Kennedy Family Athletic Complex · at UMass Lowell
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UML | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SPU 72–71 · win probability SPU 54%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.1
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: SPU has more of the edges
SPU 4, UML 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SPU 17.7%, UML 18.0%. Forced: SPU 20.0%, UML 14.2%
Free throws
Free throw rate: SPU 35.5, UML 34.9. Allowed: SPU 46.4, UML 28.3
UML offense vs SPU defense
Offense 286th of 366 against a defense 182nd, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: SPU 46.4 and allows 48.1; UML 49.8 and allows 53.5
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SPU 37.0%, UML 32.7%. Defensive: SPU 65.3%, UML 70.7%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: SPU plays 66.1 a game (308th fastest), UML 68.9 (189th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
SPU hits 31.0% and allows 32.1%; UML hits 32.2% and allows 34.6%. Threes are 38.8% and 31.3% of their shots
Home court
UML at home. This season: UML 0-0 at home, SPU 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SPU 32%, UML 16%. Transfers in: SPU 5, UML 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
SPU has played the 335th-hardest schedule, UML the 312th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
SPU offense vs UML defense
Offense 336th of 366 against a defense 318th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | SPU -1.1 | — |
| Total | — | 143.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | SPU 72.1 · UML 71 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SPU -0.8 | — |
| 1H total | 67.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | SPU 33.9 · UML 33.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
SPU 1–2 UMLUML leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · SPU 1-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2025-26 | UML 66 @ SPU 68 | SPU -8.5 | UML W |
| Nov 8, 2024-25 | SPU 74 @ UML 81 | UML -10.5 | SPU W |
| Nov 20, 2023-24 | UML 69 @ SPU 61 | SPU +5.5 | UML W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Saint Peter's
28 games played
Straight up
16-12
57% wins
Against the spread
17-11
61% covers · avg +0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
10-18
36% overs · avg −0.3 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 50-77 | +13.5 | L −13.5 | 129.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 93-83 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 137.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 61-78 | +20.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 70-81 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 68-66 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 61-87 | -3.5 | L −29.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 69-57 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 129.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 71-43 | -5.5 | W +22.5 | 131.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 68-76 | +20.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 70-66 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 69-59 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 133.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 9 | @ | L 65-70 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 76-63 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 133.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 74-70 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 69-58 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 77-63 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 59-67 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 66-58 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 78-81 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 80-75 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 70-65 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 13 | @ | L 71-78 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-74 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 64-72 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 63-72 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 75-65 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 63-56 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 132.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 55-74 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
HALL
L 50-77
−13.5
8
vs
FDU
W 93-83
+3.5
12
@
VCU
L 61-78
+3.5
18
@
DEL
L 70-81
−6.5
22
vs
UML
W 68-66
−6.5
29
vs
DART
L 61-87
−29.5
5
vs
CAN
W 69-57
+2.5
7
vs
NIA
W 71-43
+22.5
13
@
GTWN
L 68-76
+12.5
29
@
FAIR
W 70-66
+6.5
2
vs
MRST
W 69-59
+12.5
9
@
MSM
L 65-70
−6.5
11
vs
MRMK
W 76-63
+11.5
14
@
QUIN
W 74-70
+10.5
17
vs
RID
W 69-58
+0.5
19
vs
IONA
W 77-63
+10.5
24
@
MRMK
L 59-67
−5.5
30
vs
MSM
W 66-58
+2.5
1
@
RID
L 78-81
−10.5
5
@
MAN
W 80-75
+0.5
7
vs
SIE
W 70-65
+6.5
13
@
SHU
L 71-78
−8.5
15
vs
FAIR
W 83-74
+5.5
20
@
IONA
L 64-72
−6.5
22
@
SIE
L 63-72
−3.5
27
vs
MAN
W 75-65
+2.5
1
@
MRST
W 63-56
+11.5
6
vs
FAIR
L 55-74
−20.5
covered 17didn’t cover 11avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
HALL
L 50-77
−2.5
8
vs
FDU
W 93-83
+38.5
12
@
VCU
L 61-78
−8.5
18
@
DEL
L 70-81
+13.5
22
vs
UML
W 68-66
−13.5
29
vs
DART
L 61-87
+3.5
5
vs
CAN
W 69-57
−3.5
7
vs
NIA
W 71-43
−17.5
13
@
GTWN
L 68-76
+3.5
29
@
FAIR
W 70-66
−4.5
2
vs
MRST
W 69-59
−5.5
9
@
MSM
L 65-70
−6.5
11
vs
MRMK
W 76-63
+5.5
14
@
QUIN
W 74-70
+3.5
17
vs
RID
W 69-58
−7.5
19
vs
IONA
W 77-63
−1.5
24
@
MRMK
L 59-67
−8.5
30
vs
MSM
W 66-58
−14.5
1
@
RID
L 78-81
+22.5
5
@
MAN
W 80-75
+10.5
7
vs
SIE
W 70-65
−0.5
13
@
SHU
L 71-78
+1.5
15
vs
FAIR
W 83-74
+15.5
20
@
IONA
L 64-72
−4.5
22
@
SIE
L 63-72
−0.5
27
vs
MAN
W 75-65
−5.5
1
@
MRST
W 63-56
−13.5
6
vs
FAIR
L 55-74
−8.5
over 10under 18avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
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 47-110 | +36.5 | L −26.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 10 | vs | L 67-73 | -10.5 | L −16.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 72-86 | +13.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 75-109 | +30.5 | L −3.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 77-87 | +21.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 66-68 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 75-64 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 60-80 | +11.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 71-75 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 87-82 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 76-88 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 62-90 | +33.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 83-71 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 77-63 | +2.5 | W +16.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 73-68 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 64-73 | -8.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 68-77 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 56-79 | +2.5 | L −20.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-66 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 91-77 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 136.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 56-81 | +1.5 | L −23.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 89-79 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 88-69 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 78-56 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 92-79 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 64-66 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 60-84 | +2.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 67-56 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 81-76 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 10 | @ | L 69-91 | +7.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
CONN
L 47-110
−26.5
10
vs
NHVN
L 67-73
−16.5
13
@
COLU
L 72-86
−0.5
16
@
WAKE
L 75-109
−3.5
19
@
BRAD
L 77-87
+11.5
22
@
SPU
L 66-68
+6.5
26
@
STO
W 75-64
+13.5
6
@
MASS
L 60-80
−8.5
13
@
QUIN
L 71-75
+8.5
16
vs
SHU
W 87-82
+7.5
21
@
BU
L 76-88
−6.5
29
@
IOWA
L 62-90
+5.5
3
vs
UALB
W 83-71
+9.5
8
@
BRY
W 77-63
+16.5
10
@
BING
W 73-68
−1.5
15
vs
NJIT
L 64-73
−17.5
22
vs
UVM
L 68-77
−4.5
24
@
UMBC
L 56-79
−20.5
29
@
UNH
L 61-66
−1.5
31
vs
ME
W 91-77
+9.5
5
@
NJIT
L 56-81
−23.5
7
@
UALB
W 89-79
+14.5
12
vs
BRY
W 88-69
+14.5
19
vs
UNH
W 78-56
+18.5
21
vs
BING
W 92-79
+3.5
26
@
UVM
L 64-66
+7.5
28
vs
UMBC
L 60-84
−21.5
3
@
ME
W 67-56
+9.5
7
vs
UALB
W 81-76
+2.5
10
@
UMBC
L 69-91
−14.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
CONN
L 47-110
+5.5
10
vs
NHVN
L 67-73
−2.5
13
@
COLU
L 72-86
+1.5
16
@
WAKE
L 75-109
+18.5
19
@
BRAD
L 77-87
+14.5
22
@
SPU
L 66-68
−13.5
26
@
STO
W 75-64
−9.5
6
@
MASS
L 60-80
−15.5
13
@
QUIN
L 71-75
−7.5
16
vs
SHU
W 87-82
+17.5
21
@
BU
L 76-88
+18.5
29
@
IOWA
L 62-90
+6.5
3
vs
UALB
W 83-71
+3.5
8
@
BRY
W 77-63
−3.5
10
@
BING
W 73-68
−5.5
15
vs
NJIT
L 64-73
−8.5
22
vs
UVM
L 68-77
−0.5
24
@
UMBC
L 56-79
−16.5
29
@
UNH
L 61-66
−19.5
31
vs
ME
W 91-77
+31.5
5
@
NJIT
L 56-81
−12.5
7
@
UALB
W 89-79
+24.5
12
vs
BRY
W 88-69
+15.5
19
vs
UNH
W 78-56
−17.5
21
vs
BING
W 92-79
+24.5
26
@
UVM
L 64-66
−16.5
28
vs
UMBC
L 60-84
−6.5
3
@
ME
W 67-56
−16.5
7
vs
UALB
W 81-76
+10.5
10
@
UMBC
L 69-91
+12.5
over 14under 16avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Saint Peter's has the better starters
Position by position: Saint Peter's 1, UMass Lowell 0, even 4
Saint Peter'sBetterUMass Lowell
G B. Wilson TR9.7 pts · 4.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 29
←SPUSmall
G C. Jones TR4.3 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 6
G B. Eaton11.2 pts · 3 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 56
=Even
G J. Newton TR7.1 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 55
G E. Perkins4 pts · 3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 9
=No call
G I. Walter1.6 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
G S. Simpson3.1 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F V. Okojie4.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 11
F T. Patterson TR1.4 pts · 1.6 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Harris TR5.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 59
Saint Peter'sBetterUMass Lowell
SPU offense336th of 366 · -11.0
=Even
UML defense318th of 366 · -8.2
SPU defense182nd of 366 · -4.1
←SPUSmall
UML offense286th of 366 · -8.9
Backcourt-6.2 · 4 players
→UMLSmall
Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.6 · 1 player
←SPUSmall
Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players
Bench-1.1 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.7 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestSPU betterUML betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Wilson28 min · TRB. Eaton28 minE. Perkins26 minS. Simpson11 minP. Glassnor6 min · TRK. WalkerNew
Forwards
T. Patterson8 min · TRB. Tshilobo2 min · TRA. WatsonNewX. ThomasNewJ. MathewsNew
Centers
J. Noudjihidi7 min · TR
Guards
C. Jones18 min · TRJ. Newton17 min · TRI. Walter8 minK. GilesNewJ. CannadyNewM. EllisNew
Forwards
V. Okojie18 minJ. Harris11 min · TRJ. Roberson7 minD. HandNewE. DialloNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 69.2 #296 | Points per game | 71.7 #253 |
| 1.05 #252 | Points per possession | 1.04 #272 |
| 66.1 #308 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #189 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.4 #347 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #247 |
| 31.0 #321 | 3-point % | 32.2 #269 |
| 38.8 #197 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.3 #336 |
| 35.5 #163 | Free throw rate | 34.9 #183 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.7 #251 | Turnover rate | 18.0 #269 |
| 37.0 #16 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.7 #98 |
| 12.5 #253 | Assists per game | 11.9 #294 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.1 #48 | Points allowed | 77.4 #249 |
| 1.04 #78 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #277 |
| 48.1 #39 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.5 #284 |
| 32.1 #68 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.6 #226 |
| 20.0 #23 | Turnovers forced | 14.2 #329 |
| 65.3 #330 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.7 #126 |
| 8.8 #13 | Steals per game | 5.1 #326 |
| 3.9 #92 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #222 |
Saint Peter's
16-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-7 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Fairfield55–74
- W@ Marist63–56
- Wvs Manhattan75–65
- L@ Siena63–72
- L@ Iona64–72
A week or more of rest.
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.