Stetson Hatters vs Howard Bison basketball final score
Thu, Nov 12 · 7:00 PM ET · Burr Gymnasium, Washington, DC
Non-conferenceBurr Gymnasium, Washington, DC
Stetson
0-3 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #344
@
Howard
1-2 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #174
Final
6275
Final score
Projected 69.2 – 80.0
STET win 18%HOW win 82%
MarketClose
Spread
HOW −8.5
open HOW −10.5
Total
148.5
open 152.5
Our line
HOW −10.7
Our total
149.2
as of Thu, Nov 12 · 6:51 PM ET
Our play
How our line is built
each step, from an even game to our lineSpread
Even game
0.0
Howardrated 3.3 below average
−3.3
Stetsonrated 10.5 below average
+10.5
Home court
+3.6
Our line
HOW −10.7
◂ Stetson sideHoward side ▸
Total
Average D-I game
151.4
Howardlower-scoring games
−1.2
Stetsonlower-scoring games
−1.0
Our line
149.2
Axis starts at 148 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the line by 0.1. The spread is seen from the home side: a plus moves it toward Howard.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Howard is the faster team (71.8, #142 of 365) and Stetson the slower (63.7, #347). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.2
per team, 40 min
Market total
148.5
Market close · open 152.5
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.5#333
Stetson
71.2#141
Howard
How this game plays
points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchupOur line
HOW −10.7
Four factors +14.1 · not in these stats −3.4
From the four factors
Howard has the ball+10.3
Stetson has the ball−3.8
Howard has the ball
✓Wins second chancesOR% 38.9% #48 · STET allows 38.7% #313+3.7
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 19.5% #237 · STET forces 10.5% #353 · ~10 turnovers+3.4
✓Shoots it welleFG% 48.4% #216 · STET allows 59.3% #328+3.4
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 36.8% #177 · STET allows 43.0% #258 · FT 61.8% #314−0.2
Stetson has the ball
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 31.0% #253 · HOW allows 36.6% #188 · FT 53.1% #355−1.3
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 48.7% #208 · HOW allows 49.5% #160−1.3
✗Coughs it upTO% 18.3% #203 · HOW forces 20.0% #103 · ~13 turnovers−1.1
✗Few second chancesOR% 24.5% #302 · HOW allows 40.4% #330−0.2
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shootStetsonoffense vsHowarddefense
Share of shots by zone
Stetson shoots
37.4
8.4
6.5
47.7
Howard allows
35.2
6.7
16.8
41.3
D-I average
38.1
8.1
12.5
41.4
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 70.0%#44 | 54.0%#121 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 22.2%#289 | 41.7%#206 | 38.0% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 28.6%#244 | 43.3%#250 | 35.6% |
| Three | 28.2%#263 | 34.7%#236 | 32.5% |
Howardoffense vsStetsondefense
Share of shots by zone
Howard shoots
48.2
9.4
7.1
35.3
Stetson allows
43.4
3.1
8.5
45.0
D-I average
38.1
8.1
12.5
41.4
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.1%#210 | 73.2%#341 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 18.8%#314 | 25.0%#68 | 38.0% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.7%#118 | 18.2%#42 | 35.6% |
| Three | 30.9%#211 | 36.6%#275 | 32.5% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul lineStetson
−13.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#341 of 365
Off reb %
24.5%
#302
Def reb %
61.3%
#313
Turnover %
18.3%
#203
Forced TO %
10.5%
#353
FT rate
31.0%
#253
FT allowed
43.0%
#258
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.3
Defensive rebounding−2.3
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−5.3
Foul shots drawn−1.6
Foul shots allowed−1.5
Howard
+0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#170 of 365
Off reb %
38.9%
#48
Def reb %
59.6%
#330
Turnover %
19.5%
#237
Forced TO %
20.0%
#103
FT rate
36.8%
#177
FT allowed
36.6%
#188
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.5
Defensive rebounding−2.9
Ball security−1.0
Forcing turnovers+1.4
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Howard has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.2 (#170 of 365) to Stetson’s −13.2 (#341).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Who has been playing, and who has notStetson2026-27 numbers through Thu, Nov 12 · last game: West Virginia, Nov 6
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | Min/40, last 8 | Last 3 vs before | Status | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | F | Sr | 6'8" | 4-4 | 27.0 | 29 | — | Started last | 16.0 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 58.3% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 65.2% | 32.6% | |
| 5 | G | So | 5'10" | 4-4 | 27.0 | 30 | — | Started last | 6.5 | 1.0 | 4.8 | 2.8 | 46.3% | 50.0% | 1.5 | 33.3% | 22.3% | |
| 43 | F | Sr | 6'9" | 4-2 | 26.5 | 32 | — | Bench | 10.3 | 6.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 62.1% | 22.2% | 2.3 | 41.7% | 21.8% | |
| 13 | F | Sr | 6'9" | 4-2 | 24.0 | 29 | — | Started last | 5.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 45.7% | 35.0% | 5.0 | 100.0% | 16.2% | |
| 0 | F | Jr | 6'7" | 4-4 | 18.5 | 21 | — | Started last | 4.3 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 36.7% | 14.3% | 1.8 | 85.7% | 16.7% | |
| 51 | G | So | 6'2" | 4-3 | 17.5 | 24 | — | Bench | 5.5 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 45.8% | 28.6% | 5.3 | — | 24.5% | |
| 23 | G | So | 6'5" | 4-1 | 14.8 | 12 | — | Started last | 5.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 57.1% | 66.7% | 0.8 | 55.6% | 25.7% | |
| 4 | G | Jr | 6'0" | 4-0 | 11.0 | 10 | — | Bench | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 11.1% | 0.0% | 0.8 | — | 19.8% | |
| 21 | F | Sr | 6'10" | 4-0 | 11.0 | 11 | — | Bench | 0.8 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 25.0% | 20.0% | 1.3 | — | 11.2% | |
| 77 | G | Fr | 6'1" | 4-0 | 7.8 | 0 | — | Bench | 2.0 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 31.3% | 25.0% | 1.0 | 42.9% | 26.7% | |
| 1 | F | Fr | 6'8" | 4-0 | 6.0 | 0 | — | Bench | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.5 | — | 12.8% | |
| 24 | F | Fr | 6'8" | 3-0 | 6.7 | — | — | 2.7 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 75.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 27.9% | ||
| 2 | G | So | 6'1" | 2-0 | 3.0 | — | — | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 31.7% | ||
| 8 | G | So | 6'1" | 2-0 | 2.5 | — | — | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 0.5 | — | 12.5% |
Into the starting lineup: Alex Doyle.Into the starting lineup: Roman Miller.Out of the starting lineup: Magnus Entenmann.Out of the starting lineup: Sean Morgan.
Competitive minutes leave out garbage time (provisional rule: a second-half lead of 25+ inside 15:00, 20+ inside 10:00, 15+ inside 5:00 or 10+ inside 2:00, held to the end) and are shown per 40 minutes. Status says only whether a player appeared; the reason is not published.
Trends
Results against the closing spread and total, last ten games, entering this gameStetson
Against the spread
Season
1-2
Home
0-0
Road
1-2
Last 10
1-2
avg cover −2.7
Missed the spread 2 straight
Over / under
Season
2-1
Home
0-0
Road
2-1
Last 10
2-1
avg vs total +1.2
Over in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6 | West Virginia | A | L 53–91 | +27.0 | L−11.0 | 140.0 | O144 | 80.0 | 137.4 | 66.2 |
| Nov 3 | South Carolina | A | L 55–81 | +19.5 | L−6.5 | 149.5 | U136 | 93.1 | 137.2 | 59.0 |
| Nov 2 | Clemson | A | L 72–85 | +22.5 | W+9.5 | 144.0 | O157 | 109.2 | 128.9 | 66.0 |
| Mar 6 | Austin Peay | N | L 60–69 | +12.5 | W+3.5 | 153.0 | U129 | 95.4 | 109.7 | 62.9 |
| Mar 4 | E Kentucky | N | W 92–76 | +6.0 | W+22.0 | 155.0 | O168 | 140.3 | 115.9 | 65.6 |
| Feb 28 | FGCU | H | W 78–63 | +5.5 | W+20.5 | 151.5 | U141 | 115.3 | 93.2 | 67.6 |
| Feb 26 | Jacksonville | A | L 85–89 | +7.0 | W+3.0 | 140.0 | O174 | 126.3 | 132.3 | 67.3 |
| Feb 21 | North Florida | H | W 76–71 | −1.5 | W+3.5 | 160.5 | U147 | 118.9 | 111.1 | 63.9 |
| Feb 19 | C Arkansas | H | L 76–88 | +10.0 | L−2.0 | 149.0 | O164 | 114.9 | 133.0 | 66.2 |
| Feb 14 | FGCU | A | L 76–78 | +10.5 | W+8.5 | 148.5 | O154 | 111.8 | 114.8 | 68.0 |
Howard
Against the spread
Season
1-2
Home
0-0
Road
1-2
Last 10
1-2
avg cover −2.8
Missed the spread in the last game
Over / under
Season
1-2
Home
0-0
Road
1-2
Last 10
1-2
avg vs total −1.2
Under in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9 | Penn | A | L 65–78 | +6.0 | L−7.0 | 155.0 | U143 | 84.7 | 101.6 | 76.8 |
| Nov 5 | Alcorn St | A | W 94–83 | −9.5 | W+1.5 | 149.5 | O177 | 129.6 | 114.5 | 72.5 |
| Nov 2 | Yale | A | L 62–72 | +7.0 | L−3.0 | 153.0 | U134 | 93.9 | 109.0 | 66.0 |
| Mar 19 | #1Michigan | N | L 80–101 | +31.0 | W+10.0 | 151.5 | O181 | 112.2 | 141.7 | 71.3 |
| Mar 17 | #16UMBC | N | W 86–83 | +1.0 | W+4.0 | 142.5 | O169 | 123.5 | 119.2 | 69.6 |
| Mar 14 | NC Central | N | W 70–63 | −11.5 | L−4.5 | 143.5 | U133 | 112.4 | 101.2 | 62.3 |
| Mar 13 | SC State | N | W 78–61 | −15.5 | W+1.5 | 146.0 | U139 | 105.9 | 82.8 | 73.6 |
| Mar 5 | Norfolk St | A | W 84–76 | −6.5 | W+1.5 | 148.5 | O160 | 121.4 | 109.8 | 69.2 |
| Mar 2 | Coppin St | H | W 90–70 | −18.5 | W+1.5 | 140.0 | O160 | 127.2 | 98.9 | 70.8 |
| Feb 28 | Morgan St | A | W 84–59 | −9.5 | W+15.5 | 158.0 | U143 | 116.6 | 81.9 | 72.0 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Team comparison
national rank toned left for away, right for homeStetsonHoward
Efficiency
102.8
103.8
116.8
105.0
67.5
71.2
11.5
-5.5
Shooting
48.7%
48.4%
54.0%
49.6%
28.2%
30.9%
53.1%
61.8%
31.0%
36.8%
Ball control & glass
18.3%
19.5%
10.5%
20.0%
24.5%
38.9%
38.7%
40.4%
8.4%
8.4%
9.2%
12.0%
Style
44.9%
36.8%
51.1%
48.0%
5.6%
18.1%
52.2%
51.9%
43.7%
31.4%
Roster
2.88
3.07
6'5.3"
6'5.6"
38.7%
51.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputStetson
Returning minutes: 38.9%Returning production: 41.2%
Lost
- Ethan Copeland 32.1 mpg, 15.0 ppg · transferred to Virginia Tech
- Jake Johnson 27.5 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Calvin Sirmans III 22.8 mpg, 5.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jamie Phillips Jr. 15.8 mpg, 8.2 ppg · transferred to Jacksonville
- Matar Diop 12.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg · transferred to Lindenwood
- J.R. Leonard 6.7 mpg, 2.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Makhi Myles from SE Louisiana · 21.0 mpg, 7.7 ppg last season
- Thiago Sucatzky from FIU · 13.7 mpg, 3.6 ppg last season
- Magnus Entenmann from Kent State · 11.3 mpg, 2.7 ppg last season
- Mason Fuentes no D1 minutes last season
- Bankston Pourchier no D1 minutes last season
- Jean-Ernest Boyomo Keedi no D1 minutes last season
Returns 39% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Howard
Returning minutes: 64.9%Returning production: 61.7%
Lost
- Bryce Harris 32.3 mpg, 17.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Travelle Bryson 16.5 mpg, 7.8 ppg · transferred to W Carolina
- Danas Kazakevicius 14.1 mpg, 3.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Ed Holland III 6.6 mpg, 1.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Stefan Isailovic 1.0 mpg, 0.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Josiah Lawson new to D1 · 27.0 mpg, 11.0 ppg last season
- Gasper Kocevar from Fresno St · 10.9 mpg, 2.7 ppg last season
- James Brown from North Carolina · 1.5 mpg, 0.3 ppg last season
- Drew Harris no D1 minutes last season
Returns 65% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5.
Line history
Market line, home spread or game totalLines by book
| Book | Spread (home) open → now | Total open → now | ML home | ML away |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DraftKings | -10.5→-8.5-108 | 152.5→148.5o-115 u-105 | -470 | +360 |
| FanDuel | -10.5→-8.5-120 | 152.5→148.5o-110 u-110 | -430 | +330 |
| BetMGM | -10.5→-8.5-115 | 152.5→148.5o-115 u-105 | -450 | +333 |
| BetRivers | -10.5→-9.5-115 | 152.5→149.5o-112 u-112 | -560 | +380 |
| Caesars | -10.5→-8.5-110 | 152.5→149o-110 u-110 | -455 | +345 |
| Fanatics | -10.5→-9-105 | 152.5→149o-110 u-110 | -475 | +360 |
| BetOnline | -10.5→-8.5-109 | 152→148.5o-115 u-105 | — | — |
| Bovada | -10.5→-9-105 | 152.5→149o-110 u-110 | -500 | +360 |
| theScore Bet | -10.5→-8.5+100 | 152.5→149.5o-110 u-110 | -500 | +360 |
| Hard Rock | -10.5→-9.5-115 | 152.5→149.5o-110 u-110 | -550 | +375 |
| Kalshi | -10.5→-7.5-117 | 151.5→149.5o+104 u-108 | -400 | +376 |
| Polymarket | -10.5→-8.5-108 | 152.5→148.5o-108 u+100 | — | — |
| Novig | -10.5→-8.5-102 | 152.5→148.5o-104 u-102 | -388 | +376 |
DraftKings
FanDuel
BetMGM
BetRivers
Caesars
Fanatics
BetOnline
Bovada
theScore Bet
Hard Rock
Kalshi
Polymarket
Novigopen = first-sighted line for this event · now = latest capture
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Wed, Nov 19 | 2025-26 | Howard 60 – 64 Stetson |
More games on Thu, Nov 12
- Kansas City vs George Mason · 3:00 PM ET
- Morgan St at UMBC · 6:00 PM ET
- Bradley vs Coppin St · 6:00 PM ET
- Tennessee Tech at Indiana · 6:30 PM ET
- Mercyhurst at Penn State · 6:30 PM ET
- Niagara at Bowling Green · 7:00 PM ET
- Canisius at Brown · 7:00 PM ET
- MD Eastern at Rhode Island · 7:00 PM ET
- Bakersfield at W Illinois · 7:00 PM ET
- Southern Utah at High Point · 7:00 PM ET
- Loyola MD at Towson · 7:00 PM ET
- Mercer at West Virginia · 7:00 PM ET
- Monmouth at Quinnipiac · 7:00 PM ET
- C Connecticut at Sacred Heart · 7:00 PM ET
- W Michigan at Purdue FW · 7:00 PM ET
- Richmond at S Illinois · 8:00 PM ET
- Southern at Minnesota · 8:00 PM ET
- LMU vs South Alabama · 8:00 PM ET
- Oklahoma St at Texas A&M · 8:00 PM ET
- West Florida at Alabama A&M · 8:00 PM ET
- New Mexico St at UTEP · 9:00 PM ET
- Montana St at BYU · 9:00 PM ET
- UC Riverside at San José St · 10:00 PM ET
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — the market spread and total (the median across books when no market line is up). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, from our line: the same view our bets are made from.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.