William H. Pitt Center · at Sacred Heart
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SHU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SHU 77–74 · win probability SHU 64%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.9
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
UML 3, SHU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UML 32.7%, SHU 28.6%. Defensive: UML 70.7%, SHU 69.1%
Three-pointers
UML hits 32.2% and allows 34.6%; SHU hits 35.7% and allows 34.9%. Threes are 31.3% and 50.7% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: UML 49.8 and allows 53.5; SHU 52.0 and allows 53.5
Home court
SHU at home. This season: SHU 0-0 at home, UML 0-0 away
UML offense vs SHU defense
Offense 286th of 366 against a defense 334th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: UML 34.9, SHU 31.0. Allowed: UML 28.3, SHU 27.0
Even
SHU offense vs UML defense
Offense 281st of 366 against a defense 318th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UML has played the 312th-hardest schedule, SHU the 340th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UML 18.0%, SHU 17.6%. Forced: UML 14.2%, SHU 14.6%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UML plays 68.9 a game (189th fastest), SHU 68.6 (201st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UML 16%, SHU 18%. Transfers in: UML 3, SHU 3. 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 | — | SHU -4.0 | — |
| Total | — | 150.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | UML 73.5 · SHU 77.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SHU -2.2 | — |
| 1H total | 70.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | UML 34.2 · SHU 36.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UML 4–0 SHUUML leads · 4 games since 2021-22 · UML has won the last 4 meetings · UML 3-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2025-26 | SHU 82 @ UML 87 | UML +2.5 | UML W |
| Dec 3, 2022-23 | UML 70 @ SHU 59 | SHU +6.5 | UML W |
| Nov 16, 2022-23 | SHU 81 @ UML 90 | UML -12.5 | SHU W |
| Dec 19, 2021-22 | SHU 62 @ UML 70 | UML -5.5 | UML W |
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
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
Sacred Heart
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% overs · avg +1.5 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 80-92 | +12.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 60-94 | +19.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 64-81 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 165.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 79-66 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 106-108 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 214 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 59-90 | +14.5 | L −16.5 | 160.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 87-80 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 69-81 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 163.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 65-49 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 82-87 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 85-63 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 155.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 47-72 | +13.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 72-80 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 61-64 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 78-82 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 72-76 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 60-70 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 86-80 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 105-85 | -4.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 69-66 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 71-70 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 98-91 | +8.5 | W +15.5 | 156.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 58-75 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 87-92 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-80 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 161.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 78-71 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 86-75 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 68-78 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 63-65 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 77-69 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 91-80 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 48-70 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | U 118 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
DUQ
L 80-92
+0.5
11
@
VILL
L 60-94
−14.5
15
@
QUC
L 64-81
−11.5
21
vs
HC
W 79-66
+5.5
24
@
CCSU
L 106-108
+1.5
29
@
PSU
L 59-90
−16.5
3
@
MSM
W 87-80
+5.5
7
vs
IONA
L 69-81
−13.5
13
@
NJIT
W 65-49
+9.5
16
@
UML
L 82-87
−7.5
19
vs
DART
W 85-63
+23.5
22
@
TOW
L 47-72
−11.5
29
vs
MRMK
L 72-80
−9.5
2
@
NIA
L 61-64
−4.5
4
@
CAN
L 78-82
−9.5
9
vs
MRST
L 72-76
+1.5
11
vs
QUIN
L 60-70
−4.5
14
@
SIE
W 86-80
+14.5
19
@
RID
W 105-85
+15.5
22
vs
CAN
W 69-66
−7.5
24
vs
NIA
W 71-70
−8.5
30
@
QUIN
W 98-91
+15.5
1
@
MRMK
L 58-75
−11.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 87-92
−6.5
7
@
MAN
L 68-80
−13.5
13
vs
SPU
W 78-71
+8.5
15
vs
RID
W 86-75
+1.5
20
@
FAIR
L 68-78
−5.5
22
@
MRST
L 63-65
+5.5
27
vs
MSM
W 77-69
+5.5
5
vs
IONA
W 91-80
+14.5
6
vs
MRMK
L 48-70
−15.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
DUQ
L 80-92
+14.5
11
@
VILL
L 60-94
−6.5
15
@
QUC
L 64-81
−20.5
21
vs
HC
W 79-66
−7.5
24
@
CCSU
L 106-108
+70.5
29
@
PSU
L 59-90
−11.5
3
@
MSM
W 87-80
+14.5
7
vs
IONA
L 69-81
−13.5
13
@
NJIT
W 65-49
−37.5
16
@
UML
L 82-87
+17.5
19
vs
DART
W 85-63
−7.5
22
@
TOW
L 47-72
−26.5
29
vs
MRMK
L 72-80
+7.5
2
@
NIA
L 61-64
−14.5
4
@
CAN
L 78-82
+18.5
9
vs
MRST
L 72-76
+4.5
11
vs
QUIN
L 60-70
−22.5
14
@
SIE
W 86-80
+26.5
19
@
RID
W 105-85
+45.5
22
vs
CAN
W 69-66
−10.5
24
vs
NIA
W 71-70
+1.5
30
@
QUIN
W 98-91
+32.5
1
@
MRMK
L 58-75
−14.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 87-92
+23.5
7
@
MAN
L 68-80
−13.5
13
vs
SPU
W 78-71
+1.5
15
vs
RID
W 86-75
+14.5
20
@
FAIR
L 68-78
−12.5
22
@
MRST
L 63-65
−18.5
27
vs
MSM
W 77-69
−4.5
5
vs
IONA
W 91-80
+21.5
6
vs
MRMK
L 48-70
−25.5
over 15under 17avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UMass Lowell has the better starters
Position by position: UMass Lowell 2, Sacred Heart 1, even 2
UMass LowellBetterSacred Heart
G C. Jones TR4.3 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 6
→SHUBig
G J. Van Buggenhout TR6.4 pts · 2.1 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 42
G J. Newton TR7.1 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 55
←UMLBig
G J. Slaughter5.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 20
G I. Walter1.6 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G S. Reilly TR3.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 47
F V. Okojie4.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 11
=Even
F A. Yadd6 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 5
F J. Harris TR5.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 59
←UMLSmall
F J. Robinson TR2.5 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 26
UMass LowellBetterSacred Heart
UML offense286th of 366 · -8.9
=Even
SHU defense334th of 366 · -8.8
UML defense318th of 366 · -8.2
=Even
SHU offense281st of 366 · -8.7
Backcourt-3.4 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-2.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.7 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestUML betterSHU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Jones18 min · TRJ. Newton17 min · TRI. Walter8 minK. GilesNewJ. CannadyNewM. EllisNew
Forwards
V. Okojie18 minJ. Harris11 min · TRJ. Roberson7 minD. HandNewE. DialloNew
Guards
J. Van Buggenhout21 min · TRJ. Slaughter21 minS. Reilly9 min · TRM. Sheppard1 minG. BarroukNewJ. WallaceNew
Forwards
A. Yadd15 minJ. Robinson10 min · TRK. CurtisNewL. KrygierNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.7 #253 | Points per game | 74.3 #186 |
| 1.04 #272 | Points per possession | 1.08 #180 |
| 68.9 #189 | Pace (possessions) | 68.6 #201 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.8 #247 | Effective FG% | 52.0 #145 |
| 32.2 #269 | 3-point % | 35.7 #73 |
| 31.3 #336 | 3-point attempt rate | 50.7 #12 |
| 34.9 #183 | Free throw rate | 31.0 #281 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.0 #269 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #249 |
| 32.7 #98 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.6 #246 |
| 11.9 #294 | Assists per game | 14.6 #112 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.4 #249 | Points allowed | 77.6 #253 |
| 1.13 #277 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #296 |
| 53.5 #284 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.5 #283 |
| 34.6 #226 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.9 #241 |
| 14.2 #329 | Turnovers forced | 14.6 #320 |
| 70.7 #126 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.1 #199 |
| 5.1 #326 | Steals per game | 5.4 #305 |
| 3.0 #222 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #223 |
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.
Sacred Heart
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-12 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Merrimack48–70
- Wvs Iona91–80
- Wvs Mount St Marys77–69
- L@ Marist63–65
- L@ Fairfield68–78
A week or more of rest.