M&T Bank Arena · at Quinnipiac
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | QUIN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 QUIN 74–64 · win probability QUIN 80%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 138.3
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: QUIN has more of the edges
ME 2, QUIN 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ME 19.7%, QUIN 34.1%. Defensive: ME 65.7%, QUIN 68.0%
ME offense vs QUIN defense
Offense 357th of 366 against a defense 232nd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: ME plays 64.9 a game (348th fastest), QUIN 70.3 (100th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ME 19.2%, QUIN 15.8%. Forced: ME 19.3%, QUIN 17.4%
QUIN offense vs ME defense
Offense 243rd of 366 against a defense 191st, on the model’s ratings
Home court
QUIN at home. This season: QUIN 0-0 at home, ME 0-0 away
Three-pointers
ME hits 31.2% and allows 29.4%; QUIN hits 34.0% and allows 34.9%. Threes are 37.0% and 33.7% of their shots
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: ME 38.4, QUIN 33.8. Allowed: ME 33.9, QUIN 30.6
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: ME 49.6 and allows 50.6; QUIN 48.1 and allows 48.9
Context
Schedule so far
ME has played the 319th-hardest schedule, QUIN the 324th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ME 31%, QUIN 31%. Transfers in: ME 4, QUIN 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | QUIN -9.6 | — |
| Total | — | 138.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | ME 64.3 · QUIN 73.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | QUIN -5.6 | — |
| 1H total | 64.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | ME 29.6 · QUIN 35.2 | — |
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% | |
| 5-5 50% | 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
ME 0–3 QUINQUIN leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · QUIN has won the last 3 meetings · ME 1-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2025-26 | QUIN 70 @ ME 64 | ME +3.5 | QUIN W |
| Nov 15, 2024-25 | ME 55 @ QUIN 58 | QUIN -5.5 | ME W |
| Dec 11, 2021-22 | ME 47 @ QUIN 73 | QUIN -13.5 | QUIN W |
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
Quinnipiac
31 games played
Straight up
18-13
58% wins
Against the spread
12-19
39% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg −0.9 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 74-108 | +26.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 71-49 | -9.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 60-97 | +6.5 | L −30.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 70-64 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 83-75 | +12.5 | W +20.5 | 140.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 91-102 | +13.5 | W +2.5 | 162.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-62 | -15.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 5 | @ | W 89-68 | +2.5 | W +23.5 | 163.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 72-58 | -14.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 75-71 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 85-75 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 66-74 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 64-58 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 79-80 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 80-69 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 70-60 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 70-74 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 71-83 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 141.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 98-92 | -13.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 77-62 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 64-71 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 91-98 | -8.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 72-65 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 75-60 | -15.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 56-55 | -12.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 74-62 | +3.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 49-56 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 79-85 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 76-78 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 67-63 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 75-77 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SJU
L 74-108
−7.5
6
vs
CCSU
W 71-49
+12.5
11
vs
YALE
L 60-97
−30.5
16
@
ME
W 70-64
+2.5
23
@
PITT
W 83-75
+20.5
25
@
UCF
L 91-102
+2.5
30
vs
STO
W 76-62
−1.5
5
@
IONA
W 89-68
+23.5
7
vs
RID
W 72-58
−0.5
13
vs
UML
W 75-71
−8.5
17
@
MONM
W 85-75
+11.5
21
@
HOF
L 66-74
−0.5
29
vs
MRST
W 64-58
+3.5
2
@
MAN
L 79-80
−8.5
4
vs
MSM
W 80-69
+3.5
11
@
SHU
W 70-60
+4.5
14
vs
SPU
L 70-74
−10.5
17
@
MRMK
L 71-83
−13.5
19
vs
MAN
W 98-92
−7.5
22
@
MSM
W 77-62
+10.5
24
@
MRST
L 64-71
−3.5
30
vs
SHU
L 91-98
−15.5
1
@
FAIR
W 72-65
+4.5
5
vs
CAN
W 75-60
−0.5
7
vs
NIA
W 56-55
−11.5
13
@
SIE
W 74-62
+15.5
15
vs
MRMK
L 49-56
−10.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 79-85
−12.5
27
@
NIA
L 76-78
−10.5
1
@
CAN
W 67-63
−3.5
7
vs
MRST
L 75-77
−3.5
covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SJU
L 74-108
+25.5
6
vs
CCSU
W 71-49
−30.5
11
vs
YALE
L 60-97
+0.5
16
@
ME
W 70-64
−3.5
23
@
PITT
W 83-75
+17.5
25
@
UCF
L 91-102
+30.5
30
vs
STO
W 76-62
−10.5
5
@
IONA
W 89-68
−6.5
7
vs
RID
W 72-58
−17.5
13
vs
UML
W 75-71
−7.5
17
@
MONM
W 85-75
+14.5
21
@
HOF
L 66-74
−7.5
29
vs
MRST
W 64-58
−23.5
2
@
MAN
L 79-80
−0.5
4
vs
MSM
W 80-69
−1.5
11
@
SHU
W 70-60
−22.5
14
vs
SPU
L 70-74
+3.5
17
@
MRMK
L 71-83
+12.5
19
vs
MAN
W 98-92
+36.5
22
@
MSM
W 77-62
−9.5
24
@
MRST
L 64-71
−4.5
30
vs
SHU
L 91-98
+32.5
1
@
FAIR
W 72-65
−17.5
5
vs
CAN
W 75-60
−6.5
7
vs
NIA
W 56-55
−26.5
13
@
SIE
W 74-62
−8.5
15
vs
MRMK
L 49-56
−36.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 79-85
+13.5
27
@
NIA
L 76-78
+17.5
1
@
CAN
W 67-63
−8.5
7
vs
MRST
L 75-77
+16.5
over 12under 19avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Quinnipiac has the better starters
Position by position: Maine 2, Quinnipiac 3, even 0
MaineBetterQuinnipiac
G D. Williams TR8 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 23
←MESmall
G N. Guerengomba2.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 4
G C. Crawford4.2 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 14
→QUINSmall
G T. Turnage3.4 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 36
G V. Garcia Adsten TR3.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 11
→QUINBig
F K. McKnight10.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 79
F A. Flagg6.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 33
←MESmall
F H. Pierre-Louis TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 1
F Y. Bamba2.8 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 11
→QUINSmall
F N. Hart TR2.2 pts · 3.1 reb · 0 ast
Score 27
MaineBetterQuinnipiac
ME offense357th of 366 · -13.7
→QUINSmall
QUIN defense232nd of 366 · -6.2
ME defense191st of 366 · -4.5
=Even
QUIN offense243rd of 366 · -7.3
Backcourt-6.4 · 3 players
→QUINBig
Backcourt-2.7 · 2 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.8 · 3 players
Bench-0.7 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-0.6 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestME betterQUIN 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
N. Guerengomba14 minT. Turnage12 minM. ParrottaNewT. Cunningham-PembertonNewL. SekasiNewM. FieldsNew
Forwards
K. McKnight25 minH. Pierre-Louis15 min · TRN. Hart11 min · TRB. Ritvo7 minA. Akinniyi2 minC. Skenderi2 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 61.2 #364 | Points per game | 74.2 #190 |
| 0.95 #356 | Points per possession | 1.05 #246 |
| 64.9 #348 | Pace (possessions) | 70.3 #100 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.6 #263 | Effective FG% | 48.1 #310 |
| 31.2 #314 | 3-point % | 34.0 #171 |
| 37.0 #231 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.7 #304 |
| 38.4 #93 | Free throw rate | 33.8 #217 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.2 #328 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #125 |
| 19.7 #364 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #65 |
| 11.8 #300 | Assists per game | 13.0 #211 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.5 #39 | Points allowed | 72.6 #121 |
| 1.05 #90 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #68 |
| 50.6 #136 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #65 |
| 29.4 #4 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.9 #242 |
| 19.3 #38 | Turnovers forced | 17.4 #122 |
| 65.7 #322 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #253 |
| 7.7 #57 | Steals per game | 7.8 #55 |
| 3.2 #194 | Blocks per game | 4.5 #37 |
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.
Quinnipiac
18-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Marist75–77
- W@ Canisius67–63
- L@ Niagara76–78
- Lvs Fairfield79–85
- Lvs Merrimack49–56
A week or more of rest.