Lee's Family Forum · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MCN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MCN 72–71 · win probability MCN 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.7
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: MCN has more of the edges
LMU 1, MCN 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LMU 17.4%, MCN 14.2%. Forced: LMU 16.6%, MCN 24.4%
Context
Schedule so far
LMU has played the 131st-hardest schedule, MCN the 258th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LMU 26.7%, MCN 35.1%. Defensive: LMU 68.0%, MCN 65.1%
MCN offense vs LMU defense
Offense 153rd of 366 against a defense 104th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: LMU plays 68.9 a game (185th fastest), MCN 67.1 (276th). Faster games mean more points
Even
LMU offense vs MCN defense
Offense 152nd of 366 against a defense 117th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LMU 51.9 and allows 48.9; MCN 50.7 and allows 49.3
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: LMU 31.1, MCN 37.4. Allowed: LMU 32.5, MCN 42.0
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LMU 22%, MCN 33%. Transfers in: LMU 8, MCN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Three-pointers
LMU hits 34.8% and allows 34.6%; MCN hits 31.7% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 40.4% and 35.2% of their shots
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | MCN -1.7 | — |
| Total | — | 142.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | LMU 70.5 · MCN 72.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MCN -0.9 | — |
| 1H total | 66.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | LMU 33 · MCN 33.8 | — |
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% | |
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 14 | vs SCU | L67–79LU |
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
McNeese
32 games played
Straight up
26-6
81% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% overs · avg −0.9 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 7 | @ | L 67-79 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 88-62 | -15.5 | W +10.5 | 134.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 92-86 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 73-60 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 158.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 72-62 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 67-71 | -10.5 | L −14.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 92-54 | -19.5 | W +18.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 9 | @ | W 66-64 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 12 | vs | W 102-66 | -20.5 | W +15.5 | 142.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 15 | @ | W 78-68 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 71-112 | +24.5 | L −16.5 | 161.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 82-70 | -16.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 66-64 | -10.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 73-61 | -16.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 94-68 | -15.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 76-79 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 69-53 | -9.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 82-63 | -18.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 76-66 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 64-63 | -10.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 60-67 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 81-64 | -16.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 73-69 | -21.5 | L −17.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 97-54 | -13.5 | W +29.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 75-64 | -14.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 70-54 | -14.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 23 | vs | W 75-68 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 66-63 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 75-65 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 84-80 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 76-59 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 134.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 68-78 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
SCU
L 67-79
−5.5
14
vs
UL
W 88-62
+10.5
23
vs
GW
W 92-86
+11.5
24
vs
MUR
W 73-60
+10.5
25
vs
MTSU
W 72-62
+0.5
1
@
UIW
L 67-71
−14.5
5
vs
NWST
W 92-54
+18.5
9
@
URI
W 66-64
+0.5
12
vs
ETAM
W 102-66
+15.5
15
@
HCU
W 78-68
−4.5
29
@
MICH
L 71-112
−16.5
2
vs
LAM
W 82-70
−4.5
5
vs
SFA
W 66-64
−8.5
10
vs
SELA
W 73-61
−4.5
12
vs
NICH
W 94-68
+10.5
17
@
RGV
L 76-79
−12.5
19
@
AMCC
W 69-53
+6.5
24
vs
NOLA
W 82-63
+0.5
27
@
SELA
W 76-66
−2.5
31
@
LAM
W 64-63
−9.5
2
@
SFA
L 60-67
−9.5
7
vs
UIW
W 81-64
+0.5
9
vs
HCU
W 73-69
−17.5
14
@
ETAM
W 97-54
+29.5
16
@
NWST
W 75-64
−3.5
21
vs
AMCC
W 70-54
+1.5
23
vs
RGV
W 75-68
−4.5
28
@
NOLA
W 66-63
−7.5
2
@
NICH
W 75-65
+0.5
10
vs
RGV
W 84-80
−4.5
11
vs
SFA
W 76-59
+13.5
19
vs
VAN
L 68-78
+2.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
SCU
L 67-79
−5.5
14
vs
UL
W 88-62
+15.5
23
vs
GW
W 92-86
+20.5
24
vs
MUR
W 73-60
−25.5
25
vs
MTSU
W 72-62
−13.5
1
@
UIW
L 67-71
−7.5
5
vs
NWST
W 92-54
+6.5
9
@
URI
W 66-64
−16.5
12
vs
ETAM
W 102-66
+25.5
15
@
HCU
W 78-68
+8.5
29
@
MICH
L 71-112
+21.5
2
vs
LAM
W 82-70
+6.5
5
vs
SFA
W 66-64
−14.5
10
vs
SELA
W 73-61
−4.5
12
vs
NICH
W 94-68
+15.5
17
@
RGV
L 76-79
+8.5
19
@
AMCC
W 69-53
−18.5
24
vs
NOLA
W 82-63
−11.5
27
@
SELA
W 76-66
+2.5
31
@
LAM
W 64-63
−17.5
2
@
SFA
L 60-67
−14.5
7
vs
UIW
W 81-64
−0.5
9
vs
HCU
W 73-69
+4.5
14
@
ETAM
W 97-54
+8.5
16
@
NWST
W 75-64
+0.5
21
vs
AMCC
W 70-54
−15.5
23
vs
RGV
W 75-68
−3.5
28
@
NOLA
W 66-63
−21.5
2
@
NICH
W 75-65
−5.5
10
vs
RGV
W 84-80
+23.5
11
vs
SFA
W 76-59
+0.5
19
vs
VAN
L 68-78
−2.5
over 15under 17avg −0.9 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, McNeese 2, even 1
LMUBetterMcNeese
G Z. Sensley TR10.5 pts · 7.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 72
→MCNSmall
G L. Johnson16.8 pts · 5.5 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 98
G A. Wright TR7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
←LMUSmall
G C. Cherenfant3.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 38
F C. Humphrey-Rembert TR7.7 pts · 6.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
=No call
G D. Warren TR1.2 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Not ranked
F A. McBride7.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
←LMUSmall
F J. Colbert5.3 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 29
F D. Rivers TR8.6 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 48
→MCNSmall
F C. Chest TR2.6 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 71
LMUBetterMcNeese
LMU offense152nd of 366 · -4.6
=Even
MCN defense117th of 366 · -1.6
LMU defense104th of 366 · -1.0
=Even
MCN offense153rd of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt+0.5 · 2 players
→MCNSmall
Backcourt+3.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.6 · 3 players
→MCNSmall
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
Bench+1.1 · 5 players
←LMUSmall
Bench-0.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestLMU betterMCN 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
L. Johnson26 minC. Cherenfant16 minD. Warren8 min · TRE. Moore5 min · TRJ. Rembert4 minJ. Dean-Vines3 min · TR
Forwards
J. Colbert20 minC. Chest13 min · TRA. Maluk7 min · TRC. NituNewM. MadisonNewA. MazouNew
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 | 76.6 #131 |
| 1.04 #263 | Points per possession | 1.14 #69 |
| 68.9 #185 | Pace (possessions) | 67.1 #276 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.9 #152 | Effective FG% | 50.7 #202 |
| 34.8 #130 | 3-point % | 31.7 #290 |
| 40.4 #162 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.2 #269 |
| 31.1 #280 | Free throw rate | 37.4 #114 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #234 | Turnover rate | 14.2 #28 |
| 26.7 #307 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.1 #46 |
| 12.7 #234 | Assists per game | 13.1 #205 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #122 | Points allowed | 67.4 #23 |
| 1.06 #103 | Points allowed per possession | 1.00 #27 |
| 48.9 #60 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.3 #76 |
| 34.6 #225 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #102 |
| 16.6 #178 | Turnovers forced | 24.4 #1 |
| 68.0 #258 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.1 #338 |
| 6.0 #236 | Steals per game | 10.3 #1 |
| 3.9 #81 | Blocks per game | 4.4 #42 |
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.
McNeese
26-6 in 2025-26 overall · 21-3 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Vanderbilt68–78
- Wvs SF Austin76–59
- Wvs UT Rio Grande84–80
- W@ Nicholls75–65
- W@ LSU N Orleans66–63
A week or more of rest.