The Palestra · at Penn
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PENN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PENN 78–71 · win probability PENN 73%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.3
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: PENN has more of the edges
HOW 2, PENN 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
HOW has played the 348th-hardest schedule, PENN the 126th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: HOW 50.9 and allows 48.7; PENN 50.4 and allows 52.1
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HOW 35.8%, PENN 30.0%. Defensive: HOW 68.6%, PENN 68.7%
PENN offense vs HOW defense
Offense 138th of 366 against a defense 206th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HOW 19.3%, PENN 15.4%. Forced: HOW 20.7%, PENN 17.3%
HOW offense vs PENN defense
Offense 196th of 366 against a defense 142nd, on the model’s ratings
Home court
PENN at home. This season: PENN 0-0 at home, HOW 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: HOW 43.5, PENN 33.9. Allowed: HOW 38.4, PENN 27.5
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HOW 76%, PENN 83%. Transfers in: HOW 2, PENN 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Three-pointers
HOW hits 35.8% and allows 31.4%; PENN hits 38.3% and allows 32.2%. Threes are 34.7% and 35.4% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: HOW plays 69.5 a game (144th fastest), PENN 69.3 (158th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | PENN -7.1 | — |
| Total | — | 148.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | HOW 70.6 · PENN 77.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PENN -4.1 | — |
| 1H total | 69.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | HOW 32.6 · PENN 36.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 9-1 90% | 6-4 60% | |
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 2-8 20% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
HOW 0–1 PENNPENN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · HOW 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2023-24 | HOW 68 @ PENN 78 | PENN -5.5 | PENN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Howard
31 games played
Straight up
20-11
65% wins
Against the spread
22-9
71% covers · avg +5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg +0 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 | L 67-88 | +20.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 9 | vs | L 70-73 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 72-64 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 60-64 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 80-70 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 56-93 | +43.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 75-79 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 73-69 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 61-57 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | U 118 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 74-66 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 138.5 | O 140 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 67-66 | +15.5 | W +16.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 60-80 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 57-58 | -8.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 57-69 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 130.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 84-58 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 129.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 83-69 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 77-78 | -14.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 88-60 | -7.5 | W +20.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 72-53 | -14.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 85-57 | -14.5 | W +13.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 81-87 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-53 | -10.5 | W +15.5 | 132.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 91-59 | -11.5 | W +20.5 | 131.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 100-67 | -12.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 84-59 | -8.5 | W +16.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 90-70 | -19.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 84-76 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 78-61 | -15.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 70-63 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 17 | vs | W 86-83 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 80-101 | +30.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | O 181 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MIZ
L 67-88
−0.5
9
vs
GRAM
L 70-73
−7.5
13
vs
ALCN
W 72-64
+1.5
19
@
STET
L 60-64
−5.5
22
vs
NIA
W 80-70
+5.5
23
@
DUKE
L 56-93
+6.5
29
@
MSM
L 75-79
−1.5
9
vs
NCAT
W 73-69
+6.5
13
vs
HAMP
W 61-57
+6.5
16
@
DREX
W 74-66
+14.5
20
@
UNCW
W 67-66
+16.5
30
@
NU
L 60-80
−0.5
3
@
SCST
L 57-58
−9.5
10
@
UMES
L 57-69
−14.5
12
vs
DSU
W 84-58
+17.5
17
@
NCCU
W 83-69
+11.5
24
vs
MORG
L 77-78
−15.5
31
vs
NORF
W 88-60
+20.5
2
@
COPP
W 72-53
+4.5
7
vs
SCST
W 85-57
+13.5
9
vs
YALE
L 81-87
+0.5
14
vs
UMES
W 79-53
+15.5
16
@
DSU
W 91-59
+20.5
21
vs
NCCU
W 100-67
+20.5
28
@
MORG
W 84-59
+16.5
2
vs
COPP
W 90-70
+0.5
5
@
NORF
W 84-76
+1.5
13
vs
SCST
W 78-61
+1.5
14
vs
NCCU
W 70-63
−4.5
17
vs
UMBC
W 86-83
+1.5
19
vs
MICH
L 80-101
+9.5
covered 22didn’t cover 9avg +5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MIZ
L 67-88
−3.5
9
vs
GRAM
L 70-73
−9.5
13
vs
ALCN
W 72-64
−18.5
19
@
STET
L 60-64
−25.5
22
vs
NIA
W 80-70
+11.5
23
@
DUKE
L 56-93
−5.5
29
@
MSM
L 75-79
+7.5
9
vs
NCAT
W 73-69
−7.5
13
vs
HAMP
W 61-57
−24.5
16
@
DREX
W 74-66
+1.5
20
@
UNCW
W 67-66
−8.5
30
@
NU
L 60-80
−8.5
3
@
SCST
L 57-58
−29.5
10
@
UMES
L 57-69
−4.5
12
vs
DSU
W 84-58
+12.5
17
@
NCCU
W 83-69
+10.5
24
vs
MORG
L 77-78
+6.5
31
vs
NORF
W 88-60
+1.5
2
@
COPP
W 72-53
−21.5
7
vs
SCST
W 85-57
+0.5
9
vs
YALE
L 81-87
+20.5
14
vs
UMES
W 79-53
−0.5
16
@
DSU
W 91-59
+18.5
21
vs
NCCU
W 100-67
+23.5
28
@
MORG
W 84-59
−15.5
2
vs
COPP
W 90-70
+19.5
5
@
NORF
W 84-76
+10.5
13
vs
SCST
W 78-61
−6.5
14
vs
NCCU
W 70-63
−9.5
17
vs
UMBC
W 86-83
+25.5
19
vs
MICH
L 80-101
+29.5
over 15under 16avg +0 ptslonger = bigger margin
Penn
29 games played
Straight up
17-12
59% wins
Against the spread
20-9
69% covers · avg +3.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
8-21
28% overs · avg −3.6 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 9 | @ | L 78-84 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 81-106 | +19.5 | L −5.5 | 172.5 | O 187 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 83-74 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 163.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 84-68 | +4.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 77-65 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 152.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 73-71 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 60-77 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 63-90 | +18.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 8 | vs | W 74-72 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 69-70 | +11.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 79-83 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 80-61 | -14.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 76-78 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 81-73 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-74 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 63-64 | +5.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 60-77 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 157.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 67-72 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 153.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 91-81 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 173.5 | U 172 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 61-60 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 76-67 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 82-76 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 169.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 70-74 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-71 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 64-61 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 6 | @ | W 82-61 | +1.5 | W +22.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 62-60 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | U 122 |
| Mar 15 | vs | W 88-84 | +9.5 | W +13.5 | 144.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 70-105 | +25.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 175 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
9
@
AMER
L 78-84
−7.5
11
@
PROV
L 81-106
−5.5
17
vs
JOES
W 83-74
+14.5
21
@
DREX
W 84-68
+20.5
28
vs
MRMK
W 77-65
+9.5
29
vs
LAS
W 73-71
+0.5
30
vs
HOF
L 60-77
−15.5
6
@
VILL
L 63-90
−8.5
8
vs
LAF
W 74-72
−5.5
20
@
RUTG
L 69-70
+10.5
28
@
GMU
L 79-83
+12.5
31
vs
NJIT
W 80-61
+4.5
5
@
PRIN
L 76-78
+1.5
10
vs
BRWN
W 81-73
+2.5
17
@
DART
W 84-74
+12.5
19
@
HARV
L 63-64
+4.5
24
vs
YALE
L 60-77
−10.5
30
@
COLU
L 67-72
−0.5
31
@
COR
W 91-81
+17.5
7
vs
PRIN
W 61-60
−2.5
13
vs
COLU
W 76-67
+7.5
14
vs
COR
W 82-76
+8.5
21
@
YALE
L 70-74
+5.5
27
vs
DART
W 80-71
+2.5
28
vs
HARV
W 64-61
+1.5
6
@
BRWN
W 82-61
+22.5
14
vs
HARV
W 62-60
+5.5
15
vs
YALE
W 88-84
+13.5
19
vs
ILL
L 70-105
−9.5
covered 20didn’t cover 9avg +3.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
9
@
AMER
L 78-84
+7.5
11
@
PROV
L 81-106
+14.5
17
vs
JOES
W 83-74
−6.5
21
@
DREX
W 84-68
−0.5
28
vs
MRMK
W 77-65
−10.5
29
vs
LAS
W 73-71
−5.5
30
vs
HOF
L 60-77
−12.5
6
@
VILL
L 63-90
+2.5
8
vs
LAF
W 74-72
−4.5
20
@
RUTG
L 69-70
−11.5
28
@
GMU
L 79-83
+15.5
31
vs
NJIT
W 80-61
−10.5
5
@
PRIN
L 76-78
+8.5
10
vs
BRWN
W 81-73
+8.5
17
@
DART
W 84-74
−5.5
19
@
HARV
L 63-64
−23.5
24
vs
YALE
L 60-77
−20.5
30
@
COLU
L 67-72
−14.5
31
@
COR
W 91-81
−1.5
7
vs
PRIN
W 61-60
−23.5
13
vs
COLU
W 76-67
−5.5
14
vs
COR
W 82-76
−11.5
21
@
YALE
L 70-74
−6.5
27
vs
DART
W 80-71
−3.5
28
vs
HARV
W 64-61
−13.5
6
@
BRWN
W 82-61
−3.5
14
vs
HARV
W 62-60
−17.5
15
vs
YALE
W 88-84
+27.5
19
vs
ILL
L 70-105
+24.5
over 8under 21avg −3.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Howard has the better starters
Position by position: Howard 3, Penn 1, even 1
HowardBetterPenn
G C. Gillus10.8 pts · 4.4 reb · 4.7 ast
Score 52
=Even
G M. Zanoni12.1 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 48
G C. Taylor17.2 pts · 6.4 reb · 3 ast
Score 89
←HOWSmall
G A. Levine8.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 61
G A. Cotton8.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 15
→PENNBig
F T. Power16.8 pts · 7.6 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 81
G O. Okojie10.3 pts · 4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 61
←HOWSmall
F A. Gerhart5.2 pts · 4.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 36
C G. Kocevar TR3.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
←HOWSmall
F L. Lueth3.2 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 8
HowardBetterPenn
HOW offense196th of 366 · -6.1
→PENNSmall
PENN defense142nd of 366 · -3.1
HOW defense206th of 366 · -5.2
→PENNSmall
PENN offense138th of 366 · -4.1
Backcourt-1.0 · 4 players
=Even
Backcourt-0.8 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-0.4 · 3 players
Bench-3.1 · 5 players
→PENNSmall
Bench-1.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestHOW betterPENN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Gillus34 minC. Taylor32 minA. Cotton27 minO. Okojie26 minI. Brown10 minJ. Johnson6 min
Forwards
C. Robins6 minJ. Johnson3 minJ. LawsonNewD. HarrisNew
Centers
G. Kocevar13 min · TRJ. Brown6 min · TR
Guards
M. Zanoni29 minA. Levine25 minS. Mohammed16 min · TRJ. Jones14 minN. Polonowski6 minP. Kamin3 min
Forwards
T. Power36 minA. Gerhart20 minL. Lueth17 minD. Scantlebury15 minW. Kruse3 minF. BillyNew
Centers
M. PereiraNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.5 #155 | Points per game | 74.4 #181 |
| 1.09 #162 | Points per possession | 1.08 #196 |
| 69.5 #144 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #158 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.9 #198 | Effective FG% | 50.4 #223 |
| 35.8 #68 | 3-point % | 38.3 #13 |
| 34.7 #283 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #264 |
| 43.5 #17 | Free throw rate | 33.9 #212 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.3 #331 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #93 |
| 35.8 #28 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.0 #200 |
| 15.2 #78 | Assists per game | 13.7 #171 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.3 #51 | Points allowed | 74.5 #173 |
| 1.00 #24 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #137 |
| 48.7 #53 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.1 #218 |
| 31.4 #41 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.2 #73 |
| 20.7 #13 | Turnovers forced | 17.3 #132 |
| 68.6 #223 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.7 #220 |
| 8.3 #29 | Steals per game | 6.5 #184 |
| 3.7 #113 | Blocks per game | 3.1 #199 |
Howard
20-11 in 2025-26 overall · 13-3 in conference · Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan80–101
- Wvs UMBC86–83
- Wvs NC Central70–63
- Wvs SC State78–61
- W@ Norfolk St84–76
A week or more of rest.
Penn
17-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-5 in conference · Ivy League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Illinois70–105
- Wvs Yale88–84
- Wvs Harvard62–60
- W@ Brown82–61
- Wvs Harvard64–61
A week or more of rest.