State Farm Field House · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | BEL | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 BEL 77–74 · win probability BEL 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.0
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: BEL has more of the edges
SBU 1, BEL 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: SBU 52.4 and allows 53.3; BEL 61.0 and allows 49.9
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SBU 34.5%, BEL 28.8%. Defensive: SBU 70.2%, BEL 70.8%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: SBU plays 68.0 a game (228th fastest), BEL 70.5 (94th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: SBU 30.0, BEL 32.5. Allowed: SBU 33.9, BEL 30.7
Three-pointers
SBU hits 37.4% and allows 36.0%; BEL hits 41.0% and allows 34.2%. Threes are 31.3% and 45.7% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SBU 18%, BEL 41%. Transfers in: SBU 3, BEL 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
SBU has played the 109th-hardest schedule, BEL the 146th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SBU 16.8%, BEL 18.0%. Forced: SBU 17.1%, BEL 17.4%
Even
SBU offense vs BEL defense
Offense 169th of 366 against a defense 192nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
BEL offense vs SBU defense
Offense 118th 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
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 | — | BEL -2.5 | — |
| Total | — | 151.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | SBU 74.2 · BEL 76.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BEL -1.4 | — |
| 1H total | 70.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | SBU 34.6 · BEL 36 | — |
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% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% |
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
Belmont
31 games played
Straight up
25-6
81% wins
Against the spread
18-13
58% covers · avg +2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-12
61% overs · avg +4.1 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 3 | vs | W 79-63 | -15.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 87-79 | -13.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 83-60 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 171.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 75-68 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 94-57 | -21.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 87-72 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 163.5 | U 159 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 96-73 | -2.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 76-84 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 156.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 83-62 | -3.5 | W +17.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 87-84 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 83-78 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 19 | @ | W 84-58 | +1.5 | W +27.5 | 150.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 80-81 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 88-78 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 67-68 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 78-65 | +2.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 78-76 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 78-74 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 73-68 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 80-69 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 78-77 | -5.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 103-86 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 163.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 103-90 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 6 | @ | W 68-62 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 84-95 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 91-86 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 87-70 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 166.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 87-70 | -12.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 98-64 | -18.5 | W +15.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 74-81 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 79-100 | -12.5 | L −33.5 | 152.5 | O 179 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
AF
W 79-63
+0.5
8
vs
TNST
W 87-79
−5.5
15
@
ORU
W 83-60
+15.5
19
vs
LIP
W 75-68
−5.5
24
vs
SFPA
W 94-57
+15.5
26
vs
TOL
W 87-72
+10.5
30
@
COFC
W 96-73
+20.5
3
vs
RICH
L 76-84
−14.5
7
@
MTSU
W 83-62
+17.5
13
vs
UIC
W 87-84
−9.5
16
@
EVAN
W 83-78
−3.5
19
@
UCI
W 84-58
+27.5
29
@
INST
L 80-81
−8.5
1
vs
BRAD
W 88-78
+6.5
4
vs
SIU
L 67-68
−7.5
7
@
UNI
W 78-65
+15.5
10
@
DRKE
W 78-76
−2.5
13
vs
VAL
W 78-74
−7.5
17
@
SIU
W 73-68
+1.5
24
vs
ILST
W 80-69
+5.5
28
@
VAL
W 78-77
−4.5
31
vs
MUR
W 103-86
+13.5
3
vs
DRKE
W 103-90
+3.5
6
@
UIC
W 68-62
+4.5
9
@
BRAD
L 84-95
−12.5
12
vs
UNI
W 91-86
+0.5
15
@
MUR
W 87-70
+15.5
21
vs
INST
W 87-70
+4.5
25
vs
EVAN
W 98-64
+15.5
1
@
ILST
L 74-81
−8.5
6
vs
DRKE
L 79-100
−33.5
covered 18didn’t cover 13avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
AF
W 79-63
−2.5
8
vs
TNST
W 87-79
+7.5
15
@
ORU
W 83-60
−28.5
19
vs
LIP
W 75-68
−15.5
24
vs
SFPA
W 94-57
−6.5
26
vs
TOL
W 87-72
−4.5
30
@
COFC
W 96-73
+16.5
3
vs
RICH
L 76-84
+3.5
7
@
MTSU
W 83-62
−8.5
13
vs
UIC
W 87-84
+16.5
16
@
EVAN
W 83-78
+13.5
19
@
UCI
W 84-58
−8.5
29
@
INST
L 80-81
+1.5
1
vs
BRAD
W 88-78
+12.5
4
vs
SIU
L 67-68
−23.5
7
@
UNI
W 78-65
+5.5
10
@
DRKE
W 78-76
+5.5
13
vs
VAL
W 78-74
+5.5
17
@
SIU
W 73-68
−10.5
24
vs
ILST
W 80-69
−1.5
28
@
VAL
W 78-77
+9.5
31
vs
MUR
W 103-86
+25.5
3
vs
DRKE
W 103-90
+38.5
6
@
UIC
W 68-62
−21.5
9
@
BRAD
L 84-95
+26.5
12
vs
UNI
W 91-86
+38.5
15
@
MUR
W 87-70
−9.5
21
vs
INST
W 87-70
+0.5
25
vs
EVAN
W 98-64
+9.5
1
@
ILST
L 74-81
+4.5
6
vs
DRKE
L 79-100
+26.5
over 19under 12avg +4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
St Bonaventure has the better starters
Position by position: St Bonaventure 2, Belmont 1, even 2
St BonaventureBetterBelmont
G A. Fulton TR10.7 pts · 6.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 62
←SBUSmall
G J. Jenkins8.8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 42
G I. Ermakov2.6 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Smiley8.5 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 81
F R. Kalambay TR4.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 40
←SBUSmall
G I. West2.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 7
F J. Grahovac4.2 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
=Even
F K. Fish TR7.2 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 47
F M. Blackwood TR2.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 22
→BELBig
F E. Dillon7.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 76
St BonaventureBetterBelmont
SBU offense169th of 366 · -5.2
=Even
BEL defense192nd of 366 · -4.5
SBU defense131st of 366 · -2.4
=Even
BEL offense118th of 366 · -2.7
Backcourt-0.4 · 2 players
←SBUSmall
Backcourt-2.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.4 · 3 players
→BELSmall
Frontcourt+0.5 · 2 players
Bench-0.6 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-0.6 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSBU betterBEL 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
J. Jenkins24 minJ. Smiley17 minI. West17 minM. Zobrist5 min · TRC. Haynes5 minA. Ristic3 min · TR
Forwards
K. Fish19 min · TRE. Dillon16 minG. Lemke2 minC. KnowlesNewC. GersmehlNew
Centers
V. Neugebauer8 min · TR
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 | 83.5 #23 |
| 1.12 #104 | Points per possession | 1.18 #33 |
| 68.0 #228 | Pace (possessions) | 70.5 #94 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.4 #129 | Effective FG% | 61.0 #1 |
| 37.4 #22 | 3-point % | 41.0 #1 |
| 31.3 #335 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.7 #51 |
| 30.0 #310 | Free throw rate | 32.5 #248 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #189 | Turnover rate | 18.0 #272 |
| 34.5 #60 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.8 #241 |
| 15.4 #73 | Assists per game | 18.5 #6 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.4 #201 | Points allowed | 74.1 #158 |
| 1.11 #245 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #95 |
| 53.3 #278 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.9 #93 |
| 36.0 #299 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.2 #197 |
| 17.1 #144 | Turnovers forced | 17.4 #126 |
| 70.2 #150 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.8 #118 |
| 7.5 #80 | Steals per game | 6.0 #241 |
| 4.4 #41 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #151 |
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.
Belmont
25-6 in 2025-26 overall · 16-5 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Drake79–100
- L@ Illinois St74–81
- Wvs Evansville98–64
- Wvs Indiana St87–70
- W@ Murray St87–70
A week or more of rest.