Hampton Pirates vs Radford Highlanders: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Nov 28, 1:00 PM ETBender Arena · Neutral site

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Hampton and Radford
HAMP	This season	RAD
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 HAMP 77–73 · win probability HAMP 65%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 149.3

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: HAMP has more of the edges

HAMP 3, RAD 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: HAMP plays 66.5 a game (295th fastest), RAD 73.6 (13th). Faster games mean more points

HAMPBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: HAMP 32.9%, RAD 29.8%. Defensive: HAMP 70.0%, RAD 67.8%

HAMPSmall

HAMP offense vs RAD defense

Offense 186th of 366 against a defense 286th, on the model’s ratings

HAMPSmall

RAD offense vs HAMP defense

Offense 213th of 366 against a defense 153rd, on the model’s ratings

RADSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: HAMP 45.7 and allows 52.0; RAD 51.4 and allows 53.0

RADSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: HAMP 39.2, RAD 42.4. Allowed: HAMP 46.5, RAD 40.0

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: HAMP 17.1%, RAD 17.1%. Forced: HAMP 17.2%, RAD 18.5%

Even

Three-pointers

HAMP hits 28.8% and allows 32.1%; RAD hits 33.5% and allows 35.5%. Threes are 37.0% and 45.4% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

HAMP has played the 217th-hardest schedule, RAD the 243rd. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: HAMP 18%, RAD 12%. Transfers in: HAMP 6, RAD 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Neutral floor

No home court: the model takes it out of the line

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	HAMP -4.3	—
Total	—	149.3	—
Projected score	—	HAMP 76.8 · RAD 72.5

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	HAMP -2.7	—
1H total	69.8	—
1H projected score	HAMP 36.2 · RAD 33.6	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Neutral	Role
HAMP LLWWW	16-14	53%	1-5	—
RAD LWWLL	14-15	48%	0-3	—

Venue/role: HAMP neutral site; RAD neutral site. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
HAMP OOUOO	14-16	47%	11-19
RAD UUUOO	17-12	59%	13-16

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
HAMP	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	7-3 70%
RAD	5-5 50%	7-3 70%	5-5 50%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Hampton

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 29	@ AMER	No recent meeting
Dec 5	vs HOW	L57–61LU
Dec 8	@ WAKE	L70–97LO

Radford

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 29	vs UML	No recent meeting
Dec 5	@ ECU	No recent meeting
Dec 13	@ VT	L39–65LU

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

HAMP 0–2 RADRAD leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · RAD has won the last 2 meetings · HAMP 1-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Feb 12, 2021-22	RAD 60 @ HAMP 54	HAMP +2.5	RAD W
Jan 19, 2021-22	HAMP 51 @ RAD 54	RAD -6.5	HAMP W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Hampton

30 games played

Straight up

11-19

37% wins

Against the spread

16-14

53% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

14-16

47% overs · avg +0.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

11-1937%

L L W L L L W W L W L W W L L L W W L L L W W L L L L W L L

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

16-1453%

W L W L W W L W L L L W W W L W W W L L L W W L L L L W W W

3 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

14-1647%

O U U U U U O O U O O U U U O U U U O U O O U O U O O U O O

2 straight overs3 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@MILW	L 86-90	+5.5	W +1.5	146.5	O 176
Nov 11	@UVA	L 53-91	+24.5	L −13.5	148.5	U 144
Nov 14	@BRWN	W 72-63	+1.5	W +10.5	139.5	U 135
Nov 16	vsHC	L 61-67	-4.5	L −10.5	148.5	U 128
Nov 18	@BC	L 52-63	+12.5	W +1.5	135.5	U 115
Nov 21	@NORF	L 60-62	+2.5	W +0.5	133.5	U 122
Nov 25	@UMES	W 74-68	-6.5	L −0.5	124.5	O 142
Dec 3	vsL-MD	W 93-71	-6.5	W +15.5	142.5	O 164
Dec 13	vsHOW	L 57-61	-2.5	L −6.5	142.5	U 118
Dec 18	vsJKST	W 84-77	-8.5	L −1.5	135.5	O 161
Dec 19	vsGRAM	L 72-81	-1.5	L −10.5	137.5	O 153
Dec 29	vsSTBK	W 62-59	-2.5	W +0.5	140.5	U 121
Dec 31	vsTOW	W 63-62	+6.5	W +7.5	136.5	U 125
Jan 3	@UNCW	L 45-49	+12.5	W +8.5	140.5	U 94
Jan 8	@CAM	L 72-86	+6.5	L −7.5	145.5	O 158
Jan 10	@COFC	L 70-74	+9.5	W +5.5	145.5	U 144
Jan 19	vsNCAT	W 82-61	-6.5	W +14.5	143.5	U 143
Jan 22	vsMONM	W 65-63	-1.5	W +0.5	135.5	U 128
Jan 24	vsUNCW	L 67-75	+4.5	L −3.5	136.5	O 142
Jan 29	@DREX	L 51-58	+2.5	L −4.5	127.5	U 109
Jan 31	@TOW	L 50-82	+8.5	L −23.5	131.5	O 132
Feb 5	vsELON	W 87-79	+1.5	W +9.5	142.5	O 166
Feb 7	vsW&M	W 77-74	+5.5	W +8.5	152.5	U 151
Feb 13	vsNCAT	L 70-71	-3.5	L −4.5	137.5	O 141
Feb 19	@HOF	L 43-79	+11.5	L −24.5	133.5	U 122
Feb 21	@STBK	L 72-79	+5.5	L −1.5	135.5	O 151
Feb 26	vsCOFC	L 71-85	+5.5	L −8.5	139.5	O 156
Feb 28	vsNE	W 76-65	-3.5	W +7.5	145.5	U 141
Mar 3	@W&M	L 85-94	+11.5	W +2.5	163.5	O 179
Mar 7	vsTOW	L 68-74	+7.5	W +1.5	132.5	O 142

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

MILW

L 86-90

+1.5

UVA

L 53-91

−13.5

BRWN

W 72-63

+10.5

L 61-67

−10.5

L 52-63

+1.5

NORF

L 60-62

+0.5

UMES

W 74-68

−0.5

L-MD

W 93-71

+15.5

HOW

L 57-61

−6.5

JKST

W 84-77

−1.5

GRAM

L 72-81

−10.5

STBK

W 62-59

+0.5

TOW

W 63-62

+7.5

UNCW

L 45-49

+8.5

CAM

L 72-86

−7.5

COFC

L 70-74

+5.5

NCAT

W 82-61

+14.5

MONM

W 65-63

+0.5

UNCW

L 67-75

−3.5

DREX

L 51-58

−4.5

TOW

L 50-82

−23.5

ELON

W 87-79

+9.5

W&M

W 77-74

+8.5

NCAT

L 70-71

−4.5

HOF

L 43-79

−24.5

STBK

L 72-79

−1.5

COFC

L 71-85

−8.5

W 76-65

+7.5

W&M

L 85-94

+2.5

TOW

L 68-74

+1.5

covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

MILW

L 86-90

+29.5

UVA

L 53-91

−4.5

BRWN

W 72-63

−4.5

L 61-67

−20.5

L 52-63

−20.5

NORF

L 60-62

−11.5

UMES

W 74-68

+17.5

L-MD

W 93-71

+21.5

HOW

L 57-61

−24.5

JKST

W 84-77

+25.5

GRAM

L 72-81

+15.5

STBK

W 62-59

−19.5

TOW

W 63-62

−11.5

UNCW

L 45-49

−46.5

CAM

L 72-86

+12.5

COFC

L 70-74

−1.5

NCAT

W 82-61

−0.5

MONM

W 65-63

−7.5

UNCW

L 67-75

+5.5

DREX

L 51-58

−18.5

TOW

L 50-82

+0.5

ELON

W 87-79

+23.5

W&M

W 77-74

−1.5

NCAT

L 70-71

+3.5

HOF

L 43-79

−11.5

STBK

L 72-79

+15.5

COFC

L 71-85

+16.5

W 76-65

−4.5

W&M

L 85-94

+15.5

TOW

L 68-74

+9.5

over 14under 16avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Radford

29 games played

Straight up

13-16

45% wins

Against the spread

14-15

48% covers · avg −2.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-12

59% overs · avg +3.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

13-1645%

W L L L L L L L W W L W W W L W W L L W W L L W W L W L L

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1548%

L W L L L L W L W W L L W W L L L W L W W W W W L W W L L

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

17-1259%

O O U O U O U O U O O O U U O O O U O U O U O O U U U O O

2 straight overs2 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsWIU	W 80-75	-16.5	L −11.5	151.5	O 155
Nov 11	@UNC	L 74-89	+20.5	W +5.5	162.5	O 163
Nov 15	vsWRST	L 59-92	-6.5	L −39.5	156.5	U 151
Nov 16	vsCLE	L 82-87	-8.5	L −13.5	162.5	O 169
Nov 18	@SC	L 58-87	+10.5	L −18.5	153.5	U 145
Nov 21	vsUNCW	L 73-81	+4.5	L −3.5	151.5	O 154
Nov 24	@SMU	L 72-89	+23.5	W +6.5	165.5	U 161
Dec 3	vsUSM	L 75-82	-3.5	L −10.5	152.5	O 157
Dec 7	vsSFPA	W 89-56	-13.5	W +19.5	154.5	U 145
Dec 14	vsCOPP	W 107-77	-20.5	W +9.5	154.5	O 184
Dec 18	@W&M	L 83-96	+8.5	L −4.5	170.5	O 179
Dec 21	vsVMI	W 97-90	-11.5	L −4.5	158.5	O 187
Dec 31	@UPST	W 76-69	+1.5	W +8.5	158.5	U 145
Jan 7	vsPRES	W 80-61	-6.5	W +12.5	147.5	U 141
Jan 10	vsUNCA	L 72-91	-4.5	L −23.5	151.5	O 163
Jan 14	@GWEB	W 89-80	-13.5	L −4.5	165.5	O 169
Jan 17	vsLONG	W 85-83	-4.5	L −2.5	157.5	O 168
Jan 21	@WIN	L 75-76	+9.5	W +8.5	165.5	U 151
Jan 23	vsHPU	L 83-93	+7.5	L −2.5	165.5	O 176
Jan 29	@CHSO	W 84-75	-1.5	W +7.5	162.5	U 159
Jan 31	@PRES	W 93-84	+1.5	W +10.5	151.5	O 177
Feb 4	vsWIN	L 78-80	+4.5	W +2.5	161.5	U 158
Feb 7	@HPU	L 77-86	+14.5	W +5.5	162.5	O 163
Feb 14	vsCHSO	W 90-80	-4.5	W +5.5	161.5	O 170
Feb 19	vsGWEB	W 82-70	-18.5	L −6.5	162.5	U 152
Feb 21	@UNCA	L 73-74	+2.5	W +1.5	149.5	U 147
Feb 26	vsUPST	W 71-59	-7.5	W +4.5	152.5	U 130
Feb 28	@LONG	L 74-90	+1.5	L −14.5	154.5	O 164
Mar 6	vsPRES	L 85-91	-2.5	L −8.5	146.5	O 176

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

WIU

W 80-75

−11.5

UNC

L 74-89

+5.5

WRST

L 59-92

−39.5

CLE

L 82-87

−13.5

L 58-87

−18.5

UNCW

L 73-81

−3.5

SMU

L 72-89

+6.5

USM

L 75-82

−10.5

SFPA

W 89-56

+19.5

COPP

W 107-77

+9.5

W&M

L 83-96

−4.5

VMI

W 97-90

−4.5

UPST

W 76-69

+8.5

PRES

W 80-61

+12.5

UNCA

L 72-91

−23.5

GWEB

W 89-80

−4.5

LONG

W 85-83

−2.5

WIN

L 75-76

+8.5

HPU

L 83-93

−2.5

CHSO

W 84-75

+7.5

PRES

W 93-84

+10.5

WIN

L 78-80

+2.5

HPU

L 77-86

+5.5

CHSO

W 90-80

+5.5

GWEB

W 82-70

−6.5

UNCA

L 73-74

+1.5

UPST

W 71-59

+4.5

LONG

L 74-90

−14.5

PRES

L 85-91

−8.5

covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

WIU

W 80-75

+3.5

UNC

L 74-89

+0.5

WRST

L 59-92

−5.5

CLE

L 82-87

+6.5

L 58-87

−8.5

UNCW

L 73-81

+2.5

SMU

L 72-89

−4.5

USM

L 75-82

+4.5

SFPA

W 89-56

−9.5

COPP

W 107-77

+29.5

W&M

L 83-96

+8.5

VMI

W 97-90

+28.5

UPST

W 76-69

−13.5

PRES

W 80-61

−6.5

UNCA

L 72-91

+11.5

GWEB

W 89-80

+3.5

LONG

W 85-83

+10.5

WIN

L 75-76

−14.5

HPU

L 83-93

+10.5

CHSO

W 84-75

−3.5

PRES

W 93-84

+25.5

WIN

L 78-80

−3.5

HPU

L 77-86

+0.5

CHSO

W 90-80

+8.5

GWEB

W 82-70

−10.5

UNCA

L 73-74

−2.5

UPST

W 71-59

−22.5

LONG

L 74-90

+9.5

PRES

L 85-91

+29.5

over 17under 12avg +3.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Hampton has the better starters

Position by position: Hampton 3, Radford 0, even 2

HamptonBetterRadford

G J. Mitchell TR14.5 pts · 4.9 reb · 0.9 ast Score 56

Even

G J. Robinson TR6.3 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.9 ast Score 52

G S. Hubbard TR16.5 pts · 2.9 reb · 2.1 ast Score 70

HAMPBig

G T. Gross TR3.5 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast Score 21

G A. Davis TR9.3 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.7 ast Score 59

HAMPSmall

F C. Jackson TR4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.5 ast Score 36

F M. Frazier TR12 pts · 7.1 reb · 0.9 ast Score 77

HAMPBig

F P. Kabamba TR5.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast Score 38

F C. Robinson TR8.2 pts · 4 reb · 1.3 ast Score 25

Even

F F. Erichsen4.7 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.6 ast Score 27

HamptonBetterRadford

HAMP offense186th of 366 · -5.7

HAMPSmall

RAD defense286th of 366 · -7.2

HAMP defense153rd of 366 · -3.4

HAMPSmall

RAD offense213th of 366 · -6.5

Backcourt+0.1 · 3 players

HAMPSmall

Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players

Frontcourt-0.1 · 2 players

HAMPSmall

Frontcourt-2.1 · 3 players

Bench-2.1 · 5 players

RADSmall

Bench-1.0 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestHAMP betterRAD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Hampton

Guards

J. Mitchell33 min · TRS. Hubbard31 min · TRA. Davis24 min · TRE. Strothers19 minT. Jackson17 min · TRA. Haskins10 min

Forwards

M. Frazier29 min · TRC. Robinson26 min · TRP. Da CruzNewW. PrestonNewZ. IbekweNewS. TabeNew

Radford

Guards

J. Robinson17 min · TRT. Gross13 min · TRW. Keel6 minM. Grujicic6 min · TRJ. Kee3 min · TRK. PruettNew

Forwards

C. Jackson17 min · TRP. Kabamba17 min · TRF. Erichsen13 minA. NokesNew

Centers

G. Ferreira5 min

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

HAMP68.0 #312

RAD79.9 #70

Points per possession

HAMP1.02 #301

RAD1.09 #168

Pace (possessions)

HAMP66.5 #295

RAD73.6 #13

Shooting

Effective FG%

HAMP45.7 #356

RAD51.4 #181

3-point %

HAMP28.8 #357

RAD33.5 #199

3-point attempt rate

HAMP37.0 #229

RAD45.4 #59

Free throw rate

HAMP39.2 #73

RAD42.4 #25

Possessions

Turnover rate

HAMP17.1 #205

RAD17.1 #210

Offensive rebound rate

HAMP32.9 #90

RAD29.8 #207

Assists per game

HAMP11.2 #329

RAD12.0 #284

Defense

Points allowed

HAMP72.1 #108

RAD80.8 #330

Points allowed per possession

HAMP1.08 #176

RAD1.10 #216

Opponent effective FG%

HAMP52.0 #212

RAD53.0 #271

Opponent 3-point %

HAMP32.1 #65

RAD35.5 #279

Turnovers forced

HAMP17.2 #137

RAD18.5 #72

Defensive rebound rate

HAMP70.0 #165

RAD67.8 #267

Steals per game

HAMP6.3 #207

RAD7.5 #79

Blocks per game

HAMP3.0 #232

RAD3.4 #158

HAMP		RAD
Scoring
68.0 #312	Points per game	79.9 #70
1.02 #301	Points per possession	1.09 #168
66.5 #295	Pace (possessions)	73.6 #13
Shooting
45.7 #356	Effective FG%	51.4 #181
28.8 #357	3-point %	33.5 #199
37.0 #229	3-point attempt rate	45.4 #59
39.2 #73	Free throw rate	42.4 #25
Possessions
17.1 #205	Turnover rate	17.1 #210
32.9 #90	Offensive rebound rate	29.8 #207
11.2 #329	Assists per game	12.0 #284
Defense
72.1 #108	Points allowed	80.8 #330
1.08 #176	Points allowed per possession	1.10 #216
52.0 #212	Opponent effective FG%	53.0 #271
32.1 #65	Opponent 3-point %	35.5 #279
17.2 #137	Turnovers forced	18.5 #72
70.0 #165	Defensive rebound rate	67.8 #267
6.3 #207	Steals per game	7.5 #79
3.0 #232	Blocks per game	3.4 #158

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Hampton

11-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Coastal Athletic Association

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Towson68–74
L@ William & Mary85–94
Wvs Northeastern76–65
Lvs Charleston71–85
L@ Stony Brook72–79

A week or more of rest.

Radford

13-16 in 2025-26 overall · 9-8 in conference · Big South Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Presbyterian85–91
L@ Longwood74–90
Wvs SC Upstate71–59
L@ UNC Asheville73–74
Wvs Gardner-Webb82–70

A week or more of rest.

Hampton Pirates vs Radford Highlanders

What could decide it: HAMP has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Hampton

Radford

Hampton has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Hampton

Radford