Winthrop Coliseum · at Winthrop
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WIN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WIN 83–72 · win probability WIN 82%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.5
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: WIN has more of the edges
UND 1, WIN 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UND 27.4%, WIN 34.1%. Defensive: UND 67.6%, WIN 72.3%
WIN offense vs UND defense
Offense 135th of 366 against a defense 353rd, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
UND hits 32.7% and allows 37.1%; WIN hits 33.2% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 40.6% and 44.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: UND 49.5 and allows 56.5; WIN 49.7 and allows 51.5
Context
Schedule so far
UND has played the 293rd-hardest schedule, WIN the 206th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UND 14.1%, WIN 14.7%. Forced: UND 19.3%, WIN 16.6%
Free throws
Free throw rate: UND 37.9, WIN 44.0. Allowed: UND 43.8, WIN 39.0
Home court
WIN at home. This season: WIN 0-0 at home, UND 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: UND plays 69.7 a game (133rd fastest), WIN 72.0 (35th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UND 24%, WIN 13%. Transfers in: UND 2, WIN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
UND offense vs WIN defense
Offense 304th of 366 against a defense 298th, 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 | — | WIN -10.7 | — |
| Total | — | 155.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | UND 72.4 · WIN 83.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WIN -6.2 | — |
| 1H total | 72.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | UND 33.2 · WIN 39.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | |
| 7-3 70% | 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UND 1–0 WINUND leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UND 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2025-26 | WIN 88 @ UND 90 | UND +12.5 | UND W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
North Dakota
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
21-11
66% covers · avg +1.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% overs · avg +1.1 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 62-91 | +36.5 | W +7.5 | 170.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 6 | vs | L 70-74 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 9 | vs | L 85-93 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 76-74 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 60-75 | +29.5 | W +14.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 58-75 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 78-69 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 55-92 | +18.5 | L −18.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 58-90 | +11.5 | L −20.5 | 151.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 75-79 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 66-69 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 90-88 | +12.5 | W +14.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 55-78 | +29.5 | W +6.5 | 151.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 72-61 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 90-87 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 79-90 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 81-79 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 80-91 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 96-80 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 79-62 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 93-86 | +5.5 | W +12.5 | 162.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 81-80 | +11.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 76-73 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 79-98 | -3.5 | L −22.5 | 161.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 72-71 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 66-83 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 85-70 | -9.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 83-91 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 63-96 | +11.5 | L −21.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 83-67 | +2.5 | W +18.5 | 160.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 67-66 | +11.5 | W +12.5 | 153.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 62-70 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | U 132 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
ALA
L 62-91
+7.5
6
vs
UCR
L 70-74
−5.5
9
vs
CSUN
L 85-93
−1.5
15
@
UCR
W 76-74
+5.5
19
@
CREI
L 60-75
+14.5
22
vs
CCU
L 58-75
−13.5
23
@
WIU
W 78-69
+6.5
28
@
HAW
L 55-92
−18.5
3
@
IDHO
L 58-90
−20.5
6
vs
MONT
L 75-79
+1.5
13
vs
WIU
L 66-69
−10.5
18
vs
WIN
W 90-88
+14.5
21
@
NEB
L 55-78
+6.5
1
vs
ORU
W 72-61
+9.5
3
vs
SDST
W 90-87
+10.5
8
@
OMA
L 79-90
−5.5
10
@
KC
W 81-79
+3.5
15
vs
STMN
L 80-91
−0.5
17
vs
SDAK
W 96-80
+14.5
22
@
ORU
W 79-62
+18.5
24
@
DEN
W 93-86
+12.5
29
@
STMN
W 81-80
+12.5
5
vs
OMA
W 76-73
+1.5
7
vs
DEN
L 79-98
−22.5
11
@
SDAK
W 72-71
+3.5
14
vs
NDSU
L 66-83
−11.5
19
vs
KC
W 85-70
+5.5
21
@
SDST
L 83-91
+1.5
28
@
NDSU
L 63-96
−21.5
6
vs
DEN
W 83-67
+18.5
7
vs
STMN
W 67-66
+12.5
8
vs
NDSU
L 62-70
+3.5
covered 21didn’t cover 11avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
ALA
L 62-91
−17.5
6
vs
UCR
L 70-74
−2.5
9
vs
CSUN
L 85-93
+19.5
15
@
UCR
W 76-74
+1.5
19
@
CREI
L 60-75
−20.5
22
vs
CCU
L 58-75
−14.5
23
@
WIU
W 78-69
+0.5
28
@
HAW
L 55-92
−2.5
3
@
IDHO
L 58-90
−3.5
6
vs
MONT
L 75-79
−0.5
13
vs
WIU
L 66-69
−10.5
18
vs
WIN
W 90-88
+20.5
21
@
NEB
L 55-78
−18.5
1
vs
ORU
W 72-61
−15.5
3
vs
SDST
W 90-87
+24.5
8
@
OMA
L 79-90
+22.5
10
@
KC
W 81-79
+13.5
15
vs
STMN
L 80-91
+19.5
17
vs
SDAK
W 96-80
+15.5
22
@
ORU
W 79-62
−8.5
24
@
DEN
W 93-86
+16.5
29
@
STMN
W 81-80
+8.5
5
vs
OMA
W 76-73
−1.5
7
vs
DEN
L 79-98
+15.5
11
@
SDAK
W 72-71
−13.5
14
vs
NDSU
L 66-83
−0.5
19
vs
KC
W 85-70
+4.5
21
@
SDST
L 83-91
+22.5
28
@
NDSU
L 63-96
+6.5
6
vs
DEN
W 83-67
−10.5
7
vs
STMN
W 67-66
−20.5
8
vs
NDSU
L 62-70
−15.5
over 15under 17avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Winthrop
31 games played
Straight up
20-11
65% wins
Against the spread
12-19
39% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg +0.2 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 3 | vs | W 81-74 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 163.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 90-96 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 186 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 66-72 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 105-69 | -2.5 | W +33.5 | 162.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 83-84 | +23.5 | W +22.5 | 168.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 80-62 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 73-80 | +14.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 101-79 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 94-92 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 84-88 | -16.5 | L −20.5 | 153.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 88-90 | -12.5 | L −14.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 57-87 | +17.5 | L −12.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 70-82 | -7.5 | L −19.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 88-77 | -23.5 | L −12.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 81-77 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 166.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 71-50 | -5.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 92-75 | +2.5 | W +19.5 | 162.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-67 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 76-75 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 82-72 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 84-71 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 80-78 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-74 | -10.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 103-85 | -20.5 | L −2.5 | 156.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 68-64 | -13.5 | L −9.5 | 158.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 87-89 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 84-86 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-70 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 86-81 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 164.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 73-71 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 76-91 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
QUC
W 81-74
+3.5
7
@
GMU
L 90-96
+3.5
11
@
CCU
L 66-72
−8.5
15
vs
MER
W 105-69
+33.5
18
@
ARK
L 83-84
+22.5
23
@
JKST
W 80-62
+7.5
25
@
NEB
L 73-80
+7.5
29
vs
SCST
W 101-79
+1.5
2
@
LIU
W 94-92
−3.5
6
vs
CCU
L 84-88
−20.5
18
@
UND
L 88-90
−14.5
28
@
TTU
L 57-87
−12.5
31
@
LONG
L 70-82
−19.5
3
vs
GWEB
W 88-77
−12.5
7
vs
CHSO
W 81-77
−4.5
10
@
UPST
W 71-50
+15.5
14
vs
HPU
W 92-75
+19.5
17
@
UNCA
W 69-67
−3.5
21
vs
RAD
W 76-75
−8.5
24
@
PRES
W 82-72
+4.5
31
vs
UNCA
W 84-71
+3.5
4
@
RAD
W 80-78
−2.5
7
vs
LONG
W 79-74
−5.5
12
@
GWEB
W 103-85
−2.5
19
vs
UPST
W 68-64
−9.5
21
@
HPU
L 87-89
+7.5
26
@
CHSO
L 84-86
−10.5
28
vs
PRES
W 74-70
−3.5
6
vs
CHSO
W 86-81
−1.5
7
vs
PRES
W 73-71
−5.5
8
vs
HPU
L 76-91
−8.5
covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
QUC
W 81-74
−8.5
7
@
GMU
L 90-96
+39.5
11
@
CCU
L 66-72
−27.5
15
vs
MER
W 105-69
+11.5
18
@
ARK
L 83-84
−1.5
23
@
JKST
W 80-62
−21.5
25
@
NEB
L 73-80
−13.5
29
vs
SCST
W 101-79
+22.5
2
@
LIU
W 94-92
+32.5
6
vs
CCU
L 84-88
+18.5
18
@
UND
L 88-90
+20.5
28
@
TTU
L 57-87
−19.5
31
@
LONG
L 70-82
−9.5
3
vs
GWEB
W 88-77
+0.5
7
vs
CHSO
W 81-77
−8.5
10
@
UPST
W 71-50
−36.5
14
vs
HPU
W 92-75
+4.5
17
@
UNCA
W 69-67
−16.5
21
vs
RAD
W 76-75
−14.5
24
@
PRES
W 82-72
+7.5
31
vs
UNCA
W 84-71
+7.5
4
@
RAD
W 80-78
−3.5
7
vs
LONG
W 79-74
−0.5
12
@
GWEB
W 103-85
+31.5
19
vs
UPST
W 68-64
−26.5
21
@
HPU
L 87-89
+9.5
26
@
CHSO
L 84-86
+5.5
28
vs
PRES
W 74-70
−6.5
6
vs
CHSO
W 86-81
+2.5
7
vs
PRES
W 73-71
−1.5
8
vs
HPU
L 76-91
+9.5
over 15under 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Winthrop has the better starters
Position by position: North Dakota 0, Winthrop 2, even 3
North DakotaBetterWinthrop
G Z. Kraft7.7 pts · 2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 23
=Even
G M. Davis TR9.5 pts · 2.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 12
G S. Hincapie TR4.9 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 11
→WINSmall
G S. Sims TR9.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 30
G T. Wagner TR1.7 pts · 1.2 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G A. Smith TR7.6 pts · 2 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 60
F K. Ouse0.5 pts · 0.4 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G S. Hendawy5.2 pts · 4 reb · 1 ast
Score 30
C J. Jones2.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 1
→WINBig
F G. Natsvlishvili TR7.7 pts · 4.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 43
North DakotaBetterWinthrop
UND offense304th of 366 · -9.5
=Even
WIN defense298th of 366 · -7.6
UND defense353rd of 366 · -9.9
→WINBig
WIN offense135th of 366 · -3.9
Backcourt-4.8 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-5.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt-4.5 · 2 players
→WINBig
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-1.7 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUND betterWIN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
Z. Kraft25 minS. Hincapie16 min · TRT. Wagner7 min · TRL. WinkelNewZ. ParksNewJ. MooreNew
Forwards
K. Ouse6 minA. RadojevicNewJ. ThomasNewD. ElyNew
Centers
J. Jones19 min
Guards
M. Davis26 min · TRS. Sims25 min · TRA. Smith18 min · TRS. Hendawy16 minK. Fisher11 min · TRH. Harrison2 min
Forwards
G. Natsvlishvili20 min · TRT. Hamilton7 minT. HarrisNewJ. CwikNew
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 #187 | Points per game | 81.5 #40 |
| 1.07 #214 | Points per possession | 1.13 #79 |
| 69.7 #133 | Pace (possessions) | 72.0 #35 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #272 | Effective FG% | 49.7 #250 |
| 32.7 #246 | 3-point % | 33.2 #217 |
| 40.6 #155 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.1 #88 |
| 37.9 #106 | Free throw rate | 44.0 #10 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.1 #27 | Turnover rate | 14.7 #52 |
| 27.4 #284 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #63 |
| 10.8 #343 | Assists per game | 13.6 #177 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.6 #310 | Points allowed | 77.7 #261 |
| 1.14 #306 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #154 |
| 56.5 #353 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.5 #182 |
| 37.1 #345 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #113 |
| 19.3 #36 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #174 |
| 67.6 #276 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.3 #55 |
| 7.9 #49 | Steals per game | 6.6 #161 |
| 2.5 #307 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #281 |
North Dakota
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Summit League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs N Dakota St62–70
- Wvs St Thomas67–66
- Wvs Denver83–67
- L@ N Dakota St63–96
- L@ S Dakota St83–91
A week or more of rest.
Winthrop
20-11 in 2025-26 overall · 15-4 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs High Point76–91
- Wvs Presbyterian73–71
- Wvs Charleston So86–81
- Wvs Presbyterian74–70
- L@ Charleston So84–86
A week or more of rest.