William H. Pitt Center · at Sacred Heart
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SHU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SHU 73–67 · win probability SHU 68%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.1
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
ME 2, SHU 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ME 19.7%, SHU 28.6%. Defensive: ME 65.7%, SHU 69.1%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ME 19.2%, SHU 17.6%. Forced: ME 19.3%, SHU 14.6%
SHU offense vs ME defense
Offense 281st of 366 against a defense 191st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: ME plays 64.9 a game (348th fastest), SHU 68.6 (201st). Faster games mean more points
Home court
SHU at home. This season: SHU 0-0 at home, ME 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: ME 38.4, SHU 31.0. Allowed: ME 33.9, SHU 27.0
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ME 31%, SHU 18%. Transfers in: ME 4, SHU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
ME offense vs SHU defense
Offense 357th of 366 against a defense 334th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
ME has played the 319th-hardest schedule, SHU the 340th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: ME 49.6 and allows 50.6; SHU 52.0 and allows 53.5
Even
Three-pointers
ME hits 31.2% and allows 29.4%; SHU hits 35.7% and allows 34.9%. Threes are 37.0% and 50.7% of their shots
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 | — | SHU -5.3 | — |
| Total | — | 140.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | ME 67.4 · SHU 72.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SHU -3.0 | — |
| 1H total | 65.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | ME 31.3 · SHU 34.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Maine
31 games played
Straight up
7-24
23% wins
Against the spread
14-17
45% covers · avg −1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg −2.9 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 47-67 | +20.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 114 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 60-71 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 60-72 | +18.5 | W +6.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 64-70 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 65-72 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 130.5 | O 137 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 53-58 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 127.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 61-74 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 133.5 | O 135 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 61-65 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 60-64 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 127.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 57-79 | +12.5 | L −9.5 | 138.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 61-93 | +17.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 10 | @ | W 69-59 | +8.5 | W +18.5 | 128.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 43-70 | -6.5 | L −33.5 | 127.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 56-74 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 129.5 | O 130 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 51-56 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 125.5 | U 107 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 62-69 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 133.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 74-70 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 130.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 62-67 | +14.5 | W +9.5 | 130.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 48-65 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 129.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 52-49 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 101 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 79-63 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 124.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 77-91 | +4.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 76-70 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 130.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 67-73 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 128.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 62-78 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 135.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 58-67 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 61-58 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 70-59 | +4.5 | W +15.5 | 130.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-74 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 56-67 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 58-60 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 118 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
GW
L 47-67
+0.5
8
@
STBK
L 60-71
−7.5
10
@
RUTG
L 60-72
+6.5
16
vs
QUIN
L 64-70
−2.5
19
@
MRMK
L 65-72
−0.5
23
vs
BRWN
L 53-58
−3.5
28
@
AMER
L 61-74
−5.5
29
vs
LONG
L 61-65
+1.5
30
vs
SIE
L 60-64
+5.5
3
@
OHIO
L 57-79
−9.5
6
@
M-OH
L 61-93
−14.5
10
@
BU
W 69-59
+18.5
13
vs
CAN
L 43-70
−33.5
21
@
DREX
L 56-74
−7.5
3
vs
BRY
L 51-56
−3.5
8
@
UMBC
L 62-69
+0.5
10
@
NJIT
W 74-70
+5.5
15
@
UVM
L 62-67
+9.5
19
vs
UNH
L 48-65
−18.5
22
vs
UALB
W 52-49
+5.5
24
vs
BING
W 79-63
+10.5
31
@
UML
L 77-91
−9.5
5
vs
UVM
W 76-70
+14.5
7
@
BRY
L 67-73
−3.5
12
vs
UMBC
L 62-78
−12.5
14
vs
NJIT
L 58-67
−7.5
21
@
UNH
W 61-58
+6.5
26
@
UALB
W 70-59
+15.5
28
@
BING
L 67-74
−8.5
3
vs
UML
L 56-67
−9.5
7
@
NJIT
L 58-60
+1.5
covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
GW
L 47-67
−29.5
8
@
STBK
L 60-71
−0.5
10
@
RUTG
L 60-72
+1.5
16
vs
QUIN
L 64-70
−3.5
19
@
MRMK
L 65-72
+6.5
23
vs
BRWN
L 53-58
−16.5
28
@
AMER
L 61-74
+1.5
29
vs
LONG
L 61-65
−12.5
30
vs
SIE
L 60-64
−3.5
3
@
OHIO
L 57-79
−2.5
6
@
M-OH
L 61-93
+14.5
10
@
BU
W 69-59
−0.5
13
vs
CAN
L 43-70
−14.5
21
@
DREX
L 56-74
+0.5
3
vs
BRY
L 51-56
−18.5
8
@
UMBC
L 62-69
−2.5
10
@
NJIT
W 74-70
+13.5
15
@
UVM
L 62-67
−1.5
19
vs
UNH
L 48-65
−16.5
22
vs
UALB
W 52-49
−30.5
24
vs
BING
W 79-63
+17.5
31
@
UML
L 77-91
+31.5
5
vs
UVM
W 76-70
+15.5
7
@
BRY
L 67-73
+11.5
12
vs
UMBC
L 62-78
+4.5
14
vs
NJIT
L 58-67
−12.5
21
@
UNH
W 61-58
−16.5
26
@
UALB
W 70-59
−1.5
28
@
BING
L 67-74
+7.5
3
vs
UML
L 56-67
−16.5
7
@
NJIT
L 58-60
−16.5
over 12under 19avg −2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Sacred Heart
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% 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 7 | @ | L 80-92 | +12.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 60-94 | +19.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 64-81 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 165.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 79-66 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 106-108 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 214 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 59-90 | +14.5 | L −16.5 | 160.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 87-80 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 69-81 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 163.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 65-49 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 82-87 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 85-63 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 155.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 47-72 | +13.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 72-80 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 61-64 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 78-82 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 72-76 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 60-70 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 86-80 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 105-85 | -4.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 69-66 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 71-70 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 98-91 | +8.5 | W +15.5 | 156.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 58-75 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 87-92 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-80 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 161.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 78-71 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 86-75 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 68-78 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 63-65 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 77-69 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 91-80 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 48-70 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | U 118 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
DUQ
L 80-92
+0.5
11
@
VILL
L 60-94
−14.5
15
@
QUC
L 64-81
−11.5
21
vs
HC
W 79-66
+5.5
24
@
CCSU
L 106-108
+1.5
29
@
PSU
L 59-90
−16.5
3
@
MSM
W 87-80
+5.5
7
vs
IONA
L 69-81
−13.5
13
@
NJIT
W 65-49
+9.5
16
@
UML
L 82-87
−7.5
19
vs
DART
W 85-63
+23.5
22
@
TOW
L 47-72
−11.5
29
vs
MRMK
L 72-80
−9.5
2
@
NIA
L 61-64
−4.5
4
@
CAN
L 78-82
−9.5
9
vs
MRST
L 72-76
+1.5
11
vs
QUIN
L 60-70
−4.5
14
@
SIE
W 86-80
+14.5
19
@
RID
W 105-85
+15.5
22
vs
CAN
W 69-66
−7.5
24
vs
NIA
W 71-70
−8.5
30
@
QUIN
W 98-91
+15.5
1
@
MRMK
L 58-75
−11.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 87-92
−6.5
7
@
MAN
L 68-80
−13.5
13
vs
SPU
W 78-71
+8.5
15
vs
RID
W 86-75
+1.5
20
@
FAIR
L 68-78
−5.5
22
@
MRST
L 63-65
+5.5
27
vs
MSM
W 77-69
+5.5
5
vs
IONA
W 91-80
+14.5
6
vs
MRMK
L 48-70
−15.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
DUQ
L 80-92
+14.5
11
@
VILL
L 60-94
−6.5
15
@
QUC
L 64-81
−20.5
21
vs
HC
W 79-66
−7.5
24
@
CCSU
L 106-108
+70.5
29
@
PSU
L 59-90
−11.5
3
@
MSM
W 87-80
+14.5
7
vs
IONA
L 69-81
−13.5
13
@
NJIT
W 65-49
−37.5
16
@
UML
L 82-87
+17.5
19
vs
DART
W 85-63
−7.5
22
@
TOW
L 47-72
−26.5
29
vs
MRMK
L 72-80
+7.5
2
@
NIA
L 61-64
−14.5
4
@
CAN
L 78-82
+18.5
9
vs
MRST
L 72-76
+4.5
11
vs
QUIN
L 60-70
−22.5
14
@
SIE
W 86-80
+26.5
19
@
RID
W 105-85
+45.5
22
vs
CAN
W 69-66
−10.5
24
vs
NIA
W 71-70
+1.5
30
@
QUIN
W 98-91
+32.5
1
@
MRMK
L 58-75
−14.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 87-92
+23.5
7
@
MAN
L 68-80
−13.5
13
vs
SPU
W 78-71
+1.5
15
vs
RID
W 86-75
+14.5
20
@
FAIR
L 68-78
−12.5
22
@
MRST
L 63-65
−18.5
27
vs
MSM
W 77-69
−4.5
5
vs
IONA
W 91-80
+21.5
6
vs
MRMK
L 48-70
−25.5
over 15under 17avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Sacred Heart has the better starters
Position by position: Maine 1, Sacred Heart 3, even 1
MaineBetterSacred Heart
G D. Williams TR8 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 23
→SHUSmall
G J. Van Buggenhout TR6.4 pts · 2.1 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 42
G C. Crawford4.2 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 14
=Even
G J. Slaughter5.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 20
G V. Garcia Adsten TR3.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 11
→SHUBig
G S. Reilly TR3.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 47
F A. Flagg6.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 33
←MESmall
F A. Yadd6 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 5
F Y. Bamba2.8 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 11
→SHUSmall
F J. Robinson TR2.5 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 26
MaineBetterSacred Heart
ME offense357th of 366 · -13.7
=Even
SHU defense334th of 366 · -8.8
ME defense191st of 366 · -4.5
←MESmall
SHU offense281st of 366 · -8.7
Backcourt-6.4 · 3 players
→SHUBig
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-2.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.7 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestME betterSHU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Williams25 min · TRC. Crawford20 minV. Garcia Adsten18 min · TRD. LopesNewK. BedardNewH. FranzNew
Forwards
A. Flagg25 minY. Bamba12 minA. Evans8 min · TRK. Gribben3 minE. Byther2 minO. Faubert2 min · TR
Guards
J. Van Buggenhout21 min · TRJ. Slaughter21 minS. Reilly9 min · TRM. Sheppard1 minG. BarroukNewJ. WallaceNew
Forwards
A. Yadd15 minJ. Robinson10 min · TRK. CurtisNewL. KrygierNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 61.2 #364 | Points per game | 74.3 #186 |
| 0.95 #356 | Points per possession | 1.08 #180 |
| 64.9 #348 | Pace (possessions) | 68.6 #201 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #263 | Effective FG% | 52.0 #145 |
| 31.2 #314 | 3-point % | 35.7 #73 |
| 37.0 #231 | 3-point attempt rate | 50.7 #12 |
| 38.4 #93 | Free throw rate | 31.0 #281 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.2 #328 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #249 |
| 19.7 #364 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.6 #246 |
| 11.8 #300 | Assists per game | 14.6 #112 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.5 #39 | Points allowed | 77.6 #253 |
| 1.05 #90 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #296 |
| 50.6 #136 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.5 #283 |
| 29.4 #4 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.9 #241 |
| 19.3 #38 | Turnovers forced | 14.6 #320 |
| 65.7 #322 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.1 #199 |
| 7.7 #57 | Steals per game | 5.4 #305 |
| 3.2 #194 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #223 |
Maine
7-24 in 2025-26 overall · 6-11 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ NJIT58–60
- Lvs UMass Lowell56–67
- L@ Binghamton67–74
- W@ UAlbany70–59
- W@ New Hampshire61–58
A week or more of rest.
Sacred Heart
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-12 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Merrimack48–70
- Wvs Iona91–80
- Wvs Mount St Marys77–69
- L@ Marist63–65
- L@ Fairfield68–78
A week or more of rest.