Kohl Center · at Wisconsin
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WIS | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WIS 87–62 · win probability WIS 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.6
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: WIS has more of the edges
FAIR 1, WIS 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
FAIR has played the 359th-hardest schedule, WIS the 24th. A record against a soft schedule means less
FAIR offense vs WIS defense
Offense 282nd of 366 against a defense 40th, on the model’s ratings
WIS offense vs FAIR defense
Offense 44th of 366 against a defense 195th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: FAIR 48.8 and allows 51.0; WIS 54.5 and allows 51.4
Three-pointers
FAIR hits 33.2% and allows 34.3%; WIS hits 36.2% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 35.4% and 52.1% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FAIR 35.8%, WIS 29.1%. Defensive: FAIR 70.9%, WIS 71.8%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: FAIR plays 67.3 a game (263rd fastest), WIS 70.0 (119th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
WIS at home. This season: WIS 0-0 at home, FAIR 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: FAIR 27.7, WIS 31.5. Allowed: FAIR 30.4, WIS 29.9
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FAIR 15.4%, WIS 12.8%. Forced: FAIR 16.8%, WIS 14.3%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FAIR 53%, WIS 54%. Transfers in: FAIR 2, WIS 3. 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 | — | WIS -25.1 | — |
| Total | — | 149.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | FAIR 62.2 · WIS 87.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WIS -14.8 | — |
| 1H total | 70.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | FAIR 27.6 · WIS 42.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | |
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Fairfield
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
15-18
45% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-19
42% overs · avg −0.3 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 68-76 | +15.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 74-53 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 59-82 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 73-71 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 85-82 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 22 | @ | W 97-83 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 77-106 | +3.5 | L −25.5 | 150.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 72-68 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 66-70 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 63-74 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 73-65 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 84-70 | +6.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 66-70 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 81-85 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 83-75 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 68-62 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 98-62 | -6.5 | W +29.5 | 158.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 67-82 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 77-85 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 62-61 | -10.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 61-55 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 71-70 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 65-72 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 92-87 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 63-60 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 74-83 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 78-68 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 22 | @ | W 85-79 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 72-58 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 142.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 47-69 | -4.5 | L −26.5 | 145.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 71-60 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 74-55 | +1.5 | W +20.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 61-76 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
PSU
L 68-76
+7.5
8
@
NJIT
W 74-53
+14.5
10
@
HALL
L 59-82
−8.5
14
vs
STO
W 73-71
−4.5
16
vs
L-MD
W 85-82
−2.5
22
@
LEM
W 97-83
+12.5
26
vs
COLU
L 77-106
−25.5
30
vs
UNH
W 72-68
−5.5
5
@
MAN
L 66-70
−5.5
7
@
MRMK
L 63-74
−7.5
14
vs
MONM
W 73-65
+10.5
18
@
CCSU
W 84-70
+20.5
29
vs
SPU
L 66-70
−6.5
2
@
CAN
L 81-85
−10.5
4
@
NIA
W 83-75
+4.5
9
vs
RID
W 68-62
−2.5
14
vs
MAN
W 98-62
+29.5
17
@
MRST
L 67-82
−6.5
19
@
SIE
L 77-85
−1.5
22
vs
NIA
W 62-61
−9.5
24
vs
CAN
W 61-55
−4.5
30
@
IONA
W 71-70
+2.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 65-72
−4.5
5
@
SHU
W 92-87
+6.5
7
vs
MRST
W 63-60
+4.5
15
@
SPU
L 74-83
−5.5
20
vs
SHU
W 78-68
+5.5
22
@
QUIN
W 85-79
+12.5
27
vs
SIE
W 72-58
+15.5
1
vs
MSM
L 47-69
−26.5
5
vs
MAN
W 71-60
+7.5
6
vs
SPU
W 74-55
+20.5
8
vs
SIE
L 61-76
−13.5
covered 15didn’t cover 18avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
PSU
L 68-76
−7.5
8
@
NJIT
W 74-53
−18.5
10
@
HALL
L 59-82
+3.5
14
vs
STO
W 73-71
+0.5
16
vs
L-MD
W 85-82
+31.5
22
@
LEM
W 97-83
+34.5
26
vs
COLU
L 77-106
+32.5
30
vs
UNH
W 72-68
−7.5
5
@
MAN
L 66-70
−19.5
7
@
MRMK
L 63-74
−7.5
14
vs
MONM
W 73-65
−5.5
18
@
CCSU
W 84-70
+10.5
29
vs
SPU
L 66-70
−4.5
2
@
CAN
L 81-85
+25.5
4
@
NIA
W 83-75
+19.5
9
vs
RID
W 68-62
−15.5
14
vs
MAN
W 98-62
+1.5
17
@
MRST
L 67-82
+7.5
19
@
SIE
L 77-85
+19.5
22
vs
NIA
W 62-61
−16.5
24
vs
CAN
W 61-55
−25.5
30
@
IONA
W 71-70
−5.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 65-72
−17.5
5
@
SHU
W 92-87
+23.5
7
vs
MRST
W 63-60
−15.5
15
@
SPU
L 74-83
+15.5
20
vs
SHU
W 78-68
−12.5
22
@
QUIN
W 85-79
+13.5
27
vs
SIE
W 72-58
−12.5
1
vs
MSM
L 47-69
−29.5
5
vs
MAN
W 71-60
−17.5
6
vs
SPU
W 74-55
−8.5
8
vs
SIE
L 61-76
−1.5
over 14under 19avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Wisconsin
35 games played
Straight up
24-11
69% wins
Against the spread
21-14
60% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-13
63% overs · avg +3.5 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 3 | vs | W 96-64 | -20.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 97-72 | -28.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 86-55 | -26.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 94-69 | -25.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 70-98 | +4.5 | L −23.5 | 165.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 104-83 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 166.5 | O 187 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 63-74 | -5.5 | L −16.5 | 157.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 85-73 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 155.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 96-76 | -11.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 60-90 | +1.5 | L −28.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 19 | vs | L 66-76 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 152.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 88-61 | -26.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 80-60 | -19.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 73-89 | +5.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 80-72 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 91-88 | +19.5 | W +22.5 | 169.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 78-75 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 96-87 | -15.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 98-71 | -5.5 | W +21.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 25 | vs | L 71-73 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 158.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 67-63 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 92-82 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 77-78 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 92-90 | +9.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 92-71 | +1.5 | W +22.5 | 149.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 69-86 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 84-71 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 71-85 | -5.5 | L −19.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 90-73 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 78-45 | -14.5 | W +18.5 | 153.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 97-93 | +9.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | O 190 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 85-82 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 91-88 | +8.5 | W +11.5 | 158.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 65-68 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 161.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 82-83 | -10.5 | L −11.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CAM
W 96-64
+11.5
7
vs
NIU
W 97-72
−3.5
11
vs
BALL
W 86-55
+4.5
17
vs
SIUE
W 94-69
−0.5
21
@
BYU
L 70-98
−23.5
27
vs
PROV
W 104-83
+14.5
28
vs
TCU
L 63-74
−16.5
3
vs
NU
W 85-73
+1.5
6
vs
MARQ
W 96-76
+8.5
10
@
NEB
L 60-90
−28.5
19
vs
VILL
L 66-76
−13.5
22
vs
CMU
W 88-61
+0.5
30
vs
MILW
W 80-60
+0.5
3
vs
PUR
L 73-89
−10.5
6
vs
UCLA
W 80-72
+4.5
10
@
MICH
W 91-88
+22.5
13
@
MINN
W 78-75
+1.5
17
vs
RUTG
W 96-87
−6.5
22
@
PSU
W 98-71
+21.5
25
vs
USC
L 71-73
−9.5
28
vs
MINN
W 67-63
−5.5
31
vs
OSU
W 92-82
+5.5
7
@
IU
L 77-78
+2.5
10
@
ILL
W 92-90
+11.5
13
vs
MSU
W 92-71
+22.5
17
@
OSU
L 69-86
−15.5
22
vs
IOWA
W 84-71
+10.5
25
@
ORE
L 71-85
−19.5
28
@
WASH
W 90-73
+15.5
4
vs
MD
W 78-45
+18.5
7
@
PUR
W 97-93
+13.5
12
vs
WASH
W 85-82
−3.5
13
vs
ILL
W 91-88
+11.5
14
vs
MICH
L 65-68
+9.5
19
vs
HPU
L 82-83
−11.5
covered 21didn’t cover 14avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CAM
W 96-64
+8.5
7
vs
NIU
W 97-72
+11.5
11
vs
BALL
W 86-55
−15.5
17
vs
SIUE
W 94-69
+16.5
21
@
BYU
L 70-98
+2.5
27
vs
PROV
W 104-83
+20.5
28
vs
TCU
L 63-74
−20.5
3
vs
NU
W 85-73
+2.5
6
vs
MARQ
W 96-76
+11.5
10
@
NEB
L 60-90
−8.5
19
vs
VILL
L 66-76
−10.5
22
vs
CMU
W 88-61
−3.5
30
vs
MILW
W 80-60
−17.5
3
vs
PUR
L 73-89
+8.5
6
vs
UCLA
W 80-72
−0.5
10
@
MICH
W 91-88
+9.5
13
@
MINN
W 78-75
+6.5
17
vs
RUTG
W 96-87
+33.5
22
@
PSU
W 98-71
+11.5
25
vs
USC
L 71-73
−14.5
28
vs
MINN
W 67-63
−16.5
31
vs
OSU
W 92-82
+18.5
7
@
IU
L 77-78
−2.5
10
@
ILL
W 92-90
+28.5
13
vs
MSU
W 92-71
+13.5
17
@
OSU
L 69-86
−2.5
22
vs
IOWA
W 84-71
+7.5
25
@
ORE
L 71-85
+3.5
28
@
WASH
W 90-73
+9.5
4
vs
MD
W 78-45
−30.5
7
@
PUR
W 97-93
+35.5
12
vs
WASH
W 85-82
+9.5
13
vs
ILL
W 91-88
+20.5
14
vs
MICH
L 65-68
−28.5
19
vs
HPU
L 82-83
+3.5
over 22under 13avg +3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Wisconsin has the better starters
Position by position: Fairfield 0, Wisconsin 3, even 2
FairfieldBetterWisconsin
G D. Wucherpfennig11.8 pts · 8.3 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 71
=Even
G E. Elmer TR12.8 pts · 6.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 68
G T. Williams6.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 19
→WISBig
G T. Autry TR10.9 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 61
G E. Mejia4.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 11
→WISBig
G B. Carrington8.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 90
G H. Rawlins3.6 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 4
→WISBig
F N. Winter13.1 pts · 8.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 96
F Q. Martin TR12.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 76
=Even
F A. Rapp9.7 pts · 4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 83
FairfieldBetterWisconsin
FAIR offense282nd of 366 · -8.7
→WISBig
WIS defense40th of 366 · +2.9
FAIR defense195th of 366 · -4.8
→WISBig
WIS offense44th of 366 · +4.5
Backcourt-5.9 · 4 players
→WISBig
Backcourt+2.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
→WISBig
Frontcourt+6.7 · 2 players
Bench-2.2 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-2.6 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestFAIR betterWIS betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Wucherpfennig32 minT. Williams20 minE. Mejia19 minH. Rawlins17 minN. Rodriguez7 minJ. Ganton2 min
Forwards
Q. Martin32 min · TRM. Radunovic9 min · TRI. Munkadi9 minP. SmithNewO. SackoNewB. JonesNew
Guards
E. Elmer31 min · TRT. Autry29 min · TRB. Carrington18 minJ. Janicki17 minH. Jones7 minZ. Kinziger6 min
Forwards
N. Winter31 minA. Rapp23 minV. Onuetu18 min · TRW. Garlock7 minI. RiddleNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.9 #226 | Points per game | 83.0 #28 |
| 1.09 #166 | Points per possession | 1.18 #27 |
| 67.3 #263 | Pace (possessions) | 70.0 #119 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.8 #294 | Effective FG% | 54.5 #52 |
| 33.2 #216 | 3-point % | 36.2 #50 |
| 35.4 #262 | 3-point attempt rate | 52.1 #6 |
| 27.7 #346 | Free throw rate | 31.5 #267 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.4 #96 | Turnover rate | 12.8 #4 |
| 35.8 #29 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.1 #232 |
| 12.1 #277 | Assists per game | 16.0 #48 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.9 #104 | Points allowed | 76.1 #221 |
| 1.06 #118 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #193 |
| 51.0 #159 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.4 #178 |
| 34.3 #200 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #152 |
| 16.8 #169 | Turnovers forced | 14.3 #327 |
| 70.9 #116 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.8 #74 |
| 6.5 #183 | Steals per game | 5.6 #287 |
| 3.5 #145 | Blocks per game | 3.1 #198 |
Fairfield
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 13-10 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Siena61–76
- Wvs Saint Peter's74–55
- Wvs Manhattan71–60
- Lvs Mount St Marys47–69
- Wvs Siena72–58
A week or more of rest.
Wisconsin
24-11 in 2025-26 overall · 16-7 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs High Point82–83
- Lvs Michigan65–68
- Wvs Illinois91–88
- Wvs Washington85–82
- W@ Purdue97–93
A week or more of rest.