KFC Yum! Center · at Louisville
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LOU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LOU 95–55 · win probability LOU 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.1
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: LOU has more of the edges
MORE 0, LOU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MORE offense vs LOU defense
Offense 349th of 366 against a defense 16th, on the model’s ratings
LOU offense vs MORE defense
Offense 15th of 366 against a defense 333rd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
MORE has played the 346th-hardest schedule, LOU the 44th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
MORE hits 32.0% and allows 34.5%; LOU hits 36.0% and allows 32.3%. Threes are 30.5% and 52.9% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: MORE 49.1 and allows 50.2; LOU 56.5 and allows 48.7
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MORE 35.8%, LOU 32.8%. Defensive: MORE 64.2%, LOU 72.5%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: MORE plays 67.4 a game (262nd fastest), LOU 71.0 (77th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MORE 18.1%, LOU 16.8%. Forced: MORE 15.4%, LOU 16.7%
Home court
LOU at home. This season: LOU 0-0 at home, MORE 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MORE 29%, LOU 12%. Transfers in: MORE 0, LOU 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: MORE 37.7, LOU 33.1. Allowed: MORE 35.6, LOU 33.0
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 | — | LOU -39.9 | — |
| Total | — | 150.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | MORE 55.1 · LOU 95 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LOU -23.6 | — |
| 1H total | 70.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | MORE 23.3 · LOU 46.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
MORE 0–1 LOULOU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · MORE 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2024-25 | MORE 45 @ LOU 93 | LOU -21.5 | LOU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Morehead St
30 games played
Straight up
17-13
57% wins
Against the spread
18-12
60% covers · avg +0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +3.5 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 7 | @ | L 65-81 | +22.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 81-120 | +28.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 201 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 56-83 | +29.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 62-77 | +10.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 83-80 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 80-85 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 181.5 | U 165 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 52-84 | +16.5 | L −15.5 | 158.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 72-80 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 78-64 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 64-60 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 64-77 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 73-72 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 68-76 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 71-69 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 100-105 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | O 205 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 76-70 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 71-66 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 73-68 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 67-65 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 78-79 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 70-82 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 61-55 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 136.5 | U 116 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 73-66 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 94-86 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 73-70 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 81-59 | -8.5 | W +13.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 64-63 | -7.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 76-70 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 138.5 | O 146 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 66-61 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | U 127 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 67-93 | +5.5 | L −20.5 | 143.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
WAKE
L 65-81
+6.5
9
@
UGA
L 81-120
−10.5
11
@
CLEM
L 56-83
+2.5
21
@
ETSU
L 62-77
−4.5
22
vs
ULM
W 83-80
−3.5
29
@
IUIN
L 80-85
−1.5
2
@
MUR
L 52-84
−15.5
6
@
PRES
L 72-80
−0.5
16
vs
LR
W 78-64
+11.5
20
@
USI
W 64-60
+2.5
1
@
LIN
L 64-77
−6.5
3
@
SIUE
W 73-72
+5.5
8
vs
UTM
L 68-76
−5.5
10
vs
SEMO
W 71-69
+7.5
15
@
TNST
L 100-105
+2.5
17
@
TNTC
W 76-70
+7.5
22
vs
WIU
W 71-66
−3.5
24
vs
EIU
W 73-68
+0.5
29
vs
SIUE
W 67-65
+0.5
31
vs
LIN
L 78-79
+0.5
5
@
SEMO
L 70-82
−4.5
7
@
UTM
W 61-55
+14.5
12
vs
TNTC
W 73-66
+2.5
14
vs
TNST
W 94-86
+9.5
19
@
EIU
W 73-70
+1.5
21
@
WIU
W 81-59
+13.5
24
vs
USI
W 64-63
−6.5
26
@
LR
W 76-70
+8.5
6
vs
SEMO
W 66-61
+8.5
7
vs
TNST
L 67-93
−20.5
covered 18didn’t cover 12avg +0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
WAKE
L 65-81
−6.5
9
@
UGA
L 81-120
+50.5
11
@
CLEM
L 56-83
−12.5
21
@
ETSU
L 62-77
−5.5
22
vs
ULM
W 83-80
+17.5
29
@
IUIN
L 80-85
−16.5
2
@
MUR
L 52-84
−22.5
6
@
PRES
L 72-80
+17.5
16
vs
LR
W 78-64
+5.5
20
@
USI
W 64-60
−21.5
1
@
LIN
L 64-77
−6.5
3
@
SIUE
W 73-72
+13.5
8
vs
UTM
L 68-76
+8.5
10
vs
SEMO
W 71-69
−4.5
15
@
TNST
L 100-105
+56.5
17
@
TNTC
W 76-70
+4.5
22
vs
WIU
W 71-66
−1.5
24
vs
EIU
W 73-68
+6.5
29
vs
SIUE
W 67-65
+1.5
31
vs
LIN
L 78-79
+8.5
5
@
SEMO
L 70-82
+7.5
7
@
UTM
W 61-55
−20.5
12
vs
TNTC
W 73-66
−4.5
14
vs
TNST
W 94-86
+31.5
19
@
EIU
W 73-70
+5.5
21
@
WIU
W 81-59
−3.5
24
vs
USI
W 64-63
−15.5
26
@
LR
W 76-70
+7.5
6
vs
SEMO
W 66-61
−12.5
7
vs
TNST
L 67-93
+16.5
over 16under 14avg +3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Louisville
35 games played
Straight up
24-11
69% wins
Against the spread
16-19
46% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-21
40% overs · avg −3.8 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 3 | vs | W 104-45 | -35.5 | W +23.5 | 159.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 106-70 | -38.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 96-88 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 173.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 106-81 | -31.5 | L −6.5 | 174.5 | O 187 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 74-64 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 163.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 87-46 | -33.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 104-47 | -44.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 80-89 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 166.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 87-78 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 99-73 | -16.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 62-83 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 94-54 | -30.5 | W +9.5 | 166.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 90-70 | -7.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 76-80 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 73-84 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 75-62 | -21.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 70-79 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 100-59 | -7.5 | W +33.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-71 | -14.5 | L −0.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 26 | @ | L 52-83 | +8.5 | L −22.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 88-74 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 163.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 76-65 | -19.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 88-80 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 118-77 | -6.5 | W +34.5 | 161.5 | O 195 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 82-71 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 162.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 85-95 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 168.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 87-70 | -23.5 | L −6.5 | 167.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 74-77 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 75-80 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 77-62 | -14.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 92-89 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 62-58 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 73-78 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 83-79 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 160.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 69-77 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SCST
W 104-45
+23.5
6
vs
JKST
W 106-70
−2.5
11
vs
UK
W 96-88
+2.5
15
vs
OHIO
W 106-81
−6.5
21
vs
CIN
W 74-64
+1.5
24
vs
EMU
W 87-46
+7.5
26
vs
NJIT
W 104-47
+12.5
3
@
ARK
L 80-89
−10.5
6
vs
IU
W 87-78
+5.5
13
vs
MEM
W 99-73
+9.5
16
@
TENN
L 62-83
−16.5
20
vs
MONT
W 94-54
+9.5
30
@
CAL
W 90-70
+12.5
2
@
STAN
L 76-80
−11.5
6
vs
DUKE
L 73-84
−9.5
10
vs
BC
W 75-62
−8.5
13
vs
UVA
L 70-79
−13.5
17
@
PITT
W 100-59
+33.5
24
vs
VT
W 85-71
−0.5
26
@
DUKE
L 52-83
−22.5
31
vs
SMU
W 88-74
+4.5
4
vs
ND
W 76-65
−8.5
7
@
WAKE
W 88-80
−1.5
9
vs
NCSU
W 118-77
+34.5
14
vs
BAY
W 82-71
+3.5
17
@
SMU
L 85-95
−14.5
21
vs
GT
W 87-70
−6.5
23
@
UNC
L 74-77
−6.5
28
@
CLEM
L 75-80
−7.5
3
vs
SYR
W 77-62
+0.5
7
@
MIA
W 92-89
+4.5
11
vs
SMU
W 62-58
−3.5
12
vs
MIA
L 73-78
−6.5
19
vs
USF
W 83-79
+0.5
21
vs
MSU
L 69-77
−2.5
covered 16didn’t cover 19avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SCST
W 104-45
−10.5
6
vs
JKST
W 106-70
+10.5
11
vs
UK
W 96-88
+10.5
15
vs
OHIO
W 106-81
+12.5
21
vs
CIN
W 74-64
−25.5
24
vs
EMU
W 87-46
−29.5
26
vs
NJIT
W 104-47
−7.5
3
@
ARK
L 80-89
+2.5
6
vs
IU
W 87-78
+2.5
13
vs
MEM
W 99-73
+9.5
16
@
TENN
L 62-83
−11.5
20
vs
MONT
W 94-54
−18.5
30
@
CAL
W 90-70
+0.5
2
@
STAN
L 76-80
−1.5
6
vs
DUKE
L 73-84
−4.5
10
vs
BC
W 75-62
−13.5
13
vs
UVA
L 70-79
−5.5
17
@
PITT
W 100-59
+6.5
24
vs
VT
W 85-71
−4.5
26
@
DUKE
L 52-83
−22.5
31
vs
SMU
W 88-74
−1.5
4
vs
ND
W 76-65
−14.5
7
@
WAKE
W 88-80
+5.5
9
vs
NCSU
W 118-77
+33.5
14
vs
BAY
W 82-71
−9.5
17
@
SMU
L 85-95
+11.5
21
vs
GT
W 87-70
−10.5
23
@
UNC
L 74-77
−11.5
28
@
CLEM
L 75-80
+8.5
3
vs
SYR
W 77-62
−20.5
7
@
MIA
W 92-89
+25.5
11
vs
SMU
W 62-58
−44.5
12
vs
MIA
L 73-78
−2.5
19
vs
USF
W 83-79
+1.5
21
vs
MSU
L 69-77
−5.5
over 14under 21avg −3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Louisville has the better starters
Position by position: Morehead St 0, Louisville 3, even 2
Morehead StBetterLouisville
G C. Dawson8.1 pts · 1.4 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 22
→LOUBig
G J. Shelstad TR15.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 92
G V. Dawson3.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 7
→LOUBig
G S. Trimble TR14 pts · 3.8 reb · 3 ast
Score 90
G J. Winkleman1 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Montgomery TR13.4 pts · 4 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 92
G I. Day NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F F. Bidunga TR13.3 pts · 9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 99
F C. Parker2.7 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 1
→LOUBig
F L. Wells TR15.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 85
Morehead StBetterLouisville
MORE offense349th of 366 · -12.3
→LOUBig
LOU defense16th of 366 · +6.2
MORE defense333rd of 366 · -8.7
→LOUBig
LOU offense15th of 366 · +9.3
Backcourt-4.4 · 4 players
→LOUBig
Backcourt+9.1 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.7 · 1 player
→LOUBig
Frontcourt+9.2 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+4.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestMORE betterLOU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Dawson26 minV. Dawson16 minJ. Winkleman1 minI. DayNewK. CarbonNewK. ShawNew
Forwards
C. Parker16 minD. AlexanderNewL. BassNewT. TangioraNewJ. PriesterNew
Guards
J. Shelstad35 min · TRS. Trimble33 min · TRD. Montgomery31 min · TRA. Wooley23 minK. Knox22 min · TRW. Hanke1 min
Forwards
F. Bidunga32 min · TRL. Wells31 min · TRA. Folgueiras21 min · TRB. ZhangNew
Centers
G. Dynes12 min · TRO. EkezieNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.0 #243 | Points per game | 84.2 #18 |
| 1.07 #202 | Points per possession | 1.18 #29 |
| 67.4 #262 | Pace (possessions) | 71.0 #77 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.1 #285 | Effective FG% | 56.5 #14 |
| 32.0 #281 | 3-point % | 36.0 #58 |
| 30.5 #349 | 3-point attempt rate | 52.9 #4 |
| 37.7 #109 | Free throw rate | 33.1 #236 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.1 #275 | Turnover rate | 16.8 #184 |
| 35.8 #27 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.8 #93 |
| 12.0 #285 | Assists per game | 17.1 #23 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.5 #205 | Points allowed | 72.5 #119 |
| 1.12 #264 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #49 |
| 50.2 #109 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.7 #54 |
| 34.5 #221 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.3 #76 |
| 15.4 #259 | Turnovers forced | 16.7 #172 |
| 64.2 #351 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.5 #50 |
| 6.0 #234 | Steals per game | 6.8 #148 |
| 3.0 #213 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #179 |
Morehead St
17-13 in 2025-26 overall · 16-6 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Tennessee St67–93
- Wvs SE Missouri66–61
- W@ Little Rock76–70
- Wvs Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles64–63
- W@ W Illinois81–59
A week or more of rest.
Louisville
24-11 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan St69–77
- Wvs South Florida83–79
- Lvs Miami73–78
- Wvs SMU62–58
- W@ Miami92–89
A week or more of rest.