Leo D. Mahoney Arena · at Fairfield
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FAIR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FAIR 72–69 · win probability FAIR 57%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 141.0
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: NAVY has more of the edges
NAVY 4, FAIR 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
NAVY hits 35.9% and allows 30.0%; FAIR hits 33.2% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 33.1% and 35.4% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: NAVY 38.8, FAIR 27.7. Allowed: NAVY 26.0, FAIR 30.4
Shooting
Effective FG%: NAVY 53.1 and allows 48.3; FAIR 48.8 and allows 51.0
FAIR offense vs NAVY defense
Offense 282nd of 366 against a defense 145th, on the model’s ratings
NAVY offense vs FAIR defense
Offense 270th of 366 against a defense 195th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
FAIR at home. This season: FAIR 0-0 at home, NAVY 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
NAVY has played the 311th-hardest schedule, FAIR the 359th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: NAVY plays 66.0 a game (316th fastest), FAIR 67.3 (263rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NAVY 31.9%, FAIR 35.8%. Defensive: NAVY 72.6%, FAIR 70.9%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NAVY 46%, FAIR 53%. Transfers in: NAVY 0, FAIR 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NAVY 16.8%, FAIR 15.4%. Forced: NAVY 18.3%, FAIR 16.8%
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 | — | FAIR -2.1 | — |
| Total | — | 141.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | NAVY 69.4 · FAIR 71.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FAIR -1.1 | — |
| 1H total | 66.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | NAVY 32.4 · FAIR 33.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Navy
32 games played
Straight up
24-8
75% wins
Against the spread
21-11
66% covers · avg +3.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% overs · avg −1.3 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 | @ | W 76-55 | -3.5 | W +17.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 68-97 | +5.5 | L −23.5 | 147.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 71-80 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 61-73 | +26.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 86-70 | -17.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 84-51 | -10.5 | W +22.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 57-87 | +8.5 | L −21.5 | 138.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 65-69 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 136.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 66-59 | -15.5 | L −8.5 | 132.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 61-56 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 133.5 | U 117 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 88-55 | -20.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 82-77 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 65-58 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 76-55 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 137.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 76-50 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 51-65 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 139.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 82-79 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 137.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 85-68 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 134.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 84-56 | -10.5 | W +17.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 58-50 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 138.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 87-71 | -9.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 65-50 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 139.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-73 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 76-60 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 135.5 | O 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 84-80 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 72-49 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 81-63 | -8.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 78-51 | -6.5 | W +20.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 85-69 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 74-69 | -15.5 | L −10.5 | 133.5 | O 143 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 72-73 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 72-82 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
PRES
W 76-55
+17.5
7
vs
YALE
L 68-97
−23.5
11
@
PSU
L 71-80
+2.5
18
@
UNC
L 61-73
+14.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 86-70
−1.5
26
vs
GWEB
W 84-51
+22.5
28
@
UNCW
L 57-87
−21.5
29
vs
SELA
L 65-69
−7.5
3
@
DSU
W 66-59
−8.5
7
vs
AF
W 61-56
−4.5
19
vs
COPP
W 88-55
+12.5
31
vs
BU
W 82-77
+0.5
3
@
HC
W 65-58
+1.5
7
vs
BUCK
W 76-55
+12.5
10
vs
LAF
W 76-50
+17.5
12
@
AMER
L 51-65
−16.5
17
@
LEH
W 82-79
−0.5
21
vs
HC
W 85-68
+5.5
24
vs
ARMY
W 84-56
+17.5
28
@
BU
W 58-50
+6.5
31
vs
L-MD
W 87-71
+6.5
4
@
LAF
W 65-50
+11.5
7
vs
AMER
W 82-73
+4.5
9
@
BUCK
W 76-60
+9.5
14
@
COLG
W 84-80
+5.5
18
vs
LEH
W 72-49
+13.5
21
@
ARMY
W 81-63
+9.5
25
@
L-MD
W 78-51
+20.5
28
vs
COLG
W 85-69
+9.5
5
vs
BUCK
W 74-69
−10.5
8
vs
BU
L 72-73
−7.5
18
@
WAKE
L 72-82
−0.5
covered 21didn’t cover 11avg +3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
PRES
W 76-55
−10.5
7
vs
YALE
L 68-97
+17.5
11
@
PSU
L 71-80
−4.5
18
@
UNC
L 61-73
−26.5
22
vs
NJIT
W 86-70
+15.5
26
vs
GWEB
W 84-51
−18.5
28
@
UNCW
L 57-87
+5.5
29
vs
SELA
L 65-69
−2.5
3
@
DSU
W 66-59
−7.5
7
vs
AF
W 61-56
−16.5
19
vs
COPP
W 88-55
−2.5
31
vs
BU
W 82-77
+21.5
3
@
HC
W 65-58
−14.5
7
vs
BUCK
W 76-55
−6.5
10
vs
LAF
W 76-50
−15.5
12
@
AMER
L 51-65
−23.5
17
@
LEH
W 82-79
+23.5
21
vs
HC
W 85-68
+18.5
24
vs
ARMY
W 84-56
−3.5
28
@
BU
W 58-50
−30.5
31
vs
L-MD
W 87-71
+14.5
4
@
LAF
W 65-50
−24.5
7
vs
AMER
W 82-73
+20.5
9
@
BUCK
W 76-60
+0.5
14
@
COLG
W 84-80
+24.5
18
vs
LEH
W 72-49
−18.5
21
@
ARMY
W 81-63
+4.5
25
@
L-MD
W 78-51
−18.5
28
vs
COLG
W 85-69
+12.5
5
vs
BUCK
W 74-69
+9.5
8
vs
BU
L 72-73
+8.5
18
@
WAKE
L 72-82
+5.5
over 15under 17avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
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: Navy 1, Fairfield 1, even 3
NavyBetterFairfield
G J. Kim10 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 35
→FAIRBig
G D. Wucherpfennig11.8 pts · 8.3 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 71
G J. Pennick7.5 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 12
=Even
G T. Williams6.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 19
G C. Cole6 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 41
←NAVYSmall
G E. Mejia4.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 11
G D. Burnett1.4 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G H. Rawlins3.6 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 4
G N. Howard1.6 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F Q. Martin TR12.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 76
NavyBetterFairfield
NAVY offense270th of 366 · -8.2
→FAIRSmall
FAIR defense195th of 366 · -4.8
NAVY defense145th of 366 · -3.1
←NAVYBig
FAIR offense282nd of 366 · -8.7
Backcourt-5.8 · 5 players
=Even
Backcourt-5.9 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
Bench-0.2 · 5 players
←NAVYSmall
Bench-2.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestNAVY betterFAIR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Kim31 minJ. Pennick25 minC. Cole19 minD. Burnett6 minN. Howard3 minJ. Gabbidon1 min
Forwards
C. Jackson2 minJ. Ashley2 minO. Gray2 minT. RajiNewC. PollockNewS. GriffinNew
Centers
C. CraneNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.1 #194 | Points per game | 72.9 #226 |
| 1.12 #97 | Points per possession | 1.09 #166 |
| 66.0 #316 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #263 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.1 #100 | Effective FG% | 48.8 #294 |
| 35.9 #64 | 3-point % | 33.2 #216 |
| 33.1 #314 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #262 |
| 38.8 #82 | Free throw rate | 27.7 #346 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #190 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #96 |
| 31.9 #126 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.8 #29 |
| 15.8 #52 | Assists per game | 12.1 #277 |
| Defense | ||
| 65.6 #10 | Points allowed | 71.9 #104 |
| 1.00 #23 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #118 |
| 48.3 #42 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #159 |
| 30.0 #7 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #200 |
| 18.3 #84 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #169 |
| 72.6 #49 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #116 |
| 7.5 #84 | Steals per game | 6.5 #183 |
| 3.3 #185 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #145 |
Navy
24-8 in 2025-26 overall · 18-2 in conference · Patriot League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Wake Forest72–82
- Lvs Boston U72–73
- Wvs Bucknell74–69
- Wvs Colgate85–69
- W@ Loyola MD78–51
A week or more of rest.
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.