Moody Coliseum (Dallas) · at SMU
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SMU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SMU 84–66 · win probability SMU 94%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.3
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: SMU has more of the edges
SFA 2, SMU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
SFA has played the 339th-hardest schedule, SMU the 70th. A record against a soft schedule means less
SFA offense vs SMU defense
Offense 252nd of 366 against a defense 69th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: SFA plays 66.4 a game (298th fastest), SMU 71.1 (68th). Faster games mean more points
SMU offense vs SFA defense
Offense 45th of 366 against a defense 156th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SFA 14.2%, SMU 15.8%. Forced: SFA 17.7%, SMU 16.8%
Three-pointers
SFA hits 35.8% and allows 30.3%; SMU hits 37.1% and allows 34.1%. Threes are 39.8% and 35.9% of their shots
Home court
SMU at home. This season: SMU 0-0 at home, SFA 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SFA 33.8%, SMU 35.4%. Defensive: SFA 70.5%, SMU 68.4%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SFA 26%, SMU 20%. Transfers in: SFA 6, SMU 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: SFA 51.7 and allows 47.7; SMU 55.6 and allows 51.6
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: SFA 30.1, SMU 30.4. Allowed: SFA 31.1, SMU 32.1
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 | — | SMU -17.9 | — |
| Total | — | 149.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | SFA 65.7 · SMU 83.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SMU -10.5 | — |
| 1H total | 69.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | SFA 29.6 · SMU 40.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
SF Austin
32 games played
Straight up
26-6
81% wins
Against the spread
23-9
72% covers · avg +2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −0.9 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 | vs | W 90-65 | +1.5 | W +26.5 | 155.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 81-69 | +2.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 76-66 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 78-80 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 63-60 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 61-66 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 73-60 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 96-76 | -19.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 69-60 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 75-48 | -4.5 | W +22.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 74-64 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 73-63 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 64-66 | +10.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 85-67 | -12.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 56-46 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-79 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 79-62 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 88-81 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 69-67 | -14.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 85-58 | -9.5 | W +17.5 | 135.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 67-60 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-74 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 74-70 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 66-57 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 78-68 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 81-78 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 73-77 | -11.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 77-56 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 76-68 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 60-58 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 59-76 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 134.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 84-89 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
ARST
W 90-65
+26.5
11
@
RICE
W 81-69
+14.5
14
vs
ACU
W 76-66
+3.5
18
@
FRES
L 78-80
−4.5
21
@
PEPP
W 63-60
+1.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-66
−3.5
3
vs
RGV
W 73-60
+6.5
7
vs
ULM
W 96-76
+0.5
17
vs
AMCC
W 69-60
+2.5
29
@
ETAM
W 75-48
+22.5
31
@
NWST
W 74-64
+1.5
3
@
SELA
W 73-63
+6.5
5
@
MCN
L 64-66
+8.5
10
vs
HCU
W 85-67
+5.5
12
vs
UIW
W 56-46
+2.5
17
@
NOLA
W 84-79
−1.5
19
@
NICH
W 79-62
+12.5
24
@
LAM
W 88-81
+2.5
27
vs
NWST
W 69-67
−12.5
31
vs
SELA
W 85-58
+17.5
2
vs
MCN
W 67-60
+9.5
7
vs
LAM
W 84-74
+1.5
9
vs
ETAM
W 74-70
−12.5
14
@
RGV
W 66-57
+7.5
16
@
AMCC
W 78-68
+4.5
21
vs
NICH
W 81-78
−9.5
23
vs
NOLA
L 73-77
−15.5
28
@
HCU
W 77-56
+12.5
2
@
UIW
W 76-68
+0.5
10
vs
AMCC
W 60-58
−4.5
11
vs
MCN
L 59-76
−13.5
17
@
TLSA
L 84-89
+0.5
covered 23didn’t cover 9avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
ARST
W 90-65
−0.5
11
@
RICE
W 81-69
+0.5
14
vs
ACU
W 76-66
−0.5
18
@
FRES
L 78-80
+11.5
21
@
PEPP
W 63-60
−25.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-66
−11.5
3
vs
RGV
W 73-60
−10.5
7
vs
ULM
W 96-76
+29.5
17
vs
AMCC
W 69-60
−10.5
29
@
ETAM
W 75-48
−23.5
31
@
NWST
W 74-64
−0.5
3
@
SELA
W 73-63
−1.5
5
@
MCN
L 64-66
−14.5
10
vs
HCU
W 85-67
+14.5
12
vs
UIW
W 56-46
−38.5
17
@
NOLA
W 84-79
+15.5
19
@
NICH
W 79-62
−3.5
24
@
LAM
W 88-81
+32.5
27
vs
NWST
W 69-67
−5.5
31
vs
SELA
W 85-58
+7.5
2
vs
MCN
W 67-60
−14.5
7
vs
LAM
W 84-74
+19.5
9
vs
ETAM
W 74-70
+0.5
14
@
RGV
W 66-57
−21.5
16
@
AMCC
W 78-68
+10.5
21
vs
NICH
W 81-78
+11.5
23
vs
NOLA
L 73-77
−3.5
28
@
HCU
W 77-56
−5.5
2
@
UIW
W 76-68
+1.5
10
vs
AMCC
W 60-58
−17.5
11
vs
MCN
L 59-76
+0.5
17
@
TLSA
L 84-89
+23.5
over 14under 18avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
SMU
34 games played
Straight up
20-14
59% wins
Against the spread
15-19
44% covers · avg +0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-14
59% overs · avg +2.4 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 96-76 | -21.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 69-58 | -23.5 | L −12.5 | 160.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 102-91 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 164.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 87-85 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 106-60 | -35.5 | W +10.5 | 168.5 | U 166 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 100-69 | -14.5 | W +16.5 | 172.5 | U 169 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 89-72 | -23.5 | L −6.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Nov 28 | @ | W 87-81 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 69-88 | +10.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 93-80 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 164.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 77-89 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 99-82 | -24.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 181 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 110-63 | -21.5 | W +25.5 | 170.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 97-83 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 155.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 70-74 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 75-82 | +15.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 77-76 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-72 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 91-79 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 157.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 83-80 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 163.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-88 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 163.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 83-84 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 86-67 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 89-81 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 78-79 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 95-85 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 168.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 94-70 | -15.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 69-73 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 75-95 | -1.5 | L −21.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 69-77 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 78-91 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 158.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 86-69 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 58-62 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 18 | vs | L 79-89 | -6.5 | L −16.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TAR
W 96-76
−1.5
6
vs
AMCC
W 69-58
−12.5
11
vs
MUR
W 102-91
+0.5
15
vs
BTLR
W 87-85
−5.5
18
vs
UAPB
W 106-60
+10.5
21
vs
ARST
W 100-69
+16.5
24
vs
RAD
W 89-72
−6.5
28
@
MSST
W 87-81
+7.5
3
@
VAN
L 69-88
−8.5
7
vs
TA&M
W 93-80
+14.5
13
vs
LSU
L 77-89
−10.5
21
vs
CARK
W 99-82
−7.5
28
vs
CSUF
W 110-63
+25.5
3
vs
UNC
W 97-83
+12.5
7
@
CLEM
L 70-74
−0.5
10
@
DUKE
L 75-82
+8.5
14
vs
VT
W 77-76
−7.5
17
vs
UVA
L 68-72
−1.5
20
@
WAKE
W 91-79
+13.5
24
vs
FSU
W 83-80
−8.5
31
@
LOU
L 74-88
−4.5
3
vs
NCSU
L 83-84
+0.5
7
@
PITT
W 86-67
+14.5
10
vs
ND
W 89-81
−2.5
14
@
SYR
L 78-79
−2.5
17
vs
LOU
W 95-85
+14.5
21
vs
BC
W 94-70
+8.5
25
@
CAL
L 69-73
−8.5
28
@
STAN
L 75-95
−21.5
4
vs
MIA
L 69-77
−9.5
7
@
FSU
L 78-91
−11.5
10
vs
SYR
W 86-69
+13.5
11
vs
LOU
L 58-62
+3.5
18
vs
M-OH
L 79-89
−16.5
covered 15didn’t cover 19avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TAR
W 96-76
+27.5
6
vs
AMCC
W 69-58
−33.5
11
vs
MUR
W 102-91
+28.5
15
vs
BTLR
W 87-85
+8.5
18
vs
UAPB
W 106-60
−2.5
21
vs
ARST
W 100-69
−3.5
24
vs
RAD
W 89-72
−4.5
28
@
MSST
W 87-81
+5.5
3
@
VAN
L 69-88
−8.5
7
vs
TA&M
W 93-80
+8.5
13
vs
LSU
L 77-89
+7.5
21
vs
CARK
W 99-82
+24.5
28
vs
CSUF
W 110-63
+2.5
3
vs
UNC
W 97-83
+24.5
7
@
CLEM
L 70-74
−5.5
10
@
DUKE
L 75-82
+1.5
14
vs
VT
W 77-76
−2.5
17
vs
UVA
L 68-72
−13.5
20
@
WAKE
W 91-79
+12.5
24
vs
FSU
W 83-80
−0.5
31
@
LOU
L 74-88
−1.5
3
vs
NCSU
L 83-84
+7.5
7
@
PITT
W 86-67
+5.5
10
vs
ND
W 89-81
+15.5
14
@
SYR
L 78-79
−0.5
17
vs
LOU
W 95-85
+11.5
21
vs
BC
W 94-70
+13.5
25
@
CAL
L 69-73
−21.5
28
@
STAN
L 75-95
+14.5
4
vs
MIA
L 69-77
−10.5
7
@
FSU
L 78-91
+10.5
10
vs
SYR
W 86-69
+0.5
11
vs
LOU
L 58-62
−44.5
18
vs
M-OH
L 79-89
+5.5
over 20under 14avg +2.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
SMU has the better starters
Position by position: SF Austin 0, SMU 4, even 1
SF AustinBetterSMU
G M. Russell TR15 pts · 3.9 reb · 2 ast
Score 36
→SMUBig
G R. Brumbaugh TR19.1 pts · 4.8 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 95
G N. Chotikavanic9.6 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 60
→SMUSmall
G D. Terrell TR13.6 pts · 3.8 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 89
F E. Daniel TR3.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 41
→SMUBig
G O. Sellers TR10.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 78
F G. Alisas4.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 52
=Even
G J. Patrick TR7.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 59
F A. Reed TR2.7 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 42
→SMUSmall
F J. Munch TR7.9 pts · 5.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 69
SF AustinBetterSMU
SFA offense252nd of 366 · -7.6
→SMUBig
SMU defense69th of 366 · +0.8
SFA defense156th of 366 · -3.4
→SMUSmall
SMU offense45th of 366 · +4.2
Backcourt-1.9 · 2 players
→SMUBig
Backcourt+8.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 3 players
→SMUSmall
Frontcourt+0.7 · 1 player
Bench-1.9 · 5 players
→SMUSmall
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSFA betterSMU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Russell36 min · TRN. Chotikavanic23 minC. Green7 minM. Scurry7 minA. Simmons4 min · TRB. Melvin3 min
Forwards
E. Daniel14 min · TRG. Alisas14 minA. Reed11 min · TRK. Pearson8 min · TR
Guards
R. Brumbaugh36 min · TRD. Terrell33 min · TRO. Sellers29 min · TRJ. Patrick20 min · TRN. Kalischer-Stork1 minG. NormandNew
Forwards
J. Munch21 min · TRJ. Toombs20 minJ. Stewart16 min · TRN. Codie16 min · TRJ. O'Neal15 minN. Walls3 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.9 #166 | Points per game | 84.1 #19 |
| 1.13 #88 | Points per possession | 1.19 #26 |
| 66.4 #298 | Pace (possessions) | 71.1 #68 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.7 #160 | Effective FG% | 55.6 #27 |
| 35.8 #71 | 3-point % | 37.1 #27 |
| 39.8 #176 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.9 #252 |
| 30.1 #306 | Free throw rate | 30.4 #301 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.2 #29 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #119 |
| 33.8 #74 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.4 #37 |
| 13.1 #209 | Assists per game | 16.9 #27 |
| Defense | ||
| 66.7 #20 | Points allowed | 77.9 #265 |
| 1.00 #29 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #199 |
| 47.7 #35 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.6 #189 |
| 30.3 #11 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.1 #188 |
| 17.7 #116 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #171 |
| 70.5 #131 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.4 #237 |
| 6.9 #136 | Steals per game | 7.0 #129 |
| 3.7 #118 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #132 |
SF Austin
26-6 in 2025-26 overall · 21-3 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Tulsa84–89
- Lvs McNeese59–76
- Wvs Texas A&M-CC60–58
- W@ Incarnate Word76–68
- W@ Hou Christian77–56
A week or more of rest.
SMU
20-14 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Miami OH79–89
- Lvs Louisville58–62
- Wvs Syracuse86–69
- L@ Florida St78–91
- Lvs Miami69–77
A week or more of rest.