Hart Center Arena · at Holy Cross
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | HC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FUR 76–67 · win probability FUR 77%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.1
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: FUR has more of the edges
FUR 5, HC 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: FUR 54.8 and allows 50.2; HC 49.8 and allows 54.8
HC offense vs FUR defense
Offense 335th of 366 against a defense 146th, on the model’s ratings
FUR offense vs HC defense
Offense 166th of 366 against a defense 269th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FUR 17.8%, HC 15.3%. Forced: FUR 13.7%, HC 14.1%
Three-pointers
FUR hits 33.4% and allows 32.3%; HC hits 32.5% and allows 34.0%. Threes are 46.5% and 37.3% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FUR 30.5%, HC 21.9%. Defensive: FUR 71.8%, HC 73.0%
Home court
HC at home. This season: HC 0-0 at home, FUR 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: FUR plays 67.2 a game (273rd fastest), HC 65.8 (320th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FUR 46%, HC 51%. Transfers in: FUR 4, HC 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: FUR 32.7, HC 31.5. Allowed: FUR 28.9, HC 27.6
Context
Schedule so far
FUR has played the 224th-hardest schedule, HC the 225th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | FUR -8.4 | — |
| Total | — | 143.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | FUR 75.8 · HC 67.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FUR -5.1 | — |
| 1H total | 67.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | FUR 36.1 · HC 30.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Furman
32 games played
Straight up
19-13
59% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% overs · avg −0.7 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 71-97 | +3.5 | L −22.5 | 153.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 61-64 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 54-70 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 90-79 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 73-72 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 65-72 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 97-88 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 79-69 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 75-68 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 84-76 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 74-72 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 77-80 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 78-67 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 69-48 | -12.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 77-73 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 70-74 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 75-77 | -11.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 89-66 | -4.5 | W +18.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 78-73 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 75-70 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 71-75 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 8 | vs | L 64-67 | -10.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 64-69 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 90-72 | -11.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 69-78 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 76-67 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 72-51 | -15.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-86 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 86-81 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 81-75 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 76-61 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 71-82 | +20.5 | W +9.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
HPU
L 71-97
−22.5
7
vs
TROY
L 61-64
−5.5
14
@
UNI
L 54-70
−6.5
23
vs
QUC
W 90-79
+2.5
27
vs
RICH
W 73-72
+4.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-72
−3.5
3
@
ELON
W 97-88
+7.5
6
vs
HARV
W 79-69
+5.5
18
@
MAN
W 75-68
−3.5
21
vs
CHSO
W 84-76
−2.5
31
vs
MER
W 74-72
−0.5
3
vs
WCU
L 77-80
−11.5
7
@
UTC
W 78-67
+8.5
10
vs
VMI
W 69-48
+8.5
14
@
SAM
W 77-73
+2.5
17
vs
WOF
L 70-74
−8.5
21
@
CIT
L 75-77
−13.5
23
@
UNCG
W 89-66
+18.5
29
vs
SAM
W 78-73
−0.5
1
vs
UTC
W 75-70
−2.5
4
@
ETSU
L 71-75
+1.5
8
vs
UNCG
L 64-67
−13.5
11
@
MER
L 64-69
−1.5
14
@
VMI
W 90-72
+6.5
18
vs
ETSU
L 69-78
−10.5
21
@
WOF
W 76-67
+7.5
25
vs
CIT
W 72-51
+5.5
28
@
WCU
L 67-86
−20.5
7
vs
SAM
W 86-81
+6.5
8
vs
UNCG
W 81-75
+0.5
9
vs
ETSU
W 76-61
+16.5
20
vs
CONN
L 71-82
+9.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
HPU
L 71-97
+14.5
7
vs
TROY
L 61-64
−27.5
14
@
UNI
L 54-70
−17.5
23
vs
QUC
W 90-79
+15.5
27
vs
RICH
W 73-72
−2.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-72
−8.5
3
@
ELON
W 97-88
+31.5
6
vs
HARV
W 79-69
+6.5
18
@
MAN
W 75-68
−11.5
21
vs
CHSO
W 84-76
+4.5
31
vs
MER
W 74-72
−8.5
3
vs
WCU
L 77-80
−0.5
7
@
UTC
W 78-67
−1.5
10
vs
VMI
W 69-48
−32.5
14
@
SAM
W 77-73
+0.5
17
vs
WOF
L 70-74
−5.5
21
@
CIT
L 75-77
+9.5
23
@
UNCG
W 89-66
+4.5
29
vs
SAM
W 78-73
+1.5
1
vs
UTC
W 75-70
−1.5
4
@
ETSU
L 71-75
+4.5
8
vs
UNCG
L 64-67
−18.5
11
@
MER
L 64-69
−18.5
14
@
VMI
W 90-72
+13.5
18
vs
ETSU
L 69-78
+6.5
21
@
WOF
W 76-67
−10.5
25
vs
CIT
W 72-51
−20.5
28
@
WCU
L 67-86
+5.5
7
vs
SAM
W 86-81
+19.5
8
vs
UNCG
W 81-75
+8.5
9
vs
ETSU
W 76-61
−2.5
20
vs
CONN
L 71-82
+19.5
over 16under 16avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Furman has the better starters
Position by position: Furman 3, Holy Cross 1, even 1
FurmanBetterHoly Cross
G J. Bell TR12.3 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 76
←FURBig
G J. St. Germain4.5 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 22
G C. Bowser5.2 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
→HCSmall
F J. Nugent11.8 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 53
G L. Toews TR6.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 45
←FURBig
F A. Richard4.9 pts · 4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 1
F M. Kell TR13.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
←FURBig
F D. Ryan4.7 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 21
F C. Johnston9.6 pts · 8.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 66
=No call
F C. Hare2 pts · 1.5 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
FurmanBetterHoly Cross
FUR offense166th of 366 · -5.1
←FURSmall
HC defense269th of 366 · -6.8
FUR defense146th of 366 · -3.2
←FURBig
HC offense335th of 366 · -10.9
Backcourt-1.4 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-1.3 · 1 player
Frontcourt+0.9 · 2 players
←FURBig
Frontcourt-6.1 · 4 players
Bench-2.5 · 5 players
→HCSmall
Bench-0.7 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestFUR betterHC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Bell26 min · TRC. Bowser23 minL. Toews21 min · TRA. Franklin11 minC. O'Neal11 minG. LewisNew
Forwards
M. Kell30 min · TRC. Johnston29 minM. Smith12 minJ. Butler9 min · TRO. Ritger7 minD. MolnarNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.9 #164 | Points per game | 67.9 #314 |
| 1.11 #114 | Points per possession | 1.03 #288 |
| 67.2 #273 | Pace (possessions) | 65.8 #320 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.8 #43 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #248 |
| 33.4 #204 | 3-point % | 32.5 #252 |
| 46.5 #40 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.3 #225 |
| 32.7 #246 | Free throw rate | 31.5 #268 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #260 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #83 |
| 30.5 #180 | Offensive rebound rate | 21.9 #356 |
| 14.9 #91 | Assists per game | 10.7 #346 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.5 #116 | Points allowed | 74.8 #182 |
| 1.08 #163 | Points allowed per possession | 1.14 #305 |
| 50.2 #112 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.8 #324 |
| 32.3 #75 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.0 #181 |
| 13.7 #342 | Turnovers forced | 14.1 #330 |
| 71.8 #72 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.0 #37 |
| 4.4 #357 | Steals per game | 5.5 #304 |
| 3.3 #183 | Blocks per game | 1.7 #355 |
Furman
19-13 in 2025-26 overall · 13-8 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn71–82
- Wvs ETSU76–61
- Wvs UNC Greensboro81–75
- Wvs Samford86–81
- L@ W Carolina67–86
A week or more of rest.
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.