Ocean Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DUQ | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 0-0 |
| 1-0 | ATS | 0-0 |
| 0-1 | O/U | 0-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects HPU 80–75 · win probability HPU 65%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.6
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: HPU has more of the edges
HPU 5, DUQ 0 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
HPU has played the 288th-hardest schedule, DUQ the 108th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HPU 12.8%, DUQ 17.6%. Forced: HPU 21.3%, DUQ 18.4%
Three-pointers
HPU hits 34.2% and allows 32.6%; DUQ hits 33.1% and allows 36.2%. Threes are 43.6% and 44.4% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: HPU 54.5 and allows 50.5; DUQ 52.3 and allows 52.5
Free throws
Free throw rate: HPU 40.8, DUQ 38.3. Allowed: HPU 35.5, DUQ 39.9
HPU offense vs DUQ defense
Offense 64th of 366 against a defense 118th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: HPU plays 71.7 a game (47th fastest), DUQ 70.4 (99th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HPU 36%, DUQ 49%. Transfers in: HPU 8, DUQ 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
DUQ offense vs HPU defense
Offense 107th of 366 against a defense 127th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HPU 31.8%, DUQ 30.4%. Defensive: HPU 68.9%, 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 | — | HPU -4.5 | — |
| Total | — | 154.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | HPU 79.5 · DUQ 75.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HPU -2.8 | — |
| 1H total | 72.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | HPU 37.5 · DUQ 34.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | |
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
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.
High Point has the better starters
Position by position: High Point 3, Duquesne 0, even 2
High PointBetterDuquesne
G J. Rivera-Torres TR15.9 pts · 8.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 91
=Even
G T. Guinyard16.9 pts · 3.2 reb · 4.7 ast
Score 93
G C. Williams TR12.4 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 60
=Even
G J. Smith TR15.9 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 63
G C. Brown TR10.5 pts · 3.7 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 64
←HPUBig
G B. Hall3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 6
F I. Garrett TR13.8 pts · 7.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 79
←HPUBig
G J. DiMichele3.5 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 31
F F. Sherman TR10.8 pts · 8.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 85
←HPUBig
F Y. Berman12.3 pts · 3.9 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 49
High PointBetterDuquesne
HPU offense64th of 366 · +2.2
←HPUSmall
DUQ defense118th of 366 · -1.8
HPU defense127th of 366 · -2.3
=Even
DUQ offense107th of 366 · -1.6
Backcourt+3.4 · 3 players
←HPUBig
Backcourt+0.1 · 4 players
Frontcourt+3.9 · 2 players
←HPUBig
Frontcourt-0.4 · 1 player
Bench+4.4 · 5 players
←HPUBig
Bench-0.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestHPU betterDUQ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 86.4 #9 | Points per game | 76.9 #118 |
| 1.20 #12 | Points per possession | 1.09 #164 |
| 71.7 #47 | Pace (possessions) | 70.4 #99 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.5 #51 | Effective FG% | 52.3 #131 |
| 34.2 #161 | 3-point % | 33.1 #223 |
| 43.6 #98 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.4 #81 |
| 40.8 #50 | Free throw rate | 38.3 #94 |
| Possessions | ||
| 12.8 #5 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #243 |
| 31.8 #131 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.4 #184 |
| 15.4 #74 | Assists per game | 14.7 #107 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.8 #128 | Points allowed | 75.9 #214 |
| 1.01 #38 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #171 |
| 50.5 #126 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.5 #241 |
| 32.6 #97 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.2 #314 |
| 21.3 #8 | Turnovers forced | 18.4 #83 |
| 68.9 #207 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.4 #142 |
| 10.1 #2 | Steals per game | 7.6 #71 |
| 3.6 #119 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #214 |
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
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.