Who will win UMBC vs Pitt?
The model gives Pittsburgh a 82% chance to beat UMBC, with a projected score of Pitt 74, UMBC 63.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 80–90% have been right 85.0% of the time in 7,719 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 9.5 points. After the final, the result is pinned to this strip. As of 2:23 AM ET on November 13, 2026. Updated three times a day until tip-off.
Players to watch
| Player | Pts | Reb | Ast | Last games | Chance of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Pitt | |||||
| BarbotG · 32 min | 21.0 | 4.6 | 4.0 | 20+ 55% | |
| VennerC · 28 min | 14.5 | 8.0 | 1.0 | 15+ 46% | |
| BarbotG · 31 min | 8.6 | 4.0 | 6.5 | 10+ 38% | |
| HillG · 18 min | 7.9 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 10+ 32% | |
 UMBC | |||||
| WilliamsG · 25 min | 13.1 | 6.0 | 2.3 | 15+ 37% | |
| WilliamsF · 21 min | 10.0 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 10+ 48% | |
| SlomackG · 21 min | 9.8 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 10+ 47% | |
| AustinG · 23 min | 8.8 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 10+ 40% | |
Bars: points in the player's latest games this season. Blue line: tonight's projection. Every regular's line
The game without one player
Without Taryn Barbot: UMBC 29%Pitt 71%
The white mark is the call with her: Pitt 82%.
| Player | Points a game she adds | Pitt without her | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pitt | ||||
| Taryn Barbot | 4.5 | 71% | −11 | 65–72 |
| Alancia Ramsey | 3.0 | 75% | −7 | 65–73 |
| Taylor Barbot | 2.6 | 76% | −6 | 64–73 |
| Jamisen Hill | 1.3 | 79% | −3 | 64–74 |
| UMBC | ||||
| Angela Williams | 1.6 | 85% | +3 | 62–75 |
| Heidi Williams | 1.4 | 85% | +3 | 62–75 |
| Kennedy Austin | 1.2 | 84% | +2 | 62–75 |
| Alaina Williams | 1.1 | 84% | +2 | 63–75 |
Change is in Pitt's win chance, in points. Scores read UMBC, then Pitt. A player's value is what the team is better by with her than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
UMBC 3-0WWW
- Nov 8W 91-67at Quinnipiac
- Nov 5W 79-53vs Mount St Marys
- Nov 2W 92-29vs Stevenson
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 87.3 and allowing 49.7
Pitt 3-0WWW
- Nov 10W 129-51vs Delaware St
- Nov 7W 92-42vs Long Island
- Nov 3W 81-52vs Saint Peter's
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 100.7 and allowing 48.3
The spread and the total are the lines logged with each prediction. Form is what happened; the ratings above already count recent games more.
Offense against defense
| UMBC | Pitt | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 92.4 146th | 99.4 76th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 92.3 136th | 91.2 122nd |
| Possessions a game | 71.2 265th | 73.3 76th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 48.5% 31st | 48.1% 47th |
| Opponents' shooting | 45.6% 181st | 43.8% 75th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 23.4% 176th | 20.2% 7th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 35.4% 64th | 37.6% 20th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.21 182nd | 0.21 163rd |
The widest gap: Pitt's offense (76th) against UMBC's defense (136th), of 363 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- UMBC 29, Pitt 36
- First-half margin
- Pitt by 6.6
- First-half points, both teams
- 65.2
- Projected second half
- UMBC 34, Pitt 39
- Second-half points, both teams
- 72.3
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- UMBC, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 44.7 scored, 24.3 allowed
- Pitt, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 46.0 scored, 22.0 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 10,911 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 73.0% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.0 points on average. This season: 404 of 492 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
UMBC
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heidi WilliamsG | 25 | 13.1 | 6.0 | 2.3 | 0.6 |
| 15+ pts 37% · 6+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 41% | |||||
| Kennedy AustinG | 23 | 8.8 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 0.4 |
| 10+ pts 40% · 4+ reb 49% · 2+ ast 50% | |||||
| Alaina WilliamsF | 21 | 7.8 | 4.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| 10+ pts 32% · 5+ reb 46% | |||||
| Dagny SlomackG | 21 | 9.8 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 1.7 |
| 10+ pts 47% · 2+ reb 41% · 2+ threes 45% | |||||
| Angela WilliamsF | 21 | 10.0 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 0.8 |
| 10+ pts 48% · 4+ reb 56% · 1+ threes 50% | |||||
| Tiara BellamyG | 21 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 28% · 2+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 36% | |||||
| Shariah BaynesG | 18 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 32% · 2+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 49% | |||||
| Alden YergeyG | 14 | 4.1 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 37% · 2+ reb 34% · 1+ threes 43% | |||||
Missed the last game: Sadaya Jones (18 min a game).
Pitt
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taryn BarbotG | 32 | 21.0 | 4.6 | 4.0 | 2.8 |
| 20+ pts 55% · 5+ reb 46% · 3+ threes 47% | |||||
| Taylor BarbotG | 31 | 8.6 | 4.0 | 6.5 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 38% · 4+ reb 53% · 1+ threes 48% | |||||
| Meredith VennerC | 28 | 14.5 | 8.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 |
| 15+ pts 46% · 8+ reb 52% · 2+ ast 26% | |||||
| Maysen HillG | 26 | 7.7 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 1.2 |
| 10+ pts 31% · 4+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 39% | |||||
| Alancia RamseyF | 23 | 7.6 | 5.8 | 1.2 | 0.4 |
| 10+ pts 31% · 6+ reb 50% · 2+ ast 32% | |||||
| Jamisen HillG | 18 | 7.9 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 1.5 |
| 10+ pts 32% · 3+ reb 40% · 2+ threes 41% | |||||
| Macie ArznerG | 14 | 6.6 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 62% · 3+ reb 54% · 1+ threes 49% | |||||
| Ande'a CherisierC | 11 | 5.7 | 3.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 53% · 4+ reb 46% · 2+ ast 22% | |||||
Our own projections from each player's minutes and production, this opponent and the game's pace: not a sportsbook's lines. Under each name, the round numbers the player is about as likely as not to reach. How they have done
Win probability
Game chat
Loading the chat…