Manhattan Jaspers at Maine Black Bears: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 8, 2:00 PM ETSkip Chappelle Court in Memorial Gymnasium · at Maine

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Manhattan and Maine
MAN	This season	ME
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 ME 71–69 · win probability ME 57%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 139.8

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 has more of the edges

MAN 0, ME 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

MEBig

Three-pointers

MAN hits 32.0% and allows 36.6%; ME hits 31.2% and allows 29.4%. Threes are 37.1% and 37.0% of their shots

MEBig

MAN offense vs ME defense

Offense 301st of 366 against a defense 191st, on the model’s ratings

MESmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: MAN 47.9 and allows 53.9; ME 49.6 and allows 50.6

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: MAN plays 69.0 a game (182nd fastest), ME 64.9 (348th). Faster games mean more points

MESmall

Home court

ME at home. This season: ME 0-0 at home, MAN 0-0 away

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: MAN 28.6%, ME 19.7%. Defensive: MAN 63.0%, ME 65.7%

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: MAN 15.6%, ME 19.2%. Forced: MAN 16.6%, ME 19.3%

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: MAN 10%, ME 31%. Transfers in: MAN 5, ME 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Schedule so far

MAN has played the 336th-hardest schedule, ME the 319th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: MAN 34.0, ME 38.4. Allowed: MAN 25.7, ME 33.9

Even

ME offense vs MAN defense

Offense 357th of 366 against a defense 346th, on the model’s ratings

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	—	ME -2.0	—
Total	—	139.8	—
Projected score	—	MAN 68.9 · ME 70.9

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	ME -1.1	—
1H total	65.5	—
1H projected score	MAN 32.2 · ME 33.3	—

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	Venue	Role
MAN WLLLL	11-20	35%	4-11	—
ME WWLLW	14-17	45%	3-8	—

Venue/role: MAN away; ME home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
MAN UOUUU	13-18	42%	11-20
ME UUOUU	12-19	39%	7-24

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
MAN	4-6 40%	3-7 30%	4-6 40%
ME	3-7 30%	4-6 40%	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

Manhattan

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 14	@ LEM	L77–81LO
Nov 17	vs FOR	L53–82LU
Nov 20	@ MIA	No recent meeting

Maine

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 10	@ URI	No recent meeting
Nov 14	vs DREX	L56–74LO
Nov 19	@ QUIN	L64–70LU

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

ATS History · 2025-26

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

Manhattan

31 games played

Straight up

11-20

35% wins

Against the spread

11-20

35% covers · avg −3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-18

42% overs · avg +2.3 pts vs the total

Straight up

11-2035%

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

4 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

11-2035%

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

4 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

13-1842%

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

3 straight unders1 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 9	@USC	L 83-114	+28.5	L −2.5	155.5	O 197
Nov 12	vsUTU	W 79-75	+2.5	W +6.5	158.5	U 154
Nov 14	@HAW	L 56-86	+15.5	L −14.5	156.5	U 142
Nov 15	vsMVSU	W 80-73	-20.5	L −13.5	154.5	U 153
Nov 21	@TA&M	L 68-109	+23.5	L −17.5	162.5	O 177
Nov 26	vsWAG	L 101-103	-2.5	L −4.5	144.5	O 204
Nov 29	@ARMY	L 78-81	-1.5	L −4.5	152.5	O 159
Dec 5	vsFAIR	W 70-66	+1.5	W +5.5	155.5	U 136
Dec 7	@MRST	L 68-80	+7.5	L −4.5	140.5	O 148
Dec 13	@FOR	L 53-82	+8.5	L −20.5	147.5	U 135
Dec 18	vsFUR	L 68-75	+10.5	W +3.5	154.5	U 143
Dec 21	vsPRES	W 87-81	+2.5	W +8.5	138.5	O 168
Dec 29	@RID	W 74-71	-2.5	W +0.5	147.5	U 145
Jan 2	vsQUIN	W 80-79	+7.5	W +8.5	159.5	U 159
Jan 4	@MRMK	L 66-73	+6.5	L −0.5	148.5	U 139
Jan 9	vsCAN	L 64-70	-7.5	L −13.5	145.5	U 134
Jan 11	vsNIA	W 79-70	-5.5	W +3.5	140.5	O 149
Jan 14	@FAIR	L 62-98	+6.5	L −29.5	158.5	O 160
Jan 17	vsSIE	L 59-74	+6.5	L −8.5	144.5	U 133
Jan 19	@QUIN	L 92-98	+13.5	W +7.5	153.5	O 190
Jan 24	@IONA	L 57-66	+7.5	L −1.5	153.5	U 123
Jan 30	vsRID	W 95-90	-5.5	L −0.5	145.5	O 185
Feb 1	@MSM	L 65-72	+6.5	L −0.5	147.5	U 137
Feb 5	vsSPU	L 75-80	+4.5	L −0.5	144.5	O 155
Feb 7	vsSHU	W 80-68	+1.5	W +13.5	161.5	U 148
Feb 13	@NIA	W 76-69	-2.5	W +4.5	136.5	O 145
Feb 15	@CAN	W 69-65	-1.5	W +2.5	142.5	U 134
Feb 20	vsMRST	L 70-84	+5.5	L −8.5	142.5	O 154
Feb 27	@SPU	L 65-75	+7.5	L −2.5	145.5	U 140
Mar 1	vsIONA	L 65-69	+2.5	L −1.5	151.5	U 134
Mar 5	vsFAIR	L 60-71	+3.5	L −7.5	148.5	U 131

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

USC

L 83-114

−2.5

UTU

W 79-75

+6.5

HAW

L 56-86

−14.5

MVSU

W 80-73

−13.5

TA&M

L 68-109

−17.5

WAG

L 101-103

−4.5

ARMY

L 78-81

−4.5

FAIR

W 70-66

+5.5

MRST

L 68-80

−4.5

FOR

L 53-82

−20.5

FUR

L 68-75

+3.5

PRES

W 87-81

+8.5

RID

W 74-71

+0.5

QUIN

W 80-79

+8.5

MRMK

L 66-73

−0.5

CAN

L 64-70

−13.5

NIA

W 79-70

+3.5

FAIR

L 62-98

−29.5

SIE

L 59-74

−8.5

QUIN

L 92-98

+7.5

IONA

L 57-66

−1.5

RID

W 95-90

−0.5

MSM

L 65-72

−0.5

SPU

L 75-80

−0.5

SHU

W 80-68

+13.5

NIA

W 76-69

+4.5

CAN

W 69-65

+2.5

MRST

L 70-84

−8.5

SPU

L 65-75

−2.5

IONA

L 65-69

−1.5

FAIR

L 60-71

−7.5

covered 11didn’t cover 20avg −3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

USC

L 83-114

+41.5

UTU

W 79-75

−4.5

HAW

L 56-86

−14.5

MVSU

W 80-73

−1.5

TA&M

L 68-109

+14.5

WAG

L 101-103

+59.5

ARMY

L 78-81

+6.5

FAIR

W 70-66

−19.5

MRST

L 68-80

+7.5

FOR

L 53-82

−12.5

FUR

L 68-75

−11.5

PRES

W 87-81

+29.5

RID

W 74-71

−2.5

QUIN

W 80-79

−0.5

MRMK

L 66-73

−9.5

CAN

L 64-70

−11.5

NIA

W 79-70

+8.5

FAIR

L 62-98

+1.5

SIE

L 59-74

−11.5

QUIN

L 92-98

+36.5

IONA

L 57-66

−30.5

RID

W 95-90

+39.5

MSM

L 65-72

−10.5

SPU

L 75-80

+10.5

SHU

W 80-68

−13.5

NIA

W 76-69

+8.5

CAN

W 69-65

−8.5

MRST

L 70-84

+11.5

SPU

L 65-75

−5.5

IONA

L 65-69

−17.5

FAIR

L 60-71

−17.5

over 13under 18avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Straight up

7-2423%

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

3 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1745%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

12-1939%

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

2 straight unders1 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	@GW	L 47-67	+20.5	W +0.5	143.5	U 114
Nov 8	@STBK	L 60-71	+3.5	L −7.5	131.5	U 131
Nov 10	@RUTG	L 60-72	+18.5	W +6.5	130.5	O 132
Nov 16	vsQUIN	L 64-70	+3.5	L −2.5	137.5	U 134
Nov 19	@MRMK	L 65-72	+6.5	L −0.5	130.5	O 137
Nov 23	vsBRWN	L 53-58	+1.5	L −3.5	127.5	U 111
Nov 28	@AMER	L 61-74	+7.5	L −5.5	133.5	O 135
Nov 29	vsLONG	L 61-65	+5.5	W +1.5	138.5	U 126
Nov 30	vsSIE	L 60-64	+9.5	W +5.5	127.5	U 124
Dec 3	@OHIO	L 57-79	+12.5	L −9.5	138.5	U 136
Dec 6	@M-OH	L 61-93	+17.5	L −14.5	139.5	O 154
Dec 10	@BU	W 69-59	+8.5	W +18.5	128.5	U 128
Dec 13	vsCAN	L 43-70	-6.5	L −33.5	127.5	U 113
Dec 21	@DREX	L 56-74	+10.5	L −7.5	129.5	O 130
Jan 3	vsBRY	L 51-56	+1.5	L −3.5	125.5	U 107
Jan 8	@UMBC	L 62-69	+7.5	W +0.5	133.5	U 131
Jan 10	@NJIT	W 74-70	+1.5	W +5.5	130.5	O 144
Jan 15	@UVM	L 62-67	+14.5	W +9.5	130.5	U 129
Jan 19	vsUNH	L 48-65	-1.5	L −18.5	129.5	U 113
Jan 22	vsUALB	W 52-49	+2.5	W +5.5	131.5	U 101
Jan 24	vsBING	W 79-63	-5.5	W +10.5	124.5	O 142
Jan 31	@UML	L 77-91	+4.5	L −9.5	136.5	O 168
Feb 5	vsUVM	W 76-70	+8.5	W +14.5	130.5	O 146
Feb 7	@BRY	L 67-73	+2.5	L −3.5	128.5	O 140
Feb 12	vsUMBC	L 62-78	+3.5	L −12.5	135.5	O 140
Feb 14	vsNJIT	L 58-67	+1.5	L −7.5	137.5	U 125
Feb 21	@UNH	W 61-58	+3.5	W +6.5	135.5	U 119
Feb 26	@UALB	W 70-59	+4.5	W +15.5	130.5	U 129
Feb 28	@BING	L 67-74	-1.5	L −8.5	133.5	O 141
Mar 3	vsUML	L 56-67	+1.5	L −9.5	139.5	U 123
Mar 7	@NJIT	L 58-60	+3.5	W +1.5	134.5	U 118

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

L 47-67

+0.5

STBK

L 60-71

−7.5

RUTG

L 60-72

+6.5

QUIN

L 64-70

−2.5

MRMK

L 65-72

−0.5

BRWN

L 53-58

−3.5

AMER

L 61-74

−5.5

LONG

L 61-65

+1.5

SIE

L 60-64

+5.5

OHIO

L 57-79

−9.5

M-OH

L 61-93

−14.5

W 69-59

+18.5

CAN

L 43-70

−33.5

DREX

L 56-74

−7.5

BRY

L 51-56

−3.5

UMBC

L 62-69

+0.5

NJIT

W 74-70

+5.5

UVM

L 62-67

+9.5

UNH

L 48-65

−18.5

UALB

W 52-49

+5.5

BING

W 79-63

+10.5

UML

L 77-91

−9.5

UVM

W 76-70

+14.5

BRY

L 67-73

−3.5

UMBC

L 62-78

−12.5

NJIT

L 58-67

−7.5

UNH

W 61-58

+6.5

UALB

W 70-59

+15.5

BING

L 67-74

−8.5

UML

L 56-67

−9.5

NJIT

L 58-60

+1.5

covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

L 47-67

−29.5

STBK

L 60-71

−0.5

RUTG

L 60-72

+1.5

QUIN

L 64-70

−3.5

MRMK

L 65-72

+6.5

BRWN

L 53-58

−16.5

AMER

L 61-74

+1.5

LONG

L 61-65

−12.5

SIE

L 60-64

−3.5

OHIO

L 57-79

−2.5

M-OH

L 61-93

+14.5

W 69-59

−0.5

CAN

L 43-70

−14.5

DREX

L 56-74

+0.5

BRY

L 51-56

−18.5

UMBC

L 62-69

−2.5

NJIT

W 74-70

+13.5

UVM

L 62-67

−1.5

UNH

L 48-65

−16.5

UALB

W 52-49

−30.5

BING

W 79-63

+17.5

UML

L 77-91

+31.5

UVM

W 76-70

+15.5

BRY

L 67-73

+11.5

UMBC

L 62-78

+4.5

NJIT

L 58-67

−12.5

UNH

W 61-58

−16.5

UALB

W 70-59

−1.5

BING

L 67-74

+7.5

UML

L 56-67

−16.5

NJIT

L 58-60

−16.5

over 12under 19avg −2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Manhattan has the better starters

Position by position: Manhattan 1, Maine 0, even 4

ManhattanBetterMaine

G B. Tweedy TR9 pts · 3 reb · 2.5 ast Score 29

Even

G D. Williams TR8 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.7 ast Score 23

G J. Sabino TR7.1 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.9 ast Score 53

MANBig

G C. Crawford4.2 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast Score 14

G Q. Elliott3.6 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.8 ast Score 17

Even

G V. Garcia Adsten TR3.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.3 ast Score 11

G J. Delaney0.4 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast Not ranked

No call

F A. Flagg6.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.4 ast Score 33

F O. Stankovic TR1.7 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.4 ast Not ranked

No call

F Y. Bamba2.8 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.4 ast Score 11

ManhattanBetterMaine

MAN offense301st of 366 · -9.4

MESmall

ME defense191st of 366 · -4.5

MAN defense346th of 366 · -9.3

Even

ME offense357th of 366 · -13.7

Backcourt-4.3 · 4 players

MANSmall

Backcourt-6.4 · 3 players

Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player

MANSmall

Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players

Bench-0.5 · 3 players

Even

Bench-0.7 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestMAN betterME 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

Manhattan

Guards

B. Tweedy30 min · TRJ. Sabino21 min · TRQ. Elliott12 minJ. Delaney5 minA. Miguel4 minB. PearceNew

Forwards

O. Stankovic6 min · TRK. Kearney4 min · TRL. McChesney3 min · TRI. JohnsonNewD. EricNewN. ManojlovicNew

Maine

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

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

MAN72.4 #232

ME61.2 #364

Points per possession

MAN1.05 #247

ME0.95 #356

Pace (possessions)

MAN69.0 #182

ME64.9 #348

Shooting

Effective FG%

MAN47.9 #315

ME49.6 #263

3-point %

MAN32.0 #280

ME31.2 #314

3-point attempt rate

MAN37.1 #228

ME37.0 #231

Free throw rate

MAN34.0 #208

ME38.4 #93

Possessions

Turnover rate

MAN15.6 #112

ME19.2 #328

Offensive rebound rate

MAN28.6 #247

ME19.7 #364

Assists per game

MAN12.3 #268

ME11.8 #300

Defense

Points allowed

MAN79.6 #309

ME68.5 #39

Points allowed per possession

MAN1.15 #330

ME1.05 #90

Opponent effective FG%

MAN53.9 #297

ME50.6 #136

Opponent 3-point %

MAN36.6 #332

ME29.4 #4

Turnovers forced

MAN16.6 #175

ME19.3 #38

Defensive rebound rate

MAN63.0 #358

ME65.7 #322

Steals per game

MAN7.8 #54

ME7.7 #57

Blocks per game

MAN2.3 #325

ME3.2 #194

MAN		ME
Scoring
72.4 #232	Points per game	61.2 #364
1.05 #247	Points per possession	0.95 #356
69.0 #182	Pace (possessions)	64.9 #348
Shooting
47.9 #315	Effective FG%	49.6 #263
32.0 #280	3-point %	31.2 #314
37.1 #228	3-point attempt rate	37.0 #231
34.0 #208	Free throw rate	38.4 #93
Possessions
15.6 #112	Turnover rate	19.2 #328
28.6 #247	Offensive rebound rate	19.7 #364
12.3 #268	Assists per game	11.8 #300
Defense
79.6 #309	Points allowed	68.5 #39
1.15 #330	Points allowed per possession	1.05 #90
53.9 #297	Opponent effective FG%	50.6 #136
36.6 #332	Opponent 3-point %	29.4 #4
16.6 #175	Turnovers forced	19.3 #38
63.0 #358	Defensive rebound rate	65.7 #322
7.8 #54	Steals per game	7.7 #57
2.3 #325	Blocks per game	3.2 #194

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.

Manhattan

11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · Metro Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Fairfield60–71
Lvs Iona65–69
L@ Saint Peter's65–75
Lvs Marist70–84
W@ Canisius69–65

A week or more of rest.

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.

Manhattan Jaspers at Maine Black Bears

What could decide it: ME has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Manhattan

Maine

Manhattan has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Manhattan

Maine