Patrick Gymnasium · at Vermont
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UVM | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UVM 74–70 · win probability UVM 65%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.6
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: UVM has more of the edges
QUIN 2, UVM 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: QUIN plays 70.3 a game (100th fastest), UVM 65.2 (342nd). Faster games mean more points
QUIN offense vs UVM defense
Offense 243rd of 366 against a defense 134th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: QUIN 33.8, UVM 31.1. Allowed: QUIN 30.6, UVM 36.4
Shooting
Effective FG%: QUIN 48.1 and allows 48.9; UVM 53.1 and allows 50.4
Home court
UVM at home. This season: UVM 0-0 at home, QUIN 0-0 away
Turnovers
Turnover rate: QUIN 15.8%, UVM 14.3%. Forced: QUIN 17.4%, UVM 14.8%
Even
UVM offense vs QUIN defense
Offense 264th of 366 against a defense 232nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
QUIN hits 34.0% and allows 34.9%; UVM hits 33.3% and allows 35.3%. Threes are 33.7% and 44.6% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
QUIN has played the 324th-hardest schedule, UVM the 325th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: QUIN 34.1%, UVM 26.2%. Defensive: QUIN 68.0%, UVM 77.0%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: QUIN 31%, UVM 31%. Transfers in: QUIN 2, UVM 4. 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 | — | UVM -4.5 | — |
| Total | — | 143.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | QUIN 69.6 · UVM 74.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UVM -2.5 | — |
| 1H total | 67.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | QUIN 32.3 · UVM 34.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | |
| 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Quinnipiac
31 games played
Straight up
18-13
58% wins
Against the spread
12-19
39% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg −0.9 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 74-108 | +26.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 71-49 | -9.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 60-97 | +6.5 | L −30.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 70-64 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 83-75 | +12.5 | W +20.5 | 140.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 91-102 | +13.5 | W +2.5 | 162.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-62 | -15.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 5 | @ | W 89-68 | +2.5 | W +23.5 | 163.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 72-58 | -14.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 75-71 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 85-75 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 66-74 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 64-58 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 79-80 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 80-69 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 70-60 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 70-74 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 71-83 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 141.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 98-92 | -13.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 77-62 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 64-71 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 91-98 | -8.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 72-65 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 75-60 | -15.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 56-55 | -12.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 74-62 | +3.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 49-56 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 79-85 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 76-78 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 67-63 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 75-77 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SJU
L 74-108
−7.5
6
vs
CCSU
W 71-49
+12.5
11
vs
YALE
L 60-97
−30.5
16
@
ME
W 70-64
+2.5
23
@
PITT
W 83-75
+20.5
25
@
UCF
L 91-102
+2.5
30
vs
STO
W 76-62
−1.5
5
@
IONA
W 89-68
+23.5
7
vs
RID
W 72-58
−0.5
13
vs
UML
W 75-71
−8.5
17
@
MONM
W 85-75
+11.5
21
@
HOF
L 66-74
−0.5
29
vs
MRST
W 64-58
+3.5
2
@
MAN
L 79-80
−8.5
4
vs
MSM
W 80-69
+3.5
11
@
SHU
W 70-60
+4.5
14
vs
SPU
L 70-74
−10.5
17
@
MRMK
L 71-83
−13.5
19
vs
MAN
W 98-92
−7.5
22
@
MSM
W 77-62
+10.5
24
@
MRST
L 64-71
−3.5
30
vs
SHU
L 91-98
−15.5
1
@
FAIR
W 72-65
+4.5
5
vs
CAN
W 75-60
−0.5
7
vs
NIA
W 56-55
−11.5
13
@
SIE
W 74-62
+15.5
15
vs
MRMK
L 49-56
−10.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 79-85
−12.5
27
@
NIA
L 76-78
−10.5
1
@
CAN
W 67-63
−3.5
7
vs
MRST
L 75-77
−3.5
covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SJU
L 74-108
+25.5
6
vs
CCSU
W 71-49
−30.5
11
vs
YALE
L 60-97
+0.5
16
@
ME
W 70-64
−3.5
23
@
PITT
W 83-75
+17.5
25
@
UCF
L 91-102
+30.5
30
vs
STO
W 76-62
−10.5
5
@
IONA
W 89-68
−6.5
7
vs
RID
W 72-58
−17.5
13
vs
UML
W 75-71
−7.5
17
@
MONM
W 85-75
+14.5
21
@
HOF
L 66-74
−7.5
29
vs
MRST
W 64-58
−23.5
2
@
MAN
L 79-80
−0.5
4
vs
MSM
W 80-69
−1.5
11
@
SHU
W 70-60
−22.5
14
vs
SPU
L 70-74
+3.5
17
@
MRMK
L 71-83
+12.5
19
vs
MAN
W 98-92
+36.5
22
@
MSM
W 77-62
−9.5
24
@
MRST
L 64-71
−4.5
30
vs
SHU
L 91-98
+32.5
1
@
FAIR
W 72-65
−17.5
5
vs
CAN
W 75-60
−6.5
7
vs
NIA
W 56-55
−26.5
13
@
SIE
W 74-62
−8.5
15
vs
MRMK
L 49-56
−36.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 79-85
+13.5
27
@
NIA
L 76-78
+17.5
1
@
CAN
W 67-63
−8.5
7
vs
MRST
L 75-77
+16.5
over 12under 19avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
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: Quinnipiac 2, Vermont 2, even 1
QuinnipiacBetterVermont
G N. Guerengomba2.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 4
→UVMSmall
G D. Yepdo TR10.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 24
G T. Turnage3.4 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 36
←QUINSmall
G J. Broom TR2 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 14
F K. McKnight10.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 79
←QUINBig
G M. Nkugwa2.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
F H. Pierre-Louis TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 1
→UVMBig
F G. Yalden16.1 pts · 5.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 96
F N. Hart TR2.2 pts · 3.1 reb · 0 ast
Score 27
=Even
F N. Barnett5.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 41
QuinnipiacBetterVermont
QUIN offense243rd of 366 · -7.3
→UVMSmall
UVM defense134th of 366 · -2.5
QUIN defense232nd of 366 · -6.2
=Even
UVM offense264th of 366 · -8.1
Backcourt-2.7 · 2 players
←QUINSmall
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.8 · 3 players
→UVMBig
Frontcourt+3.3 · 2 players
Bench-0.6 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-1.4 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestQUIN betterUVM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. Guerengomba14 minT. Turnage12 minM. ParrottaNewT. Cunningham-PembertonNewL. SekasiNewM. FieldsNew
Forwards
K. McKnight25 minH. Pierre-Louis15 min · TRN. Hart11 min · TRB. Ritvo7 minA. Akinniyi2 minC. Skenderi2 min
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.2 #190 | Points per game | 72.1 #237 |
| 1.05 #246 | Points per possession | 1.11 #124 |
| 70.3 #100 | Pace (possessions) | 65.2 #342 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.1 #310 | Effective FG% | 53.1 #95 |
| 34.0 #171 | 3-point % | 33.3 #208 |
| 33.7 #304 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.6 #77 |
| 33.8 #217 | Free throw rate | 31.1 #279 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.8 #125 | Turnover rate | 14.3 #34 |
| 34.1 #65 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.2 #318 |
| 13.0 #211 | Assists per game | 12.3 #266 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.6 #121 | Points allowed | 68.8 #44 |
| 1.04 #68 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #96 |
| 48.9 #65 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.4 #121 |
| 34.9 #242 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.3 #267 |
| 17.4 #122 | Turnovers forced | 14.8 #307 |
| 68.0 #253 | Defensive rebound rate | 77.0 #2 |
| 7.8 #55 | Steals per game | 4.5 #354 |
| 4.5 #37 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #279 |
Quinnipiac
18-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Marist75–77
- W@ Canisius67–63
- L@ Niagara76–78
- Lvs Fairfield79–85
- Lvs Merrimack49–56
A week or more of rest.
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.