UL Monroe Warhawks at Lamar Cardinals: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Dec 2, 12:00 AM ETMontagne Center · at Lamar

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: UL Monroe and Lamar
ULM	This season	LAM
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 LAM 79–68 · win probability LAM 83%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 146.1

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 has more of the edges

ULM 1, LAM 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

ULMBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: ULM 38.8, LAM 27.9. Allowed: ULM 27.7, LAM 44.4

LAMBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: ULM 25.1%, LAM 35.7%. Defensive: ULM 64.6%, LAM 70.6%

Context

Tempo

About 69 possessions: ULM plays 71.3 a game (58th fastest), LAM 66.1 (311th). Faster games mean more points

LAMBig

ULM offense vs LAM defense

Offense 332nd of 366 against a defense 213th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

ULM has played the 216th-hardest schedule, LAM the 328th. A record against a soft schedule means less

LAMSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: ULM 47.8 and allows 57.1; LAM 47.8 and allows 50.9

LAMSmall

Three-pointers

ULM hits 32.2% and allows 36.9%; LAM hits 32.9% and allows 35.3%. Threes are 41.9% and 33.9% of their shots

LAMSmall

Home court

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

Even

LAM offense vs ULM defense

Offense 334th of 366 against a defense 361st, on the model’s ratings

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: ULM 16.9%, LAM 18.1%. Forced: ULM 15.7%, LAM 17.3%

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: ULM 1%, LAM 0%. Transfers in: ULM 6, LAM 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

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	—	LAM -11.1	—
Total	—	146.1	—
Projected score	—	ULM 67.5 · LAM 78.6

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	LAM -6.5	—
1H total	68.4	—
1H projected score	ULM 30.9 · LAM 37.4	—

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
ULM WWLWW	17-12	59%	9-7	—
LAM WLLLL	12-17	41%	4-9	—

Venue/role: ULM away; LAM 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
LAM UOUUU	14-15	48%	10-19

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%
LAM	1-9 10%	3-7 30%	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
Dec 5	vs GAST	L57–77LU
Dec 12	vs MISS	L65–86WO

Lamar

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 5	vs NWST	L68–70LO
Dec 7	vs ETAM	W82–61WO
Dec 10	@ PORT	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

ULM 2–2 LAMSeries tied · 4 games since 2021-22 · LAM has won the last 2 meetings · ULM 1-3 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 17, 2025-26	LAM 79 @ ULM 66	ULM +11.5	LAM W
Dec 14, 2023-24	ULM 73 @ LAM 97	LAM +1.5	LAM W
Dec 17, 2022-23	LAM 59 @ ULM 83	ULM -9.5	ULM W
Dec 20, 2021-22	ULM 80 @ LAM 77	LAM +6	LAM 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

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

Straight up

10-1934%

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

8 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

12-1741%

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

4 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

14-1548%

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

3 straight unders1 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 10	@TCU	L 65-78	+18.5	W +5.5	147.5	U 143
Nov 17	@ULM	W 79-66	-11.5	W +1.5	140.5	O 145
Nov 23	@MONT	W 68-63	+4.5	W +9.5	148.5	U 131
Nov 24	vsOAK	L 68-83	+3.5	L −11.5	148.5	O 151
Dec 3	vsUL	W 65-55	-10.5	L −0.5	129.5	U 120
Dec 6	vsAMCC	L 49-57	-3.5	L −11.5	136.5	U 106
Dec 10	@SDSU	L 71-89	+17.5	L −0.5	135.5	O 160
Dec 16	vsRGV	L 72-83	-3.5	L −14.5	139.5	O 155
Dec 20	vsOMA	L 82-85	-5.5	L −8.5	141.5	O 167
Dec 29	@NWST	W 76-61	-3.5	W +11.5	138.5	U 137
Dec 31	@ETAM	W 69-62	-5.5	W +1.5	143.5	U 131
Jan 2	@MCN	L 70-82	+16.5	W +4.5	145.5	O 152
Jan 5	@SELA	L 52-60	-1.5	L −9.5	135.5	U 112
Jan 10	vsUIW	W 63-51	-1.5	W +10.5	140.5	U 114
Jan 12	vsHCU	W 64-56	-8.5	L −0.5	134.5	U 120
Jan 17	@NICH	W 90-80	+3.5	W +13.5	139.5	O 170
Jan 19	@NOLA	L 76-89	-1.5	L −14.5	144.5	O 165
Jan 24	vsSFA	L 81-88	+4.5	L −2.5	136.5	O 169
Jan 27	vsETAM	W 82-61	-6.5	W +14.5	140.5	O 143
Jan 31	vsMCN	L 63-64	+10.5	W +9.5	144.5	U 127
Feb 2	vsSELA	W 73-54	-5.5	W +13.5	132.5	U 127
Feb 7	@SFA	L 74-84	+8.5	L −1.5	138.5	O 158
Feb 9	vsNWST	L 68-70	-6.5	L −8.5	135.5	O 138
Feb 14	@AMCC	L 63-76	+2.5	L −10.5	135.5	O 139
Feb 16	@RGV	L 65-70	+6.5	W +1.5	141.5	U 135
Feb 21	vsNOLA	L 71-77	-4.5	L −10.5	146.5	O 148
Feb 23	vsNICH	L 52-53	-3.5	L −4.5	143.5	U 105
Feb 28	@UIW	L 60-72	+1.5	L −10.5	138.5	U 132
Mar 2	@HCU	L 53-75	-2.5	L −24.5	132.5	U 128

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

TCU

L 65-78

+5.5

ULM

W 79-66

+1.5

MONT

W 68-63

+9.5

OAK

L 68-83

−11.5

W 65-55

−0.5

AMCC

L 49-57

−11.5

SDSU

L 71-89

−0.5

RGV

L 72-83

−14.5

OMA

L 82-85

−8.5

NWST

W 76-61

+11.5

ETAM

W 69-62

+1.5

MCN

L 70-82

+4.5

SELA

L 52-60

−9.5

UIW

W 63-51

+10.5

HCU

W 64-56

−0.5

NICH

W 90-80

+13.5

NOLA

L 76-89

−14.5

SFA

L 81-88

−2.5

ETAM

W 82-61

+14.5

MCN

L 63-64

+9.5

SELA

W 73-54

+13.5

SFA

L 74-84

−1.5

NWST

L 68-70

−8.5

AMCC

L 63-76

−10.5

RGV

L 65-70

+1.5

NOLA

L 71-77

−10.5

NICH

L 52-53

−4.5

UIW

L 60-72

−10.5

HCU

L 53-75

−24.5

covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

TCU

L 65-78

−4.5

ULM

W 79-66

+4.5

MONT

W 68-63

−17.5

OAK

L 68-83

+2.5

W 65-55

−9.5

AMCC

L 49-57

−30.5

SDSU

L 71-89

+24.5

RGV

L 72-83

+15.5

OMA

L 82-85

+25.5

NWST

W 76-61

−1.5

ETAM

W 69-62

−12.5

MCN

L 70-82

+6.5

SELA

L 52-60

−23.5

UIW

W 63-51

−26.5

HCU

W 64-56

−14.5

NICH

W 90-80

+30.5

NOLA

L 76-89

+20.5

SFA

L 81-88

+32.5

ETAM

W 82-61

+2.5

MCN

L 63-64

−17.5

SELA

W 73-54

−5.5

SFA

L 74-84

+19.5

NWST

L 68-70

+2.5

AMCC

L 63-76

+3.5

RGV

L 65-70

−6.5

NOLA

L 71-77

+1.5

NICH

L 52-53

−38.5

UIW

L 60-72

−6.5

HCU

L 53-75

−4.5

over 14under 15avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Lamar has the better starters

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

UL MonroeBetterLamar

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

LAMSmall

G F. Radakovic TR9.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 2.5 ast Score 38

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

LAMSmall

G N. Moretti TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 3.2 ast Score 24

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

Even

G Q. Berry TR6.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast Score 61

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

No call

G M. Collins TR1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast Score 12

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

No call

F M. Ljubicic TR5.5 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.6 ast Score 7

UL MonroeBetterLamar

ULM offense332nd of 366 · -10.8

LAMSmall

LAM defense213th of 366 · -5.4

ULM defense361st of 366 · -11.5

Even

LAM offense334th of 366 · -10.9

Backcourt-4.2 · 4 players

Even

Backcourt-4.6 · 4 players

Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player

ULMSmall

Frontcourt-2.4 · 1 player

Bench-0.1 · 2 players

Even

Bench-0.8 · 1 player

Score, worst to bestULM betterLAM 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

Lamar

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

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

LAM68.4 #308

Points per possession

ULM1.00 #321

LAM1.04 #279

Pace (possessions)

ULM71.3 #58

LAM66.1 #311

Shooting

Effective FG%

ULM47.8 #316

LAM47.8 #318

3-point %

ULM32.2 #270

LAM32.9 #238

3-point attempt rate

ULM41.9 #135

LAM33.9 #297

Free throw rate

ULM38.8 #85

LAM27.9 #344

Possessions

Turnover rate

ULM16.9 #196

LAM18.1 #273

Offensive rebound rate

ULM25.1 #338

LAM35.7 #31

Assists per game

ULM11.9 #288

LAM13.9 #157

Defense

Points allowed

ULM85.4 #361

LAM70.5 #64

Points allowed per possession

ULM1.20 #358

LAM1.07 #122

Opponent effective FG%

ULM57.1 #358

LAM50.9 #153

Opponent 3-point %

ULM36.9 #343

LAM35.3 #266

Turnovers forced

ULM15.7 #235

LAM17.3 #130

Defensive rebound rate

ULM64.6 #345

LAM70.6 #130

Steals per game

ULM6.0 #237

LAM6.1 #227

Blocks per game

ULM3.2 #189

LAM4.2 #54

ULM		LAM
Scoring
71.7 #255	Points per game	68.4 #308
1.00 #321	Points per possession	1.04 #279
71.3 #58	Pace (possessions)	66.1 #311
Shooting
47.8 #316	Effective FG%	47.8 #318
32.2 #270	3-point %	32.9 #238
41.9 #135	3-point attempt rate	33.9 #297
38.8 #85	Free throw rate	27.9 #344
Possessions
16.9 #196	Turnover rate	18.1 #273
25.1 #338	Offensive rebound rate	35.7 #31
11.9 #288	Assists per game	13.9 #157
Defense
85.4 #361	Points allowed	70.5 #64
1.20 #358	Points allowed per possession	1.07 #122
57.1 #358	Opponent effective FG%	50.9 #153
36.9 #343	Opponent 3-point %	35.3 #266
15.7 #235	Turnovers forced	17.3 #130
64.6 #345	Defensive rebound rate	70.6 #130
6.0 #237	Steals per game	6.1 #227
3.2 #189	Blocks per game	4.2 #54

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.

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.

UL Monroe Warhawks at Lamar Cardinals

What could decide it: LAM 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

Lamar

Lamar has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

UL Monroe

Lamar