FedExForum · at Memphis
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 85–72 · win probability LOU 87%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 157.3
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
LOU 6, MEM 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: LOU 56.5 and allows 48.7; MEM 48.7 and allows 48.7
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LOU 32.8%, MEM 35.3%. Defensive: LOU 72.5%, MEM 64.3%
LOU offense vs MEM defense
Offense 15th of 366 against a defense 116th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
LOU hits 36.0% and allows 32.3%; MEM hits 31.6% and allows 30.6%. Threes are 52.9% and 33.7% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: LOU 33.1, MEM 34.7. Allowed: LOU 33.0, MEM 42.4
Home court
MEM at home. This season: MEM 0-0 at home, LOU 0-0 away
MEM offense vs LOU defense
Offense 62nd of 366 against a defense 16th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
LOU has played the 44th-hardest schedule, MEM the 81st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: LOU plays 71.0 a game (77th fastest), MEM 71.9 (37th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LOU 16.8%, MEM 18.9%. Forced: LOU 16.7%, MEM 18.6%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LOU 12%, MEM 15%. Transfers in: LOU 8, MEM 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 -13.0 | — |
| Total | — | 157.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | LOU 85.2 · MEM 72.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LOU -7.9 | — |
| 1H total | 73.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | LOU 40.7 · MEM 32.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LOU 1–0 MEMLOU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · LOU 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2025-26 | MEM 73 @ LOU 99 | LOU -16.5 | LOU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Memphis
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg −2.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% overs · avg −1 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 8 | vs | W 76-70 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 77-83 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 78-92 | -9.5 | L −23.5 | 163.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 71-80 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 68-69 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-58 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 86-70 | -14.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 78-71 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 158.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 73-99 | +16.5 | L −9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 70-77 | +9.5 | W +2.5 | 159.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 66-71 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 88-67 | -20.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 57-48 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 137.5 | U 105 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 76-70 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 78-89 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 55-53 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 18 | vs | W 95-69 | -20.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 66-83 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 59-74 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 92-65 | -3.5 | W +23.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 76-78 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 90-80 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 8 | vs | W 77-54 | -10.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 69-76 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 75-99 | +13.5 | L −10.5 | 155.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 66-87 | +9.5 | L −11.5 | 163.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 67-78 | -5.5 | L −16.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 82-88 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 68-84 | -4.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 89-96 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | O 185 |
| Mar 8 | @ | W 96-95 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | O 191 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 69-81 | -4.5 | L −16.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
vs
SF
W 76-70
+3.5
11
@
MISS
L 77-83
+3.5
16
vs
UNLV
L 78-92
−23.5
20
vs
PUR
L 71-80
+5.5
21
vs
WAKE
L 68-69
+1.5
26
vs
SIU
W 74-58
+5.5
3
vs
NOLA
W 86-70
+1.5
6
vs
BAY
W 78-71
+10.5
13
@
LOU
L 73-99
−9.5
17
vs
VAN
L 70-77
+2.5
20
@
MSST
L 66-71
−1.5
22
vs
ALST
W 88-67
+0.5
31
vs
UNT
W 57-48
−0.5
3
@
RICE
W 76-70
−1.5
11
@
FAU
L 78-89
−9.5
14
vs
TEM
W 55-53
−5.5
18
vs
UTSA
W 95-69
+5.5
21
@
TLSA
L 66-83
−10.5
24
@
WICH
L 59-74
−11.5
29
vs
FAU
W 92-65
+23.5
1
vs
TULN
L 76-78
−10.5
5
@
UAB
W 90-80
+11.5
8
vs
CLT
W 77-54
+12.5
12
@
UNT
L 69-76
−9.5
14
@
USU
L 75-99
−10.5
19
@
USF
L 66-87
−11.5
22
vs
UAB
L 67-78
−16.5
26
vs
WICH
L 82-88
−7.5
1
@
ECU
L 68-84
−20.5
5
vs
USF
L 89-96
+0.5
8
@
TULN
W 96-95
−1.5
11
vs
TULN
L 69-81
−16.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg −2.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
vs
SF
W 76-70
−11.5
11
@
MISS
L 77-83
+7.5
16
vs
UNLV
L 78-92
+6.5
20
vs
PUR
L 71-80
−5.5
21
vs
WAKE
L 68-69
−23.5
26
vs
SIU
W 74-58
−24.5
3
vs
NOLA
W 86-70
+6.5
6
vs
BAY
W 78-71
−9.5
13
@
LOU
L 73-99
+9.5
17
vs
VAN
L 70-77
−12.5
20
@
MSST
L 66-71
−16.5
22
vs
ALST
W 88-67
+3.5
31
vs
UNT
W 57-48
−32.5
3
@
RICE
W 76-70
+1.5
11
@
FAU
L 78-89
+14.5
14
vs
TEM
W 55-53
−35.5
18
vs
UTSA
W 95-69
+16.5
21
@
TLSA
L 66-83
−4.5
24
@
WICH
L 59-74
−12.5
29
vs
FAU
W 92-65
+4.5
1
vs
TULN
L 76-78
+2.5
5
@
UAB
W 90-80
+14.5
8
vs
CLT
W 77-54
−13.5
12
@
UNT
L 69-76
+6.5
14
@
USU
L 75-99
+18.5
19
@
USF
L 66-87
−10.5
22
vs
UAB
L 67-78
−7.5
26
vs
WICH
L 82-88
+20.5
1
@
ECU
L 68-84
−0.5
5
vs
USF
L 89-96
+21.5
8
@
TULN
W 96-95
+36.5
11
vs
TULN
L 69-81
−1.5
over 16under 16avg −1 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: Louisville 1, Memphis 0, even 4
LouisvilleBetterMemphis
G J. Shelstad TR15.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 92
=Even
G L. Almodovar TR14.6 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 80
G S. Trimble TR14 pts · 3.8 reb · 3 ast
Score 90
=Even
G B. Cummings TR12.5 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 84
G D. Montgomery TR13.4 pts · 4 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 92
=Even
G J. Reid TR10.1 pts · 1.4 reb · 5 ast
Score 83
F F. Bidunga TR13.3 pts · 9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 99
=Even
F T. Weeks TR20.1 pts · 5.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 88
F L. Wells TR15.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 85
←LOUSmall
F C. Williams TR11.7 pts · 9.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 68
LouisvilleBetterMemphis
LOU offense15th of 366 · +9.3
←LOUSmall
MEM defense116th of 366 · -1.5
LOU defense16th of 366 · +6.2
=Even
MEM offense62nd of 366 · +2.6
Backcourt+9.1 · 3 players
←LOUBig
Backcourt+4.5 · 3 players
Frontcourt+9.2 · 2 players
←LOUBig
Frontcourt+4.1 · 2 players
Bench+4.1 · 5 players
=Even
Bench+4.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestLOU betterMEM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
L. Almodovar28 min · TRB. Cummings26 min · TRJ. Reid26 min · TRJ. Thedford20 minJ. Holloway13 min · TRP. PoundsNew
Forwards
T. Weeks34 min · TRC. Williams33 min · TRR. Vavers25 min · TRJ. Deng13 min · TRM. Logue11 min · TRW. Whorton9 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 84.2 #18 | Points per game | 75.2 #158 |
| 1.18 #29 | Points per possession | 1.04 #264 |
| 71.0 #77 | Pace (possessions) | 71.9 #37 |
| Shooting | ||
| 56.5 #14 | Effective FG% | 48.7 #298 |
| 36.0 #58 | 3-point % | 31.6 #303 |
| 52.9 #4 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.7 #305 |
| 33.1 #236 | Free throw rate | 34.7 #190 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #184 | Turnover rate | 18.9 #316 |
| 32.8 #93 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.3 #41 |
| 17.1 #23 | Assists per game | 13.3 #193 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.5 #119 | Points allowed | 76.6 #234 |
| 1.02 #49 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #124 |
| 48.7 #54 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.7 #55 |
| 32.3 #76 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.6 #22 |
| 16.7 #172 | Turnovers forced | 18.6 #69 |
| 72.5 #50 | Defensive rebound rate | 64.3 #350 |
| 6.8 #148 | Steals per game | 8.4 #19 |
| 3.3 #179 | Blocks per game | 4.3 #49 |
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.
Memphis
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Tulane69–81
- W@ Tulane96–95
- Lvs South Florida89–96
- L@ East Carolina68–84
- Lvs Wichita St82–88
A week or more of rest.