NCCU
L 73-77
+16.5
5
vs
DSU
L 56-57
−11.5
12
vs
NCCU
L 76-83
+27.5
over 13under 17avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
High Point
33 games played
Straight up
28-5
85% wins
Against the spread
16-17
48% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-11
67% 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 97-71 | -3.5 | W +22.5 | 153.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 85-64 | -17.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 74-91 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 168.5 | U 165 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 93-50 | -23.5 | W +19.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 90-80 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 91-80 | -12.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 93-73 | -16.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 84-86 | -9.5 | L −11.5 | 162.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 89-72 | -28.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 78-86 | -12.5 | L −20.5 | 144.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 84-72 | -13.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 93-47 | -19.5 | W +26.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 87-69 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 80-67 | -16.5 | L −3.5 | 160.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 104-49 | -26.5 | W +28.5 | 162.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 84-82 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 75-92 | -2.5 | L −19.5 | 162.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 89-69 | -16.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 93-83 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 165.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 84-81 | -14.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 71-59 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 156.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 80-55 | -14.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 86-77 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 95-70 | -14.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 112-87 | -25.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 74-48 | -14.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 89-87 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 166.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 79-73 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 81-59 | -27.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 75-71 | -14.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 91-76 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 83-82 | +10.5 | W +11.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 88-94 | +12.5 | W +6.5 | 171.5 | O 182 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
FUR
W 97-71
+22.5
11
vs
JAX
W 85-64
+3.5
14
@
UAB
L 74-91
−18.5
17
vs
CAN
W 93-50
+19.5
20
vs
UIC
W 90-80
−0.5
22
vs
UIW
W 91-80
−1.5
29
vs
WCU
W 93-73
+3.5
3
vs
SIU
L 84-86
−11.5
5
vs
NJIT
W 89-72
−11.5
14
vs
APP
L 78-86
−20.5
19
vs
LAS
W 84-72
−1.5
22
vs
BRY
W 93-47
+26.5
31
@
UNCA
W 87-69
+7.5
3
vs
LONG
W 80-67
−3.5
7
vs
GWEB
W 104-49
+28.5
10
@
CHSO
W 84-82
−6.5
14
@
WIN
L 75-92
−19.5
17
vs
UPST
W 89-69
+3.5
23
@
RAD
W 93-83
+2.5
29
vs
PRES
W 84-81
−11.5
31
@
LONG
W 71-59
+2.5
4
vs
CHSO
W 80-55
+10.5
7
vs
RAD
W 86-77
−5.5
12
@
UPST
W 95-70
+10.5
14
@
GWEB
W 112-87
−0.5
19
vs
UNCA
W 74-48
+11.5
21
vs
WIN
W 89-87
−7.5
26
@
PRES
W 79-73
−6.5
6
vs
GWEB
W 81-59
−5.5
7
vs
UNCA
W 75-71
−10.5
8
vs
WIN
W 91-76
+8.5
19
vs
WIS
W 83-82
+11.5
21
vs
ARK
L 88-94
+6.5
covered 16didn’t cover 17avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
FUR
W 97-71
+14.5
11
vs
JAX
W 85-64
−7.5
14
@
UAB
L 74-91
−3.5
17
vs
CAN
W 93-50
−9.5
20
vs
UIC
W 90-80
+11.5
22
vs
UIW
W 91-80
+10.5
29
vs
WCU
W 93-73
+6.5
3
vs
SIU
L 84-86
+7.5
5
vs
NJIT
W 89-72
+5.5
14
vs
APP
L 78-86
+19.5
19
vs
LAS
W 84-72
+6.5
22
vs
BRY
W 93-47
−13.5
31
@
UNCA
W 87-69
+4.5
3
vs
LONG
W 80-67
−13.5
7
vs
GWEB
W 104-49
−9.5
10
@
CHSO
W 84-82
+2.5
14
@
WIN
L 75-92
+4.5
17
vs
UPST
W 89-69
+5.5
23
@
RAD
W 93-83
+10.5
29
vs
PRES
W 84-81
+15.5
31
@
LONG
W 71-59
−26.5
4
vs
CHSO
W 80-55
−27.5
7
vs
RAD
W 86-77
+0.5
12
@
UPST
W 95-70
+10.5
14
@
GWEB
W 112-87
+37.5
19
vs
UNCA
W 74-48
−30.5
21
vs
WIN
W 89-87
+9.5
26
@
PRES
W 79-73
+0.5
6
vs
GWEB
W 81-59
−15.5
7
vs
UNCA
W 75-71
−1.5
8
vs
WIN
W 91-76
+9.5
19
vs
WIS
W 83-82
+3.5
21
vs
ARK
L 88-94
+10.5
over 22under 11avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
High Point has the better starters
Position by position: MD Eastern 0, High Point 1, even 4
MD EasternBetterHigh Point
G I. Hall NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Rivera-Torres TR15.9 pts · 8.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 91
F L. Beckwith1.8 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 1
→HPUBig
G C. Williams TR12.4 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 60
F L. Gibson-Savadel TR2.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Brown TR10.5 pts · 3.7 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 64
F E. Berhanu NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F I. Garrett TR13.8 pts · 7.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 79
F G. Tokody NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F F. Sherman TR10.8 pts · 8.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 85
MD EasternBetterHigh Point
UMES offense364th of 366 · -15.3
→HPUBig
HPU defense127th of 366 · -2.3
UMES defense350th of 366 · -9.7
→HPUBig
HPU offense64th of 366 · +2.2
BackcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Backcourt+3.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-3.5 · 4 players
→HPUBig
Frontcourt+3.9 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+4.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUMES betterHPU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
I. HallNewE. JohnsonNewI. GriffinNewS. MooreNewB. GardnerNewV. EzehNew
Forwards
L. Beckwith17 minL. Gibson-Savadel7 min · TRE. BerhanuNewG. TokodyNewA. ColeNewD. Hall-JohnsonNew
Centers
E. OgohNew
Guards
J. Rivera-Torres36 min · TRC. Williams32 min · TRC. Brown27 min · TRC. Martinez22 minL. Campbell15 min · TRS. McDermott2 min · TR
Forwards
I. Garrett29 min · TRF. Sherman26 min · TRF. Brankovic24 min · TRC. Fletcher22 minB. Hausen21 minC. Miller7 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 62.4 #360 | Points per game | 86.4 #9 |
| 0.94 #358 | Points per possession | 1.20 #12 |
| 65.8 #321 | Pace (possessions) | 71.7 #47 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.8 #319 | Effective FG% | 54.5 #51 |
| 29.0 #354 | 3-point % | 34.2 #161 |
| 33.5 #309 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.6 #98 |
| 29.4 #321 | Free throw rate | 40.8 #50 |
| Possessions | ||
| 23.7 #365 | Turnover rate | 12.8 #5 |
| 32.4 #112 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.8 #131 |
| 13.0 #213 | Assists per game | 15.4 #74 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.5 #91 | Points allowed | 72.8 #128 |
| 1.09 #207 | Points allowed per possession | 1.01 #38 |
| 50.8 #142 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #126 |
| 33.5 #156 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.6 #97 |
| 18.0 #95 | Turnovers forced | 21.3 #8 |
| 66.4 #311 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.9 #207 |
| 5.7 #274 | Steals per game | 10.1 #2 |
| 2.5 #302 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #119 |
MD Eastern
7-23 in 2025-26 overall · 5-10 in conference · Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs NC Central76–83
- Lvs Delaware St56–57
- Lvs NC Central73–77
- Wvs SC State69–57
- L@ Coppin St65–71
A week or more of rest.
High Point
28-5 in 2025-26 overall · 18-1 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arkansas88–94
- Wvs Wisconsin83–82
- Wvs Winthrop91–76
- Wvs UNC Asheville75–71
- Wvs Gardner-Webb81–59
3 days since their last game.