Lundholm Gymnasium · at New Hampshire
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UNH | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UNH 76–72 · win probability UNH 64%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.4
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
SHU 3, UNH 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: SHU 31.0, UNH 28.5. Allowed: SHU 27.0, UNH 35.8
Three-pointers
SHU hits 35.7% and allows 34.9%; UNH hits 30.5% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 50.7% and 43.1% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
SHU has played the 340th-hardest schedule, UNH the 237th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: SHU 52.0 and allows 53.5; UNH 46.7 and allows 53.5
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SHU 17.6%, UNH 16.5%. Forced: SHU 14.6%, UNH 15.8%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SHU 18%, UNH 47%. Transfers in: SHU 3, UNH 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
UNH at home. This season: UNH 0-0 at home, SHU 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SHU 28.6%, UNH 25.7%. Defensive: SHU 69.1%, UNH 73.1%
Even
UNH offense vs SHU defense
Offense 300th of 366 against a defense 334th, on the model’s ratings
Even
SHU offense vs UNH defense
Offense 281st of 366 against a defense 255th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: SHU plays 68.6 a game (201st fastest), UNH 68.9 (186th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | UNH -4.0 | — |
| Total | — | 148.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | SHU 72.2 · UNH 76.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UNH -2.3 | — |
| 1H total | 69.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | SHU 33.6 · UNH 35.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | |
| 1-9 10% | 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
SHU 2–1 UNHSHU leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · SHU 2-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2024-25 | UNH 63 vs SHU 80 | SHU -0.5 | SHU W |
| Nov 30, 2023-24 | UNH 90 @ SHU 84 | SHU -3.5 | UNH W |
| Nov 30, 2022-23 | SHU 66 @ UNH 61 | UNH -1.5 | SHU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
New Hampshire
28 games played
Straight up
7-21
25% wins
Against the spread
12-16
43% covers · avg −2.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +0.7 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 38-88 | +29.5 | L −20.5 | 146.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 75-86 | +15.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 44-61 | +24.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | U 105 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 66-98 | +29.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 47-59 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 136.5 | U 106 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 68-72 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 68-69 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 88-82 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 134.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 59-58 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 79-93 | +34.5 | W +20.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 55-86 | +31.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 61-80 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 76-80 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 74-75 | +6.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 65-48 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 129.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 88-82 | -9.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 80-72 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 66-61 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 84-92 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 57-80 | +9.5 | L −13.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 70-76 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 63-85 | +2.5 | L −19.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 56-78 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 58-61 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 63-65 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 61-84 | +3.5 | L −19.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 88-83 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 69-84 | +12.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CLEM
L 38-88
−20.5
9
@
HARV
L 75-86
+4.5
15
@
GMU
L 44-61
+7.5
18
@
PROV
L 66-98
−2.5
26
vs
BRWN
L 47-59
−6.5
30
@
FAIR
L 68-72
+5.5
3
@
DART
L 68-69
+7.5
6
vs
BU
W 88-82
+11.5
17
vs
STO
W 59-58
−2.5
21
@
SLU
L 79-93
+20.5
30
@
NEB
L 55-86
+0.5
3
vs
UVM
L 61-80
−11.5
8
@
NJIT
L 76-80
−6.5
10
@
UMBC
L 74-75
+5.5
19
@
ME
W 65-48
+18.5
22
vs
BING
W 88-82
−3.5
24
vs
UALB
W 80-72
+5.5
29
vs
UML
W 66-61
+1.5
31
@
BRY
L 84-92
−6.5
7
@
UVM
L 57-80
−13.5
12
vs
NJIT
L 70-76
−8.5
14
vs
UMBC
L 63-85
−19.5
19
@
UML
L 56-78
−18.5
21
vs
ME
L 58-61
−6.5
26
@
BING
L 63-65
−4.5
28
@
UALB
L 61-84
−19.5
3
vs
BRY
W 88-83
+2.5
7
@
UMBC
L 69-84
−2.5
covered 12didn’t cover 16avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CLEM
L 38-88
−20.5
9
@
HARV
L 75-86
+13.5
15
@
GMU
L 44-61
−39.5
18
@
PROV
L 66-98
+2.5
26
vs
BRWN
L 47-59
−30.5
30
@
FAIR
L 68-72
−7.5
3
@
DART
L 68-69
−10.5
6
vs
BU
W 88-82
+35.5
17
vs
STO
W 59-58
−21.5
21
@
SLU
L 79-93
+14.5
30
@
NEB
L 55-86
−5.5
3
vs
UVM
L 61-80
+1.5
8
@
NJIT
L 76-80
+18.5
10
@
UMBC
L 74-75
+5.5
19
@
ME
W 65-48
−16.5
22
vs
BING
W 88-82
+34.5
24
vs
UALB
W 80-72
+14.5
29
vs
UML
W 66-61
−19.5
31
@
BRY
L 84-92
+44.5
7
@
UVM
L 57-80
−1.5
12
vs
NJIT
L 70-76
+0.5
14
vs
UMBC
L 63-85
+1.5
19
@
UML
L 56-78
−17.5
21
vs
ME
L 58-61
−16.5
26
@
BING
L 63-65
−13.5
28
@
UALB
L 61-84
+6.5
3
vs
BRY
W 88-83
+35.5
7
@
UMBC
L 69-84
+10.5
over 15under 13avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
New Hampshire has the better starters
Position by position: Sacred Heart 1, New Hampshire 2, even 2
Sacred HeartBetterNew Hampshire
G J. Van Buggenhout TR6.4 pts · 2.1 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 42
=Even
G T. Bike7.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 34
G J. Slaughter5.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 20
=Even
G E. Oliver-Bush TR3.2 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 7
G S. Reilly TR3.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 47
←SHUBig
F D. Poser6.9 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 11
F A. Yadd6 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 5
→UNHSmall
F J. Squire5.8 pts · 5.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 34
F J. Robinson TR2.5 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 26
→UNHSmall
F D. McKenna TR3.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 47
Sacred HeartBetterNew Hampshire
SHU offense281st of 366 · -8.7
=Even
UNH defense255th of 366 · -6.7
SHU defense334th of 366 · -8.8
=Even
UNH offense300th of 366 · -9.3
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-3.5 · 2 players
Frontcourt-2.6 · 2 players
←SHUSmall
Frontcourt-4.5 · 3 players
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
←SHUSmall
Bench-2.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestSHU betterUNH betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Van Buggenhout21 min · TRJ. Slaughter21 minS. Reilly9 min · TRM. Sheppard1 minG. BarroukNewJ. WallaceNew
Forwards
A. Yadd15 minJ. Robinson10 min · TRK. CurtisNewL. KrygierNew
Guards
T. Bike24 minE. Oliver-Bush16 min · TRM. Blackley2 minA. SquireNewJ. ColemanNewJ. FaumuinaNew
Forwards
D. Poser29 minJ. Squire27 minD. McKenna11 min · TRR. Zan8 min · TRJ. O'Neill6 minK. MyersNew
Centers
G. Xanthopoulos6 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.3 #186 | Points per game | 66.6 #339 |
| 1.08 #180 | Points per possession | 0.96 #347 |
| 68.6 #201 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #186 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.0 #145 | Effective FG% | 46.7 #344 |
| 35.7 #73 | 3-point % | 30.5 #333 |
| 50.7 #12 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.1 #110 |
| 31.0 #281 | Free throw rate | 28.5 #338 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.6 #249 | Turnover rate | 16.5 #166 |
| 28.6 #246 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.7 #329 |
| 14.6 #112 | Assists per game | 10.6 #348 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.6 #253 | Points allowed | 76.4 #227 |
| 1.13 #296 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #247 |
| 53.5 #283 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.5 #282 |
| 34.9 #241 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #204 |
| 14.6 #320 | Turnovers forced | 15.8 #227 |
| 69.1 #199 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.1 #32 |
| 5.4 #305 | Steals per game | 6.1 #222 |
| 3.0 #223 | Blocks per game | 2.0 #345 |
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.
New Hampshire
7-21 in 2025-26 overall · 5-12 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ UMBC69–84
- Wvs Bryant88–83
- L@ UAlbany61–84
- L@ Binghamton63–65
- Lvs Maine58–61
A week or more of rest.