Leo D. Mahoney Arena · at Fairfield
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FAIR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FAIR 75–65 · win probability FAIR 80%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 139.7
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: FAIR has more of the edges
CCSU 3, FAIR 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CCSU offense vs FAIR defense
Offense 353rd of 366 against a defense 195th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CCSU 27.5%, FAIR 35.8%. Defensive: CCSU 69.6%, FAIR 70.9%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CCSU 16.3%, FAIR 15.4%. Forced: CCSU 14.0%, FAIR 16.8%
Three-pointers
CCSU hits 35.8% and allows 33.4%; FAIR hits 33.2% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 34.9% and 35.4% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: CCSU 51.6 and allows 50.2; FAIR 48.8 and allows 51.0
Free throws
Free throw rate: CCSU 31.2, FAIR 27.7. Allowed: CCSU 26.9, FAIR 30.4
Home court
FAIR at home. This season: FAIR 0-0 at home, CCSU 0-0 away
Even
FAIR offense vs CCSU defense
Offense 282nd of 366 against a defense 247th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: CCSU plays 65.5 a game (329th fastest), FAIR 67.3 (263rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CCSU 55%, FAIR 53%. Transfers in: CCSU 0, FAIR 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
CCSU has played the 358th-hardest schedule, FAIR the 359th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | FAIR -9.8 | — |
| Total | — | 139.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | CCSU 64.9 · FAIR 74.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FAIR -5.7 | — |
| 1H total | 65.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | CCSU 29.8 · FAIR 35.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CCSU 1–1 FAIRSeries tied · 2 games since 2021-22 · CCSU 0-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2025-26 | FAIR 84 @ CCSU 70 | CCSU -6.5 | FAIR W |
| Dec 18, 2024-25 | CCSU 64 @ FAIR 63 | FAIR +1.5 | FAIR W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
C Connecticut
28 games played
Straight up
16-12
57% wins
Against the spread
14-14
50% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +2.5 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 6 | @ | L 49-71 | +9.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 60-59 | +17.5 | W +18.5 | 136.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 77-84 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 67-54 | +15.5 | W +28.5 | 137.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 108-106 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 214 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 61-77 | +18.5 | W +2.5 | 128.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 56-73 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 138.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 84-67 | -7.5 | W +9.5 | 133.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 70-84 | -6.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 78-84 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 72-61 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 130.5 | O 133 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 76-69 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 69-59 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 98-90 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 61-79 | +1.5 | L −16.5 | 132.5 | O 140 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 66-76 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 26 | @ | L 59-61 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 62-55 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 59-80 | +2.5 | L −18.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-67 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-67 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 136.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 81-76 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 128.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 63-57 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 133.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 78-77 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 51-70 | -3.5 | L −22.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 80-78 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 69-64 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 60-70 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
QUIN
L 49-71
−12.5
11
@
BC
W 60-59
+18.5
16
@
MASS
L 77-84
+5.5
21
@
RUTG
W 67-54
+28.5
24
vs
SHU
W 108-106
−1.5
3
@
HALL
L 61-77
+2.5
7
@
NE
L 56-73
−15.5
13
@
BING
W 84-67
+9.5
18
vs
FAIR
L 70-84
−20.5
2
@
LIU
L 78-84
+0.5
4
vs
NHVN
W 72-61
+3.5
8
vs
STO
W 76-69
−0.5
10
@
LEM
W 69-59
+11.5
17
@
SFPA
W 98-90
+1.5
19
@
MERC
L 61-79
−16.5
23
vs
FDU
L 66-76
−17.5
26
@
STO
L 59-61
−3.5
29
@
WAG
W 62-55
+4.5
31
vs
LIU
L 59-80
−18.5
5
vs
CHST
W 78-67
+2.5
7
vs
WAG
W 84-67
+11.5
12
@
NHVN
W 81-76
+1.5
14
@
FDU
W 63-57
+7.5
19
vs
LEM
W 78-77
−7.5
21
@
CHST
L 51-70
−22.5
26
vs
MERC
W 80-78
−1.5
28
vs
SFPA
W 69-64
−3.5
4
vs
WAG
L 60-70
−13.5
covered 14didn’t cover 14avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
QUIN
L 49-71
−30.5
11
@
BC
W 60-59
−17.5
16
@
MASS
L 77-84
+16.5
21
@
RUTG
W 67-54
−16.5
24
vs
SHU
W 108-106
+70.5
3
@
HALL
L 61-77
+9.5
7
@
NE
L 56-73
−9.5
13
@
BING
W 84-67
+17.5
18
vs
FAIR
L 70-84
+10.5
2
@
LIU
L 78-84
+15.5
4
vs
NHVN
W 72-61
+2.5
8
vs
STO
W 76-69
+10.5
10
@
LEM
W 69-59
−18.5
17
@
SFPA
W 98-90
+43.5
19
@
MERC
L 61-79
+7.5
23
vs
FDU
L 66-76
+1.5
26
@
STO
L 59-61
−15.5
29
@
WAG
W 62-55
−19.5
31
vs
LIU
L 59-80
−3.5
5
vs
CHST
W 78-67
+6.5
7
vs
WAG
W 84-67
+14.5
12
@
NHVN
W 81-76
+28.5
14
@
FDU
W 63-57
−13.5
19
vs
LEM
W 78-77
−10.5
21
@
CHST
L 51-70
−17.5
26
vs
MERC
W 80-78
+16.5
28
vs
SFPA
W 69-64
−19.5
4
vs
WAG
L 60-70
−9.5
over 15under 13avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Fairfield
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
15-18
45% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-19
42% 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 68-76 | +15.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 74-53 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 59-82 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 73-71 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 85-82 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 22 | @ | W 97-83 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 77-106 | +3.5 | L −25.5 | 150.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 72-68 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 66-70 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 63-74 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 73-65 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 84-70 | +6.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 66-70 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 81-85 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 83-75 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 68-62 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 98-62 | -6.5 | W +29.5 | 158.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 67-82 | +8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 77-85 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 62-61 | -10.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 61-55 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 71-70 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 65-72 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 92-87 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 63-60 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 74-83 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 78-68 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 22 | @ | W 85-79 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 72-58 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 142.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 47-69 | -4.5 | L −26.5 | 145.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 71-60 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 74-55 | +1.5 | W +20.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 61-76 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
PSU
L 68-76
+7.5
8
@
NJIT
W 74-53
+14.5
10
@
HALL
L 59-82
−8.5
14
vs
STO
W 73-71
−4.5
16
vs
L-MD
W 85-82
−2.5
22
@
LEM
W 97-83
+12.5
26
vs
COLU
L 77-106
−25.5
30
vs
UNH
W 72-68
−5.5
5
@
MAN
L 66-70
−5.5
7
@
MRMK
L 63-74
−7.5
14
vs
MONM
W 73-65
+10.5
18
@
CCSU
W 84-70
+20.5
29
vs
SPU
L 66-70
−6.5
2
@
CAN
L 81-85
−10.5
4
@
NIA
W 83-75
+4.5
9
vs
RID
W 68-62
−2.5
14
vs
MAN
W 98-62
+29.5
17
@
MRST
L 67-82
−6.5
19
@
SIE
L 77-85
−1.5
22
vs
NIA
W 62-61
−9.5
24
vs
CAN
W 61-55
−4.5
30
@
IONA
W 71-70
+2.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 65-72
−4.5
5
@
SHU
W 92-87
+6.5
7
vs
MRST
W 63-60
+4.5
15
@
SPU
L 74-83
−5.5
20
vs
SHU
W 78-68
+5.5
22
@
QUIN
W 85-79
+12.5
27
vs
SIE
W 72-58
+15.5
1
vs
MSM
L 47-69
−26.5
5
vs
MAN
W 71-60
+7.5
6
vs
SPU
W 74-55
+20.5
8
vs
SIE
L 61-76
−13.5
covered 15didn’t cover 18avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
PSU
L 68-76
−7.5
8
@
NJIT
W 74-53
−18.5
10
@
HALL
L 59-82
+3.5
14
vs
STO
W 73-71
+0.5
16
vs
L-MD
W 85-82
+31.5
22
@
LEM
W 97-83
+34.5
26
vs
COLU
L 77-106
+32.5
30
vs
UNH
W 72-68
−7.5
5
@
MAN
L 66-70
−19.5
7
@
MRMK
L 63-74
−7.5
14
vs
MONM
W 73-65
−5.5
18
@
CCSU
W 84-70
+10.5
29
vs
SPU
L 66-70
−4.5
2
@
CAN
L 81-85
+25.5
4
@
NIA
W 83-75
+19.5
9
vs
RID
W 68-62
−15.5
14
vs
MAN
W 98-62
+1.5
17
@
MRST
L 67-82
+7.5
19
@
SIE
L 77-85
+19.5
22
vs
NIA
W 62-61
−16.5
24
vs
CAN
W 61-55
−25.5
30
@
IONA
W 71-70
−5.5
1
vs
QUIN
L 65-72
−17.5
5
@
SHU
W 92-87
+23.5
7
vs
MRST
W 63-60
−15.5
15
@
SPU
L 74-83
+15.5
20
vs
SHU
W 78-68
−12.5
22
@
QUIN
W 85-79
+13.5
27
vs
SIE
W 72-58
−12.5
1
vs
MSM
L 47-69
−29.5
5
vs
MAN
W 71-60
−17.5
6
vs
SPU
W 74-55
−8.5
8
vs
SIE
L 61-76
−1.5
over 14under 19avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Fairfield has the better starters
Position by position: C Connecticut 1, Fairfield 2, even 2
C ConnecticutBetterFairfield
G J. Jones4.1 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 4
→FAIRBig
G D. Wucherpfennig11.8 pts · 8.3 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 71
G V. Payne6.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 16
=Even
G T. Williams6.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 19
G E. Parker2 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 0
=Even
G E. Mejia4.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 11
G R. Jones3.8 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 20
←CCSUSmall
G H. Rawlins3.6 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 4
F D. James3.2 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 13
→FAIRBig
F Q. Martin TR12.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 76
C ConnecticutBetterFairfield
CCSU offense353rd of 366 · -13.2
→FAIRBig
FAIR defense195th of 366 · -4.8
CCSU defense247th of 366 · -6.5
=Even
FAIR offense282nd of 366 · -8.7
Backcourt-10.6 · 4 players
→FAIRBig
Backcourt-5.9 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 1 player
→FAIRSmall
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
Bench-2.0 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-2.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCCSU betterFAIR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Jones30 minV. Payne24 minE. Parker14 minR. Jones10 minA. Reynolds10 minR. LaurentNew
Forwards
D. James13 minJ. Mott8 minB. JacksonNewJ. ErvinNewR. TibbyNewC. LangdonNew
Guards
D. Wucherpfennig32 minT. Williams20 minE. Mejia19 minH. Rawlins17 minN. Rodriguez7 minJ. Ganton2 min
Forwards
Q. Martin32 min · TRM. Radunovic9 min · TRI. Munkadi9 minP. SmithNewO. SackoNewB. JonesNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.6 #272 | Points per game | 72.9 #226 |
| 1.08 #192 | Points per possession | 1.09 #166 |
| 65.5 #329 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #263 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.6 #165 | Effective FG% | 48.8 #294 |
| 35.8 #69 | 3-point % | 33.2 #216 |
| 34.9 #278 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #262 |
| 31.2 #276 | Free throw rate | 27.7 #346 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.3 #154 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #96 |
| 27.5 #281 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.8 #29 |
| 12.8 #229 | Assists per game | 12.1 #277 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.0 #105 | Points allowed | 71.9 #104 |
| 1.10 #218 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #118 |
| 50.2 #113 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #159 |
| 33.4 #146 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #200 |
| 14.0 #338 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #169 |
| 69.6 #179 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #116 |
| 5.4 #311 | Steals per game | 6.5 #183 |
| 3.9 #83 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #145 |
C Connecticut
16-12 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wagner60–70
- Wvs Saint Francis Red Wolves69–64
- Wvs Mercyhurst80–78
- L@ Chicago St51–70
- Wvs Le Moyne78–77
A week or more of rest.
Fairfield
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 13-10 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Siena61–76
- Wvs Saint Peter's74–55
- Wvs Manhattan71–60
- Lvs Mount St Marys47–69
- Wvs Siena72–58
A week or more of rest.