Leo D. Mahoney Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | NAVY | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NAVY 73–65 · win probability NAVY 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 138.0
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
CCSU 0, NAVY 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CCSU offense vs NAVY defense
Offense 353rd of 366 against a defense 145th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CCSU 27.5%, NAVY 31.9%. Defensive: CCSU 69.6%, NAVY 72.6%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CCSU 16.3%, NAVY 16.8%. Forced: CCSU 14.0%, NAVY 18.3%
Free throws
Free throw rate: CCSU 31.2, NAVY 38.8. Allowed: CCSU 26.9, NAVY 26.0
Three-pointers
CCSU hits 35.8% and allows 33.4%; NAVY hits 35.9% and allows 30.0%. Threes are 34.9% and 33.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: CCSU 51.6 and allows 50.2; NAVY 53.1 and allows 48.3
Context
Schedule so far
CCSU has played the 358th-hardest schedule, NAVY the 311th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
NAVY offense vs CCSU defense
Offense 270th of 366 against a defense 247th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CCSU 55%, NAVY 46%. Transfers in: CCSU 0, NAVY 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: CCSU plays 65.5 a game (329th fastest), NAVY 66.0 (316th). 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 | — | NAVY -7.7 | — |
| Total | — | 138.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | CCSU 65.2 · NAVY 72.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | NAVY -4.5 | — |
| 1H total | 64.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | CCSU 30.1 · NAVY 34.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
C Connecticut
28 games played
Straight up
16-12
57% wins
Against the spread
14-14
50% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +2.5 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 6 | @ | L 49-71 | +9.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 60-59 | +17.5 | W +18.5 | 136.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 77-84 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 67-54 | +15.5 | W +28.5 | 137.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 108-106 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 214 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 61-77 | +18.5 | W +2.5 | 128.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 56-73 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 138.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 84-67 | -7.5 | W +9.5 | 133.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 70-84 | -6.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 78-84 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 72-61 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 130.5 | O 133 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 76-69 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 69-59 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 98-90 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-79 | +1.5 | L −16.5 | 132.5 | O 140 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 66-76 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 26 | @ | L 59-61 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 62-55 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 59-80 | +2.5 | L −18.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-67 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-67 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 81-76 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 128.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 63-57 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 133.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 78-77 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 51-70 | -3.5 | L −22.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 80-78 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 69-64 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 60-70 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
QUIN
L 49-71
−12.5
11
@
BC
W 60-59
+18.5
16
@
MASS
L 77-84
+5.5
21
@
RUTG
W 67-54
+28.5
24
vs
SHU
W 108-106
−1.5
3
@
HALL
L 61-77
+2.5
7
@
NE
L 56-73
−15.5
13
@
BING
W 84-67
+9.5
18
vs
FAIR
L 70-84
−20.5
2
@
LIU
L 78-84
+0.5
4
vs
NHVN
W 72-61
+3.5
8
vs
STO
W 76-69
−0.5
10
@
LEM
W 69-59
+11.5
17
@
SFPA
W 98-90
+1.5
19
@
MERC
L 61-79
−16.5
23
vs
FDU
L 66-76
−17.5
26
@
STO
L 59-61
−3.5
29
@
WAG
W 62-55
+4.5
31
vs
LIU
L 59-80
−18.5
5
vs
CHST
W 78-67
+2.5
7
vs
WAG
W 84-67
+11.5
12
@
NHVN
W 81-76
+1.5
14
@
FDU
W 63-57
+7.5
19
vs
LEM
W 78-77
−7.5
21
@
CHST
L 51-70
−22.5
26
vs
MERC
W 80-78
−1.5
28
vs
SFPA
W 69-64
−3.5
4
vs
WAG
L 60-70
−13.5
covered 14didn’t cover 14avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
QUIN
L 49-71
−30.5
11
@
BC
W 60-59
−17.5
16
@
MASS
L 77-84
+16.5
21
@
RUTG
W 67-54
−16.5
24
vs
SHU
W 108-106
+70.5
3
@
HALL
L 61-77
+9.5
7
@
NE
L 56-73
−9.5
13
@
BING
W 84-67
+17.5
18
vs
FAIR
L 70-84
+10.5
2
@
LIU
L 78-84
+15.5
4
vs
NHVN
W 72-61
+2.5
8
vs
STO
W 76-69
+10.5
10
@
LEM
W 69-59
−18.5
17
@
SFPA
W 98-90
+43.5
19
@
MERC
L 61-79
+7.5
23
vs
FDU
L 66-76
+1.5
26
@
STO
L 59-61
−15.5
29
@
WAG
W 62-55
−19.5
31
vs
LIU
L 59-80
−3.5
5
vs
CHST
W 78-67
+6.5
7
vs
WAG
W 84-67
+14.5
12
@
NHVN
W 81-76
+28.5
14
@
FDU
W 63-57
−13.5
19
vs
LEM
W 78-77
−10.5
21
@
CHST
L 51-70
−17.5
26
vs
MERC
W 80-78
+16.5
28
vs
SFPA
W 69-64
−19.5
4
vs
WAG
L 60-70
−9.5
over 15under 13avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Navy has the better starters
Position by position: C Connecticut 0, Navy 2, even 3
C ConnecticutBetterNavy
G J. Jones4.1 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 4
→NAVYSmall
G J. Kim10 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 35
G V. Payne6.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 16
=Even
G J. Pennick7.5 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 12
G E. Parker2 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 0
→NAVYBig
G C. Cole6 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 41
G R. Jones3.8 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 20
=No call
G D. Burnett1.4 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
F D. James3.2 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 13
=No call
G N. Howard1.6 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
C ConnecticutBetterNavy
CCSU offense353rd of 366 · -13.2
→NAVYBig
NAVY defense145th of 366 · -3.1
CCSU defense247th of 366 · -6.5
=Even
NAVY offense270th of 366 · -8.2
Backcourt-10.6 · 4 players
→NAVYBig
Backcourt-5.8 · 5 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 1 player
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-2.0 · 2 players
→NAVYSmall
Bench-0.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCCSU betterNAVY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Jones30 minV. Payne24 minE. Parker14 minR. Jones10 minA. Reynolds10 minR. LaurentNew
Forwards
D. James13 minJ. Mott8 minB. JacksonNewJ. ErvinNewR. TibbyNewC. LangdonNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.6 #272 | Points per game | 74.1 #194 |
| 1.08 #192 | Points per possession | 1.12 #97 |
| 65.5 #329 | Pace (possessions) | 66.0 #316 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.6 #165 | Effective FG% | 53.1 #100 |
| 35.8 #69 | 3-point % | 35.9 #64 |
| 34.9 #278 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.1 #314 |
| 31.2 #276 | Free throw rate | 38.8 #82 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.3 #154 | Turnover rate | 16.8 #190 |
| 27.5 #281 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.9 #126 |
| 12.8 #229 | Assists per game | 15.8 #52 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.0 #105 | Points allowed | 65.6 #10 |
| 1.10 #218 | Points allowed per possession | 1.00 #23 |
| 50.2 #113 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.3 #42 |
| 33.4 #146 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.0 #7 |
| 14.0 #338 | Turnovers forced | 18.3 #84 |
| 69.6 #179 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.6 #49 |
| 5.4 #311 | Steals per game | 7.5 #84 |
| 3.9 #83 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #185 |
C Connecticut
16-12 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wagner60–70
- Wvs Saint Francis Red Wolves69–64
- Wvs Mercyhurst80–78
- L@ Chicago St51–70
- Wvs Le Moyne78–77
A week or more of rest.
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.