UL Monroe Warhawks at TCU Horned Frogs: Model Line and Edge

Tue, Nov 10, 9:00 PM ETSchollmaier Arena · at TCU

#40TCUTCU

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: UL Monroe and TCU
ULM	This season	TCU
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 TCU 93–59 · win probability TCU 100%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 151.6

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: TCU has more of the edges

ULM 0, TCU 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

TCUBig

TCU offense vs ULM defense

Offense 48th of 366 against a defense 361st, on the model’s ratings

TCUBig

ULM offense vs TCU defense

Offense 332nd of 366 against a defense 27th, on the model’s ratings

TCUBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: ULM 25.1%, TCU 34.0%. Defensive: ULM 64.6%, TCU 70.9%

Context

Schedule so far

ULM has played the 216th-hardest schedule, TCU the 29th. A record against a soft schedule means less

TCUBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: ULM 16.9%, TCU 15.3%. Forced: ULM 15.7%, TCU 19.5%

TCUBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: ULM 47.8 and allows 57.1; TCU 50.4 and allows 51.2

TCUBig

Three-pointers

ULM hits 32.2% and allows 36.9%; TCU hits 33.2% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 41.9% and 36.8% of their shots

TCUSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: ULM 1%, TCU 52%. Transfers in: ULM 6, TCU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

TCUSmall

Home court

TCU at home. This season: TCU 0-0 at home, ULM 0-0 away

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: ULM 38.8, TCU 37.5. Allowed: ULM 27.7, TCU 30.4

Context

Tempo

About 71 possessions: ULM plays 71.3 a game (58th fastest), TCU 70.2 (108th). 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	—	TCU -34.2	—
Total	—	151.6	—
Projected score	—	ULM 58.7 · TCU 92.9

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	TCU -20.2	—
1H total	70.9	—
1H projected score	ULM 25.3 · TCU 45.6	—

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	—
TCU WLLWL	19-16	54%	9-10	—

Venue/role: ULM away; TCU 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
TCU UOOUU	15-20	43%	23-12

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%
TCU	7-3 70%	6-4 60%	3-7 30%

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 13	@ ASU	No recent meeting
Nov 14	@ GCU	No recent meeting
Nov 18	@ LSU	L60–95LO

TCU

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 13	vs MILW	No recent meeting
Nov 19	vs TA&M	W68–64WO
Nov 24	vs MIA	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

ULM 0–1 TCUTCU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ULM 0-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 17, 2022-23	ULM 60 @ TCU 95	TCU -15.5	TCU 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

TCU

35 games played

Straight up

23-12

66% wins

Against the spread

19-16

54% covers · avg +0.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-20

43% overs · avg −0.3 pts vs the total

Straight up

23-1266%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

19-1654%

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

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-2043%

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

2 straight unders2 of last 4 over

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	vsNOLA	L 74-78	-21.5	L −25.5	149.5	O 152
Nov 6	vsSFPA	W 104-63	-27.5	W +13.5	153.5	O 167
Nov 10	vsLAM	W 78-65	-18.5	L −5.5	147.5	U 143
Nov 14	vsMICH	L 63-67	+7.5	W +3.5	164.5	U 130
Nov 19	vsKC	W 81-45	-23.5	W +12.5	150.5	U 126
Nov 27	vsFLA	W 84-80	+11.5	W +15.5	155.5	O 164
Nov 28	vsWIS	W 74-63	+5.5	W +16.5	157.5	U 137
Dec 5	vsND	L 85-87	-6.5	L −8.5	141.5	O 172
Dec 7	@UNT	W 65-55	-9.5	W +0.5	135.5	U 120
Dec 15	vsUIW	W 69-65	-19.5	L −15.5	143.5	U 134
Dec 18	vsORU	W 72-53	-23.5	L −4.5	147.5	U 125
Dec 21	vsFAMU	W 80-56	-29.5	L −5.5	142.5	U 136
Dec 29	vsJKST	W 115-64	-30.5	W +20.5	143.5	O 179
Jan 3	vsBAY	W 69-63	-2.5	W +3.5	154.5	U 132
Jan 6	@KU	L 100-104	+6.5	W +2.5	143.5	O 204
Jan 10	vsARIZ	L 73-86	+7.5	L −5.5	157.5	O 159
Jan 14	@BYU	L 70-76	+13.5	W +7.5	162.5	U 146
Jan 17	@UTAH	L 79-82	-4.5	L −7.5	154.5	O 161
Jan 20	vsOKST	W 68-65	-8.5	L −5.5	161.5	U 133
Jan 24	@BAY	W 97-90	+4.5	W +11.5	147.5	O 187
Jan 28	vsHOU	L 70-79	+8.5	L −0.5	139.5	O 149
Feb 1	@COLO	L 61-87	-1.5	L −27.5	153.5	U 148
Feb 7	vsKSU	W 84-82	-9.5	L −7.5	155.5	O 166
Feb 10	vsISU	W 62-55	+7.5	W +14.5	147.5	U 117
Feb 14	@OKST	W 95-92	-1.5	W +1.5	156.5	O 187
Feb 17	@UCF	L 71-82	-1.5	L −12.5	154.5	U 153
Feb 21	vsWVU	W 60-54	-4.5	W +1.5	133.5	U 114
Feb 24	vsASU	W 90-78	-6.5	W +5.5	149.5	O 168
Feb 28	@KSU	W 77-68	-3.5	W +5.5	159.5	U 145
Mar 3	@TTU	W 73-65	+8.5	W +16.5	147.5	U 138
Mar 7	vsCIN	W 73-63	-2.5	W +7.5	140.5	U 136
Mar 11	vsOKST	W 95-88	-7.5	L −0.5	158.5	O 183
Mar 12	vsKU	L 73-78	+4.5	L −0.5	146.5	O 151
Mar 19	vsOSU	W 66-64	+2.5	W +4.5	145.5	U 130
Mar 21	vsDUKE	L 58-81	+12.5	L −10.5	140.5	U 139

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

NOLA

L 74-78

−25.5

SFPA

W 104-63

+13.5

LAM

W 78-65

−5.5

MICH

L 63-67

+3.5

W 81-45

+12.5

FLA

W 84-80

+15.5

WIS

W 74-63

+16.5

L 85-87

−8.5

UNT

W 65-55

+0.5

UIW

W 69-65

−15.5

ORU

W 72-53

−4.5

FAMU

W 80-56

−5.5

JKST

W 115-64

+20.5

BAY

W 69-63

+3.5

L 100-104

+2.5

ARIZ

L 73-86

−5.5

BYU

L 70-76

+7.5

UTAH

L 79-82

−7.5

OKST

W 68-65

−5.5

BAY

W 97-90

+11.5

HOU

L 70-79

−0.5

COLO

L 61-87

−27.5

KSU

W 84-82

−7.5

ISU

W 62-55

+14.5

OKST

W 95-92

+1.5

UCF

L 71-82

−12.5

WVU

W 60-54

+1.5

ASU

W 90-78

+5.5

KSU

W 77-68

+5.5

TTU

W 73-65

+16.5

CIN

W 73-63

+7.5

OKST

W 95-88

−0.5

L 73-78

−0.5

OSU

W 66-64

+4.5

DUKE

L 58-81

−10.5

covered 19didn’t cover 16avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

NOLA

L 74-78

+2.5

SFPA

W 104-63

+13.5

LAM

W 78-65

−4.5

MICH

L 63-67

−34.5

W 81-45

−24.5

FLA

W 84-80

+8.5

WIS

W 74-63

−20.5

L 85-87

+30.5

UNT

W 65-55

−15.5

UIW

W 69-65

−9.5

ORU

W 72-53

−22.5

FAMU

W 80-56

−6.5

JKST

W 115-64

+35.5

BAY

W 69-63

−22.5

L 100-104

+60.5

ARIZ

L 73-86

+1.5

BYU

L 70-76

−16.5

UTAH

L 79-82

+6.5

OKST

W 68-65

−28.5

BAY

W 97-90

+39.5

HOU

L 70-79

+9.5

COLO

L 61-87

−5.5

KSU

W 84-82

+10.5

ISU

W 62-55

−30.5

OKST

W 95-92

+30.5

UCF

L 71-82

−1.5

WVU

W 60-54

−19.5

ASU

W 90-78

+18.5

KSU

W 77-68

−14.5

TTU

W 73-65

−9.5

CIN

W 73-63

−4.5

OKST

W 95-88

+24.5

L 73-78

+4.5

OSU

W 66-64

−15.5

DUKE

L 58-81

−1.5

over 15under 20avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

TCU has the better starters

Position by position: UL Monroe 0, TCU 3, even 2

UL MonroeBetterTCU

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

TCUBig

G G. Sykes TR19.7 pts · 3 reb · 1.5 ast Score 89

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

TCUBig

G B. Harding8 pts · 2.9 reb · 5.6 ast Score 67

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

TCUSmall

G M. Robinson10.9 pts · 4.7 reb · 1.7 ast Score 85

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

No call

G T. Toolson7.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast Score 75

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

No call

F X. Edmonds12.7 pts · 6.5 reb · 1.2 ast Score 98

UL MonroeBetterTCU

ULM offense332nd of 366 · -10.8

TCUBig

TCU defense27th of 366 · +3.9

ULM defense361st of 366 · -11.5

TCUBig

TCU offense48th of 366 · +3.8

Backcourt-4.2 · 4 players

TCUBig

Backcourt+5.6 · 4 players

Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player

TCUBig

Frontcourt+4.4 · 1 player

Bench-0.1 · 2 players

TCUSmall

Bench+1.6 · 3 players

Score, worst to bestULM betterTCU 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

TCU

Guards

G. Sykes34 min · TRB. Harding32 minM. Robinson27 minT. Toolson21 minD. McElroy1 minG. MurphyNew

Forwards

X. Edmonds23 minD. Thomas17 min · TRL. Bamgboye17 min · TRR. HuntNewS. FlemingNewM. SojicNew

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

TCU77.4 #109

Points per possession

ULM1.00 #321

TCU1.10 #127

Pace (possessions)

ULM71.3 #58

TCU70.2 #108

Shooting

Effective FG%

ULM47.8 #316

TCU50.4 #221

3-point %

ULM32.2 #270

TCU33.2 #220

3-point attempt rate

ULM41.9 #135

TCU36.8 #233

Free throw rate

ULM38.8 #85

TCU37.5 #112

Possessions

Turnover rate

ULM16.9 #196

TCU15.3 #90

Offensive rebound rate

ULM25.1 #338

TCU34.0 #67

Assists per game

ULM11.9 #288

TCU15.4 #71

Defense

Points allowed

ULM85.4 #361

TCU72.1 #107

Points allowed per possession

ULM1.20 #358

TCU1.02 #50

Opponent effective FG%

ULM57.1 #358

TCU51.2 #172

Opponent 3-point %

ULM36.9 #343

TCU33.5 #158

Turnovers forced

ULM15.7 #235

TCU19.5 #33

Defensive rebound rate

ULM64.6 #345

TCU70.9 #112

Steals per game

ULM6.0 #237

TCU7.7 #61

Blocks per game

ULM3.2 #189

TCU4.5 #39

ULM		TCU
Scoring
71.7 #255	Points per game	77.4 #109
1.00 #321	Points per possession	1.10 #127
71.3 #58	Pace (possessions)	70.2 #108
Shooting
47.8 #316	Effective FG%	50.4 #221
32.2 #270	3-point %	33.2 #220
41.9 #135	3-point attempt rate	36.8 #233
38.8 #85	Free throw rate	37.5 #112
Possessions
16.9 #196	Turnover rate	15.3 #90
25.1 #338	Offensive rebound rate	34.0 #67
11.9 #288	Assists per game	15.4 #71
Defense
85.4 #361	Points allowed	72.1 #107
1.20 #358	Points allowed per possession	1.02 #50
57.1 #358	Opponent effective FG%	51.2 #172
36.9 #343	Opponent 3-point %	33.5 #158
15.7 #235	Turnovers forced	19.5 #33
64.6 #345	Defensive rebound rate	70.9 #112
6.0 #237	Steals per game	7.7 #61
3.2 #189	Blocks per game	4.5 #39

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.

TCU

23-12 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big 12 Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Duke58–81
Wvs Ohio State66–64
Lvs Kansas73–78
Wvs Oklahoma St95–88
Wvs Cincinnati73–63

A week or more of rest.

UL Monroe Warhawks at TCU Horned Frogs

What could decide it: TCU 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

TCU

TCU has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

UL Monroe

TCU