Trojan Arena · at Troy
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TROY | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TROY 73–73 · win probability TROY 53%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.7
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: TROY has more of the edges
LMU 0, TROY 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LMU 26.7%, TROY 34.5%. Defensive: LMU 68.0%, TROY 68.3%
Free throws
Free throw rate: LMU 31.1, TROY 36.2. Allowed: LMU 32.5, TROY 31.4
Home court
TROY at home. This season: TROY 0-0 at home, LMU 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
LMU hits 34.8% and allows 34.6%; TROY hits 33.0% and allows 31.6%. Threes are 40.4% and 45.9% of their shots
Even
TROY offense vs LMU defense
Offense 143rd of 366 against a defense 104th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LMU 51.9 and allows 48.9; TROY 51.5 and allows 50.2
Context
Schedule so far
LMU has played the 131st-hardest schedule, TROY the 166th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: LMU plays 68.9 a game (185th fastest), TROY 69.6 (141st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LMU 22%, TROY 11%. Transfers in: LMU 8, TROY 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
LMU offense vs TROY defense
Offense 152nd of 366 against a defense 162nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LMU 17.4%, TROY 17.3%. Forced: LMU 16.6%, TROY 16.7%
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 | — | TROY -0.8 | — |
| Total | — | 145.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | LMU 72.5 · TROY 73.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TROY -0.3 | — |
| 1H total | 68.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | LMU 33.9 · TROY 34.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LMU 1–0 TROYLMU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · LMU 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2025-26 | TROY 63 @ LMU 74 | LMU -4.5 | LMU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
LMU
31 games played
Straight up
14-17
45% wins
Against the spread
14-17
45% covers · avg −1.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg −1 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 70-62 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 94-72 | -19.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 71-58 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 144.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 74-63 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 17 | @ | W 78-74 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 65-76 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 70-58 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 68-71 | -10.5 | L −13.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 70-91 | +7.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 57-67 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 91-57 | -10.5 | W +23.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 23 | vs | W 83-56 | -23.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 73-78 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 80-71 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 76-78 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 47-82 | +25.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 84-82 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 72-103 | +11.5 | L −19.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 70-76 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 58-71 | -8.5 | L −21.5 | 148.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 59-69 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 69-72 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 73-104 | +8.5 | L −22.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 84-75 | +8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 83-63 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 59-65 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 89-90 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 77-65 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 67-66 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 66-71 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 136.5 | O 137 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 62-66 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
EWU
W 70-62
−1.5
8
vs
UAPB
W 94-72
+2.5
11
@
UTEP
W 71-58
+14.5
14
vs
TROY
W 74-63
+6.5
17
@
UCSB
W 78-74
+7.5
24
vs
FAU
L 65-76
−7.5
25
vs
OHIO
W 70-58
+8.5
28
vs
STBK
L 68-71
−13.5
2
vs
SLU
L 70-91
−13.5
16
vs
UCSD
L 57-67
−8.5
19
vs
UNA
W 91-57
+23.5
23
vs
MORG
W 83-56
+3.5
28
vs
SMC
L 73-78
+4.5
30
vs
PAC
W 80-71
+5.5
2
@
WSU
L 76-78
+1.5
4
@
GONZ
L 47-82
−9.5
8
vs
SF
W 84-82
+0.5
10
@
SCU
L 72-103
−19.5
14
@
ORST
L 70-76
−7.5
17
vs
PORT
L 58-71
−21.5
21
@
SEA
L 59-69
−5.5
28
vs
ORST
L 69-72
−8.5
31
vs
SCU
L 73-104
−22.5
4
@
SF
W 84-75
+17.5
7
vs
USD
W 83-63
+13.5
11
@
PAC
L 59-65
−0.5
14
@
PEPP
L 89-90
−6.5
21
@
USD
W 77-65
+9.5
25
vs
WSU
W 67-66
−0.5
28
vs
SEA
L 66-71
−6.5
5
vs
USD
L 62-66
−9.5
covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
EWU
W 70-62
−21.5
8
vs
UAPB
W 94-72
+8.5
11
@
UTEP
W 71-58
−15.5
14
vs
TROY
W 74-63
−3.5
17
@
UCSB
W 78-74
+6.5
24
vs
FAU
L 65-76
−3.5
25
vs
OHIO
W 70-58
−16.5
28
vs
STBK
L 68-71
+0.5
2
vs
SLU
L 70-91
+10.5
16
vs
UCSD
L 57-67
−26.5
19
vs
UNA
W 91-57
+7.5
23
vs
MORG
W 83-56
−5.5
28
vs
SMC
L 73-78
+7.5
30
vs
PAC
W 80-71
+11.5
2
@
WSU
L 76-78
+11.5
4
@
GONZ
L 47-82
−25.5
8
vs
SF
W 84-82
+24.5
10
@
SCU
L 72-103
+21.5
14
@
ORST
L 70-76
+5.5
17
vs
PORT
L 58-71
−19.5
21
@
SEA
L 59-69
−13.5
28
vs
ORST
L 69-72
−0.5
31
vs
SCU
L 73-104
+23.5
4
@
SF
W 84-75
+13.5
7
vs
USD
W 83-63
−5.5
11
@
PAC
L 59-65
−17.5
14
@
PEPP
L 89-90
+31.5
21
@
USD
W 77-65
−7.5
25
vs
WSU
W 67-66
−16.5
28
vs
SEA
L 66-71
+0.5
5
vs
USD
L 62-66
−17.5
over 15under 16avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Troy
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
18-14
56% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg +2.9 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 | @ | W 103-97 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 200 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 64-61 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 63-74 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 108-107 | +14.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 215 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 106-107 | +18.5 | W +17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-75 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-64 | -21.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 1 | vs | L 89-93 | -17.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 86-85 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 100-80 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 59-49 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 74-86 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 160.5 | U 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-70 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 91-65 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 99-74 | -3.5 | W +21.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 83-77 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 83-78 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 64-73 | -9.5 | L −18.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 44-66 | -7.5 | L −29.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-69 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 62-74 | -5.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-69 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 77-76 | -17.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 54-65 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 78-59 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 134.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-65 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-70 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 77-61 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 47-76 | +13.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+9.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
+5.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−6.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
−13.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+15.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+17.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−9.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−11.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
−21.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+7.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
+2.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+11.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
+0.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−7.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+10.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+17.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+21.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+0.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+0.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−18.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−29.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
+4.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
+12.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−17.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−9.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−16.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−13.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+7.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−3.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+2.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
+10.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−15.5
covered 18didn’t cover 14avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+57.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
−27.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−3.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
+21.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+77.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+53.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−16.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−13.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
+31.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+15.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
−22.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+34.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
−40.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−0.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+23.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+10.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+7.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+7.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+1.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−10.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−27.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
−7.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
−9.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−4.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−10.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−0.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−23.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+2.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−8.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+5.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
−14.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−16.5
over 14under 18avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: LMU 2, Troy 2, even 1
LMUBetterTroy
G Z. Sensley TR10.5 pts · 7.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 72
←LMUBig
G R. Davis TR9.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 14
G A. Wright TR7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
→TROYBig
G D. Oday TR18.9 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 95
F C. Humphrey-Rembert TR7.7 pts · 6.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
→TROYBig
G J. Hutchinson TR12.1 pts · 3.4 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 76
F A. McBride7.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
=Even
F C. Diggs TR10.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
F D. Rivers TR8.6 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 48
←LMUSmall
F K. Kiel3.6 pts · 3.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 23
LMUBetterTroy
LMU offense152nd of 366 · -4.6
=Even
TROY defense162nd of 366 · -3.6
LMU defense104th of 366 · -1.0
=Even
TROY offense143rd of 366 · -4.3
Backcourt+0.5 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt+1.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.6 · 3 players
→TROYSmall
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
Bench+1.1 · 5 players
←LMUBig
Bench-2.0 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestLMU betterTROY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
Z. Sensley25 min · TRA. Wright22 min · TRA. Thomas14 minJ. Miles10 min · TRM. Mosley7 min · TRC. Smith2 min
Forwards
C. Humphrey-Rembert31 min · TRA. McBride27 minD. Rivers20 min · TRJ. Porter17 min · TRA. Sigiscar16 min · TRG. Tupy2 min
Guards
R. Davis31 min · TRD. Oday30 min · TRJ. Hutchinson29 min · TRH. Awata2 minJ. KontuniemiNewR. ValakouNew
Forwards
C. Diggs23 min · TRK. Kiel16 minM. Ikegwuruka13 min · TRS. Walters9 min · TRE. Griffin5 min
Centers
A. PachecoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.2 #236 | Points per game | 77.3 #110 |
| 1.04 #263 | Points per possession | 1.11 #113 |
| 68.9 #185 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #141 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.9 #152 | Effective FG% | 51.5 #171 |
| 34.8 #130 | 3-point % | 33.0 #229 |
| 40.4 #162 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.9 #47 |
| 31.1 #280 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #147 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #234 | Turnover rate | 17.3 #226 |
| 26.7 #307 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.5 #59 |
| 12.7 #234 | Assists per game | 15.0 #86 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #122 | Points allowed | 74.5 #178 |
| 1.06 #103 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #128 |
| 48.9 #60 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.2 #111 |
| 34.6 #225 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.6 #47 |
| 16.6 #178 | Turnovers forced | 16.7 #173 |
| 68.0 #258 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #243 |
| 6.0 #236 | Steals per game | 7.2 #107 |
| 3.9 #81 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #169 |
LMU
14-17 in 2025-26 overall · 6-13 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs San Diego62–66
- Lvs Seattle U66–71
- Wvs Washington St67–66
- W@ San Diego77–65
- L@ Pepperdine89–90
A week or more of rest.
Troy
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Nebraska47–76
- Wvs GA Southern77–61
- Wvs Southern Miss78–70
- Wvs UL Monroe80–65
- Wvs Louisiana78–59
A week or more of rest.