Pensacola Bay Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | USA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LMU 75–69 · win probability LMU 72%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.8
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
LMU 2, USA 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LMU 17.4%, USA 13.1%. Forced: LMU 16.6%, USA 18.0%
Free throws
Free throw rate: LMU 31.1, USA 38.5. Allowed: LMU 32.5, USA 25.4
USA offense vs LMU defense
Offense 242nd of 366 against a defense 104th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
LMU has played the 131st-hardest schedule, USA the 223rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
LMU offense vs USA defense
Offense 152nd of 366 against a defense 212th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: LMU plays 68.9 a game (185th fastest), USA 67.1 (277th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
LMU hits 34.8% and allows 34.6%; USA hits 34.5% and allows 33.1%. Threes are 40.4% and 36.5% of their shots
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LMU 51.9 and allows 48.9; USA 52.6 and allows 50.1
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LMU 22%, USA 21%. Transfers in: LMU 8, USA 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LMU 26.7%, USA 25.0%. Defensive: LMU 68.0%, USA 68.6%
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 | — | LMU -6.6 | — |
| Total | — | 143.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | LMU 75.2 · USA 68.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LMU -4.1 | — |
| 1H total | 67.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | LMU 35.7 · USA 31.6 | — |
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% | |
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% |
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
South Alabama
31 games played
Straight up
19-12
61% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg +2.3 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 76-74 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 76-70 | -18.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 66-64 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 72-62 | -18.5 | L −8.5 | 133.5 | O 134 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 71-65 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 135.5 | O 136 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 72-80 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 82-58 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 77-75 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 65-91 | +7.5 | L −18.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 57-58 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 96-92 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 65-67 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 63-58 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 127.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 49-59 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 87-71 | -2.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 91-87 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 154.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 56-59 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 129.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 90-83 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 53-48 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | U 101 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 69-67 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 57-65 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 81-69 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 84-78 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 135.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 92-88 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 80-84 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 82-90 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 65-54 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 89-54 | -14.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 55-68 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 67-78 | +18.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
TOL
W 76-74
+4.5
6
vs
ALCN
W 76-70
−12.5
13
vs
CMU
W 66-64
−3.5
15
vs
COPP
W 72-62
−8.5
19
@
JXST
W 71-65
+8.5
21
@
UAB
L 72-80
−0.5
30
@
UTSA
W 82-58
+22.5
2
vs
NMSU
W 77-75
+4.5
5
@
ETSU
L 65-91
−18.5
14
vs
UNT
L 57-58
−2.5
17
@
ULM
W 96-92
−5.5
20
@
TXST
L 65-67
+1.5
31
@
UL
W 63-58
+1.5
3
@
TROY
L 49-59
−0.5
10
vs
GASO
W 87-71
+13.5
15
vs
ARST
W 91-87
+8.5
17
vs
UL
L 56-59
−12.5
22
@
JMU
W 90-83
+11.5
29
vs
CCU
W 53-48
+1.5
31
vs
GAST
W 69-67
−3.5
4
@
APP
L 57-65
−2.5
7
vs
BUF
W 81-69
+8.5
12
@
USM
W 84-78
+7.5
14
@
ARST
W 92-88
+12.5
16
@
MRSH
L 80-84
+2.5
19
vs
TXST
L 82-90
−11.5
21
vs
TROY
W 65-54
+13.5
25
vs
ULM
W 89-54
+20.5
27
vs
USM
L 55-68
−17.5
6
vs
GASO
L 85-94
−13.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-78
+7.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
TOL
W 76-74
−0.5
6
vs
ALCN
W 76-70
+4.5
13
vs
CMU
W 66-64
−12.5
15
vs
COPP
W 72-62
+0.5
19
@
JXST
W 71-65
+0.5
21
@
UAB
L 72-80
+2.5
30
@
UTSA
W 82-58
−1.5
2
vs
NMSU
W 77-75
+16.5
5
@
ETSU
L 65-91
+12.5
14
vs
UNT
L 57-58
−20.5
17
@
ULM
W 96-92
+39.5
20
@
TXST
L 65-67
−4.5
31
@
UL
W 63-58
−6.5
3
@
TROY
L 49-59
−40.5
10
vs
GASO
W 87-71
+9.5
15
vs
ARST
W 91-87
+23.5
17
vs
UL
L 56-59
−14.5
22
@
JMU
W 90-83
+34.5
29
vs
CCU
W 53-48
−38.5
31
vs
GAST
W 69-67
−4.5
4
@
APP
L 57-65
−9.5
7
vs
BUF
W 81-69
+4.5
12
@
USM
W 84-78
+26.5
14
@
ARST
W 92-88
+30.5
16
@
MRSH
L 80-84
+13.5
19
vs
TXST
L 82-90
+34.5
21
vs
TROY
W 65-54
−23.5
25
vs
ULM
W 89-54
−10.5
27
vs
USM
L 55-68
−18.5
6
vs
GASO
L 85-94
+29.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-78
−6.5
over 16under 15avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
South Alabama has the better starters
Position by position: LMU 0, South Alabama 2, even 3
LMUBetterSouth Alabama
G Z. Sensley TR10.5 pts · 7.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 72
=No call
G A. Goldstein NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
G A. Wright TR7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
=No call
G A. Lewis NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F C. Humphrey-Rembert TR7.7 pts · 6.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
=No call
G J. Langsy NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F A. McBride7.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
→USABig
F P. Law13.1 pts · 5.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
F D. Rivers TR8.6 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 48
→USABig
F S. Williams6 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 84
LMUBetterSouth Alabama
LMU offense152nd of 366 · -4.6
←LMUSmall
USA defense212th of 366 · -5.4
LMU defense104th of 366 · -1.0
←LMUBig
USA offense242nd of 366 · -7.3
Backcourt+0.5 · 2 players
=No call
BackcourtNo numbers yet
Frontcourt-2.6 · 3 players
→USABig
Frontcourt+3.5 · 2 players
Bench+1.1 · 5 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestLMU betterUSA 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
A. GoldsteinNewA. LewisNewJ. LangsyNewS. ShoptawNewD. WilliamsNewD. RomanNew
Forwards
P. Law26 minS. Williams15 minL. KunzewitschNewO. KenneyNewR. WilliamsNewD. HueittNew
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 | 73.2 #218 |
| 1.04 #263 | Points per possession | 1.10 #139 |
| 68.9 #185 | Pace (possessions) | 67.1 #277 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.9 #152 | Effective FG% | 52.6 #120 |
| 34.8 #130 | 3-point % | 34.5 #146 |
| 40.4 #162 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.5 #237 |
| 31.1 #280 | Free throw rate | 38.5 #89 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #234 | Turnover rate | 13.1 #8 |
| 26.7 #307 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.0 #341 |
| 12.7 #234 | Assists per game | 11.9 #287 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #122 | Points allowed | 71.3 #85 |
| 1.06 #103 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #100 |
| 48.9 #60 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.1 #105 |
| 34.6 #225 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.1 #133 |
| 16.6 #178 | Turnovers forced | 18.0 #96 |
| 68.0 #258 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.6 #222 |
| 6.0 #236 | Steals per game | 7.9 #46 |
| 3.9 #81 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #330 |
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.
South Alabama
19-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Auburn67–78
- Lvs GA Southern85–94
- Lvs Southern Miss55–68
- Wvs UL Monroe89–54
- Wvs Troy65–54
A week or more of rest.