M&T Bank Arena · at Quinnipiac
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | QUIN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 HOF 73–70 · win probability HOF 58%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.1
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
HOF 3, QUIN 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
HOF has played the 142nd-hardest schedule, QUIN the 324th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
HOF hits 37.1% and allows 32.3%; QUIN hits 34.0% and allows 34.9%. Threes are 42.9% and 33.7% of their shots
QUIN offense vs HOF defense
Offense 243rd of 366 against a defense 120th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: HOF plays 65.9 a game (319th fastest), QUIN 70.3 (100th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HOF 16.1%, QUIN 15.8%. Forced: HOF 15.0%, QUIN 17.4%
Shooting
Effective FG%: HOF 51.4 and allows 46.3; QUIN 48.1 and allows 48.9
Free throws
Free throw rate: HOF 31.6, QUIN 33.8. Allowed: HOF 35.1, QUIN 30.6
Home court
QUIN at home. This season: QUIN 0-0 at home, HOF 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HOF 12%, QUIN 31%. Transfers in: HOF 4, QUIN 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HOF 34.7%, QUIN 34.1%. Defensive: HOF 69.0%, QUIN 68.0%
Even
HOF offense vs QUIN defense
Offense 254th of 366 against a defense 232nd, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | HOF -2.3 | — |
| Total | — | 143.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | HOF 72.7 · QUIN 70.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HOF -1.5 | — |
| 1H total | 67.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | HOF 34.2 · QUIN 32.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
HOF 2–1 QUINHOF leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · HOF 1-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2025-26 | QUIN 66 @ HOF 74 | HOF -7.5 | HOF W |
| Dec 29, 2024-25 | HOF 69 @ QUIN 75 | QUIN +1.5 | QUIN W |
| Nov 27, 2022-23 | QUIN 70 vs HOF 72 | HOF -3.5 | QUIN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Hofstra
33 games played
Straight up
22-11
67% wins
Against the spread
21-12
64% covers · avg +3.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-15
55% 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 78-82 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 140.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 73-81 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 83-77 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 76-81 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 63-58 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 78-58 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 135.5 | O 136 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 77-60 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 70-72 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 80-73 | +8.5 | W +15.5 | 134.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 70-69 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 74-66 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 86-72 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 70-67 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 131.5 | O 137 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 78-67 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 67-64 | -7.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 71-76 | -6.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 85-89 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 78-79 | -9.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 82-89 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 64-66 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 73-57 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 80-63 | -8.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 71-49 | -4.5 | W +17.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 66-62 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-70 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 79-43 | -11.5 | W +24.5 | 133.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 82-68 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 67-58 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 62-51 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 133.5 | U 113 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 92-61 | -2.5 | W +28.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 68-65 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 132.5 | O 133 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 75-69 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | O 144 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 70-90 | +11.5 | L −8.5 | 158.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UCF
L 78-82
+4.5
7
@
IONA
L 73-81
−9.5
14
@
BUCK
W 83-77
+1.5
19
@
TEM
L 76-81
+0.5
28
vs
LAS
W 63-58
+1.5
29
vs
MRMK
W 78-58
+14.5
30
@
PENN
W 77-60
+15.5
3
@
COLU
L 70-72
+1.5
7
@
PITT
W 80-73
+15.5
13
@
SYR
W 70-69
+10.5
21
vs
QUIN
W 74-66
+0.5
29
vs
CAM
W 86-72
+7.5
3
@
DREX
W 70-67
−1.5
8
@
TOW
W 78-67
+12.5
10
vs
MONM
W 67-64
−4.5
15
@
STBK
L 71-76
−11.5
17
vs
ELON
L 85-89
−9.5
22
@
NCAT
L 78-79
−10.5
24
@
W&M
L 82-89
−3.5
29
vs
COFC
L 64-66
−4.5
31
@
MONM
W 73-57
+14.5
5
vs
NE
W 80-63
+8.5
7
vs
TOW
W 71-49
+17.5
12
@
COFC
W 66-62
+5.5
14
@
UNCW
L 66-70
−1.5
19
vs
HAMP
W 79-43
+24.5
21
@
NE
W 82-68
+7.5
28
vs
STBK
W 67-58
−2.5
3
vs
DREX
W 62-51
+2.5
8
vs
W&M
W 92-61
+28.5
9
vs
TOW
W 68-65
−1.5
10
vs
MONM
W 75-69
+1.5
20
vs
ALA
L 70-90
−8.5
covered 21didn’t cover 12avg +3.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UCF
L 78-82
+19.5
7
@
IONA
L 73-81
+9.5
14
@
BUCK
W 83-77
+20.5
19
@
TEM
L 76-81
+11.5
28
vs
LAS
W 63-58
−17.5
29
vs
MRMK
W 78-58
+0.5
30
@
PENN
W 77-60
−12.5
3
@
COLU
L 70-72
−2.5
7
@
PITT
W 80-73
+18.5
13
@
SYR
W 70-69
−0.5
21
vs
QUIN
W 74-66
−7.5
29
vs
CAM
W 86-72
+8.5
3
@
DREX
W 70-67
+5.5
8
@
TOW
W 78-67
+10.5
10
vs
MONM
W 67-64
−8.5
15
@
STBK
L 71-76
+10.5
17
vs
ELON
L 85-89
+24.5
22
@
NCAT
L 78-79
+10.5
24
@
W&M
L 82-89
+13.5
29
vs
COFC
L 64-66
−18.5
31
@
MONM
W 73-57
−10.5
5
vs
NE
W 80-63
−10.5
7
vs
TOW
W 71-49
−17.5
12
@
COFC
W 66-62
−18.5
14
@
UNCW
L 66-70
−1.5
19
vs
HAMP
W 79-43
−11.5
21
@
NE
W 82-68
+5.5
28
vs
STBK
W 67-58
−15.5
3
vs
DREX
W 62-51
−20.5
8
vs
W&M
W 92-61
+0.5
9
vs
TOW
W 68-65
+0.5
10
vs
MONM
W 75-69
+10.5
20
vs
ALA
L 70-90
+1.5
over 18under 15avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Hofstra has the better starters
Position by position: Hofstra 3, Quinnipiac 1, even 1
HofstraBetterQuinnipiac
G J. Moore TR10.9 pts · 2.2 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 46
←HOFBig
G N. Guerengomba2.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 4
G D. Tavarez TR8.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 47
=Even
G T. Turnage3.4 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 36
F J. DeCady6.3 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 17
→QUINBig
F K. McKnight10.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 79
F S. Wewe TR2.4 pts · 5.2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 17
←HOFSmall
F H. Pierre-Louis TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 1
F I. Zorgvol TR5.2 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 62
←HOFBig
F N. Hart TR2.2 pts · 3.1 reb · 0 ast
Score 27
HofstraBetterQuinnipiac
HOF offense254th of 366 · -7.7
=Even
QUIN defense232nd of 366 · -6.2
HOF defense120th of 366 · -1.9
←HOFSmall
QUIN offense243rd of 366 · -7.3
Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players
←HOFSmall
Backcourt-2.7 · 2 players
Frontcourt-3.3 · 3 players
→QUINSmall
Frontcourt-1.8 · 3 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.6 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestHOF betterQUIN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Moore30 min · TRD. Tavarez23 min · TRT. ThomasNewC. LopezNewT. BoydNewN. JeffersonNew
Forwards
J. DeCady25 minS. Wewe16 min · TRI. Zorgvol15 min · TRR. DunnNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.4 #184 | Points per game | 74.2 #190 |
| 1.13 #86 | Points per possession | 1.05 #246 |
| 65.9 #319 | Pace (possessions) | 70.3 #100 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #178 | Effective FG% | 48.1 #310 |
| 37.1 #26 | 3-point % | 34.0 #171 |
| 42.9 #119 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.7 #304 |
| 31.6 #264 | Free throw rate | 33.8 #217 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.1 #148 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #125 |
| 34.7 #54 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #65 |
| 12.3 #263 | Assists per game | 13.0 #211 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.2 #36 | Points allowed | 72.6 #121 |
| 1.04 #69 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #68 |
| 46.3 #14 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #65 |
| 32.3 #78 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.9 #242 |
| 15.0 #292 | Turnovers forced | 17.4 #122 |
| 69.0 #201 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #253 |
| 4.8 #343 | Steals per game | 7.8 #55 |
| 3.5 #135 | Blocks per game | 4.5 #37 |
Hofstra
22-11 in 2025-26 overall · 15-6 in conference · Coastal Athletic Association
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Alabama70–90
- Wvs Monmouth75–69
- Wvs Towson68–65
- Wvs William & Mary92–61
- Wvs Drexel62–51
A week or more of rest.
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.