Montagne Center · at Lamar · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
 ETAM | This season | LAM |
|---|---|---|
| 6-12 | Record | 8-10 |
| 9-9 | ATS | 8-10 |
| 9-9 | O/U | 9-9 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects LAM 73–66 · win probability LAM 74%
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 139.4
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: LAM has more of the edges
ETAM 1, LAM 4 · 2025-26 so far
LAMBigRebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ETAM 25.7%, LAM 35.7%. Defensive: ETAM 67.2%, LAM 70.6%
ETAMBigFree throws
Free throw rate: ETAM 32.0, LAM 27.9. Allowed: ETAM 34.5, LAM 44.4
LAMBigETAM offense vs LAM defense
Offense 344th of 366 against a defense 213th, on the model’s ratings
LAMSmallThree-pointers
ETAM hits 31.3% and allows 37.3%; LAM hits 32.9% and allows 35.3%. Threes are 46.2% and 33.9% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
ETAM has played the 265th-hardest schedule, LAM the 328th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: ETAM plays 68.5 a game (203rd fastest), LAM 66.1 (311th). Faster games mean more points
LAMSmallHome court
LAM at home. This season: LAM 3-4 at home, ETAM 3-9 away
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ETAM 19.2%, LAM 18.1%. Forced: ETAM 17.0%, LAM 17.3%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: ETAM 49.2 and allows 52.9; LAM 47.8 and allows 50.9
Even
LAM offense vs ETAM defense
Offense 334th of 366 against a defense 317th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ETAM 7%, LAM 0%. Transfers in: ETAM 2, LAM 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Recent form
Last 5: ETAM 2-3 ATS, margin -0.4; LAM 2-3 ATS, margin +2.0
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 | — | LAM -7.2 | — |
| Total | — | 139.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | ETAM 66.1 · LAM 73.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LAM -4.2 | — |
| 1H total | 65.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | ETAM 30.6 · LAM 34.7 | — |
Last 10 games
2025-26, before tip-off
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ETAM | 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
| LAM | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 7 since 2021-22
ETAM 2–5 LAMLAM leads · 7 games since 2021-22 · LAM has won the last 5 meetings · ETAM 2-5 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2025-26 | LAM 69 @ ETAM 62 | ETAM +5.5 | LAM W |
| Feb 15, 2024-25 | LAM 65 @ ETAM 55 | ETAM +5.5 | LAM W |
| Jan 25, 2024-25 | ETAM 58 @ LAM 61 | LAM -9.5 | ETAM W |
| Mar 4, 2023-24 | LAM 70 @ ETAM 53 | ETAM +4.5 | LAM W |
| Jan 22, 2023-24 | ETAM 65 @ LAM 76 | LAM -5.5 | LAM W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
East Texas A&M
18 games played
Straight up
6-12
33% wins
Against the spread
9-9
50% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-9
50% overs · avg −0.7 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 5 | @ UNM | L 54-76 | +22.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 10 | @ HAW | L 74-100 | +18.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 14 | @ RICE | L 64-71 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 24 | @ FDU | W 70-65 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 25 | vs ARMY | W 84-67 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 5 | @ CONN | L 59-83 | +36.5 | W +12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 7 | vs CARK | W 75-68 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 12 | @ MCN | L 66-102 | +20.5 | L −15.5 | 142.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 15 | @ SELA | W 70-69 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 21 | @ TA&M | L 77-118 | +28.5 | L −12.5 | 166.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 29 | vs SFA | L 48-75 | +4.5 | L −22.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 31 | vsLAM | L 62-69 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 3 | @ NICH | L 58-80 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 5 | @ NOLA | L 73-83 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs RGV | W 77-69 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 12 | vs AMCC | L 50-61 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 142.5 | U 111 |
| Jan 17 | @ HCU | L 70-81 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 19 | @ UIW | W 80-58 | +6.5 | W +28.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
@UNM
UNML 54-76
+0.5
10
@HAW
HAWL 74-100
−7.5
14
@RICE
RICEL 64-71
+3.5
24
@FDU
FDUW 70-65
+1.5
25
vsARMY
ARMYW 84-67
+14.5
5
@CONN
CONNL 59-83
+12.5
7
vsCARK
CARKW 75-68
+4.5
12
@MCN
MCNL 66-102
−15.5
15
@SELA
SELAW 70-69
+5.5
21
@TA&M
TA&ML 77-118
−12.5
29
vsSFA
SFAL 48-75
−22.5
31
vsLAM
LAML 62-69
−1.5
3
@NICH
NICHL 58-80
−15.5
5
@NOLA
NOLAL 73-83
−3.5
10
vsRGV
RGVW 77-69
+11.5
12
vsAMCC
AMCCL 50-61
−7.5
17
@HCU
HCUL 70-81
−8.5
19
@UIW
UIWW 80-58
+28.5
covered 9didn’t cover 9avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
@UNM
UNML 54-76
−13.5
10
@HAW
HAWL 74-100
+28.5
14
@RICE
RICEL 64-71
−11.5
24
@FDU
FDUW 70-65
−14.5
25
vsARMY
ARMYW 84-67
+7.5
5
@CONN
CONNL 59-83
+0.5
7
vsCARK
CARKW 75-68
−2.5
12
@MCN
MCNL 66-102
+25.5
15
@SELA
SELAW 70-69
+1.5
21
@TA&M
TA&ML 77-118
+28.5
29
vsSFA
SFAL 48-75
−23.5
31
vsLAM
LAML 62-69
−12.5
3
@NICH
NICHL 58-80
−8.5
5
@NOLA
NOLAL 73-83
+5.5
10
vsRGV
RGVW 77-69
+0.5
12
vsAMCC
AMCCL 50-61
−31.5
17
@HCU
HCUL 70-81
+11.5
19
@UIW
UIWW 80-58
−4.5
over 9under 9avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Lamar
18 games played
Straight up
8-10
44% wins
Against the spread
8-10
44% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-9
50% overs · avg +1.2 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 10 | @ TCU | L 65-78 | +18.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 17 | @ ULM | W 79-66 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 23 | @ MONT | W 68-63 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 24 | vs OAK | L 68-83 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs UL | W 65-55 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 129.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 6 | vsAMCC | L 49-57 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | U 106 |
| Dec 10 | @ SDSU | L 71-89 | +17.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | vsRGV | L 72-83 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 20 | vs OMA | L 82-85 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 29 | @ NWST | W 76-61 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 31 | @ETAM | W 69-62 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 2 | @MCN | L 70-82 | +16.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 5 | @SELA | L 52-60 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 135.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 10 | vsUIW | W 63-51 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | vsHCU | W 64-56 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | @NICH | W 90-80 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 19 | @NOLA | L 76-89 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vsSFA | L 81-88 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
10
@TCU
TCUL 65-78
+5.5
17
@ULM
ULMW 79-66
+1.5
23
@MONT
MONTW 68-63
+9.5
24
vsOAK
OAKL 68-83
−11.5
3
vsUL
ULW 65-55
−0.5
6
vsAMCC
AMCCL 49-57
−11.5
10
@SDSU
SDSUL 71-89
−0.5
16
vsRGV
RGVL 72-83
−14.5
20
vsOMA
OMAL 82-85
−8.5
29
@NWST
NWSTW 76-61
+11.5
31
@ETAM
ETAMW 69-62
+1.5
2
@MCN
MCNL 70-82
+4.5
5
@SELA
SELAL 52-60
−9.5
10
vsUIW
UIWW 63-51
+10.5
12
vsHCU
HCUW 64-56
−0.5
17
@NICH
NICHW 90-80
+13.5
19
@NOLA
NOLAL 76-89
−14.5
24
vsSFA
SFAL 81-88
−2.5
covered 8didn’t cover 10avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
10
@TCU
TCUL 65-78
−4.5
17
@ULM
ULMW 79-66
+4.5
23
@MONT
MONTW 68-63
−17.5
24
vsOAK
OAKL 68-83
+2.5
3
vsUL
ULW 65-55
−9.5
6
vsAMCC
AMCCL 49-57
−30.5
10
@SDSU
SDSUL 71-89
+24.5
16
vsRGV
RGVL 72-83
+15.5
20
vsOMA
OMAL 82-85
+25.5
29
@NWST
NWSTW 76-61
−1.5
31
@ETAM
ETAMW 69-62
−12.5
2
@MCN
MCNL 70-82
+6.5
5
@SELA
SELAL 52-60
−23.5
10
vsUIW
UIWW 63-51
−26.5
12
vsHCU
HCUW 64-56
−14.5
17
@NICH
NICHW 90-80
+30.5
19
@NOLA
NOLAL 76-89
+20.5
24
vsSFA
SFAL 81-88
+32.5
over 9under 9avg +1.2 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: East Texas A&M 1, Lamar 1, even 3
East Texas A&MBetterLamar
G A. Dodd TR14.3 pts · 5.3 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 82
←ETAMBig
G F. Radakovic TR9.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 38
G E. Phelps1.3 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 0
→LAMSmall
G N. Moretti TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 24
G K. Tolbert NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G Q. Berry TR6.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 61
F J. Ford TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Collins TR1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 12
F B. Aldridge NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F M. Ljubicic TR5.5 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 7
East Texas A&MBetterLamar
ETAM offense344th of 366 · -11.8
→LAMBig
LAM defense213th of 366 · -5.4
ETAM defense317th of 366 · -8.2
=Even
LAM offense334th of 366 · -10.9
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
←ETAMSmall
Backcourt-4.6 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
←ETAMSmall
Frontcourt-2.4 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.8 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestETAM betterLAM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
East Texas A&MGuards
A. Dodd32 min · TRE. Phelps15 minK. TolbertNewC. AdlamNewK. RobinsonNewG. SkorjancNew
Forwards
J. Ford10 min · TRB. AldridgeNewY. VidalNewM. DiakiteNewC. DinuNewM. CarrioNew
LamarGuards
F. Radakovic27 min · TRN. Moretti27 min · TRQ. Berry18 min · TRM. Collins9 min · TRJ. JonesNewS. LynchNew
Forwards
M. Ljubicic20 min · TRM. Reed7 min · TRC. HinkerNewA. AgotNewD. EasonNew
Matchup stats
2025-26 · rank among 365 teams
Scoring
Points per game
ETAM67.1 #331LAM68.4 #308Points per possession
ETAM0.98 #342LAM1.04 #279Pace (possessions)
ETAM68.5 #203LAM66.1 #311Shooting
Effective FG%
ETAM49.2 #282LAM47.8 #3183-point %
ETAM31.3 #313LAM32.9 #2383-point attempt rate
ETAM46.2 #43LAM33.9 #297Free throw rate
ETAM32.0 #257LAM27.9 #344Possessions
Turnover rate
ETAM19.2 #330LAM18.1 #273Offensive rebound rate
ETAM25.7 #328LAM35.7 #31Assists per game
ETAM14.6 #109LAM13.9 #157Defense
Points allowed
ETAM76.0 #218LAM70.5 #64Points allowed per possession
ETAM1.11 #240LAM1.07 #122Opponent effective FG%
ETAM52.9 #261LAM50.9 #153Opponent 3-point %
ETAM37.3 #347LAM35.3 #266Turnovers forced
ETAM17.0 #156LAM17.3 #130Defensive rebound rate
ETAM67.2 #288LAM70.6 #130Steals per game
ETAM6.7 #150LAM6.1 #227Blocks per game
ETAM3.1 #196LAM4.2 #54| ETAM | LAM | |
|---|---|---|
| Scoring | ||
| 67.1 #331 | Points per game | 68.4 #308 |
| 0.98 #342 | Points per possession | 1.04 #279 |
| 68.5 #203 | Pace (possessions) | 66.1 #311 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.2 #282 | Effective FG% | 47.8 #318 |
| 31.3 #313 | 3-point % | 32.9 #238 |
| 46.2 #43 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.9 #297 |
| 32.0 #257 | Free throw rate | 27.9 #344 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.2 #330 | Turnover rate | 18.1 #273 |
| 25.7 #328 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.7 #31 |
| 14.6 #109 | Assists per game | 13.9 #157 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.0 #218 | Points allowed | 70.5 #64 |
| 1.11 #240 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #122 |
| 52.9 #261 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #153 |
| 37.3 #347 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.3 #266 |
| 17.0 #156 | Turnovers forced | 17.3 #130 |
| 67.2 #288 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.6 #130 |
| 6.7 #150 | Steals per game | 6.1 #227 |
| 3.1 #196 | Blocks per game | 4.2 #54 |
East Texas A&M
6-12 overall · 3-7 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- W@ Incarnate Word80–58
- L@ Hou Christian70–81
- Lvs Texas A&M-CC50–61
- Wvs UT Rio Grande77–69
- L@ LSU N Orleans73–83
A week or more of rest.
Lamar
8-10 overall · 5-6 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SF Austin81–88
- L@ LSU N Orleans76–89
- W@ Nicholls90–80
- Wvs Hou Christian64–56
- Wvs Incarnate Word63–51
2 days since their last game.