Pete Maravich Assembly Center · at LSU
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LSU 82–74 · win probability LSU 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.1
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: LSU has more of the edges
WAKE 2, LSU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WAKE 15.5%, LSU 15.5%. Forced: WAKE 17.7%, LSU 14.0%
Three-pointers
WAKE hits 34.1% and allows 32.9%; LSU hits 33.1% and allows 35.4%. Threes are 43.6% and 34.5% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WAKE 30.1%, LSU 33.1%. Defensive: WAKE 67.0%, LSU 68.3%
LSU offense vs WAKE defense
Offense 37th of 366 against a defense 96th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
LSU at home. This season: LSU 0-0 at home, WAKE 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: WAKE 35.2, LSU 40.9. Allowed: WAKE 35.7, LSU 37.8
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WAKE 52.7 and allows 51.8; LSU 52.8 and allows 50.9
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WAKE 9%, LSU 0%. Transfers in: WAKE 6, LSU 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
WAKE has played the 64th-hardest schedule, LSU the 49th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: WAKE plays 70.2 a game (112th fastest), LSU 70.5 (95th). Faster games mean more points
Even
WAKE offense vs LSU defense
Offense 80th of 366 against a defense 77th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | LSU -7.6 | — |
| Total | — | 156.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | WAKE 74.2 · LSU 81.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LSU -4.4 | — |
| 1H total | 72.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | WAKE 34.3 · LSU 38.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
WAKE 0–3 LSULSU leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · LSU has won the last 3 meetings · WAKE 0-3 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2023-24 | LSU 86 vs WAKE 80 | WAKE -0.5 | LSU W |
| Dec 10, 2022-23 | WAKE 70 vs LSU 72 | LSU +1.5 | LSU W |
| Nov 27, 2021-22 | LSU 75 vs WAKE 61 | WAKE +7 | LSU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Wake Forest
35 games played
Straight up
18-17
51% wins
Against the spread
16-19
46% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-15
57% overs · avg +0.6 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 88-74 | -19.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 81-65 | -22.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 84-85 | +15.5 | W +14.5 | 168.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 109-75 | -30.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 83-84 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 69-68 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 99-51 | -17.5 | W +30.5 | 159.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-73 | -17.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 68-86 | -4.5 | L −22.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 75-66 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 111-73 | -18.5 | W +19.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 71-68 | -24.5 | L −21.5 | 163.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 67-98 | +5.5 | L −25.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 57-70 | +10.5 | L −2.5 | 159.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 81-78 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 77-81 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 84-87 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-68 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 79-91 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 69-90 | +19.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 76-80 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 78-96 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 80-88 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 83-67 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 68-63 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 85-77 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 63-82 | +3.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 67-68 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-83 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 70-75 | +14.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 80-73 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 95-89 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 62-71 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 18 | vs | W 82-72 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 75-78 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
AMER
W 88-74
−5.5
7
vs
MORE
W 81-65
−6.5
11
vs
MICH
L 84-85
+14.5
16
vs
UML
W 109-75
+3.5
20
vs
TTU
L 83-84
+8.5
21
vs
MEM
W 69-68
−1.5
25
vs
CAM
W 99-51
+30.5
28
vs
NE
W 86-73
−4.5
2
vs
OU
L 68-86
−22.5
6
vs
WVU
W 75-66
+11.5
14
vs
QUC
W 111-73
+19.5
17
vs
LONG
W 71-68
−21.5
21
vs
VAN
L 67-98
−25.5
31
@
NCSU
L 57-70
−2.5
3
vs
VT
W 81-78
−2.5
7
vs
MIA
L 77-81
−5.5
10
@
UNC
L 84-87
+7.5
17
@
FSU
W 69-68
−0.5
20
vs
SMU
L 79-91
−13.5
24
@
DUKE
L 69-90
−1.5
27
@
PITT
L 76-80
−2.5
31
vs
NCSU
L 78-96
−12.5
7
vs
LOU
L 80-88
+1.5
11
@
GT
W 83-67
+12.5
14
vs
STAN
W 68-63
+0.5
18
vs
CLEM
W 85-77
+12.5
21
@
VT
L 63-82
−15.5
25
@
BC
L 67-68
−4.5
28
vs
SYR
W 88-83
+1.5
3
@
UVA
L 70-75
+9.5
7
vs
CAL
W 80-73
+1.5
10
vs
VT
W 95-89
+4.5
11
vs
CLEM
L 62-71
−3.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 82-72
+0.5
22
vs
ILST
L 75-78
−11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 19avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
AMER
W 88-74
+22.5
7
vs
MORE
W 81-65
−6.5
11
vs
MICH
L 84-85
+0.5
16
vs
UML
W 109-75
+18.5
20
vs
TTU
L 83-84
+6.5
21
vs
MEM
W 69-68
−23.5
25
vs
CAM
W 99-51
−9.5
28
vs
NE
W 86-73
+4.5
2
vs
OU
L 68-86
−5.5
6
vs
WVU
W 75-66
−2.5
14
vs
QUC
W 111-73
+18.5
17
vs
LONG
W 71-68
−24.5
21
vs
VAN
L 67-98
+0.5
31
@
NCSU
L 57-70
−32.5
3
vs
VT
W 81-78
+5.5
7
vs
MIA
L 77-81
+0.5
10
@
UNC
L 84-87
+16.5
17
@
FSU
W 69-68
−31.5
20
vs
SMU
L 79-91
+12.5
24
@
DUKE
L 69-90
+5.5
27
@
PITT
L 76-80
+5.5
31
vs
NCSU
L 78-96
+17.5
7
vs
LOU
L 80-88
+5.5
11
@
GT
W 83-67
−8.5
14
vs
STAN
W 68-63
−19.5
18
vs
CLEM
W 85-77
+21.5
21
@
VT
L 63-82
−5.5
25
@
BC
L 67-68
−10.5
28
vs
SYR
W 88-83
+18.5
3
@
UVA
L 70-75
−5.5
7
vs
CAL
W 80-73
−1.5
10
vs
VT
W 95-89
+33.5
11
vs
CLEM
L 62-71
−10.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 82-72
+5.5
22
vs
ILST
L 75-78
+0.5
over 20under 15avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
LSU
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
18-14
56% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% overs · avg +4.6 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 | vs | W 96-60 | -15.5 | W +20.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 93-58 | -19.5 | W +15.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 98-81 | -21.5 | L −4.5 | 158.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 107-81 | -32.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 99-73 | -20.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 71-62 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 96-63 | -5.5 | W +27.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 78-69 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 58-82 | +5.5 | L −18.5 | 154.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 89-77 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 78-65 | -24.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 104-90 | -29.5 | L −15.5 | 161.5 | O 194 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 90-62 | -21.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 72-75 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 168.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 68-78 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 73-84 | +13.5 | W +2.5 | 159.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 74-75 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 78-70 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 61-79 | +15.5 | L −2.5 | 158.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 81-85 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 66-80 | -7.5 | L −21.5 | 154.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 92-87 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 71-83 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 10 | vs | L 62-91 | +4.5 | L −24.5 | 159.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-73 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 85-88 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 83-90 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 172.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 106-99 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | O 205 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 67-83 | -1.5 | L −17.5 | 155.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 74-88 | +10.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 91-94 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | O 185 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 82-87 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
TAR
W 96-60
+20.5
10
vs
NOLA
W 93-58
+15.5
13
vs
FIU
W 98-81
−4.5
18
vs
ALCN
W 107-81
−6.5
21
vs
OMA
W 99-73
+5.5
28
vs
DRKE
W 71-62
−2.5
29
vs
DEP
W 96-63
+27.5
3
@
BC
W 78-69
+1.5
7
vs
TTU
L 58-82
−18.5
13
vs
SMU
W 89-77
+10.5
19
vs
SELA
W 78-65
−11.5
22
vs
PV
W 104-90
−15.5
29
vs
USM
W 90-62
+6.5
3
@
TA&M
L 72-75
+2.5
6
vs
SC
L 68-78
−17.5
10
@
VAN
L 73-84
+2.5
14
vs
UK
L 74-75
+2.5
17
vs
MIZ
W 78-70
+6.5
20
@
FLA
L 61-79
−2.5
24
@
ARK
L 81-85
+6.5
28
vs
MSST
L 66-80
−21.5
31
@
SC
W 92-87
+2.5
7
vs
UGA
L 71-83
−10.5
10
vs
ARK
L 62-91
−24.5
14
@
TENN
L 63-73
+4.5
17
@
TEX
L 85-88
+7.5
21
vs
ALA
L 83-90
+0.5
25
@
MISS
W 106-99
+9.5
28
vs
OU
L 67-83
−17.5
3
@
AUB
L 74-88
−3.5
7
vs
TA&M
L 91-94
−0.5
11
vs
UK
L 82-87
+3.5
covered 18didn’t cover 14avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
TAR
W 96-60
+7.5
10
vs
NOLA
W 93-58
−11.5
13
vs
FIU
W 98-81
+20.5
18
vs
ALCN
W 107-81
+32.5
21
vs
OMA
W 99-73
+8.5
28
vs
DRKE
W 71-62
−18.5
29
vs
DEP
W 96-63
+6.5
3
@
BC
W 78-69
−2.5
7
vs
TTU
L 58-82
−14.5
13
vs
SMU
W 89-77
+7.5
19
vs
SELA
W 78-65
−1.5
22
vs
PV
W 104-90
+32.5
29
vs
USM
W 90-62
−2.5
3
@
TA&M
L 72-75
−21.5
6
vs
SC
L 68-78
+0.5
10
@
VAN
L 73-84
−2.5
14
vs
UK
L 74-75
−2.5
17
vs
MIZ
W 78-70
−0.5
20
@
FLA
L 61-79
−18.5
24
@
ARK
L 81-85
+2.5
28
vs
MSST
L 66-80
−8.5
31
@
SC
W 92-87
+31.5
7
vs
UGA
L 71-83
−7.5
10
vs
ARK
L 62-91
−6.5
14
@
TENN
L 63-73
−7.5
17
@
TEX
L 85-88
+22.5
21
vs
ALA
L 83-90
+0.5
25
@
MISS
W 106-99
+57.5
28
vs
OU
L 67-83
−5.5
3
@
AUB
L 74-88
+6.5
7
vs
TA&M
L 91-94
+23.5
11
vs
UK
L 82-87
+17.5
over 16under 16avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
LSU has the better starters
Position by position: Wake Forest 1, LSU 3, even 1
Wake ForestBetterLSU
G K. Kennedy TR18.4 pts · 4.6 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 91
=Even
G D. Dent TR13.3 pts · 2.9 reb · 7.6 ast
Score 95
G J. Ray TR11.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 56
←WAKEBig
G A. Nunez TR9.6 pts · 2.1 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 17
G J. McDowell TR3.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 40
→LSUBig
G S. Clark TR11.5 pts · 2.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 87
F R. Nyeri TR8.4 pts · 6.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 34
→LSUBig
G A. Bashir TR13.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 92
F X. Pintelon TR5.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 47
→LSUBig
F M. Dioubate TR8.8 pts · 5.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 94
Wake ForestBetterLSU
WAKE offense80th of 366 · +0.5
=Even
LSU defense77th of 366 · +0.5
WAKE defense96th of 366 · -0.5
→LSUSmall
LSU offense37th of 366 · +5.0
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
→LSUBig
Backcourt+5.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
→LSUBig
Frontcourt+3.1 · 1 player
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
→LSUSmall
Bench+0.4 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestWAKE betterLSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Kennedy37 min · TRJ. Ray29 min · TRJ. McDowell17 min · TRI. Carr13 minA. Beard2 minW. Underwood2 min
Forwards
R. Nyeri26 min · TRX. Pintelon18 min · TRV. Ricchiuti2 minJ. AbsonNewV. ChaudhriNewG. PlacideNew
Centers
A. Dorn9 min · TR
Guards
D. Dent34 min · TRA. Nunez29 min · TRS. Clark29 min · TRA. Bashir25 min · TRD. Ugochukwu16 min · TRL. StansburyNew
Forwards
M. Dioubate22 min · TRS. NiangNewJ. BenderNew
Centers
B. DessertNewG. LevyNewS. PearsonNewM. RuzicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.8 #83 | Points per game | 81.4 #41 |
| 1.12 #94 | Points per possession | 1.15 #60 |
| 70.2 #112 | Pace (possessions) | 70.5 #95 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.7 #117 | Effective FG% | 52.8 #111 |
| 34.1 #166 | 3-point % | 33.1 #225 |
| 43.6 #99 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.5 #286 |
| 35.2 #170 | Free throw rate | 40.9 #49 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.5 #107 | Turnover rate | 15.5 #106 |
| 30.1 #196 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.1 #87 |
| 14.4 #123 | Assists per game | 14.7 #106 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.9 #239 | Points allowed | 78.5 #279 |
| 1.10 #214 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #270 |
| 51.8 #202 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #150 |
| 32.9 #117 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.4 #271 |
| 17.7 #114 | Turnovers forced | 14.0 #335 |
| 67.0 #298 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #239 |
| 7.7 #59 | Steals per game | 6.0 #240 |
| 3.5 #136 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #87 |
Wake Forest
18-17 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Illinois St75–78
- Wvs Navy82–72
- Lvs Clemson62–71
- Wvs Virginia Tech95–89
- Wvs California80–73
A week or more of rest.
LSU
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 3-16 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Kentucky82–87
- Lvs Texas A&M91–94
- L@ Auburn74–88
- Lvs Oklahoma67–83
- W@ Ole Miss106–99
A week or more of rest.