UL Monroe Warhawks at Grand Canyon Lopes: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Nov 14, 8:00 PM ETGlobal Credit Union Arena · at Grand Canyon

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: UL Monroe and Grand Canyon
ULM	This season	GCU
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 GCU 90–62 · win probability GCU 99%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 151.5

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: GCU has more of the edges

ULM 1, GCU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

GCUBig

GCU offense vs ULM defense

Offense 83rd of 366 against a defense 361st, on the model’s ratings

GCUBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: ULM 25.1%, GCU 31.3%. Defensive: ULM 64.6%, GCU 74.7%

GCUBig

ULM offense vs GCU defense

Offense 332nd of 366 against a defense 78th, on the model’s ratings

GCUBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: ULM 47.8 and allows 57.1; GCU 51.7 and allows 47.4

GCUBig

Three-pointers

ULM hits 32.2% and allows 36.9%; GCU hits 31.8% and allows 31.9%. Threes are 41.9% and 38.9% of their shots

ULMBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: ULM 38.8, GCU 39.5. Allowed: ULM 27.7, GCU 39.0

Context

Schedule so far

ULM has played the 216th-hardest schedule, GCU the 107th. A record against a soft schedule means less

GCUSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: ULM 1%, GCU 51%. Transfers in: ULM 6, GCU 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: ULM plays 71.3 a game (58th fastest), GCU 69.3 (166th). Faster games mean more points

GCUSmall

Home court

GCU at home. This season: GCU 0-0 at home, ULM 0-0 away

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: ULM 16.9%, GCU 17.6%. Forced: ULM 15.7%, GCU 17.4%

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	GCU -28.1	—
Total	—	151.5	—
Projected score	—	ULM 61.7 · GCU 89.8

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	GCU -16.6	—
1H total	70.8	—
1H projected score	ULM 27.1 · GCU 43.7	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
ULM WWLWW	17-12	59%	9-7	—
GCU WWWWL	17-15	53%	9-8	—

Venue/role: ULM away; GCU home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
ULM UOUUO	20-9	69%	2-28
GCU UUOUO	13-19	41%	20-12

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
ULM	1-9 10%	7-3 70%	6-4 60%
GCU	5-5 50%	6-4 60%	4-6 40%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

UL Monroe

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 18	@ LSU	L60–95LO
Nov 24	vs HCU	L61–72LU
Nov 29	@ TULN	L64–80LU

Grand Canyon

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 24	vs SLU	L64–78LU
Nov 29	vs UIW	No recent meeting
Dec 2	@ OKST	L78–84LO

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

UL Monroe

30 games played

Straight up

2-28

7% wins

Against the spread

17-12

59% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

20-9

69% overs · avg +6.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

2-287%

L L L L L L W L L L L L L L L L L L L L L W L L L L L L L L

8 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1259%

L W L L W L W L W W L W L W W W L L W–W W L L W W W L W W

2 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

20-969%

O O U O O O U O O O O O O O O U U O U–O O U O O U O U U O

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@NIU	L 82-102	+7.5	L −12.5	147.5	O 184
Nov 7	@MISS	L 65-86	+37.5	W +16.5	149.5	O 151
Nov 13	@HCU	L 61-72	+8.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 133
Nov 17	vsLAM	L 66-79	+11.5	L −1.5	140.5	O 145
Nov 22	vsMORE	L 80-83	+6.5	W +3.5	145.5	O 163
Nov 23	@ETSU	L 55-97	+19.5	L −22.5	146.5	O 152
Dec 3	vsMVSU	W 66-52	-9.5	W +4.5	149.5	U 118
Dec 7	@SFA	L 76-96	+19.5	L −0.5	142.5	O 172
Dec 13	@MIA	L 79-104	+35.5	W +10.5	153.5	O 183
Dec 17	vsUSA	L 92-96	+9.5	W +5.5	148.5	O 188
Dec 20	vsUL	L 62-76	+1.5	L −12.5	136.5	O 138
Dec 28	@KSU	L 85-94	+32.5	W +23.5	169.5	O 179
Jan 1	vsUSM	L 73-87	+9.5	L −4.5	152.5	O 160
Jan 3	vsTXST	L 79-84	+10.5	W +5.5	150.5	O 163
Jan 8	@UL	L 79-85	+7.5	W +1.5	139.5	O 164
Jan 10	@USM	L 60-70	+14.5	W +4.5	155.5	U 130
Jan 17	vsGAST	L 57-77	+6.5	L −13.5	155.5	U 134
Jan 22	@MRSH	L 60-115	+18.5	L −36.5	160.5	O 175
Jan 23	@APP	L 43-59	+16.5	W +0.5	144.5	U 102
Jan 30	vsGASO	L 76-79	—	—	—	—
Feb 1	vsCCU	L 79-83	+10.5	W +6.5	146.5	O 162
Feb 4	@ODU	W 85-79	+14.5	W +20.5	154.5	O 164
Feb 7	vsBALL	L 68-73	+4.5	L −0.5	143.5	U 141
Feb 11	@ARST	L 70-103	+20.5	L −12.5	162.5	O 173
Feb 14	@TXST	L 84-95	+14.5	W +3.5	149.5	O 179
Feb 18	vsTROY	L 76-77	+17.5	W +16.5	153.5	U 153
Feb 21	vsARST	L 94-102	+15.5	W +7.5	165.5	O 196
Feb 25	@USA	L 54-89	+14.5	L −20.5	153.5	U 143
Feb 27	@TROY	L 65-80	+18.5	W +3.5	153.5	U 145
Mar 3	vsODU	L 80-87	+9.5	W +2.5	157.5	O 167

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

NIU

L 82-102

−12.5

MISS

L 65-86

+16.5

HCU

L 61-72

−2.5

LAM

L 66-79

−1.5

L 80-83

+3.5

ETSU

L 55-97

−22.5

MVSU

W 66-52

+4.5

SFA

L 76-96

−0.5

MIA

L 79-104

+10.5

USA

L 92-96

+5.5

L 62-76

−12.5

KSU

L 85-94

+23.5

USM

L 73-87

−4.5

TXST

L 79-84

+5.5

L 79-85

+1.5

USM

L 60-70

+4.5

GAST

L 57-77

−13.5

MRSH

L 60-115

−36.5

APP

L 43-59

+0.5

CCU

L 79-83

+6.5

ODU

W 85-79

+20.5

BALL

L 68-73

−0.5

ARST

L 70-103

−12.5

TXST

L 84-95

+3.5

TROY

L 76-77

+16.5

ARST

L 94-102

+7.5

USA

L 54-89

−20.5

TROY

L 65-80

+3.5

ODU

L 80-87

+2.5

covered 17didn’t cover 12avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

NIU

L 82-102

+36.5

MISS

L 65-86

+1.5

HCU

L 61-72

−10.5

LAM

L 66-79

+4.5

L 80-83

+17.5

ETSU

L 55-97

+5.5

MVSU

W 66-52

−31.5

SFA

L 76-96

+29.5

MIA

L 79-104

+29.5

USA

L 92-96

+39.5

L 62-76

+1.5

KSU

L 85-94

+9.5

USM

L 73-87

+7.5

TXST

L 79-84

+12.5

L 79-85

+24.5

USM

L 60-70

−25.5

GAST

L 57-77

−21.5

MRSH

L 60-115

+14.5

APP

L 43-59

−42.5

CCU

L 79-83

+15.5

ODU

W 85-79

+9.5

BALL

L 68-73

−2.5

ARST

L 70-103

+10.5

TXST

L 84-95

+29.5

TROY

L 76-77

−0.5

ARST

L 94-102

+30.5

USA

L 54-89

−10.5

TROY

L 65-80

−8.5

ODU

L 80-87

+9.5

over 20under 9avg +6.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Grand Canyon

32 games played

Straight up

20-12

63% wins

Against the spread

17-15

53% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-19

41% overs · avg −3.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

20-1263%

W L W L W W L W L W W W L W W L W W W L W W L L W W L W L W W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

17-1553%

W L W L L W L L L W W L L W W L W W W L W L L L W W L W W W W L

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

13-1941%

O O U U O U U U O U O U U U U O O U U U O O O U O U U U U O U O

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsPFW	W 90-71	-14.5	W +4.5	155.5	O 161
Nov 7	vsYSU	L 81-90	-15.5	L −24.5	152.5	O 171
Nov 10	vsNIU	W 88-59	-22.5	W +6.5	163.5	U 147
Nov 15	@SLU	L 64-78	+8.5	L −5.5	167.5	U 142
Nov 21	vsNWST	W 85-72	-18.5	L −5.5	147.5	O 157
Nov 25	vsUTAH	W 68-58	-5.5	W +4.5	153.5	U 126
Nov 26	vsIOWA	L 46-59	+8.5	L −4.5	143.5	U 105
Dec 2	vsSTET	W 67-45	-24.5	L −2.5	141.5	U 112
Dec 6	vsOKST	L 78-84	+1.5	L −4.5	155.5	O 162
Dec 13	vsCCU	W 82-61	-17.5	W +3.5	143.5	U 143
Dec 20	@WYO	W 82-70	+2.5	W +14.5	147.5	O 152
Dec 22	vsIUIN	W 91-78	-23.5	L −10.5	169.5	U 169
Jan 3	vsCSU	L 60-70	-6.5	L −16.5	143.5	U 130
Jan 7	@BOIS	W 75-58	+8.5	W +25.5	140.5	U 133
Jan 10	vsSJSU	W 76-58	-16.5	W +1.5	141.5	U 134
Jan 13	@UNM	L 64-87	+6.5	L −16.5	146.5	O 151
Jan 17	vsUSU	W 84-74	+5.5	W +15.5	150.5	O 158
Jan 21	vsSDSU	W 70-69	+1.5	W +2.5	145.5	U 139
Jan 24	@FRES	W 68-57	-4.5	W +6.5	145.5	U 125
Jan 27	@NEV	L 60-66	+3.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 126
Jan 30	vsBOIS	W 86-69	-1.5	W +15.5	141.5	O 155
Feb 3	vsAF	W 81-57	-26.5	L −2.5	137.5	O 138
Feb 7	@UNLV	L 78-80	-2.5	L −4.5	148.5	O 158
Feb 11	vsUNM	L 64-70	-1.5	L −7.5	148.5	U 134
Feb 14	@SJSU	W 94-79	-11.5	W +3.5	139.5	O 173
Feb 17	@SDSU	W 73-63	+7.5	W +17.5	139.5	U 136
Feb 21	vsWYO	L 65-70	-7.5	L −12.5	144.5	U 135
Feb 25	vsUNLV	W 80-67	-7.5	W +5.5	150.5	U 147
Feb 28	@USU	L 69-74	+9.5	W +4.5	147.5	U 143
Mar 3	@AF	W 86-60	-19.5	W +6.5	143.5	O 146
Mar 7	vsFRES	W 85-60	-12.5	W +12.5	149.5	U 145
Mar 12	vsNEV	L 80-84	-3.5	L −7.5	137.5	O 164

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

PFW

W 90-71

+4.5

YSU

L 81-90

−24.5

NIU

W 88-59

+6.5

SLU

L 64-78

−5.5

NWST

W 85-72

−5.5

UTAH

W 68-58

+4.5

IOWA

L 46-59

−4.5

STET

W 67-45

−2.5

OKST

L 78-84

−4.5

CCU

W 82-61

+3.5

WYO

W 82-70

+14.5

IUIN

W 91-78

−10.5

CSU

L 60-70

−16.5

BOIS

W 75-58

+25.5

SJSU

W 76-58

+1.5

UNM

L 64-87

−16.5

USU

W 84-74

+15.5

SDSU

W 70-69

+2.5

FRES

W 68-57

+6.5

NEV

L 60-66

−2.5

BOIS

W 86-69

+15.5

W 81-57

−2.5

UNLV

L 78-80

−4.5

UNM

L 64-70

−7.5

SJSU

W 94-79

+3.5

SDSU

W 73-63

+17.5

WYO

L 65-70

−12.5

UNLV

W 80-67

+5.5

USU

L 69-74

+4.5

W 86-60

+6.5

FRES

W 85-60

+12.5

NEV

L 80-84

−7.5

covered 17didn’t cover 15avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

PFW

W 90-71

+5.5

YSU

L 81-90

+18.5

NIU

W 88-59

−16.5

SLU

L 64-78

−25.5

NWST

W 85-72

+9.5

UTAH

W 68-58

−27.5

IOWA

L 46-59

−38.5

STET

W 67-45

−29.5

OKST

L 78-84

+6.5

CCU

W 82-61

−0.5

WYO

W 82-70

+4.5

IUIN

W 91-78

−0.5

CSU

L 60-70

−13.5

BOIS

W 75-58

−7.5

SJSU

W 76-58

−7.5

UNM

L 64-87

+4.5

USU

W 84-74

+7.5

SDSU

W 70-69

−6.5

FRES

W 68-57

−20.5

NEV

L 60-66

−17.5

BOIS

W 86-69

+13.5

W 81-57

+0.5

UNLV

L 78-80

+9.5

UNM

L 64-70

−14.5

SJSU

W 94-79

+33.5

SDSU

W 73-63

−3.5

WYO

L 65-70

−9.5

UNLV

W 80-67

−3.5

USU

L 69-74

−4.5

W 86-60

+2.5

FRES

W 85-60

−4.5

NEV

L 80-84

+26.5

over 13under 19avg −3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Grand Canyon has the better starters

Position by position: UL Monroe 0, Grand Canyon 2, even 3

UL MonroeBetterGrand Canyon

G D. Anderson TR5.1 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.6 ast Score 23

Even

G J. Zimmerman TR15.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.3 ast Score 32

G K. London TR5.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 1 ast Score 5

GCUBig

G M. Tucker TR13 pts · 2.1 reb · 3 ast Score 56

G Q. McPherson TR4.4 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.5 ast Score 60

GCUBig

G J. Henley17.7 pts · 5.7 reb · 2.9 ast Score 97

G R. Cowherd TR0.9 pts · 0 reb · 0.1 ast Not ranked

No call

G M. Williams14 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.5 ast Score 89

C J. Lafleur TR1 pts · 2.5 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

F B. Barkley TR14.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.2 ast Score 89

UL MonroeBetterGrand Canyon

ULM offense332nd of 366 · -10.8

GCUBig

GCU defense78th of 366 · +0.5

ULM defense361st of 366 · -11.5

GCUBig

GCU offense83rd of 366 · +0.4

Backcourt-4.2 · 4 players

GCUBig

Backcourt+4.6 · 4 players

Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player

GCUBig

Frontcourt+3.0 · 1 player

Bench-0.1 · 2 players

GCUSmall

Bench+2.6 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestULM betterGCU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

UL Monroe

Guards

D. Anderson16 min · TRK. London14 min · TRQ. McPherson11 min · TRR. Cowherd5 min · TRC. Campbell1 minP. TillmanNew

Forwards

L. Carr2 min · TRG. ChamberlainNewJ. RegisteNewG. SchoentgenNew

Centers

J. Lafleur6 min · TRM. AdonryNewZ. NdanckyNew

Grand Canyon

Guards

J. Zimmerman33 min · TRM. Tucker32 min · TRJ. Henley32 minM. Williams27 minT. Holloman26 min · TRD. Skillings25 min · TR

Forwards

B. Barkley29 min · TRT. Behrend22 min · TRA. Dickerson22 min · TRO. Biliew20 min · TRJ. SawyerNewJ. WhortonNew

Centers

E. Demirel23 min

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

ULM71.7 #255

GCU75.6 #153

Points per possession

ULM1.00 #321

GCU1.09 #158

Pace (possessions)

ULM71.3 #58

GCU69.3 #166

Shooting

Effective FG%

ULM47.8 #316

GCU51.7 #162

3-point %

ULM32.2 #270

GCU31.8 #286

3-point attempt rate

ULM41.9 #135

GCU38.9 #192

Free throw rate

ULM38.8 #85

GCU39.5 #67

Possessions

Turnover rate

ULM16.9 #196

GCU17.6 #245

Offensive rebound rate

ULM25.1 #338

GCU31.3 #150

Assists per game

ULM11.9 #288

GCU12.8 #230

Defense

Points allowed

ULM85.4 #361

GCU68.7 #42

Points allowed per possession

ULM1.20 #358

GCU0.99 #22

Opponent effective FG%

ULM57.1 #358

GCU47.4 #28

Opponent 3-point %

ULM36.9 #343

GCU31.9 #60

Turnovers forced

ULM15.7 #235

GCU17.4 #129

Defensive rebound rate

ULM64.6 #345

GCU74.7 #12

Steals per game

ULM6.0 #237

GCU6.6 #165

Blocks per game

ULM3.2 #189

GCU3.6 #123

ULM		GCU
Scoring
71.7 #255	Points per game	75.6 #153
1.00 #321	Points per possession	1.09 #158
71.3 #58	Pace (possessions)	69.3 #166
Shooting
47.8 #316	Effective FG%	51.7 #162
32.2 #270	3-point %	31.8 #286
41.9 #135	3-point attempt rate	38.9 #192
38.8 #85	Free throw rate	39.5 #67
Possessions
16.9 #196	Turnover rate	17.6 #245
25.1 #338	Offensive rebound rate	31.3 #150
11.9 #288	Assists per game	12.8 #230
Defense
85.4 #361	Points allowed	68.7 #42
1.20 #358	Points allowed per possession	0.99 #22
57.1 #358	Opponent effective FG%	47.4 #28
36.9 #343	Opponent 3-point %	31.9 #60
15.7 #235	Turnovers forced	17.4 #129
64.6 #345	Defensive rebound rate	74.7 #12
6.0 #237	Steals per game	6.6 #165
3.2 #189	Blocks per game	3.6 #123

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

UL Monroe

2-28 in 2025-26 overall · 1-18 in conference · Sun Belt Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Old Dominion80–87
L@ Troy65–80
L@ South Alabama54–89
Lvs Arkansas St94–102
Lvs Troy76–77

A week or more of rest.

Grand Canyon

20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 13-8 in conference · Mountain West Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Nevada80–84
Wvs Fresno St85–60
W@ Air Force86–60
L@ Utah State69–74
Wvs UNLV80–67

A week or more of rest.

UL Monroe Warhawks at Grand Canyon Lopes

What could decide it: GCU has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

UL Monroe

Grand Canyon

Grand Canyon has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

UL Monroe

Grand Canyon