State Farm Field House · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | AKR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 AKR 79–78 · win probability AKR 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.6
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 3, AKR 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: BEL 18.0%, AKR 15.5%. Forced: BEL 17.4%, AKR 18.3%
AKR offense vs BEL defense
Offense 101st of 366 against a defense 192nd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: BEL 28.8%, AKR 33.4%. Defensive: BEL 70.8%, AKR 70.1%
Three-pointers
BEL hits 41.0% and allows 34.2%; AKR hits 38.2% and allows 35.5%. Threes are 45.7% and 44.8% of their shots
BEL offense vs AKR defense
Offense 118th of 366 against a defense 168th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: BEL 61.0 and allows 49.9; AKR 58.1 and allows 51.2
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: BEL 32.5, AKR 29.2. Allowed: BEL 30.7, AKR 30.4
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: BEL 41%, AKR 28%. Transfers in: BEL 4, AKR 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
BEL has played the 146th-hardest schedule, AKR the 159th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: BEL plays 70.5 a game (94th fastest), AKR 71.1 (70th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | AKR -1.7 | — |
| Total | — | 156.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | BEL 77.5 · AKR 79.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | AKR -0.9 | — |
| 1H total | 73.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | BEL 36.2 · AKR 37 | — |
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% | 8-2 80% | |
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Akron
33 games played
Straight up
27-6
82% wins
Against the spread
17-16
52% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-18
45% overs · avg +0.2 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-1652%
2 straight misses ATS1 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 3 | vs | W 85-71 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 104-69 | -13.5 | W +21.5 | 156.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 79-97 | +18.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 96-75 | -11.5 | W +9.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 97-59 | -11.5 | W +26.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 94-97 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 156.5 | O 191 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 105-81 | -12.5 | W +11.5 | 166.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 97-77 | -23.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | O 174 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 88-71 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 100-115 | -4.5 | L −19.5 | 168.5 | O 215 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 93-72 | -15.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 73-76 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 177.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 82-69 | -23.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 77-67 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 87-77 | -20.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 104-89 | -21.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 82-63 | -8.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 86-65 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 167.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 91-81 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 168.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 69-52 | -10.5 | W +6.5 | 166.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 66-64 | -12.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 69-79 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 99-92 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 191 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 90-73 | -14.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 78-65 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 99-85 | -15.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 92-70 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 166.5 | U 162 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 77-64 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 94-55 | -23.5 | W +15.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 73-70 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 75-68 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 79-76 | -7.5 | L −4.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 71-91 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
JMU
W 85-71
+5.5
8
vs
PRIN
W 104-69
+21.5
16
@
PUR
L 79-97
+0.5
21
vs
IONA
W 96-75
+9.5
23
vs
EVAN
W 97-59
+26.5
24
vs
YALE
L 94-97
−4.5
29
vs
MILW
W 105-81
+11.5
3
vs
BUCK
W 97-77
−3.5
6
@
TULN
W 88-71
+10.5
13
vs
MUR
L 100-115
−19.5
19
vs
EMU
W 93-72
+5.5
3
@
M-OH
L 73-76
−7.5
6
vs
CMU
W 82-69
−10.5
9
@
BGSU
W 77-67
+5.5
13
vs
BALL
W 87-77
−10.5
17
vs
WMU
W 104-89
−6.5
20
@
BUF
W 82-63
+10.5
23
@
OHIO
W 86-65
+14.5
27
vs
TOL
W 91-81
−2.5
30
vs
KENT
W 69-52
+6.5
3
@
EMU
W 66-64
−10.5
7
@
TROY
L 69-79
−12.5
13
vs
MASS
W 99-92
−5.5
17
@
WMU
W 90-73
+2.5
20
@
BALL
W 78-65
−0.5
24
vs
BUF
W 99-85
−1.5
27
@
KENT
W 92-70
+18.5
3
@
CMU
W 77-64
+1.5
6
vs
NIU
W 94-55
+15.5
12
vs
BUF
W 73-70
−9.5
13
vs
KENT
W 75-68
+0.5
14
vs
TOL
W 79-76
−4.5
20
vs
TTU
L 71-91
−13.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
JMU
W 85-71
+2.5
8
vs
PRIN
W 104-69
+16.5
16
@
PUR
L 79-97
+12.5
21
vs
IONA
W 96-75
−2.5
23
vs
EVAN
W 97-59
−0.5
24
vs
YALE
L 94-97
+34.5
29
vs
MILW
W 105-81
+19.5
3
vs
BUCK
W 97-77
+16.5
6
@
TULN
W 88-71
−3.5
13
vs
MUR
L 100-115
+46.5
19
vs
EMU
W 93-72
+9.5
3
@
M-OH
L 73-76
−28.5
6
vs
CMU
W 82-69
−13.5
9
@
BGSU
W 77-67
−19.5
13
vs
BALL
W 87-77
+11.5
17
vs
WMU
W 104-89
+29.5
20
@
BUF
W 82-63
−21.5
23
@
OHIO
W 86-65
−16.5
27
vs
TOL
W 91-81
+3.5
30
vs
KENT
W 69-52
−45.5
3
@
EMU
W 66-64
−23.5
7
@
TROY
L 69-79
−9.5
13
vs
MASS
W 99-92
+27.5
17
@
WMU
W 90-73
+2.5
20
@
BALL
W 78-65
−4.5
24
vs
BUF
W 99-85
+23.5
27
@
KENT
W 92-70
−4.5
3
@
CMU
W 77-64
−17.5
6
vs
NIU
W 94-55
−6.5
12
vs
BUF
W 73-70
−15.5
13
vs
KENT
W 75-68
−20.5
14
vs
TOL
W 79-76
−2.5
20
vs
TTU
L 71-91
+7.5
over 15under 18avg +0.2 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: Belmont 2, Akron 2, even 1
BelmontBetterAkron
G J. Jenkins8.8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 42
→AKRSmall
G T. Staveskie TR17.3 pts · 3.6 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 74
G J. Smiley8.5 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 81
=Even
G T. Pence TR9.5 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 86
G I. West2.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 7
→AKRBig
F E. Mahaffey9.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 69
F K. Fish TR7.2 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 47
←BELSmall
F M. Burton TR5.5 pts · 5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 14
F E. Dillon7.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 76
←BELSmall
F B. Hammer TR4.1 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 55
BelmontBetterAkron
BEL offense118th of 366 · -2.7
=Even
AKR defense168th of 366 · -3.7
BEL defense192nd of 366 · -4.5
→AKRSmall
AKR offense101st of 366 · -1.1
Backcourt-2.4 · 3 players
→AKRBig
Backcourt+2.7 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.5 · 2 players
←BELSmall
Frontcourt-1.4 · 3 players
Bench-0.6 · 5 players
←BELSmall
Bench-2.6 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestBEL betterAKR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
T. Staveskie36 min · TRT. Pence24 min · TRC. HeadNewT. PerkinsNewJ. HendersonNewE. WilsonNew
Forwards
E. Mahaffey29 minM. Burton25 min · TRB. Hammer14 min · TRZ. Halligan12 minC. White9 min · TRM. Musiime-Kamali9 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 83.5 #23 | Points per game | 86.4 #8 |
| 1.18 #33 | Points per possession | 1.22 #6 |
| 70.5 #94 | Pace (possessions) | 71.1 #70 |
| Shooting | ||
| 61.0 #1 | Effective FG% | 58.1 #9 |
| 41.0 #1 | 3-point % | 38.2 #15 |
| 45.7 #51 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.8 #74 |
| 32.5 #248 | Free throw rate | 29.2 #327 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.0 #272 | Turnover rate | 15.5 #104 |
| 28.8 #241 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.4 #78 |
| 18.5 #6 | Assists per game | 17.7 #12 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.1 #158 | Points allowed | 75.0 #188 |
| 1.05 #95 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #98 |
| 49.9 #93 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.2 #173 |
| 34.2 #197 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.5 #284 |
| 17.4 #126 | Turnovers forced | 18.3 #86 |
| 70.8 #118 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.1 #156 |
| 6.0 #241 | Steals per game | 7.2 #108 |
| 3.5 #151 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #240 |
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.
Akron
27-6 in 2025-26 overall · 20-1 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Texas Tech71–91
- Wvs Toledo79–76
- Wvs Kent State75–68
- Wvs Buffalo73–70
- Wvs N Illinois94–55
A week or more of rest.