Kirby Sports Center · at Lafayette
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LAF | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LAF 72–67 · win probability LAF 66%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 138.7
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: LAF has more of the edges
NIA 3, LAF 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NIA 24.8%, LAF 25.8%. Defensive: NIA 67.1%, LAF 71.4%
NIA offense vs LAF defense
Offense 355th of 366 against a defense 245th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
NIA has played the 334th-hardest schedule, LAF the 230th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: NIA 26.6, LAF 32.5. Allowed: NIA 33.8, LAF 30.6
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NIA 18.9%, LAF 15.3%. Forced: NIA 16.6%, LAF 15.1%
Three-pointers
NIA hits 33.7% and allows 35.3%; LAF hits 32.1% and allows 36.0%. Threes are 40.5% and 39.8% of their shots
LAF offense vs NIA defense
Offense 331st of 366 against a defense 278th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
LAF at home. This season: LAF 0-0 at home, NIA 0-0 away
Shooting
Effective FG%: NIA 50.5 and allows 52.8; LAF 49.3 and allows 53.6
Context
Tempo
About 65 possessions: NIA plays 63.4 a game (364th fastest), LAF 67.2 (274th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NIA 15%, LAF 34%. Transfers in: NIA 5, LAF 1. 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 | — | LAF -4.6 | — |
| Total | — | 138.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | NIA 67 · LAF 71.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LAF -2.6 | — |
| 1H total | 65.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | NIA 31.2 · LAF 33.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
NIA 0–1 LAFLAF leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · NIA 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2024-25 | NIA 47 @ LAF 59 | LAF -4.5 | LAF W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Niagara
29 games played
Straight up
7-22
24% wins
Against the spread
13-16
45% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% 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 63-83 | +17.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 67-59 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 68-57 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 68-74 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 42-100 | +39.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 70-80 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 66-70 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 54-83 | +12.5 | L −16.5 | 129.5 | O 137 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 43-71 | +5.5 | L −22.5 | 131.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 73-81 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 58-84 | +30.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 64-61 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 75-83 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 9 | @ | L 53-71 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 70-79 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 59-54 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 126.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 58-68 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 61-62 | +10.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 70-71 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 79-82 | +9.5 | W +6.5 | 128.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 46-58 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 128.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 65-56 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 55-56 | +12.5 | W +11.5 | 137.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 13 | vs | L 69-76 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 70-68 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 132.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 63-76 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 130.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 62-67 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 78-76 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 66-73 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 126.5 | O 139 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
DUQ
L 63-83
−2.5
8
@
BING
W 67-59
+10.5
10
vs
DSU
W 68-57
+5.5
17
@
LEM
L 68-74
−3.5
21
@
DUKE
L 42-100
−18.5
22
vs
HOW
L 70-80
−5.5
29
vs
DETM
L 66-70
−2.5
5
@
SIE
L 54-83
−16.5
7
@
SPU
L 43-71
−22.5
13
@
MORG
L 73-81
−6.5
15
@
VCU
L 58-84
+4.5
2
vs
SHU
W 64-61
+4.5
4
vs
FAIR
L 75-83
−4.5
9
@
IONA
L 53-71
−7.5
11
@
MAN
L 70-79
−3.5
14
@
CAN
W 59-54
+7.5
19
vs
MSM
L 58-68
−6.5
22
@
FAIR
L 61-62
+9.5
24
@
SHU
L 70-71
+8.5
30
vs
SIE
L 79-82
+6.5
1
vs
MRST
L 46-58
−2.5
3
vs
CAN
W 65-56
+6.5
7
@
QUIN
L 55-56
+11.5
13
vs
MAN
L 69-76
−4.5
15
vs
IONA
W 70-68
+5.5
20
@
MSM
L 63-76
−5.5
22
@
RID
L 62-67
−6.5
27
vs
QUIN
W 78-76
+10.5
1
vs
MRMK
L 66-73
+0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
DUQ
L 63-83
+6.5
8
@
BING
W 67-59
−12.5
10
vs
DSU
W 68-57
−12.5
17
@
LEM
L 68-74
+3.5
21
@
DUKE
L 42-100
−4.5
22
vs
HOW
L 70-80
+11.5
29
vs
DETM
L 66-70
−6.5
5
@
SIE
L 54-83
+7.5
7
@
SPU
L 43-71
−17.5
13
@
MORG
L 73-81
+13.5
15
@
VCU
L 58-84
−1.5
2
vs
SHU
W 64-61
−14.5
4
vs
FAIR
L 75-83
+19.5
9
@
IONA
L 53-71
−16.5
11
@
MAN
L 70-79
+8.5
14
@
CAN
W 59-54
−13.5
19
vs
MSM
L 58-68
−5.5
22
@
FAIR
L 61-62
−16.5
24
@
SHU
L 70-71
+1.5
30
vs
SIE
L 79-82
+32.5
1
vs
MRST
L 46-58
−24.5
3
vs
CAN
W 65-56
−8.5
7
@
QUIN
L 55-56
−26.5
13
vs
MAN
L 69-76
+8.5
15
vs
IONA
W 70-68
+5.5
20
@
MSM
L 63-76
+8.5
22
@
RID
L 62-67
−2.5
27
vs
QUIN
W 78-76
+17.5
1
vs
MRMK
L 66-73
+12.5
over 14under 15avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Lafayette
31 games played
Straight up
10-21
32% wins
Against the spread
13-17
43% covers · avg −2.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-13
57% overs · avg +0.6 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 76-85 | +13.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 60-97 | +25.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 13 | vs | L 78-97 | +4.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 59-81 | +24.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 140 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 70-74 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 63-76 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 55-37 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 140.5 | U 92 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 74-88 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 79-71 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 8 | @ | L 72-74 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 67-81 | +11.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 81-95 | +16.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 77-85 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 79-64 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 67-83 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 50-76 | +8.5 | L −17.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 69-76 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 74-55 | -2.5 | W +16.5 | 138.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 73-77 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 59-64 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 81-79 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 67-65 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 142.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 50-65 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 139.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 63-60 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 142.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 54-68 | -3.5 | L −17.5 | 147.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 69-78 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 86-83 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 61-75 | +3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 70-69 | +8.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 83-77 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 77-82 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
JOES
L 76-85
+4.5
8
@
TEX
L 60-97
−11.5
13
vs
COR
L 78-97
−14.5
17
@
WVU
L 59-81
+2.5
21
@
STO
L 70-74
−5.5
28
vs
LEM
L 63-76
−17.5
29
vs
BALL
W 55-37
+19.5
30
vs
MONM
L 74-88
−12.5
8
@
PENN
L 72-74
+5.5
18
@
CLT
L 67-81
−2.5
20
@
GT
L 81-95
+2.5
31
vs
COLG
L 77-85
−1.5
3
@
L-MD
W 79-64
+13.5
7
vs
BU
L 67-83
−14.5
10
@
NAVY
L 50-76
−17.5
14
@
BUCK
L 69-76
−4.5
17
vs
HC
W 74-55
+16.5
21
@
BU
L 73-77
+0.5
24
@
LEH
L 59-64
−2.5
28
vs
BUCK
W 81-79
−2.5
31
@
AMER
W 67-65
+7.5
4
vs
NAVY
L 50-65
−11.5
7
@
ARMY
W 63-60
+1.5
11
vs
L-MD
L 54-68
−17.5
14
vs
LEH
L 69-78
−11.5
18
@
HC
W 86-83
+4.5
22
vs
AMER
L 61-75
−10.5
25
@
COLG
W 70-69
+9.5
28
vs
ARMY
W 83-77
+2.5
3
vs
HC
L 77-82
−9.5
covered 13didn’t cover 17avg −2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
JOES
L 76-85
+22.5
8
@
TEX
L 60-97
+3.5
13
vs
COR
L 78-97
+14.5
17
@
WVU
L 59-81
+4.5
21
@
STO
L 70-74
+2.5
28
vs
LEM
L 63-76
−12.5
29
vs
BALL
W 55-37
−48.5
30
vs
MONM
L 74-88
+20.5
8
@
PENN
L 72-74
−4.5
18
@
CLT
L 67-81
+10.5
20
@
GT
L 81-95
+28.5
31
vs
COLG
L 77-85
+15.5
3
@
L-MD
W 79-64
−9.5
7
vs
BU
L 67-83
+7.5
10
@
NAVY
L 50-76
−15.5
14
@
BUCK
L 69-76
+7.5
17
vs
HC
W 74-55
−9.5
21
@
BU
L 73-77
+4.5
24
@
LEH
L 59-64
−20.5
28
vs
BUCK
W 81-79
+21.5
31
@
AMER
W 67-65
−10.5
4
vs
NAVY
L 50-65
−24.5
7
@
ARMY
W 63-60
−19.5
11
vs
L-MD
L 54-68
−25.5
14
vs
LEH
L 69-78
+6.5
18
@
HC
W 86-83
+29.5
22
vs
AMER
L 61-75
−5.5
25
@
COLG
W 70-69
−9.5
28
vs
ARMY
W 83-77
+15.5
3
vs
HC
L 77-82
+17.5
over 17under 13avg +0.6 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: Niagara 1, Lafayette 1, even 3
NiagaraBetterLafayette
G T. Walters7.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 27
=No call
G P. D'Arcy TR1.1 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
G C. Farrell TR6 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 11
→LAFBig
F S. Jackson10.2 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 67
G L. Woods TR4.9 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 15
=Even
F K. Murdock2.7 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 16
G B. Rieber TR3.9 pts · 1.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 7
=Even
F L. Bevilacqua2.7 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 13
G T. Blackshear TR6.3 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 43
←NIABig
C M. Bednostin1.5 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 8
NiagaraBetterLafayette
NIA offense355th of 366 · -13.3
→LAFSmall
LAF defense245th of 366 · -6.5
NIA defense278th of 366 · -7.0
=Even
LAF offense331st of 366 · -10.8
Backcourt-8.7 · 5 players
→LAFBig
Backcourt-0.7 · 1 player
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-2.4 · 4 players
Bench-1.5 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-1.4 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestNIA betterLAF betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Walters22 minC. Farrell21 min · TRL. Woods18 min · TRB. Rieber16 min · TRT. Blackshear14 min · TRG. Dalmau7 min
Forwards
V. Todorovic10 min · TRN. SlingerlandNewF. RottaNewB. AngelettiNewD. EmokhareNew
Guards
P. D'Arcy7 min · TRF. Fayemi6 minA. Wallace4 minB. CurrieNewC. KeslerNewS. HentonNew
Forwards
S. Jackson22 minK. Murdock10 minL. Bevilacqua9 minM. Rasul4 minL. Azzinaro2 minJ. GillNew
Centers
M. Bednostin10 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 63.3 #355 | Points per game | 69.1 #297 |
| 1.00 #330 | Points per possession | 1.03 #289 |
| 63.4 #364 | Pace (possessions) | 67.2 #274 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.5 #214 | Effective FG% | 49.3 #278 |
| 33.7 #188 | 3-point % | 32.1 #273 |
| 40.5 #159 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.8 #173 |
| 26.6 #353 | Free throw rate | 32.5 #249 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.9 #318 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #89 |
| 24.8 #344 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.8 #326 |
| 13.8 #162 | Assists per game | 13.6 #175 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.7 #98 | Points allowed | 75.4 #200 |
| 1.13 #300 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #275 |
| 52.8 #260 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.6 #286 |
| 35.3 #268 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.0 #298 |
| 16.6 #177 | Turnovers forced | 15.1 #273 |
| 67.1 #297 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.4 #88 |
| 5.6 #284 | Steals per game | 5.3 #316 |
| 2.8 #254 | Blocks per game | 2.3 #324 |
Niagara
7-22 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Merrimack66–73
- Wvs Quinnipiac78–76
- L@ Rider62–67
- L@ Mount St Marys63–76
- Wvs Iona70–68
A week or more of rest.
Lafayette
10-21 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Patriot League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Holy Cross77–82
- Wvs Army83–77
- W@ Colgate70–69
- Lvs American61–75
- W@ Holy Cross86–83
A week or more of rest.