Suncoast Credit Union Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DAV | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 DAV 75–72 · win probability DAV 61%
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: DAV has more of the edges
TULN 1, DAV 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
TULN hits 32.0% and allows 34.5%; DAV hits 35.4% and allows 32.6%. Threes are 45.0% and 44.5% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: TULN 22.8%, DAV 28.1%. Defensive: TULN 64.2%, DAV 70.0%
Free throws
Free throw rate: TULN 43.5, DAV 31.0. Allowed: TULN 38.1, DAV 37.1
Shooting
Effective FG%: TULN 49.4 and allows 50.7; DAV 52.6 and allows 50.6
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: TULN plays 68.5 a game (205th fastest), DAV 65.0 (347th). Faster games mean more points
Even
DAV offense vs TULN defense
Offense 149th of 366 against a defense 180th, on the model’s ratings
Even
TULN offense vs DAV defense
Offense 114th of 366 against a defense 84th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
TULN has played the 115th-hardest schedule, DAV the 91st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: TULN 40%, DAV 49%. Transfers in: TULN 4, DAV 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: TULN 15.4%, DAV 15.8%. Forced: TULN 17.1%, DAV 17.5%
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 | — | DAV -3.2 | — |
| Total | — | 146.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | TULN 71.5 · DAV 74.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | DAV -1.8 | — |
| 1H total | 68.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | TULN 33.3 · DAV 35.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Tulane
32 games played
Straight up
17-15
53% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-19
41% overs · avg −1.3 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 85-72 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 79-71 | -12.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 66-62 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 63-85 | -11.5 | L −33.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 75-96 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 93-90 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 82-72 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 65-63 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 71-88 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 162.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 67-93 | +5.5 | L −20.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 61-53 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 63-61 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 79-70 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 69-66 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 158.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 85-52 | -7.5 | W +25.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 69-82 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 63-71 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 74-79 | +10.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 70-73 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 83-97 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 78-76 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 8 | vs | L 61-75 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 148.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 77-66 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 55-54 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | U 109 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 77-71 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 137.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 81-75 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 56-90 | +5.5 | L −28.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 62-90 | +15.5 | L −12.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 60-89 | +4.5 | L −24.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 95-96 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 191 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 81-69 | +4.5 | W +16.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 60-74 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SAM
W 85-72
+5.5
8
vs
TXST
W 79-71
−4.5
11
@
UL
W 66-62
−1.5
14
vs
NOLA
L 63-85
−33.5
21
vs
USU
L 75-96
−12.5
23
vs
BC
W 93-90
+5.5
28
vs
NICH
W 82-72
+1.5
2
vs
GRAM
W 65-63
−9.5
6
vs
AKR
L 71-88
−10.5
13
vs
UCSD
L 67-93
−20.5
17
vs
LT
W 61-53
+3.5
20
vs
PRST
W 63-61
−0.5
31
@
ECU
W 79-70
+7.5
4
vs
FAU
W 69-66
+6.5
10
@
UTSA
W 85-52
+25.5
14
vs
UAB
L 69-82
−11.5
18
vs
UNT
L 63-71
−9.5
21
@
FAU
L 74-79
+5.5
23
@
CLT
L 70-73
−0.5
28
vs
USF
L 83-97
−5.5
1
@
MEM
W 78-76
+10.5
8
vs
WICH
L 61-75
−8.5
11
vs
TEM
W 77-66
+9.5
15
@
UAB
W 55-54
+7.5
19
@
UNT
W 77-71
+12.5
22
vs
RICE
W 81-75
+1.5
25
vs
TLSA
L 56-90
−28.5
1
@
USF
L 62-90
−12.5
5
@
TEM
L 60-89
−24.5
8
vs
MEM
L 95-96
+1.5
11
vs
MEM
W 81-69
+16.5
12
vs
CLT
L 60-74
−12.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SAM
W 85-72
+2.5
8
vs
TXST
W 79-71
+3.5
11
@
UL
W 66-62
−7.5
14
vs
NOLA
L 63-85
−5.5
21
vs
USU
L 75-96
+19.5
23
vs
BC
W 93-90
+42.5
28
vs
NICH
W 82-72
+5.5
2
vs
GRAM
W 65-63
−20.5
6
vs
AKR
L 71-88
−3.5
13
vs
UCSD
L 67-93
+10.5
17
vs
LT
W 61-53
−26.5
20
vs
PRST
W 63-61
−21.5
31
@
ECU
W 79-70
+3.5
4
vs
FAU
W 69-66
−23.5
10
@
UTSA
W 85-52
−10.5
14
vs
UAB
L 69-82
−2.5
18
vs
UNT
L 63-71
−3.5
21
@
FAU
L 74-79
−2.5
23
@
CLT
L 70-73
−0.5
28
vs
USF
L 83-97
+21.5
1
@
MEM
W 78-76
+2.5
8
vs
WICH
L 61-75
−12.5
11
vs
TEM
W 77-66
−1.5
15
@
UAB
W 55-54
−43.5
19
@
UNT
W 77-71
+10.5
22
vs
RICE
W 81-75
+8.5
25
vs
TLSA
L 56-90
−10.5
1
@
USF
L 62-90
−3.5
5
@
TEM
L 60-89
+4.5
8
vs
MEM
L 95-96
+36.5
11
vs
MEM
W 81-69
−1.5
12
vs
CLT
L 60-74
−10.5
over 13under 19avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Davidson
32 games played
Straight up
18-14
56% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg +0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −2.7 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 85-69 | -4.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 62-55 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 91-87 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 59-49 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 108 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 60-94 | +9.5 | L −24.5 | 147.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 90-74 | -13.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 4 | vs | W 79-63 | -18.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 61-70 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 137.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 80-47 | -11.5 | W +21.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 63-68 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 61-90 | +14.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 83-89 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 62-56 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 79-64 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 136.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 45-70 | -2.5 | L −27.5 | 134.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 84-79 | +9.5 | W +14.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 68-63 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 135.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 69-75 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 52-60 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 134.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-54 | +1.5 | W +26.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 82-91 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 6 | vs | W 84-64 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 59-70 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 65-63 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 59-63 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 67-56 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 142.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 1 | vs | W 71-64 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 67-70 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 136.5 | O 137 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 68-63 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 64-59 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 132.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 58-70 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 133.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 80-84 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
WSU
W 85-69
+11.5
11
@
CLT
W 62-55
+8.5
15
vs
BGSU
W 91-87
−0.5
21
vs
BC
W 59-49
+11.5
23
vs
USU
L 60-94
−24.5
28
vs
NCAT
W 90-74
+2.5
4
vs
CIT
W 79-63
−2.5
7
vs
SMC
L 61-70
−0.5
13
vs
MERC
W 80-47
+21.5
18
vs
TEM
L 63-68
−10.5
22
@
KU
L 61-90
−14.5
30
vs
DUQ
L 83-89
−8.5
3
@
JOES
W 62-56
+4.5
7
@
LUC
W 79-64
+13.5
10
vs
URI
L 45-70
−27.5
14
@
GW
W 84-79
+14.5
21
vs
FOR
W 68-63
+0.5
24
vs
VCU
L 69-75
−0.5
28
@
GMU
L 52-60
−1.5
31
@
RICH
W 79-54
+26.5
3
vs
SLU
L 82-91
−0.5
6
vs
LUC
W 84-64
+10.5
15
@
DAY
L 59-70
−5.5
18
vs
RICH
W 65-63
−3.5
21
@
FOR
L 59-63
−5.5
25
@
DUQ
W 67-56
+14.5
1
vs
LAS
W 71-64
−3.5
4
vs
JOES
L 67-70
−4.5
7
@
SBU
W 68-63
+9.5
12
vs
LUC
W 64-59
−0.5
13
vs
JOES
L 58-70
−9.5
17
@
OKST
L 80-84
+2.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg +0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
WSU
W 85-69
+0.5
11
@
CLT
W 62-55
−26.5
15
vs
BGSU
W 91-87
+33.5
21
vs
BC
W 59-49
−32.5
23
vs
USU
L 60-94
+6.5
28
vs
NCAT
W 90-74
+18.5
4
vs
CIT
W 79-63
+4.5
7
vs
SMC
L 61-70
−6.5
13
vs
MERC
W 80-47
−5.5
18
vs
TEM
L 63-68
−10.5
22
@
KU
L 61-90
+11.5
30
vs
DUQ
L 83-89
+21.5
3
@
JOES
W 62-56
−21.5
7
@
LUC
W 79-64
+6.5
10
vs
URI
L 45-70
−19.5
14
@
GW
W 84-79
+12.5
21
vs
FOR
W 68-63
−4.5
24
vs
VCU
L 69-75
−4.5
28
@
GMU
L 52-60
−22.5
31
@
RICH
W 79-54
−7.5
3
vs
SLU
L 82-91
+21.5
6
vs
LUC
W 84-64
+7.5
15
@
DAY
L 59-70
−11.5
18
vs
RICH
W 65-63
−13.5
21
@
FOR
L 59-63
−9.5
25
@
DUQ
W 67-56
−19.5
1
vs
LAS
W 71-64
+1.5
4
vs
JOES
L 67-70
+0.5
7
@
SBU
W 68-63
−10.5
12
vs
LUC
W 64-59
−9.5
13
vs
JOES
L 58-70
−5.5
17
@
OKST
L 80-84
+9.5
over 14under 18avg −2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Davidson has the better starters
Position by position: Tulane 1, Davidson 2, even 2
TulaneBetterDavidson
G K. Lewis TR18.8 pts · 4.6 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 65
→DAVSmall
G N. Janowski TR16.7 pts · 5 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 81
G T. Nadeau TR13.5 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 73
←TULNBig
G S. Brown7.9 pts · 2 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 33
F T. Ringgold9.6 pts · 4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 57
=Even
G N. Coval6.2 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 49
F C. Schwieger10.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 32
→DAVBig
F J. Scovens11.1 pts · 4.2 reb · 2 ast
Score 88
F J. Chappelle TR6.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 37
=Even
C I. Platteeuw3.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 43
TulaneBetterDavidson
TULN offense114th of 366 · -2.4
=Even
DAV defense84th of 366 · +0.0
TULN defense180th of 366 · -4.1
=Even
DAV offense149th of 366 · -4.5
Backcourt+1.1 · 2 players
←TULNSmall
Backcourt-0.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.2 · 3 players
→DAVBig
Frontcourt+2.2 · 2 players
Bench-1.1 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-0.9 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestTULN betterDAV betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Lewis36 min · TRT. Nadeau27 min · TRK. Greene15 minJ. Moore12 minR. Moore2 minR. BlountNew
Forwards
T. Ringgold25 minC. Schwieger25 minJ. Chappelle24 min · TRJ. Dumont2 min · TRL. Cronin2 min
Centers
D. SalaneNew
Guards
N. Janowski32 min · TRS. Brown24 minN. Coval19 minP. Kavu1 minJ. CarterNewE. HeinonenNew
Forwards
J. Scovens25 minJ. Roberts12 minJ. Keith9 min · TRJ. Nowland1 minQ. BashiruNewT. StoiberNew
Centers
I. Platteeuw15 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.0 #239 | Points per game | 69.9 #289 |
| 1.05 #245 | Points per possession | 1.08 #189 |
| 68.5 #205 | Pace (possessions) | 65.0 #347 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.4 #275 | Effective FG% | 52.6 #121 |
| 32.0 #279 | 3-point % | 35.4 #92 |
| 45.0 #68 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.5 #79 |
| 43.5 #14 | Free throw rate | 31.0 #283 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.4 #99 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #124 |
| 22.8 #352 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #265 |
| 12.6 #244 | Assists per game | 13.4 #184 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.7 #208 | Points allowed | 68.5 #40 |
| 1.11 #229 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #94 |
| 50.7 #140 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.6 #132 |
| 34.5 #216 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.6 #92 |
| 17.1 #139 | Turnovers forced | 17.5 #121 |
| 64.2 #352 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.0 #157 |
| 7.5 #85 | Steals per game | 6.4 #189 |
| 4.5 #38 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #66 |
Tulane
17-15 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Charlotte60–74
- Wvs Memphis81–69
- Lvs Memphis95–96
- L@ Temple60–89
- L@ South Florida62–90
A week or more of rest.
Davidson
18-14 in 2025-26 overall · 11-9 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Oklahoma St80–84
- Lvs Saint Joseph's58–70
- Wvs Loyola Chicago64–59
- W@ St Bonaventure68–63
- Lvs Saint Joseph's67–70
A week or more of rest.