Reitz Arena · at Loyola MD
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | L-MD | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 L-MD 74–70 · win probability L-MD 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.0
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: CCSU has more of the edges
CCSU 4, L-MD 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: CCSU 51.6 and allows 50.2; L-MD 50.4 and allows 54.7
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: CCSU plays 65.5 a game (329th fastest), L-MD 69.3 (165th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
CCSU hits 35.8% and allows 33.4%; L-MD hits 32.5% and allows 32.8%. Threes are 34.9% and 47.2% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: CCSU 31.2, L-MD 29.9. Allowed: CCSU 26.9, L-MD 32.7
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CCSU 16.3%, L-MD 15.4%. Forced: CCSU 14.0%, L-MD 15.4%
L-MD offense vs CCSU defense
Offense 307th of 366 against a defense 247th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CCSU has played the 358th-hardest schedule, L-MD the 299th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
L-MD at home. This season: L-MD 0-0 at home, CCSU 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CCSU 55%, L-MD 33%. Transfers in: CCSU 0, L-MD 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
CCSU offense vs L-MD defense
Offense 353rd of 366 against a defense 313th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CCSU 27.5%, L-MD 27.6%. Defensive: CCSU 69.6%, L-MD 71.0%
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 | — | L-MD -3.8 | — |
| Total | — | 144.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | CCSU 70.1 · L-MD 73.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | L-MD -2.1 | — |
| 1H total | 67.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | CCSU 32.6 · L-MD 34.7 | — |
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% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 15 | @ VCU | No recent meeting |
No more games listed yet.
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
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Loyola MD has the better starters
Position by position: C Connecticut 0, Loyola MD 1, even 4
C ConnecticutBetterLoyola MD
G J. Jones4.1 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 4
→L-MDBig
G T. Cicero5.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 53
G V. Payne6.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 16
=Even
G C. Berg-McLean3.5 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 21
G E. Parker2 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 0
=Even
F S. Springer4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 4
G R. Jones3.8 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 20
=Even
F S. Emenalo3.1 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 11
F D. James3.2 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 13
=No call
F D. Harrison TR2.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
C ConnecticutBetterLoyola MD
CCSU offense353rd of 366 · -13.2
=Even
L-MD defense313th of 366 · -8.1
CCSU defense247th of 366 · -6.5
←CCSUSmall
L-MD offense307th of 366 · -9.5
Backcourt-10.6 · 4 players
→L-MDBig
Backcourt-1.4 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 1 player
←CCSUBig
Frontcourt-4.7 · 3 players
Bench-2.0 · 2 players
←CCSUSmall
Bench-3.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCCSU betterL-MD 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
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
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 | 73.7 #212 |
| 1.08 #192 | Points per possession | 1.06 #227 |
| 65.5 #329 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #165 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.6 #165 | Effective FG% | 50.4 #219 |
| 35.8 #69 | 3-point % | 32.5 #251 |
| 34.9 #278 | 3-point attempt rate | 47.2 #30 |
| 31.2 #276 | Free throw rate | 29.9 #312 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.3 #154 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #101 |
| 27.5 #281 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.6 #279 |
| 12.8 #229 | Assists per game | 12.6 #246 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.0 #105 | Points allowed | 78.5 #280 |
| 1.10 #218 | Points allowed per possession | 1.14 #304 |
| 50.2 #113 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.7 #321 |
| 33.4 #146 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.8 #106 |
| 14.0 #338 | Turnovers forced | 15.4 #261 |
| 69.6 #179 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.0 #103 |
| 5.4 #311 | Steals per game | 6.1 #221 |
| 3.9 #83 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #156 |
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.
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.