Chaifetz Arena · at Saint Louis
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SLU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SLU 87–64 · win probability SLU 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.8
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: SLU has more of the edges
SEMO 1, SLU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
SEMO has played the 351st-hardest schedule, SLU the 99th. A record against a soft schedule means less
SEMO offense vs SLU defense
Offense 312th of 366 against a defense 87th, on the model’s ratings
SLU offense vs SEMO defense
Offense 61st of 366 against a defense 284th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
SEMO hits 30.9% and allows 33.1%; SLU hits 39.9% and allows 30.3%. Threes are 36.0% and 45.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: SEMO 49.8 and allows 48.8; SLU 59.7 and allows 45.2
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SEMO 16.8%, SLU 17.2%. Forced: SEMO 18.1%, SLU 15.9%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SEMO 26%, SLU 63%. Transfers in: SEMO 1, SLU 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
SLU at home. This season: SLU 0-0 at home, SEMO 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SEMO 29.6%, SLU 30.7%. Defensive: SEMO 71.8%, SLU 72.8%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: SEMO plays 70.2 a game (109th fastest), SLU 72.1 (32nd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: SEMO 38.8, SLU 33.7. Allowed: SEMO 48.0, SLU 37.1
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 | — | SLU -22.9 | — |
| Total | — | 150.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | SEMO 63.9 · SLU 86.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SLU -13.5 | — |
| 1H total | 70.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | SEMO 28.5 · SLU 42 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
SEMO 0–1 SLUSLU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · SEMO 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2025-26 | SEMO 67 @ SLU 92 | SLU -19.5 | SLU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
SE Missouri
30 games played
Straight up
17-13
57% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-17
43% overs · avg −2.2 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 3 | @ | L 67-92 | +19.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 84-89 | +25.5 | W +20.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 72-84 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 70-99 | +23.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 84-68 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 170.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 72-79 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 77-88 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 153.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 74-70 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 74-85 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 91-82 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 68-59 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 73-50 | -13.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 84-76 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 69-71 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 76-88 | -6.5 | L −18.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 55-68 | -9.5 | L −22.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 66-50 | -2.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 70-65 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 78-74 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 77-59 | -4.5 | W +13.5 | 138.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 82-70 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 90-65 | -11.5 | W +13.5 | 141.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 56-74 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 137.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 73-61 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 56-53 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | U 109 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 70-65 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 71-79 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 89-73 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 68-66 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 61-66 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 127 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SLU
L 67-92
−5.5
7
@
MIZ
L 84-89
+20.5
15
vs
STMN
L 72-84
−9.5
18
@
IOWA
L 70-99
−5.5
25
vs
CP
W 84-68
+14.5
26
@
NAU
L 72-79
−4.5
29
vs
LIP
L 77-88
−14.5
6
@
UTC
W 74-70
+7.5
18
@
TNTC
L 74-85
−13.5
20
@
TNST
W 91-82
+7.5
1
vs
EIU
W 68-59
−3.5
3
vs
WIU
W 73-50
+9.5
8
@
USI
W 84-76
+0.5
10
@
MORE
L 69-71
−7.5
15
vs
LIN
L 76-88
−18.5
17
vs
SIUE
L 55-68
−22.5
20
vs
UTM
W 66-50
+13.5
22
vs
LR
W 70-65
−0.5
29
@
WIU
W 78-74
−6.5
31
@
EIU
W 77-59
+13.5
5
vs
MORE
W 82-70
+4.5
7
vs
USI
W 90-65
+13.5
12
@
SIUE
L 56-74
−19.5
14
@
LIN
W 73-61
+13.5
17
@
UTM
W 56-53
+5.5
21
@
LR
W 70-65
+3.5
26
vs
TNST
L 71-79
−10.5
28
vs
TNTC
W 89-73
+8.5
5
vs
LIN
W 68-66
−1.5
6
vs
MORE
L 61-66
−8.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SLU
L 67-92
+5.5
7
@
MIZ
L 84-89
+15.5
15
vs
STMN
L 72-84
+3.5
18
@
IOWA
L 70-99
+21.5
25
vs
CP
W 84-68
−18.5
26
@
NAU
L 72-79
−2.5
29
vs
LIP
L 77-88
+11.5
6
@
UTC
W 74-70
−5.5
18
@
TNTC
L 74-85
+3.5
20
@
TNST
W 91-82
+21.5
1
vs
EIU
W 68-59
−19.5
3
vs
WIU
W 73-50
−24.5
8
@
USI
W 84-76
+13.5
10
@
MORE
L 69-71
−4.5
15
vs
LIN
L 76-88
+9.5
17
vs
SIUE
L 55-68
−16.5
20
vs
UTM
W 66-50
−24.5
22
vs
LR
W 70-65
−10.5
29
@
WIU
W 78-74
+9.5
31
@
EIU
W 77-59
−2.5
5
vs
MORE
W 82-70
+7.5
7
vs
USI
W 90-65
+13.5
12
@
SIUE
L 56-74
−7.5
14
@
LIN
W 73-61
−20.5
17
@
UTM
W 56-53
−29.5
21
@
LR
W 70-65
−8.5
26
vs
TNST
L 71-79
−1.5
28
vs
TNTC
W 89-73
+20.5
5
vs
LIN
W 68-66
−14.5
6
vs
MORE
L 61-66
−12.5
over 13under 17avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Saint Louis
34 games played
Straight up
28-6
82% wins
Against the spread
20-14
59% covers · avg +2.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-17
50% overs · avg −0.4 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 92-67 | -19.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 108-86 | -30.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 109-66 | -24.5 | W +18.5 | 165.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 78-64 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 167.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 91-60 | -19.5 | W +11.5 | 166.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 71-70 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 77-78 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | U 155 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 91-70 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 107-65 | -24.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 85-75 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 112-53 | -26.5 | W +32.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 93-79 | -34.5 | L −20.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 102-79 | -19.5 | W +3.5 | 161.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 71-62 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 171.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 84-72 | -17.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 78-56 | -17.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 88-63 | -14.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 81-77 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 97-62 | -8.5 | W +26.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 79-76 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 167.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 102-71 | -9.5 | W +21.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 91-82 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-58 | -22.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 86-59 | -17.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 76-81 | -9.5 | L −14.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 88-75 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 164.5 | U 163 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 62-77 | -3.5 | L −18.5 | 157.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 91-76 | -13.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 79-65 | -21.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 57-86 | -7.5 | L −36.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 88-81 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 69-70 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 102-77 | +1.5 | W +26.5 | 167.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 72-95 | +12.5 | L −10.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SEMO
W 92-67
+5.5
6
vs
CHST
W 108-86
−8.5
10
vs
LIN
W 109-66
+18.5
15
vs
GCU
W 78-64
+5.5
21
vs
PFW
W 91-60
+11.5
27
vs
SCU
W 71-70
−0.5
28
vs
STAN
L 77-78
−2.5
2
@
LMU
W 91-70
+13.5
7
vs
CMU
W 107-65
+17.5
13
vs
SF
W 85-75
−2.5
17
vs
BCU
W 112-53
+32.5
21
vs
UNH
W 93-79
−20.5
31
vs
JOES
W 102-79
+3.5
7
@
VCU
W 71-62
+10.5
10
@
LAS
W 84-72
−5.5
14
vs
FOR
W 78-56
+4.5
17
vs
RICH
W 88-63
+10.5
20
@
DUQ
W 81-77
−4.5
23
@
SBU
W 97-62
+26.5
27
vs
GW
W 79-76
−7.5
30
vs
DAY
W 102-71
+21.5
3
@
DAV
W 91-82
+0.5
7
vs
LAS
W 82-58
+1.5
13
@
LUC
W 86-59
+9.5
17
@
URI
L 76-81
−14.5
20
vs
VCU
W 88-75
+5.5
24
@
DAY
L 62-77
−18.5
28
vs
DUQ
W 91-76
+1.5
4
vs
LUC
W 79-65
−7.5
7
@
GMU
L 57-86
−36.5
13
vs
GW
W 88-81
+0.5
14
vs
DAY
L 69-70
−5.5
19
vs
UGA
W 102-77
+26.5
21
vs
MICH
L 72-95
−10.5
covered 20didn’t cover 14avg +2.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SEMO
W 92-67
+5.5
6
vs
CHST
W 108-86
+38.5
10
vs
LIN
W 109-66
+9.5
15
vs
GCU
W 78-64
−25.5
21
vs
PFW
W 91-60
−15.5
27
vs
SCU
W 71-70
−17.5
28
vs
STAN
L 77-78
−5.5
2
@
LMU
W 91-70
+10.5
7
vs
CMU
W 107-65
+11.5
13
vs
SF
W 85-75
+4.5
17
vs
BCU
W 112-53
+7.5
21
vs
UNH
W 93-79
+14.5
31
vs
JOES
W 102-79
+19.5
7
@
VCU
W 71-62
−38.5
10
@
LAS
W 84-72
+3.5
14
vs
FOR
W 78-56
−20.5
17
vs
RICH
W 88-63
−11.5
20
@
DUQ
W 81-77
−7.5
23
@
SBU
W 97-62
−0.5
27
vs
GW
W 79-76
−12.5
30
vs
DAY
W 102-71
+21.5
3
@
DAV
W 91-82
+21.5
7
vs
LAS
W 82-58
−13.5
13
@
LUC
W 86-59
−10.5
17
@
URI
L 76-81
+5.5
20
vs
VCU
W 88-75
−1.5
24
@
DAY
L 62-77
−18.5
28
vs
DUQ
W 91-76
+6.5
4
vs
LUC
W 79-65
−11.5
7
@
GMU
L 57-86
−3.5
13
vs
GW
W 88-81
+10.5
14
vs
DAY
L 69-70
−6.5
19
vs
UGA
W 102-77
+11.5
21
vs
MICH
L 72-95
+5.5
over 17under 17avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Saint Louis has the better starters
Position by position: SE Missouri 1, Saint Louis 2, even 2
SE MissouriBetterSaint Louis
G M. Bell8.6 pts · 5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 69
←SEMOSmall
G Q. Jones9 pts · 3.8 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 51
G L. Blocker4.8 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 33
→SLUBig
G T. Green11.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 86
G P. Farmer1.6 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 11
→SLUBig
G A. McCottry10.5 pts · 5.3 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 84
F D. Sutton TR3.8 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 63
=Even
F I. Sharma9.2 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 67
F T. Sadler0.2 pts · 0.1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Michaeli TR7.1 pts · 3.9 reb · 1 ast
Score 58
SE MissouriBetterSaint Louis
SEMO offense312th of 366 · -10.0
→SLUBig
SLU defense87th of 366 · -0.1
SEMO defense284th of 366 · -7.1
→SLUBig
SLU offense61st of 366 · +2.6
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
→SLUBig
Backcourt+2.6 · 3 players
Frontcourt+0.0 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt+0.6 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+3.7 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSEMO betterSLU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Bell22 minL. Blocker18 minP. Farmer9 minK. PruettNewF. WilliamsNewM. EavesNew
Forwards
D. Sutton13 min · TRT. Sadler3 minC. JewellNewD. CooperNewA. PerryNew
Guards
Q. Jones27 minT. Green24 minA. McCottry23 minK. Thames17 minC. Hutson4 minI. Holmes2 min
Forwards
I. Sharma22 minA. Michaeli18 min · TRE. Strong17 min · TRJ. Kerr6 minS. PearsonNewB. DiakiteNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.2 #217 | Points per game | 86.4 #7 |
| 1.04 #267 | Points per possession | 1.20 #14 |
| 70.2 #109 | Pace (possessions) | 72.1 #32 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.8 #244 | Effective FG% | 59.7 #2 |
| 30.9 #324 | 3-point % | 39.9 #2 |
| 36.0 #250 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.1 #64 |
| 38.8 #84 | Free throw rate | 33.7 #221 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #192 | Turnover rate | 17.2 #218 |
| 29.6 #218 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.7 #173 |
| 11.7 #306 | Assists per game | 18.3 #8 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.3 #112 | Points allowed | 71.6 #94 |
| 1.03 #58 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #21 |
| 48.8 #57 | Opponent effective FG% | 45.2 #3 |
| 33.1 #130 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.3 #14 |
| 18.1 #91 | Turnovers forced | 15.9 #224 |
| 71.8 #76 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.8 #43 |
| 6.4 #190 | Steals per game | 7.1 #117 |
| 3.6 #121 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #168 |
SE Missouri
17-13 in 2025-26 overall · 15-7 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Morehead St61–66
- Wvs Lindenwood Lions68–66
- Wvs Tennessee Tech89–73
- Lvs Tennessee St71–79
- W@ Little Rock70–65
A week or more of rest.
Saint Louis
28-6 in 2025-26 overall · 16-4 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan72–95
- Wvs Georgia102–77
- Lvs Dayton69–70
- Wvs G Washington88–81
- L@ George Mason57–86
A week or more of rest.