UL Monroe Warhawks at Texas A&M Aggies: Model Line and Edge

Mon, Nov 9, 8:00 PM ETReed Arena · at Texas A&M

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: UL Monroe and Texas A&M
ULM	This season	TA&M
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 TA&M 98–63 · win probability TA&M 100%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 160.2

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: TA&M has more of the edges

ULM 1, TA&M 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

TA&MBig

TA&M offense vs ULM defense

Offense 20th of 366 against a defense 361st, on the model’s ratings

TA&MBig

ULM offense vs TA&M defense

Offense 332nd of 366 against a defense 62nd, on the model’s ratings

TA&MBig

Three-pointers

ULM hits 32.2% and allows 36.9%; TA&M hits 35.9% and allows 31.8%. Threes are 41.9% and 46.2% of their shots

TA&MBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: ULM 47.8 and allows 57.1; TA&M 53.8 and allows 50.7

Context

Schedule so far

ULM has played the 216th-hardest schedule, TA&M the 57th. A record against a soft schedule means less

TA&MBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: ULM 16.9%, TA&M 14.7%. Forced: ULM 15.7%, TA&M 18.4%

TA&MBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: ULM 25.1%, TA&M 32.0%. Defensive: ULM 64.6%, TA&M 67.0%

ULMSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: ULM 38.8, TA&M 37.1. Allowed: ULM 27.7, TA&M 35.4

TA&MSmall

Home court

TA&M at home. This season: TA&M 0-0 at home, ULM 0-0 away

TA&MSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: ULM 1%, TA&M 25%. Transfers in: ULM 6, TA&M 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 72 possessions: ULM plays 71.3 a game (58th fastest), TA&M 73.5 (15th). Faster games mean more points

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	TA&M -34.8	—
Total	—	160.2	—
Projected score	—	ULM 62.7 · TA&M 97.5

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	TA&M -20.6	—
1H total	74.8	—
1H projected score	ULM 27.1 · TA&M 47.7	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
ULM WWLWW	17-12	59%	9-7	—
TA&M WWLWL	19-15	56%	9-9	—

Venue/role: ULM away; TA&M home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
ULM UOUUO	20-9	69%	2-28
TA&M OOUUO	19-15	56%	22-12

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
ULM	1-9 10%	7-3 70%	6-4 60%
TA&M	5-5 50%	4-6 40%	4-6 40%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

UL Monroe

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 10	@ TCU	L60–95LO
Nov 13	@ ASU	No recent meeting
Nov 14	@ GCU	No recent meeting

Texas A&M

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 12	vs OKST	L63–87LU
Nov 16	vs SELA	No recent meeting
Nov 19	@ TCU	L64–68LO

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

ULM 0–1 TA&MTA&M leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ULM 0-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 7, 2022-23	ULM 54 @ TA&M 87	TA&M -20.5	TA&M W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

UL Monroe

30 games played

Straight up

2-28

7% wins

Against the spread

17-12

59% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

20-9

69% overs · avg +6.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

2-287%

L L L L L L W L L L L L L L L L L L L L L W L L L L L L L L

8 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1259%

L W L L W L W L W W L W L W W W L L W–W W L L W W W L W W

2 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

20-969%

O O U O O O U O O O O O O O O U U O U–O O U O O U O U U O

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@NIU	L 82-102	+7.5	L −12.5	147.5	O 184
Nov 7	@MISS	L 65-86	+37.5	W +16.5	149.5	O 151
Nov 13	@HCU	L 61-72	+8.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 133
Nov 17	vsLAM	L 66-79	+11.5	L −1.5	140.5	O 145
Nov 22	vsMORE	L 80-83	+6.5	W +3.5	145.5	O 163
Nov 23	@ETSU	L 55-97	+19.5	L −22.5	146.5	O 152
Dec 3	vsMVSU	W 66-52	-9.5	W +4.5	149.5	U 118
Dec 7	@SFA	L 76-96	+19.5	L −0.5	142.5	O 172
Dec 13	@MIA	L 79-104	+35.5	W +10.5	153.5	O 183
Dec 17	vsUSA	L 92-96	+9.5	W +5.5	148.5	O 188
Dec 20	vsUL	L 62-76	+1.5	L −12.5	136.5	O 138
Dec 28	@KSU	L 85-94	+32.5	W +23.5	169.5	O 179
Jan 1	vsUSM	L 73-87	+9.5	L −4.5	152.5	O 160
Jan 3	vsTXST	L 79-84	+10.5	W +5.5	150.5	O 163
Jan 8	@UL	L 79-85	+7.5	W +1.5	139.5	O 164
Jan 10	@USM	L 60-70	+14.5	W +4.5	155.5	U 130
Jan 17	vsGAST	L 57-77	+6.5	L −13.5	155.5	U 134
Jan 22	@MRSH	L 60-115	+18.5	L −36.5	160.5	O 175
Jan 23	@APP	L 43-59	+16.5	W +0.5	144.5	U 102
Jan 30	vsGASO	L 76-79	—	—	—	—
Feb 1	vsCCU	L 79-83	+10.5	W +6.5	146.5	O 162
Feb 4	@ODU	W 85-79	+14.5	W +20.5	154.5	O 164
Feb 7	vsBALL	L 68-73	+4.5	L −0.5	143.5	U 141
Feb 11	@ARST	L 70-103	+20.5	L −12.5	162.5	O 173
Feb 14	@TXST	L 84-95	+14.5	W +3.5	149.5	O 179
Feb 18	vsTROY	L 76-77	+17.5	W +16.5	153.5	U 153
Feb 21	vsARST	L 94-102	+15.5	W +7.5	165.5	O 196
Feb 25	@USA	L 54-89	+14.5	L −20.5	153.5	U 143
Feb 27	@TROY	L 65-80	+18.5	W +3.5	153.5	U 145
Mar 3	vsODU	L 80-87	+9.5	W +2.5	157.5	O 167

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

NIU

L 82-102

−12.5

MISS

L 65-86

+16.5

HCU

L 61-72

−2.5

LAM

L 66-79

−1.5

L 80-83

+3.5

ETSU

L 55-97

−22.5

MVSU

W 66-52

+4.5

SFA

L 76-96

−0.5

MIA

L 79-104

+10.5

USA

L 92-96

+5.5

L 62-76

−12.5

KSU

L 85-94

+23.5

USM

L 73-87

−4.5

TXST

L 79-84

+5.5

L 79-85

+1.5

USM

L 60-70

+4.5

GAST

L 57-77

−13.5

MRSH

L 60-115

−36.5

APP

L 43-59

+0.5

CCU

L 79-83

+6.5

ODU

W 85-79

+20.5

BALL

L 68-73

−0.5

ARST

L 70-103

−12.5

TXST

L 84-95

+3.5

TROY

L 76-77

+16.5

ARST

L 94-102

+7.5

USA

L 54-89

−20.5

TROY

L 65-80

+3.5

ODU

L 80-87

+2.5

covered 17didn’t cover 12avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

NIU

L 82-102

+36.5

MISS

L 65-86

+1.5

HCU

L 61-72

−10.5

LAM

L 66-79

+4.5

L 80-83

+17.5

ETSU

L 55-97

+5.5

MVSU

W 66-52

−31.5

SFA

L 76-96

+29.5

MIA

L 79-104

+29.5

USA

L 92-96

+39.5

L 62-76

+1.5

KSU

L 85-94

+9.5

USM

L 73-87

+7.5

TXST

L 79-84

+12.5

L 79-85

+24.5

USM

L 60-70

−25.5

GAST

L 57-77

−21.5

MRSH

L 60-115

+14.5

APP

L 43-59

−42.5

CCU

L 79-83

+15.5

ODU

W 85-79

+9.5

BALL

L 68-73

−2.5

ARST

L 70-103

+10.5

TXST

L 84-95

+29.5

TROY

L 76-77

−0.5

ARST

L 94-102

+30.5

USA

L 54-89

−10.5

TROY

L 65-80

−8.5

ODU

L 80-87

+9.5

over 20under 9avg +6.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Texas A&M

34 games played

Straight up

22-12

65% wins

Against the spread

19-15

56% covers · avg +0.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-15

56% overs · avg +1.7 pts vs the total

Straight up

22-1265%

W W L L W W W W W L W W W W W W L W W W W L L L L W W L L W W L W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

19-1556%

W W L L L W L W W L W W L L W W W W W W W W L L L L W L L W W L W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

19-1556%

O O U U O O O U O O O O O U O U O U U O U O U O U U U O U O O U U O

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsNWST	W 98-68	-21.5	W +8.5	153.5	O 166
Nov 6	vsTXSO	W 104-70	-29.5	W +4.5	161.5	O 174
Nov 9	@OKST	L 63-87	-2.5	L −26.5	174.5	U 150
Nov 14	vsUCF	L 74-86	-10.5	L −22.5	172.5	U 160
Nov 18	vsMONT	W 86-81	-17.5	L −12.5	164.5	O 167
Nov 21	vsMAN	W 109-68	-23.5	W +17.5	162.5	O 177
Nov 25	vsMVSU	W 120-84	-42.5	L −6.5	154.5	O 204
Nov 28	vsFSU	W 95-59	+1.5	W +37.5	174.5	U 154
Dec 2	@PITT	W 81-73	-3.5	W +4.5	152.5	O 154
Dec 7	vsSMU	L 80-93	-1.5	L −14.5	164.5	O 173
Dec 14	vsJAX	W 112-75	-26.5	W +10.5	147.5	O 187
Dec 21	vsETAM	W 118-77	-28.5	W +12.5	166.5	O 195
Dec 29	vsPV	W 111-82	-29.5	L −0.5	177.5	O 193
Jan 3	vsLSU	W 75-72	-5.5	L −2.5	168.5	U 147
Jan 6	@AUB	W 90-88	+6.5	W +8.5	168.5	O 178
Jan 10	vsOU	W 83-76	-4.5	W +2.5	165.5	U 159
Jan 13	@TENN	L 82-87	+11.5	W +6.5	159.5	O 169
Jan 17	@TEX	W 74-70	+4.5	W +8.5	166.5	U 144
Jan 21	vsMSST	W 88-68	-8.5	W +11.5	163.5	U 156
Jan 24	vsSC	W 92-69	-10.5	W +12.5	155.5	O 161
Jan 31	@UGA	W 92-77	+4.5	W +19.5	173.5	U 169
Feb 4	@ALA	L 97-100	+8.5	W +5.5	180.5	O 197
Feb 7	vsFLA	L 67-86	+5.5	L −13.5	167.5	U 153
Feb 11	vsMIZ	L 85-86	-7.5	L −8.5	160.5	O 171
Feb 14	@VAN	L 69-82	+7.5	L −5.5	165.5	U 151
Feb 18	vsMISS	W 80-77	-9.5	L −6.5	157.5	U 157
Feb 21	@OU	W 75-71	-1.5	W +2.5	165.5	U 146
Feb 25	@ARK	L 84-99	+7.5	L −7.5	170.5	O 183
Feb 28	vsTEX	L 70-76	-2.5	L −8.5	159.5	U 146
Mar 3	vsUK	W 96-85	-1.5	W +9.5	162.5	O 181
Mar 7	@LSU	W 94-91	-2.5	W +0.5	161.5	O 185
Mar 12	vsOU	L 63-83	-2.5	L −22.5	162.5	U 146
Mar 19	vsSMC	W 63-50	+2.5	W +15.5	149.5	U 113
Mar 21	vsHOU	L 57-88	+10.5	L −20.5	142.5	O 145

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

NWST

W 98-68

+8.5

TXSO

W 104-70

+4.5

OKST

L 63-87

−26.5

UCF

L 74-86

−22.5

MONT

W 86-81

−12.5

MAN

W 109-68

+17.5

MVSU

W 120-84

−6.5

FSU

W 95-59

+37.5

PITT

W 81-73

+4.5

SMU

L 80-93

−14.5

JAX

W 112-75

+10.5

ETAM

W 118-77

+12.5

W 111-82

−0.5

LSU

W 75-72

−2.5

AUB

W 90-88

+8.5

W 83-76

+2.5

TENN

L 82-87

+6.5

TEX

W 74-70

+8.5

MSST

W 88-68

+11.5

W 92-69

+12.5

UGA

W 92-77

+19.5

ALA

L 97-100

+5.5

FLA

L 67-86

−13.5

MIZ

L 85-86

−8.5

VAN

L 69-82

−5.5

MISS

W 80-77

−6.5

W 75-71

+2.5

ARK

L 84-99

−7.5

TEX

L 70-76

−8.5

W 96-85

+9.5

LSU

W 94-91

+0.5

L 63-83

−22.5

SMC

W 63-50

+15.5

HOU

L 57-88

−20.5

covered 19didn’t cover 15avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

NWST

W 98-68

+12.5

TXSO

W 104-70

+12.5

OKST

L 63-87

−24.5

UCF

L 74-86

−12.5

MONT

W 86-81

+2.5

MAN

W 109-68

+14.5

MVSU

W 120-84

+49.5

FSU

W 95-59

−20.5

PITT

W 81-73

+1.5

SMU

L 80-93

+8.5

JAX

W 112-75

+39.5

ETAM

W 118-77

+28.5

W 111-82

+15.5

LSU

W 75-72

−21.5

AUB

W 90-88

+9.5

W 83-76

−6.5

TENN

L 82-87

+9.5

TEX

W 74-70

−22.5

MSST

W 88-68

−7.5

W 92-69

+5.5

UGA

W 92-77

−4.5

ALA

L 97-100

+16.5

FLA

L 67-86

−14.5

MIZ

L 85-86

+10.5

VAN

L 69-82

−14.5

MISS

W 80-77

−0.5

W 75-71

−19.5

ARK

L 84-99

+12.5

TEX

L 70-76

−13.5

W 96-85

+18.5

LSU

W 94-91

+23.5

L 63-83

−16.5

SMC

W 63-50

−36.5

HOU

L 57-88

+2.5

over 19under 15avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Texas A&M has the better starters

Position by position: UL Monroe 0, Texas A&M 3, even 2

UL MonroeBetterTexas A&M

G D. Anderson TR5.1 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.6 ast Score 23

TA&MBig

G P. Haggerty TR23.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 3.8 ast Score 98

G K. London TR5.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 1 ast Score 5

TA&MBig

G J. Pope TR13.1 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.7 ast Score 78

G Q. McPherson TR4.4 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.5 ast Score 60

TA&MSmall

G T. Archie TR14.2 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.8 ast Score 91

G R. Cowherd TR0.9 pts · 0 reb · 0.1 ast Not ranked

No call

G L. Walls TR7.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 1 ast Score 37

C J. Lafleur TR1 pts · 2.5 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

F J. Shelley TR13.9 pts · 6.6 reb · 2.6 ast Score 76

UL MonroeBetterTexas A&M

ULM offense332nd of 366 · -10.8

TA&MBig

TA&M defense62nd of 366 · +1.2

ULM defense361st of 366 · -11.5

TA&MBig

TA&M offense20th of 366 · +7.7

Backcourt-4.2 · 4 players

TA&MBig

Backcourt+8.6 · 4 players

Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player

TA&MSmall

Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player

Bench-0.1 · 2 players

TA&MSmall

Bench+2.5 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestULM betterTA&M betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

UL Monroe

Guards

D. Anderson16 min · TRK. London14 min · TRQ. McPherson11 min · TRR. Cowherd5 min · TRC. Campbell1 minP. TillmanNew

Forwards

L. Carr2 min · TRG. ChamberlainNewJ. RegisteNewG. SchoentgenNew

Centers

J. Lafleur6 min · TRM. AdonryNewZ. NdanckyNew

Texas A&M

Guards

P. Haggerty35 min · TRJ. Pope29 min · TRT. Archie26 min · TRL. Walls24 min · TRJ. Reece24 min · TRJ. Green5 min

Forwards

J. Shelley32 min · TRM. Mgbako19 minZ. Clemence17 minC. Phillips17 min · TRJ. Vinson7 minC. McDermott4 min

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

ULM71.7 #255

TA&M86.1 #12

Points per possession

ULM1.00 #321

TA&M1.17 #43

Pace (possessions)

ULM71.3 #58

TA&M73.5 #15

Shooting

Effective FG%

ULM47.8 #316

TA&M53.8 #71

3-point %

ULM32.2 #270

TA&M35.9 #63

3-point attempt rate

ULM41.9 #135

TA&M46.2 #42

Free throw rate

ULM38.8 #85

TA&M37.1 #128

Possessions

Turnover rate

ULM16.9 #196

TA&M14.7 #48

Offensive rebound rate

ULM25.1 #338

TA&M32.0 #122

Assists per game

ULM11.9 #288

TA&M17.8 #11

Defense

Points allowed

ULM85.4 #361

TA&M78.9 #296

Points allowed per possession

ULM1.20 #358

TA&M1.08 #151

Opponent effective FG%

ULM57.1 #358

TA&M50.7 #141

Opponent 3-point %

ULM36.9 #343

TA&M31.8 #53

Turnovers forced

ULM15.7 #235

TA&M18.4 #81

Defensive rebound rate

ULM64.6 #345

TA&M67.0 #300

Steals per game

ULM6.0 #237

TA&M8.1 #34

Blocks per game

ULM3.2 #189

TA&M3.1 #210

ULM		TA&M
Scoring
71.7 #255	Points per game	86.1 #12
1.00 #321	Points per possession	1.17 #43
71.3 #58	Pace (possessions)	73.5 #15
Shooting
47.8 #316	Effective FG%	53.8 #71
32.2 #270	3-point %	35.9 #63
41.9 #135	3-point attempt rate	46.2 #42
38.8 #85	Free throw rate	37.1 #128
Possessions
16.9 #196	Turnover rate	14.7 #48
25.1 #338	Offensive rebound rate	32.0 #122
11.9 #288	Assists per game	17.8 #11
Defense
85.4 #361	Points allowed	78.9 #296
1.20 #358	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #151
57.1 #358	Opponent effective FG%	50.7 #141
36.9 #343	Opponent 3-point %	31.8 #53
15.7 #235	Turnovers forced	18.4 #81
64.6 #345	Defensive rebound rate	67.0 #300
6.0 #237	Steals per game	8.1 #34
3.2 #189	Blocks per game	3.1 #210

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

UL Monroe

2-28 in 2025-26 overall · 1-18 in conference · Sun Belt Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Old Dominion80–87
L@ Troy65–80
L@ South Alabama54–89
Lvs Arkansas St94–102
Lvs Troy76–77

A week or more of rest.

Texas A&M

22-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Southeastern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Houston57–88
Wvs Saint Mary's63–50
Lvs Oklahoma63–83
W@ LSU94–91
Wvs Kentucky96–85

A week or more of rest.

UL Monroe Warhawks at Texas A&M Aggies

What could decide it: TA&M has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

UL Monroe

Texas A&M

Texas A&M has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

UL Monroe

Texas A&M