SECU Arena · at Towson
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TOW | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TOW 78–65 · win probability TOW 86%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.5
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: TOW has more of the edges
L-MD 0, TOW 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
L-MD offense vs TOW defense
Offense 307th of 366 against a defense 113th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
L-MD has played the 299th-hardest schedule, TOW the 140th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: L-MD 27.6%, TOW 36.0%. Defensive: L-MD 71.0%, TOW 70.9%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: L-MD plays 69.3 a game (165th fastest), TOW 64.0 (360th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: L-MD 50.4 and allows 54.7; TOW 46.5 and allows 48.5
Home court
TOW at home. This season: TOW 0-0 at home, L-MD 0-0 away
TOW offense vs L-MD defense
Offense 266th of 366 against a defense 313th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: L-MD 29.9, TOW 30.4. Allowed: L-MD 32.7, TOW 29.3
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: L-MD 15.4%, TOW 15.8%. Forced: L-MD 15.4%, TOW 15.1%
Even
Three-pointers
L-MD hits 32.5% and allows 32.8%; TOW hits 29.4% and allows 30.9%. Threes are 47.2% and 34.9% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: L-MD 33%, TOW 27%. Transfers in: L-MD 5, TOW 3. 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 | — | TOW -12.5 | — |
| Total | — | 142.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | L-MD 65 · TOW 77.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TOW -7.3 | — |
| 1H total | 66.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | L-MD 29.7 · TOW 37 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | |
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
L-MD 0–1 TOWTOW leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · L-MD 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2025-26 | TOW 67 vs L-MD 56 | L-MD +8.5 | TOW W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Loyola MD
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-13
57% overs · avg +4.6 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 | L 56-67 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 64-66 | -10.5 | L −12.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 82-85 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 78-92 | +14.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 46-88 | +35.5 | L −6.5 | 159.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 95-84 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 71-93 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 70-86 | -2.5 | L −18.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 73-81 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 79-86 | +23.5 | W +16.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 69-84 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 64-79 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 84-76 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 67-70 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 80-86 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 74-57 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 81-88 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 67-62 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 77-68 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-87 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 89-84 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 69-78 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 68-54 | +3.5 | W +17.5 | 147.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-73 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 77-87 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 98-101 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 51-78 | +6.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 76-62 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 77-90 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TOW
L 56-67
−2.5
11
vs
NJIT
L 64-66
−12.5
15
vs
STO
W 74-63
+4.5
16
@
FAIR
L 82-85
+2.5
19
@
DUQ
L 78-92
+0.5
21
@
UK
L 46-88
−6.5
30
vs
COPP
W 95-84
+1.5
3
@
HAMP
L 71-93
−15.5
9
@
VMI
L 70-86
−18.5
13
vs
MSM
L 73-81
−5.5
21
@
GMU
L 79-86
+16.5
31
@
AMER
L 69-84
−6.5
3
vs
LAF
L 64-79
−13.5
7
@
ARMY
W 84-76
+12.5
10
@
BUCK
L 67-70
+3.5
14
vs
COLG
L 80-86
+2.5
17
vs
BU
W 74-57
+18.5
19
@
LEH
L 81-88
−3.5
24
vs
BUCK
W 67-62
+2.5
28
vs
AMER
W 77-68
+13.5
31
@
NAVY
L 71-87
−6.5
4
vs
LEH
W 89-84
+2.5
7
@
BU
L 69-78
−3.5
11
@
LAF
W 68-54
+17.5
15
vs
HC
W 83-73
+5.5
18
vs
ARMY
L 77-87
−14.5
21
@
COLG
L 98-101
+5.5
25
vs
NAVY
L 51-78
−20.5
28
@
HC
W 76-62
+15.5
5
@
COLG
L 77-90
−6.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TOW
L 56-67
−18.5
11
vs
NJIT
L 64-66
−9.5
15
vs
STO
W 74-63
−1.5
16
@
FAIR
L 82-85
+31.5
19
@
DUQ
L 78-92
+19.5
21
@
UK
L 46-88
−25.5
30
vs
COPP
W 95-84
+35.5
3
@
HAMP
L 71-93
+21.5
9
@
VMI
L 70-86
+4.5
13
vs
MSM
L 73-81
+2.5
21
@
GMU
L 79-86
+18.5
31
@
AMER
L 69-84
−1.5
3
vs
LAF
L 64-79
−9.5
7
@
ARMY
W 84-76
+13.5
10
@
BUCK
L 67-70
−6.5
14
vs
COLG
L 80-86
+15.5
17
vs
BU
W 74-57
−17.5
19
@
LEH
L 81-88
+19.5
24
vs
BUCK
W 67-62
−18.5
28
vs
AMER
W 77-68
−2.5
31
@
NAVY
L 71-87
+14.5
4
vs
LEH
W 89-84
+23.5
7
@
BU
L 69-78
+1.5
11
@
LAF
W 68-54
−25.5
15
vs
HC
W 83-73
+9.5
18
vs
ARMY
L 77-87
+14.5
21
@
COLG
L 98-101
+48.5
25
vs
NAVY
L 51-78
−18.5
28
@
HC
W 76-62
−13.5
5
@
COLG
L 77-90
+11.5
over 17under 13avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Towson
32 games played
Straight up
17-15
53% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-20
38% overs · avg −5.6 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 67-56 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 48-65 | +26.5 | W +9.5 | 130.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 51-41 | -13.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 92 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 75-81 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 62-55 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 140.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 72-69 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 137.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 73-87 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 93-80 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 61-86 | +9.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 49-73 | +14.5 | L −9.5 | 137.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 72-47 | -13.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 70-84 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 62-63 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 136.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 48-62 | -8.5 | L −22.5 | 136.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 67-78 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 87-78 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 61-52 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 59-58 | -7.5 | L −6.5 | 124.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 72-59 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 73-80 | -7.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 73-82 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 82-50 | -8.5 | W +23.5 | 131.5 | O 132 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 49-71 | +4.5 | L −17.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 69-57 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 71-72 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 62-68 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 58-56 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 71-67 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 69-57 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | U 126 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 74-68 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 132.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 81-56 | +3.5 | W +28.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 65-68 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 132.5 | O 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
L-MD
W 67-56
+2.5
8
@
HOU
L 48-65
+9.5
14
vs
NORF
W 51-41
−3.5
18
@
JMU
L 75-81
−9.5
24
vs
URI
W 62-55
+9.5
25
vs
LIB
W 72-69
+9.5
26
vs
UCSD
L 73-87
−12.5
3
vs
COR
W 93-80
+6.5
7
@
UCF
L 61-86
−15.5
16
@
KU
L 49-73
−9.5
22
vs
SHU
W 72-47
+11.5
29
@
W&M
L 70-84
−12.5
31
@
HAMP
L 62-63
−7.5
3
vs
MONM
L 48-62
−22.5
8
vs
HOF
L 67-78
−12.5
10
@
NE
W 87-78
+6.5
15
vs
COFC
W 61-52
+5.5
19
vs
DREX
W 59-58
−6.5
22
@
ELON
W 72-59
+14.5
24
@
NCAT
L 73-80
−14.5
29
vs
UNCW
L 73-82
−10.5
31
vs
HAMP
W 82-50
+23.5
7
@
HOF
L 49-71
−17.5
12
vs
STBK
W 69-57
+4.5
15
@
MONM
L 71-72
+0.5
22
@
DREX
L 62-68
−8.5
26
vs
ELON
W 58-56
−3.5
28
vs
CAM
W 71-67
−0.5
3
@
STBK
W 69-57
+10.5
7
vs
HAMP
W 74-68
−1.5
8
vs
COFC
W 81-56
+28.5
9
vs
HOF
L 65-68
+1.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
L-MD
W 67-56
−18.5
8
@
HOU
L 48-65
−17.5
14
vs
NORF
W 51-41
−46.5
18
@
JMU
L 75-81
+15.5
24
vs
URI
W 62-55
−23.5
25
vs
LIB
W 72-69
+3.5
26
vs
UCSD
L 73-87
+21.5
3
vs
COR
W 93-80
+18.5
7
@
UCF
L 61-86
−1.5
16
@
KU
L 49-73
−15.5
22
vs
SHU
W 72-47
−26.5
29
@
W&M
L 70-84
−3.5
31
@
HAMP
L 62-63
−11.5
3
vs
MONM
L 48-62
−26.5
8
vs
HOF
L 67-78
+10.5
10
@
NE
W 87-78
+21.5
15
vs
COFC
W 61-52
−30.5
19
vs
DREX
W 59-58
−7.5
22
@
ELON
W 72-59
−14.5
24
@
NCAT
L 73-80
+13.5
29
vs
UNCW
L 73-82
+19.5
31
vs
HAMP
W 82-50
+0.5
7
@
HOF
L 49-71
−17.5
12
vs
STBK
W 69-57
−9.5
15
@
MONM
L 71-72
+4.5
22
@
DREX
L 62-68
−0.5
26
vs
ELON
W 58-56
−30.5
28
vs
CAM
W 71-67
−4.5
3
@
STBK
W 69-57
−11.5
7
vs
HAMP
W 74-68
+9.5
8
vs
COFC
W 81-56
−1.5
9
vs
HOF
L 65-68
+0.5
over 12under 20avg −5.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Towson has the better starters
Position by position: Loyola MD 0, Towson 3, even 2
Loyola MDBetterTowson
G T. Cicero5.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 53
=Even
G B. Roseborough TR11.7 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 50
G C. Berg-McLean3.5 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 21
→TOWBig
G J. Womack6.8 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 61
F S. Springer4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 4
→TOWSmall
G C. Ndefo2.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 32
F S. Emenalo3.1 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 11
→TOWSmall
F C. Embeya3.5 pts · 5.9 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 37
F D. Harrison TR2.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Badalau TR3.1 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 32
Loyola MDBetterTowson
L-MD offense307th of 366 · -9.5
→TOWBig
TOW defense113th of 366 · -1.4
L-MD defense313th of 366 · -8.1
=Even
TOW offense266th of 366 · -8.1
Backcourt-1.4 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt-1.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-4.7 · 3 players
→TOWBig
Frontcourt-1.5 · 2 players
Bench-3.1 · 5 players
→TOWBig
Bench-0.1 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestL-MD betterTOW betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Cicero14 minC. Berg-McLean14 minM. Ortega8 min · TRL. RickettsNewR. LongNewS. BiegNew
Forwards
S. Springer17 minS. Emenalo15 minD. Harrison12 min · TRE. Barnes8 minM. Hagedorn7 min · TRA. Huguet7 min · TR
Guards
B. Roseborough28 min · TRJ. Womack19 minC. Ndefo12 minZ. Stanford5 min · TRR. Skerry2 minC. DoerrNew
Forwards
C. Embeya21 minD. Badalau13 min · TRA. AtkinsonNewB. HolmesNewD. KirkNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.7 #212 | Points per game | 67.1 #332 |
| 1.06 #227 | Points per possession | 1.05 #256 |
| 69.3 #165 | Pace (possessions) | 64.0 #360 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.4 #219 | Effective FG% | 46.5 #345 |
| 32.5 #251 | 3-point % | 29.4 #349 |
| 47.2 #30 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.9 #277 |
| 29.9 #312 | Free throw rate | 30.4 #299 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.4 #101 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #128 |
| 27.6 #279 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.0 #24 |
| 12.6 #246 | Assists per game | 9.5 #364 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.5 #280 | Points allowed | 66.4 #18 |
| 1.14 #304 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #73 |
| 54.7 #321 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.5 #49 |
| 32.8 #106 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.9 #33 |
| 15.4 #261 | Turnovers forced | 15.1 #271 |
| 71.0 #103 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #117 |
| 6.1 #221 | Steals per game | 5.8 #253 |
| 3.4 #156 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #175 |
Loyola MD
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Patriot League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Colgate77–90
- W@ Holy Cross76–62
- Lvs Navy51–78
- L@ Colgate98–101
- Lvs Army77–87
A week or more of rest.
Towson
17-15 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Coastal Athletic Association
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Hofstra65–68
- Wvs Charleston81–56
- Wvs Hampton74–68
- W@ Stony Brook69–57
- Wvs Campbell71–67
A week or more of rest.