Gersten Pavilion · at LMU
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 79–70 · win probability LMU 80%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.2
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
EWU 1, LMU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
LMU offense vs EWU defense
Offense 152nd of 366 against a defense 322nd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: EWU 31.3%, LMU 26.7%. Defensive: EWU 69.2%, LMU 68.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: EWU 53.7 and allows 54.9; LMU 51.9 and allows 48.9
EWU offense vs LMU defense
Offense 189th of 366 against a defense 104th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
EWU has played the 213th-hardest schedule, LMU the 131st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
LMU at home. This season: LMU 0-0 at home, EWU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: EWU plays 69.5 a game (149th fastest), LMU 68.9 (185th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
EWU hits 35.9% and allows 35.2%; LMU hits 34.8% and allows 34.6%. Threes are 34.7% and 40.4% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: EWU 30%, LMU 22%. Transfers in: EWU 1, LMU 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: EWU 17.6%, LMU 17.4%. Forced: EWU 16.3%, LMU 16.6%
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: EWU 36.1, LMU 31.1. Allowed: EWU 37.3, 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 -9.6 | — |
| Total | — | 149.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | EWU 69.8 · LMU 79.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LMU -5.6 | — |
| 1H total | 69.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | EWU 32.1 · LMU 37.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
EWU 0–1 LMULMU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · EWU 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2025-26 | EWU 62 @ LMU 70 | LMU -9.5 | EWU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
E Washington
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-13
59% overs · avg +3.3 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 | @ | L 74-80 | +29.5 | W +23.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 5 | @ | L 62-70 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 97-102 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 67-94 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 65-92 | -4.5 | L −31.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 71-79 | +12.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 89-93 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 90-66 | -9.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 12 | vs | L 83-88 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 63-78 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 77-101 | +10.5 | L −13.5 | 160.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 81-109 | +34.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 81-84 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 64-68 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 66-65 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 80-91 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-66 | +6.5 | W +24.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 61-65 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-67 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 86-92 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-74 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 82-74 | +5.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 72-71 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 88-75 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 84-66 | -3.5 | W +14.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 102-94 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 67-55 | +6.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 82-72 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-57 | -9.5 | W +21.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 81-85 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 84-79 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 68-81 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UCLA
L 74-80
+23.5
5
@
LMU
L 62-70
+1.5
8
@
COLO
L 97-102
+11.5
12
@
SEA
L 67-94
−18.5
23
@
CARK
L 65-92
−31.5
25
@
UNT
L 71-79
+4.5
3
@
DEN
L 89-93
−2.5
6
vs
KC
W 90-66
+14.5
12
vs
CBU
L 83-88
−1.5
17
vs
WSU
L 63-78
−8.5
20
@
UTAH
L 77-101
−13.5
22
@
BYU
L 81-109
+6.5
3
@
IDHO
L 81-84
+3.5
8
vs
MTST
L 64-68
−1.5
10
vs
MONT
W 66-65
−0.5
15
@
WEB
L 80-91
−7.5
17
@
IDST
W 84-66
+24.5
22
vs
PRST
L 61-65
−1.5
24
vs
SAC
W 75-67
+2.5
29
@
NAU
L 86-92
−8.5
31
@
UNCO
L 71-74
+3.5
5
@
MONT
W 82-74
+13.5
7
@
MTST
W 72-71
+6.5
12
vs
IDST
W 88-75
+10.5
14
vs
WEB
W 84-66
+14.5
19
@
SAC
W 102-94
+5.5
21
@
PRST
W 67-55
+18.5
26
vs
UNCO
W 82-72
+11.5
28
vs
NAU
W 88-57
+21.5
2
vs
IDHO
L 81-85
−7.5
9
vs
WEB
W 84-79
+1.5
10
vs
IDHO
L 68-81
−11.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UCLA
L 74-80
+4.5
5
@
LMU
L 62-70
−21.5
8
@
COLO
L 97-102
+46.5
12
@
SEA
L 67-94
+12.5
23
@
CARK
L 65-92
+2.5
25
@
UNT
L 71-79
+8.5
3
@
DEN
L 89-93
+26.5
6
vs
KC
W 90-66
+4.5
12
vs
CBU
L 83-88
+17.5
17
vs
WSU
L 63-78
−12.5
20
@
UTAH
L 77-101
+17.5
22
@
BYU
L 81-109
+21.5
3
@
IDHO
L 81-84
+6.5
8
vs
MTST
L 64-68
−24.5
10
vs
MONT
W 66-65
−30.5
15
@
WEB
L 80-91
+12.5
17
@
IDST
W 84-66
−2.5
22
vs
PRST
L 61-65
−24.5
24
vs
SAC
W 75-67
−21.5
29
@
NAU
L 86-92
+32.5
31
@
UNCO
L 71-74
−11.5
5
@
MONT
W 82-74
+4.5
7
@
MTST
W 72-71
−5.5
12
vs
IDST
W 88-75
+15.5
14
vs
WEB
W 84-66
−4.5
19
@
SAC
W 102-94
+35.5
21
@
PRST
W 67-55
−24.5
26
vs
UNCO
W 82-72
−3.5
28
vs
NAU
W 88-57
−1.5
2
vs
IDHO
L 81-85
+14.5
9
vs
WEB
W 84-79
+8.5
10
vs
IDHO
L 68-81
+0.5
over 19under 13avg +3.3 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: E Washington 1, LMU 2, even 2
E WashingtonBetterLMU
G J. Griffith TR11.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 75
=Even
G Z. Sensley TR10.5 pts · 7.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 72
G C. Scherer2.1 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 14
→LMUBig
G A. Wright TR7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
F A. Hamilton13.6 pts · 5.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 83
←EWUBig
F C. Humphrey-Rembert TR7.7 pts · 6.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
F E. Marquardt5.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 31
→LMUSmall
F A. McBride7.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
F S. Ngoyi0.5 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Rivers TR8.6 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 48
E WashingtonBetterLMU
EWU offense189th of 366 · -5.8
→LMUSmall
LMU defense104th of 366 · -1.0
EWU defense322nd of 366 · -8.3
→LMUBig
LMU offense152nd of 366 · -4.6
Backcourt-0.2 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt+0.5 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.6 · 3 players
←EWUBig
Frontcourt-2.6 · 3 players
Bench-0.3 · 1 player
→LMUSmall
Bench+1.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestEWU betterLMU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Griffith23 min · TRC. Scherer8 minM. Monson3 minA. CookNewT. JacksonNewI. HomeliusNew
Forwards
A. Hamilton28 minE. Marquardt16 minS. Ngoyi4 minJ. MillerNewA. HamiltonNewA. GballouNew
Centers
Z. TrezvantNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.7 #102 | Points per game | 72.2 #236 |
| 1.11 #120 | Points per possession | 1.04 #263 |
| 69.5 #149 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #185 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.7 #75 | Effective FG% | 51.9 #152 |
| 35.9 #62 | 3-point % | 34.8 #130 |
| 34.7 #282 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.4 #162 |
| 36.1 #148 | Free throw rate | 31.1 #280 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.6 #241 | Turnover rate | 17.4 #234 |
| 31.3 #153 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.7 #307 |
| 13.5 #181 | Assists per game | 12.7 #234 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.2 #304 | Points allowed | 72.7 #122 |
| 1.15 #320 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #103 |
| 54.9 #326 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #60 |
| 35.2 #261 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.6 #225 |
| 16.3 #200 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #178 |
| 69.2 #194 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #258 |
| 5.9 #249 | Steals per game | 6.0 #236 |
| 3.4 #161 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #81 |
E Washington
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho68–81
- Wvs Weber St84–79
- Lvs Idaho81–85
- Wvs N Arizona88–57
- Wvs N Colorado82–72
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.