Moody Coliseum (Abilene) · at Abilene Chrstn
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ACU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ACU 71–68 · win probability ACU 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 138.7
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
LAM 4, ACU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: LAM 27.9, ACU 41.7. Allowed: LAM 44.4, ACU 53.5
Context
Schedule so far
LAM has played the 328th-hardest schedule, ACU the 183rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
LAM offense vs ACU defense
Offense 334th of 366 against a defense 200th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: LAM 47.8 and allows 50.9; ACU 47.5 and allows 56.5
Three-pointers
LAM hits 32.9% and allows 35.3%; ACU hits 31.0% and allows 40.9%. Threes are 33.9% and 32.8% of their shots
ACU offense vs LAM defense
Offense 298th of 366 against a defense 213th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: LAM plays 66.1 a game (311th fastest), ACU 69.2 (167th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LAM 35.7%, ACU 31.0%. Defensive: LAM 70.6%, ACU 70.9%
Home court
ACU at home. This season: ACU 0-0 at home, LAM 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LAM 0%, ACU 25%. Transfers in: LAM 6, ACU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LAM 18.1%, ACU 20.8%. Forced: LAM 17.3%, ACU 23.4%
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 | — | ACU -3.8 | — |
| Total | — | 138.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | LAM 67.5 · ACU 71.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ACU -2.1 | — |
| 1H total | 64.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | LAM 31.4 · ACU 33.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LAM 0–2 ACUACU leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · ACU has won the last 2 meetings · LAM 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2021-22 | LAM 42 @ ACU 77 | ACU -17 | ACU W |
| Jan 29, 2021-22 | ACU 85 @ LAM 82 | LAM +11 | LAM W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Lamar
29 games played
Straight up
10-19
34% wins
Against the spread
12-17
41% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% 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 10 | @ | L 65-78 | +18.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 17 | @ | W 79-66 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 68-63 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-83 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 65-55 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 129.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 49-57 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | U 106 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 71-89 | +17.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 72-83 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 82-85 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 76-61 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 69-62 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 70-82 | +16.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 52-60 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 135.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 63-51 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 64-56 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 90-80 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 76-89 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 81-88 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 140.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 63-64 | +10.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 73-54 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 74-84 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 68-70 | -6.5 | L −8.5 | 135.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-76 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 65-70 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 71-77 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 52-53 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-72 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 53-75 | -2.5 | L −24.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
10
@
TCU
L 65-78
+5.5
17
@
ULM
W 79-66
+1.5
23
@
MONT
W 68-63
+9.5
24
vs
OAK
L 68-83
−11.5
3
vs
UL
W 65-55
−0.5
6
vs
AMCC
L 49-57
−11.5
10
@
SDSU
L 71-89
−0.5
16
vs
RGV
L 72-83
−14.5
20
vs
OMA
L 82-85
−8.5
29
@
NWST
W 76-61
+11.5
31
@
ETAM
W 69-62
+1.5
2
@
MCN
L 70-82
+4.5
5
@
SELA
L 52-60
−9.5
10
vs
UIW
W 63-51
+10.5
12
vs
HCU
W 64-56
−0.5
17
@
NICH
W 90-80
+13.5
19
@
NOLA
L 76-89
−14.5
24
vs
SFA
L 81-88
−2.5
27
vs
ETAM
W 82-61
+14.5
31
vs
MCN
L 63-64
+9.5
2
vs
SELA
W 73-54
+13.5
7
@
SFA
L 74-84
−1.5
9
vs
NWST
L 68-70
−8.5
14
@
AMCC
L 63-76
−10.5
16
@
RGV
L 65-70
+1.5
21
vs
NOLA
L 71-77
−10.5
23
vs
NICH
L 52-53
−4.5
28
@
UIW
L 60-72
−10.5
2
@
HCU
L 53-75
−24.5
covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
10
@
TCU
L 65-78
−4.5
17
@
ULM
W 79-66
+4.5
23
@
MONT
W 68-63
−17.5
24
vs
OAK
L 68-83
+2.5
3
vs
UL
W 65-55
−9.5
6
vs
AMCC
L 49-57
−30.5
10
@
SDSU
L 71-89
+24.5
16
vs
RGV
L 72-83
+15.5
20
vs
OMA
L 82-85
+25.5
29
@
NWST
W 76-61
−1.5
31
@
ETAM
W 69-62
−12.5
2
@
MCN
L 70-82
+6.5
5
@
SELA
L 52-60
−23.5
10
vs
UIW
W 63-51
−26.5
12
vs
HCU
W 64-56
−14.5
17
@
NICH
W 90-80
+30.5
19
@
NOLA
L 76-89
+20.5
24
vs
SFA
L 81-88
+32.5
27
vs
ETAM
W 82-61
+2.5
31
vs
MCN
L 63-64
−17.5
2
vs
SELA
W 73-54
−5.5
7
@
SFA
L 74-84
+19.5
9
vs
NWST
L 68-70
+2.5
14
@
AMCC
L 63-76
+3.5
16
@
RGV
L 65-70
−6.5
21
vs
NOLA
L 71-77
+1.5
23
vs
NICH
L 52-53
−38.5
28
@
UIW
L 60-72
−6.5
2
@
HCU
L 53-75
−4.5
over 14under 15avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Abilene Chrstn
30 games played
Straight up
11-19
37% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +1.3 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 6 | vs | W 73-71 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 66-76 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 49-63 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | U 112 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 61-50 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 58-92 | -1.5 | L −35.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 71-63 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 77-69 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 131.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 62-96 | +34.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 67-85 | +33.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 22 | @ | W 75-68 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 64-79 | -5.5 | L −20.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 85-68 | +7.5 | W +24.5 | 139.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 84-80 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 72-82 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 134.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 58-74 | -1.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 52-74 | -3.5 | L −25.5 | 149.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 70-76 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 76-79 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 55-68 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 63-65 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 67-63 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 134.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 73-59 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 134.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 62-65 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 134.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 87-83 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 81-85 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 139.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-74 | +14.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 48-87 | +9.5 | L −29.5 | 136.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 57-64 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 131.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 84-78 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 74-80 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
vs
OMA
W 73-71
−2.5
14
@
SFA
L 66-76
−3.5
18
@
TXST
L 49-63
−12.5
24
vs
UTSA
W 61-50
+8.5
25
vs
W&M
L 58-92
−35.5
2
@
PEPP
W 71-63
+6.5
6
vs
NMSU
W 77-69
+9.5
16
@
ARIZ
L 62-96
+0.5
19
@
BYU
L 67-85
+15.5
22
@
TXSO
W 75-68
+2.5
1
vs
UTU
L 64-79
−20.5
3
vs
UVU
W 85-68
+24.5
8
@
TAR
W 84-80
+8.5
10
@
UTA
L 72-82
−6.5
15
vs
CBU
L 58-74
−17.5
17
@
SUU
L 52-74
−25.5
29
vs
UTU
L 70-76
−9.5
31
vs
SUU
L 76-79
−9.5
5
@
UVU
L 55-68
+1.5
7
@
CBU
L 63-65
+6.5
12
vs
UTA
W 67-63
+2.5
14
vs
TAR
W 73-59
+10.5
16
@
TAR
L 62-65
−4.5
21
vs
SUU
W 87-83
−4.5
26
@
UTU
L 81-85
−1.5
28
@
UVU
L 67-74
+7.5
5
@
CBU
L 48-87
−29.5
7
vs
UTA
L 57-64
−8.5
11
vs
TAR
W 84-78
+4.5
12
vs
UTU
L 74-80
−4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
vs
OMA
W 73-71
−6.5
14
@
SFA
L 66-76
−0.5
18
@
TXST
L 49-63
−26.5
24
vs
UTSA
W 61-50
−33.5
25
vs
W&M
L 58-92
+2.5
2
@
PEPP
W 71-63
−3.5
6
vs
NMSU
W 77-69
+14.5
16
@
ARIZ
L 62-96
+12.5
19
@
BYU
L 67-85
+5.5
22
@
TXSO
W 75-68
+4.5
1
vs
UTU
L 64-79
+3.5
3
vs
UVU
W 85-68
+13.5
8
@
TAR
W 84-80
+23.5
10
@
UTA
L 72-82
+19.5
15
vs
CBU
L 58-74
−8.5
17
@
SUU
L 52-74
−23.5
29
vs
UTU
L 70-76
+0.5
31
vs
SUU
L 76-79
+4.5
5
@
UVU
L 55-68
−22.5
7
@
CBU
L 63-65
−7.5
12
vs
UTA
W 67-63
−4.5
14
vs
TAR
W 73-59
−2.5
16
@
TAR
L 62-65
−7.5
21
vs
SUU
W 87-83
+26.5
26
@
UTU
L 81-85
+26.5
28
@
UVU
L 67-74
+0.5
5
@
CBU
L 48-87
−1.5
7
vs
UTA
L 57-64
−10.5
11
vs
TAR
W 84-78
+27.5
12
vs
UTU
L 74-80
+11.5
over 16under 14avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Abilene Chrstn has the better starters
Position by position: Lamar 0, Abilene Chrstn 2, even 3
LamarBetterAbilene Chrstn
G F. Radakovic TR9.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 38
=Even
G N. Bolanga TR11.6 pts · 5.9 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 38
G N. Moretti TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 24
→ACUSmall
G Y. Rivera7.4 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 41
G Q. Berry TR6.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 61
=No call
G I. Dye1.7 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
G M. Collins TR1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 12
=No call
G E. Boisdur TR1.3 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
F M. Ljubicic TR5.5 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 7
→ACUBig
F C. Hornecker5.2 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 48
LamarBetterAbilene Chrstn
LAM offense334th of 366 · -10.9
→ACUBig
ACU defense200th of 366 · -5.0
LAM defense213th of 366 · -5.4
←LAMSmall
ACU offense298th of 366 · -9.2
Backcourt-4.6 · 4 players
=Even
Backcourt-3.6 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.4 · 1 player
→ACUSmall
Frontcourt-0.2 · 1 player
Bench-0.8 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestLAM betterACU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
F. Radakovic27 min · TRN. Moretti27 min · TRQ. Berry18 min · TRM. Collins9 min · TRJ. JonesNewS. LynchNew
Forwards
M. Ljubicic20 min · TRM. Reed7 min · TRC. HinkerNewA. AgotNewD. EasonNew
Guards
N. Bolanga34 min · TRY. Rivera25 minI. Dye6 minE. Boisdur6 min · TRT. Pons5 min · TRI. Neyhart3 min
Forwards
C. Hornecker16 minV. Yimga MoukouriNewS. RowleyNewW. Marie-AnaisNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.4 #308 | Points per game | 67.9 #313 |
| 1.04 #279 | Points per possession | 0.98 #340 |
| 66.1 #311 | Pace (possessions) | 69.2 #167 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.8 #318 | Effective FG% | 47.5 #326 |
| 32.9 #238 | 3-point % | 31.0 #319 |
| 33.9 #297 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.8 #318 |
| 27.9 #344 | Free throw rate | 41.7 #34 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.1 #273 | Turnover rate | 20.8 #356 |
| 35.7 #31 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.0 #164 |
| 13.9 #157 | Assists per game | 12.5 #249 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.5 #64 | Points allowed | 73.9 #151 |
| 1.07 #122 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #123 |
| 50.9 #153 | Opponent effective FG% | 56.5 #352 |
| 35.3 #266 | Opponent 3-point % | 40.9 #365 |
| 17.3 #130 | Turnovers forced | 23.4 #3 |
| 70.6 #130 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #113 |
| 6.1 #227 | Steals per game | 9.6 #4 |
| 4.2 #54 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #298 |
Lamar
10-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Hou Christian53–75
- L@ Incarnate Word60–72
- Lvs Nicholls52–53
- Lvs LSU N Orleans71–77
- L@ UT Rio Grande65–70
A week or more of rest.
Abilene Chrstn
11-19 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · United Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Utah Tech74–80
- Wvs Tarleton St84–78
- Lvs UT Arlington57–64
- L@ CA Baptist48–87
- L@ Utah Valley67–74
A week or more of rest.