Draddy Gymnasium · at Manhattan
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MAN 77–74 · win probability MAN 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.3
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
L-MD 2, MAN 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
L-MD hits 32.5% and allows 32.8%; MAN hits 32.0% and allows 36.6%. Threes are 47.2% and 37.1% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: L-MD 27.6%, MAN 28.6%. Defensive: L-MD 71.0%, MAN 63.0%
Free throws
Free throw rate: L-MD 29.9, MAN 34.0. Allowed: L-MD 32.7, MAN 25.7
Home court
MAN at home. This season: MAN 0-0 at home, L-MD 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: L-MD 33%, MAN 10%. Transfers in: L-MD 5, MAN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
L-MD offense vs MAN defense
Offense 307th of 366 against a defense 346th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: L-MD 15.4%, MAN 15.6%. Forced: L-MD 15.4%, MAN 16.6%
Context
Schedule so far
L-MD has played the 299th-hardest schedule, MAN the 336th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: L-MD 50.4 and allows 54.7; MAN 47.9 and allows 53.9
Even
MAN offense vs L-MD defense
Offense 301st of 366 against a defense 313th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: L-MD plays 69.3 a game (165th fastest), MAN 69.0 (182nd). 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 | — | MAN -2.7 | — |
| Total | — | 151.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | L-MD 74.3 · MAN 77 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MAN -1.5 | — |
| 1H total | 70.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | L-MD 34.6 · MAN 36.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | |
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 13 | vs CCSU | No recent meeting |
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Loyola MD
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-13
57% overs · avg +4.6 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 3 | vs | L 56-67 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 64-66 | -10.5 | L −12.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 82-85 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 78-92 | +14.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 46-88 | +35.5 | L −6.5 | 159.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 95-84 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 71-93 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 70-86 | -2.5 | L −18.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 73-81 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 79-86 | +23.5 | W +16.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 69-84 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 64-79 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 84-76 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 67-70 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 80-86 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 74-57 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 81-88 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 67-62 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 77-68 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-87 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 89-84 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 69-78 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 68-54 | +3.5 | W +17.5 | 147.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-73 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 77-87 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 98-101 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 51-78 | +6.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 76-62 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 77-90 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TOW
L 56-67
−2.5
11
vs
NJIT
L 64-66
−12.5
15
vs
STO
W 74-63
+4.5
16
@
FAIR
L 82-85
+2.5
19
@
DUQ
L 78-92
+0.5
21
@
UK
L 46-88
−6.5
30
vs
COPP
W 95-84
+1.5
3
@
HAMP
L 71-93
−15.5
9
@
VMI
L 70-86
−18.5
13
vs
MSM
L 73-81
−5.5
21
@
GMU
L 79-86
+16.5
31
@
AMER
L 69-84
−6.5
3
vs
LAF
L 64-79
−13.5
7
@
ARMY
W 84-76
+12.5
10
@
BUCK
L 67-70
+3.5
14
vs
COLG
L 80-86
+2.5
17
vs
BU
W 74-57
+18.5
19
@
LEH
L 81-88
−3.5
24
vs
BUCK
W 67-62
+2.5
28
vs
AMER
W 77-68
+13.5
31
@
NAVY
L 71-87
−6.5
4
vs
LEH
W 89-84
+2.5
7
@
BU
L 69-78
−3.5
11
@
LAF
W 68-54
+17.5
15
vs
HC
W 83-73
+5.5
18
vs
ARMY
L 77-87
−14.5
21
@
COLG
L 98-101
+5.5
25
vs
NAVY
L 51-78
−20.5
28
@
HC
W 76-62
+15.5
5
@
COLG
L 77-90
−6.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TOW
L 56-67
−18.5
11
vs
NJIT
L 64-66
−9.5
15
vs
STO
W 74-63
−1.5
16
@
FAIR
L 82-85
+31.5
19
@
DUQ
L 78-92
+19.5
21
@
UK
L 46-88
−25.5
30
vs
COPP
W 95-84
+35.5
3
@
HAMP
L 71-93
+21.5
9
@
VMI
L 70-86
+4.5
13
vs
MSM
L 73-81
+2.5
21
@
GMU
L 79-86
+18.5
31
@
AMER
L 69-84
−1.5
3
vs
LAF
L 64-79
−9.5
7
@
ARMY
W 84-76
+13.5
10
@
BUCK
L 67-70
−6.5
14
vs
COLG
L 80-86
+15.5
17
vs
BU
W 74-57
−17.5
19
@
LEH
L 81-88
+19.5
24
vs
BUCK
W 67-62
−18.5
28
vs
AMER
W 77-68
−2.5
31
@
NAVY
L 71-87
+14.5
4
vs
LEH
W 89-84
+23.5
7
@
BU
L 69-78
+1.5
11
@
LAF
W 68-54
−25.5
15
vs
HC
W 83-73
+9.5
18
vs
ARMY
L 77-87
+14.5
21
@
COLG
L 98-101
+48.5
25
vs
NAVY
L 51-78
−18.5
28
@
HC
W 76-62
−13.5
5
@
COLG
L 77-90
+11.5
over 17under 13avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Manhattan
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
11-20
35% covers · avg −3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-18
42% overs · avg +2.3 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 9 | @ | L 83-114 | +28.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 79-75 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 56-86 | +15.5 | L −14.5 | 156.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 80-73 | -20.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 68-109 | +23.5 | L −17.5 | 162.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 101-103 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 204 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 78-81 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 70-66 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 68-80 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 53-82 | +8.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 68-75 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 87-81 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 138.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 74-71 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 80-79 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 66-73 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 64-70 | -7.5 | L −13.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 79-70 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 62-98 | +6.5 | L −29.5 | 158.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 59-74 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 92-98 | +13.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 57-66 | +7.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 95-90 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 65-72 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 75-80 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 80-68 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 161.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 76-69 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 69-65 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 20 | vs | L 70-84 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 65-75 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 65-69 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 60-71 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
9
@
USC
L 83-114
−2.5
12
vs
UTU
W 79-75
+6.5
14
@
HAW
L 56-86
−14.5
15
vs
MVSU
W 80-73
−13.5
21
@
TA&M
L 68-109
−17.5
26
vs
WAG
L 101-103
−4.5
29
@
ARMY
L 78-81
−4.5
5
vs
FAIR
W 70-66
+5.5
7
@
MRST
L 68-80
−4.5
13
@
FOR
L 53-82
−20.5
18
vs
FUR
L 68-75
+3.5
21
vs
PRES
W 87-81
+8.5
29
@
RID
W 74-71
+0.5
2
vs
QUIN
W 80-79
+8.5
4
@
MRMK
L 66-73
−0.5
9
vs
CAN
L 64-70
−13.5
11
vs
NIA
W 79-70
+3.5
14
@
FAIR
L 62-98
−29.5
17
vs
SIE
L 59-74
−8.5
19
@
QUIN
L 92-98
+7.5
24
@
IONA
L 57-66
−1.5
30
vs
RID
W 95-90
−0.5
1
@
MSM
L 65-72
−0.5
5
vs
SPU
L 75-80
−0.5
7
vs
SHU
W 80-68
+13.5
13
@
NIA
W 76-69
+4.5
15
@
CAN
W 69-65
+2.5
20
vs
MRST
L 70-84
−8.5
27
@
SPU
L 65-75
−2.5
1
vs
IONA
L 65-69
−1.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 60-71
−7.5
covered 11didn’t cover 20avg −3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
9
@
USC
L 83-114
+41.5
12
vs
UTU
W 79-75
−4.5
14
@
HAW
L 56-86
−14.5
15
vs
MVSU
W 80-73
−1.5
21
@
TA&M
L 68-109
+14.5
26
vs
WAG
L 101-103
+59.5
29
@
ARMY
L 78-81
+6.5
5
vs
FAIR
W 70-66
−19.5
7
@
MRST
L 68-80
+7.5
13
@
FOR
L 53-82
−12.5
18
vs
FUR
L 68-75
−11.5
21
vs
PRES
W 87-81
+29.5
29
@
RID
W 74-71
−2.5
2
vs
QUIN
W 80-79
−0.5
4
@
MRMK
L 66-73
−9.5
9
vs
CAN
L 64-70
−11.5
11
vs
NIA
W 79-70
+8.5
14
@
FAIR
L 62-98
+1.5
17
vs
SIE
L 59-74
−11.5
19
@
QUIN
L 92-98
+36.5
24
@
IONA
L 57-66
−30.5
30
vs
RID
W 95-90
+39.5
1
@
MSM
L 65-72
−10.5
5
vs
SPU
L 75-80
+10.5
7
vs
SHU
W 80-68
−13.5
13
@
NIA
W 76-69
+8.5
15
@
CAN
W 69-65
−8.5
20
vs
MRST
L 70-84
+11.5
27
@
SPU
L 65-75
−5.5
1
vs
IONA
L 65-69
−17.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 60-71
−17.5
over 13under 18avg +2.3 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: Loyola MD 1, Manhattan 1, even 3
Loyola MDBetterManhattan
G T. Cicero5.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 53
←L-MDSmall
G B. Tweedy TR9 pts · 3 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 29
G C. Berg-McLean3.5 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 21
→MANSmall
G J. Sabino TR7.1 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 53
F S. Springer4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 4
=Even
G Q. Elliott3.6 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 17
F S. Emenalo3.1 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 11
=No call
G J. Delaney0.4 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
F D. Harrison TR2.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F O. Stankovic TR1.7 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
Loyola MDBetterManhattan
L-MD offense307th of 366 · -9.5
=Even
MAN defense346th of 366 · -9.3
L-MD defense313th of 366 · -8.1
=Even
MAN offense301st of 366 · -9.4
Backcourt-1.4 · 2 players
←L-MDSmall
Backcourt-4.3 · 4 players
Frontcourt-4.7 · 3 players
→MANBig
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
Bench-3.1 · 5 players
→MANSmall
Bench-0.5 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestL-MD betterMAN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Cicero14 minC. Berg-McLean14 minM. Ortega8 min · TRL. RickettsNewR. LongNewS. BiegNew
Forwards
S. Springer17 minS. Emenalo15 minD. Harrison12 min · TRE. Barnes8 minM. Hagedorn7 min · TRA. Huguet7 min · TR
Guards
B. Tweedy30 min · TRJ. Sabino21 min · TRQ. Elliott12 minJ. Delaney5 minA. Miguel4 minB. PearceNew
Forwards
O. Stankovic6 min · TRK. Kearney4 min · TRL. McChesney3 min · TRI. JohnsonNewD. EricNewN. ManojlovicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.7 #212 | Points per game | 72.4 #232 |
| 1.06 #227 | Points per possession | 1.05 #247 |
| 69.3 #165 | Pace (possessions) | 69.0 #182 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.4 #219 | Effective FG% | 47.9 #315 |
| 32.5 #251 | 3-point % | 32.0 #280 |
| 47.2 #30 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.1 #228 |
| 29.9 #312 | Free throw rate | 34.0 #208 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.4 #101 | Turnover rate | 15.6 #112 |
| 27.6 #279 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.6 #247 |
| 12.6 #246 | Assists per game | 12.3 #268 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.5 #280 | Points allowed | 79.6 #309 |
| 1.14 #304 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #330 |
| 54.7 #321 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.9 #297 |
| 32.8 #106 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.6 #332 |
| 15.4 #261 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #175 |
| 71.0 #103 | Defensive rebound rate | 63.0 #358 |
| 6.1 #221 | Steals per game | 7.8 #54 |
| 3.4 #156 | Blocks per game | 2.3 #325 |
Loyola MD
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Patriot League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Colgate77–90
- W@ Holy Cross76–62
- Lvs Navy51–78
- L@ Colgate98–101
- Lvs Army77–87
A week or more of rest.
Manhattan
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Fairfield60–71
- Lvs Iona65–69
- L@ Saint Peter's65–75
- Lvs Marist70–84
- W@ Canisius69–65
A week or more of rest.