State Farm Field House · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SBU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SBU 75–74 · win probability SBU 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.8
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 has more of the edges
WRST 2, SBU 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
WRST has played the 264th-hardest schedule, SBU the 109th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: WRST 37.4, SBU 30.0. Allowed: WRST 33.3, SBU 33.9
Shooting
Effective FG%: WRST 54.3 and allows 52.4; SBU 52.4 and allows 53.3
SBU offense vs WRST defense
Offense 169th of 366 against a defense 215th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
WRST hits 36.4% and allows 34.3%; SBU hits 37.4% and allows 36.0%. Threes are 34.2% and 31.3% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: WRST plays 69.1 a game (171st fastest), SBU 68.0 (228th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WRST 32%, SBU 18%. Transfers in: WRST 4, SBU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
WRST offense vs SBU defense
Offense 148th of 366 against a defense 131st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WRST 32.8%, SBU 34.5%. Defensive: WRST 70.6%, SBU 70.2%
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WRST 16.1%, SBU 16.8%. Forced: WRST 16.6%, SBU 17.1%
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 | — | SBU -1.6 | — |
| Total | — | 148.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | WRST 73.6 · SBU 75.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SBU -0.8 | — |
| 1H total | 69.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | WRST 34.4 · SBU 35.2 | — |
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% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% |
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
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
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 2, St Bonaventure 1, even 2
Wright StBetterSt Bonaventure
G C. O'Hara TR14.2 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 66
=Even
G A. Fulton TR10.7 pts · 6.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 62
G D. Pangonis8.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 30
=No call
G I. Ermakov2.6 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Not ranked
G C. Traylor TR3.8 pts · 1.1 reb · 2 ast
Score 21
→SBUSmall
F R. Kalambay TR4.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 40
G A. Holden5.8 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 78
←WRSTBig
F J. Grahovac4.2 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
F K. Pickett8.5 pts · 5.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 67
←WRSTBig
F M. Blackwood TR2.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 22
Wright StBetterSt Bonaventure
WRST offense148th of 366 · -4.5
=Even
SBU defense131st of 366 · -2.4
WRST defense215th of 366 · -5.6
=Even
SBU offense169th of 366 · -5.2
Backcourt-2.5 · 4 players
→SBUSmall
Backcourt-0.4 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.6 · 1 player
←WRSTBig
Frontcourt-2.4 · 3 players
Bench-0.7 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-0.6 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestWRST betterSBU 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
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
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 | 76.2 #138 |
| 1.16 #54 | Points per possession | 1.12 #104 |
| 69.1 #171 | Pace (possessions) | 68.0 #228 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.3 #56 | Effective FG% | 52.4 #129 |
| 36.4 #44 | 3-point % | 37.4 #22 |
| 34.2 #290 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.3 #335 |
| 37.4 #120 | Free throw rate | 30.0 #310 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.1 #149 | Turnover rate | 16.8 #189 |
| 32.8 #91 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.5 #60 |
| 13.2 #199 | Assists per game | 15.4 #73 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.6 #206 | Points allowed | 75.4 #201 |
| 1.09 #201 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #245 |
| 52.4 #238 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.3 #278 |
| 34.3 #203 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.0 #299 |
| 16.6 #179 | Turnovers forced | 17.1 #144 |
| 70.6 #129 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.2 #150 |
| 7.1 #114 | Steals per game | 7.5 #80 |
| 4.4 #47 | Blocks per game | 4.4 #41 |
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.
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.