Houston Christian Huskies at UL Monroe Warhawks: Model Line and Edge

Tue, Nov 24, 7:30 PM ETb1Bank Fant Coliseum · at UL Monroe

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Hou Christian and UL Monroe
HCU	This season	ULM
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 HCU 75–70 · win probability HCU 65%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 144.7

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: HCU has more of the edges

HCU 4, ULM 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: HCU plays 64.7 a game (352nd fastest), ULM 71.3 (58th). Faster games mean more points

HCUBig

ULM offense vs HCU defense

Offense 332nd of 366 against a defense 203rd, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

HCU has played the 332nd-hardest schedule, ULM the 216th. A record against a soft schedule means less

HCUSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: HCU 29.9%, ULM 25.1%. Defensive: HCU 67.5%, ULM 64.6%

HCUSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: HCU 49.7 and allows 54.2; ULM 47.8 and allows 57.1

ULMSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: HCU 36.0, ULM 38.8. Allowed: HCU 30.7, ULM 27.7

ULMSmall

Home court

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

HCUSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: HCU 25%, ULM 1%. Transfers in: HCU 5, ULM 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Three-pointers

HCU hits 31.7% and allows 35.0%; ULM hits 32.2% and allows 36.9%. Threes are 36.5% and 41.9% of their shots

Even

HCU offense vs ULM defense

Offense 342nd of 366 against a defense 361st, on the model’s ratings

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: HCU 18.9%, ULM 16.9%. Forced: HCU 17.6%, ULM 15.7%

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	—	HCU -4.6	—
Total	—	144.7	—
Projected score	—	HCU 74.6 · ULM 70

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	HCU -2.8	—
1H total	67.7	—
1H projected score	HCU 35.3 · ULM 32.4	—

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
HCU LWLWL	14-16	47%	8-9	—
ULM WWLWW	17-12	59%	6-5	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
HCU UUUUU	14-16	47%	10-20
ULM UOUUO	20-9	69%	2-28

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
HCU	4-6 40%	4-6 40%	2-8 20%
ULM	1-9 10%	7-3 70%	6-4 60%

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

Hou Christian

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 30	vs WIU	No recent meeting
Dec 2	@ UL	No recent meeting
Dec 5	@ MCN	L69–73WO

UL Monroe

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 29	@ TULN	L64–80LU
Dec 2	@ LAM	L66–79LO
Dec 5	vs GAST	L57–77LU

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

HCU 2–0 ULMHCU leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · HCU has won the last 2 meetings · HCU 2-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 13, 2025-26	ULM 61 @ HCU 72	HCU -8.5	HCU W
Dec 17, 2024-25	HCU 74 @ ULM 68	ULM -3.5	HCU W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

Hou Christian

30 games played

Straight up

10-20

33% wins

Against the spread

14-16

47% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

14-16

47% overs · avg −0.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

10-2033%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

14-1647%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

14-1647%

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

5 straight unders0 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 8	@UCSD	L 60-78	+7.5	L −10.5	141.5	U 138
Nov 13	vsULM	W 72-61	-8.5	W +2.5	143.5	U 133
Nov 25	@BELL	L 69-74	-2.5	L −7.5	144.5	U 143
Nov 26	@CIT	W 72-65	-1.5	W +5.5	137.5	U 137
Nov 29	@GASO	L 62-80	+7.5	L −10.5	148.5	U 142
Dec 2	@UNT	L 75-77	+11.5	W +9.5	127.5	O 152
Dec 6	@NOLA	W 85-76	+4.5	W +13.5	140.5	O 161
Dec 13	vsSELA	L 71-74	-2.5	L −5.5	132.5	O 145
Dec 15	vsMCN	L 68-78	+14.5	W +4.5	137.5	O 146
Dec 17	@NICH	L 64-79	+3.5	L −11.5	137.5	O 143
Dec 29	@ISU	L 61-89	+35.5	W +7.5	145.5	O 150
Jan 3	@UIW	L 56-73	+6.5	L −10.5	141.5	U 129
Jan 5	vsAMCC	L 65-81	+3.5	L −12.5	132.5	O 146
Jan 10	@SFA	L 67-85	+12.5	L −5.5	137.5	O 152
Jan 12	@LAM	L 56-64	+8.5	W +0.5	134.5	U 120
Jan 17	vsETAM	W 81-70	-2.5	W +8.5	139.5	O 151
Jan 19	vsNWST	W 82-80	-2.5	L −0.5	139.5	O 162
Jan 24	vsRGV	L 51-68	+2.5	L −14.5	140.5	U 119
Jan 27	vsUIW	W 81-75	+1.5	W +7.5	140.5	O 156
Jan 31	@AMCC	L 71-73	+7.5	W +5.5	135.5	O 144
Feb 2	@RGV	L 57-74	+9.5	L −7.5	141.5	U 131
Feb 7	@SELA	L 47-55	+4.5	L −3.5	133.5	U 102
Feb 9	@MCN	L 69-73	+21.5	W +17.5	137.5	O 142
Feb 14	vsNOLA	W 61-60	-1.5	L −0.5	148.5	U 121
Feb 16	vsNICH	W 72-68	-1.5	W +2.5	136.5	O 140
Feb 21	@NWST	L 53-71	+2.5	L −15.5	134.5	U 124
Feb 23	@ETAM	W 69-68	+2.5	W +3.5	138.5	U 137
Feb 28	vsSFA	L 56-77	+8.5	L −12.5	138.5	U 133
Mar 2	vsLAM	W 75-53	+2.5	W +24.5	132.5	U 128
Mar 8	vsNOLA	L 60-73	+5.5	L −7.5	143.5	U 133

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UCSD

L 60-78

−10.5

ULM

W 72-61

+2.5

BELL

L 69-74

−7.5

CIT

W 72-65

+5.5

GASO

L 62-80

−10.5

UNT

L 75-77

+9.5

NOLA

W 85-76

+13.5

SELA

L 71-74

−5.5

MCN

L 68-78

+4.5

NICH

L 64-79

−11.5

ISU

L 61-89

+7.5

UIW

L 56-73

−10.5

AMCC

L 65-81

−12.5

SFA

L 67-85

−5.5

LAM

L 56-64

+0.5

ETAM

W 81-70

+8.5

NWST

W 82-80

−0.5

RGV

L 51-68

−14.5

UIW

W 81-75

+7.5

AMCC

L 71-73

+5.5

RGV

L 57-74

−7.5

SELA

L 47-55

−3.5

MCN

L 69-73

+17.5

NOLA

W 61-60

−0.5

NICH

W 72-68

+2.5

NWST

L 53-71

−15.5

ETAM

W 69-68

+3.5

SFA

L 56-77

−12.5

LAM

W 75-53

+24.5

NOLA

L 60-73

−7.5

covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UCSD

L 60-78

−3.5

ULM

W 72-61

−10.5

BELL

L 69-74

−1.5

CIT

W 72-65

−0.5

GASO

L 62-80

−6.5

UNT

L 75-77

+24.5

NOLA

W 85-76

+20.5

SELA

L 71-74

+12.5

MCN

L 68-78

+8.5

NICH

L 64-79

+5.5

ISU

L 61-89

+4.5

UIW

L 56-73

−12.5

AMCC

L 65-81

+13.5

SFA

L 67-85

+14.5

LAM

L 56-64

−14.5

ETAM

W 81-70

+11.5

NWST

W 82-80

+22.5

RGV

L 51-68

−21.5

UIW

W 81-75

+15.5

AMCC

L 71-73

+8.5

RGV

L 57-74

−10.5

SELA

L 47-55

−31.5

MCN

L 69-73

+4.5

NOLA

W 61-60

−27.5

NICH

W 72-68

+3.5

NWST

L 53-71

−10.5

ETAM

W 69-68

−1.5

SFA

L 56-77

−5.5

LAM

W 75-53

−4.5

NOLA

L 60-73

−10.5

over 14under 16avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

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: Hou Christian 1, UL Monroe 1, even 3

Hou ChristianBetterUL Monroe

G C. Mubiru TR6.7 pts · 4 reb · 1.9 ast Score 37

Even

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

G D. Samuels8.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 2 ast Score 46

HCUBig

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

G E. Pippa-White TR4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 2.1 ast Score 5

ULMBig

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

F S. Simmons TR6.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.2 ast Score 33

No call

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

F M. Mara5.4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.8 ast Score 33

No call

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

Hou ChristianBetterUL Monroe

HCU offense342nd of 366 · -11.7

Even

ULM defense361st of 366 · -11.5

HCU defense203rd of 366 · -5.0

HCUBig

ULM offense332nd of 366 · -10.8

Backcourt-4.6 · 3 players

Even

Backcourt-4.2 · 4 players

Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players

ULMSmall

Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player

Bench-3.9 · 3 players

ULMBig

Bench-0.1 · 2 players

Score, worst to bestHCU betterULM 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

Hou Christian

Guards

C. Mubiru27 min · TRD. Samuels23 minE. Pippa-White18 min · TRB. Alvarez15 min · TRK. Clark7 minM. AlexanderNew

Forwards

S. Simmons26 min · TRM. Mara20 minA. Miller15 min · TRI. SackoNewK. KeinysNewJ. PapeNew

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

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

HCU66.3 #342

ULM71.7 #255

Points per possession

HCU1.03 #297

ULM1.00 #321

Pace (possessions)

HCU64.7 #352

ULM71.3 #58

Shooting

Effective FG%

HCU49.7 #252

ULM47.8 #316

3-point %

HCU31.7 #291

ULM32.2 #270

3-point attempt rate

HCU36.5 #239

ULM41.9 #135

Free throw rate

HCU36.0 #151

ULM38.8 #85

Possessions

Turnover rate

HCU18.9 #317

ULM16.9 #196

Offensive rebound rate

HCU29.9 #205

ULM25.1 #338

Assists per game

HCU13.7 #164

ULM11.9 #288

Defense

Points allowed

HCU72.4 #113

ULM85.4 #361

Points allowed per possession

HCU1.12 #268

ULM1.20 #358

Opponent effective FG%

HCU54.2 #304

ULM57.1 #358

Opponent 3-point %

HCU35.0 #248

ULM36.9 #343

Turnovers forced

HCU17.6 #117

ULM15.7 #235

Defensive rebound rate

HCU67.5 #279

ULM64.6 #345

Steals per game

HCU6.3 #200

ULM6.0 #237

Blocks per game

HCU3.7 #111

ULM3.2 #189

HCU		ULM
Scoring
66.3 #342	Points per game	71.7 #255
1.03 #297	Points per possession	1.00 #321
64.7 #352	Pace (possessions)	71.3 #58
Shooting
49.7 #252	Effective FG%	47.8 #316
31.7 #291	3-point %	32.2 #270
36.5 #239	3-point attempt rate	41.9 #135
36.0 #151	Free throw rate	38.8 #85
Possessions
18.9 #317	Turnover rate	16.9 #196
29.9 #205	Offensive rebound rate	25.1 #338
13.7 #164	Assists per game	11.9 #288
Defense
72.4 #113	Points allowed	85.4 #361
1.12 #268	Points allowed per possession	1.20 #358
54.2 #304	Opponent effective FG%	57.1 #358
35.0 #248	Opponent 3-point %	36.9 #343
17.6 #117	Turnovers forced	15.7 #235
67.5 #279	Defensive rebound rate	64.6 #345
6.3 #200	Steals per game	6.0 #237
3.7 #111	Blocks per game	3.2 #189

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.

Hou Christian

10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-15 in conference · Southland Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs LSU N Orleans60–73
Wvs Lamar75–53
Lvs SF Austin56–77
W@ East Texas A&M69–68
L@ N'Western St53–71

A week or more of rest.

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.

Houston Christian Huskies at UL Monroe Warhawks

What could decide it: HCU 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

Hou Christian

UL Monroe

The starting fives are even

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Hou Christian

UL Monroe