Chesapeake Employers Insurance Arena · at UMBC
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UMBC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UMBC 74–72 · win probability UMBC 54%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.9
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
IONA 1, UMBC 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: IONA 29.3, UMBC 34.1. Allowed: IONA 28.8, UMBC 25.7
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: IONA plays 69.8 a game (129th fastest), UMBC 67.0 (278th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: IONA 27.8%, UMBC 24.9%. Defensive: IONA 68.8%, UMBC 74.2%
Home court
UMBC at home. This season: UMBC 0-0 at home, IONA 0-0 away
UMBC offense vs IONA defense
Offense 255th of 366 against a defense 204th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: IONA 17.2%, UMBC 14.1%. Forced: IONA 16.6%, UMBC 15.1%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: IONA 31%, UMBC 11%. Transfers in: IONA 5, UMBC 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: IONA 51.9 and allows 48.9; UMBC 54.1 and allows 49.4
Even
IONA offense vs UMBC defense
Offense 262nd of 366 against a defense 279th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
IONA has played the 326th-hardest schedule, UMBC the 342nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Three-pointers
IONA hits 35.1% and allows 30.6%; UMBC hits 36.1% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 45.9% and 38.8% of their shots
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 | — | UMBC -1.2 | — |
| Total | — | 145.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | IONA 72.4 · UMBC 73.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UMBC -0.6 | — |
| 1H total | 68.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | IONA 33.8 · UMBC 34.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 9-1 90% | 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Iona
32 games played
Straight up
18-14
56% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg 0 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-20
38% overs · avg −1.8 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 | vs | W 81-73 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 105-91 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 156.5 | O 196 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 76-71 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 89-69 | -2.5 | W +17.5 | 154.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 75-96 | +11.5 | L −9.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 91-84 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 157.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 75-80 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 1 | @ | W 89-66 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 149.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 5 | vs | L 68-89 | -2.5 | L −23.5 | 163.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 81-69 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 163.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 69-63 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 64-91 | +28.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | U 155 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 83-78 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 59-66 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 153.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 75-72 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 38-83 | +4.5 | L −40.5 | 148.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 71-53 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 74-48 | -11.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 68-72 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 63-77 | +3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 61-60 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 66-57 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 70-71 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 72-79 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 76-83 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 69-63 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 68-70 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 132.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 72-64 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 86-88 | +6.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-58 | -11.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 69-65 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 80-91 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
HOF
W 81-73
+9.5
11
@
KC
W 105-91
+9.5
14
vs
FOR
W 76-71
−0.5
18
vs
PRIN
W 89-69
+17.5
21
vs
AKR
L 75-96
−9.5
22
vs
ORST
W 91-84
+10.5
24
vs
GB
L 75-80
−10.5
1
@
DEL
W 89-66
+21.5
5
vs
QUIN
L 68-89
−23.5
7
@
SHU
W 81-69
+13.5
10
vs
BRY
W 69-63
−2.5
13
@
SJU
L 64-91
+1.5
20
@
UVM
W 83-78
+11.5
29
@
MSM
L 59-66
−9.5
2
vs
SIE
W 75-72
+4.5
4
@
MRST
L 38-83
−40.5
9
vs
NIA
W 71-53
+7.5
11
vs
CAN
W 74-48
+14.5
14
@
RID
L 68-72
−11.5
19
@
SPU
L 63-77
−10.5
22
vs
MRMK
W 61-60
+2.5
24
vs
MAN
W 66-57
+1.5
30
vs
FAIR
L 70-71
−2.5
5
@
SIE
L 72-79
+1.5
7
vs
MSM
L 76-83
−10.5
13
@
CAN
W 69-63
+1.5
15
@
NIA
L 68-70
−5.5
20
vs
SPU
W 72-64
+6.5
22
@
MRMK
L 86-88
+4.5
27
vs
RID
W 80-58
+10.5
1
@
MAN
W 69-65
+1.5
5
vs
SHU
L 80-91
−14.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg 0 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
HOF
W 81-73
+9.5
11
@
KC
W 105-91
+39.5
14
vs
FOR
W 76-71
−10.5
18
vs
PRIN
W 89-69
+3.5
21
vs
AKR
L 75-96
−2.5
22
vs
ORST
W 91-84
+17.5
24
vs
GB
L 75-80
+4.5
1
@
DEL
W 89-66
+5.5
5
vs
QUIN
L 68-89
−6.5
7
@
SHU
W 81-69
−13.5
10
vs
BRY
W 69-63
−14.5
13
@
SJU
L 64-91
−4.5
20
@
UVM
W 83-78
+8.5
29
@
MSM
L 59-66
−28.5
2
vs
SIE
W 75-72
−2.5
4
@
MRST
L 38-83
−27.5
9
vs
NIA
W 71-53
−16.5
11
vs
CAN
W 74-48
−19.5
14
@
RID
L 68-72
−1.5
19
@
SPU
L 63-77
−1.5
22
vs
MRMK
W 61-60
−22.5
24
vs
MAN
W 66-57
−30.5
30
vs
FAIR
L 70-71
−5.5
5
@
SIE
L 72-79
+10.5
7
vs
MSM
L 76-83
+17.5
13
@
CAN
W 69-63
−5.5
15
@
NIA
L 68-70
+5.5
20
vs
SPU
W 72-64
−4.5
22
@
MRMK
L 86-88
+37.5
27
vs
RID
W 80-58
−3.5
1
@
MAN
W 69-65
−17.5
5
vs
SHU
L 80-91
+21.5
over 12under 20avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Iona has the better starters
Position by position: Iona 2, UMBC 1, even 2
IonaBetterUMBC
G K. Vanderhorst TR9.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 44
→UMBCSmall
G F. Burton TR14.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 63
G M. Kheil TR9.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 17
←IONASmall
G A. Cross TR3.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 1
G K. Akametu11 pts · 5 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 53
=No call
G D. Ceaser4.3 pts · 1 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
F A. Disu TR11 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
←IONASmall
F R. Jacobs4.2 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 24
F A. Fall2.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 3
=No call
F R. Ciunys NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
IonaBetterUMBC
IONA offense262nd of 366 · -8.0
=Even
UMBC defense279th of 366 · -7.0
IONA defense204th of 366 · -5.0
=Even
UMBC offense255th of 366 · -7.8
Backcourt-4.4 · 3 players
→UMBCSmall
Backcourt-2.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt-3.0 · 2 players
→UMBCSmall
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
Bench-0.9 · 4 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestIONA betterUMBC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Vanderhorst30 min · TRM. Kheil30 min · TRK. Akametu24 minO. Hourruitiner2 minP. LefasNewD. DoyleNew
Forwards
A. Disu28 min · TRA. Fall19 minL. Jungers16 minK. Mitchell11 min · TRS. Ibine Ayo8 min · TRO. OdutayoNew
Guards
F. Burton32 min · TRA. Cross16 min · TRD. Ceaser8 minJ. RisticNewJ. ReynoldsNewT. SlatingNew
Forwards
R. Jacobs15 minR. CiunysNewA. BarryNewJ. NdongNewS. HuanNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.8 #206 | Points per game | 75.7 #149 |
| 1.06 #228 | Points per possession | 1.13 #85 |
| 69.8 #129 | Pace (possessions) | 67.0 #278 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.9 #149 | Effective FG% | 54.1 #64 |
| 35.1 #105 | 3-point % | 36.1 #55 |
| 45.9 #49 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.8 #195 |
| 29.3 #326 | Free throw rate | 34.1 #205 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.2 #220 | Turnover rate | 14.1 #25 |
| 27.8 #274 | Offensive rebound rate | 24.9 #342 |
| 14.0 #147 | Assists per game | 11.9 #291 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.1 #136 | Points allowed | 68.5 #41 |
| 1.05 #85 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #46 |
| 48.9 #64 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.4 #79 |
| 30.6 #25 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #98 |
| 16.6 #180 | Turnovers forced | 15.1 #283 |
| 68.8 #212 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.2 #18 |
| 6.6 #159 | Steals per game | 4.9 #338 |
| 3.0 #227 | Blocks per game | 2.4 #314 |
Iona
18-14 in 2025-26 overall · 10-11 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Sacred Heart80–91
- W@ Manhattan69–65
- Wvs Rider80–58
- L@ Merrimack86–88
- Wvs Saint Peter's72–64
A week or more of rest.
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.