Koessler Athletic Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MERC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MERC 70–70 · win probability MERC 51%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.1
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: UALB has more of the edges
UALB 3, MERC 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UALB 18.5%, MERC 14.3%. Forced: UALB 15.8%, MERC 18.6%
Three-pointers
UALB hits 32.6% and allows 36.0%; MERC hits 32.1% and allows 32.3%. Threes are 37.6% and 31.1% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
UALB has played the 260th-hardest schedule, MERC the 356th. A record against a soft schedule means less
MERC offense vs UALB defense
Offense 346th of 366 against a defense 259th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: UALB 24.9, MERC 25.6. Allowed: UALB 35.7, MERC 42.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UALB 32.7%, MERC 26.4%. Defensive: UALB 67.6%, MERC 70.1%
Even
UALB offense vs MERC defense
Offense 313th of 366 against a defense 272nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: UALB 51.4 and allows 53.2; MERC 49.5 and allows 50.1
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UALB 38%, MERC 26%. Transfers in: UALB 3, MERC 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: UALB plays 65.6 a game (324th fastest), MERC 65.6 (327th). 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 | — | MERC -0.2 | — |
| Total | — | 140.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | UALB 70 · MERC 70.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UALB -0.0 | — |
| 1H total | 65.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | UALB 32.8 · MERC 32.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UAlbany
29 games played
Straight up
8-21
28% wins
Against the spread
11-18
38% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg +0.2 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 53-80 | +24.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 62-83 | +9.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 61-80 | +15.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 63-73 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 67-69 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 68-88 | +10.5 | L −9.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 65-93 | +13.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 10 | vs | L 82-93 | +17.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 79-105 | +18.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 71-55 | +10.5 | W +26.5 | 146.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 75-83 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | U 158 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 67-96 | +19.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 71-83 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 71-46 | -3.5 | W +21.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 69-53 | -8.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 75-68 | +5.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 49-52 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 131.5 | U 101 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 72-80 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 137.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 68-77 | -5.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 65-68 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 65-63 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 133.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 79-89 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 143.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 77-74 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 81-63 | +3.5 | W +21.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 62-66 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 59-70 | -4.5 | L −15.5 | 130.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 84-61 | -3.5 | W +19.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 56-69 | +9.5 | L −3.5 | 136.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-81 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MARQ
L 53-80
−2.5
8
@
MASS
L 62-83
−11.5
14
@
URI
L 61-80
−3.5
21
@
SIE
L 63-73
+0.5
28
vs
COLG
L 67-69
+5.5
29
vs
FOR
L 68-88
−9.5
6
@
COLU
L 65-93
−14.5
10
vs
YALE
L 82-93
+6.5
13
@
FAU
L 79-105
−7.5
17
@
STBK
W 71-55
+26.5
21
vs
COR
L 75-83
−1.5
30
@
SC
L 67-96
−9.5
3
@
UML
L 71-83
−9.5
10
vs
BRY
W 71-46
+21.5
15
vs
BING
W 69-53
+7.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-68
+12.5
22
@
ME
L 49-52
−5.5
24
@
UNH
L 72-80
−5.5
29
vs
NJIT
L 68-77
−14.5
31
vs
UMBC
L 65-68
−1.5
5
@
BRY
W 65-63
+3.5
7
vs
UML
L 79-89
−14.5
14
@
BING
W 77-74
−1.5
19
@
NJIT
W 81-63
+21.5
21
@
UMBC
L 62-66
+3.5
26
vs
ME
L 59-70
−15.5
28
vs
UNH
W 84-61
+19.5
3
@
UVM
L 56-69
−3.5
7
@
UML
L 76-81
−2.5
covered 11didn’t cover 18avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MARQ
L 53-80
−16.5
8
@
MASS
L 62-83
−10.5
14
@
URI
L 61-80
−9.5
21
@
SIE
L 63-73
−4.5
28
vs
COLG
L 67-69
−5.5
29
vs
FOR
L 68-88
+12.5
6
@
COLU
L 65-93
+13.5
10
vs
YALE
L 82-93
+29.5
13
@
FAU
L 79-105
+36.5
17
@
STBK
W 71-55
−20.5
21
vs
COR
L 75-83
−9.5
30
@
SC
L 67-96
+14.5
3
@
UML
L 71-83
+3.5
10
vs
BRY
W 71-46
−19.5
15
vs
BING
W 69-53
−16.5
19
vs
UVM
W 75-68
+3.5
22
@
ME
L 49-52
−30.5
24
@
UNH
L 72-80
+14.5
29
vs
NJIT
L 68-77
+5.5
31
vs
UMBC
L 65-68
−8.5
5
@
BRY
W 65-63
−5.5
7
vs
UML
L 79-89
+24.5
14
@
BING
W 77-74
+14.5
19
@
NJIT
W 81-63
+1.5
21
@
UMBC
L 62-66
−16.5
26
vs
ME
L 59-70
−1.5
28
vs
UNH
W 84-61
+6.5
3
@
UVM
L 56-69
−11.5
7
@
UML
L 76-81
+10.5
over 14under 15avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Mercyhurst
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
21-10
68% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg +1.3 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 47-70 | +26.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 6 | @ | W 73-65 | +21.5 | W +29.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 55-58 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 86-72 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 71-76 | +15.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 60-69 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 38-70 | +21.5 | L −10.5 | 127.5 | U 108 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 71-79 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 47-80 | +11.5 | L −21.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 62-76 | +24.5 | W +10.5 | 131.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-61 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 132.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 67-74 | -5.5 | L −12.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 74-60 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 58-60 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 70-69 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 132.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 57-62 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 128.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 79-61 | -1.5 | W +16.5 | 132.5 | O 140 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 61-57 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 122.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 25 | vs | W 61-59 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 70-51 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 122.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-78 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 129.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 98-89 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | O 187 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 52-55 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 94-79 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 80-83 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 133.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 91-83 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 78-80 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 70-61 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 56-51 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 107 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 70-79 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
NU
L 47-70
+3.5
6
@
LUC
W 73-65
+29.5
12
@
CAN
L 55-58
−4.5
15
vs
MORG
W 86-72
+7.5
20
@
M-OH
L 71-76
+10.5
23
@
MRSH
L 60-69
+2.5
30
@
WVU
L 38-70
−10.5
13
@
DAV
L 47-80
−21.5
17
@
SYR
L 62-76
+10.5
20
vs
BING
W 82-61
+13.5
2
vs
FDU
L 67-74
−12.5
4
vs
LEM
W 74-60
+11.5
8
@
LIU
L 58-60
+6.5
10
@
WAG
W 70-69
+2.5
17
vs
STO
L 57-62
−9.5
19
vs
CCSU
W 79-61
+16.5
23
@
NHVN
W 61-57
+2.5
25
vs
CHST
W 61-59
−7.5
29
vs
NHVN
W 70-51
+13.5
31
@
CHST
L 74-78
−6.5
5
vs
SFPA
W 98-89
+2.5
7
@
FDU
L 52-55
−0.5
12
@
LEM
L 57-58
+1.5
14
@
SFPA
W 94-79
+12.5
19
vs
WAG
L 80-83
−6.5
21
vs
LIU
W 91-83
+11.5
26
@
CCSU
L 78-80
+1.5
28
@
STO
W 75-72
+1.5
4
vs
FDU
W 70-61
+5.5
7
vs
STO
W 56-51
+0.5
10
@
LIU
L 70-79
−4.5
covered 21didn’t cover 10avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
NU
L 47-70
−23.5
6
@
LUC
W 73-65
−6.5
12
@
CAN
L 55-58
−22.5
15
vs
MORG
W 86-72
+11.5
20
@
M-OH
L 71-76
+7.5
23
@
MRSH
L 60-69
−18.5
30
@
WVU
L 38-70
−19.5
13
@
DAV
L 47-80
−5.5
17
@
SYR
L 62-76
+6.5
20
vs
BING
W 82-61
+10.5
2
vs
FDU
L 67-74
+7.5
4
vs
LEM
W 74-60
−7.5
8
@
LIU
L 58-60
−21.5
10
@
WAG
W 70-69
+6.5
17
vs
STO
L 57-62
−9.5
19
vs
CCSU
W 79-61
+7.5
23
@
NHVN
W 61-57
−4.5
25
vs
CHST
W 61-59
−11.5
29
vs
NHVN
W 70-51
−1.5
31
@
CHST
L 74-78
+22.5
5
vs
SFPA
W 98-89
+49.5
7
@
FDU
L 52-55
−24.5
12
@
LEM
L 57-58
−23.5
14
@
SFPA
W 94-79
+34.5
19
vs
WAG
L 80-83
+29.5
21
vs
LIU
W 91-83
+33.5
26
@
CCSU
L 78-80
+16.5
28
@
STO
W 75-72
+9.5
4
vs
FDU
W 70-61
−0.5
7
vs
STO
W 56-51
−27.5
10
@
LIU
L 70-79
+14.5
over 15under 16avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Mercyhurst has the better starters
Position by position: UAlbany 1, Mercyhurst 2, even 2
UAlbanyBetterMercyhurst
G A. Fall9.6 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 27
→MERCSmall
G J. Lemelman14.4 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 61
G Z. Matulu9.7 pts · 5.8 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 48
←UALBBig
G D. Kelly TR5 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 6
G P. Santos TR6.9 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 51
=No call
G M. Jackson TR0.5 pts · 2 reb · 0.7 ast
Not ranked
G M. Rose2.8 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 1
→MERCBig
F T. Rainwater TR9.7 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 48
F B. Michaels TR1.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 3
=Even
F C. Johnson2.8 pts · 2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 2
UAlbanyBetterMercyhurst
UALB offense313th of 366 · -10.0
=Even
MERC defense272nd of 366 · -6.9
UALB defense259th of 366 · -6.7
←UALBSmall
MERC offense346th of 366 · -11.9
Backcourt-6.0 · 4 players
→MERCSmall
Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.8 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
Bench-0.2 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.9 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestUALB betterMERC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Fall31 minZ. Matulu30 minP. Santos19 min · TRM. Rose15 minP. KountaNewO. EngenNew
Forwards
B. Michaels13 min · TRE. BussingNewP. MiovicNewU. GrahamNew
Centers
K. Webb3 min · TRC. SmithNew
Guards
J. Lemelman31 minD. Kelly21 min · TRM. Jackson7 min · TRO. Faran4 minB. Conner3 minM. Maxwell-GrimesNew
Forwards
T. Rainwater25 min · TRC. Johnson12 minC. Leman2 minD. AgbaosiNewS. KirkerNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.7 #302 | Points per game | 68.3 #310 |
| 1.05 #259 | Points per possession | 1.04 #260 |
| 65.6 #324 | Pace (possessions) | 65.6 #327 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #182 | Effective FG% | 49.5 #269 |
| 32.6 #248 | 3-point % | 32.1 #276 |
| 37.6 #220 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.1 #338 |
| 24.9 #364 | Free throw rate | 25.6 #361 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.5 #299 | Turnover rate | 14.3 #35 |
| 32.7 #99 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.4 #312 |
| 12.8 #232 | Assists per game | 14.0 #148 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.5 #176 | Points allowed | 68.7 #43 |
| 1.14 #302 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #76 |
| 53.2 #275 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.1 #107 |
| 36.0 #302 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.3 #80 |
| 15.8 #228 | Turnovers forced | 18.6 #68 |
| 67.6 #277 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.1 #153 |
| 6.7 #153 | Steals per game | 7.0 #130 |
| 3.9 #82 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #94 |
UAlbany
8-21 in 2025-26 overall · 7-10 in conference · America East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ UMass Lowell76–81
- L@ Vermont56–69
- Wvs New Hampshire84–61
- Lvs Maine59–70
- L@ UMBC62–66
A week or more of rest.
Mercyhurst
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Long Island70–79
- Wvs Stonehill56–51
- Wvs FDU70–61
- W@ Stonehill75–72
- L@ C Connecticut78–80
A week or more of rest.