Great Southern Bank Arena · at Missouri St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MOST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MOST 73–69 · win probability MOST 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.6
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: MOST has more of the edges
ACU 2, MOST 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: ACU 47.5 and allows 56.5; MOST 51.1 and allows 52.0
Three-pointers
ACU hits 31.0% and allows 40.9%; MOST hits 33.0% and allows 34.4%. Threes are 32.8% and 41.3% of their shots
ACU offense vs MOST defense
Offense 298th of 366 against a defense 219th, on the model’s ratings
MOST offense vs ACU defense
Offense 275th of 366 against a defense 200th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ACU 31.0%, MOST 32.0%. Defensive: ACU 70.9%, MOST 68.0%
Home court
MOST at home. This season: MOST 0-0 at home, ACU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: ACU plays 69.2 a game (167th fastest), MOST 67.4 (261st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: ACU 41.7, MOST 43.8. Allowed: ACU 53.5, MOST 40.2
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ACU 20.8%, MOST 16.7%. Forced: ACU 23.4%, MOST 16.9%
Context
Schedule so far
ACU has played the 183rd-hardest schedule, MOST the 180th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ACU 25%, MOST 25%. Transfers in: ACU 3, MOST 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | MOST -3.9 | — |
| Total | — | 142.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | ACU 69.3 · MOST 73.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MOST -2.2 | — |
| 1H total | 66.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | ACU 32.3 · MOST 34.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
ACU 0–1 MOSTMOST leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ACU 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2023-24 | ACU 69 vs MOST 87 | MOST -2.5 | MOST W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Missouri St
31 games played
Straight up
13-18
42% wins
Against the spread
18-13
58% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-12
61% overs · avg +3.1 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 11 | vs | L 85-86 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 49-67 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 143.5 | U 116 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 74-67 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 61-75 | -4.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 74-98 | +7.5 | L −16.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 12 | @ | L 57-75 | +18.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 63-62 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 23 | vs | W 70-65 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 61-43 | -1.5 | W +16.5 | 131.5 | U 104 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 79-55 | -3.5 | W +20.5 | 131.5 | O 134 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 89-82 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 134.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 80-90 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 79-71 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 72-87 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 148.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 87-90 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 84-75 | +6.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 62-57 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 71-80 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 74-67 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 76-79 | +9.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 78-79 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 136.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 67-76 | -9.5 | L −18.5 | 135.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 87-91 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 67-70 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 154.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 70-72 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 81-86 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 87-74 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 63-75 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 75-72 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 77-69 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 66-69 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 134.5 | O 135 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
11
vs
ARST
L 85-86
−2.5
15
@
UTA
L 49-67
−14.5
22
vs
RGV
W 74-67
+3.5
24
vs
LIU
L 61-75
−18.5
6
@
TLSA
L 74-98
−16.5
12
@
XAV
L 57-75
+0.5
16
vs
ORU
W 63-62
−3.5
23
vs
LIN
W 70-65
+1.5
29
@
DEL
W 61-43
+16.5
2
vs
UTEP
W 79-55
+20.5
4
vs
NMSU
W 89-82
+5.5
7
@
KENN
L 80-90
−3.5
10
vs
FIU
W 79-71
+5.5
14
@
WKU
L 72-87
−8.5
17
@
MTSU
L 87-90
+2.5
22
@
NMSU
W 84-75
+15.5
24
@
UTEP
W 62-57
+3.5
28
vs
SHSU
L 71-80
−10.5
31
vs
JXST
W 74-67
+2.5
7
@
LIB
L 76-79
+6.5
12
vs
LT
L 78-79
−4.5
14
vs
DEL
L 67-76
−18.5
18
vs
KENN
L 87-91
−5.5
21
@
FIU
L 67-70
+0.5
26
@
LT
L 70-72
+0.5
28
@
SHSU
L 81-86
+1.5
5
vs
WKU
W 87-74
+14.5
7
vs
MTSU
L 63-75
−14.5
10
vs
FIU
W 75-72
+1.5
11
vs
LIB
W 77-69
+12.5
13
vs
LT
L 66-69
−4.5
covered 18didn’t cover 13avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
11
vs
ARST
L 85-86
+18.5
15
@
UTA
L 49-67
−27.5
22
vs
RGV
W 74-67
−8.5
24
vs
LIU
L 61-75
−9.5
6
@
TLSA
L 74-98
+29.5
12
@
XAV
L 57-75
−19.5
16
vs
ORU
W 63-62
−21.5
23
vs
LIN
W 70-65
−10.5
29
@
DEL
W 61-43
−27.5
2
vs
UTEP
W 79-55
+2.5
4
vs
NMSU
W 89-82
+36.5
7
@
KENN
L 80-90
+17.5
10
vs
FIU
W 79-71
−3.5
14
@
WKU
L 72-87
+10.5
17
@
MTSU
L 87-90
+39.5
22
@
NMSU
W 84-75
+14.5
24
@
UTEP
W 62-57
−20.5
28
vs
SHSU
L 71-80
+2.5
31
vs
JXST
W 74-67
+5.5
7
@
LIB
L 76-79
+14.5
12
vs
LT
L 78-79
+20.5
14
vs
DEL
L 67-76
+7.5
18
vs
KENN
L 87-91
+25.5
21
@
FIU
L 67-70
−17.5
26
@
LT
L 70-72
+3.5
28
@
SHSU
L 81-86
+14.5
5
vs
WKU
W 87-74
+8.5
7
vs
MTSU
L 63-75
−7.5
10
vs
FIU
W 75-72
−5.5
11
vs
LIB
W 77-69
+3.5
13
vs
LT
L 66-69
+0.5
over 19under 12avg +3.1 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: Abilene Chrstn 0, Missouri St 0, even 5
Abilene ChrstnBetterMissouri St
G N. Bolanga TR11.6 pts · 5.9 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 38
=Even
G T. Williams9.2 pts · 1.9 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 34
G Y. Rivera7.4 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 41
=Even
G M. Cunningham3.1 pts · 2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 43
G I. Dye1.7 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F C. Boone1.3 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 19
G E. Boisdur TR1.3 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F M. Gray NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F C. Hornecker5.2 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 48
=No call
F C. Thompson NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
Abilene ChrstnBetterMissouri St
ACU offense298th of 366 · -9.2
→MOSTSmall
MOST defense219th of 366 · -5.7
ACU defense200th of 366 · -5.0
←ACUSmall
MOST offense275th of 366 · -8.4
Backcourt-3.6 · 4 players
→MOSTSmall
Backcourt-2.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.2 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-0.6 · 3 players
Bench-0.0 · 2 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestACU betterMOST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
T. Williams31 minM. Cunningham12 minK. StubblefieldNewJ. BlairNewD. RoweNew
Forwards
C. Boone8 minM. GrayNewC. ThompsonNewN. RueyNewL. RolleNewI. MedinaNew
Centers
A. AcimovicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.9 #313 | Points per game | 73.1 #223 |
| 0.98 #340 | Points per possession | 1.09 #169 |
| 69.2 #167 | Pace (possessions) | 67.4 #261 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.5 #326 | Effective FG% | 51.1 #191 |
| 31.0 #319 | 3-point % | 33.0 #236 |
| 32.8 #318 | 3-point attempt rate | 41.3 #144 |
| 41.7 #34 | Free throw rate | 43.8 #12 |
| Possessions | ||
| 20.8 #356 | Turnover rate | 16.7 #180 |
| 31.0 #164 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.0 #124 |
| 12.5 #249 | Assists per game | 13.9 #155 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.9 #151 | Points allowed | 74.3 #166 |
| 1.07 #123 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #222 |
| 56.5 #352 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.0 #217 |
| 40.9 #365 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.4 #209 |
| 23.4 #3 | Turnovers forced | 16.9 #158 |
| 70.9 #113 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #261 |
| 9.6 #4 | Steals per game | 6.7 #152 |
| 2.6 #298 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #215 |
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.
Missouri St
13-18 in 2025-26 overall · 10-13 in conference · Conference USA
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Louisiana Tech66–69
- Wvs Liberty77–69
- Wvs FIU75–72
- Lvs MTSU63–75
- Wvs Western KY87–74
A week or more of rest.