John J. Lee Amphitheater · at Yale
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | YALE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 YALE 80–69 · win probability YALE 84%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.0
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: YALE has more of the edges
QUIN 0, YALE 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
QUIN has played the 324th-hardest schedule, YALE the 141st. A record against a soft schedule means less
YALE offense vs QUIN defense
Offense 125th of 366 against a defense 232nd, on the model’s ratings
QUIN offense vs YALE defense
Offense 243rd of 366 against a defense 136th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: QUIN plays 70.3 a game (100th fastest), YALE 66.4 (301st). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
QUIN hits 34.0% and allows 34.9%; YALE hits 39.4% and allows 35.0%. Threes are 33.7% and 36.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: QUIN 48.1 and allows 48.9; YALE 55.6 and allows 51.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: QUIN 34.1%, YALE 34.2%. Defensive: QUIN 68.0%, YALE 70.3%
Home court
YALE at home. This season: YALE 0-0 at home, QUIN 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: QUIN 33.8, YALE 35.1. Allowed: QUIN 30.6, YALE 26.8
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: QUIN 31%, YALE 42%. Transfers in: QUIN 2, YALE 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: QUIN 15.8%, YALE 14.0%. Forced: QUIN 17.4%, YALE 16.2%
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 | — | YALE -11.3 | — |
| Total | — | 149.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | QUIN 68.8 · YALE 80.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | YALE -6.6 | — |
| 1H total | 69.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | QUIN 31.5 · YALE 38.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | |
| 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
QUIN 0–3 YALEYALE leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · YALE has won the last 3 meetings · QUIN 1-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2025-26 | YALE 97 @ QUIN 60 | QUIN +6.5 | YALE W |
| Nov 4, 2024-25 | QUIN 62 @ YALE 88 | YALE -7.5 | YALE W |
| Dec 11, 2023-24 | YALE 73 @ QUIN 66 | QUIN +8.5 | QUIN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Yale
29 games played
Straight up
22-7
76% wins
Against the spread
12-17
41% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-14
52% overs · avg +1.2 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 7 | @ | W 97-68 | -5.5 | W +23.5 | 147.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 97-60 | -6.5 | W +30.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 86-79 | -20.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 77-86 | -8.5 | L −17.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 73-67 | -17.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 97-94 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 191 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 77-74 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 80-66 | -12.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 93-82 | -17.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 78-102 | +15.5 | L −8.5 | 171.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 5 | @ | W 70-53 | -8.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 60-76 | -7.5 | L −23.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 102-68 | -9.5 | W +24.5 | 174.5 | U 170 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 91-74 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 77-60 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 157.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 83-68 | -15.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 65-67 | -11.5 | L −13.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 6 | vs | W 81-69 | -15.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 87-81 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 83-70 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 76-75 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 74-70 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 69-72 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 164.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 60-54 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 114 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 78-53 | -14.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 88-76 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 15 | vs | L 84-88 | -9.5 | L −13.5 | 144.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 17 | vs | L 67-68 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | U 135 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
NAVY
W 97-68
+23.5
11
@
QUIN
W 97-60
+30.5
15
vs
STBK
W 86-79
−13.5
18
vs
URI
L 77-86
−17.5
21
vs
GB
W 73-67
−11.5
23
vs
COFC
W 74-63
+4.5
24
vs
AKR
W 97-94
+4.5
30
@
UVM
W 77-74
−3.5
7
vs
UIC
W 80-66
+1.5
10
vs
UALB
W 93-82
−6.5
29
@
ALA
L 78-102
−8.5
5
@
BRWN
W 70-53
+8.5
10
@
PRIN
L 60-76
−23.5
17
vs
COR
W 102-68
+24.5
19
vs
COLU
W 91-74
+7.5
24
@
PENN
W 77-60
+10.5
30
vs
DART
W 83-68
−0.5
31
vs
HARV
L 65-67
−13.5
6
vs
BRWN
W 81-69
−3.5
9
@
HOW
W 87-81
−0.5
13
@
DART
W 83-70
+3.5
14
@
HARV
W 76-75
−3.5
21
vs
PENN
W 74-70
−5.5
27
@
COR
L 69-72
−7.5
28
@
COLU
W 60-54
−0.5
7
vs
PRIN
W 78-53
+10.5
14
vs
COR
W 88-76
+6.5
15
vs
PENN
L 84-88
−13.5
17
vs
UNCW
L 67-68
−5.5
covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
NAVY
W 97-68
+17.5
11
@
QUIN
W 97-60
+0.5
15
vs
STBK
W 86-79
+14.5
18
vs
URI
L 77-86
+9.5
21
vs
GB
W 73-67
−8.5
23
vs
COFC
W 74-63
−11.5
24
vs
AKR
W 97-94
+34.5
30
@
UVM
W 77-74
+3.5
7
vs
UIC
W 80-66
−2.5
10
vs
UALB
W 93-82
+29.5
29
@
ALA
L 78-102
+8.5
5
@
BRWN
W 70-53
−19.5
10
@
PRIN
L 60-76
−6.5
17
vs
COR
W 102-68
−4.5
19
vs
COLU
W 91-74
+14.5
24
@
PENN
W 77-60
−20.5
30
vs
DART
W 83-68
−4.5
31
vs
HARV
L 65-67
−9.5
6
vs
BRWN
W 81-69
+9.5
9
@
HOW
W 87-81
+20.5
13
@
DART
W 83-70
+1.5
14
@
HARV
W 76-75
+12.5
21
vs
PENN
W 74-70
−6.5
27
@
COR
L 69-72
−23.5
28
@
COLU
W 60-54
−33.5
7
vs
PRIN
W 78-53
−6.5
14
vs
COR
W 88-76
+0.5
15
vs
PENN
L 84-88
+27.5
17
vs
UNCW
L 67-68
−13.5
over 15under 14avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Yale has the better starters
Position by position: Quinnipiac 0, Yale 2, even 3
QuinnipiacBetterYale
G N. Guerengomba2.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 4
→YALEBig
G T. Mullin11.8 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 63
G T. Turnage3.4 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 36
=Even
G J. Brathwaite6.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 35
F K. McKnight10.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 79
=No call
G C. Wallace1.2 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
F H. Pierre-Louis TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 1
→YALEBig
F R. Fox9.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 76
F N. Hart TR2.2 pts · 3.1 reb · 0 ast
Score 27
=No call
F J. Sullivan1.3 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
QuinnipiacBetterYale
QUIN offense243rd of 366 · -7.3
→YALESmall
YALE defense136th of 366 · -2.8
QUIN defense232nd of 366 · -6.2
→YALESmall
YALE offense125th of 366 · -3.3
Backcourt-2.7 · 2 players
→YALESmall
Backcourt-1.1 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.8 · 3 players
→YALESmall
Frontcourt+0.5 · 2 players
Bench-0.6 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.5 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestQUIN betterYALE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
T. Mullin28 minJ. Brathwaite19 minC. Wallace4 minJ. Basima3 minA. Loving3 minJ. Tsai2 min
Forwards
R. Fox18 minJ. Sullivan5 minD. Ogunyemi3 minC. MayNewT. WinklerNewC. BolteNew
Centers
J. OwareNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.2 #190 | Points per game | 80.1 #64 |
| 1.05 #246 | Points per possession | 1.21 #10 |
| 70.3 #100 | Pace (possessions) | 66.4 #301 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.1 #310 | Effective FG% | 55.6 #26 |
| 34.0 #171 | 3-point % | 39.4 #3 |
| 33.7 #304 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.1 #247 |
| 33.8 #217 | Free throw rate | 35.1 #172 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.8 #125 | Turnover rate | 14.0 #22 |
| 34.1 #65 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.2 #62 |
| 13.0 #211 | Assists per game | 15.8 #53 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.6 #121 | Points allowed | 71.8 #102 |
| 1.04 #68 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #166 |
| 48.9 #65 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.6 #192 |
| 34.9 #242 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.0 #250 |
| 17.4 #122 | Turnovers forced | 16.2 #207 |
| 68.0 #253 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.3 #147 |
| 7.8 #55 | Steals per game | 5.3 #314 |
| 4.5 #37 | Blocks per game | 3.2 #193 |
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.
Yale
22-7 in 2025-26 overall · 12-4 in conference · Ivy League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UNC Wilmington67–68
- Lvs Penn84–88
- Wvs Cornell88–76
- Wvs Princeton78–53
- W@ Columbia60–54
A week or more of rest.