David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | COLG | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 73–72 · win probability UVM 51%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.7
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 3, COLG 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
UVM has played the 325th-hardest schedule, COLG the 178th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
UVM hits 33.3% and allows 35.3%; COLG hits 35.6% and allows 34.8%. Threes are 44.6% and 35.0% of their shots
COLG offense vs UVM defense
Offense 205th of 366 against a defense 134th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: UVM plays 65.2 a game (342nd fastest), COLG 68.6 (202nd). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UVM 26.2%, COLG 26.6%. Defensive: UVM 77.0%, COLG 70.7%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UVM 31%, COLG 59%. Transfers in: UVM 4, COLG 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
UVM offense vs COLG defense
Offense 264th of 366 against a defense 214th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: UVM 53.1 and allows 50.4; COLG 53.3 and allows 52.2
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: UVM 31.1, COLG 29.7. Allowed: UVM 36.4, COLG 33.8
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UVM 14.3%, COLG 14.7%. Forced: UVM 14.8%, COLG 15.2%
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 -0.3 | — |
| Total | — | 144.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | UVM 72.5 · COLG 72.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UVM -0.3 | — |
| 1H total | 67.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | UVM 34 · COLG 33.7 | — |
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% | |
| 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UVM 2–2 COLGSeries tied · 4 games since 2021-22 · COLG has won the last 2 meetings · UVM 2-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 15, 2024-25 | UVM 60 @ COLG 65 | COLG +1.5 | COLG W |
| Dec 9, 2023-24 | COLG 77 @ UVM 71 | UVM -3.5 | COLG W |
| Dec 10, 2022-23 | UVM 73 @ COLG 72 | COLG -4.5 | UVM W |
| Dec 22, 2021-22 | COLG 68 @ UVM 78 | UVM -7.5 | UVM 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
Colgate
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
12-19
39% covers · avg −1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-14
55% overs · avg +4.9 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 69-80 | +22.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 65-68 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 90-83 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 65-84 | +30.5 | W +11.5 | 164.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 17 | @ | W 72-69 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 94-95 | +5.5 | W +4.5 | 161.5 | O 189 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 69-67 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 72-62 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 77-85 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 60-90 | +27.5 | L −2.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 69-78 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 85-77 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 76-69 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 64-62 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 77-78 | -11.5 | L −12.5 | 142.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 86-80 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 95-76 | -8.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 66-70 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 80-79 | -7.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 79-74 | -10.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 76-77 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 69-55 | -10.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 78-59 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 74-70 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 80-84 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 58-85 | -2.5 | L −29.5 | 145.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 101-98 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 69-70 | -8.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 69-85 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 90-77 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 155.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 69-76 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MSU
L 69-80
+11.5
7
vs
NE
L 65-68
−8.5
11
vs
DREX
W 90-83
+3.5
14
@
ILL
L 65-84
+11.5
17
@
SIE
W 72-69
+9.5
20
@
COR
L 94-95
+4.5
28
vs
UALB
W 69-67
−5.5
30
vs
FOR
W 72-62
+8.5
10
@
SBU
L 77-85
+1.5
21
@
FLA
L 60-90
−2.5
28
vs
HARV
L 69-78
−12.5
31
@
LAF
W 85-77
+1.5
3
@
ARMY
W 76-69
−0.5
7
vs
AMER
W 64-62
−3.5
10
vs
LEH
L 77-78
−12.5
14
@
L-MD
W 86-80
−2.5
17
vs
BUCK
W 95-76
+10.5
21
@
AMER
L 66-70
−2.5
24
vs
BU
W 80-79
−6.5
28
vs
HC
W 79-74
−5.5
31
@
LEH
L 76-77
−4.5
4
vs
ARMY
W 69-55
+3.5
7
@
BUCK
W 78-59
+13.5
11
@
HC
W 74-70
−4.5
14
vs
NAVY
L 80-84
−5.5
16
@
BU
L 58-85
−29.5
21
vs
L-MD
W 101-98
−5.5
25
vs
LAF
L 69-70
−9.5
28
@
NAVY
L 69-85
−9.5
5
vs
L-MD
W 90-77
+6.5
8
@
LEH
L 69-76
−9.5
covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MSU
L 69-80
+4.5
7
vs
NE
L 65-68
−14.5
11
vs
DREX
W 90-83
+29.5
14
@
ILL
L 65-84
−15.5
17
@
SIE
W 72-69
−5.5
20
@
COR
L 94-95
+27.5
28
vs
UALB
W 69-67
−5.5
30
vs
FOR
W 72-62
−8.5
10
@
SBU
L 77-85
+19.5
21
@
FLA
L 60-90
−6.5
28
vs
HARV
L 69-78
+5.5
31
@
LAF
W 85-77
+15.5
3
@
ARMY
W 76-69
−2.5
7
vs
AMER
W 64-62
−22.5
10
vs
LEH
L 77-78
+12.5
14
@
L-MD
W 86-80
+15.5
17
vs
BUCK
W 95-76
+31.5
21
@
AMER
L 66-70
−10.5
24
vs
BU
W 80-79
+11.5
28
vs
HC
W 79-74
+8.5
31
@
LEH
L 76-77
+6.5
4
vs
ARMY
W 69-55
−26.5
7
@
BUCK
W 78-59
−4.5
11
@
HC
W 74-70
+1.5
14
vs
NAVY
L 80-84
+24.5
16
@
BU
L 58-85
−2.5
21
vs
L-MD
W 101-98
+48.5
25
vs
LAF
L 69-70
−9.5
28
@
NAVY
L 69-85
+12.5
5
vs
L-MD
W 90-77
+11.5
8
@
LEH
L 69-76
−1.5
over 17under 14avg +4.9 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, Colgate 2, even 1
VermontBetterColgate
G D. Yepdo TR10.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 24
=Even
G J. Ahayere7.5 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 32
G J. Broom TR2 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 14
→COLGBig
F A. Alekseyenko14.9 pts · 6.6 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 75
G M. Nkugwa2.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
→COLGSmall
F S. Wright12.5 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 60
F G. Yalden16.1 pts · 5.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 96
←UVMBig
F C. Wright1.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 8
F N. Barnett5.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 41
←UVMSmall
F A. Odetoyinbo1.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 20
VermontBetterColgate
UVM offense264th of 366 · -8.1
=Even
COLG defense214th of 366 · -5.5
UVM defense134th of 366 · -2.5
←UVMSmall
COLG offense205th of 366 · -6.3
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
→COLGBig
Backcourt-1.6 · 1 player
Frontcourt+3.3 · 2 players
←UVMBig
Frontcourt-0.5 · 4 players
Bench-1.4 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-1.1 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUVM betterCOLG 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
J. Ahayere25 minC. Pugh1 minJ. Niv1 minP. JonesNewB. ForrestNewI. SkinnNew
Forwards
A. Alekseyenko30 minS. Wright26 minC. Wright12 minA. Odetoyinbo11 minE. Brown7 minC. Brennan4 min
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 | 75.6 #154 |
| 1.11 #124 | Points per possession | 1.11 #121 |
| 65.2 #342 | Pace (possessions) | 68.6 #202 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.1 #95 | Effective FG% | 53.3 #91 |
| 33.3 #208 | 3-point % | 35.6 #81 |
| 44.6 #77 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.0 #275 |
| 31.1 #279 | Free throw rate | 29.7 #316 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #34 | Turnover rate | 14.7 #50 |
| 26.2 #318 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.6 #309 |
| 12.3 #266 | Assists per game | 14.2 #130 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.8 #44 | Points allowed | 76.2 #222 |
| 1.05 #96 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #230 |
| 50.4 #121 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.2 #224 |
| 35.3 #267 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.8 #238 |
| 14.8 #307 | Turnovers forced | 15.2 #268 |
| 77.0 #2 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.7 #125 |
| 4.5 #354 | Steals per game | 6.1 #230 |
| 2.7 #279 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #249 |
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.
Colgate
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Patriot League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Lehigh69–76
- Wvs Loyola MD90–77
- L@ Navy69–85
- Lvs Lafayette69–70
- Wvs Loyola MD101–98
A week or more of rest.