Samford Bulldogs at Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Dec 5, 12:00 AM ETHooper Eblen Center · at Tennessee Tech · Conference game

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Samford and Tennessee Tech
SAM	This season	TNTC
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 SAM 76–74 · win probability SAM 56%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 150.4

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: SAM has more of the edges

SAM 6, TNTC 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

SAMBig

SAM offense vs TNTC defense

Offense 147th of 366 against a defense 288th, on the model’s ratings

SAMBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: SAM 13.4%, TNTC 19.1%. Forced: SAM 13.0%, TNTC 15.0%

Context

Schedule so far

SAM has played the 251st-hardest schedule, TNTC the 353rd. A record against a soft schedule means less

SAMSmall

Three-pointers

SAM hits 35.6% and allows 36.5%; TNTC hits 31.1% and allows 35.8%. Threes are 45.7% and 36.5% of their shots

SAMSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: SAM 53.1 and allows 51.9; TNTC 48.9 and allows 51.5

SAMSmall

TNTC offense vs SAM defense

Offense 276th of 366 against a defense 224th, on the model’s ratings

TNTCSmall

Home court

TNTC at home. This season: TNTC 0-0 at home, SAM 0-0 away

SAMSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: SAM 41.9, TNTC 35.5. Allowed: SAM 32.9, TNTC 31.3

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: SAM 41%, TNTC 18%. Transfers in: SAM 5, TNTC 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 69 possessions: SAM plays 69.3 a game (163rd fastest), TNTC 68.3 (214th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: SAM 25.3%, TNTC 31.3%. Defensive: SAM 74.3%, TNTC 69.3%

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	—	SAM -1.7	—
Total	—	150.4	—
Projected score	—	SAM 76 · TNTC 74.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	SAM -1.1	—
1H total	70.3	—
1H projected score	SAM 35.7 · TNTC 34.6	—

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
SAM LWWWL	18-12	60%	8-7	—
TNTC WWWLL	14-14	50%	5-6	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
SAM OOUOO	19-11	63%	16-14
TNTC OUUUO	14-14	50%	10-18

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
SAM	8-2 80%	8-2 80%	7-3 70%
TNTC	6-4 60%	6-4 60%	5-5 50%

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

Samford

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 12	@ PRES	No recent meeting

Tennessee Tech

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 12	@ ARIZ	No recent meeting

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

Samford

30 games played

Straight up

16-14

53% wins

Against the spread

18-12

60% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-11

63% overs · avg +2.5 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1453%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

18-1260%

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

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

19-1163%

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

2 straight overs3 of last 4 over

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	@TULN	L 72-85	+7.5	L −5.5	154.5	O 157
Nov 7	vsSCST	W 82-72	-14.5	L −4.5	154.5	U 154
Nov 12	@TXSO	W 93-90	-2.5	W +0.5	153.5	O 183
Nov 14	@ARK	L 75-79	+24.5	W +20.5	158.5	U 154
Nov 16	@CARK	W 84-77	-6.5	W +0.5	151.5	O 161
Nov 19	vsFGCU	L 62-77	-5.5	L −20.5	154.5	U 139
Nov 21	@NMSU	L 72-81	+8.5	L −0.5	145.5	O 153
Nov 25	vsGAST	W 78-63	-5.5	W +9.5	146.5	U 141
Nov 26	vsUVU	L 45-89	+7.5	L −36.5	148.5	U 134
Dec 5	@VCU	L 57-83	+19.5	L −6.5	154.5	U 140
Dec 7	vsCOR	W 93-90	-2.5	W +0.5	166.5	O 183
Jan 1	@VMI	W 78-58	-6.5	W +13.5	154.5	U 136
Jan 3	@UNCG	L 82-89	-2.5	L −9.5	151.5	O 171
Jan 7	vsWCU	W 82-77	-4.5	W +0.5	153.5	O 159
Jan 10	@UTC	L 79-88	+1.5	L −7.5	148.5	O 167
Jan 14	vsFUR	L 73-77	+1.5	L −2.5	149.5	O 150
Jan 17	vsETSU	L 75-76	+3.5	W +2.5	148.5	O 151
Jan 21	@WOF	L 78-88	+3.5	L −6.5	154.5	O 166
Jan 24	vsUTC	W 75-64	-4.5	W +6.5	152.5	U 139
Jan 29	@FUR	L 73-78	+5.5	W +0.5	149.5	O 151
Feb 1	@WCU	W 88-74	-1.5	W +12.5	154.5	O 162
Feb 5	vsCIT	W 78-64	-13.5	W +0.5	146.5	U 142
Feb 7	vsMER	W 69-49	+1.5	W +21.5	160.5	U 118
Feb 11	vsWOF	W 97-80	-6.5	W +10.5	150.5	O 177
Feb 14	@ETSU	W 82-72	+7.5	W +17.5	145.5	O 154
Feb 19	@CIT	W 78-75	-10.5	L −7.5	143.5	O 153
Feb 21	@MER	L 86-89	+3.5	W +0.5	156.5	O 175
Feb 26	vsVMI	W 80-61	-17.5	W +1.5	155.5	U 141
Feb 28	vsUNCG	W 87-78	-8.5	W +0.5	156.5	O 165
Mar 7	vsFUR	L 81-86	-1.5	L −6.5	147.5	O 167

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

TULN

L 72-85

−5.5

SCST

W 82-72

−4.5

TXSO

W 93-90

+0.5

ARK

L 75-79

+20.5

CARK

W 84-77

+0.5

FGCU

L 62-77

−20.5

NMSU

L 72-81

−0.5

GAST

W 78-63

+9.5

UVU

L 45-89

−36.5

VCU

L 57-83

−6.5

COR

W 93-90

+0.5

VMI

W 78-58

+13.5

UNCG

L 82-89

−9.5

WCU

W 82-77

+0.5

UTC

L 79-88

−7.5

FUR

L 73-77

−2.5

ETSU

L 75-76

+2.5

WOF

L 78-88

−6.5

UTC

W 75-64

+6.5

FUR

L 73-78

+0.5

WCU

W 88-74

+12.5

CIT

W 78-64

+0.5

MER

W 69-49

+21.5

WOF

W 97-80

+10.5

ETSU

W 82-72

+17.5

CIT

W 78-75

−7.5

MER

L 86-89

+0.5

VMI

W 80-61

+1.5

UNCG

W 87-78

+0.5

FUR

L 81-86

−6.5

covered 18didn’t cover 12avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

TULN

L 72-85

+2.5

SCST

W 82-72

−0.5

TXSO

W 93-90

+29.5

ARK

L 75-79

−4.5

CARK

W 84-77

+9.5

FGCU

L 62-77

−15.5

NMSU

L 72-81

+7.5

GAST

W 78-63

−5.5

UVU

L 45-89

−14.5

VCU

L 57-83

−14.5

COR

W 93-90

+16.5

VMI

W 78-58

−18.5

UNCG

L 82-89

+19.5

WCU

W 82-77

+5.5

UTC

L 79-88

+18.5

FUR

L 73-77

+0.5

ETSU

L 75-76

+2.5

WOF

L 78-88

+11.5

UTC

W 75-64

−13.5

FUR

L 73-78

+1.5

WCU

W 88-74

+7.5

CIT

W 78-64

−4.5

MER

W 69-49

−42.5

WOF

W 97-80

+26.5

ETSU

W 82-72

+8.5

CIT

W 78-75

+9.5

MER

L 86-89

+18.5

VMI

W 80-61

−14.5

UNCG

W 87-78

+8.5

FUR

L 81-86

+19.5

over 19under 11avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Tennessee Tech

28 games played

Straight up

10-18

36% wins

Against the spread

14-14

50% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

14-14

50% overs · avg −0.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

10-1836%

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

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1450%

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

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

14-1450%

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

1 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	@WKU	L 70-82	+14.5	W +2.5	153.5	U 152
Nov 7	@CLT	L 65-70	+12.5	W +7.5	146.5	U 135
Nov 17	vsWGA	L 59-61	-4.5	L −6.5	152.5	U 120
Nov 19	@UPST	W 88-84	+2.5	W +6.5	150.5	O 172
Nov 26	@UK	L 54-104	+37.5	L −12.5	157.5	O 158
Nov 29	@UGA	L 81-123	+34.5	L −7.5	160.5	O 204
Dec 3	@LIP	L 80-83	+10.5	W +7.5	152.5	O 163
Dec 6	@WGA	W 87-59	+1.5	W +29.5	150.5	U 146
Dec 18	vsSEMO	W 85-74	+2.5	W +13.5	155.5	O 159
Dec 20	vsUTM	L 62-86	+2.5	L −21.5	145.5	O 148
Dec 30	vsTNST	L 76-88	+1.5	L −10.5	155.5	O 164
Jan 1	@LR	L 58-77	+1.5	L −17.5	144.5	U 135
Jan 8	@EIU	L 61-71	-1.5	L −11.5	140.5	U 132
Jan 10	@WIU	W 59-54	-3.5	W +1.5	143.5	U 113
Jan 15	vsUSI	L 54-71	-5.5	L −22.5	142.5	U 125
Jan 17	vsMORE	L 70-76	-1.5	L −7.5	141.5	O 146
Jan 22	@LIN	L 68-89	+8.5	L −12.5	151.5	O 157
Jan 24	@SIUE	L 58-62	+7.5	W +3.5	135.5	U 120
Jan 31	vsLR	W 87-77	+1.5	W +11.5	141.5	O 164
Feb 2	@TNST	W 90-85	+7.5	W +12.5	153.5	O 175
Feb 5	vsWIU	W 97-72	-9.5	W +15.5	143.5	O 169
Feb 7	vsEIU	L 54-60	-4.5	L −10.5	140.5	U 114
Feb 12	@MORE	L 66-73	+4.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 139
Feb 14	@USI	W 82-74	-1.5	W +6.5	140.5	O 156
Feb 19	vsSIUE	W 62-52	+1.5	W +11.5	134.5	U 114
Feb 21	vsLIN	W 72-57	+1.5	W +16.5	151.5	U 129
Feb 26	@UTM	L 49-64	+7.5	L −7.5	134.5	U 113
Feb 28	@SEMO	L 73-89	+7.5	L −8.5	141.5	O 162

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

WKU

L 70-82

+2.5

CLT

L 65-70

+7.5

WGA

L 59-61

−6.5

UPST

W 88-84

+6.5

L 54-104

−12.5

UGA

L 81-123

−7.5

LIP

L 80-83

+7.5

WGA

W 87-59

+29.5

SEMO

W 85-74

+13.5

UTM

L 62-86

−21.5

TNST

L 76-88

−10.5

L 58-77

−17.5

EIU

L 61-71

−11.5

WIU

W 59-54

+1.5

USI

L 54-71

−22.5

L 70-76

−7.5

LIN

L 68-89

−12.5

SIUE

L 58-62

+3.5

W 87-77

+11.5

TNST

W 90-85

+12.5

WIU

W 97-72

+15.5

EIU

L 54-60

−10.5

L 66-73

−2.5

USI

W 82-74

+6.5

SIUE

W 62-52

+11.5

LIN

W 72-57

+16.5

UTM

L 49-64

−7.5

SEMO

L 73-89

−8.5

covered 14didn’t cover 14avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

WKU

L 70-82

−1.5

CLT

L 65-70

−11.5

WGA

L 59-61

−32.5

UPST

W 88-84

+21.5

L 54-104

+0.5

UGA

L 81-123

+43.5

LIP

L 80-83

+10.5

WGA

W 87-59

−4.5

SEMO

W 85-74

+3.5

UTM

L 62-86

+2.5

TNST

L 76-88

+8.5

L 58-77

−9.5

EIU

L 61-71

−8.5

WIU

W 59-54

−30.5

USI

L 54-71

−17.5

L 70-76

+4.5

LIN

L 68-89

+5.5

SIUE

L 58-62

−15.5

W 87-77

+22.5

TNST

W 90-85

+21.5

WIU

W 97-72

+25.5

EIU

L 54-60

−26.5

L 66-73

−4.5

USI

W 82-74

+15.5

SIUE

W 62-52

−20.5

LIN

W 72-57

−22.5

UTM

L 49-64

−21.5

SEMO

L 73-89

+20.5

over 14under 14avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Samford has the better starters

Position by position: Samford 3, Tennessee Tech 2, even 0

SamfordBetterTennessee Tech

G N. George TR11.4 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.6 ast Score 25

TNTCSmall

G T. Mosquera TR13.8 pts · 5.9 reb · 2.3 ast Score 55

G C. Norris8.9 pts · 4.4 reb · 2 ast Score 34

SAMSmall

G T. Owens7.4 pts · 2.8 reb · 3.5 ast Score 17

G C. Noard TR19 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.9 ast Score 94

SAMSmall

G D. Hackett TR13.9 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.4 ast Score 78

G I. Campbell-Finch7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.3 ast Score 13

TNTCBig

G C. Newton TR10.5 pts · 2 reb · 1.2 ast Score 55

G T. Davis TR1.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.2 ast Score 22

SAMSmall

G C. Hollenbeck TR5 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast Score 6

SamfordBetterTennessee Tech

SAM offense147th of 366 · -4.5

SAMBig

TNTC defense288th of 366 · -7.2

SAM defense224th of 366 · -5.9

Even

TNTC offense276th of 366 · -8.4

Backcourt-4.7 · 5 players

Even

Backcourt-4.8 · 5 players

FrontcourtNo numbers yet

No call

FrontcourtNo numbers yet

Bench-3.6 · 5 players

TNTCSmall

Bench-1.4 · 3 players

Score, worst to bestSAM betterTNTC 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

Samford

Guards

N. George35 min · TRC. Norris31 minC. Noard29 min · TRI. Campbell-Finch24 minT. Davis11 min · TRW. Miller9 min · TR

Forwards

J. Bjornstad8 minB. MacVicar7 min · TRC. Harrison3 minJ. HughesNewB. KempNew

Centers

W. Shaver9 minL. LeeNew

Tennessee Tech

Guards

T. Mosquera32 min · TRT. Owens28 minD. Hackett28 min · TRC. Newton26 min · TRC. Hollenbeck17 min · TRC. GonzalesNew

Forwards

D. Christensen13 min · TRM. Turner8 minC. Sanders8 min · TRD. GreenNewS. ArnoldNewK. FoxNew

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

SAM77.8 #98

TNTC70.3 #280

Points per possession

SAM1.12 #99

TNTC1.03 #287

Pace (possessions)

SAM69.3 #163

TNTC68.3 #214

Shooting

Effective FG%

SAM53.1 #101

TNTC48.9 #293

3-point %

SAM35.6 #84

TNTC31.1 #316

3-point attempt rate

SAM45.7 #54

TNTC36.5 #238

Free throw rate

SAM41.9 #32

TNTC35.5 #164

Possessions

Turnover rate

SAM13.4 #11

TNTC19.1 #325

Offensive rebound rate

SAM25.3 #333

TNTC31.3 #151

Assists per game

SAM14.3 #128

TNTC11.0 #337

Defense

Points allowed

SAM77.0 #240

TNTC75.6 #207

Points allowed per possession

SAM1.11 #251

TNTC1.11 #231

Opponent effective FG%

SAM51.9 #206

TNTC51.5 #186

Opponent 3-point %

SAM36.5 #326

TNTC35.8 #295

Turnovers forced

SAM13.0 #354

TNTC15.0 #285

Defensive rebound rate

SAM74.3 #17

TNTC69.3 #192

Steals per game

SAM4.4 #358

TNTC5.4 #312

Blocks per game

SAM2.7 #277

TNTC2.7 #275

SAM		TNTC
Scoring
77.8 #98	Points per game	70.3 #280
1.12 #99	Points per possession	1.03 #287
69.3 #163	Pace (possessions)	68.3 #214
Shooting
53.1 #101	Effective FG%	48.9 #293
35.6 #84	3-point %	31.1 #316
45.7 #54	3-point attempt rate	36.5 #238
41.9 #32	Free throw rate	35.5 #164
Possessions
13.4 #11	Turnover rate	19.1 #325
25.3 #333	Offensive rebound rate	31.3 #151
14.3 #128	Assists per game	11.0 #337
Defense
77.0 #240	Points allowed	75.6 #207
1.11 #251	Points allowed per possession	1.11 #231
51.9 #206	Opponent effective FG%	51.5 #186
36.5 #326	Opponent 3-point %	35.8 #295
13.0 #354	Turnovers forced	15.0 #285
74.3 #17	Defensive rebound rate	69.3 #192
4.4 #358	Steals per game	5.4 #312
2.7 #277	Blocks per game	2.7 #275

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.

Samford

16-14 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Southern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Furman81–86
Wvs UNC Greensboro87–78
Wvs VMI80–61
L@ Mercer86–89
W@ The Citadel78–75

A week or more of rest.

Tennessee Tech

10-18 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Southern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ SE Missouri73–89
L@ UT Martin49–64
Wvs Lindenwood Lions72–57
Wvs SIUE62–52
W@ Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles82–74

A week or more of rest.

Samford Bulldogs at Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles

What could decide it: SAM has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Samford

Tennessee Tech

Samford has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Samford

Tennessee Tech