McCann Arena · at Marist
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MRST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MRST 72–67 · win probability MRST 67%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 139.7
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: UMBC has more of the edges
UMBC 3, MRST 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: UMBC 34.1, MRST 25.7. Allowed: UMBC 25.7, MRST 37.6
UMBC offense vs MRST defense
Offense 255th of 366 against a defense 135th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: UMBC 54.1 and allows 49.4; MRST 49.3 and allows 45.6
Three-pointers
UMBC hits 36.1% and allows 32.7%; MRST hits 32.2% and allows 28.6%. Threes are 38.8% and 34.6% of their shots
Home court
MRST at home. This season: MRST 0-0 at home, UMBC 0-0 away
Even
MRST offense vs UMBC defense
Offense 322nd of 366 against a defense 279th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UMBC 11%, MRST 31%. Transfers in: UMBC 2, MRST 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UMBC 14.1%, MRST 17.0%. Forced: UMBC 15.1%, MRST 19.4%
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UMBC 24.9%, MRST 29.1%. Defensive: UMBC 74.2%, MRST 71.7%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: UMBC plays 67.0 a game (278th fastest), MRST 66.8 (286th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
UMBC has played the 342nd-hardest schedule, MRST the 339th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | MRST -4.9 | — |
| Total | — | 139.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | UMBC 67.4 · MRST 72.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MRST -2.8 | — |
| 1H total | 65.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | UMBC 31.3 · MRST 34.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UMBC 0–2 MRSTMRST leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · MRST has won the last 2 meetings · UMBC 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2024-25 | UMBC 73 @ MRST 76 | MRST -4.5 | UMBC W |
| Nov 11, 2023-24 | MRST 65 @ UMBC 59 | UMBC -2.5 | MRST W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UMBC
31 games played
Straight up
22-9
71% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +6.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg −0.6 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 8 | @ | L 71-77 | +25.5 | W +19.5 | 154.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 81-79 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 162.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 71-70 | -6.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 52-89 | +22.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 71-57 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 81-90 | +19.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 73-66 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 12 | vs | L 60-63 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 69-94 | +22.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 93-59 | -10.5 | W +23.5 | 148.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 69-62 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 133.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 75-74 | -6.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 74-79 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 78-60 | -4.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 87-74 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 79-56 | -2.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 55-64 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-65 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-62 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 78-62 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 135.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 85-63 | -2.5 | W +19.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 75-62 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 66-62 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 70-58 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 84-60 | -2.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 91-52 | -4.5 | W +34.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 84-69 | -12.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 91-69 | -7.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 74-59 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 17 | vs | L 83-86 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
DAY
L 71-77
+19.5
11
@
MORG
W 81-79
−2.5
16
vs
WAG
W 71-70
−5.5
19
@
GW
L 52-89
−14.5
29
vs
DSU
W 71-57
+0.5
3
@
GTWN
L 81-90
+10.5
6
@
BUCK
W 73-66
+8.5
9
vs
BUF
L 79-83
−0.5
12
vs
ARMY
L 60-63
−10.5
21
@
USF
L 69-94
−2.5
29
@
COPP
W 93-59
+23.5
8
vs
ME
W 69-62
−0.5
10
vs
UNH
W 75-74
−5.5
15
@
BRY
L 74-79
−6.5
19
@
BING
W 78-60
+13.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 87-74
+6.5
24
vs
UML
W 79-56
+20.5
29
@
UVM
L 55-64
−0.5
31
@
UALB
W 68-65
+1.5
5
vs
BING
W 79-62
+5.5
12
@
ME
W 78-62
+12.5
14
@
UNH
W 85-63
+19.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-62
+14.5
21
vs
UALB
W 66-62
−3.5
26
vs
BRY
W 70-58
+0.5
28
@
UML
W 84-60
+21.5
3
@
NJIT
W 91-52
+34.5
7
vs
UNH
W 84-69
+2.5
10
vs
UML
W 91-69
+14.5
14
vs
UVM
W 74-59
+13.5
17
vs
HOW
L 83-86
−1.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +6.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
DAY
L 71-77
−6.5
11
@
MORG
W 81-79
−2.5
16
vs
WAG
W 71-70
+0.5
19
@
GW
L 52-89
−19.5
29
vs
DSU
W 71-57
−10.5
3
@
GTWN
L 81-90
+21.5
6
@
BUCK
W 73-66
−4.5
9
vs
BUF
L 79-83
+16.5
12
vs
ARMY
L 60-63
−23.5
21
@
USF
L 69-94
+2.5
29
@
COPP
W 93-59
+3.5
8
vs
ME
W 69-62
−2.5
10
vs
UNH
W 75-74
+5.5
15
@
BRY
L 74-79
+17.5
19
@
BING
W 78-60
−2.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 87-74
+17.5
24
vs
UML
W 79-56
−16.5
29
@
UVM
L 55-64
−22.5
31
@
UALB
W 68-65
−8.5
5
vs
BING
W 79-62
+2.5
12
@
ME
W 78-62
+4.5
14
@
UNH
W 85-63
+1.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-62
−5.5
21
vs
UALB
W 66-62
−16.5
26
vs
BRY
W 70-58
−10.5
28
@
UML
W 84-60
−6.5
3
@
NJIT
W 91-52
−0.5
7
vs
UNH
W 84-69
+10.5
10
vs
UML
W 91-69
+12.5
14
vs
UVM
W 74-59
−1.5
17
vs
HOW
L 83-86
+25.5
over 14under 17avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Marist
30 games played
Straight up
18-12
60% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-19
37% 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 | @ | L 62-66 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 9 | @ | W 75-56 | +1.5 | W +20.5 | 138.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 54-56 | -6.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | U 110 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 76-65 | -12.5 | L −1.5 | 132.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 78-55 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 132.5 | O 133 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 64-56 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 136.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 80-68 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 82-74 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 131.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 76-87 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 70-51 | -6.5 | W +12.5 | 137.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 58-64 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 59-69 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 133.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 83-38 | -4.5 | W +40.5 | 148.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 76-72 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 71-49 | -10.5 | W +11.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 82-67 | -8.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 55-68 | -6.5 | L −19.5 | 133.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 50-69 | +1.5 | L −17.5 | 133.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 71-64 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 88-86 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 129.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 58-46 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 128.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 81-52 | -14.5 | W +14.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 60-63 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 56-81 | +2.5 | L −22.5 | 128.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 63-67 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 133.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 84-70 | -5.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 65-63 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 56-63 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 132.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 77-75 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 128.5 | U 115 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
XAV
L 62-66
+8.5
9
@
DART
W 75-56
+20.5
16
vs
HARV
L 54-56
−8.5
21
vs
ARMY
W 76-65
−1.5
25
vs
LEH
W 78-55
+15.5
5
vs
MSM
W 64-56
−0.5
7
vs
MAN
W 80-68
+4.5
13
@
BRY
W 82-74
+6.5
16
@
GT
L 76-87
−4.5
21
vs
STBK
W 70-51
+12.5
29
@
QUIN
L 58-64
−3.5
2
@
SPU
L 59-69
−12.5
4
vs
IONA
W 83-38
+40.5
9
@
SHU
W 76-72
−1.5
11
@
RID
W 71-49
+11.5
17
vs
FAIR
W 82-67
+6.5
19
vs
MRMK
L 55-68
−19.5
22
@
SIE
L 50-69
−17.5
24
vs
QUIN
W 71-64
+3.5
30
@
CAN
W 88-86
−7.5
1
@
NIA
W 58-46
+2.5
5
vs
RID
W 81-52
+14.5
7
@
FAIR
L 60-63
−4.5
12
@
MRMK
L 56-81
−22.5
15
vs
SIE
L 63-67
−6.5
20
@
MAN
W 84-70
+8.5
22
vs
SHU
W 65-63
−5.5
1
vs
SPU
L 56-63
−11.5
7
vs
QUIN
W 77-75
+3.5
8
vs
MRMK
L 57-58
+1.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
XAV
L 62-66
−11.5
9
@
DART
W 75-56
−7.5
16
vs
HARV
L 54-56
−20.5
21
vs
ARMY
W 76-65
+8.5
25
vs
LEH
W 78-55
+0.5
5
vs
MSM
W 64-56
−16.5
7
vs
MAN
W 80-68
+7.5
13
@
BRY
W 82-74
+24.5
16
@
GT
L 76-87
+21.5
21
vs
STBK
W 70-51
−16.5
29
@
QUIN
L 58-64
−23.5
2
@
SPU
L 59-69
−5.5
4
vs
IONA
W 83-38
−27.5
9
@
SHU
W 76-72
+4.5
11
@
RID
W 71-49
−11.5
17
vs
FAIR
W 82-67
+7.5
19
vs
MRMK
L 55-68
−10.5
22
@
SIE
L 50-69
−14.5
24
vs
QUIN
W 71-64
−4.5
30
@
CAN
W 88-86
+44.5
1
@
NIA
W 58-46
−24.5
5
vs
RID
W 81-52
−2.5
7
@
FAIR
L 60-63
−15.5
12
@
MRMK
L 56-81
+8.5
15
vs
SIE
L 63-67
−3.5
20
@
MAN
W 84-70
+11.5
22
vs
SHU
W 65-63
−18.5
1
vs
SPU
L 56-63
−13.5
7
vs
QUIN
W 77-75
+16.5
8
vs
MRMK
L 57-58
−13.5
over 11under 19avg −3.5 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: UMBC 1, Marist 1, even 3
UMBCBetterMarist
G F. Burton TR14.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 63
←UMBCBig
G J. Collins-Roberts7.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 27
G A. Cross TR3.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 1
→MRSTBig
G J. Graham TR11.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 43
G D. Ceaser4.3 pts · 1 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F M. Parker5 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 59
F R. Jacobs4.2 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 24
=No call
C T. Watson6.1 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
F R. Ciunys NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
C J. Gabriel2 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
UMBCBetterMarist
UMBC offense255th of 366 · -7.8
→MRSTSmall
MRST defense135th of 366 · -2.6
UMBC defense279th of 366 · -7.0
=Even
MRST offense322nd of 366 · -10.5
Backcourt-2.9 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-3.3 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.0 · 3 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestUMBC betterMRST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
F. Burton32 min · TRA. Cross16 min · TRD. Ceaser8 minJ. RisticNewJ. ReynoldsNewT. SlatingNew
Forwards
R. Jacobs15 minR. CiunysNewA. BarryNewJ. NdongNewS. HuanNew
Guards
J. Collins-Roberts31 minJ. Graham28 min · TRJ. WilliamsNewC. SweeneyNewB. ArnoldNewD. ChessNew
Forwards
M. Parker15 minE. OnyiaNewL. RodriguezNew
Centers
T. Watson11 minJ. Gabriel7 minL. FranzNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.7 #149 | Points per game | 68.9 #301 |
| 1.13 #85 | Points per possession | 1.04 #276 |
| 67.0 #278 | Pace (possessions) | 66.8 #286 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.1 #64 | Effective FG% | 49.3 #276 |
| 36.1 #55 | 3-point % | 32.2 #272 |
| 38.8 #195 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.6 #285 |
| 34.1 #205 | Free throw rate | 25.7 #360 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.1 #25 | Turnover rate | 17.0 #202 |
| 24.9 #342 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.1 #233 |
| 11.9 #291 | Assists per game | 15.0 #89 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.5 #41 | Points allowed | 63.9 #4 |
| 1.02 #46 | Points allowed per possession | 0.95 #3 |
| 49.4 #79 | Opponent effective FG% | 45.6 #5 |
| 32.7 #98 | Opponent 3-point % | 28.6 #2 |
| 15.1 #283 | Turnovers forced | 19.4 #35 |
| 74.2 #18 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.7 #77 |
| 4.9 #338 | Steals per game | 7.1 #116 |
| 2.4 #314 | Blocks per game | 3.1 #200 |
UMBC
22-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-2 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Howard83–86
- Wvs Vermont74–59
- Wvs UMass Lowell91–69
- Wvs New Hampshire84–69
- W@ NJIT91–52
A week or more of rest.
Marist
18-12 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Merrimack57–58
- Wvs Quinnipiac77–75
- Lvs Saint Peter's56–63
- Wvs Sacred Heart65–63
- W@ Manhattan84–70
A week or more of rest.