The Palestra · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TEM 75–71 · win probability TEM 62%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.2
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: TEM has more of the edges
SBU 1, TEM 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: SBU 30.0, TEM 40.6. Allowed: SBU 33.9, TEM 35.5
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SBU 34.5%, TEM 29.8%. Defensive: SBU 70.2%, TEM 69.7%
SBU offense vs TEM defense
Offense 169th of 366 against a defense 108th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: SBU plays 68.0 a game (228th fastest), TEM 65.6 (325th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SBU 18%, TEM 38%. Transfers in: SBU 3, TEM 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SBU 16.8%, TEM 13.7%. Forced: SBU 17.1%, TEM 15.5%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: SBU 52.4 and allows 53.3; TEM 50.2 and allows 50.7
Even
TEM offense vs SBU defense
Offense 116th of 366 against a defense 131st, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
SBU hits 37.4% and allows 36.0%; TEM hits 33.6% and allows 32.8%. Threes are 31.3% and 35.7% of their shots
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Schedule so far
SBU has played the 109th-hardest schedule, TEM the 110th. 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 | — | TEM -3.6 | — |
| Total | — | 146.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | SBU 71.3 · TEM 74.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TEM -2.0 | — |
| 1H total | 68.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | SBU 33.2 · TEM 35.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
St Bonaventure
33 games played
Straight up
16-17
48% wins
Against the spread
13-20
39% covers · avg −2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-14
58% overs · avg +4.9 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 | vs | W 69-63 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 89-70 | -21.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 75-66 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 84-80 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 75-61 | -11.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 70-85 | +10.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 67-58 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 70-65 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 77-69 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 85-77 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 83-88 | -6.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 92-81 | -21.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 82-89 | +9.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 80-89 | -6.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 77-81 | -8.5 | L −12.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 64-68 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 74-78 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 84-70 | -10.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 62-97 | +8.5 | L −26.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 87-79 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 73-77 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 70-72 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 70-67 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 73-78 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 65-71 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 94-99 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 94-76 | -2.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 58-71 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 82-91 | +7.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 63-68 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 99-80 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 63-57 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 63-68 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
BRAD
W 69-63
+4.5
8
vs
CAN
W 89-70
−2.5
12
vs
SIE
W 75-66
−0.5
15
vs
YSU
W 84-80
−5.5
20
vs
RMU
W 75-61
+2.5
25
vs
UNC
L 70-85
−4.5
27
vs
ECU
W 67-58
−1.5
30
@
FAU
W 70-65
+6.5
6
@
BUF
W 77-69
+2.5
10
vs
COLG
W 85-77
−1.5
13
vs
OHIO
L 83-88
−11.5
20
vs
LEM
W 92-81
−10.5
31
@
VCU
L 82-89
+2.5
7
vs
RICH
L 80-89
−15.5
10
vs
FOR
L 77-81
−12.5
14
@
JOES
L 64-68
−5.5
17
@
LAS
L 74-78
−9.5
20
vs
LUC
W 84-70
+3.5
23
vs
SLU
L 62-97
−26.5
28
@
DUQ
W 87-79
+11.5
31
vs
GMU
L 73-77
−2.5
3
@
DAY
L 70-72
+5.5
7
@
FOR
W 70-67
+1.5
14
vs
DUQ
L 73-78
−6.5
18
vs
JOES
L 65-71
−11.5
21
@
RICH
L 94-99
−3.5
26
vs
URI
W 94-76
+15.5
28
@
GMU
L 58-71
−9.5
4
@
GW
L 82-91
−1.5
7
vs
DAV
L 63-68
−9.5
11
vs
LAS
W 99-80
+11.5
12
vs
GMU
W 63-57
+8.5
13
vs
DAY
L 63-68
+0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 20avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
BRAD
W 69-63
−7.5
8
vs
CAN
W 89-70
+22.5
12
vs
SIE
W 75-66
+0.5
15
vs
YSU
W 84-80
+17.5
20
vs
RMU
W 75-61
−10.5
25
vs
UNC
L 70-85
+2.5
27
vs
ECU
W 67-58
−19.5
30
@
FAU
W 70-65
−11.5
6
@
BUF
W 77-69
+1.5
10
vs
COLG
W 85-77
+19.5
13
vs
OHIO
L 83-88
+20.5
20
vs
LEM
W 92-81
+21.5
31
@
VCU
L 82-89
+13.5
7
vs
RICH
L 80-89
+15.5
10
vs
FOR
L 77-81
+15.5
14
@
JOES
L 64-68
−15.5
17
@
LAS
L 74-78
+10.5
20
vs
LUC
W 84-70
+6.5
23
vs
SLU
L 62-97
−0.5
28
@
DUQ
W 87-79
+15.5
31
vs
GMU
L 73-77
+7.5
3
@
DAY
L 70-72
−2.5
7
@
FOR
W 70-67
−4.5
14
vs
DUQ
L 73-78
−1.5
18
vs
JOES
L 65-71
−11.5
21
@
RICH
L 94-99
+45.5
26
vs
URI
W 94-76
+25.5
28
@
GMU
L 58-71
−17.5
4
@
GW
L 82-91
+15.5
7
vs
DAV
L 63-68
−10.5
11
vs
LAS
W 99-80
+32.5
12
vs
GMU
W 63-57
−23.5
13
vs
DAY
L 63-68
−10.5
over 19under 14avg +4.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Temple
31 games played
Straight up
15-16
48% wins
Against the spread
14-17
45% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-14
55% overs · avg −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 5 | vs | W 83-65 | -16.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 90-63 | -6.5 | W +20.5 | 148.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 71-76 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 81-76 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 76-91 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 79-75 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 75-90 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 56-74 | +14.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 69-70 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 95-67 | -20.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 68-63 | +5.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 65-61 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 76-73 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 76-57 | -10.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 75-67 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 53-55 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 73-79 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 69-65 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 70-64 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 76-80 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 79-78 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 81-73 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 66-77 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 62-65 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 71-76 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 57-69 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 73-77 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 74-80 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 89-60 | -4.5 | W +24.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 76-78 | +11.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 59-63 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 122 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
DSU
W 83-65
+1.5
11
vs
LAS
W 90-63
+20.5
15
vs
BC
L 71-76
−8.5
19
vs
HOF
W 81-76
−0.5
24
vs
UCSD
L 76-91
−16.5
25
vs
PRIN
W 79-75
−4.5
26
vs
URI
L 75-90
−11.5
1
@
VILL
L 56-74
−3.5
6
vs
JOES
L 69-70
−2.5
14
vs
SFPA
W 95-67
+7.5
18
@
DAV
W 68-63
+10.5
22
vs
PRIN
W 65-61
−4.5
30
@
CLT
W 76-73
+4.5
3
vs
UTSA
W 76-57
+8.5
7
vs
ECU
W 75-67
+0.5
14
@
MEM
L 53-55
+5.5
18
vs
FAU
L 73-79
−3.5
21
@
RICE
W 69-65
+5.5
24
@
UTSA
W 70-64
−4.5
28
vs
CLT
L 76-80
−8.5
31
vs
USF
W 79-78
+10.5
7
@
ECU
W 81-73
+5.5
11
@
TULN
L 66-77
−9.5
15
vs
UNT
L 62-65
−5.5
18
vs
UAB
L 71-76
−6.5
21
@
WICH
L 57-69
−3.5
26
@
FAU
L 73-77
+0.5
1
vs
RICE
L 74-80
−12.5
5
vs
TULN
W 89-60
+24.5
8
@
TLSA
L 76-78
+9.5
11
vs
FAU
L 59-63
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 17avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
DSU
W 83-65
−6.5
11
vs
LAS
W 90-63
+4.5
15
vs
BC
L 71-76
+4.5
19
vs
HOF
W 81-76
+11.5
24
vs
UCSD
L 76-91
+18.5
25
vs
PRIN
W 79-75
+8.5
26
vs
URI
L 75-90
+15.5
1
@
VILL
L 56-74
−16.5
6
vs
JOES
L 69-70
−8.5
14
vs
SFPA
W 95-67
+11.5
18
@
DAV
W 68-63
−10.5
22
vs
PRIN
W 65-61
−13.5
30
@
CLT
W 76-73
+10.5
3
vs
UTSA
W 76-57
−16.5
7
vs
ECU
W 75-67
−1.5
14
@
MEM
L 53-55
−35.5
18
vs
FAU
L 73-79
+3.5
21
@
RICE
W 69-65
−8.5
24
@
UTSA
W 70-64
−11.5
28
vs
CLT
L 76-80
+16.5
31
vs
USF
W 79-78
+2.5
7
@
ECU
W 81-73
+13.5
11
@
TULN
L 66-77
−1.5
15
vs
UNT
L 62-65
−8.5
18
vs
UAB
L 71-76
+3.5
21
@
WICH
L 57-69
−18.5
26
@
FAU
L 73-77
+4.5
1
vs
RICE
L 74-80
+11.5
5
vs
TULN
W 89-60
+4.5
8
@
TLSA
L 76-78
+4.5
11
vs
FAU
L 59-63
−22.5
over 17under 14avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Temple has the better starters
Position by position: St Bonaventure 0, Temple 3, even 2
St BonaventureBetterTemple
G A. Fulton TR10.7 pts · 6.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 62
→TEMSmall
G D. Ford18.1 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 86
G I. Ermakov2.6 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. White TR9.7 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 44
F R. Kalambay TR4.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 40
→TEMSmall
G G. Griffiths10 pts · 4.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 68
F J. Grahovac4.2 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
=Even
F B. Njie TR9.6 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 45
F M. Blackwood TR2.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 22
→TEMSmall
F E. Suarez TR9.3 pts · 6.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 54
St BonaventureBetterTemple
SBU offense169th of 366 · -5.2
→TEMSmall
TEM defense108th of 366 · -1.1
SBU defense131st of 366 · -2.4
=Even
TEM offense116th of 366 · -2.5
Backcourt-0.4 · 2 players
→TEMSmall
Backcourt+1.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.4 · 3 players
→TEMSmall
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.6 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-1.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSBU betterTEM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Fulton29 min · TRI. Ermakov10 minA. Lonati8 minJ. DeRose1 minR. HeathNewZ. PhilipkoskiNew
Forwards
R. Kalambay21 min · TRJ. Grahovac18 minM. Blackwood12 min · TRJ. IkpotokinNewC. BlankenbergNew
Centers
B. BillNewC. DialloNew
Guards
D. Ford36 minD. White30 min · TRG. Griffiths29 minJ. Marsh18 min · TRC. Wallace6 minD. DrakeNew
Forwards
B. Njie26 min · TRE. Suarez22 min · TRS. Issac Herron13 min · TR
Centers
C. Beam16 min · TRM. Keita5 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.2 #138 | Points per game | 73.0 #224 |
| 1.12 #104 | Points per possession | 1.11 #115 |
| 68.0 #228 | Pace (possessions) | 65.6 #325 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.4 #129 | Effective FG% | 50.2 #229 |
| 37.4 #22 | 3-point % | 33.6 #194 |
| 31.3 #335 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.7 #255 |
| 30.0 #310 | Free throw rate | 40.6 #52 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #189 | Turnover rate | 13.7 #18 |
| 34.5 #60 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.8 #209 |
| 15.4 #73 | Assists per game | 11.9 #290 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.4 #201 | Points allowed | 71.2 #77 |
| 1.11 #245 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #177 |
| 53.3 #278 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.7 #137 |
| 36.0 #299 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.8 #107 |
| 17.1 #144 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #245 |
| 70.2 #150 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.7 #177 |
| 7.5 #80 | Steals per game | 5.7 #279 |
| 4.4 #41 | Blocks per game | 4.0 #71 |
St Bonaventure
16-17 in 2025-26 overall · 6-15 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Dayton63–68
- Wvs George Mason63–57
- Wvs La Salle99–80
- Lvs Davidson63–68
- L@ G Washington82–91
A week or more of rest.
Temple
15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs FAU59–63
- L@ Tulsa76–78
- Wvs Tulane89–60
- Lvs Rice74–80
- L@ FAU73–77
A week or more of rest.