McCann Arena · at Marist · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MRST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MRST 75–67 · win probability MRST 76%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.4
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: MRST has more of the edges
SHU 1, MRST 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SHU 17.6%, MRST 17.0%. Forced: SHU 14.6%, MRST 19.4%
Free throws
Free throw rate: SHU 31.0, MRST 25.7. Allowed: SHU 27.0, MRST 37.6
SHU offense vs MRST defense
Offense 281st of 366 against a defense 135th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: SHU 52.0 and allows 53.5; MRST 49.3 and allows 45.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SHU 28.6%, MRST 29.1%. Defensive: SHU 69.1%, MRST 71.7%
Home court
MRST at home. This season: MRST 0-0 at home, SHU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: SHU plays 68.6 a game (201st fastest), MRST 66.8 (286th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SHU 18%, MRST 31%. Transfers in: SHU 3, MRST 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Three-pointers
SHU hits 35.7% and allows 34.9%; MRST hits 32.2% and allows 28.6%. Threes are 50.7% and 34.6% of their shots
Even
MRST offense vs SHU defense
Offense 322nd of 366 against a defense 334th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
SHU has played the 340th-hardest schedule, MRST the 339th. 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 | — | MRST -8.1 | — |
| Total | — | 142.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | SHU 67.2 · MRST 75.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MRST -4.7 | — |
| 1H total | 66.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | SHU 31 · MRST 35.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
SHU 1–2 MRSTMRST leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · MRST has won the last 2 meetings · SHU 3-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 2025-26 | SHU 63 @ MRST 65 | MRST -7.5 | SHU W |
| Jan 9, 2025-26 | MRST 76 @ SHU 72 | SHU +5.5 | SHU W |
| Feb 28, 2024-25 | MRST 54 @ SHU 67 | SHU -1.5 | SHU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Marist
30 games played
Straight up
18-12
60% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-19
37% overs · avg −3.5 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 3 | @ | L 62-66 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 9 | @ | W 75-56 | +1.5 | W +20.5 | 138.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 54-56 | -6.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | U 110 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 76-65 | -12.5 | L −1.5 | 132.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 78-55 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 132.5 | O 133 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 64-56 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 136.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 80-68 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 82-74 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 131.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 76-87 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 70-51 | -6.5 | W +12.5 | 137.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 58-64 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 59-69 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 133.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 83-38 | -4.5 | W +40.5 | 148.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 76-72 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 71-49 | -10.5 | W +11.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 82-67 | -8.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 55-68 | -6.5 | L −19.5 | 133.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 50-69 | +1.5 | L −17.5 | 133.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 71-64 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 88-86 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 129.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 58-46 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 128.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 81-52 | -14.5 | W +14.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 60-63 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 56-81 | +2.5 | L −22.5 | 128.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 63-67 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 133.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 84-70 | -5.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 65-63 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 56-63 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 132.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 77-75 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 128.5 | U 115 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
XAV
L 62-66
+8.5
9
@
DART
W 75-56
+20.5
16
vs
HARV
L 54-56
−8.5
21
vs
ARMY
W 76-65
−1.5
25
vs
LEH
W 78-55
+15.5
5
vs
MSM
W 64-56
−0.5
7
vs
MAN
W 80-68
+4.5
13
@
BRY
W 82-74
+6.5
16
@
GT
L 76-87
−4.5
21
vs
STBK
W 70-51
+12.5
29
@
QUIN
L 58-64
−3.5
2
@
SPU
L 59-69
−12.5
4
vs
IONA
W 83-38
+40.5
9
@
SHU
W 76-72
−1.5
11
@
RID
W 71-49
+11.5
17
vs
FAIR
W 82-67
+6.5
19
vs
MRMK
L 55-68
−19.5
22
@
SIE
L 50-69
−17.5
24
vs
QUIN
W 71-64
+3.5
30
@
CAN
W 88-86
−7.5
1
@
NIA
W 58-46
+2.5
5
vs
RID
W 81-52
+14.5
7
@
FAIR
L 60-63
−4.5
12
@
MRMK
L 56-81
−22.5
15
vs
SIE
L 63-67
−6.5
20
@
MAN
W 84-70
+8.5
22
vs
SHU
W 65-63
−5.5
1
vs
SPU
L 56-63
−11.5
7
vs
QUIN
W 77-75
+3.5
8
vs
MRMK
L 57-58
+1.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
XAV
L 62-66
−11.5
9
@
DART
W 75-56
−7.5
16
vs
HARV
L 54-56
−20.5
21
vs
ARMY
W 76-65
+8.5
25
vs
LEH
W 78-55
+0.5
5
vs
MSM
W 64-56
−16.5
7
vs
MAN
W 80-68
+7.5
13
@
BRY
W 82-74
+24.5
16
@
GT
L 76-87
+21.5
21
vs
STBK
W 70-51
−16.5
29
@
QUIN
L 58-64
−23.5
2
@
SPU
L 59-69
−5.5
4
vs
IONA
W 83-38
−27.5
9
@
SHU
W 76-72
+4.5
11
@
RID
W 71-49
−11.5
17
vs
FAIR
W 82-67
+7.5
19
vs
MRMK
L 55-68
−10.5
22
@
SIE
L 50-69
−14.5
24
vs
QUIN
W 71-64
−4.5
30
@
CAN
W 88-86
+44.5
1
@
NIA
W 58-46
−24.5
5
vs
RID
W 81-52
−2.5
7
@
FAIR
L 60-63
−15.5
12
@
MRMK
L 56-81
+8.5
15
vs
SIE
L 63-67
−3.5
20
@
MAN
W 84-70
+11.5
22
vs
SHU
W 65-63
−18.5
1
vs
SPU
L 56-63
−13.5
7
vs
QUIN
W 77-75
+16.5
8
vs
MRMK
L 57-58
−13.5
over 11under 19avg −3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Sacred Heart 1, Marist 1, even 3
Sacred HeartBetterMarist
G J. Van Buggenhout TR6.4 pts · 2.1 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 42
←SHUSmall
G J. Collins-Roberts7.3 pts · 4.6 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 27
G J. Slaughter5.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 20
→MRSTSmall
G J. Graham TR11.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 43
G S. Reilly TR3.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 47
=Even
F M. Parker5 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 59
F A. Yadd6 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 5
=No call
C T. Watson6.1 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
F J. Robinson TR2.5 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 26
=No call
C J. Gabriel2 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
Sacred HeartBetterMarist
SHU offense281st of 366 · -8.7
→MRSTBig
MRST defense135th of 366 · -2.6
SHU defense334th of 366 · -8.8
=Even
MRST offense322nd of 366 · -10.5
Backcourt-3.0 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-3.3 · 2 players
Frontcourt-2.6 · 2 players
→MRSTSmall
Frontcourt-0.0 · 3 players
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestSHU betterMRST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Van Buggenhout21 min · TRJ. Slaughter21 minS. Reilly9 min · TRM. Sheppard1 minG. BarroukNewJ. WallaceNew
Forwards
A. Yadd15 minJ. Robinson10 min · TRK. CurtisNewL. KrygierNew
Guards
J. Collins-Roberts31 minJ. Graham28 min · TRJ. WilliamsNewC. SweeneyNewB. ArnoldNewD. ChessNew
Forwards
M. Parker15 minE. OnyiaNewL. RodriguezNew
Centers
T. Watson11 minJ. Gabriel7 minL. FranzNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.3 #186 | Points per game | 68.9 #301 |
| 1.08 #180 | Points per possession | 1.04 #276 |
| 68.6 #201 | Pace (possessions) | 66.8 #286 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.0 #145 | Effective FG% | 49.3 #276 |
| 35.7 #73 | 3-point % | 32.2 #272 |
| 50.7 #12 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.6 #285 |
| 31.0 #281 | Free throw rate | 25.7 #360 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.6 #249 | Turnover rate | 17.0 #202 |
| 28.6 #246 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.1 #233 |
| 14.6 #112 | Assists per game | 15.0 #89 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.6 #253 | Points allowed | 63.9 #4 |
| 1.13 #296 | Points allowed per possession | 0.95 #3 |
| 53.5 #283 | Opponent effective FG% | 45.6 #5 |
| 34.9 #241 | Opponent 3-point % | 28.6 #2 |
| 14.6 #320 | Turnovers forced | 19.4 #35 |
| 69.1 #199 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.7 #77 |
| 5.4 #305 | Steals per game | 7.1 #116 |
| 3.0 #223 | Blocks per game | 3.1 #200 |
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.
Marist
18-12 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Merrimack57–58
- Wvs Quinnipiac77–75
- Lvs Saint Peter's56–63
- Wvs Sacred Heart65–63
- W@ Manhattan84–70
A week or more of rest.