Leo D. Mahoney Arena · at Fairfield
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FAIR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FAIR 72–69 · win probability FAIR 58%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.8
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: FAIR has more of the edges
UVM 2, FAIR 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
FAIR offense vs UVM defense
Offense 282nd of 366 against a defense 134th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: UVM 53.1 and allows 50.4; FAIR 48.8 and allows 51.0
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UVM 26.2%, FAIR 35.8%. Defensive: UVM 77.0%, FAIR 70.9%
UVM offense vs FAIR defense
Offense 264th of 366 against a defense 195th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
FAIR at home. This season: FAIR 0-0 at home, UVM 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: UVM 31.1, FAIR 27.7. Allowed: UVM 36.4, FAIR 30.4
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UVM 31%, FAIR 53%. Transfers in: UVM 4, FAIR 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: UVM plays 65.2 a game (342nd fastest), FAIR 67.3 (263rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UVM 14.3%, FAIR 15.4%. Forced: UVM 14.8%, FAIR 16.8%
Context
Schedule so far
UVM has played the 325th-hardest schedule, FAIR the 359th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Three-pointers
UVM hits 33.3% and allows 35.3%; FAIR hits 33.2% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 44.6% and 35.4% 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 | — | FAIR -2.3 | — |
| Total | — | 140.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | UVM 69.3 · FAIR 71.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FAIR -1.2 | — |
| 1H total | 65.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | UVM 32.3 · FAIR 33.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UVM 0–1 FAIRFAIR leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UVM 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2024-25 | UVM 66 vs FAIR 67 | FAIR +8.5 | FAIR W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Vermont
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg −2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +2 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 9 | @ | W 89-84 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 85-74 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 134.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 90-94 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 73-79 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 65-80 | +4.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 79-74 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 74-77 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 58-80 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 65-56 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 142.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 66-59 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 136.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 83-69 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 134.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 78-83 | -6.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 69-75 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 80-61 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 60-59 | -20.5 | L −19.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 67-62 | -14.5 | L −9.5 | 130.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 68-75 | -5.5 | L −12.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 77-68 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 62-52 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 64-55 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 77-79 | -13.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 70-76 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 130.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 80-57 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 73-65 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 136.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 90-63 | -13.5 | W +13.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 62-75 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 70-64 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 66-64 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 69-56 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 136.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 77-57 | -11.5 | W +8.5 | 130.5 | O 134 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 63-54 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 134.5 | U 117 |
| Mar 14 | @ | L 59-74 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
9
@
BRWN
W 89-84
−0.5
15
@
NE
W 85-74
+12.5
18
@
BUF
L 90-94
−5.5
24
vs
LIB
L 73-79
+2.5
25
vs
URI
L 65-80
−10.5
26
vs
PRIN
W 79-74
−0.5
30
vs
YALE
L 74-77
+3.5
3
@
ORST
L 58-80
−18.5
6
@
PEPP
W 65-56
+7.5
14
vs
MRMK
W 66-59
+0.5
17
vs
SIE
W 83-69
+11.5
20
vs
IONA
L 78-83
−11.5
30
@
PRIN
L 69-75
−9.5
3
@
UNH
W 80-61
+11.5
8
vs
BING
W 60-59
−19.5
15
vs
ME
W 67-62
−9.5
19
@
UALB
L 68-75
−12.5
22
@
UML
W 77-68
+4.5
24
@
BRY
W 62-52
+1.5
29
vs
UMBC
W 64-55
+0.5
31
vs
NJIT
L 77-79
−15.5
5
@
ME
L 70-76
−14.5
7
vs
UNH
W 80-57
+13.5
12
@
BING
W 73-65
−3.5
14
vs
BRY
W 90-63
+13.5
19
@
UMBC
L 62-75
−14.5
21
@
NJIT
W 70-64
−0.5
26
vs
UML
W 66-64
−7.5
3
vs
UALB
W 69-56
+3.5
7
vs
BRY
W 77-57
+8.5
10
vs
NJIT
W 63-54
−1.5
14
@
UMBC
L 59-74
−13.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
9
@
BRWN
W 89-84
+41.5
15
@
NE
W 85-74
+24.5
18
@
BUF
L 90-94
+42.5
24
vs
LIB
L 73-79
+10.5
25
vs
URI
L 65-80
+0.5
26
vs
PRIN
W 79-74
+12.5
30
vs
YALE
L 74-77
+3.5
3
@
ORST
L 58-80
−5.5
6
@
PEPP
W 65-56
−21.5
14
vs
MRMK
W 66-59
−11.5
17
vs
SIE
W 83-69
+17.5
20
vs
IONA
L 78-83
+8.5
30
@
PRIN
L 69-75
+7.5
3
@
UNH
W 80-61
+1.5
8
vs
BING
W 60-59
−21.5
15
vs
ME
W 67-62
−1.5
19
@
UALB
L 68-75
+3.5
22
@
UML
W 77-68
−0.5
24
@
BRY
W 62-52
−19.5
29
vs
UMBC
W 64-55
−22.5
31
vs
NJIT
L 77-79
+16.5
5
@
ME
L 70-76
+15.5
7
vs
UNH
W 80-57
−1.5
12
@
BING
W 73-65
+1.5
14
vs
BRY
W 90-63
+19.5
19
@
UMBC
L 62-75
−5.5
21
@
NJIT
W 70-64
−8.5
26
vs
UML
W 66-64
−16.5
3
vs
UALB
W 69-56
−11.5
7
vs
BRY
W 77-57
+3.5
10
vs
NJIT
W 63-54
−17.5
14
@
UMBC
L 59-74
−1.5
over 17under 15avg +2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Fairfield
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
15-18
45% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-19
42% overs · avg −0.3 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 68-76 | +15.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 74-53 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 59-82 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 73-71 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 85-82 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 22 | @ | W 97-83 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 77-106 | +3.5 | L −25.5 | 150.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 72-68 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 66-70 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 63-74 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 73-65 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 84-70 | +6.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 66-70 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 81-85 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 83-75 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 68-62 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 98-62 | -6.5 | W +29.5 | 158.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 67-82 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 77-85 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 62-61 | -10.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 61-55 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 71-70 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 65-72 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 92-87 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 63-60 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 74-83 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 78-68 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 22 | @ | W 85-79 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 72-58 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 142.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 47-69 | -4.5 | L −26.5 | 145.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 71-60 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 74-55 | +1.5 | W +20.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 61-76 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
PSU
L 68-76
+7.5
8
@
NJIT
W 74-53
+14.5
10
@
HALL
L 59-82
−8.5
14
vs
STO
W 73-71
−4.5
16
vs
L-MD
W 85-82
−2.5
22
@
LEM
W 97-83
+12.5
26
vs
COLU
L 77-106
−25.5
30
vs
UNH
W 72-68
−5.5
5
@
MAN
L 66-70
−5.5
7
@
MRMK
L 63-74
−7.5
14
vs
MONM
W 73-65
+10.5
18
@
CCSU
W 84-70
+20.5
29
vs
SPU
L 66-70
−6.5
2
@
CAN
L 81-85
−10.5
4
@
NIA
W 83-75
+4.5
9
vs
RID
W 68-62
−2.5
14
vs
MAN
W 98-62
+29.5
17
@
MRST
L 67-82
−6.5
19
@
SIE
L 77-85
−1.5
22
vs
NIA
W 62-61
−9.5
24
vs
CAN
W 61-55
−4.5
30
@
IONA
W 71-70
+2.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 65-72
−4.5
5
@
SHU
W 92-87
+6.5
7
vs
MRST
W 63-60
+4.5
15
@
SPU
L 74-83
−5.5
20
vs
SHU
W 78-68
+5.5
22
@
QUIN
W 85-79
+12.5
27
vs
SIE
W 72-58
+15.5
1
vs
MSM
L 47-69
−26.5
5
vs
MAN
W 71-60
+7.5
6
vs
SPU
W 74-55
+20.5
8
vs
SIE
L 61-76
−13.5
covered 15didn’t cover 18avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
PSU
L 68-76
−7.5
8
@
NJIT
W 74-53
−18.5
10
@
HALL
L 59-82
+3.5
14
vs
STO
W 73-71
+0.5
16
vs
L-MD
W 85-82
+31.5
22
@
LEM
W 97-83
+34.5
26
vs
COLU
L 77-106
+32.5
30
vs
UNH
W 72-68
−7.5
5
@
MAN
L 66-70
−19.5
7
@
MRMK
L 63-74
−7.5
14
vs
MONM
W 73-65
−5.5
18
@
CCSU
W 84-70
+10.5
29
vs
SPU
L 66-70
−4.5
2
@
CAN
L 81-85
+25.5
4
@
NIA
W 83-75
+19.5
9
vs
RID
W 68-62
−15.5
14
vs
MAN
W 98-62
+1.5
17
@
MRST
L 67-82
+7.5
19
@
SIE
L 77-85
+19.5
22
vs
NIA
W 62-61
−16.5
24
vs
CAN
W 61-55
−25.5
30
@
IONA
W 71-70
−5.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 65-72
−17.5
5
@
SHU
W 92-87
+23.5
7
vs
MRST
W 63-60
−15.5
15
@
SPU
L 74-83
+15.5
20
vs
SHU
W 78-68
−12.5
22
@
QUIN
W 85-79
+13.5
27
vs
SIE
W 72-58
−12.5
1
vs
MSM
L 47-69
−29.5
5
vs
MAN
W 71-60
−17.5
6
vs
SPU
W 74-55
−8.5
8
vs
SIE
L 61-76
−1.5
over 14under 19avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Vermont 2, Fairfield 2, even 1
VermontBetterFairfield
G D. Yepdo TR10.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 24
→FAIRBig
G D. Wucherpfennig11.8 pts · 8.3 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 71
G J. Broom TR2 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 14
=Even
G T. Williams6.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 19
G M. Nkugwa2.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
←UVMSmall
G E. Mejia4.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 11
F G. Yalden16.1 pts · 5.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 96
←UVMBig
G H. Rawlins3.6 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 4
F N. Barnett5.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 41
→FAIRBig
F Q. Martin TR12.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 76
VermontBetterFairfield
UVM offense264th of 366 · -8.1
→FAIRSmall
FAIR defense195th of 366 · -4.8
UVM defense134th of 366 · -2.5
←UVMBig
FAIR offense282nd of 366 · -8.7
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-5.9 · 4 players
Frontcourt+3.3 · 2 players
←UVMSmall
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
Bench-1.4 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-2.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUVM betterFAIR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Yepdo32 min · TRJ. Broom15 min · TRM. Nkugwa13 minD. Glazkov13 min · TRK. Badru10 min · TRS. Clemons2 min
Forwards
G. Yalden26 minN. Barnett22 minM. BrunettoNewM. MasicNewS. GbiegbaNew
Guards
D. Wucherpfennig32 minT. Williams20 minE. Mejia19 minH. Rawlins17 minN. Rodriguez7 minJ. Ganton2 min
Forwards
Q. Martin32 min · TRM. Radunovic9 min · TRI. Munkadi9 minP. SmithNewO. SackoNewB. JonesNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.1 #237 | Points per game | 72.9 #226 |
| 1.11 #124 | Points per possession | 1.09 #166 |
| 65.2 #342 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #263 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.1 #95 | Effective FG% | 48.8 #294 |
| 33.3 #208 | 3-point % | 33.2 #216 |
| 44.6 #77 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #262 |
| 31.1 #279 | Free throw rate | 27.7 #346 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #34 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #96 |
| 26.2 #318 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.8 #29 |
| 12.3 #266 | Assists per game | 12.1 #277 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.8 #44 | Points allowed | 71.9 #104 |
| 1.05 #96 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #118 |
| 50.4 #121 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #159 |
| 35.3 #267 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #200 |
| 14.8 #307 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #169 |
| 77.0 #2 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #116 |
| 4.5 #354 | Steals per game | 6.5 #183 |
| 2.7 #279 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #145 |
Vermont
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-5 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ UMBC59–74
- Wvs NJIT63–54
- Wvs Bryant77–57
- Wvs UAlbany69–56
- Wvs UMass Lowell66–64
A week or more of rest.
Fairfield
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 13-10 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Siena61–76
- Wvs Saint Peter's74–55
- Wvs Manhattan71–60
- Lvs Mount St Marys47–69
- Wvs Siena72–58
A week or more of rest.