Chicago State Cougars at Loyola Marymount Lions: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 15, 4:00 PM ETGersten Pavilion · at LMU

#121LMULMU

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Chicago St and LMU
CHST	This season	LMU
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 81–60 · win probability LMU 97%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 140.6

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: LMU has more of the edges

CHST 1, LMU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

LMUBig

CHST offense vs LMU defense

Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 104th, on the model’s ratings

LMUBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; LMU 51.9 and allows 48.9

LMUBig

LMU offense vs CHST defense

Offense 152nd of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings

CHSTBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, LMU 17.4%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, LMU 16.6%

Context

Schedule so far

CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, LMU the 131st. A record against a soft schedule means less

LMUSmall

Three-pointers

CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; LMU hits 34.8% and allows 34.6%. Threes are 30.9% and 40.4% of their shots

LMUSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, LMU 31.1. Allowed: CHST 38.0, LMU 32.5

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), LMU 68.9 (185th). Faster games mean more points

LMUSmall

Home court

LMU at home. This season: LMU 0-0 at home, CHST 0-0 away

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, LMU 22%. Transfers in: CHST 6, LMU 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, LMU 26.7%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, LMU 68.0%

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	—	LMU -21.0	—
Total	—	140.6	—
Projected score	—	CHST 59.8 · LMU 80.8

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	LMU -12.3	—
1H total	65.8	—
1H projected score	CHST 26.7 · LMU 39.1	—

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
CHST WWLLW	15-16	48%	9-12	—
LMU LWLLL	14-17	45%	8-9	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
CHST UUUOO	15-16	48%	6-25
LMU OUUOU	15-16	48%	14-17

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
CHST	4-6 40%	6-4 60%	4-6 40%
LMU	4-6 40%	3-7 30%	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

Chicago St

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 18	@ UIC	L63–67WU
Nov 22	@ MARQ	L68–82WO
Nov 28	@ BRAD	No recent meeting

LMU

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 21	vs CBU	No recent meeting
Nov 22	vs UCI	L51–66LU
Nov 25	vs EWU	W70–62LU

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

Chicago St

31 games played

Straight up

6-25

19% wins

Against the spread

15-16

48% covers · avg +0.3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-16

48% overs · avg −0.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

6-2519%

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

3 straight losses1 of last 4 won

Against the spread

15-1648%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1648%

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

2 straight overs2 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	@DEP	L 62-92	+24.5	L −5.5	143.5	O 154
Nov 6	@SLU	L 86-108	+30.5	W +8.5	155.5	O 194
Nov 11	@BTLR	L 66-98	+26.5	L −5.5	158.5	O 164
Nov 15	vsUIC	L 63-67	+9.5	W +5.5	156.5	U 130
Nov 18	@MINN	L 54-66	+27.5	W +15.5	144.5	U 120
Nov 20	@IOWA	L 54-93	+31.5	L −7.5	142.5	O 147
Nov 25	@PFW	L 77-90	+12.5	L −0.5	149.5	O 167
Nov 28	@YSU	L 64-87	+14.5	L −8.5	146.5	O 151
Dec 6	@ILST	L 53-95	+20.5	L −21.5	144.5	O 148
Dec 14	@LUC	W 84-75	+15.5	W +24.5	140.5	O 159
Dec 16	@BGSU	L 55-76	+21.5	W +0.5	148.5	U 131
Dec 20	@IU	L 58-78	+38.5	W +18.5	152.5	U 136
Jan 2	vsWAG	L 72-79	+1.5	L −5.5	146.5	O 151
Jan 4	vsLIU	L 55-74	+7.5	L −11.5	151.5	U 129
Jan 8	@FDU	L 63-70	+4.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 133
Jan 10	@STO	L 82-85	+4.5	W +1.5	135.5	O 167
Jan 17	vsLEM	L 57-72	+6.5	L −8.5	146.5	U 129
Jan 19	vsNHVN	L 56-62	-1.5	L −7.5	129.5	U 118
Jan 23	@SFPA	L 60-81	+3.5	L −17.5	143.5	U 141
Jan 25	@MERC	L 59-61	+9.5	W +7.5	131.5	U 120
Jan 31	vsMERC	W 78-74	+2.5	W +6.5	129.5	O 152
Feb 5	@CCSU	L 67-78	+8.5	L −2.5	138.5	O 145
Feb 7	@NHVN	W 63-57	+5.5	W +11.5	127.5	U 120
Feb 9	vsSFPA	W 80-75	-3.5	W +1.5	144.5	O 155
Feb 12	vsSTO	W 68-55	+2.5	W +15.5	131.5	U 123
Feb 14	@LEM	L 63-81	+6.5	L −11.5	144.5	U 144
Feb 19	vsFDU	L 59-60	+1.5	W +0.5	131.5	U 119
Feb 21	vsCCSU	W 70-51	+3.5	W +22.5	138.5	U 121
Feb 26	@LIU	L 56-73	+11.5	L −5.5	141.5	U 129
Feb 28	@WAG	L 61-80	+4.5	L −14.5	134.5	O 141
Mar 4	@LIU	L 75-79	+10.5	W +6.5	137.5	O 154

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

DEP

L 62-92

−5.5

SLU

L 86-108

+8.5

BTLR

L 66-98

−5.5

UIC

L 63-67

+5.5

MINN

L 54-66

+15.5

IOWA

L 54-93

−7.5

PFW

L 77-90

−0.5

YSU

L 64-87

−8.5

ILST

L 53-95

−21.5

LUC

W 84-75

+24.5

BGSU

L 55-76

+0.5

L 58-78

+18.5

WAG

L 72-79

−5.5

LIU

L 55-74

−11.5

FDU

L 63-70

−2.5

STO

L 82-85

+1.5

LEM

L 57-72

−8.5

NHVN

L 56-62

−7.5

SFPA

L 60-81

−17.5

MERC

L 59-61

+7.5

MERC

W 78-74

+6.5

CCSU

L 67-78

−2.5

NHVN

W 63-57

+11.5

SFPA

W 80-75

+1.5

STO

W 68-55

+15.5

LEM

L 63-81

−11.5

FDU

L 59-60

+0.5

CCSU

W 70-51

+22.5

LIU

L 56-73

−5.5

WAG

L 61-80

−14.5

LIU

L 75-79

+6.5

covered 15didn’t cover 16avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

DEP

L 62-92

+10.5

SLU

L 86-108

+38.5

BTLR

L 66-98

+5.5

UIC

L 63-67

−26.5

MINN

L 54-66

−24.5

IOWA

L 54-93

+4.5

PFW

L 77-90

+17.5

YSU

L 64-87

+4.5

ILST

L 53-95

+3.5

LUC

W 84-75

+18.5

BGSU

L 55-76

−17.5

L 58-78

−16.5

WAG

L 72-79

+4.5

LIU

L 55-74

−22.5

FDU

L 63-70

−10.5

STO

L 82-85

+31.5

LEM

L 57-72

−17.5

NHVN

L 56-62

−11.5

SFPA

L 60-81

−2.5

MERC

L 59-61

−11.5

MERC

W 78-74

+22.5

CCSU

L 67-78

+6.5

NHVN

W 63-57

−7.5

SFPA

W 80-75

+10.5

STO

W 68-55

−8.5

LEM

L 63-81

−0.5

FDU

L 59-60

−12.5

CCSU

W 70-51

−17.5

LIU

L 56-73

−12.5

WAG

L 61-80

+6.5

LIU

L 75-79

+16.5

over 15under 16avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Straight up

14-1745%

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

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1745%

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

3 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1648%

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

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 5	vsEWU	W 70-62	-9.5	L −1.5	153.5	U 132
Nov 8	vsUAPB	W 94-72	-19.5	W +2.5	157.5	O 166
Nov 11	@UTEP	W 71-58	+1.5	W +14.5	144.5	U 129
Nov 14	vsTROY	W 74-63	-4.5	W +6.5	140.5	U 137
Nov 17	@UCSB	W 78-74	+3.5	W +7.5	145.5	O 152
Nov 24	vsFAU	L 65-76	+3.5	L −7.5	144.5	U 141
Nov 25	vsOHIO	W 70-58	-3.5	W +8.5	144.5	U 128
Nov 28	vsSTBK	L 68-71	-10.5	L −13.5	138.5	O 139
Dec 2	vsSLU	L 70-91	+7.5	L −13.5	150.5	O 161
Dec 16	vsUCSD	L 57-67	+1.5	L −8.5	150.5	U 124
Dec 19	vsUNA	W 91-57	-10.5	W +23.5	140.5	O 148
Dec 23	vsMORG	W 83-56	-23.5	W +3.5	144.5	U 139
Dec 28	vsSMC	L 73-78	+9.5	W +4.5	143.5	O 151
Dec 30	vsPAC	W 80-71	-3.5	W +5.5	139.5	O 151
Jan 2	@WSU	L 76-78	+3.5	W +1.5	142.5	O 154
Jan 4	@GONZ	L 47-82	+25.5	L −9.5	154.5	U 129
Jan 8	vsSF	W 84-82	-1.5	W +0.5	141.5	O 166
Jan 10	@SCU	L 72-103	+11.5	L −19.5	153.5	O 175
Jan 14	@ORST	L 70-76	-1.5	L −7.5	140.5	O 146
Jan 17	vsPORT	L 58-71	-8.5	L −21.5	148.5	U 129
Jan 21	@SEA	L 59-69	+4.5	L −5.5	141.5	U 128
Jan 28	vsORST	L 69-72	-5.5	L −8.5	141.5	U 141
Jan 31	vsSCU	L 73-104	+8.5	L −22.5	153.5	O 177
Feb 4	@SF	W 84-75	+8.5	W +17.5	145.5	O 159
Feb 7	vsUSD	W 83-63	-6.5	W +13.5	151.5	U 146
Feb 11	@PAC	L 59-65	+5.5	L −0.5	141.5	U 124
Feb 14	@PEPP	L 89-90	-5.5	L −6.5	147.5	O 179
Feb 21	@USD	W 77-65	-2.5	W +9.5	149.5	U 142
Feb 25	vsWSU	W 67-66	-1.5	L −0.5	149.5	U 133
Feb 28	vsSEA	L 66-71	-1.5	L −6.5	136.5	O 137
Mar 5	vsUSD	L 62-66	-5.5	L −9.5	145.5	U 128

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

EWU

W 70-62

−1.5

UAPB

W 94-72

+2.5

UTEP

W 71-58

+14.5

TROY

W 74-63

+6.5

UCSB

W 78-74

+7.5

FAU

L 65-76

−7.5

OHIO

W 70-58

+8.5

STBK

L 68-71

−13.5

SLU

L 70-91

−13.5

UCSD

L 57-67

−8.5

UNA

W 91-57

+23.5

MORG

W 83-56

+3.5

SMC

L 73-78

+4.5

PAC

W 80-71

+5.5

WSU

L 76-78

+1.5

GONZ

L 47-82

−9.5

W 84-82

+0.5

SCU

L 72-103

−19.5

ORST

L 70-76

−7.5

PORT

L 58-71

−21.5

SEA

L 59-69

−5.5

ORST

L 69-72

−8.5

SCU

L 73-104

−22.5

W 84-75

+17.5

USD

W 83-63

+13.5

PAC

L 59-65

−0.5

PEPP

L 89-90

−6.5

USD

W 77-65

+9.5

WSU

W 67-66

−0.5

SEA

L 66-71

−6.5

USD

L 62-66

−9.5

covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

EWU

W 70-62

−21.5

UAPB

W 94-72

+8.5

UTEP

W 71-58

−15.5

TROY

W 74-63

−3.5

UCSB

W 78-74

+6.5

FAU

L 65-76

−3.5

OHIO

W 70-58

−16.5

STBK

L 68-71

+0.5

SLU

L 70-91

+10.5

UCSD

L 57-67

−26.5

UNA

W 91-57

+7.5

MORG

W 83-56

−5.5

SMC

L 73-78

+7.5

PAC

W 80-71

+11.5

WSU

L 76-78

+11.5

GONZ

L 47-82

−25.5

W 84-82

+24.5

SCU

L 72-103

+21.5

ORST

L 70-76

+5.5

PORT

L 58-71

−19.5

SEA

L 59-69

−13.5

ORST

L 69-72

−0.5

SCU

L 73-104

+23.5

W 84-75

+13.5

USD

W 83-63

−5.5

PAC

L 59-65

−17.5

PEPP

L 89-90

+31.5

USD

W 77-65

−7.5

WSU

W 67-66

−16.5

SEA

L 66-71

+0.5

USD

L 62-66

−17.5

over 15under 16avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

LMU has the better starters

Position by position: Chicago St 0, LMU 5, even 0

Chicago StBetterLMU

G M. Price TR6.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 3

LMUBig

G Z. Sensley TR10.5 pts · 7.2 reb · 0.8 ast Score 72

G A. Carraway TR4.9 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.1 ast Score 3

LMUBig

G A. Wright TR7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 2 ast Score 59

G M. Olafioye TR3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.2 ast Score 2

LMUSmall

F C. Humphrey-Rembert TR7.7 pts · 6.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 24

F B. Akanmu TR5.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.5 ast Score 14

LMUBig

F A. McBride7.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.9 ast Score 50

F D. Loury TR4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast Score 1

LMUBig

F D. Rivers TR8.6 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.6 ast Score 48

Chicago StBetterLMU

CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2

LMUBig

LMU defense104th of 366 · -1.0

CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0

LMUBig

LMU offense152nd of 366 · -4.6

Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players

LMUBig

Backcourt+0.5 · 2 players

Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players

LMUSmall

Frontcourt-2.6 · 3 players

Bench-2.7 · 2 players

LMUBig

Bench+1.1 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestCHST betterLMU 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

Chicago St

Guards

M. Price18 min · TRA. Carraway16 min · TRM. Olafioye16 min · TRM. Robinson15 minJ. Pazon11 min · TRW. Lovings-WattsNew

Forwards

B. Akanmu21 min · TRD. Loury17 min · TRK. FomanNewL. Stephane DjiyaNewF. SheriffNewL. HodgesNew

Centers

B. KalonjiNew

LMU

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

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

CHST65.2 #348

LMU72.2 #236

Points per possession

CHST0.99 #337

LMU1.04 #263

Pace (possessions)

CHST66.0 #314

LMU68.9 #185

Shooting

Effective FG%

CHST45.3 #358

LMU51.9 #152

3-point %

CHST32.1 #275

LMU34.8 #130

3-point attempt rate

CHST30.9 #341

LMU40.4 #162

Free throw rate

CHST30.0 #311

LMU31.1 #280

Possessions

Turnover rate

CHST15.7 #114

LMU17.4 #234

Offensive rebound rate

CHST28.3 #255

LMU26.7 #307

Assists per game

CHST11.7 #305

LMU12.7 #234

Defense

Points allowed

CHST76.5 #231

LMU72.7 #122

Points allowed per possession

CHST1.16 #332

LMU1.06 #103

Opponent effective FG%

CHST56.7 #354

LMU48.9 #60

Opponent 3-point %

CHST35.6 #290

LMU34.6 #225

Turnovers forced

CHST20.1 #21

LMU16.6 #178

Defensive rebound rate

CHST65.0 #339

LMU68.0 #258

Steals per game

CHST8.2 #33

LMU6.0 #236

Blocks per game

CHST1.3 #365

LMU3.9 #81

CHST		LMU
Scoring
65.2 #348	Points per game	72.2 #236
0.99 #337	Points per possession	1.04 #263
66.0 #314	Pace (possessions)	68.9 #185
Shooting
45.3 #358	Effective FG%	51.9 #152
32.1 #275	3-point %	34.8 #130
30.9 #341	3-point attempt rate	40.4 #162
30.0 #311	Free throw rate	31.1 #280
Possessions
15.7 #114	Turnover rate	17.4 #234
28.3 #255	Offensive rebound rate	26.7 #307
11.7 #305	Assists per game	12.7 #234
Defense
76.5 #231	Points allowed	72.7 #122
1.16 #332	Points allowed per possession	1.06 #103
56.7 #354	Opponent effective FG%	48.9 #60
35.6 #290	Opponent 3-point %	34.6 #225
20.1 #21	Turnovers forced	16.6 #178
65.0 #339	Defensive rebound rate	68.0 #258
8.2 #33	Steals per game	6.0 #236
1.3 #365	Blocks per game	3.9 #81

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.

Chicago St

6-25 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Northeast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Long Island75–79
L@ Wagner61–80
L@ Long Island56–73
Wvs C Connecticut70–51
Lvs FDU59–60

A week or more of rest.

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.

Chicago State Cougars at Loyola Marymount Lions

What could decide it: LMU has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Chicago St

LMU

LMU has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Chicago St

LMU