William H. Pitt Center · at Sacred Heart
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SHU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SHU 75–71 · win probability SHU 64%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.3
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: SHU has more of the edges
NJIT 1, SHU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: NJIT 33.2, SHU 31.0. Allowed: NJIT 37.9, SHU 27.0
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NJIT 17.1%, SHU 17.6%. Forced: NJIT 16.1%, SHU 14.6%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NJIT 26.2%, SHU 28.6%. Defensive: NJIT 67.9%, SHU 69.1%
Context
Schedule so far
NJIT has played the 282nd-hardest schedule, SHU the 340th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
SHU at home. This season: SHU 0-0 at home, NJIT 0-0 away
Three-pointers
NJIT hits 30.4% and allows 32.3%; SHU hits 35.7% and allows 34.9%. Threes are 40.1% and 50.7% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NJIT 39%, SHU 18%. Transfers in: NJIT 4, SHU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
SHU offense vs NJIT defense
Offense 281st of 366 against a defense 250th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: NJIT plays 67.9 a game (235th fastest), SHU 68.6 (201st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: NJIT 46.7 and allows 50.0; SHU 52.0 and allows 53.5
Even
NJIT offense vs SHU defense
Offense 338th of 366 against a defense 334th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | SHU -4.0 | — |
| Total | — | 146.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | NJIT 71.2 · SHU 75.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SHU -2.3 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | NJIT 33.1 · SHU 35.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 2-8 20% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
NJIT 2–1 SHUNJIT leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · NJIT 2-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2025-26 | SHU 65 @ NJIT 49 | NJIT +6.5 | SHU W |
| Nov 22, 2022-23 | NJIT 85 @ SHU 75 | SHU -6.5 | NJIT W |
| Nov 30, 2021-22 | SHU 70 @ NJIT 75 | NJIT -3 | NJIT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
NJIT
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −2.6 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 4 | @ | W 72-61 | +14.5 | W +25.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 53-74 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 66-64 | +10.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 93-81 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 43-75 | +13.5 | L −18.5 | 138.5 | U 118 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 70-86 | +17.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 67-94 | +34.5 | W +7.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 47-104 | +44.5 | L −12.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 55-73 | +14.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 72-89 | +28.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 70-64 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 130.5 | O 134 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 49-65 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 151.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 52-101 | +32.5 | L −16.5 | 149.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 61-80 | +14.5 | L −4.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 73-65 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 80-76 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 70-74 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 130.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 73-64 | +8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 79-55 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 132.5 | O 134 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 74-87 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 77-68 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-77 | +13.5 | W +15.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 81-56 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 73-64 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 76-70 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 67-58 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 63-81 | -3.5 | L −21.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 64-70 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 52-69 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 52-91 | +4.5 | L −34.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 60-58 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 134.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 54-63 | +10.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 117 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
FOR
W 72-61
+25.5
8
vs
FAIR
L 53-74
−14.5
11
@
L-MD
W 66-64
+12.5
15
vs
FDU
W 93-81
+9.5
18
@
DREX
L 43-75
−18.5
22
@
NAVY
L 70-86
+1.5
24
@
CIN
L 67-94
+7.5
26
@
LOU
L 47-104
−12.5
28
@
EMU
L 55-73
−3.5
5
@
HPU
L 72-89
+11.5
10
vs
NHVN
W 70-64
+8.5
13
vs
SHU
L 49-65
−9.5
22
@
BTLR
L 52-101
−16.5
31
@
PENN
L 61-80
−4.5
3
@
BING
W 73-65
+11.5
8
vs
UNH
W 80-76
+6.5
10
vs
ME
L 70-74
−5.5
15
@
UML
W 73-64
+17.5
19
vs
BRY
W 79-55
+22.5
22
@
UMBC
L 74-87
−6.5
29
@
UALB
W 77-68
+14.5
31
@
UVM
W 79-77
+15.5
5
vs
UML
W 81-56
+23.5
7
vs
BING
W 73-64
+0.5
12
@
UNH
W 76-70
+8.5
14
@
ME
W 67-58
+7.5
19
vs
UALB
L 63-81
−21.5
21
vs
UVM
L 64-70
+0.5
28
@
BRY
L 52-69
−18.5
3
vs
UMBC
L 52-91
−34.5
7
vs
ME
W 60-58
−1.5
10
@
UVM
L 54-63
+1.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
FOR
W 72-61
−14.5
8
vs
FAIR
L 53-74
−18.5
11
@
L-MD
W 66-64
−9.5
15
vs
FDU
W 93-81
+27.5
18
@
DREX
L 43-75
−20.5
22
@
NAVY
L 70-86
+15.5
24
@
CIN
L 67-94
+19.5
26
@
LOU
L 47-104
−7.5
28
@
EMU
L 55-73
−13.5
5
@
HPU
L 72-89
+5.5
10
vs
NHVN
W 70-64
+3.5
13
vs
SHU
L 49-65
−37.5
22
@
BTLR
L 52-101
+3.5
31
@
PENN
L 61-80
−10.5
3
@
BING
W 73-65
−2.5
8
vs
UNH
W 80-76
+18.5
10
vs
ME
L 70-74
+13.5
15
@
UML
W 73-64
−8.5
19
vs
BRY
W 79-55
+1.5
22
@
UMBC
L 74-87
+17.5
29
@
UALB
W 77-68
+5.5
31
@
UVM
W 79-77
+16.5
5
vs
UML
W 81-56
−12.5
7
vs
BING
W 73-64
−3.5
12
@
UNH
W 76-70
+0.5
14
@
ME
W 67-58
−12.5
19
vs
UALB
L 63-81
+1.5
21
vs
UVM
L 64-70
−8.5
28
@
BRY
L 52-69
−17.5
3
vs
UMBC
L 52-91
−0.5
7
vs
ME
W 60-58
−16.5
10
@
UVM
L 54-63
−17.5
over 14under 18avg −2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Sacred Heart
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% overs · avg +1.5 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 7 | @ | L 80-92 | +12.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 60-94 | +19.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 64-81 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 165.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 79-66 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 106-108 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 214 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 59-90 | +14.5 | L −16.5 | 160.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 87-80 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 69-81 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 163.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 65-49 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 82-87 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 85-63 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 155.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 47-72 | +13.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 72-80 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 61-64 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 78-82 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 72-76 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 60-70 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 86-80 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 105-85 | -4.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 69-66 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 71-70 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 98-91 | +8.5 | W +15.5 | 156.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 58-75 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 87-92 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-80 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 161.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 78-71 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 86-75 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 68-78 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 63-65 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 77-69 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 91-80 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 48-70 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | U 118 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
DUQ
L 80-92
+0.5
11
@
VILL
L 60-94
−14.5
15
@
QUC
L 64-81
−11.5
21
vs
HC
W 79-66
+5.5
24
@
CCSU
L 106-108
+1.5
29
@
PSU
L 59-90
−16.5
3
@
MSM
W 87-80
+5.5
7
vs
IONA
L 69-81
−13.5
13
@
NJIT
W 65-49
+9.5
16
@
UML
L 82-87
−7.5
19
vs
DART
W 85-63
+23.5
22
@
TOW
L 47-72
−11.5
29
vs
MRMK
L 72-80
−9.5
2
@
NIA
L 61-64
−4.5
4
@
CAN
L 78-82
−9.5
9
vs
MRST
L 72-76
+1.5
11
vs
QUIN
L 60-70
−4.5
14
@
SIE
W 86-80
+14.5
19
@
RID
W 105-85
+15.5
22
vs
CAN
W 69-66
−7.5
24
vs
NIA
W 71-70
−8.5
30
@
QUIN
W 98-91
+15.5
1
@
MRMK
L 58-75
−11.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 87-92
−6.5
7
@
MAN
L 68-80
−13.5
13
vs
SPU
W 78-71
+8.5
15
vs
RID
W 86-75
+1.5
20
@
FAIR
L 68-78
−5.5
22
@
MRST
L 63-65
+5.5
27
vs
MSM
W 77-69
+5.5
5
vs
IONA
W 91-80
+14.5
6
vs
MRMK
L 48-70
−15.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
DUQ
L 80-92
+14.5
11
@
VILL
L 60-94
−6.5
15
@
QUC
L 64-81
−20.5
21
vs
HC
W 79-66
−7.5
24
@
CCSU
L 106-108
+70.5
29
@
PSU
L 59-90
−11.5
3
@
MSM
W 87-80
+14.5
7
vs
IONA
L 69-81
−13.5
13
@
NJIT
W 65-49
−37.5
16
@
UML
L 82-87
+17.5
19
vs
DART
W 85-63
−7.5
22
@
TOW
L 47-72
−26.5
29
vs
MRMK
L 72-80
+7.5
2
@
NIA
L 61-64
−14.5
4
@
CAN
L 78-82
+18.5
9
vs
MRST
L 72-76
+4.5
11
vs
QUIN
L 60-70
−22.5
14
@
SIE
W 86-80
+26.5
19
@
RID
W 105-85
+45.5
22
vs
CAN
W 69-66
−10.5
24
vs
NIA
W 71-70
+1.5
30
@
QUIN
W 98-91
+32.5
1
@
MRMK
L 58-75
−14.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 87-92
+23.5
7
@
MAN
L 68-80
−13.5
13
vs
SPU
W 78-71
+1.5
15
vs
RID
W 86-75
+14.5
20
@
FAIR
L 68-78
−12.5
22
@
MRST
L 63-65
−18.5
27
vs
MSM
W 77-69
−4.5
5
vs
IONA
W 91-80
+21.5
6
vs
MRMK
L 48-70
−25.5
over 15under 17avg +1.5 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: NJIT 1, Sacred Heart 1, even 3
NJITBetterSacred Heart
G D. Bolden12 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 47
=Even
G J. Van Buggenhout TR6.4 pts · 2.1 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 42
G M. Tatum TR8.1 pts · 2 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 13
=Even
G J. Slaughter5.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 20
G Q. Duncan4.4 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 31
→SHUSmall
G S. Reilly TR3.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 47
F M. Coffi TR3.5 pts · 4.9 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 28
←NJITSmall
F A. Yadd6 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 5
F J. Kelly4.4 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 20
=Even
F J. Robinson TR2.5 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 26
NJITBetterSacred Heart
NJIT offense338th of 366 · -11.1
=Even
SHU defense334th of 366 · -8.8
NJIT defense250th of 366 · -6.6
=Even
SHU offense281st of 366 · -8.7
Backcourt-4.6 · 3 players
→SHUSmall
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.4 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-2.6 · 2 players
Bench-3.4 · 4 players
→SHUBig
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestNJIT betterSHU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Bolden30 minM. Tatum26 min · TRQ. Duncan14 minR. Awad13 minB. Stores4 min · TRA. AltobelliNew
Forwards
M. Coffi19 min · TRJ. Kelly16 minB. Oliver10 min · TRZ. Scherler7 minV. VanderstraetenNew
Centers
S. Jimenez-VojnicNew
Guards
J. Van Buggenhout21 min · TRJ. Slaughter21 minS. Reilly9 min · TRM. Sheppard1 minG. BarroukNewJ. WallaceNew
Forwards
A. Yadd15 minJ. Robinson10 min · TRK. CurtisNewL. KrygierNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.2 #344 | Points per game | 74.3 #186 |
| 0.98 #343 | Points per possession | 1.08 #180 |
| 67.9 #235 | Pace (possessions) | 68.6 #201 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.7 #342 | Effective FG% | 52.0 #145 |
| 30.4 #336 | 3-point % | 35.7 #73 |
| 40.1 #168 | 3-point attempt rate | 50.7 #12 |
| 33.2 #233 | Free throw rate | 31.0 #281 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #215 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #249 |
| 26.2 #316 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.6 #246 |
| 10.5 #350 | Assists per game | 14.6 #112 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.7 #147 | Points allowed | 77.6 #253 |
| 1.08 #167 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #296 |
| 50.0 #99 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.5 #283 |
| 32.3 #79 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.9 #241 |
| 16.1 #214 | Turnovers forced | 14.6 #320 |
| 67.9 #264 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.1 #199 |
| 6.3 #204 | Steals per game | 5.4 #305 |
| 3.1 #197 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #223 |
NJIT
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 11-7 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Vermont54–63
- Wvs Maine60–58
- Lvs UMBC52–91
- L@ Bryant52–69
- Lvs Vermont64–70
A week or more of rest.
Sacred Heart
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-12 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Merrimack48–70
- Wvs Iona91–80
- Wvs Mount St Marys77–69
- L@ Marist63–65
- L@ Fairfield68–78
A week or more of rest.