Merrimack Warriors vs Colgate Raiders: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 29, 12:00 AM ETDavid S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex · Neutral site

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Merrimack and Colgate
MRMK	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 MRMK 71–71 · win probability MRMK 51%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 142.3

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: MRMK has more of the edges

MRMK 3, COLG 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

COLGBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: MRMK 24.8%, COLG 26.6%. Defensive: MRMK 60.1%, COLG 70.7%

MRMKBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: MRMK 14.8%, COLG 14.7%. Forced: MRMK 20.4%, COLG 15.2%

Context

Schedule so far

MRMK has played the 286th-hardest schedule, COLG the 178th. A record against a soft schedule means less

COLGSmall

MRMK offense vs COLG defense

Offense 316th of 366 against a defense 214th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 66 possessions: MRMK plays 64.4 a game (357th fastest), COLG 68.6 (202nd). Faster games mean more points

MRMKSmall

COLG offense vs MRMK defense

Offense 205th of 366 against a defense 139th, on the model’s ratings

MRMKSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: MRMK 38.2, COLG 29.7. Allowed: MRMK 37.1, COLG 33.8

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: MRMK 37%, COLG 59%. Transfers in: MRMK 3, COLG 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Three-pointers

MRMK hits 32.7% and allows 30.3%; COLG hits 35.6% and allows 34.8%. Threes are 46.1% and 35.0% of their shots

Context

Neutral floor

No home court: the model takes it out of the line

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: MRMK 49.1 and allows 46.7; COLG 53.3 and allows 52.2

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	MRMK -0.3	—
Total	—	142.3	—
Projected score	—	MRMK 71.3 · COLG 71

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	MRMK -0.3	—
1H total	66.6	—
1H projected score	MRMK 33.5 · COLG 33.2	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Neutral	Role
MRMK LLWLL	20-14	59%	2-4	—
COLG LLLWL	12-19	39%	1-1	—

Venue/role: MRMK neutral site; COLG neutral site. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
MRMK UOUUU	12-22	35%	23-11
COLG OUOOU	17-14	55%	16-15

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
MRMK	8-2 80%	5-5 50%	4-6 40%
COLG	5-5 50%	3-7 30%	5-5 50%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Merrimack

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 4	@ SIE	L54–64LU
Dec 6	vs FAIR	W74–63WU
Dec 10	vs UVM	L59–66LU

Colgate

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 5	vs COR	L94–95WO
Dec 8	@ SYR	L72–74WU
Dec 12	@ IONA	L73–79LO

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Merrimack

34 games played

Straight up

23-11

68% wins

Against the spread

20-14

59% covers · avg +2.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

12-22

35% overs · avg −3.3 pts vs the total

Straight up

23-1168%

L L L W W L L L W W W W L W W W W L W W L W W W W W W W W L W W W L

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

20-1459%

L L L W W W L L W L W W L W W W W L W W L W W W W W W W L L L W L L

2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

12-2235%

U O U O O U U O U U U U U O U U U O O U U U U O U O U O O U O U U U

3 straight unders1 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsSDST	L 66-75	+6.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 141
Nov 6	@AUB	L 57-95	+23.5	L −14.5	148.5	O 152
Nov 11	@TAR	L 62-76	+4.5	L −9.5	142.5	U 138
Nov 15	@BU	W 91-79	+2.5	W +14.5	135.5	O 170
Nov 19	vsME	W 72-65	-6.5	W +0.5	130.5	O 137
Nov 21	@FLA	L 45-80	+36.5	W +1.5	158.5	U 125
Nov 28	@PENN	L 65-77	+2.5	L −9.5	152.5	U 142
Nov 29	vsHOF	L 58-78	+5.5	L −14.5	135.5	O 136
Nov 30	vsLAS	W 66-60	+2.5	W +8.5	132.5	U 126
Dec 4	vsRID	W 68-66	-9.5	L −7.5	138.5	U 134
Dec 7	vsFAIR	W 74-63	-3.5	W +7.5	144.5	U 137
Dec 10	@PRIN	W 59-56	+2.5	W +5.5	134.5	U 115
Dec 14	@UVM	L 59-66	+6.5	L −0.5	136.5	U 125
Dec 29	@SHU	W 80-72	+1.5	W +9.5	144.5	O 152
Jan 2	vsMSM	W 75-65	-3.5	W +6.5	141.5	U 140
Jan 4	vsMAN	W 73-66	-6.5	W +0.5	148.5	U 139
Jan 9	@SIE	W 63-59	+5.5	W +9.5	132.5	U 122
Jan 11	@SPU	L 63-76	+1.5	L −11.5	133.5	O 139
Jan 17	vsQUIN	W 83-71	+1.5	W +13.5	141.5	O 154
Jan 19	@MRST	W 68-55	+6.5	W +19.5	133.5	U 123
Jan 22	@IONA	L 60-61	-1.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 121
Jan 24	vsSPU	W 67-59	-2.5	W +5.5	134.5	U 126
Feb 1	vsSHU	W 75-58	-5.5	W +11.5	147.5	U 133
Feb 5	@MSM	W 87-70	-2.5	W +14.5	134.5	O 157
Feb 7	@RID	W 73-47	-8.5	W +17.5	137.5	U 120
Feb 12	vsMRST	W 81-56	-2.5	W +22.5	128.5	O 137
Feb 15	@QUIN	W 56-49	+3.5	W +10.5	141.5	U 105
Feb 20	vsSIE	W 79-72	-2.5	W +4.5	133.5	O 151
Feb 22	vsIONA	W 88-86	-6.5	L −4.5	136.5	O 174
Feb 27	@CAN	L 62-67	-8.5	L −13.5	129.5	U 129
Mar 1	@NIA	W 73-66	-7.5	L −0.5	126.5	O 139
Mar 6	vsSHU	W 70-48	-6.5	W +15.5	143.5	U 118
Mar 8	vsMRST	W 58-57	-2.5	L −1.5	128.5	U 115
Mar 10	vsSIE	L 54-64	-2.5	L −12.5	128.5	U 118

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

SDST

L 66-75

−2.5

AUB

L 57-95

−14.5

TAR

L 62-76

−9.5

W 91-79

+14.5

W 72-65

+0.5

FLA

L 45-80

+1.5

PENN

L 65-77

−9.5

HOF

L 58-78

−14.5

LAS

W 66-60

+8.5

RID

W 68-66

−7.5

FAIR

W 74-63

+7.5

PRIN

W 59-56

+5.5

UVM

L 59-66

−0.5

SHU

W 80-72

+9.5

MSM

W 75-65

+6.5

MAN

W 73-66

+0.5

SIE

W 63-59

+9.5

SPU

L 63-76

−11.5

QUIN

W 83-71

+13.5

MRST

W 68-55

+19.5

IONA

L 60-61

−2.5

SPU

W 67-59

+5.5

SHU

W 75-58

+11.5

MSM

W 87-70

+14.5

RID

W 73-47

+17.5

MRST

W 81-56

+22.5

QUIN

W 56-49

+10.5

SIE

W 79-72

+4.5

IONA

W 88-86

−4.5

CAN

L 62-67

−13.5

NIA

W 73-66

−0.5

SHU

W 70-48

+15.5

MRST

W 58-57

−1.5

SIE

L 54-64

−12.5

covered 20didn’t cover 14avg +2.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

SDST

L 66-75

−2.5

AUB

L 57-95

+3.5

TAR

L 62-76

−4.5

W 91-79

+34.5

W 72-65

+6.5

FLA

L 45-80

−33.5

PENN

L 65-77

−10.5

HOF

L 58-78

+0.5

LAS

W 66-60

−6.5

RID

W 68-66

−4.5

FAIR

W 74-63

−7.5

PRIN

W 59-56

−19.5

UVM

L 59-66

−11.5

SHU

W 80-72

+7.5

MSM

W 75-65

−1.5

MAN

W 73-66

−9.5

SIE

W 63-59

−10.5

SPU

L 63-76

+5.5

QUIN

W 83-71

+12.5

MRST

W 68-55

−10.5

IONA

L 60-61

−22.5

SPU

W 67-59

−8.5

SHU

W 75-58

−14.5

MSM

W 87-70

+22.5

RID

W 73-47

−17.5

MRST

W 81-56

+8.5

QUIN

W 56-49

−36.5

SIE

W 79-72

+17.5

IONA

W 88-86

+37.5

CAN

L 62-67

−0.5

NIA

W 73-66

+12.5

SHU

W 70-48

−25.5

MRST

W 58-57

−13.5

SIE

L 54-64

−10.5

over 12under 22avg −3.3 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

Straight up

16-1552%

L L W L W L W W L L L W W W L W W L W W L W W W L L W L L W L

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

12-1939%

W L W W W W L W W L L W L L L L W L L L L W W L L L L L L W L

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

17-1455%

O U O U U O U U O U O O U U O O O U O O O U U O O U O U O O U

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@MSU	L 69-80	+22.5	W +11.5	144.5	O 149
Nov 7	vsNE	L 65-68	-5.5	L −8.5	147.5	U 133
Nov 11	vsDREX	W 90-83	-3.5	W +3.5	143.5	O 173
Nov 14	@ILL	L 65-84	+30.5	W +11.5	164.5	U 149
Nov 17	@SIE	W 72-69	+6.5	W +9.5	146.5	U 141
Nov 20	@COR	L 94-95	+5.5	W +4.5	161.5	O 189
Nov 28	vsUALB	W 69-67	-7.5	L −5.5	141.5	U 136
Nov 30	vsFOR	W 72-62	-1.5	W +8.5	142.5	U 134
Dec 10	@SBU	L 77-85	+9.5	W +1.5	142.5	O 162
Dec 21	@FLA	L 60-90	+27.5	L −2.5	156.5	U 150
Dec 28	vsHARV	L 69-78	-3.5	L −12.5	141.5	O 147
Dec 31	@LAF	W 85-77	-6.5	W +1.5	146.5	O 162
Jan 3	@ARMY	W 76-69	-7.5	L −0.5	147.5	U 145
Jan 7	vsAMER	W 64-62	-5.5	L −3.5	148.5	U 126
Jan 10	vsLEH	L 77-78	-11.5	L −12.5	142.5	O 155
Jan 14	@L-MD	W 86-80	-8.5	L −2.5	150.5	O 166
Jan 17	vsBUCK	W 95-76	-8.5	W +10.5	139.5	O 171
Jan 21	@AMER	L 66-70	+1.5	L −2.5	146.5	U 136
Jan 24	vsBU	W 80-79	-7.5	L −6.5	147.5	O 159
Jan 28	vsHC	W 79-74	-10.5	L −5.5	144.5	O 153
Jan 31	@LEH	L 76-77	-3.5	L −4.5	146.5	O 153
Feb 4	vsARMY	W 69-55	-10.5	W +3.5	150.5	U 124
Feb 7	@BUCK	W 78-59	-5.5	W +13.5	141.5	U 137
Feb 11	@HC	W 74-70	-8.5	L −4.5	142.5	O 144
Feb 14	vsNAVY	L 80-84	-1.5	L −5.5	139.5	O 164
Feb 16	@BU	L 58-85	-2.5	L −29.5	145.5	U 143
Feb 21	vsL-MD	W 101-98	-8.5	L −5.5	150.5	O 199
Feb 25	vsLAF	L 69-70	-8.5	L −9.5	148.5	U 139
Feb 28	@NAVY	L 69-85	+6.5	L −9.5	141.5	O 154
Mar 5	vsL-MD	W 90-77	-6.5	W +6.5	155.5	O 167
Mar 8	@LEH	L 69-76	-2.5	L −9.5	146.5	U 145

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

MSU

L 69-80

+11.5

L 65-68

−8.5

DREX

W 90-83

+3.5

ILL

L 65-84

+11.5

SIE

W 72-69

+9.5

COR

L 94-95

+4.5

UALB

W 69-67

−5.5

FOR

W 72-62

+8.5

SBU

L 77-85

+1.5

FLA

L 60-90

−2.5

HARV

L 69-78

−12.5

LAF

W 85-77

+1.5

ARMY

W 76-69

−0.5

AMER

W 64-62

−3.5

LEH

L 77-78

−12.5

L-MD

W 86-80

−2.5

BUCK

W 95-76

+10.5

AMER

L 66-70

−2.5

W 80-79

−6.5

W 79-74

−5.5

LEH

L 76-77

−4.5

ARMY

W 69-55

+3.5

BUCK

W 78-59

+13.5

W 74-70

−4.5

NAVY

L 80-84

−5.5

L 58-85

−29.5

L-MD

W 101-98

−5.5

LAF

L 69-70

−9.5

NAVY

L 69-85

−9.5

L-MD

W 90-77

+6.5

LEH

L 69-76

−9.5

covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

MSU

L 69-80

+4.5

L 65-68

−14.5

DREX

W 90-83

+29.5

ILL

L 65-84

−15.5

SIE

W 72-69

−5.5

COR

L 94-95

+27.5

UALB

W 69-67

−5.5

FOR

W 72-62

−8.5

SBU

L 77-85

+19.5

FLA

L 60-90

−6.5

HARV

L 69-78

+5.5

LAF

W 85-77

+15.5

ARMY

W 76-69

−2.5

AMER

W 64-62

−22.5

LEH

L 77-78

+12.5

L-MD

W 86-80

+15.5

BUCK

W 95-76

+31.5

AMER

L 66-70

−10.5

W 80-79

+11.5

W 79-74

+8.5

LEH

L 76-77

+6.5

ARMY

W 69-55

−26.5

BUCK

W 78-59

−4.5

W 74-70

+1.5

NAVY

L 80-84

+24.5

L 58-85

−2.5

L-MD

W 101-98

+48.5

LAF

L 69-70

−9.5

NAVY

L 69-85

+12.5

L-MD

W 90-77

+11.5

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.

Colgate has the better starters

Position by position: Merrimack 0, Colgate 1, even 4

MerrimackBetterColgate

G T. Dorset11.7 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.2 ast Score 45

Even

G J. Ahayere7.5 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.3 ast Score 32

G D. Anglin TR9.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.9 ast Score 19

COLGBig

F A. Alekseyenko14.9 pts · 6.6 reb · 2.4 ast Score 75

G A. Vladimir Soqui Urbano TR2 pts · 0.5 reb · 0.2 ast Not ranked

No call

F S. Wright12.5 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.8 ast Score 60

F T. Brogna6.1 pts · 4.7 reb · 2.4 ast Score 16

Even

F C. Wright1.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.6 ast Score 8

F E. Wilborn TR2.3 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast Score 30

Even

F A. Odetoyinbo1.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.2 ast Score 20

MerrimackBetterColgate

MRMK offense316th of 366 · -10.3

COLGSmall

COLG defense214th of 366 · -5.5

MRMK defense139th of 366 · -2.9

MRMKSmall

COLG offense205th of 366 · -6.3

Backcourt-5.1 · 3 players

COLGBig

Backcourt-1.6 · 1 player

Frontcourt-3.0 · 2 players

COLGSmall

Frontcourt-0.5 · 4 players

Bench-0.6 · 1 player

Even

Bench-1.1 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestMRMK betterCOLG betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Merrimack

Guards

T. Dorset36 minD. Anglin28 min · TRA. Vladimir Soqui Urbano10 min · TRA. LesburtNewJ. AndersonNewQ. KwasniakNew

Forwards

T. Brogna29 minE. Wilborn9 min · TRD. Veillette8 minJ. MooreNewD. MunroNewJ. SkoricNew

Colgate

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

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

MRMK68.5 #304

COLG75.6 #154

Points per possession

MRMK1.06 #221

COLG1.11 #121

Pace (possessions)

MRMK64.4 #357

COLG68.6 #202

Shooting

Effective FG%

MRMK49.1 #288

COLG53.3 #91

3-point %

MRMK32.7 #243

COLG35.6 #81

3-point attempt rate

MRMK46.1 #46

COLG35.0 #275

Free throw rate

MRMK38.2 #99

COLG29.7 #316

Possessions

Turnover rate

MRMK14.8 #55

COLG14.7 #50

Offensive rebound rate

MRMK24.8 #343

COLG26.6 #309

Assists per game

MRMK12.4 #257

COLG14.2 #130

Defense

Points allowed

MRMK66.5 #19

COLG76.2 #222

Points allowed per possession

MRMK1.03 #62

COLG1.11 #230

Opponent effective FG%

MRMK46.7 #17

COLG52.2 #224

Opponent 3-point %

MRMK30.3 #12

COLG34.8 #238

Turnovers forced

MRMK20.4 #16

COLG15.2 #268

Defensive rebound rate

MRMK60.1 #365

COLG70.7 #125

Steals per game

MRMK8.2 #32

COLG6.1 #230

Blocks per game

MRMK5.2 #13

COLG2.9 #249

MRMK		COLG
Scoring
68.5 #304	Points per game	75.6 #154
1.06 #221	Points per possession	1.11 #121
64.4 #357	Pace (possessions)	68.6 #202
Shooting
49.1 #288	Effective FG%	53.3 #91
32.7 #243	3-point %	35.6 #81
46.1 #46	3-point attempt rate	35.0 #275
38.2 #99	Free throw rate	29.7 #316
Possessions
14.8 #55	Turnover rate	14.7 #50
24.8 #343	Offensive rebound rate	26.6 #309
12.4 #257	Assists per game	14.2 #130
Defense
66.5 #19	Points allowed	76.2 #222
1.03 #62	Points allowed per possession	1.11 #230
46.7 #17	Opponent effective FG%	52.2 #224
30.3 #12	Opponent 3-point %	34.8 #238
20.4 #16	Turnovers forced	15.2 #268
60.1 #365	Defensive rebound rate	70.7 #125
8.2 #32	Steals per game	6.1 #230
5.2 #13	Blocks per game	2.9 #249

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Merrimack

23-11 in 2025-26 overall · 19-4 in conference · Metro Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Siena54–64
Wvs Marist58–57
Wvs Sacred Heart70–48
W@ Niagara73–66
L@ Canisius62–67

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.

Merrimack Warriors vs Colgate Raiders

What could decide it: MRMK has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Merrimack

Colgate

Colgate has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Merrimack

Colgate