M&T Bank Arena · at Quinnipiac
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | QUIN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 QUIN 76–68 · win probability QUIN 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.6
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: QUIN has more of the edges
BRY 0, QUIN 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: BRY 20.2%, QUIN 15.8%. Forced: BRY 14.6%, QUIN 17.4%
Three-pointers
BRY hits 30.0% and allows 36.3%; QUIN hits 34.0% and allows 34.9%. Threes are 47.9% and 33.7% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: BRY plays 65.2 a game (338th fastest), QUIN 70.3 (100th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: BRY 46.9 and allows 52.7; QUIN 48.1 and allows 48.9
Free throws
Free throw rate: BRY 29.4, QUIN 33.8. Allowed: BRY 33.5, QUIN 30.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: BRY 27.7%, QUIN 34.1%. Defensive: BRY 69.0%, QUIN 68.0%
BRY offense vs QUIN defense
Offense 306th of 366 against a defense 232nd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
BRY has played the 261st-hardest schedule, QUIN the 324th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
QUIN at home. This season: QUIN 0-0 at home, BRY 0-0 away
Even
QUIN offense vs BRY defense
Offense 243rd of 366 against a defense 254th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: BRY 29%, QUIN 31%. Transfers in: BRY 3, QUIN 2. 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 | — | QUIN -7.8 | — |
| Total | — | 144.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | BRY 68.4 · QUIN 76.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | QUIN -4.5 | — |
| 1H total | 67.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | BRY 31.6 · QUIN 36.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 7-3 70% | |
| 5-5 50% | 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Bryant
29 games played
Straight up
7-22
24% wins
Against the spread
11-18
38% covers · avg −4.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-16
45% overs · avg −1.5 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 3 | @ | L 66-82 | +13.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 45-74 | +15.5 | L −13.5 | 138.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 82-75 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 50-68 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 143.5 | U 118 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 61-78 | +24.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 49-72 | +36.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 53-56 | +7.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | U 109 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 77-65 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 134.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 56-75 | +6.5 | L −12.5 | 130.5 | O 131 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 63-69 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 74-82 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 47-93 | +19.5 | L −26.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 56-51 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 125.5 | U 107 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 63-77 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 46-71 | +3.5 | L −21.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 79-74 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 55-79 | +1.5 | L −22.5 | 132.5 | O 134 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 52-62 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 133.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 60-63 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 130.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 92-84 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 131.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 63-65 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 73-67 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 128.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 69-88 | +4.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-90 | +13.5 | L −13.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 67-79 | -4.5 | L −16.5 | 134.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 58-70 | +11.5 | L −0.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 69-52 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 83-88 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 57-77 | +11.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | O 134 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SIE
L 66-82
−2.5
7
@
GT
L 45-74
−13.5
12
vs
DART
W 82-75
+5.5
16
@
VAL
L 50-68
−11.5
19
@
VT
L 61-78
+7.5
23
@
CONN
L 49-72
+13.5
29
@
HARV
L 53-56
+4.5
2
vs
STO
W 77-65
+5.5
5
@
BRWN
L 56-75
−12.5
10
@
IONA
L 63-69
+2.5
13
vs
MRST
L 74-82
−6.5
22
@
HPU
L 47-93
−26.5
3
@
ME
W 56-51
+3.5
8
vs
UML
L 63-77
−16.5
10
@
UALB
L 46-71
−21.5
15
vs
UMBC
W 79-74
+6.5
19
@
NJIT
L 55-79
−22.5
24
vs
UVM
L 52-62
−1.5
29
@
BING
L 60-63
−5.5
31
vs
UNH
W 92-84
+6.5
5
vs
UALB
L 63-65
−3.5
7
vs
ME
W 73-67
+3.5
12
@
UML
L 69-88
−14.5
14
@
UVM
L 63-90
−13.5
19
vs
BING
L 67-79
−16.5
26
@
UMBC
L 58-70
−0.5
28
vs
NJIT
W 69-52
+18.5
3
@
UNH
L 83-88
−2.5
7
@
UVM
L 57-77
−8.5
covered 11didn’t cover 18avg −4.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SIE
L 66-82
−0.5
7
@
GT
L 45-74
−19.5
12
vs
DART
W 82-75
+5.5
16
@
VAL
L 50-68
−25.5
19
@
VT
L 61-78
−12.5
23
@
CONN
L 49-72
−26.5
29
@
HARV
L 53-56
−28.5
2
vs
STO
W 77-65
+7.5
5
@
BRWN
L 56-75
+0.5
10
@
IONA
L 63-69
−14.5
13
vs
MRST
L 74-82
+24.5
22
@
HPU
L 47-93
−13.5
3
@
ME
W 56-51
−18.5
8
vs
UML
L 63-77
−3.5
10
@
UALB
L 46-71
−19.5
15
vs
UMBC
W 79-74
+17.5
19
@
NJIT
L 55-79
+1.5
24
vs
UVM
L 52-62
−19.5
29
@
BING
L 60-63
−7.5
31
vs
UNH
W 92-84
+44.5
5
vs
UALB
L 63-65
−5.5
7
vs
ME
W 73-67
+11.5
12
@
UML
L 69-88
+15.5
14
@
UVM
L 63-90
+19.5
19
vs
BING
L 67-79
+11.5
26
@
UMBC
L 58-70
−10.5
28
vs
NJIT
W 69-52
−17.5
3
@
UNH
L 83-88
+35.5
7
@
UVM
L 57-77
+3.5
over 13under 16avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Quinnipiac
31 games played
Straight up
18-13
58% wins
Against the spread
12-19
39% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg −0.9 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 74-108 | +26.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 71-49 | -9.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 60-97 | +6.5 | L −30.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 70-64 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 83-75 | +12.5 | W +20.5 | 140.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 91-102 | +13.5 | W +2.5 | 162.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-62 | -15.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 5 | @ | W 89-68 | +2.5 | W +23.5 | 163.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 72-58 | -14.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 75-71 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 85-75 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 66-74 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 64-58 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 79-80 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 80-69 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 70-60 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 70-74 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 71-83 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 141.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 98-92 | -13.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 77-62 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 64-71 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 91-98 | -8.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 72-65 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 75-60 | -15.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 56-55 | -12.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 74-62 | +3.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 49-56 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 79-85 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 76-78 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 67-63 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 75-77 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SJU
L 74-108
−7.5
6
vs
CCSU
W 71-49
+12.5
11
vs
YALE
L 60-97
−30.5
16
@
ME
W 70-64
+2.5
23
@
PITT
W 83-75
+20.5
25
@
UCF
L 91-102
+2.5
30
vs
STO
W 76-62
−1.5
5
@
IONA
W 89-68
+23.5
7
vs
RID
W 72-58
−0.5
13
vs
UML
W 75-71
−8.5
17
@
MONM
W 85-75
+11.5
21
@
HOF
L 66-74
−0.5
29
vs
MRST
W 64-58
+3.5
2
@
MAN
L 79-80
−8.5
4
vs
MSM
W 80-69
+3.5
11
@
SHU
W 70-60
+4.5
14
vs
SPU
L 70-74
−10.5
17
@
MRMK
L 71-83
−13.5
19
vs
MAN
W 98-92
−7.5
22
@
MSM
W 77-62
+10.5
24
@
MRST
L 64-71
−3.5
30
vs
SHU
L 91-98
−15.5
1
@
FAIR
W 72-65
+4.5
5
vs
CAN
W 75-60
−0.5
7
vs
NIA
W 56-55
−11.5
13
@
SIE
W 74-62
+15.5
15
vs
MRMK
L 49-56
−10.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 79-85
−12.5
27
@
NIA
L 76-78
−10.5
1
@
CAN
W 67-63
−3.5
7
vs
MRST
L 75-77
−3.5
covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SJU
L 74-108
+25.5
6
vs
CCSU
W 71-49
−30.5
11
vs
YALE
L 60-97
+0.5
16
@
ME
W 70-64
−3.5
23
@
PITT
W 83-75
+17.5
25
@
UCF
L 91-102
+30.5
30
vs
STO
W 76-62
−10.5
5
@
IONA
W 89-68
−6.5
7
vs
RID
W 72-58
−17.5
13
vs
UML
W 75-71
−7.5
17
@
MONM
W 85-75
+14.5
21
@
HOF
L 66-74
−7.5
29
vs
MRST
W 64-58
−23.5
2
@
MAN
L 79-80
−0.5
4
vs
MSM
W 80-69
−1.5
11
@
SHU
W 70-60
−22.5
14
vs
SPU
L 70-74
+3.5
17
@
MRMK
L 71-83
+12.5
19
vs
MAN
W 98-92
+36.5
22
@
MSM
W 77-62
−9.5
24
@
MRST
L 64-71
−4.5
30
vs
SHU
L 91-98
+32.5
1
@
FAIR
W 72-65
−17.5
5
vs
CAN
W 75-60
−6.5
7
vs
NIA
W 56-55
−26.5
13
@
SIE
W 74-62
−8.5
15
vs
MRMK
L 49-56
−36.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 79-85
+13.5
27
@
NIA
L 76-78
+17.5
1
@
CAN
W 67-63
−8.5
7
vs
MRST
L 75-77
+16.5
over 12under 19avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Bryant has the better starters
Position by position: Bryant 2, Quinnipiac 1, even 2
BryantBetterQuinnipiac
G T. Tabales9 pts · 2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 20
←BRYSmall
G N. Guerengomba2.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 4
G F. Vassalluzzo0 pts · 0.2 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G T. Turnage3.4 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 36
F A. Pasha TR10.8 pts · 5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 39
→QUINBig
F K. McKnight10.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 79
F K. Harvey10.9 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 64
←BRYBig
F H. Pierre-Louis TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 1
F E. Chatfield TR2.6 pts · 1 reb · 1.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F N. Hart TR2.2 pts · 3.1 reb · 0 ast
Score 27
BryantBetterQuinnipiac
BRY offense306th of 366 · -9.5
→QUINSmall
QUIN defense232nd of 366 · -6.2
BRY defense254th of 366 · -6.6
=Even
QUIN offense243rd of 366 · -7.3
Backcourt-2.6 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt-2.7 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.8 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.8 · 3 players
Bench-0.0 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.6 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestBRY betterQUIN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Tabales28 minF. Vassalluzzo1 minJ. Sepe1 minM. DeOrsey1 minR. WoernerNew
Forwards
A. Pasha33 min · TRK. Harvey27 minE. Chatfield13 min · TRO. Nnani1 min · TRD. ThompsonNewC. LyonsNew
Guards
N. Guerengomba14 minT. Turnage12 minM. ParrottaNewT. Cunningham-PembertonNewL. SekasiNewM. FieldsNew
Forwards
K. McKnight25 minH. Pierre-Louis15 min · TRN. Hart11 min · TRB. Ritvo7 minA. Akinniyi2 minC. Skenderi2 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 63.0 #358 | Points per game | 74.2 #190 |
| 0.96 #351 | Points per possession | 1.05 #246 |
| 65.2 #338 | Pace (possessions) | 70.3 #100 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.9 #340 | Effective FG% | 48.1 #310 |
| 30.0 #343 | 3-point % | 34.0 #171 |
| 47.9 #25 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.7 #304 |
| 29.4 #322 | Free throw rate | 33.8 #217 |
| Possessions | ||
| 20.2 #351 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #125 |
| 27.7 #276 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #65 |
| 11.4 #314 | Assists per game | 13.0 #211 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.3 #138 | Points allowed | 72.6 #121 |
| 1.13 #283 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #68 |
| 52.7 #257 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #65 |
| 36.3 #320 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.9 #242 |
| 14.6 #313 | Turnovers forced | 17.4 #122 |
| 69.0 #203 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #253 |
| 5.9 #250 | Steals per game | 7.8 #55 |
| 3.9 #88 | Blocks per game | 4.5 #37 |
Bryant
7-22 in 2025-26 overall · 5-12 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Vermont57–77
- L@ New Hampshire83–88
- Wvs NJIT69–52
- L@ UMBC58–70
- Lvs Binghamton67–79
A week or more of rest.
Quinnipiac
18-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Marist75–77
- W@ Canisius67–63
- L@ Niagara76–78
- Lvs Fairfield79–85
- Lvs Merrimack49–56
A week or more of rest.