Bender Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UML | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 78–69 · win probability HAMP 80%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.1
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: HAMP has more of the edges
HAMP 3, UML 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
UML offense vs HAMP defense
Offense 286th of 366 against a defense 153rd, on the model’s ratings
HAMP offense vs UML defense
Offense 186th of 366 against a defense 318th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HAMP 17.1%, UML 18.0%. Forced: HAMP 17.2%, UML 14.2%
Free throws
Free throw rate: HAMP 39.2, UML 34.9. Allowed: HAMP 46.5, UML 28.3
Context
Schedule so far
HAMP has played the 217th-hardest schedule, UML the 312th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: HAMP plays 66.5 a game (295th fastest), UML 68.9 (189th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
HAMP hits 28.8% and allows 32.1%; UML hits 32.2% and allows 34.6%. Threes are 37.0% and 31.3% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: HAMP 45.7 and allows 52.0; UML 49.8 and allows 53.5
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HAMP 32.9%, UML 32.7%. Defensive: HAMP 70.0%, UML 70.7%
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HAMP 18%, UML 16%. Transfers in: HAMP 6, UML 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | HAMP -9.7 | — |
| Total | — | 147.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | HAMP 78.4 · UML 68.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HAMP -5.9 | — |
| 1H total | 68.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | HAMP 37.3 · UML 31.4 | — |
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% | 7-3 70% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% |
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
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 86-90 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 53-91 | +24.5 | L −13.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 72-63 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 61-67 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 52-63 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 60-62 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 133.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 74-68 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 124.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 93-71 | -6.5 | W +15.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 57-61 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 118 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 84-77 | -8.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 19 | vs | L 72-81 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 62-59 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 63-62 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 136.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 45-49 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | U 94 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 72-86 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 70-74 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 65-63 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 67-75 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 51-58 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 127.5 | U 109 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 50-82 | +8.5 | L −23.5 | 131.5 | O 132 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 87-79 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 77-74 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 70-71 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 43-79 | +11.5 | L −24.5 | 133.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 72-79 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 71-85 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 76-65 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 85-94 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 163.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 68-74 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 132.5 | O 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MILW
L 86-90
+1.5
11
@
UVA
L 53-91
−13.5
14
@
BRWN
W 72-63
+10.5
16
vs
HC
L 61-67
−10.5
18
@
BC
L 52-63
+1.5
21
@
NORF
L 60-62
+0.5
25
@
UMES
W 74-68
−0.5
3
vs
L-MD
W 93-71
+15.5
13
vs
HOW
L 57-61
−6.5
18
vs
JKST
W 84-77
−1.5
19
vs
GRAM
L 72-81
−10.5
29
vs
STBK
W 62-59
+0.5
31
vs
TOW
W 63-62
+7.5
3
@
UNCW
L 45-49
+8.5
8
@
CAM
L 72-86
−7.5
10
@
COFC
L 70-74
+5.5
19
vs
NCAT
W 82-61
+14.5
22
vs
MONM
W 65-63
+0.5
24
vs
UNCW
L 67-75
−3.5
29
@
DREX
L 51-58
−4.5
31
@
TOW
L 50-82
−23.5
5
vs
ELON
W 87-79
+9.5
7
vs
W&M
W 77-74
+8.5
13
vs
NCAT
L 70-71
−4.5
19
@
HOF
L 43-79
−24.5
21
@
STBK
L 72-79
−1.5
26
vs
COFC
L 71-85
−8.5
28
vs
NE
W 76-65
+7.5
3
@
W&M
L 85-94
+2.5
7
vs
TOW
L 68-74
+1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MILW
L 86-90
+29.5
11
@
UVA
L 53-91
−4.5
14
@
BRWN
W 72-63
−4.5
16
vs
HC
L 61-67
−20.5
18
@
BC
L 52-63
−20.5
21
@
NORF
L 60-62
−11.5
25
@
UMES
W 74-68
+17.5
3
vs
L-MD
W 93-71
+21.5
13
vs
HOW
L 57-61
−24.5
18
vs
JKST
W 84-77
+25.5
19
vs
GRAM
L 72-81
+15.5
29
vs
STBK
W 62-59
−19.5
31
vs
TOW
W 63-62
−11.5
3
@
UNCW
L 45-49
−46.5
8
@
CAM
L 72-86
+12.5
10
@
COFC
L 70-74
−1.5
19
vs
NCAT
W 82-61
−0.5
22
vs
MONM
W 65-63
−7.5
24
vs
UNCW
L 67-75
+5.5
29
@
DREX
L 51-58
−18.5
31
@
TOW
L 50-82
+0.5
5
vs
ELON
W 87-79
+23.5
7
vs
W&M
W 77-74
−1.5
13
vs
NCAT
L 70-71
+3.5
19
@
HOF
L 43-79
−11.5
21
@
STBK
L 72-79
+15.5
26
vs
COFC
L 71-85
+16.5
28
vs
NE
W 76-65
−4.5
3
@
W&M
L 85-94
+15.5
7
vs
TOW
L 68-74
+9.5
over 14under 16avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
UMass Lowell
30 games played
Straight up
12-18
40% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg +1.1 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 7 | @ | L 47-110 | +36.5 | L −26.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 10 | vs | L 67-73 | -10.5 | L −16.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 72-86 | +13.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 75-109 | +30.5 | L −3.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 77-87 | +21.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 66-68 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 75-64 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 60-80 | +11.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 71-75 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 87-82 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 76-88 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 62-90 | +33.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 83-71 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 77-63 | +2.5 | W +16.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 73-68 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 64-73 | -8.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 68-77 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 56-79 | +2.5 | L −20.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-66 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 91-77 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 136.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 56-81 | +1.5 | L −23.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 89-79 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 88-69 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 78-56 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 92-79 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 64-66 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 60-84 | +2.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 67-56 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 81-76 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 69-91 | +7.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
CONN
L 47-110
−26.5
10
vs
NHVN
L 67-73
−16.5
13
@
COLU
L 72-86
−0.5
16
@
WAKE
L 75-109
−3.5
19
@
BRAD
L 77-87
+11.5
22
@
SPU
L 66-68
+6.5
26
@
STO
W 75-64
+13.5
6
@
MASS
L 60-80
−8.5
13
@
QUIN
L 71-75
+8.5
16
vs
SHU
W 87-82
+7.5
21
@
BU
L 76-88
−6.5
29
@
IOWA
L 62-90
+5.5
3
vs
UALB
W 83-71
+9.5
8
@
BRY
W 77-63
+16.5
10
@
BING
W 73-68
−1.5
15
vs
NJIT
L 64-73
−17.5
22
vs
UVM
L 68-77
−4.5
24
@
UMBC
L 56-79
−20.5
29
@
UNH
L 61-66
−1.5
31
vs
ME
W 91-77
+9.5
5
@
NJIT
L 56-81
−23.5
7
@
UALB
W 89-79
+14.5
12
vs
BRY
W 88-69
+14.5
19
vs
UNH
W 78-56
+18.5
21
vs
BING
W 92-79
+3.5
26
@
UVM
L 64-66
+7.5
28
vs
UMBC
L 60-84
−21.5
3
@
ME
W 67-56
+9.5
7
vs
UALB
W 81-76
+2.5
10
@
UMBC
L 69-91
−14.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
CONN
L 47-110
+5.5
10
vs
NHVN
L 67-73
−2.5
13
@
COLU
L 72-86
+1.5
16
@
WAKE
L 75-109
+18.5
19
@
BRAD
L 77-87
+14.5
22
@
SPU
L 66-68
−13.5
26
@
STO
W 75-64
−9.5
6
@
MASS
L 60-80
−15.5
13
@
QUIN
L 71-75
−7.5
16
vs
SHU
W 87-82
+17.5
21
@
BU
L 76-88
+18.5
29
@
IOWA
L 62-90
+6.5
3
vs
UALB
W 83-71
+3.5
8
@
BRY
W 77-63
−3.5
10
@
BING
W 73-68
−5.5
15
vs
NJIT
L 64-73
−8.5
22
vs
UVM
L 68-77
−0.5
24
@
UMBC
L 56-79
−16.5
29
@
UNH
L 61-66
−19.5
31
vs
ME
W 91-77
+31.5
5
@
NJIT
L 56-81
−12.5
7
@
UALB
W 89-79
+24.5
12
vs
BRY
W 88-69
+15.5
19
vs
UNH
W 78-56
−17.5
21
vs
BING
W 92-79
+24.5
26
@
UVM
L 64-66
−16.5
28
vs
UMBC
L 60-84
−6.5
3
@
ME
W 67-56
−16.5
7
vs
UALB
W 81-76
+10.5
10
@
UMBC
L 69-91
+12.5
over 14under 16avg +1.1 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, UMass Lowell 1, even 1
HamptonBetterUMass Lowell
G J. Mitchell TR14.5 pts · 4.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 56
←HAMPBig
G C. Jones TR4.3 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 6
G S. Hubbard TR16.5 pts · 2.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 70
←HAMPSmall
G J. Newton TR7.1 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 55
G A. Davis TR9.3 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 59
=No call
G I. Walter1.6 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
F M. Frazier TR12 pts · 7.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 77
←HAMPBig
F V. Okojie4.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 11
F C. Robinson TR8.2 pts · 4 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 25
→UMLSmall
F J. Harris TR5.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 59
HamptonBetterUMass Lowell
HAMP offense186th of 366 · -5.7
←HAMPBig
UML defense318th of 366 · -8.2
HAMP defense153rd of 366 · -3.4
←HAMPBig
UML offense286th of 366 · -8.9
Backcourt+0.1 · 3 players
←HAMPBig
Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.1 · 2 players
←HAMPSmall
Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players
Bench-2.1 · 5 players
→UMLSmall
Bench-0.7 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestHAMP betterUML betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
C. Jones18 min · TRJ. Newton17 min · TRI. Walter8 minK. GilesNewJ. CannadyNewM. EllisNew
Forwards
V. Okojie18 minJ. Harris11 min · TRJ. Roberson7 minD. HandNewE. DialloNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.0 #312 | Points per game | 71.7 #253 |
| 1.02 #301 | Points per possession | 1.04 #272 |
| 66.5 #295 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #189 |
| Shooting | ||
| 45.7 #356 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #247 |
| 28.8 #357 | 3-point % | 32.2 #269 |
| 37.0 #229 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.3 #336 |
| 39.2 #73 | Free throw rate | 34.9 #183 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #205 | Turnover rate | 18.0 #269 |
| 32.9 #90 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.7 #98 |
| 11.2 #329 | Assists per game | 11.9 #294 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.1 #108 | Points allowed | 77.4 #249 |
| 1.08 #176 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #277 |
| 52.0 #212 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.5 #284 |
| 32.1 #65 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.6 #226 |
| 17.2 #137 | Turnovers forced | 14.2 #329 |
| 70.0 #165 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.7 #126 |
| 6.3 #207 | Steals per game | 5.1 #326 |
| 3.0 #232 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #222 |
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.
UMass Lowell
12-18 in 2025-26 overall · 10-8 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ UMBC69–91
- Wvs UAlbany81–76
- W@ Maine67–56
- Lvs UMBC60–84
- L@ Vermont64–66
A week or more of rest.