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 88–63 · win probability SLU 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.6
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
FAMU 0, SLU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
SLU offense vs FAMU defense
Offense 61st of 366 against a defense 303rd, on the model’s ratings
FAMU offense vs SLU defense
Offense 326th of 366 against a defense 87th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
FAMU hits 32.6% and allows 34.9%; SLU hits 39.9% and allows 30.3%. Threes are 37.7% and 45.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: FAMU 49.2 and allows 51.2; SLU 59.7 and allows 45.2
Context
Schedule so far
FAMU has played the 323rd-hardest schedule, SLU the 99th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FAMU 30.9%, SLU 30.7%. Defensive: FAMU 69.1%, SLU 72.8%
Home court
SLU at home. This season: SLU 0-0 at home, FAMU 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FAMU 43%, SLU 63%. Transfers in: FAMU 3, SLU 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: FAMU plays 70.6 a game (92nd fastest), SLU 72.1 (32nd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: FAMU 37.4, SLU 33.7. Allowed: FAMU 39.6, SLU 37.1
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FAMU 21.5%, SLU 17.2%. Forced: FAMU 19.1%, SLU 15.9%
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 -25.4 | — |
| Total | — | 150.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | FAMU 62.6 · SLU 88 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SLU -15.0 | — |
| 1H total | 70.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | FAMU 27.7 · SLU 42.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Florida A&M
29 games played
Straight up
13-16
45% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-18
38% overs · avg −1.5 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 67-102 | +25.5 | L −9.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 72-92 | +11.5 | L −8.5 | 166.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 60-97 | +23.5 | L −13.5 | 169.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 57-87 | +40.5 | W +10.5 | 170.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 82-85 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 72-65 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 54-78 | +14.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 56-80 | +29.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 65-89 | +19.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 83-87 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 67-59 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 153.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 91-84 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 71-67 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 62-48 | -11.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 66-58 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 26 | vs | L 65-66 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 65-72 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 66-79 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 57-62 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 100-96 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 60-80 | -2.5 | L −22.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 86-78 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 61-63 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 76-63 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 82-71 | +8.5 | W +19.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 66-59 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 81-77 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 70-60 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 70-73 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 143 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
USF
L 67-102
−9.5
8
vs
KENN
L 72-92
−8.5
11
@
UCF
L 60-97
−13.5
17
@
UGA
L 57-87
+10.5
2
@
JAX
L 82-85
+7.5
17
vs
JAX
W 72-65
+10.5
19
@
TAR
L 54-78
−9.5
21
@
TCU
L 56-80
+5.5
28
@
GT
L 65-89
−4.5
3
@
BCU
L 83-87
+3.5
10
vs
SOU
W 67-59
+12.5
12
vs
GRAM
W 91-84
+8.5
17
@
UAPB
W 71-67
+6.5
19
@
MVSU
W 62-48
+2.5
24
vs
ALCN
W 66-58
−0.5
26
vs
JKST
L 65-66
−8.5
31
@
AAMU
L 65-72
−3.5
2
@
ALST
L 66-79
−9.5
7
vs
TXSO
L 57-62
−6.5
9
vs
PV
W 100-96
+0.5
14
@
JKST
L 60-80
−22.5
16
@
ALCN
W 86-78
+5.5
19
vs
AAMU
L 61-63
−3.5
21
vs
ALST
W 76-63
+14.5
26
@
SOU
W 82-71
+19.5
28
@
GRAM
W 66-59
+11.5
5
vs
BCU
W 81-77
+6.5
11
vs
JKST
W 70-60
+3.5
13
vs
SOU
L 70-73
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
USF
L 67-102
+15.5
8
vs
KENN
L 72-92
−2.5
11
@
UCF
L 60-97
−12.5
17
@
UGA
L 57-87
−26.5
2
@
JAX
L 82-85
+28.5
17
vs
JAX
W 72-65
−2.5
19
@
TAR
L 54-78
−13.5
21
@
TCU
L 56-80
−6.5
28
@
GT
L 65-89
+7.5
3
@
BCU
L 83-87
+24.5
10
vs
SOU
W 67-59
−27.5
12
vs
GRAM
W 91-84
+33.5
17
@
UAPB
W 71-67
−11.5
19
@
MVSU
W 62-48
−29.5
24
vs
ALCN
W 66-58
−17.5
26
vs
JKST
L 65-66
−19.5
31
@
AAMU
L 65-72
−1.5
2
@
ALST
L 66-79
+5.5
7
vs
TXSO
L 57-62
−27.5
9
vs
PV
W 100-96
+46.5
14
@
JKST
L 60-80
−4.5
16
@
ALCN
W 86-78
+26.5
19
vs
AAMU
L 61-63
−15.5
21
vs
ALST
W 76-63
−5.5
26
@
SOU
W 82-71
+5.5
28
@
GRAM
W 66-59
−15.5
5
vs
BCU
W 81-77
+12.5
11
vs
JKST
W 70-60
−11.5
13
vs
SOU
L 70-73
+1.5
over 11under 18avg −1.5 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: Florida A&M 0, Saint Louis 4, even 1
Florida A&MBetterSaint Louis
G J. Kempson TR10.7 pts · 4.4 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 33
→SLUSmall
G Q. Jones9 pts · 3.8 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 51
G J. Sanders12 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 42
→SLUBig
G T. Green11.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 86
G A. Baker9.6 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 35
→SLUBig
G A. McCottry10.5 pts · 5.3 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 84
G R. Martino6.5 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 44
→SLUSmall
F I. Sharma9.2 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 67
F D. Williford TR2.2 pts · 0.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Michaeli TR7.1 pts · 3.9 reb · 1 ast
Score 58
Florida A&MBetterSaint Louis
FAMU offense326th of 366 · -10.6
→SLUBig
SLU defense87th of 366 · -0.1
FAMU defense303rd of 366 · -7.8
→SLUBig
SLU offense61st of 366 · +2.6
Backcourt-5.5 · 4 players
→SLUBig
Backcourt+2.6 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt+0.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.2 · 2 players
→SLUBig
Bench+3.7 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestFAMU betterSLU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Kempson32 min · TRJ. Sanders32 minA. Baker27 minR. Martino22 minC. DavisNewA. WilliamsNew
Forwards
D. Williford6 min · TRT. Onuoha5 minM. StijovicNewJ. LomickaNewB. NdourNew
Centers
A. Mbaye1 min · TRJ. MokwezaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.0 #285 | Points per game | 86.4 #7 |
| 0.99 #334 | Points per possession | 1.20 #14 |
| 70.6 #92 | Pace (possessions) | 72.1 #32 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.2 #283 | Effective FG% | 59.7 #2 |
| 32.6 #249 | 3-point % | 39.9 #2 |
| 37.7 #219 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.1 #64 |
| 37.4 #116 | Free throw rate | 33.7 #221 |
| Possessions | ||
| 21.5 #359 | Turnover rate | 17.2 #218 |
| 30.9 #168 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.7 #173 |
| 12.7 #236 | Assists per game | 18.3 #8 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.1 #192 | Points allowed | 71.6 #94 |
| 1.06 #114 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #21 |
| 51.2 #171 | Opponent effective FG% | 45.2 #3 |
| 34.9 #243 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.3 #14 |
| 19.1 #43 | Turnovers forced | 15.9 #224 |
| 69.1 #198 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.8 #43 |
| 8.1 #35 | Steals per game | 7.1 #117 |
| 3.0 #220 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #168 |
Florida A&M
13-16 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Southern70–73
- Wvs Jackson St70–60
- Wvs Bethune81–77
- W@ Grambling66–59
- W@ Southern82–71
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.