Trojan Arena · at Troy
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TROY | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TROY 75–72 · win probability TROY 61%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.4
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
FUR 2, TROY 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FUR 17.8%, TROY 17.3%. Forced: FUR 13.7%, TROY 16.7%
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: FUR plays 67.2 a game (273rd fastest), TROY 69.6 (141st). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FUR 46%, TROY 11%. Transfers in: FUR 4, TROY 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Shooting
Effective FG%: FUR 54.8 and allows 50.2; TROY 51.5 and allows 50.2
Context
Schedule so far
FUR has played the 224th-hardest schedule, TROY the 166th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
TROY at home. This season: TROY 0-0 at home, FUR 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: FUR 32.7, TROY 36.2. Allowed: FUR 28.9, TROY 31.4
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FUR 30.5%, TROY 34.5%. Defensive: FUR 71.8%, TROY 68.3%
Even
FUR offense vs TROY defense
Offense 166th of 366 against a defense 162nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
TROY offense vs FUR defense
Offense 143rd of 366 against a defense 146th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
FUR hits 33.4% and allows 32.3%; TROY hits 33.0% and allows 31.6%. Threes are 46.5% and 45.9% of their shots
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 | — | TROY -3.1 | — |
| Total | — | 147.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | FUR 72.2 · TROY 75.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TROY -1.7 | — |
| 1H total | 69.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | FUR 33.6 · TROY 35.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
FUR 0–1 TROYTROY leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · FUR 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2025-26 | TROY 64 @ FUR 61 | FUR -2.5 | TROY W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Furman
32 games played
Straight up
19-13
59% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% overs · avg −0.7 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 | L 71-97 | +3.5 | L −22.5 | 153.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 61-64 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 54-70 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 90-79 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 73-72 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 65-72 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 97-88 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 79-69 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 75-68 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 84-76 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 74-72 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 77-80 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 78-67 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 69-48 | -12.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 77-73 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 70-74 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 75-77 | -11.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 89-66 | -4.5 | W +18.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 78-73 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 75-70 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 71-75 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 8 | vs | L 64-67 | -10.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 64-69 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 90-72 | -11.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 69-78 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 76-67 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 72-51 | -15.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-86 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 86-81 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 81-75 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 76-61 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 71-82 | +20.5 | W +9.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
HPU
L 71-97
−22.5
7
vs
TROY
L 61-64
−5.5
14
@
UNI
L 54-70
−6.5
23
vs
QUC
W 90-79
+2.5
27
vs
RICH
W 73-72
+4.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-72
−3.5
3
@
ELON
W 97-88
+7.5
6
vs
HARV
W 79-69
+5.5
18
@
MAN
W 75-68
−3.5
21
vs
CHSO
W 84-76
−2.5
31
vs
MER
W 74-72
−0.5
3
vs
WCU
L 77-80
−11.5
7
@
UTC
W 78-67
+8.5
10
vs
VMI
W 69-48
+8.5
14
@
SAM
W 77-73
+2.5
17
vs
WOF
L 70-74
−8.5
21
@
CIT
L 75-77
−13.5
23
@
UNCG
W 89-66
+18.5
29
vs
SAM
W 78-73
−0.5
1
vs
UTC
W 75-70
−2.5
4
@
ETSU
L 71-75
+1.5
8
vs
UNCG
L 64-67
−13.5
11
@
MER
L 64-69
−1.5
14
@
VMI
W 90-72
+6.5
18
vs
ETSU
L 69-78
−10.5
21
@
WOF
W 76-67
+7.5
25
vs
CIT
W 72-51
+5.5
28
@
WCU
L 67-86
−20.5
7
vs
SAM
W 86-81
+6.5
8
vs
UNCG
W 81-75
+0.5
9
vs
ETSU
W 76-61
+16.5
20
vs
CONN
L 71-82
+9.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
HPU
L 71-97
+14.5
7
vs
TROY
L 61-64
−27.5
14
@
UNI
L 54-70
−17.5
23
vs
QUC
W 90-79
+15.5
27
vs
RICH
W 73-72
−2.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-72
−8.5
3
@
ELON
W 97-88
+31.5
6
vs
HARV
W 79-69
+6.5
18
@
MAN
W 75-68
−11.5
21
vs
CHSO
W 84-76
+4.5
31
vs
MER
W 74-72
−8.5
3
vs
WCU
L 77-80
−0.5
7
@
UTC
W 78-67
−1.5
10
vs
VMI
W 69-48
−32.5
14
@
SAM
W 77-73
+0.5
17
vs
WOF
L 70-74
−5.5
21
@
CIT
L 75-77
+9.5
23
@
UNCG
W 89-66
+4.5
29
vs
SAM
W 78-73
+1.5
1
vs
UTC
W 75-70
−1.5
4
@
ETSU
L 71-75
+4.5
8
vs
UNCG
L 64-67
−18.5
11
@
MER
L 64-69
−18.5
14
@
VMI
W 90-72
+13.5
18
vs
ETSU
L 69-78
+6.5
21
@
WOF
W 76-67
−10.5
25
vs
CIT
W 72-51
−20.5
28
@
WCU
L 67-86
+5.5
7
vs
SAM
W 86-81
+19.5
8
vs
UNCG
W 81-75
+8.5
9
vs
ETSU
W 76-61
−2.5
20
vs
CONN
L 71-82
+19.5
over 16under 16avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Troy
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
18-14
56% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg +2.9 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 | @ | W 103-97 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 200 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 64-61 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 63-74 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 108-107 | +14.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 215 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 106-107 | +18.5 | W +17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-75 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-64 | -21.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 1 | vs | L 89-93 | -17.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 86-85 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 100-80 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 59-49 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 74-86 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 160.5 | U 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-70 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 91-65 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 99-74 | -3.5 | W +21.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 83-77 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 83-78 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 64-73 | -9.5 | L −18.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 44-66 | -7.5 | L −29.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-69 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 62-74 | -5.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-69 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 77-76 | -17.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 54-65 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 78-59 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 134.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-65 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-70 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 77-61 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 47-76 | +13.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+9.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
+5.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−6.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
−13.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+15.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+17.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−9.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−11.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
−21.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+7.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
+2.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+11.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
+0.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−7.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+10.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+17.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+21.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+0.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+0.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−18.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−29.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
+4.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
+12.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−17.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−9.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−16.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−13.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+7.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−3.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+2.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
+10.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−15.5
covered 18didn’t cover 14avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+57.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
−27.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−3.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
+21.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+77.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+53.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−16.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−13.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
+31.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+15.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
−22.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+34.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
−40.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−0.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+23.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+10.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+7.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+7.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+1.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−10.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−27.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
−7.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
−9.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−4.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−10.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−0.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−23.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+2.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−8.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+5.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
−14.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−16.5
over 14under 18avg +2.9 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: Furman 2, Troy 2, even 1
FurmanBetterTroy
G J. Bell TR12.3 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 76
←FURBig
G R. Davis TR9.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 14
G C. Bowser5.2 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
→TROYBig
G D. Oday TR18.9 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 95
G L. Toews TR6.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 45
→TROYSmall
G J. Hutchinson TR12.1 pts · 3.4 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 76
F M. Kell TR13.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
=Even
F C. Diggs TR10.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
F C. Johnston9.6 pts · 8.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 66
←FURBig
F K. Kiel3.6 pts · 3.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 23
FurmanBetterTroy
FUR offense166th of 366 · -5.1
=Even
TROY defense162nd of 366 · -3.6
FUR defense146th of 366 · -3.2
=Even
TROY offense143rd of 366 · -4.3
Backcourt-1.4 · 3 players
→TROYSmall
Backcourt+1.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt+0.9 · 2 players
←FURSmall
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
Bench-2.5 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-2.0 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestFUR betterTROY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Bell26 min · TRC. Bowser23 minL. Toews21 min · TRA. Franklin11 minC. O'Neal11 minG. LewisNew
Forwards
M. Kell30 min · TRC. Johnston29 minM. Smith12 minJ. Butler9 min · TRO. Ritger7 minD. MolnarNew
Guards
R. Davis31 min · TRD. Oday30 min · TRJ. Hutchinson29 min · TRH. Awata2 minJ. KontuniemiNewR. ValakouNew
Forwards
C. Diggs23 min · TRK. Kiel16 minM. Ikegwuruka13 min · TRS. Walters9 min · TRE. Griffin5 min
Centers
A. PachecoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.9 #164 | Points per game | 77.3 #110 |
| 1.11 #114 | Points per possession | 1.11 #113 |
| 67.2 #273 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #141 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.8 #43 | Effective FG% | 51.5 #171 |
| 33.4 #204 | 3-point % | 33.0 #229 |
| 46.5 #40 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.9 #47 |
| 32.7 #246 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #147 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #260 | Turnover rate | 17.3 #226 |
| 30.5 #180 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.5 #59 |
| 14.9 #91 | Assists per game | 15.0 #86 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.5 #116 | Points allowed | 74.5 #178 |
| 1.08 #163 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #128 |
| 50.2 #112 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.2 #111 |
| 32.3 #75 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.6 #47 |
| 13.7 #342 | Turnovers forced | 16.7 #173 |
| 71.8 #72 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #243 |
| 4.4 #357 | Steals per game | 7.2 #107 |
| 3.3 #183 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #169 |
Furman
19-13 in 2025-26 overall · 13-8 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn71–82
- Wvs ETSU76–61
- Wvs UNC Greensboro81–75
- Wvs Samford86–81
- L@ W Carolina67–86
A week or more of rest.
Troy
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Nebraska47–76
- Wvs GA Southern77–61
- Wvs Southern Miss78–70
- Wvs UL Monroe80–65
- Wvs Louisiana78–59
A week or more of rest.