Pete Hanna Center · at Samford
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SAM | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SAM 77–75 · win probability SAM 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.9
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
WRST 3, SAM 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
WRST hits 36.4% and allows 34.3%; SAM hits 35.6% and allows 36.5%. Threes are 34.2% and 45.7% of their shots
WRST offense vs SAM defense
Offense 148th of 366 against a defense 224th, on the model’s ratings
SAM offense vs WRST defense
Offense 147th of 366 against a defense 215th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WRST 32.8%, SAM 25.3%. Defensive: WRST 70.6%, SAM 74.3%
Home court
SAM at home. This season: SAM 0-0 at home, WRST 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: WRST 37.4, SAM 41.9. Allowed: WRST 33.3, SAM 32.9
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WRST 16.1%, SAM 13.4%. Forced: WRST 16.6%, SAM 13.0%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WRST 32%, SAM 41%. Transfers in: WRST 4, SAM 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
WRST has played the 264th-hardest schedule, SAM the 251st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WRST 54.3 and allows 52.4; SAM 53.1 and allows 51.9
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: WRST plays 69.1 a game (171st fastest), SAM 69.3 (163rd). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | SAM -1.6 | — |
| Total | — | 151.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | WRST 75.2 · SAM 76.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SAM -0.8 | — |
| 1H total | 71.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | WRST 35.1 · SAM 35.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | |
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Wright St
33 games played
Straight up
21-12
64% wins
Against the spread
21-12
64% covers · avg +2.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg +3.4 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 6 | @ | L 67-77 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 71-81 | -5.5 | L −15.5 | 159.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 92-59 | +6.5 | W +39.5 | 156.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 72-76 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 79-62 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 69-94 | +14.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 68-69 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 86-58 | -6.5 | W +21.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 74-76 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 76-83 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 70-64 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 88-73 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 76-70 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 81-77 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 84-82 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 94-84 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 161.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 93-83 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 79-85 | -15.5 | L −21.5 | 156.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 88-80 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 30 | @ | W 76-69 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 83-75 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 66-72 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 73-68 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 74-77 | -11.5 | L −14.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 102-90 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 157.5 | O 192 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 85-73 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 160.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 68-81 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 74-70 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 92-91 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 90-61 | -14.5 | W +14.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 103-90 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 157.5 | O 193 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 66-63 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 73-82 | +17.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
CAL
L 67-77
+4.5
11
vs
TOL
L 71-81
−15.5
15
vs
RAD
W 92-59
+39.5
16
vs
KENT
L 72-76
+0.5
25
@
STET
W 79-62
+7.5
28
@
BTLR
L 69-94
−10.5
3
@
YSU
L 68-69
+2.5
7
vs
GB
W 86-58
+21.5
13
@
MRSH
L 74-76
+1.5
16
vs
M-OH
L 76-83
−5.5
22
vs
EMU
W 70-64
−4.5
29
vs
OAK
W 88-73
+11.5
1
vs
MILW
W 76-70
+2.5
4
@
IUIN
W 81-77
−4.5
9
@
DETM
W 84-82
−3.5
11
@
OAK
W 94-84
+14.5
15
vs
YSU
W 93-83
+5.5
21
vs
CLE
L 79-85
−21.5
24
vs
NKU
W 88-80
+6.5
30
@
MILW
W 76-69
+4.5
1
@
GB
W 83-75
+4.5
4
@
RMU
L 66-72
−7.5
7
vs
PFW
W 73-68
−1.5
12
vs
DETM
L 74-77
−14.5
15
@
CLE
W 102-90
+4.5
19
vs
IUIN
W 85-73
+0.5
22
vs
RMU
L 68-81
−17.5
25
@
PFW
W 74-70
+2.5
28
@
NKU
W 92-91
+4.5
4
vs
CLE
W 90-61
+14.5
9
vs
NKU
W 103-90
+14.5
10
vs
DETM
W 66-63
−1.5
20
vs
UVA
L 73-82
+8.5
covered 21didn’t cover 12avg +2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
CAL
L 67-77
−4.5
11
vs
TOL
L 71-81
−7.5
15
vs
RAD
W 92-59
−5.5
16
vs
KENT
L 72-76
−9.5
25
@
STET
W 79-62
−6.5
28
@
BTLR
L 69-94
+12.5
3
@
YSU
L 68-69
−7.5
7
vs
GB
W 86-58
+1.5
13
@
MRSH
L 74-76
+0.5
16
vs
M-OH
L 76-83
+9.5
22
vs
EMU
W 70-64
−8.5
29
vs
OAK
W 88-73
+1.5
1
vs
MILW
W 76-70
−1.5
4
@
IUIN
W 81-77
−4.5
9
@
DETM
W 84-82
+17.5
11
@
OAK
W 94-84
+16.5
15
vs
YSU
W 93-83
+34.5
21
vs
CLE
L 79-85
+7.5
24
vs
NKU
W 88-80
+12.5
30
@
MILW
W 76-69
−6.5
1
@
GB
W 83-75
+13.5
4
@
RMU
L 66-72
−9.5
7
vs
PFW
W 73-68
−9.5
12
vs
DETM
L 74-77
−0.5
15
@
CLE
W 102-90
+34.5
19
vs
IUIN
W 85-73
−2.5
22
vs
RMU
L 68-81
+2.5
25
@
PFW
W 74-70
−6.5
28
@
NKU
W 92-91
+29.5
4
vs
CLE
W 90-61
−11.5
9
vs
NKU
W 103-90
+35.5
10
vs
DETM
W 66-63
−24.5
20
vs
UVA
L 73-82
+8.5
over 16under 17avg +3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Samford
30 games played
Straight up
16-14
53% wins
Against the spread
18-12
60% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-11
63% overs · avg +2.5 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 72-85 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 82-72 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 12 | @ | W 93-90 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 153.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 75-79 | +24.5 | W +20.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 84-77 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 62-77 | -5.5 | L −20.5 | 154.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 72-81 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 78-63 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 45-89 | +7.5 | L −36.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 57-83 | +19.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 93-90 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 166.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 78-58 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 82-89 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 82-77 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 79-88 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 73-77 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 75-76 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 78-88 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-64 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 73-78 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 88-74 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-64 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 69-49 | +1.5 | W +21.5 | 160.5 | U 118 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 97-80 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 82-72 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 78-75 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 86-89 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 80-61 | -17.5 | W +1.5 | 155.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 87-78 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 81-86 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
TULN
L 72-85
−5.5
7
vs
SCST
W 82-72
−4.5
12
@
TXSO
W 93-90
+0.5
14
@
ARK
L 75-79
+20.5
16
@
CARK
W 84-77
+0.5
19
vs
FGCU
L 62-77
−20.5
21
@
NMSU
L 72-81
−0.5
25
vs
GAST
W 78-63
+9.5
26
vs
UVU
L 45-89
−36.5
5
@
VCU
L 57-83
−6.5
7
vs
COR
W 93-90
+0.5
1
@
VMI
W 78-58
+13.5
3
@
UNCG
L 82-89
−9.5
7
vs
WCU
W 82-77
+0.5
10
@
UTC
L 79-88
−7.5
14
vs
FUR
L 73-77
−2.5
17
vs
ETSU
L 75-76
+2.5
21
@
WOF
L 78-88
−6.5
24
vs
UTC
W 75-64
+6.5
29
@
FUR
L 73-78
+0.5
1
@
WCU
W 88-74
+12.5
5
vs
CIT
W 78-64
+0.5
7
vs
MER
W 69-49
+21.5
11
vs
WOF
W 97-80
+10.5
14
@
ETSU
W 82-72
+17.5
19
@
CIT
W 78-75
−7.5
21
@
MER
L 86-89
+0.5
26
vs
VMI
W 80-61
+1.5
28
vs
UNCG
W 87-78
+0.5
7
vs
FUR
L 81-86
−6.5
covered 18didn’t cover 12avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
TULN
L 72-85
+2.5
7
vs
SCST
W 82-72
−0.5
12
@
TXSO
W 93-90
+29.5
14
@
ARK
L 75-79
−4.5
16
@
CARK
W 84-77
+9.5
19
vs
FGCU
L 62-77
−15.5
21
@
NMSU
L 72-81
+7.5
25
vs
GAST
W 78-63
−5.5
26
vs
UVU
L 45-89
−14.5
5
@
VCU
L 57-83
−14.5
7
vs
COR
W 93-90
+16.5
1
@
VMI
W 78-58
−18.5
3
@
UNCG
L 82-89
+19.5
7
vs
WCU
W 82-77
+5.5
10
@
UTC
L 79-88
+18.5
14
vs
FUR
L 73-77
+0.5
17
vs
ETSU
L 75-76
+2.5
21
@
WOF
L 78-88
+11.5
24
vs
UTC
W 75-64
−13.5
29
@
FUR
L 73-78
+1.5
1
@
WCU
W 88-74
+7.5
5
vs
CIT
W 78-64
−4.5
7
vs
MER
W 69-49
−42.5
11
vs
WOF
W 97-80
+26.5
14
@
ETSU
W 82-72
+8.5
19
@
CIT
W 78-75
+9.5
21
@
MER
L 86-89
+18.5
26
vs
VMI
W 80-61
−14.5
28
vs
UNCG
W 87-78
+8.5
7
vs
FUR
L 81-86
+19.5
over 19under 11avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Wright St has the better starters
Position by position: Wright St 3, Samford 1, even 1
Wright StBetterSamford
G C. O'Hara TR14.2 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 66
←WRSTBig
G N. George TR11.4 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 25
G D. Pangonis8.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 30
=Even
G C. Norris8.9 pts · 4.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 34
G C. Traylor TR3.8 pts · 1.1 reb · 2 ast
Score 21
→SAMBig
G C. Noard TR19 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 94
G A. Holden5.8 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 78
←WRSTBig
G I. Campbell-Finch7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
F K. Pickett8.5 pts · 5.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 67
←WRSTBig
G T. Davis TR1.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 22
Wright StBetterSamford
WRST offense148th of 366 · -4.5
←WRSTSmall
SAM defense224th of 366 · -5.9
WRST defense215th of 366 · -5.6
→SAMSmall
SAM offense147th of 366 · -4.5
Backcourt-2.5 · 4 players
←WRSTSmall
Backcourt-4.7 · 5 players
Frontcourt+0.6 · 1 player
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-0.7 · 2 players
←WRSTSmall
Bench-3.6 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestWRST betterSAM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. O'Hara33 min · TRD. Pangonis27 minC. Traylor17 min · TRA. Holden14 minI. Milijasevic8 min · TRP. DouglasNew
Forwards
K. Pickett23 minS. JohnsonNewN. LewisNew
Centers
N. Djapa10 min · TR
Guards
N. George35 min · TRC. Norris31 minC. Noard29 min · TRI. Campbell-Finch24 minT. Davis11 min · TRW. Miller9 min · TR
Forwards
J. Bjornstad8 minB. MacVicar7 min · TRC. Harrison3 minJ. HughesNewB. KempNew
Centers
W. Shaver9 minL. LeeNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 79.8 #72 | Points per game | 77.8 #98 |
| 1.16 #54 | Points per possession | 1.12 #99 |
| 69.1 #171 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #163 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.3 #56 | Effective FG% | 53.1 #101 |
| 36.4 #44 | 3-point % | 35.6 #84 |
| 34.2 #290 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.7 #54 |
| 37.4 #120 | Free throw rate | 41.9 #32 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.1 #149 | Turnover rate | 13.4 #11 |
| 32.8 #91 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.3 #333 |
| 13.2 #199 | Assists per game | 14.3 #128 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.6 #206 | Points allowed | 77.0 #240 |
| 1.09 #201 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #251 |
| 52.4 #238 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.9 #206 |
| 34.3 #203 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.5 #326 |
| 16.6 #179 | Turnovers forced | 13.0 #354 |
| 70.6 #129 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.3 #17 |
| 7.1 #114 | Steals per game | 4.4 #358 |
| 4.4 #47 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #277 |
Wright St
21-12 in 2025-26 overall · 18-5 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Virginia73–82
- Wvs Detroit Mercy66–63
- Wvs N Kentucky103–90
- Wvs Cleveland St90–61
- W@ N Kentucky92–91
A week or more of rest.
Samford
16-14 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Furman81–86
- Wvs UNC Greensboro87–78
- Wvs VMI80–61
- L@ Mercer86–89
- W@ The Citadel78–75
A week or more of rest.