Finneran Pavilion · at Villanova
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | VILL | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 0-1 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 0-1 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 1-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects VILL 88–58 · win probability VILL 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.9
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: VILL has more of the edges
HC 0, VILL 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
HC offense vs VILL defense
Offense 335th of 366 against a defense 30th, on the model’s ratings
VILL offense vs HC defense
Offense 39th of 366 against a defense 269th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
HC has played the 225th-hardest schedule, VILL the 35th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: HC 49.8 and allows 54.8; VILL 53.8 and allows 51.4
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HC 15.3%, VILL 15.0%. Forced: HC 14.1%, VILL 18.6%
Three-pointers
HC hits 32.5% and allows 34.0%; VILL hits 35.7% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 37.3% and 45.7% of their shots
Home court
VILL at home. This season: VILL 0-0 at home, HC 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HC 51%, VILL 33%. Transfers in: HC 0, VILL 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: HC plays 65.8 a game (320th fastest), VILL 67.3 (270th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: HC 31.5, VILL 30.9. Allowed: HC 27.6, VILL 30.0
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HC 21.9%, VILL 32.2%. Defensive: HC 73.0%, VILL 68.2%
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 | — | VILL -30.6 | — |
| Total | — | 145.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | HC 57.7 · VILL 88.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | VILL -18.1 | — |
| 1H total | 68.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | HC 25.1 · VILL 43.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Holy Cross
31 games played
Straight up
9-22
29% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg −0.4 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 79-89 | +23.5 | W +13.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 53-98 | +38.5 | L −6.5 | 165.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 69-87 | +21.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 67-61 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 49-68 | +2.5 | L −16.5 | 141.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 66-79 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 69-73 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 76-59 | +8.5 | W +25.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 70-69 | +10.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 64-89 | +1.5 | L −23.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 53-81 | +10.5 | L −17.5 | 136.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 65-58 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 133.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 58-65 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 58-66 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 137.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 84-73 | +8.5 | W +19.5 | 137.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 82-75 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 55-74 | +2.5 | L −16.5 | 138.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 68-85 | +11.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 67-76 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 74-79 | +10.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 68-69 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 64-72 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 76-67 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 70-74 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 73-83 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 83-86 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 22 | @ | W 72-63 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 63-78 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 62-76 | -1.5 | L −15.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 82-77 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 66-69 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
PROV
L 79-89
+13.5
8
@
BYU
L 53-98
−6.5
10
@
UTAH
L 69-87
+3.5
16
vs
HAMP
W 67-61
+10.5
18
@
BRWN
L 49-68
−16.5
21
@
SHU
L 66-79
−5.5
24
vs
SIE
L 69-73
+5.5
3
vs
NE
W 76-59
+25.5
6
@
FOR
W 70-69
+11.5
16
vs
DART
L 64-89
−23.5
20
@
HARV
L 53-81
−17.5
31
vs
BUCK
W 65-58
+8.5
3
vs
NAVY
L 58-65
−1.5
7
@
LEH
L 58-66
−5.5
10
@
AMER
W 84-73
+19.5
14
vs
ARMY
W 82-75
+2.5
17
@
LAF
L 55-74
−16.5
21
@
NAVY
L 68-85
−5.5
24
vs
AMER
L 67-76
−4.5
28
@
COLG
L 74-79
+5.5
31
@
ARMY
L 68-69
+1.5
2
vs
BU
L 64-72
−5.5
7
vs
LEH
W 76-67
+10.5
11
vs
COLG
L 70-74
+4.5
15
@
L-MD
L 73-83
−5.5
18
vs
LAF
L 83-86
−4.5
22
@
BUCK
W 72-63
+11.5
25
@
BU
L 63-78
−6.5
28
vs
L-MD
L 62-76
−15.5
3
@
LAF
W 82-77
+9.5
5
@
LEH
L 66-69
+2.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
PROV
L 79-89
+15.5
8
@
BYU
L 53-98
−14.5
10
@
UTAH
L 69-87
+0.5
16
vs
HAMP
W 67-61
−20.5
18
@
BRWN
L 49-68
−24.5
21
@
SHU
L 66-79
−7.5
24
vs
SIE
L 69-73
+4.5
3
vs
NE
W 76-59
−10.5
6
@
FOR
W 70-69
+0.5
16
vs
DART
L 64-89
+5.5
20
@
HARV
L 53-81
−2.5
31
vs
BUCK
W 65-58
−10.5
3
vs
NAVY
L 58-65
−14.5
7
@
LEH
L 58-66
−13.5
10
@
AMER
W 84-73
+19.5
14
vs
ARMY
W 82-75
+14.5
17
@
LAF
L 55-74
−9.5
21
@
NAVY
L 68-85
+18.5
24
vs
AMER
L 67-76
+3.5
28
@
COLG
L 74-79
+8.5
31
@
ARMY
L 68-69
−7.5
2
vs
BU
L 64-72
−3.5
7
vs
LEH
W 76-67
+5.5
11
vs
COLG
L 70-74
+1.5
15
@
L-MD
L 73-83
+9.5
18
vs
LAF
L 83-86
+29.5
22
@
BUCK
W 72-63
−7.5
25
@
BU
L 63-78
−0.5
28
vs
L-MD
L 62-76
−13.5
3
@
LAF
W 82-77
+17.5
5
@
LEH
L 66-69
−7.5
over 15under 16avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Villanova
33 games played
Straight up
24-9
73% wins
Against the spread
19-14
58% covers · avg +1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-13
61% overs · avg +1.8 pts vs the total
Against the spread
19-1458%
2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered
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 66-71 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 94-74 | -17.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 94-60 | -19.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 87-77 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 70-55 | -12.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 89-75 | -22.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 74-56 | -14.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 90-63 | -18.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 61-89 | +17.5 | L −10.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 79-61 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 140 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 76-66 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 152.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 23 | @ | W 64-56 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 71-66 | -12.5 | L −7.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 85-67 | +2.5 | W +20.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 72-76 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 76-73 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 88-82 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 79-86 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 66-51 | -8.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 67-75 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 87-73 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 72-60 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 134.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 80-73 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 77-74 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 80-69 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 92-89 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 152.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 63-73 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 82-73 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 57-89 | +7.5 | L −24.5 | 147.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 76-57 | -1.5 | W +17.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 91-78 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 64-78 | -7.5 | L −21.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 76-86 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
BYU
L 66-71
+4.5
8
vs
QUC
W 94-74
+2.5
11
vs
SHU
W 94-60
+14.5
15
vs
DUQ
W 87-77
−0.5
19
@
LAS
W 70-55
+2.5
25
vs
ODU
W 89-75
−8.5
1
vs
TEM
W 74-56
+3.5
6
vs
PENN
W 90-63
+8.5
9
@
MICH
L 61-89
−10.5
13
vs
PITT
W 79-61
+7.5
19
vs
WIS
W 76-66
+13.5
23
@
HALL
W 64-56
+9.5
31
vs
DEP
W 71-66
−7.5
3
@
BTLR
W 85-67
+20.5
7
vs
CREI
L 72-76
−8.5
10
@
MARQ
W 76-73
−0.5
13
@
PROV
W 88-82
+3.5
17
vs
SJU
L 79-86
−4.5
21
vs
GTWN
W 66-51
+6.5
24
@
CONN
L 67-75
+3.5
30
vs
PROV
W 87-73
+5.5
4
vs
HALL
W 72-60
+6.5
7
@
GTWN
W 80-73
+4.5
10
vs
MARQ
W 77-74
−6.5
14
@
CREI
W 80-69
+9.5
17
@
XAV
W 92-89
−1.5
21
vs
CONN
L 63-73
−6.5
25
vs
BTLR
W 82-73
−1.5
28
@
SJU
L 57-89
−24.5
4
@
DEP
W 76-57
+17.5
7
vs
XAV
W 91-78
+1.5
12
vs
GTWN
L 64-78
−21.5
20
vs
USU
L 76-86
−8.5
covered 19didn’t cover 14avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
BYU
L 66-71
−16.5
8
vs
QUC
W 94-74
+17.5
11
vs
SHU
W 94-60
−6.5
15
vs
DUQ
W 87-77
+12.5
19
@
LAS
W 70-55
−19.5
25
vs
ODU
W 89-75
+16.5
1
vs
TEM
W 74-56
−16.5
6
vs
PENN
W 90-63
+2.5
9
@
MICH
L 61-89
−6.5
13
vs
PITT
W 79-61
+1.5
19
vs
WIS
W 76-66
−10.5
23
@
HALL
W 64-56
−15.5
31
vs
DEP
W 71-66
−2.5
3
@
BTLR
W 85-67
+2.5
7
vs
CREI
L 72-76
+5.5
10
@
MARQ
W 76-73
+2.5
13
@
PROV
W 88-82
+13.5
17
vs
SJU
L 79-86
+17.5
21
vs
GTWN
W 66-51
−25.5
24
@
CONN
L 67-75
+4.5
30
vs
PROV
W 87-73
+2.5
4
vs
HALL
W 72-60
−2.5
7
@
GTWN
W 80-73
+12.5
10
vs
MARQ
W 77-74
+6.5
14
@
CREI
W 80-69
+3.5
17
@
XAV
W 92-89
+28.5
21
vs
CONN
L 63-73
−5.5
25
vs
BTLR
W 82-73
+7.5
28
@
SJU
L 57-89
−1.5
4
@
DEP
W 76-57
−2.5
7
vs
XAV
W 91-78
+15.5
12
vs
GTWN
L 64-78
+1.5
20
vs
USU
L 76-86
+15.5
over 20under 13avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Villanova has the better starters
Position by position: Holy Cross 0, Villanova 3, even 2
Holy CrossBetterVillanova
G J. St. Germain4.5 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 22
→VILLBig
G J. Fiegen TR11 pts · 5 reb · 1 ast
Score 82
F J. Nugent11.8 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 53
=Even
G D. Simmons TR16.3 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 63
F A. Richard4.9 pts · 4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 1
→VILLBig
G T. Perkins18 pts · 4 reb · 3 ast
Score 100
F D. Ryan4.7 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 21
→VILLBig
F D. Royal TR5 pts · 8 reb · 0 ast
Score 100
F C. Hare2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F K. Evans TR13.3 pts · 7.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 95
Holy CrossBetterVillanova
HC offense335th of 366 · -10.9
→VILLBig
VILL defense30th of 366 · +3.5
HC defense269th of 366 · -6.8
→VILLBig
VILL offense39th of 366 · +5.0
Backcourt-1.3 · 1 player
→VILLBig
Backcourt+7.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-6.1 · 4 players
→VILLBig
Frontcourt+6.1 · 2 players
Bench-0.7 · 3 players
→VILLBig
Bench+3.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestHC betterVILL betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. St. Germain15 minA. Mejia1 minA. AlijosiusNewK. HansonNewT. WilsonNewJ. GermanyNew
Forwards
J. Nugent30 minA. Richard27 minD. Ryan13 minC. Hare7 minJ. Haigh6 minE. Clark1 min
Centers
K. MgbejioforNew
Guards
J. Fiegen38 min · TRD. Simmons36 min · TRT. Perkins35 minE. Crawford26 min · TRW. Chiddick3 minB. MullerNew
Forwards
D. Royal32 min · TRK. Evans31 min · TRM. Hodge28 minA. Samb6 min · TR
Centers
N. OnyekwereNewL. SuigoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.9 #314 | Points per game | 77.1 #113 |
| 1.03 #288 | Points per possession | 1.15 #64 |
| 65.8 #320 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #270 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.8 #248 | Effective FG% | 53.8 #74 |
| 32.5 #252 | 3-point % | 35.7 #77 |
| 37.3 #225 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.7 #52 |
| 31.5 #268 | Free throw rate | 30.9 #284 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.3 #83 | Turnover rate | 15.0 #65 |
| 21.9 #356 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.2 #118 |
| 10.7 #346 | Assists per game | 15.5 #66 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.8 #182 | Points allowed | 71.2 #82 |
| 1.14 #305 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #105 |
| 54.8 #324 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.4 #181 |
| 34.0 #181 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #148 |
| 14.1 #330 | Turnovers forced | 18.6 #70 |
| 73.0 #37 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.2 #246 |
| 5.5 #304 | Steals per game | 7.4 #93 |
| 1.7 #355 | Blocks per game | 2.1 #340 |
Holy Cross
9-22 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · Patriot League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Lehigh66–69
- W@ Lafayette82–77
- Lvs Loyola MD62–76
- L@ Boston U63–78
- W@ Bucknell72–63
A week or more of rest.
Villanova
24-9 in 2025-26 overall · 15-6 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Utah State76–86
- Lvs Georgetown64–78
- Wvs Xavier91–78
- W@ DePaul76–57
- L@ St John's57–89
5 days since their last game.