TD Garden · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MICH | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MICH 75–73 · win probability MICH 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.4
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: MICH has more of the edges
CONN 1, MICH 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: CONN 29.9, MICH 38.0. Allowed: CONN 40.7, MICH 26.0
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: CONN plays 66.1 a game (307th fastest), MICH 71.7 (48th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CONN 16.4%, MICH 16.3%. Forced: CONN 17.8%, MICH 15.2%
Three-pointers
CONN hits 34.4% and allows 30.1%; MICH hits 36.8% and allows 30.4%. Threes are 40.9% and 41.5% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: CONN 54.3 and allows 45.7; MICH 58.3 and allows 44.6
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CONN 51%, MICH 38%. Transfers in: CONN 7, MICH 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
CONN offense vs MICH defense
Offense 25th of 366 against a defense 10th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
MICH offense vs CONN defense
Offense 5th of 366 against a defense 2nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CONN 35.7%, MICH 34.7%. Defensive: CONN 71.2%, MICH 71.8%
Context
Schedule so far
CONN has played the 4th-hardest schedule, MICH the 3rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | MICH -1.8 | — |
| Total | — | 148.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | CONN 73.3 · MICH 75.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MICH -0.9 | — |
| 1H total | 69.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | CONN 34.2 · MICH 35.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | |
| 9-1 90% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CONN 0–1 MICHMICH leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CONN 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2025-26 | CONN 63 vs MICH 69 | MICH -6.5 | CONN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UConn
40 games played
Straight up
34-6
85% wins
Against the spread
17-23
43% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-21
48% overs · avg −1.6 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-2343%
5 straight covers4 of last 4 covered
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 79-55 | -42.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 110-47 | -36.5 | W +26.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 89-62 | -32.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 86-84 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 156.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 67-71 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 72-49 | -36.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 74-61 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 61-56 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 117 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 83-59 | -36.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 77-73 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 12 | vs | W 71-63 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 79-60 | -15.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 72-54 | -12.5 | W +5.5 | 133.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 90-67 | -11.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 73-57 | -17.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 103-98 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 201 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 72-60 | -19.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 69-64 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 132.5 | O 133 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 64-62 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-67 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 87-81 | -15.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 85-58 | -6.5 | W +20.5 | 142.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 92-60 | -16.5 | W +15.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 6 | @ | L 72-81 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 143.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 80-70 | -11.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-75 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 84-91 | -15.5 | L −22.5 | 143.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 73-63 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 72-40 | -5.5 | W +26.5 | 145.5 | U 112 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 71-67 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | O 138 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 62-68 | -9.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 93-68 | -17.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 67-51 | -14.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 14 | @ | L 52-72 | -2.5 | L −22.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 82-71 | -20.5 | L −9.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 73-57 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 27 | vs | W 67-63 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 29 | vs | W 73-72 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | O 145 |
| Apr 4 | vs | W 71-62 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
| Apr 6 | vs | L 63-69 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 132 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NHVN
W 79-55
−18.5
7
vs
UML
W 110-47
+26.5
10
vs
COLU
W 89-62
−5.5
15
vs
BYU
W 86-84
−4.5
19
vs
ARIZ
L 67-71
−8.5
23
vs
BRY
W 72-49
−13.5
28
vs
ILL
W 74-61
+8.5
2
@
KU
W 61-56
+1.5
5
vs
ETAM
W 83-59
−12.5
9
vs
FLA
W 77-73
−0.5
12
vs
TEX
W 71-63
−3.5
16
vs
BTLR
W 79-60
+3.5
21
@
DEP
W 72-54
+5.5
31
@
XAV
W 90-67
+11.5
4
vs
MARQ
W 73-57
−1.5
7
@
PROV
W 103-98
−4.5
10
vs
DEP
W 72-60
−7.5
13
@
HALL
W 69-64
−1.5
17
@
GTWN
W 64-62
−9.5
24
vs
VILL
W 75-67
−3.5
27
vs
PROV
W 87-81
−9.5
31
@
CREI
W 85-58
+20.5
3
vs
XAV
W 92-60
+15.5
6
@
SJU
L 72-81
−10.5
11
@
BTLR
W 80-70
−1.5
14
vs
GTWN
W 79-75
−12.5
18
vs
CREI
L 84-91
−22.5
21
@
VILL
W 73-63
+6.5
25
vs
SJU
W 72-40
+26.5
28
vs
HALL
W 71-67
−8.5
7
@
MARQ
L 62-68
−15.5
12
vs
XAV
W 93-68
+7.5
13
vs
GTWN
W 67-51
+1.5
14
@
SJU
L 52-72
−22.5
20
vs
FUR
W 82-71
−9.5
22
vs
UCLA
W 73-57
+10.5
27
vs
MSU
W 67-63
+1.5
29
vs
DUKE
W 73-72
+5.5
4
vs
ILL
W 71-62
+10.5
6
vs
MICH
L 63-69
+0.5
covered 17didn’t cover 23avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NHVN
W 79-55
−11.5
7
vs
UML
W 110-47
+5.5
10
vs
COLU
W 89-62
−4.5
15
vs
BYU
W 86-84
+13.5
19
vs
ARIZ
L 67-71
−18.5
23
vs
BRY
W 72-49
−26.5
28
vs
ILL
W 74-61
−15.5
2
@
KU
W 61-56
−24.5
5
vs
ETAM
W 83-59
+0.5
9
vs
FLA
W 77-73
+4.5
12
vs
TEX
W 71-63
−11.5
16
vs
BTLR
W 79-60
−5.5
21
@
DEP
W 72-54
−7.5
31
@
XAV
W 90-67
+12.5
4
vs
MARQ
W 73-57
−14.5
7
@
PROV
W 103-98
+48.5
10
vs
DEP
W 72-60
−5.5
13
@
HALL
W 69-64
+0.5
17
@
GTWN
W 64-62
−15.5
24
vs
VILL
W 75-67
+4.5
27
vs
PROV
W 87-81
+15.5
31
@
CREI
W 85-58
+0.5
3
vs
XAV
W 92-60
+4.5
6
@
SJU
L 72-81
+9.5
11
@
BTLR
W 80-70
+6.5
14
vs
GTWN
W 79-75
+15.5
18
vs
CREI
L 84-91
+31.5
21
@
VILL
W 73-63
−5.5
25
vs
SJU
W 72-40
−33.5
28
vs
HALL
W 71-67
+7.5
7
@
MARQ
L 62-68
−13.5
12
vs
XAV
W 93-68
+10.5
13
vs
GTWN
W 67-51
−20.5
14
@
SJU
L 52-72
−15.5
20
vs
FUR
W 82-71
+19.5
22
vs
UCLA
W 73-57
−5.5
27
vs
MSU
W 67-63
−6.5
29
vs
DUKE
W 73-72
+9.5
4
vs
ILL
W 71-62
−6.5
6
vs
MICH
L 63-69
−14.5
over 19under 21avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Michigan
40 games played
Straight up
37-3
93% wins
Against the spread
19-21
48% covers · avg +3.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-23
43% overs · avg −1.6 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 121-78 | -24.5 | W +18.5 | 156.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 85-84 | -15.5 | L −14.5 | 168.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 67-63 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 86-61 | -27.5 | L −2.5 | 159.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 94-54 | -6.5 | W +33.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 102-72 | -4.5 | W +25.5 | 163.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 101-61 | +3.5 | W +43.5 | 165.5 | U 162 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 101-60 | -25.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 89-61 | -17.5 | W +10.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 101-83 | -19.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 102-50 | -40.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 112-71 | -24.5 | W +16.5 | 161.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 96-66 | -22.5 | W +7.5 | 173.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 74-72 | -24.5 | L −22.5 | 169.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 88-91 | -19.5 | L −22.5 | 169.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 82-72 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 81-71 | -18.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 86-72 | -15.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 74-62 | -16.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 75-72 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 83-71 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 110-69 | -26.5 | W +14.5 | 161.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 82-61 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 87-75 | -15.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 86-56 | -15.5 | W +14.5 | 156.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 91-80 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 63-68 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 77-67 | -22.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 84-70 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 71-68 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 90-80 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 71-67 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 68-65 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 15 | vs | L 72-80 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 101-80 | -30.5 | L −9.5 | 151.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 95-72 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 27 | vs | W 90-77 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 172.5 | U 167 |
| Mar 29 | vs | W 95-62 | -8.5 | W +24.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Apr 4 | vs | W 91-73 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 157.5 | O 164 |
| Apr 6 | vs | W 69-63 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | U 132 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
OAK
W 121-78
+18.5
11
vs
WAKE
W 85-84
−14.5
14
@
TCU
W 67-63
−3.5
19
vs
MTSU
W 86-61
−2.5
24
vs
SDSU
W 94-54
+33.5
25
vs
AUB
W 102-72
+25.5
26
vs
GONZ
W 101-61
+43.5
6
vs
RUTG
W 101-60
+15.5
9
vs
VILL
W 89-61
+10.5
13
@
MD
W 101-83
−1.5
21
vs
LAS
W 102-50
+11.5
29
vs
MCN
W 112-71
+16.5
2
vs
USC
W 96-66
+7.5
6
@
PSU
W 74-72
−22.5
10
vs
WIS
L 88-91
−22.5
14
@
WASH
W 82-72
−2.5
17
@
ORE
W 81-71
−8.5
20
vs
IU
W 86-72
−1.5
23
vs
OSU
W 74-62
−4.5
27
vs
NEB
W 75-72
−8.5
30
@
MSU
W 83-71
+9.5
5
vs
PSU
W 110-69
+14.5
8
@
OSU
W 82-61
+12.5
11
@
NU
W 87-75
−3.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 86-56
+14.5
17
@
PUR
W 91-80
+8.5
21
vs
DUKE
L 63-68
−8.5
24
vs
MINN
W 77-67
−12.5
27
@
ILL
W 84-70
+12.5
5
@
IOWA
W 71-68
−6.5
8
vs
MSU
W 90-80
−0.5
13
vs
OSU
W 71-67
−8.5
14
vs
WIS
W 68-65
−9.5
15
vs
PUR
L 72-80
−12.5
19
vs
HOW
W 101-80
−9.5
21
vs
SLU
W 95-72
+10.5
27
vs
ALA
W 90-77
+3.5
29
vs
TENN
W 95-62
+24.5
4
vs
ARIZ
W 91-73
+19.5
6
vs
CONN
W 69-63
−0.5
covered 19didn’t cover 21avg +3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
OAK
W 121-78
+42.5
11
vs
WAKE
W 85-84
+0.5
14
@
TCU
W 67-63
−34.5
19
vs
MTSU
W 86-61
−12.5
24
vs
SDSU
W 94-54
−0.5
25
vs
AUB
W 102-72
+10.5
26
vs
GONZ
W 101-61
−3.5
6
vs
RUTG
W 101-60
+7.5
9
vs
VILL
W 89-61
−6.5
13
@
MD
W 101-83
+20.5
21
vs
LAS
W 102-50
−3.5
29
vs
MCN
W 112-71
+21.5
2
vs
USC
W 96-66
−11.5
6
@
PSU
W 74-72
−23.5
10
vs
WIS
L 88-91
+9.5
14
@
WASH
W 82-72
−11.5
17
@
ORE
W 81-71
−5.5
20
vs
IU
W 86-72
−5.5
23
vs
OSU
W 74-62
−29.5
27
vs
NEB
W 75-72
−10.5
30
@
MSU
W 83-71
+4.5
5
vs
PSU
W 110-69
+17.5
8
@
OSU
W 82-61
−18.5
11
@
NU
W 87-75
+8.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 86-56
−14.5
17
@
PUR
W 91-80
+14.5
21
vs
DUKE
L 63-68
−20.5
24
vs
MINN
W 77-67
−1.5
27
@
ILL
W 84-70
−5.5
5
@
IOWA
W 71-68
−7.5
8
vs
MSU
W 90-80
+17.5
13
vs
OSU
W 71-67
−17.5
14
vs
WIS
W 68-65
−28.5
15
vs
PUR
L 72-80
+2.5
19
vs
HOW
W 101-80
+29.5
21
vs
SLU
W 95-72
+5.5
27
vs
ALA
W 90-77
−5.5
29
vs
TENN
W 95-62
+10.5
4
vs
ARIZ
W 91-73
+6.5
6
vs
CONN
W 69-63
−14.5
over 17under 23avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Michigan has the better starters
Position by position: UConn 0, Michigan 1, even 4
UConnBetterMichigan
G N. Machowski TR17.8 pts · 5.9 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 80
=Even
G K. Noland TR17.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 87
G S. Demary10.1 pts · 4.5 reb · 5.9 ast
Score 98
=Even
G E. Cadeau10.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 5.9 ast
Score 87
G S. Ball12.8 pts · 3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 87
=Even
G T. McKenney9.9 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 88
G B. Mullins12 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 88
=Even
G R. Gayle7.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 76
G J. Nash TR5.2 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 26
→MICHBig
C M. Thiam TR12.8 pts · 7.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 92
UConnBetterMichigan
CONN offense25th of 366 · +7.1
=Even
MICH defense10th of 366 · +7.4
CONN defense2nd of 366 · +11.5
=Even
MICH offense5th of 366 · +10.9
Backcourt+8.5 · 5 players
←CONNSmall
Backcourt+7.0 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+4.4 · 1 player
Bench+3.4 · 5 players
→MICHSmall
Bench+5.5 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestCONN betterMICH betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. Machowski35 min · TRS. Demary28 minS. Ball28 minB. Mullins28 minJ. Nash26 min · TRJ. CountyNew
Forwards
N. Khamenia20 min · TRI. Shaw18 min · TRJ. Ross18 minJ. RossNewC. LandrewNewE. AmosovNew
Centers
N. Hines18 min · TRO. Giltay15 min · TRE. Dzafic2 min · TR
Guards
K. Noland34 min · TRE. Cadeau27 minT. McKenney22 minR. Gayle21 minH. Eisley1 minR. LiburdNew
Forwards
J. Estrella18 min · TRJ. Reed18 min · TRO. Goodman5 minH. HochbergNewL. CosbyNewQ. CostelloNew
Centers
M. Thiam27 min · TRM. MollerNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.6 #129 | Points per game | 87.3 #4 |
| 1.16 #52 | Points per possession | 1.21 #8 |
| 66.1 #307 | Pace (possessions) | 71.7 #48 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.3 #59 | Effective FG% | 58.3 #8 |
| 34.4 #150 | 3-point % | 36.8 #33 |
| 40.9 #149 | 3-point attempt rate | 41.5 #141 |
| 29.9 #313 | Free throw rate | 38.0 #102 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.4 #163 | Turnover rate | 16.3 #157 |
| 35.7 #30 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.7 #55 |
| 18.1 #9 | Assists per game | 18.6 #5 |
| Defense | ||
| 65.2 #6 | Points allowed | 69.5 #55 |
| 0.99 #17 | Points allowed per possession | 0.97 #8 |
| 45.7 #7 | Opponent effective FG% | 44.6 #1 |
| 30.1 #8 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.4 #18 |
| 17.8 #107 | Turnovers forced | 15.2 #270 |
| 71.2 #99 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.8 #70 |
| 6.8 #143 | Steals per game | 5.6 #286 |
| 5.0 #15 | Blocks per game | 6.0 #2 |
UConn
34-6 in 2025-26 overall · 19-4 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan63–69
- Wvs Illinois71–62
- Wvs Duke73–72
- Wvs Michigan St67–63
- Wvs UCLA73–57
A week or more of rest.
Michigan
37-3 in 2025-26 overall · 21-2 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Wvs UConn69–63
- Wvs Arizona91–73
- Wvs Tennessee95–62
- Wvs Alabama90–77
- Wvs Saint Louis95–72
A week or more of rest.