UMass Lowell River Hawks at Cincinnati Bearcats: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 22, 2:00 PM ETFifth Third Arena · at Cincinnati

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: UMass Lowell and Cincinnati
UML	This season	CIN
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 CIN 90–58 · win probability CIN 100%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 147.9

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: CIN has more of the edges

UML 1, CIN 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Schedule so far

UML has played the 312th-hardest schedule, CIN the 39th. A record against a soft schedule means less

CINBig

CIN offense vs UML defense

Offense 49th of 366 against a defense 318th, on the model’s ratings

CINBig

UML offense vs CIN defense

Offense 286th of 366 against a defense 24th, on the model’s ratings

CINBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: UML 18.0%, CIN 17.0%. Forced: UML 14.2%, CIN 18.2%

CINBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: UML 49.8 and allows 53.5; CIN 50.5 and allows 47.4

CINBig

Three-pointers

UML hits 32.2% and allows 34.6%; CIN hits 33.9% and allows 31.0%. Threes are 31.3% and 43.8% of their shots

UMLSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: UML 34.9, CIN 29.4. Allowed: UML 28.3, CIN 30.0

CINSmall

Home court

CIN at home. This season: CIN 0-0 at home, UML 0-0 away

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: UML 16%, CIN 1%. Transfers in: UML 3, CIN 12. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 69 possessions: UML plays 68.9 a game (189th fastest), CIN 69.4 (152nd). Faster games mean more points

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: UML 32.7%, CIN 30.6%. Defensive: UML 70.7%, CIN 72.7%

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	—	CIN -31.3	—
Total	—	147.9	—
Projected score	—	UML 58.3 · CIN 89.6

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	CIN -18.5	—
1H total	69.2	—
1H projected score	UML 25.3 · CIN 43.8	—

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
UML WLWWL	16-14	53%	9-10	—
CIN WWLLL	14-19	42%	10-8	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
UML UUUOO	14-16	47%	12-18
CIN OOUOU	13-20	39%	18-15

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
UML	6-4 60%	7-3 70%	5-5 50%
CIN	7-3 70%	5-5 50%	7-3 70%

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

UMass Lowell

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 27	vs HAMP	No recent meeting
Nov 28	@ AMER	No recent meeting
Nov 29	vs RAD	No recent meeting

Cincinnati

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 26	vs UGA	L65–84LU
Nov 27	vs BC	No recent meeting
Dec 2	vs MONM	L59–61LU

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

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

Straight up

12-1840%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1453%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

14-1647%

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

2 straight overs2 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 7	@CONN	L 47-110	+36.5	L −26.5	151.5	O 157
Nov 10	vsNHVN	L 67-73	-10.5	L −16.5	142.5	U 140
Nov 13	@COLU	L 72-86	+13.5	L −0.5	156.5	O 158
Nov 16	@WAKE	L 75-109	+30.5	L −3.5	165.5	O 184
Nov 19	@BRAD	L 77-87	+21.5	W +11.5	149.5	O 164
Nov 22	@SPU	L 66-68	+8.5	W +6.5	147.5	U 134
Nov 26	@STO	W 75-64	+2.5	W +13.5	148.5	U 139
Dec 6	@MASS	L 60-80	+11.5	L −8.5	155.5	U 140
Dec 13	@QUIN	L 71-75	+12.5	W +8.5	153.5	U 146
Dec 16	vsSHU	W 87-82	+2.5	W +7.5	151.5	O 169
Dec 21	@BU	L 76-88	+5.5	L −6.5	145.5	O 164
Dec 29	@IOWA	L 62-90	+33.5	W +5.5	145.5	O 152
Jan 3	vsUALB	W 83-71	-2.5	W +9.5	150.5	O 154
Jan 8	@BRY	W 77-63	+2.5	W +16.5	143.5	U 140
Jan 10	@BING	W 73-68	-6.5	L −1.5	146.5	U 141
Jan 15	vsNJIT	L 64-73	-8.5	L −17.5	145.5	U 137
Jan 22	vsUVM	L 68-77	+4.5	L −4.5	145.5	U 145
Jan 24	@UMBC	L 56-79	+2.5	L −20.5	151.5	U 135
Jan 29	@UNH	L 61-66	+3.5	L −1.5	146.5	U 127
Jan 31	vsME	W 91-77	-4.5	W +9.5	136.5	O 168
Feb 5	@NJIT	L 56-81	+1.5	L −23.5	149.5	U 137
Feb 7	@UALB	W 89-79	+4.5	W +14.5	143.5	O 168
Feb 12	vsBRY	W 88-69	-4.5	W +14.5	141.5	O 157
Feb 19	vsUNH	W 78-56	-3.5	W +18.5	151.5	U 134
Feb 21	vsBING	W 92-79	-9.5	W +3.5	146.5	O 171
Feb 26	@UVM	L 64-66	+9.5	W +7.5	146.5	U 130
Feb 28	vsUMBC	L 60-84	+2.5	L −21.5	150.5	U 144
Mar 3	@ME	W 67-56	-1.5	W +9.5	139.5	U 123
Mar 7	vsUALB	W 81-76	-2.5	W +2.5	146.5	O 157
Mar 10	@UMBC	L 69-91	+7.5	L −14.5	147.5	O 160

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

CONN

L 47-110

−26.5

NHVN

L 67-73

−16.5

COLU

L 72-86

−0.5

WAKE

L 75-109

−3.5

BRAD

L 77-87

+11.5

SPU

L 66-68

+6.5

STO

W 75-64

+13.5

MASS

L 60-80

−8.5

QUIN

L 71-75

+8.5

SHU

W 87-82

+7.5

L 76-88

−6.5

IOWA

L 62-90

+5.5

UALB

W 83-71

+9.5

BRY

W 77-63

+16.5

BING

W 73-68

−1.5

NJIT

L 64-73

−17.5

UVM

L 68-77

−4.5

UMBC

L 56-79

−20.5

UNH

L 61-66

−1.5

W 91-77

+9.5

NJIT

L 56-81

−23.5

UALB

W 89-79

+14.5

BRY

W 88-69

+14.5

UNH

W 78-56

+18.5

BING

W 92-79

+3.5

UVM

L 64-66

+7.5

UMBC

L 60-84

−21.5

W 67-56

+9.5

UALB

W 81-76

+2.5

UMBC

L 69-91

−14.5

covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

CONN

L 47-110

+5.5

NHVN

L 67-73

−2.5

COLU

L 72-86

+1.5

WAKE

L 75-109

+18.5

BRAD

L 77-87

+14.5

SPU

L 66-68

−13.5

STO

W 75-64

−9.5

MASS

L 60-80

−15.5

QUIN

L 71-75

−7.5

SHU

W 87-82

+17.5

L 76-88

+18.5

IOWA

L 62-90

+6.5

UALB

W 83-71

+3.5

BRY

W 77-63

−3.5

BING

W 73-68

−5.5

NJIT

L 64-73

−8.5

UVM

L 68-77

−0.5

UMBC

L 56-79

−16.5

UNH

L 61-66

−19.5

W 91-77

+31.5

NJIT

L 56-81

−12.5

UALB

W 89-79

+24.5

BRY

W 88-69

+15.5

UNH

W 78-56

−17.5

BING

W 92-79

+24.5

UVM

L 64-66

−16.5

UMBC

L 60-84

−6.5

W 67-56

−16.5

UALB

W 81-76

+10.5

UMBC

L 69-91

+12.5

over 14under 16avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Cincinnati

33 games played

Straight up

18-15

55% wins

Against the spread

14-19

42% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-20

39% overs · avg −4.3 pts vs the total

Straight up

18-1555%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

14-1942%

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

3 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

13-2039%

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

2 of last 4 overno streak

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	vsWCU	W 94-63	-22.5	W +8.5	143.5	O 157
Nov 7	vsGAST	W 74-64	-29.5	L −19.5	151.5	U 138
Nov 11	vsDAY	W 74-62	-5.5	W +6.5	147.5	U 136
Nov 16	vsMSM	W 72-55	-25.5	L −8.5	145.5	U 127
Nov 21	vsLOU	L 64-74	+8.5	L −1.5	163.5	U 138
Nov 24	vsNJIT	W 94-67	-34.5	L −7.5	141.5	O 161
Nov 26	vsEMU	L 56-64	-22.5	L −30.5	146.5	U 120
Dec 1	vsTAR	W 76-58	-24.5	L −6.5	142.5	U 134
Dec 5	@XAV	L 74-79	-1.5	L −6.5	147.5	O 153
Dec 13	vsUGA	L 65-84	+5.5	L −13.5	157.5	U 149
Dec 17	vsALST	W 88-51	-21.5	W +15.5	145.5	U 139
Dec 21	vsCLEM	L 65-68	+3.5	W +0.5	140.5	U 133
Dec 29	vsLIP	W 89-62	-13.5	W +13.5	150.5	O 151
Jan 3	vsHOU	L 60-67	+4.5	L −2.5	135.5	U 127
Jan 6	@WVU	L 60-62	-1.5	L −3.5	132.5	U 122
Jan 11	@UCF	L 72-73	+2.5	W +1.5	150.5	U 145
Jan 14	vsCOLO	W 77-68	-8.5	W +0.5	145.5	U 145
Jan 17	vsISU	W 79-70	+5.5	W +14.5	141.5	O 149
Jan 21	@ARIZ	L 51-77	+13.5	L −12.5	152.5	U 128
Jan 24	@ASU	L 68-82	-3.5	L −17.5	146.5	O 150
Jan 28	vsBAY	W 67-57	-3.5	W +6.5	145.5	U 124
Jan 31	@HOU	L 54-76	+13.5	L −8.5	135.5	U 130
Feb 5	vsWVU	L 54-59	-5.5	L −10.5	127.5	U 113
Feb 8	vsUCF	W 92-72	-4.5	W +15.5	146.5	O 164
Feb 11	@KSU	W 91-62	-2.5	W +26.5	147.5	O 153
Feb 15	vsUTAH	W 69-65	-12.5	L −8.5	139.5	U 134
Feb 21	@KU	W 84-68	+8.5	W +24.5	139.5	O 152
Feb 24	@TTU	L 68-80	+6.5	L −5.5	143.5	O 148
Feb 28	vsOKST	W 91-68	-9.5	W +13.5	151.5	O 159
Mar 3	vsBYU	W 90-68	-1.5	W +20.5	151.5	O 158
Mar 7	@TCU	L 63-73	+2.5	L −7.5	140.5	U 136
Mar 10	vsUTAH	W 73-66	-12.5	L −5.5	138.5	O 139
Mar 11	vsUCF	L 65-66	-3.5	L −4.5	149.5	U 131

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

WCU

W 94-63

+8.5

GAST

W 74-64

−19.5

DAY

W 74-62

+6.5

MSM

W 72-55

−8.5

LOU

L 64-74

−1.5

NJIT

W 94-67

−7.5

EMU

L 56-64

−30.5

TAR

W 76-58

−6.5

XAV

L 74-79

−6.5

UGA

L 65-84

−13.5

ALST

W 88-51

+15.5

CLEM

L 65-68

+0.5

LIP

W 89-62

+13.5

HOU

L 60-67

−2.5

WVU

L 60-62

−3.5

UCF

L 72-73

+1.5

COLO

W 77-68

+0.5

ISU

W 79-70

+14.5

ARIZ

L 51-77

−12.5

ASU

L 68-82

−17.5

BAY

W 67-57

+6.5

HOU

L 54-76

−8.5

WVU

L 54-59

−10.5

UCF

W 92-72

+15.5

KSU

W 91-62

+26.5

UTAH

W 69-65

−8.5

W 84-68

+24.5

TTU

L 68-80

−5.5

OKST

W 91-68

+13.5

BYU

W 90-68

+20.5

TCU

L 63-73

−7.5

UTAH

W 73-66

−5.5

UCF

L 65-66

−4.5

covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

WCU

W 94-63

+13.5

GAST

W 74-64

−13.5

DAY

W 74-62

−11.5

MSM

W 72-55

−18.5

LOU

L 64-74

−25.5

NJIT

W 94-67

+19.5

EMU

L 56-64

−26.5

TAR

W 76-58

−8.5

XAV

L 74-79

+5.5

UGA

L 65-84

−8.5

ALST

W 88-51

−6.5

CLEM

L 65-68

−7.5

LIP

W 89-62

+0.5

HOU

L 60-67

−8.5

WVU

L 60-62

−10.5

UCF

L 72-73

−5.5

COLO

W 77-68

−0.5

ISU

W 79-70

+7.5

ARIZ

L 51-77

−24.5

ASU

L 68-82

+3.5

BAY

W 67-57

−21.5

HOU

L 54-76

−5.5

WVU

L 54-59

−14.5

UCF

W 92-72

+17.5

KSU

W 91-62

+5.5

UTAH

W 69-65

−5.5

W 84-68

+12.5

TTU

L 68-80

+4.5

OKST

W 91-68

+7.5

BYU

W 90-68

+6.5

TCU

L 63-73

−4.5

UTAH

W 73-66

+0.5

UCF

L 65-66

−18.5

over 13under 20avg −4.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Cincinnati has the better starters

Position by position: UMass Lowell 0, Cincinnati 4, even 1

UMass LowellBetterCincinnati

G C. Jones TR4.3 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.2 ast Score 6

CINBig

G J. Campbell TR19.3 pts · 4.4 reb · 5.1 ast Score 95

G J. Newton TR7.1 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.6 ast Score 55

CINSmall

G T. Carson TR12.2 pts · 6.5 reb · 2.9 ast Score 75

G I. Walter1.6 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.4 ast Not ranked

No call

G M. Collins TR17.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.6 ast Score 94

F V. Okojie4.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.7 ast Score 11

CINBig

G T. Riley TR15 pts · 3.9 reb · 4.4 ast Score 92

F J. Harris TR5.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.4 ast Score 59

CINSmall

F T. Tejada TR17.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 2.2 ast Score 91

UMass LowellBetterCincinnati

UML offense286th of 366 · -8.9

CINBig

CIN defense24th of 366 · +4.9

UML defense318th of 366 · -8.2

CINBig

CIN offense49th of 366 · +3.7

Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players

CINBig

Backcourt+12.2 · 4 players

Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players

CINBig

Frontcourt+4.0 · 1 player

Bench-0.7 · 1 player

CINBig

Bench+6.3 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestUML betterCIN 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

UMass Lowell

Guards

C. Jones18 min · TRJ. Newton17 min · TRI. Walter8 minK. GilesNewJ. CannadyNewM. EllisNew

Forwards

V. Okojie18 minJ. Harris11 min · TRJ. Roberson7 minD. HandNewE. DialloNew

Cincinnati

Guards

J. Campbell35 min · TRT. Carson33 min · TRM. Collins31 min · TRT. Riley28 min · TRM. Colvin27 min · TRA. Fleming26 min · TR

Forwards

T. Tejada36 min · TRR. Allenspach25 min · TRJ. Hastings23 min · TRA. Elamin20 min · TRD. VadenNewD. IwezeNew

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

UML71.7 #253

CIN73.1 #221

Points per possession

UML1.04 #272

CIN1.05 #243

Pace (possessions)

UML68.9 #189

CIN69.4 #152

Shooting

Effective FG%

UML49.8 #247

CIN50.5 #213

3-point %

UML32.2 #269

CIN33.9 #175

3-point attempt rate

UML31.3 #336

CIN43.8 #94

Free throw rate

UML34.9 #183

CIN29.4 #323

Possessions

Turnover rate

UML18.0 #269

CIN17.0 #203

Offensive rebound rate

UML32.7 #98

CIN30.6 #174

Assists per game

UML11.9 #294

CIN16.6 #35

Defense

Points allowed

UML77.4 #249

CIN67.6 #27

Points allowed per possession

UML1.13 #277

CIN0.97 #9

Opponent effective FG%

UML53.5 #284

CIN47.4 #27

Opponent 3-point %

UML34.6 #226

CIN31.0 #35

Turnovers forced

UML14.2 #329

CIN18.2 #89

Defensive rebound rate

UML70.7 #126

CIN72.7 #45

Steals per game

UML5.1 #326

CIN6.3 #208

Blocks per game

UML3.0 #222

CIN4.2 #53

UML		CIN
Scoring
71.7 #253	Points per game	73.1 #221
1.04 #272	Points per possession	1.05 #243
68.9 #189	Pace (possessions)	69.4 #152
Shooting
49.8 #247	Effective FG%	50.5 #213
32.2 #269	3-point %	33.9 #175
31.3 #336	3-point attempt rate	43.8 #94
34.9 #183	Free throw rate	29.4 #323
Possessions
18.0 #269	Turnover rate	17.0 #203
32.7 #98	Offensive rebound rate	30.6 #174
11.9 #294	Assists per game	16.6 #35
Defense
77.4 #249	Points allowed	67.6 #27
1.13 #277	Points allowed per possession	0.97 #9
53.5 #284	Opponent effective FG%	47.4 #27
34.6 #226	Opponent 3-point %	31.0 #35
14.2 #329	Turnovers forced	18.2 #89
70.7 #126	Defensive rebound rate	72.7 #45
5.1 #326	Steals per game	6.3 #208
3.0 #222	Blocks per game	4.2 #53

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.

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.

Cincinnati

18-15 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Big 12 Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs UCF65–66
Wvs Utah73–66
L@ TCU63–73
Wvs BYU90–68
Wvs Oklahoma St91–68

A week or more of rest.

UMass Lowell River Hawks at Cincinnati Bearcats

What could decide it: CIN has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

UMass Lowell

Cincinnati

Cincinnati has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

UMass Lowell

Cincinnati