Curb Event Center Arena · at Belmont
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | BEL | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 BEL 78–72 · win probability BEL 70%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.5
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: BEL has more of the edges
FUR 1, BEL 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FUR 17.8%, BEL 18.0%. Forced: FUR 13.7%, BEL 17.4%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: FUR plays 67.2 a game (273rd fastest), BEL 70.5 (94th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
FUR has played the 224th-hardest schedule, BEL the 146th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FUR 30.5%, BEL 28.8%. Defensive: FUR 71.8%, BEL 70.8%
Home court
BEL at home. This season: BEL 0-0 at home, FUR 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
FUR hits 33.4% and allows 32.3%; BEL hits 41.0% and allows 34.2%. Threes are 46.5% and 45.7% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: FUR 54.8 and allows 50.2; BEL 61.0 and allows 49.9
Even
BEL offense vs FUR defense
Offense 118th of 366 against a defense 146th, on the model’s ratings
Even
FUR offense vs BEL defense
Offense 166th of 366 against a defense 192nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: FUR 32.7, BEL 32.5. Allowed: FUR 28.9, BEL 30.7
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FUR 46%, BEL 41%. Transfers in: FUR 4, BEL 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 | — | BEL -6.0 | — |
| Total | — | 150.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | FUR 72.3 · BEL 78.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BEL -3.4 | — |
| 1H total | 70.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | FUR 33.5 · BEL 36.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
FUR 3–1 BELFUR leads · 4 games since 2021-22 · FUR has won the last 3 meetings · FUR 3-0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2024-25 | FUR 76 @ BEL 74 | BEL -2.5 | FUR W |
| Nov 10, 2023-24 | BEL 76 @ FUR 99 | FUR -6.5 | FUR W |
| Nov 11, 2022-23 | BEL 74 @ FUR 89 | FUR -8.5 | FUR W |
| Nov 15, 2021-22 | FUR 89 @ BEL 95 | BEL -6 | P |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Furman
32 games played
Straight up
19-13
59% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% overs · avg −0.7 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 71-97 | +3.5 | L −22.5 | 153.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 61-64 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 54-70 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 90-79 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 73-72 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 65-72 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 97-88 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 79-69 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 75-68 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 84-76 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 74-72 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 77-80 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 78-67 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 69-48 | -12.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 77-73 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 70-74 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 75-77 | -11.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 89-66 | -4.5 | W +18.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 78-73 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 75-70 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 71-75 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 8 | vs | L 64-67 | -10.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 64-69 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 90-72 | -11.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 69-78 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 76-67 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 72-51 | -15.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-86 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 86-81 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 81-75 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 76-61 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 71-82 | +20.5 | W +9.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
HPU
L 71-97
−22.5
7
vs
TROY
L 61-64
−5.5
14
@
UNI
L 54-70
−6.5
23
vs
QUC
W 90-79
+2.5
27
vs
RICH
W 73-72
+4.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-72
−3.5
3
@
ELON
W 97-88
+7.5
6
vs
HARV
W 79-69
+5.5
18
@
MAN
W 75-68
−3.5
21
vs
CHSO
W 84-76
−2.5
31
vs
MER
W 74-72
−0.5
3
vs
WCU
L 77-80
−11.5
7
@
UTC
W 78-67
+8.5
10
vs
VMI
W 69-48
+8.5
14
@
SAM
W 77-73
+2.5
17
vs
WOF
L 70-74
−8.5
21
@
CIT
L 75-77
−13.5
23
@
UNCG
W 89-66
+18.5
29
vs
SAM
W 78-73
−0.5
1
vs
UTC
W 75-70
−2.5
4
@
ETSU
L 71-75
+1.5
8
vs
UNCG
L 64-67
−13.5
11
@
MER
L 64-69
−1.5
14
@
VMI
W 90-72
+6.5
18
vs
ETSU
L 69-78
−10.5
21
@
WOF
W 76-67
+7.5
25
vs
CIT
W 72-51
+5.5
28
@
WCU
L 67-86
−20.5
7
vs
SAM
W 86-81
+6.5
8
vs
UNCG
W 81-75
+0.5
9
vs
ETSU
W 76-61
+16.5
20
vs
CONN
L 71-82
+9.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
HPU
L 71-97
+14.5
7
vs
TROY
L 61-64
−27.5
14
@
UNI
L 54-70
−17.5
23
vs
QUC
W 90-79
+15.5
27
vs
RICH
W 73-72
−2.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-72
−8.5
3
@
ELON
W 97-88
+31.5
6
vs
HARV
W 79-69
+6.5
18
@
MAN
W 75-68
−11.5
21
vs
CHSO
W 84-76
+4.5
31
vs
MER
W 74-72
−8.5
3
vs
WCU
L 77-80
−0.5
7
@
UTC
W 78-67
−1.5
10
vs
VMI
W 69-48
−32.5
14
@
SAM
W 77-73
+0.5
17
vs
WOF
L 70-74
−5.5
21
@
CIT
L 75-77
+9.5
23
@
UNCG
W 89-66
+4.5
29
vs
SAM
W 78-73
+1.5
1
vs
UTC
W 75-70
−1.5
4
@
ETSU
L 71-75
+4.5
8
vs
UNCG
L 64-67
−18.5
11
@
MER
L 64-69
−18.5
14
@
VMI
W 90-72
+13.5
18
vs
ETSU
L 69-78
+6.5
21
@
WOF
W 76-67
−10.5
25
vs
CIT
W 72-51
−20.5
28
@
WCU
L 67-86
+5.5
7
vs
SAM
W 86-81
+19.5
8
vs
UNCG
W 81-75
+8.5
9
vs
ETSU
W 76-61
−2.5
20
vs
CONN
L 71-82
+19.5
over 16under 16avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Belmont
31 games played
Straight up
25-6
81% wins
Against the spread
18-13
58% covers · avg +2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-12
61% overs · avg +4.1 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 79-63 | -15.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 87-79 | -13.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 83-60 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 171.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 75-68 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 94-57 | -21.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 87-72 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 163.5 | U 159 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 96-73 | -2.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 76-84 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 156.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 83-62 | -3.5 | W +17.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 87-84 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 83-78 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 19 | @ | W 84-58 | +1.5 | W +27.5 | 150.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 80-81 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 88-78 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 67-68 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 78-65 | +2.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 78-76 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 78-74 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 73-68 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 80-69 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 78-77 | -5.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 103-86 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 163.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 103-90 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 6 | @ | W 68-62 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 84-95 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 91-86 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 87-70 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 166.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 87-70 | -12.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 98-64 | -18.5 | W +15.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 74-81 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 79-100 | -12.5 | L −33.5 | 152.5 | O 179 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
AF
W 79-63
+0.5
8
vs
TNST
W 87-79
−5.5
15
@
ORU
W 83-60
+15.5
19
vs
LIP
W 75-68
−5.5
24
vs
SFPA
W 94-57
+15.5
26
vs
TOL
W 87-72
+10.5
30
@
COFC
W 96-73
+20.5
3
vs
RICH
L 76-84
−14.5
7
@
MTSU
W 83-62
+17.5
13
vs
UIC
W 87-84
−9.5
16
@
EVAN
W 83-78
−3.5
19
@
UCI
W 84-58
+27.5
29
@
INST
L 80-81
−8.5
1
vs
BRAD
W 88-78
+6.5
4
vs
SIU
L 67-68
−7.5
7
@
UNI
W 78-65
+15.5
10
@
DRKE
W 78-76
−2.5
13
vs
VAL
W 78-74
−7.5
17
@
SIU
W 73-68
+1.5
24
vs
ILST
W 80-69
+5.5
28
@
VAL
W 78-77
−4.5
31
vs
MUR
W 103-86
+13.5
3
vs
DRKE
W 103-90
+3.5
6
@
UIC
W 68-62
+4.5
9
@
BRAD
L 84-95
−12.5
12
vs
UNI
W 91-86
+0.5
15
@
MUR
W 87-70
+15.5
21
vs
INST
W 87-70
+4.5
25
vs
EVAN
W 98-64
+15.5
1
@
ILST
L 74-81
−8.5
6
vs
DRKE
L 79-100
−33.5
covered 18didn’t cover 13avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
AF
W 79-63
−2.5
8
vs
TNST
W 87-79
+7.5
15
@
ORU
W 83-60
−28.5
19
vs
LIP
W 75-68
−15.5
24
vs
SFPA
W 94-57
−6.5
26
vs
TOL
W 87-72
−4.5
30
@
COFC
W 96-73
+16.5
3
vs
RICH
L 76-84
+3.5
7
@
MTSU
W 83-62
−8.5
13
vs
UIC
W 87-84
+16.5
16
@
EVAN
W 83-78
+13.5
19
@
UCI
W 84-58
−8.5
29
@
INST
L 80-81
+1.5
1
vs
BRAD
W 88-78
+12.5
4
vs
SIU
L 67-68
−23.5
7
@
UNI
W 78-65
+5.5
10
@
DRKE
W 78-76
+5.5
13
vs
VAL
W 78-74
+5.5
17
@
SIU
W 73-68
−10.5
24
vs
ILST
W 80-69
−1.5
28
@
VAL
W 78-77
+9.5
31
vs
MUR
W 103-86
+25.5
3
vs
DRKE
W 103-90
+38.5
6
@
UIC
W 68-62
−21.5
9
@
BRAD
L 84-95
+26.5
12
vs
UNI
W 91-86
+38.5
15
@
MUR
W 87-70
−9.5
21
vs
INST
W 87-70
+0.5
25
vs
EVAN
W 98-64
+9.5
1
@
ILST
L 74-81
+4.5
6
vs
DRKE
L 79-100
+26.5
over 19under 12avg +4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Furman has the better starters
Position by position: Furman 2, Belmont 1, even 2
FurmanBetterBelmont
G J. Bell TR12.3 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 76
←FURSmall
G J. Jenkins8.8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 42
G C. Bowser5.2 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
→BELBig
G J. Smiley8.5 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 81
G L. Toews TR6.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 45
←FURBig
G I. West2.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 7
F M. Kell TR13.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
=Even
F K. Fish TR7.2 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 47
F C. Johnston9.6 pts · 8.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 66
=Even
F E. Dillon7.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 76
FurmanBetterBelmont
FUR offense166th of 366 · -5.1
=Even
BEL defense192nd of 366 · -4.5
FUR defense146th of 366 · -3.2
=Even
BEL offense118th of 366 · -2.7
Backcourt-1.4 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-2.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt+0.9 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt+0.5 · 2 players
Bench-2.5 · 5 players
→BELSmall
Bench-0.6 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestFUR betterBEL betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Bell26 min · TRC. Bowser23 minL. Toews21 min · TRA. Franklin11 minC. O'Neal11 minG. LewisNew
Forwards
M. Kell30 min · TRC. Johnston29 minM. Smith12 minJ. Butler9 min · TRO. Ritger7 minD. MolnarNew
Guards
J. Jenkins24 minJ. Smiley17 minI. West17 minM. Zobrist5 min · TRC. Haynes5 minA. Ristic3 min · TR
Forwards
K. Fish19 min · TRE. Dillon16 minG. Lemke2 minC. KnowlesNewC. GersmehlNew
Centers
V. Neugebauer8 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.9 #164 | Points per game | 83.5 #23 |
| 1.11 #114 | Points per possession | 1.18 #33 |
| 67.2 #273 | Pace (possessions) | 70.5 #94 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.8 #43 | Effective FG% | 61.0 #1 |
| 33.4 #204 | 3-point % | 41.0 #1 |
| 46.5 #40 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.7 #51 |
| 32.7 #246 | Free throw rate | 32.5 #248 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #260 | Turnover rate | 18.0 #272 |
| 30.5 #180 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.8 #241 |
| 14.9 #91 | Assists per game | 18.5 #6 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.5 #116 | Points allowed | 74.1 #158 |
| 1.08 #163 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #95 |
| 50.2 #112 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.9 #93 |
| 32.3 #75 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.2 #197 |
| 13.7 #342 | Turnovers forced | 17.4 #126 |
| 71.8 #72 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.8 #118 |
| 4.4 #357 | Steals per game | 6.0 #241 |
| 3.3 #183 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #151 |
Furman
19-13 in 2025-26 overall · 13-8 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn71–82
- Wvs ETSU76–61
- Wvs UNC Greensboro81–75
- Wvs Samford86–81
- L@ W Carolina67–86
A week or more of rest.
Belmont
25-6 in 2025-26 overall · 16-5 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Drake79–100
- L@ Illinois St74–81
- Wvs Evansville98–64
- Wvs Indiana St87–70
- W@ Murray St87–70
A week or more of rest.