Furman Paladins at Radford Highlanders: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Nov 18, 7:00 PM ETThe Dedmon Center · at Radford

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Furman and Radford
FUR	This season	RAD
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 FUR 76–73 · win probability FUR 60%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 149.7

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: FUR has more of the edges

FUR 6, RAD 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

RADBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: FUR 17.8%, RAD 17.1%. Forced: FUR 13.7%, RAD 18.5%

FURBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: FUR 54.8 and allows 50.2; RAD 51.4 and allows 53.0

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: FUR plays 67.2 a game (273rd fastest), RAD 73.6 (13th). Faster games mean more points

FURBig

FUR offense vs RAD defense

Offense 166th of 366 against a defense 286th, on the model’s ratings

FURBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: FUR 30.5%, RAD 29.8%. Defensive: FUR 71.8%, RAD 67.8%

FURSmall

Three-pointers

FUR hits 33.4% and allows 32.3%; RAD hits 33.5% and allows 35.5%. Threes are 46.5% and 45.4% of their shots

FURSmall

RAD offense vs FUR defense

Offense 213th of 366 against a defense 146th, on the model’s ratings

FURSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: FUR 46%, RAD 12%. Transfers in: FUR 4, RAD 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

RADSmall

Home court

RAD at home. This season: RAD 0-0 at home, FUR 0-0 away

Context

Schedule so far

FUR has played the 224th-hardest schedule, RAD the 243rd. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: FUR 32.7, RAD 42.4. Allowed: FUR 28.9, RAD 40.0

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	—	FUR -3.0	—
Total	—	149.7	—
Projected score	—	FUR 76.4 · RAD 73.4

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	FUR -1.9	—
1H total	70.0	—
1H projected score	FUR 36 · RAD 34	—

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
FUR LWWWW	16-16	50%	7-5	—
RAD LWWLL	14-15	48%	6-8	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
FUR OOOUO	16-16	50%	19-13
RAD UUUOO	17-12	59%	13-16

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
FUR	6-4 60%	7-3 70%	6-4 60%
RAD	5-5 50%	7-3 70%	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

Furman

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 24	vs ELON	W97–88WO
Nov 28	vs APSU	No recent meeting
Dec 1	@ TROY	L61–64LU

Radford

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 21	@ UTC	No recent meeting
Nov 27	@ AMER	No recent meeting
Nov 28	vs HAMP	W60–54WU

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

FUR 1–0 RADFUR leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · FUR 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 19, 2021-22	RAD 64 @ FUR 81	FUR -15	FUR W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

Furman

32 games played

Straight up

19-13

59% wins

Against the spread

16-16

50% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

16-16

50% overs · avg −0.7 pts vs the total

Straight up

19-1359%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1650%

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

4 straight covers4 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

16-1650%

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

3 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	vsHPU	L 71-97	+3.5	L −22.5	153.5	O 168
Nov 7	vsTROY	L 61-64	-2.5	L −5.5	152.5	U 125
Nov 14	@UNI	L 54-70	+9.5	L −6.5	141.5	U 124
Nov 23	vsQUC	W 90-79	-8.5	W +2.5	153.5	O 169
Nov 27	vsRICH	W 73-72	+3.5	W +4.5	147.5	U 145
Nov 28	vsILST	L 65-72	+3.5	L −3.5	145.5	U 137
Dec 3	@ELON	W 97-88	-1.5	W +7.5	153.5	O 185
Dec 6	vsHARV	W 79-69	-4.5	W +5.5	141.5	O 148
Dec 18	@MAN	W 75-68	-10.5	L −3.5	154.5	U 143
Dec 21	vsCHSO	W 84-76	-10.5	L −2.5	155.5	O 160
Dec 31	vsMER	W 74-72	-2.5	L −0.5	154.5	U 146
Jan 3	vsWCU	L 77-80	-8.5	L −11.5	157.5	U 157
Jan 7	@UTC	W 78-67	-2.5	W +8.5	146.5	U 145
Jan 10	vsVMI	W 69-48	-12.5	W +8.5	149.5	U 117
Jan 14	@SAM	W 77-73	-1.5	W +2.5	149.5	O 150
Jan 17	vsWOF	L 70-74	-4.5	L −8.5	149.5	U 144
Jan 21	@CIT	L 75-77	-11.5	L −13.5	142.5	O 152
Jan 23	@UNCG	W 89-66	-4.5	W +18.5	150.5	O 155
Jan 29	vsSAM	W 78-73	-5.5	L −0.5	149.5	O 151
Feb 1	vsUTC	W 75-70	-7.5	L −2.5	146.5	U 145
Feb 4	@ETSU	L 71-75	+5.5	W +1.5	141.5	O 146
Feb 8	vsUNCG	L 64-67	-10.5	L −13.5	149.5	U 131
Feb 11	@MER	L 64-69	+3.5	L −1.5	151.5	U 133
Feb 14	@VMI	W 90-72	-11.5	W +6.5	148.5	O 162
Feb 18	vsETSU	L 69-78	-1.5	L −10.5	140.5	O 147
Feb 21	@WOF	W 76-67	-1.5	W +7.5	153.5	U 143
Feb 25	vsCIT	W 72-51	-15.5	W +5.5	143.5	U 123
Feb 28	@WCU	L 67-86	-1.5	L −20.5	147.5	O 153
Mar 7	vsSAM	W 86-81	+1.5	W +6.5	147.5	O 167
Mar 8	vsUNCG	W 81-75	-5.5	W +0.5	147.5	O 156
Mar 9	vsETSU	W 76-61	+1.5	W +16.5	139.5	U 137
Mar 20	vsCONN	L 71-82	+20.5	W +9.5	133.5	O 153

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

HPU

L 71-97

−22.5

TROY

L 61-64

−5.5

UNI

L 54-70

−6.5

QUC

W 90-79

+2.5

RICH

W 73-72

+4.5

ILST

L 65-72

−3.5

ELON

W 97-88

+7.5

HARV

W 79-69

+5.5

MAN

W 75-68

−3.5

CHSO

W 84-76

−2.5

MER

W 74-72

−0.5

WCU

L 77-80

−11.5

UTC

W 78-67

+8.5

VMI

W 69-48

+8.5

SAM

W 77-73

+2.5

WOF

L 70-74

−8.5

CIT

L 75-77

−13.5

UNCG

W 89-66

+18.5

SAM

W 78-73

−0.5

UTC

W 75-70

−2.5

ETSU

L 71-75

+1.5

UNCG

L 64-67

−13.5

MER

L 64-69

−1.5

VMI

W 90-72

+6.5

ETSU

L 69-78

−10.5

WOF

W 76-67

+7.5

CIT

W 72-51

+5.5

WCU

L 67-86

−20.5

SAM

W 86-81

+6.5

UNCG

W 81-75

+0.5

ETSU

W 76-61

+16.5

CONN

L 71-82

+9.5

covered 16didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

HPU

L 71-97

+14.5

TROY

L 61-64

−27.5

UNI

L 54-70

−17.5

QUC

W 90-79

+15.5

RICH

W 73-72

−2.5

ILST

L 65-72

−8.5

ELON

W 97-88

+31.5

HARV

W 79-69

+6.5

MAN

W 75-68

−11.5

CHSO

W 84-76

+4.5

MER

W 74-72

−8.5

WCU

L 77-80

−0.5

UTC

W 78-67

−1.5

VMI

W 69-48

−32.5

SAM

W 77-73

+0.5

WOF

L 70-74

−5.5

CIT

L 75-77

+9.5

UNCG

W 89-66

+4.5

SAM

W 78-73

+1.5

UTC

W 75-70

−1.5

ETSU

L 71-75

+4.5

UNCG

L 64-67

−18.5

MER

L 64-69

−18.5

VMI

W 90-72

+13.5

ETSU

L 69-78

+6.5

WOF

W 76-67

−10.5

CIT

W 72-51

−20.5

WCU

L 67-86

+5.5

SAM

W 86-81

+19.5

UNCG

W 81-75

+8.5

ETSU

W 76-61

−2.5

CONN

L 71-82

+19.5

over 16under 16avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

Radford

29 games played

Straight up

13-16

45% wins

Against the spread

14-15

48% covers · avg −2.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-12

59% overs · avg +3.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

13-1645%

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

2 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1548%

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

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

17-1259%

O O U O U O U O U O O O U U O O O U O U O U O 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 3	vsWIU	W 80-75	-16.5	L −11.5	151.5	O 155
Nov 11	@UNC	L 74-89	+20.5	W +5.5	162.5	O 163
Nov 15	vsWRST	L 59-92	-6.5	L −39.5	156.5	U 151
Nov 16	vsCLE	L 82-87	-8.5	L −13.5	162.5	O 169
Nov 18	@SC	L 58-87	+10.5	L −18.5	153.5	U 145
Nov 21	vsUNCW	L 73-81	+4.5	L −3.5	151.5	O 154
Nov 24	@SMU	L 72-89	+23.5	W +6.5	165.5	U 161
Dec 3	vsUSM	L 75-82	-3.5	L −10.5	152.5	O 157
Dec 7	vsSFPA	W 89-56	-13.5	W +19.5	154.5	U 145
Dec 14	vsCOPP	W 107-77	-20.5	W +9.5	154.5	O 184
Dec 18	@W&M	L 83-96	+8.5	L −4.5	170.5	O 179
Dec 21	vsVMI	W 97-90	-11.5	L −4.5	158.5	O 187
Dec 31	@UPST	W 76-69	+1.5	W +8.5	158.5	U 145
Jan 7	vsPRES	W 80-61	-6.5	W +12.5	147.5	U 141
Jan 10	vsUNCA	L 72-91	-4.5	L −23.5	151.5	O 163
Jan 14	@GWEB	W 89-80	-13.5	L −4.5	165.5	O 169
Jan 17	vsLONG	W 85-83	-4.5	L −2.5	157.5	O 168
Jan 21	@WIN	L 75-76	+9.5	W +8.5	165.5	U 151
Jan 23	vsHPU	L 83-93	+7.5	L −2.5	165.5	O 176
Jan 29	@CHSO	W 84-75	-1.5	W +7.5	162.5	U 159
Jan 31	@PRES	W 93-84	+1.5	W +10.5	151.5	O 177
Feb 4	vsWIN	L 78-80	+4.5	W +2.5	161.5	U 158
Feb 7	@HPU	L 77-86	+14.5	W +5.5	162.5	O 163
Feb 14	vsCHSO	W 90-80	-4.5	W +5.5	161.5	O 170
Feb 19	vsGWEB	W 82-70	-18.5	L −6.5	162.5	U 152
Feb 21	@UNCA	L 73-74	+2.5	W +1.5	149.5	U 147
Feb 26	vsUPST	W 71-59	-7.5	W +4.5	152.5	U 130
Feb 28	@LONG	L 74-90	+1.5	L −14.5	154.5	O 164
Mar 6	vsPRES	L 85-91	-2.5	L −8.5	146.5	O 176

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

WIU

W 80-75

−11.5

UNC

L 74-89

+5.5

WRST

L 59-92

−39.5

CLE

L 82-87

−13.5

L 58-87

−18.5

UNCW

L 73-81

−3.5

SMU

L 72-89

+6.5

USM

L 75-82

−10.5

SFPA

W 89-56

+19.5

COPP

W 107-77

+9.5

W&M

L 83-96

−4.5

VMI

W 97-90

−4.5

UPST

W 76-69

+8.5

PRES

W 80-61

+12.5

UNCA

L 72-91

−23.5

GWEB

W 89-80

−4.5

LONG

W 85-83

−2.5

WIN

L 75-76

+8.5

HPU

L 83-93

−2.5

CHSO

W 84-75

+7.5

PRES

W 93-84

+10.5

WIN

L 78-80

+2.5

HPU

L 77-86

+5.5

CHSO

W 90-80

+5.5

GWEB

W 82-70

−6.5

UNCA

L 73-74

+1.5

UPST

W 71-59

+4.5

LONG

L 74-90

−14.5

PRES

L 85-91

−8.5

covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

WIU

W 80-75

+3.5

UNC

L 74-89

+0.5

WRST

L 59-92

−5.5

CLE

L 82-87

+6.5

L 58-87

−8.5

UNCW

L 73-81

+2.5

SMU

L 72-89

−4.5

USM

L 75-82

+4.5

SFPA

W 89-56

−9.5

COPP

W 107-77

+29.5

W&M

L 83-96

+8.5

VMI

W 97-90

+28.5

UPST

W 76-69

−13.5

PRES

W 80-61

−6.5

UNCA

L 72-91

+11.5

GWEB

W 89-80

+3.5

LONG

W 85-83

+10.5

WIN

L 75-76

−14.5

HPU

L 83-93

+10.5

CHSO

W 84-75

−3.5

PRES

W 93-84

+25.5

WIN

L 78-80

−3.5

HPU

L 77-86

+0.5

CHSO

W 90-80

+8.5

GWEB

W 82-70

−10.5

UNCA

L 73-74

−2.5

UPST

W 71-59

−22.5

LONG

L 74-90

+9.5

PRES

L 85-91

+29.5

over 17under 12avg +3.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Furman has the better starters

Position by position: Furman 3, Radford 0, even 2

FurmanBetterRadford

G J. Bell TR12.3 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast Score 76

FURSmall

G J. Robinson TR6.3 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.9 ast Score 52

G C. Bowser5.2 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.6 ast Score 31

Even

G T. Gross TR3.5 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast Score 21

G L. Toews TR6.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.2 ast Score 45

Even

F C. Jackson TR4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.5 ast Score 36

F M. Kell TR13.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.9 ast Score 59

FURSmall

F P. Kabamba TR5.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast Score 38

F C. Johnston9.6 pts · 8.9 reb · 1.7 ast Score 66

FURBig

F F. Erichsen4.7 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.6 ast Score 27

FurmanBetterRadford

FUR offense166th of 366 · -5.1

FURSmall

RAD defense286th of 366 · -7.2

FUR defense146th of 366 · -3.2

FURSmall

RAD offense213th of 366 · -6.5

Backcourt-1.4 · 3 players

Even

Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players

Frontcourt+0.9 · 2 players

FURBig

Frontcourt-2.1 · 3 players

Bench-2.5 · 5 players

RADSmall

Bench-1.0 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestFUR betterRAD 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

Furman

Guards

J. Bell26 min · TRC. Bowser23 minL. Toews21 min · TRA. Franklin11 minC. O'Neal11 minG. LewisNew

Forwards

M. Kell30 min · TRC. Johnston29 minM. Smith12 minJ. Butler9 min · TRO. Ritger7 minD. MolnarNew

Radford

Guards

J. Robinson17 min · TRT. Gross13 min · TRW. Keel6 minM. Grujicic6 min · TRJ. Kee3 min · TRK. PruettNew

Forwards

C. Jackson17 min · TRP. Kabamba17 min · TRF. Erichsen13 minA. NokesNew

Centers

G. Ferreira5 min

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

FUR74.9 #164

RAD79.9 #70

Points per possession

FUR1.11 #114

RAD1.09 #168

Pace (possessions)

FUR67.2 #273

RAD73.6 #13

Shooting

Effective FG%

FUR54.8 #43

RAD51.4 #181

3-point %

FUR33.4 #204

RAD33.5 #199

3-point attempt rate

FUR46.5 #40

RAD45.4 #59

Free throw rate

FUR32.7 #246

RAD42.4 #25

Possessions

Turnover rate

FUR17.8 #260

RAD17.1 #210

Offensive rebound rate

FUR30.5 #180

RAD29.8 #207

Assists per game

FUR14.9 #91

RAD12.0 #284

Defense

Points allowed

FUR72.5 #116

RAD80.8 #330

Points allowed per possession

FUR1.08 #163

RAD1.10 #216

Opponent effective FG%

FUR50.2 #112

RAD53.0 #271

Opponent 3-point %

FUR32.3 #75

RAD35.5 #279

Turnovers forced

FUR13.7 #342

RAD18.5 #72

Defensive rebound rate

FUR71.8 #72

RAD67.8 #267

Steals per game

FUR4.4 #357

RAD7.5 #79

Blocks per game

FUR3.3 #183

RAD3.4 #158

FUR		RAD
Scoring
74.9 #164	Points per game	79.9 #70
1.11 #114	Points per possession	1.09 #168
67.2 #273	Pace (possessions)	73.6 #13
Shooting
54.8 #43	Effective FG%	51.4 #181
33.4 #204	3-point %	33.5 #199
46.5 #40	3-point attempt rate	45.4 #59
32.7 #246	Free throw rate	42.4 #25
Possessions
17.8 #260	Turnover rate	17.1 #210
30.5 #180	Offensive rebound rate	29.8 #207
14.9 #91	Assists per game	12.0 #284
Defense
72.5 #116	Points allowed	80.8 #330
1.08 #163	Points allowed per possession	1.10 #216
50.2 #112	Opponent effective FG%	53.0 #271
32.3 #75	Opponent 3-point %	35.5 #279
13.7 #342	Turnovers forced	18.5 #72
71.8 #72	Defensive rebound rate	67.8 #267
4.4 #357	Steals per game	7.5 #79
3.3 #183	Blocks per game	3.4 #158

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.

Furman

19-13 in 2025-26 overall · 13-8 in conference · Southern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs UConn71–82
Wvs ETSU76–61
Wvs UNC Greensboro81–75
Wvs Samford86–81
L@ W Carolina67–86

A week or more of rest.

Radford

13-16 in 2025-26 overall · 9-8 in conference · Big South Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Presbyterian85–91
L@ Longwood74–90
Wvs SC Upstate71–59
L@ UNC Asheville73–74
Wvs Gardner-Webb82–70

A week or more of rest.

Furman Paladins at Radford Highlanders

What could decide it: FUR has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Furman

Radford

Furman has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Furman

Radford