Jersey Mike’s Arena · at Rutgers
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | RUTG | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RUTG 85–57 · win probability RUTG 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.3
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: RUTG has more of the edges
NHVN 2, RUTG 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
NHVN offense vs RUTG defense
Offense 362nd of 366 against a defense 65th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
NHVN has played the 307th-hardest schedule, RUTG the 50th. A record against a soft schedule means less
RUTG offense vs NHVN defense
Offense 58th of 366 against a defense 285th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NHVN 17.8%, RUTG 14.9%. Forced: NHVN 17.1%, RUTG 17.1%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NHVN 21.5%, RUTG 29.7%. Defensive: NHVN 73.2%, RUTG 67.2%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NHVN 27%, RUTG 58%. Transfers in: NHVN 0, RUTG 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: NHVN plays 63.5 a game (363rd fastest), RUTG 67.5 (254th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
RUTG at home. This season: RUTG 0-0 at home, NHVN 0-0 away
Shooting
Effective FG%: NHVN 48.7 and allows 51.8; RUTG 47.2 and allows 53.0
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: NHVN 31.7, RUTG 36.3. Allowed: NHVN 27.7, RUTG 31.7
Even
Three-pointers
NHVN hits 30.2% and allows 34.3%; RUTG hits 32.4% and allows 35.6%. Threes are 39.9% and 34.2% 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 | — | RUTG -28.2 | — |
| Total | — | 142.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | NHVN 57 · RUTG 85.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | RUTG -16.6 | — |
| 1H total | 66.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | NHVN 25 · RUTG 41.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
New Haven
28 games played
Straight up
11-17
39% wins
Against the spread
15-13
54% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
8-20
29% overs · avg −3.6 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 55-79 | +42.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 53-71 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 43-87 | +18.5 | L −25.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 10 | @ | W 73-67 | +10.5 | W +16.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 65-52 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 130.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 45-68 | +25.5 | W +2.5 | 129.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 63-67 | +17.5 | W +13.5 | 126.5 | O 130 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 64-70 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | O 134 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 47-65 | +13.5 | L −4.5 | 127.5 | U 112 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 53-96 | +39.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 70-55 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 128.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 61-72 | +7.5 | L −3.5 | 130.5 | O 133 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 47-73 | +5.5 | L −20.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 65-55 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 130.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 80-74 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 129.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 62-56 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 129.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 57-61 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 122.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 51-70 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 122.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 81-69 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 131.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 55-60 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 57-63 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 127.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 76-81 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 128.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 55-52 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 129.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 64-51 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 121.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 84-77 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 123.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 67-73 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 62-65 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 66-59 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CONN
L 55-79
+18.5
7
vs
COLU
L 53-71
−10.5
8
vs
PSU
L 43-87
−25.5
10
@
UML
W 73-67
+16.5
15
vs
DSU
W 65-52
+11.5
18
@
HALL
L 45-68
+2.5
6
@
BC
L 63-67
+13.5
10
@
NJIT
L 64-70
−8.5
22
@
FOR
L 47-65
−4.5
29
@
VAN
L 53-96
−3.5
2
@
STO
W 70-55
+16.5
4
@
CCSU
L 61-72
−3.5
8
@
LEM
L 47-73
−20.5
10
vs
FDU
W 65-55
+8.5
17
vs
WAG
W 80-74
+4.5
19
@
CHST
W 62-56
+7.5
23
vs
MERC
L 57-61
−2.5
29
@
MERC
L 51-70
−13.5
31
@
SFPA
W 81-69
+13.5
5
@
LIU
L 55-60
+4.5
7
vs
CHST
L 57-63
−11.5
12
vs
CCSU
L 76-81
−1.5
14
vs
LIU
W 55-52
+9.5
19
vs
STO
W 64-51
+10.5
21
@
FDU
W 84-77
+9.5
24
vs
SFPA
L 67-73
−12.5
26
@
WAG
L 62-65
−0.5
28
vs
LEM
W 66-59
+8.5
covered 15didn’t cover 13avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CONN
L 55-79
−11.5
7
vs
COLU
L 53-71
−24.5
8
vs
PSU
L 43-87
−13.5
10
@
UML
W 73-67
−2.5
15
vs
DSU
W 65-52
−13.5
18
@
HALL
L 45-68
−16.5
6
@
BC
L 63-67
+3.5
10
@
NJIT
L 64-70
+3.5
22
@
FOR
L 47-65
−15.5
29
@
VAN
L 53-96
+3.5
2
@
STO
W 70-55
−3.5
4
@
CCSU
L 61-72
+2.5
8
@
LEM
L 47-73
−17.5
10
vs
FDU
W 65-55
−10.5
17
vs
WAG
W 80-74
+24.5
19
@
CHST
W 62-56
−11.5
23
vs
MERC
L 57-61
−4.5
29
@
MERC
L 51-70
−1.5
31
@
SFPA
W 81-69
+18.5
5
@
LIU
L 55-60
−20.5
7
vs
CHST
L 57-63
−7.5
12
vs
CCSU
L 76-81
+28.5
14
vs
LIU
W 55-52
−22.5
19
vs
STO
W 64-51
−6.5
21
@
FDU
W 84-77
+37.5
24
vs
SFPA
L 67-73
−1.5
26
@
WAG
L 62-65
−4.5
28
vs
LEM
W 66-59
−12.5
over 8under 20avg −3.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Rutgers
34 games played
Straight up
14-20
41% wins
Against the spread
17-17
50% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-15
56% overs · avg +2.5 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-1750%
2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered
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 81-53 | -18.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 72-60 | -18.5 | L −6.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 84-72 | -18.5 | L −6.5 | 136.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 80-71 | -16.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 54-67 | -15.5 | L −28.5 | 137.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 60-85 | +14.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 63-68 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 80-65 | +4.5 | W +19.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 65-81 | +13.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 60-101 | +25.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 59-81 | +13.5 | L −8.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 70-69 | -11.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 65-50 | -20.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 73-80 | +9.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 88-85 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 139.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 55-81 | +22.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 77-75 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 87-96 | +15.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 62-68 | +17.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 59-82 | +7.5 | L −15.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 79-88 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 75-78 | +11.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 66-98 | +13.5 | L −18.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 68-80 | +12.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 68-57 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 85-72 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 61-80 | +8.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 72-79 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 69-65 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 87-91 | +20.5 | W +16.5 | 141.5 | O 178 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 74-62 | -4.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 72-67 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 135.5 | O 139 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 59-72 | +10.5 | L −2.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Apr 2 | vs | L 69-82 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
RID
W 81-53
+9.5
10
vs
ME
W 72-60
−6.5
14
vs
LEH
W 84-72
−6.5
18
vs
AMER
W 80-71
−7.5
21
vs
CCSU
L 54-67
−28.5
24
vs
TENN
L 60-85
−10.5
25
vs
ND
L 63-68
+1.5
27
vs
UNLV
W 80-65
+19.5
2
vs
PUR
L 65-81
−2.5
6
@
MICH
L 60-101
−15.5
13
@
HALL
L 59-81
−8.5
20
vs
PENN
W 70-69
−10.5
29
vs
DSU
W 65-50
−5.5
2
vs
OSU
L 73-80
+2.5
5
vs
ORE
W 88-85
+7.5
8
@
ILL
L 55-81
−3.5
11
vs
NU
W 77-75
+6.5
17
@
WIS
L 87-96
+6.5
20
@
IOWA
L 62-68
+11.5
23
vs
IU
L 59-82
−15.5
27
vs
MSU
L 79-88
+5.5
31
@
USC
L 75-78
+8.5
3
@
UCLA
L 66-98
−18.5
7
vs
NEB
L 68-80
+0.5
15
vs
MD
W 68-57
+8.5
18
@
PSU
W 85-72
+17.5
21
@
MINN
L 61-80
−10.5
24
vs
WASH
L 72-79
−2.5
1
@
MD
W 69-65
+8.5
5
@
MSU
L 87-91
+16.5
8
vs
PSU
W 74-62
+7.5
11
vs
MINN
W 72-67
+11.5
12
vs
UCLA
L 59-72
−2.5
2
vs
CREI
L 69-82
−8.5
covered 17didn’t cover 17avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
RID
W 81-53
−5.5
10
vs
ME
W 72-60
+1.5
14
vs
LEH
W 84-72
+19.5
18
vs
AMER
W 80-71
+7.5
21
vs
CCSU
L 54-67
−16.5
24
vs
TENN
L 60-85
+3.5
25
vs
ND
L 63-68
−9.5
27
vs
UNLV
W 80-65
−8.5
2
vs
PUR
L 65-81
−0.5
6
@
MICH
L 60-101
+7.5
13
@
HALL
L 59-81
+3.5
20
vs
PENN
W 70-69
−11.5
29
vs
DSU
W 65-50
−20.5
2
vs
OSU
L 73-80
+1.5
5
vs
ORE
W 88-85
+33.5
8
@
ILL
L 55-81
−13.5
11
vs
NU
W 77-75
+7.5
17
@
WIS
L 87-96
+33.5
20
@
IOWA
L 62-68
−10.5
23
vs
IU
L 59-82
−6.5
27
vs
MSU
L 79-88
+28.5
31
@
USC
L 75-78
+6.5
3
@
UCLA
L 66-98
+21.5
7
vs
NEB
L 68-80
+2.5
15
vs
MD
W 68-57
−19.5
18
@
PSU
W 85-72
+8.5
21
@
MINN
L 61-80
+4.5
24
vs
WASH
L 72-79
+11.5
1
@
MD
W 69-65
−9.5
5
@
MSU
L 87-91
+36.5
8
vs
PSU
W 74-62
−13.5
11
vs
MINN
W 72-67
+3.5
12
vs
UCLA
L 59-72
−10.5
2
vs
CREI
L 69-82
−0.5
over 19under 15avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Rutgers has the better starters
Position by position: New Haven 0, Rutgers 2, even 3
New HavenBetterRutgers
G K. Briggs6.4 pts · 1.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 38
→RUTGSmall
G R. Jones TR15 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 69
G A. Losiewicz2.6 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Smith TR20.6 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 88
F T. Steele3.2 pts · 3 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 27
→RUTGBig
G T. Francis17 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 99
F Z. Traore1.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Davis7.5 pts · 2.9 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 72
C T. Burth0.9 pts · 1 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Buchanan8.1 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 68
New HavenBetterRutgers
NHVN offense362nd of 366 · -14.4
→RUTGBig
RUTG defense65th of 366 · +1.0
NHVN defense285th of 366 · -7.1
→RUTGBig
RUTG offense58th of 366 · +2.7
Backcourt-1.3 · 2 players
→RUTGBig
Backcourt+9.4 · 5 players
Frontcourt-2.5 · 3 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestNHVN betterRUTG betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Briggs19 minA. Losiewicz7 minD. YoungNewF. MosleyNewD. LaDucaNewJ. HannaNew
Forwards
T. Steele15 minZ. Traore7 minN. NarcisseNewA. RamirezNewJ. BascombeNewM. OgleNew
Centers
T. Burth6 minT. ColemanNewM. CamaraNew
Guards
R. Jones37 min · TRD. Smith34 min · TRT. Francis28 minJ. Davis26 minD. Buchanan24 minL. Mark16 min
Forwards
W. SydnorNewM. MiteoNewM. TonejcNew
Centers
C. Gurdak17 min · TRD. Buca13 min · TRG. Ware6 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 61.5 #363 | Points per game | 70.5 #273 |
| 0.97 #345 | Points per possession | 1.04 #261 |
| 63.5 #363 | Pace (possessions) | 67.5 #254 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.7 #296 | Effective FG% | 47.2 #331 |
| 30.2 #340 | 3-point % | 32.4 #261 |
| 39.9 #172 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.2 #291 |
| 31.7 #261 | Free throw rate | 36.3 #143 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #259 | Turnover rate | 14.9 #61 |
| 21.5 #359 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.7 #217 |
| 10.9 #339 | Assists per game | 12.2 #274 |
| Defense | ||
| 67.4 #24 | Points allowed | 75.3 #199 |
| 1.06 #107 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #267 |
| 51.8 #203 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.0 #268 |
| 34.3 #199 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.6 #287 |
| 17.1 #146 | Turnovers forced | 17.1 #141 |
| 73.2 #30 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.2 #292 |
| 6.0 #232 | Steals per game | 6.1 #226 |
| 2.0 #342 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #166 |
New Haven
11-17 in 2025-26 overall · 9-9 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Wvs Le Moyne66–59
- L@ Wagner62–65
- Lvs Saint Francis Red Wolves67–73
- W@ FDU84–77
- Wvs Stonehill64–51
A week or more of rest.
Rutgers
14-20 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Creighton69–82
- Lvs UCLA59–72
- Wvs Minnesota72–67
- Wvs Penn State74–62
- L@ Michigan St87–91
A week or more of rest.