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 86–61 · win probability HPU 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.3
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
WAG 1, HPU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WAG 18.6%, HPU 12.8%. Forced: WAG 14.9%, HPU 21.3%
WAG offense vs HPU defense
Offense 359th of 366 against a defense 127th, on the model’s ratings
HPU offense vs WAG defense
Offense 64th of 366 against a defense 293rd, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: WAG 32.4, HPU 40.8. Allowed: WAG 40.8, HPU 35.5
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: WAG plays 66.4 a game (299th fastest), HPU 71.7 (47th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: WAG 49.6 and allows 50.4; HPU 54.5 and allows 50.5
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WAG 0%, HPU 36%. Transfers in: WAG 8, HPU 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
WAG has played the 349th-hardest schedule, HPU the 288th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WAG 32.8%, HPU 31.8%. Defensive: WAG 70.5%, HPU 68.9%
Home court
HPU at home. This season: HPU 0-0 at home, WAG 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
WAG hits 36.6% and allows 34.3%; HPU hits 34.2% and allows 32.6%. Threes are 36.1% and 43.6% of their shots
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 -25.5 | — |
| Total | — | 147.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | WAG 60.9 · HPU 86.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HPU -15.0 | — |
| 1H total | 68.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | WAG 26.9 · HPU 42 | — |
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% | 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
Wagner
28 games played
Straight up
11-17
39% wins
Against the spread
16-12
57% covers · avg +1.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +4.5 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 | @ | L 74-103 | +25.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 61-68 | +21.5 | W +14.5 | 134.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 61-63 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 70-71 | +6.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 75-92 | +25.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 103-101 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 204 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 63-89 | +22.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 78-64 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 131.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 79-72 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 60-69 | -7.5 | L −16.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 69-71 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 69-70 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 132.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 74-80 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 129.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-68 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 67-69 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 55-62 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-78 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 67-84 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 57-67 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 68-57 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 128.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 65-83 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 83-80 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 133.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 65-56 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 65-62 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 80-61 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 134.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 70-60 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 56-64 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 120 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
VCU
L 74-103
−3.5
7
@
HALL
L 61-68
+14.5
11
@
FOR
L 61-63
+10.5
16
@
UMBC
L 70-71
+5.5
22
@
GTWN
L 75-92
+8.5
26
@
MAN
W 103-101
+4.5
2
@
MD
L 63-89
−3.5
17
vs
UMES
W 78-64
+9.5
2
@
CHST
W 79-72
+5.5
4
vs
STO
L 60-69
−16.5
8
vs
SFPA
L 69-71
−9.5
10
vs
MERC
L 69-70
−2.5
17
@
NHVN
L 74-80
−4.5
19
@
FDU
L 61-68
−4.5
23
@
LEM
L 67-69
+5.5
29
vs
CCSU
L 55-62
−4.5
31
vs
FDU
W 75-72
+1.5
5
vs
LEM
W 79-78
+2.5
7
@
CCSU
L 67-84
−11.5
12
vs
LIU
L 57-67
−3.5
14
@
STO
W 68-57
+14.5
16
@
LIU
L 65-83
−7.5
19
@
MERC
W 83-80
+6.5
21
@
SFPA
W 65-56
+7.5
26
vs
NHVN
W 65-62
+0.5
28
vs
CHST
W 80-61
+14.5
4
@
CCSU
W 70-60
+13.5
7
@
LIU
L 56-64
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 12avg +1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
VCU
L 74-103
+43.5
7
@
HALL
L 61-68
−5.5
11
@
FOR
L 61-63
−15.5
16
@
UMBC
L 70-71
+0.5
22
@
GTWN
L 75-92
+26.5
26
@
MAN
W 103-101
+59.5
2
@
MD
L 63-89
+8.5
17
vs
UMES
W 78-64
+10.5
2
@
CHST
W 79-72
+4.5
4
vs
STO
L 60-69
−10.5
8
vs
SFPA
L 69-71
−4.5
10
vs
MERC
L 69-70
+6.5
17
@
NHVN
L 74-80
+24.5
19
@
FDU
L 61-68
−8.5
23
@
LEM
L 67-69
−7.5
29
vs
CCSU
L 55-62
−19.5
31
vs
FDU
W 75-72
+13.5
5
vs
LEM
W 79-78
+18.5
7
@
CCSU
L 67-84
+14.5
12
vs
LIU
L 57-67
−11.5
14
@
STO
W 68-57
−3.5
16
@
LIU
L 65-83
+9.5
19
@
MERC
W 83-80
+29.5
21
@
SFPA
W 65-56
−30.5
26
vs
NHVN
W 65-62
−4.5
28
vs
CHST
W 80-61
+6.5
4
@
CCSU
W 70-60
−9.5
7
@
LIU
L 56-64
−18.5
over 15under 13avg +4.5 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: Wagner 0, High Point 3, even 2
WagnerBetterHigh Point
G T. Bryant TR3.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 8
→HPUBig
G J. Rivera-Torres TR15.9 pts · 8.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 91
G C. Estevez TR3.4 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 14
→HPUBig
G C. Williams TR12.4 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 60
G R. Pettis TR1.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Brown TR10.5 pts · 3.7 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 64
F K. Watson TR4.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 31
→HPUBig
F I. Garrett TR13.8 pts · 7.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 79
C B. Smith TR1.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F F. Sherman TR10.8 pts · 8.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 85
WagnerBetterHigh Point
WAG offense359th of 366 · -14.0
→HPUBig
HPU defense127th of 366 · -2.3
WAG defense293rd of 366 · -7.4
→HPUBig
HPU offense64th of 366 · +2.2
Backcourt-3.1 · 3 players
→HPUBig
Backcourt+3.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.5 · 2 players
→HPUBig
Frontcourt+3.9 · 2 players
Bench-1.9 · 3 players
→HPUBig
Bench+4.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestWAG betterHPU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Bryant14 min · TRC. Estevez12 min · TRR. Pettis10 min · TRL. McGradyNewJ. CurtisNewG. EdwardsNew
Forwards
K. Watson12 min · TRT. Jones5 min · TRA. RodriguezNewD. KabaNewF. HassanNew
Centers
B. Smith8 min · TRY. Singar8 min · TRW. Patterson4 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 69.6 #292 | Points per game | 86.4 #9 |
| 1.05 #250 | Points per possession | 1.20 #12 |
| 66.4 #299 | Pace (possessions) | 71.7 #47 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #262 | Effective FG% | 54.5 #51 |
| 36.6 #36 | 3-point % | 34.2 #161 |
| 36.1 #249 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.6 #98 |
| 32.4 #252 | Free throw rate | 40.8 #50 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.6 #303 | Turnover rate | 12.8 #5 |
| 32.8 #96 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.8 #131 |
| 11.9 #289 | Assists per game | 15.4 #74 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #126 | Points allowed | 72.8 #128 |
| 1.09 #208 | Points allowed per possession | 1.01 #38 |
| 50.4 #123 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #126 |
| 34.3 #202 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.6 #97 |
| 14.9 #295 | Turnovers forced | 21.3 #8 |
| 70.5 #139 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.9 #207 |
| 5.2 #321 | Steals per game | 10.1 #2 |
| 2.3 #320 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #119 |
Wagner
11-17 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Long Island56–64
- W@ C Connecticut70–60
- Wvs Chicago St80–61
- Wvs New Haven65–62
- W@ Saint Francis Red Wolves65–56
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
A week or more of rest.