Acrisure Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| 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 73–69 · win probability LMU 66%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 141.7
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
CBU 2, LMU 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CBU 37.5%, LMU 26.7%. Defensive: CBU 72.8%, LMU 68.0%
CBU offense vs LMU defense
Offense 246th of 366 against a defense 104th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
CBU hits 33.4% and allows 29.5%; LMU hits 34.8% and allows 34.6%. Threes are 32.0% and 40.4% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
CBU has played the 202nd-hardest schedule, LMU the 131st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: CBU 48.3 and allows 46.3; LMU 51.9 and allows 48.9
Even
LMU offense vs CBU defense
Offense 152nd of 366 against a defense 178th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: CBU plays 68.3 a game (217th fastest), LMU 68.9 (185th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CBU 18.0%, LMU 17.4%. Forced: CBU 16.9%, LMU 16.6%
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CBU 18%, LMU 22%. Transfers in: CBU 2, LMU 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CBU 35.9, LMU 31.1. Allowed: CBU 36.6, LMU 32.5
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 -4.6 | — |
| Total | — | 141.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | CBU 68.5 · LMU 73.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LMU -2.6 | — |
| 1H total | 66.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | CBU 31.9 · LMU 34.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | |
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
CA Baptist
34 games played
Straight up
25-9
74% wins
Against the spread
20-14
59% covers · avg +1.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-22
35% overs · avg −4.3 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 | vs | W 87-75 | -14.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 69-61 | +8.5 | W +16.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 69-59 | -15.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 80-57 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 72-59 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 76-61 | -7.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 29 | @ | W 75-69 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 137.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 70-78 | +13.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 60-91 | +18.5 | L −12.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 85-91 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 12 | @ | W 88-83 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 75-67 | -12.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 74-67 | -14.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 66-73 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 51-63 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 134.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 76-81 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 84-72 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 58-55 | -14.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 74-58 | +1.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 73-64 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 78-71 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 87-77 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 134.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 56-55 | -10.5 | L −9.5 | 138.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 65-63 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 83-66 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-70 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 46-65 | +8.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 68-56 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 134.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 82-67 | -8.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 87-48 | -9.5 | W +29.5 | 136.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 82-75 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 86-72 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 63-61 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 60-68 | +14.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UPST
W 87-75
−2.5
7
@
UCI
W 69-61
+16.5
14
vs
WIU
W 69-59
−5.5
18
vs
UCR
W 80-57
+10.5
21
vs
GRAM
W 72-59
−1.5
25
vs
USD
W 76-61
+7.5
29
@
ORST
W 75-69
+7.5
1
@
COLO
L 70-78
+5.5
3
@
BYU
L 60-91
−12.5
6
@
UTAH
L 85-91
−0.5
12
@
EWU
W 88-83
+1.5
16
vs
SOU
W 75-67
−4.5
20
vs
SAC
W 74-67
−7.5
29
@
UVU
L 66-73
+0.5
1
@
UTA
L 51-63
−14.5
3
@
TAR
L 76-81
−3.5
8
vs
UTU
W 84-72
+4.5
10
vs
SUU
W 58-55
−11.5
15
@
ACU
W 74-58
+17.5
21
vs
UTU
W 73-64
+0.5
24
vs
UVU
W 78-71
+5.5
31
@
UTA
W 87-77
+8.5
5
vs
TAR
W 56-55
−9.5
7
vs
ACU
W 65-63
−6.5
12
@
SUU
W 83-66
+11.5
14
@
UTU
L 65-70
−7.5
19
@
UVU
L 46-65
−10.5
26
vs
UTA
W 68-56
+5.5
28
vs
TAR
W 82-67
+6.5
5
vs
ACU
W 87-48
+29.5
7
@
SUU
W 82-75
+0.5
13
vs
UTU
W 86-72
+5.5
14
vs
UVU
W 63-61
+4.5
20
vs
KU
L 60-68
+6.5
covered 20didn’t cover 14avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UPST
W 87-75
+9.5
7
@
UCI
W 69-61
−17.5
14
vs
WIU
W 69-59
−12.5
18
vs
UCR
W 80-57
−5.5
21
vs
GRAM
W 72-59
−13.5
25
vs
USD
W 76-61
−9.5
29
@
ORST
W 75-69
+6.5
1
@
COLO
L 70-78
−2.5
3
@
BYU
L 60-91
−2.5
6
@
UTAH
L 85-91
+30.5
12
@
EWU
W 88-83
+17.5
16
vs
SOU
W 75-67
−13.5
20
vs
SAC
W 74-67
−17.5
29
@
UVU
L 66-73
−9.5
1
@
UTA
L 51-63
−20.5
3
@
TAR
L 76-81
+9.5
8
vs
UTU
W 84-72
+11.5
10
vs
SUU
W 58-55
−37.5
15
@
ACU
W 74-58
−8.5
21
vs
UTU
W 73-64
−6.5
24
vs
UVU
W 78-71
+1.5
31
@
UTA
W 87-77
+29.5
5
vs
TAR
W 56-55
−27.5
7
vs
ACU
W 65-63
−7.5
12
@
SUU
W 83-66
+1.5
14
@
UTU
L 65-70
−8.5
19
@
UVU
L 46-65
−31.5
26
vs
UTA
W 68-56
−10.5
28
vs
TAR
W 82-67
+9.5
5
vs
ACU
W 87-48
−1.5
7
@
SUU
W 82-75
+8.5
13
vs
UTU
W 86-72
+13.5
14
vs
UVU
W 63-61
−15.5
20
vs
KU
L 60-68
−14.5
over 12under 22avg −4.3 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
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
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: CA Baptist 0, LMU 1, even 4
CA BaptistBetterLMU
G E. Duncan TR10.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 67
=Even
G Z. Sensley TR10.5 pts · 7.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 72
G J. Muller4.4 pts · 1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 7
→LMUBig
G A. Wright TR7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
G J. Dollar1.9 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F C. Humphrey-Rembert TR7.7 pts · 6.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
F R. D'Amelio2.6 pts · 3 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F A. McBride7.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
F N. Richart TR0.3 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Rivers TR8.6 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 48
CA BaptistBetterLMU
CBU offense246th of 366 · -7.5
→LMUBig
LMU defense104th of 366 · -1.0
CBU defense178th of 366 · -4.0
=Even
LMU offense152nd of 366 · -4.6
Backcourt-2.2 · 3 players
→LMUSmall
Backcourt+0.5 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 2 players
←CBUSmall
Frontcourt-2.6 · 3 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+1.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCBU betterLMU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
E. Duncan21 min · TRJ. Muller21 minJ. Dollar5 minT. ConerNewJ. StonkusNewO. BlanksonNew
Forwards
R. D'Amelio11 minN. Richart7 min · TRA. MilenkovicNewJ. ZilinskasNewA. SafinNew
Centers
M. KovacNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.7 #230 | Points per game | 72.2 #236 |
| 1.07 #209 | Points per possession | 1.04 #263 |
| 68.3 #217 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #185 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.3 #308 | Effective FG% | 51.9 #152 |
| 33.4 #200 | 3-point % | 34.8 #130 |
| 32.0 #330 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.4 #162 |
| 35.9 #154 | Free throw rate | 31.1 #280 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.0 #270 | Turnover rate | 17.4 #234 |
| 37.5 #13 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.7 #307 |
| 10.2 #355 | Assists per game | 12.7 #234 |
| Defense | ||
| 67.6 #28 | Points allowed | 72.7 #122 |
| 0.99 #18 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #103 |
| 46.3 #16 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #60 |
| 29.5 #5 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.6 #225 |
| 16.9 #159 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #178 |
| 72.8 #41 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #258 |
| 5.5 #296 | Steals per game | 6.0 #236 |
| 2.9 #253 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #81 |
CA Baptist
25-9 in 2025-26 overall · 15-5 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Kansas60–68
- Wvs Utah Valley63–61
- Wvs Utah Tech86–72
- W@ Southern Utah82–75
- Wvs Abilene Chrstn87–48
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.