Schollmaier Arena · at TCU
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TCU 90–61 · win probability TCU 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.2
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: TCU has more of the edges
ALST 0, TCU 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
ALST has played the 333rd-hardest schedule, TCU the 29th. A record against a soft schedule means less
TCU offense vs ALST defense
Offense 48th of 366 against a defense 330th, on the model’s ratings
ALST offense vs TCU defense
Offense 269th of 366 against a defense 27th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: ALST 34.9, TCU 37.5. Allowed: ALST 42.3, TCU 30.4
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ALST 18.3%, TCU 15.3%. Forced: ALST 18.7%, TCU 19.5%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ALST 31.9%, TCU 34.0%. Defensive: ALST 68.5%, TCU 70.9%
Shooting
Effective FG%: ALST 47.1 and allows 52.2; TCU 50.4 and allows 51.2
Three-pointers
ALST hits 31.8% and allows 34.2%; TCU hits 33.2% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 38.5% and 36.8% of their shots
Home court
TCU at home. This season: TCU 0-0 at home, ALST 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ALST 32%, TCU 52%. Transfers in: ALST 3, TCU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: ALST plays 71.3 a game (59th fastest), TCU 70.2 (108th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | TCU -28.9 | — |
| Total | — | 150.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | ALST 60.6 · TCU 89.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TCU -17.1 | — |
| 1H total | 70.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | ALST 26.6 · TCU 43.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Alabama St
31 games played
Straight up
9-22
29% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −1.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg −1.6 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 64-101 | +24.5 | L −12.5 | 166.5 | U 165 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 77-74 | +19.5 | W +22.5 | 164.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 66-94 | +22.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 64-66 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 101-80 | +2.5 | W +23.5 | 181.5 | U 181 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 68-83 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 87-93 | +19.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 64-74 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 11 | @ | L 77-85 | +26.5 | W +18.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 51-88 | +21.5 | L −15.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 67-88 | +20.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 56-94 | +17.5 | L −20.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 89-69 | -13.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 79-90 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 159.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 64-75 | -7.5 | L −18.5 | 153.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 81-66 | -9.5 | W +5.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 69-73 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 95-80 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 64-96 | +2.5 | L −29.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 54-69 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 152.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 79-66 | -3.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 47-57 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 68-69 | +6.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-61 | -3.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 92-55 | -16.5 | W +20.5 | 142.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 71-82 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 63-76 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 89-88 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | O 177 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 64-71 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 63-65 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 65-77 | -7.5 | L −19.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
FSU
L 64-101
−12.5
11
@
UAB
W 77-74
+22.5
17
@
COLO
L 66-94
−5.5
19
@
AF
L 64-66
+0.5
21
vs
IUIN
W 101-80
+23.5
23
vs
SIUE
L 68-83
−13.5
26
@
UNM
L 87-93
+13.5
7
@
UTM
L 64-74
−3.5
11
@
MIZ
L 77-85
+18.5
17
@
CIN
L 51-88
−15.5
22
@
MEM
L 67-88
−0.5
29
@
MSST
L 56-94
−20.5
3
@
MVSU
W 89-69
+6.5
5
@
UAPB
L 79-90
−12.5
10
vs
JKST
L 64-75
−18.5
12
vs
ALCN
W 81-66
+5.5
19
vs
AAMU
L 69-73
−5.5
24
@
PV
W 95-80
+13.5
27
@
TXSO
L 64-96
−29.5
31
vs
BCU
L 54-69
−13.5
2
vs
FAMU
W 79-66
+9.5
7
@
GRAM
L 47-57
−5.5
9
@
SOU
L 68-69
+5.5
14
vs
UAPB
W 79-61
+14.5
16
vs
MVSU
W 92-55
+20.5
19
@
BCU
L 71-82
−5.5
21
@
FAMU
L 63-76
−14.5
28
@
AAMU
W 89-88
+2.5
3
vs
SOU
L 64-71
−8.5
5
vs
GRAM
L 63-65
−4.5
9
vs
ALCN
L 65-77
−19.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
FSU
L 64-101
−1.5
11
@
UAB
W 77-74
−13.5
17
@
COLO
L 66-94
+3.5
19
@
AF
L 64-66
−8.5
21
vs
IUIN
W 101-80
−0.5
23
vs
SIUE
L 68-83
+8.5
26
@
UNM
L 87-93
+31.5
7
@
UTM
L 64-74
−6.5
11
@
MIZ
L 77-85
+6.5
17
@
CIN
L 51-88
−6.5
22
@
MEM
L 67-88
+3.5
29
@
MSST
L 56-94
−4.5
3
@
MVSU
W 89-69
+13.5
5
@
UAPB
L 79-90
+9.5
10
vs
JKST
L 64-75
−14.5
12
vs
ALCN
W 81-66
−4.5
19
vs
AAMU
L 69-73
−4.5
24
@
PV
W 95-80
+16.5
27
@
TXSO
L 64-96
+4.5
31
vs
BCU
L 54-69
−29.5
2
vs
FAMU
W 79-66
+5.5
7
@
GRAM
L 47-57
−40.5
9
@
SOU
L 68-69
−12.5
14
vs
UAPB
W 79-61
−9.5
16
vs
MVSU
W 92-55
+4.5
19
@
BCU
L 71-82
+5.5
21
@
FAMU
L 63-76
−5.5
28
@
AAMU
W 89-88
+33.5
3
vs
SOU
L 64-71
−18.5
5
vs
GRAM
L 63-65
−16.5
9
vs
ALCN
L 65-77
+0.5
over 14under 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
TCU
35 games played
Straight up
23-12
66% wins
Against the spread
19-16
54% covers · avg +0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-20
43% overs · avg −0.3 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 | L 74-78 | -21.5 | L −25.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 104-63 | -27.5 | W +13.5 | 153.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 78-65 | -18.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 63-67 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 81-45 | -23.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 84-80 | +11.5 | W +15.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 74-63 | +5.5 | W +16.5 | 157.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 5 | vs | L 85-87 | -6.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 65-55 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 15 | vs | W 69-65 | -19.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 72-53 | -23.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 80-56 | -29.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 115-64 | -30.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 69-63 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 100-104 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | O 204 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 73-86 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 70-76 | +13.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 79-82 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 68-65 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 161.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 97-90 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | O 187 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 70-79 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 61-87 | -1.5 | L −27.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-82 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 62-55 | +7.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 95-92 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | O 187 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 71-82 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 60-54 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 90-78 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 77-68 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 73-65 | +8.5 | W +16.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 73-63 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 95-88 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 73-78 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 66-64 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 58-81 | +12.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NOLA
L 74-78
−25.5
6
vs
SFPA
W 104-63
+13.5
10
vs
LAM
W 78-65
−5.5
14
vs
MICH
L 63-67
+3.5
19
vs
KC
W 81-45
+12.5
27
vs
FLA
W 84-80
+15.5
28
vs
WIS
W 74-63
+16.5
5
vs
ND
L 85-87
−8.5
7
@
UNT
W 65-55
+0.5
15
vs
UIW
W 69-65
−15.5
18
vs
ORU
W 72-53
−4.5
21
vs
FAMU
W 80-56
−5.5
29
vs
JKST
W 115-64
+20.5
3
vs
BAY
W 69-63
+3.5
6
@
KU
L 100-104
+2.5
10
vs
ARIZ
L 73-86
−5.5
14
@
BYU
L 70-76
+7.5
17
@
UTAH
L 79-82
−7.5
20
vs
OKST
W 68-65
−5.5
24
@
BAY
W 97-90
+11.5
28
vs
HOU
L 70-79
−0.5
1
@
COLO
L 61-87
−27.5
7
vs
KSU
W 84-82
−7.5
10
vs
ISU
W 62-55
+14.5
14
@
OKST
W 95-92
+1.5
17
@
UCF
L 71-82
−12.5
21
vs
WVU
W 60-54
+1.5
24
vs
ASU
W 90-78
+5.5
28
@
KSU
W 77-68
+5.5
3
@
TTU
W 73-65
+16.5
7
vs
CIN
W 73-63
+7.5
11
vs
OKST
W 95-88
−0.5
12
vs
KU
L 73-78
−0.5
19
vs
OSU
W 66-64
+4.5
21
vs
DUKE
L 58-81
−10.5
covered 19didn’t cover 16avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NOLA
L 74-78
+2.5
6
vs
SFPA
W 104-63
+13.5
10
vs
LAM
W 78-65
−4.5
14
vs
MICH
L 63-67
−34.5
19
vs
KC
W 81-45
−24.5
27
vs
FLA
W 84-80
+8.5
28
vs
WIS
W 74-63
−20.5
5
vs
ND
L 85-87
+30.5
7
@
UNT
W 65-55
−15.5
15
vs
UIW
W 69-65
−9.5
18
vs
ORU
W 72-53
−22.5
21
vs
FAMU
W 80-56
−6.5
29
vs
JKST
W 115-64
+35.5
3
vs
BAY
W 69-63
−22.5
6
@
KU
L 100-104
+60.5
10
vs
ARIZ
L 73-86
+1.5
14
@
BYU
L 70-76
−16.5
17
@
UTAH
L 79-82
+6.5
20
vs
OKST
W 68-65
−28.5
24
@
BAY
W 97-90
+39.5
28
vs
HOU
L 70-79
+9.5
1
@
COLO
L 61-87
−5.5
7
vs
KSU
W 84-82
+10.5
10
vs
ISU
W 62-55
−30.5
14
@
OKST
W 95-92
+30.5
17
@
UCF
L 71-82
−1.5
21
vs
WVU
W 60-54
−19.5
24
vs
ASU
W 90-78
+18.5
28
@
KSU
W 77-68
−14.5
3
@
TTU
W 73-65
−9.5
7
vs
CIN
W 73-63
−4.5
11
vs
OKST
W 95-88
+24.5
12
vs
KU
L 73-78
+4.5
19
vs
OSU
W 66-64
−15.5
21
vs
DUKE
L 58-81
−1.5
over 15under 20avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
TCU has the better starters
Position by position: Alabama St 0, TCU 3, even 2
Alabama StBetterTCU
G M. James TR21 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 77
=Even
G G. Sykes TR19.7 pts · 3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 89
G A. Brown13.8 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 46
→TCUSmall
G B. Harding8 pts · 2.9 reb · 5.6 ast
Score 67
G T. Miller7 pts · 1 reb · 3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Robinson10.9 pts · 4.7 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 85
F J. Walker4.6 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 19
→TCUBig
G T. Toolson7.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 75
F J. Scott TR3.7 pts · 3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 33
→TCUBig
F X. Edmonds12.7 pts · 6.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 98
Alabama StBetterTCU
ALST offense269th of 366 · -8.2
→TCUBig
TCU defense27th of 366 · +3.9
ALST defense330th of 366 · -8.6
→TCUBig
TCU offense48th of 366 · +3.8
Backcourt-1.0 · 3 players
→TCUBig
Backcourt+5.6 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.8 · 2 players
→TCUBig
Frontcourt+4.4 · 1 player
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
→TCUSmall
Bench+1.6 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestALST betterTCU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. James37 min · TRA. Brown26 minT. Miller22 minD. BondsNewP. McMillanNewJ. RogersNew
Forwards
J. Walker16 minJ. Scott12 min · TRI. Barganier1 min · TRP. MensahNewM. DixonNewT. HamptonNew
Guards
G. Sykes34 min · TRB. Harding32 minM. Robinson27 minT. Toolson21 minD. McElroy1 minG. MurphyNew
Forwards
X. Edmonds23 minD. Thomas17 min · TRL. Bamgboye17 min · TRR. HuntNewS. FlemingNewM. SojicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.5 #260 | Points per game | 77.4 #109 |
| 1.01 #318 | Points per possession | 1.10 #127 |
| 71.3 #59 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #108 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.1 #335 | Effective FG% | 50.4 #221 |
| 31.8 #288 | 3-point % | 33.2 #220 |
| 38.5 #200 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.8 #233 |
| 34.9 #185 | Free throw rate | 37.5 #112 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.3 #289 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #90 |
| 31.9 #128 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.0 #67 |
| 11.7 #303 | Assists per game | 15.4 #71 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.6 #256 | Points allowed | 72.1 #107 |
| 1.09 #185 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #50 |
| 52.2 #222 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.2 #172 |
| 34.2 #194 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #158 |
| 18.7 #63 | Turnovers forced | 19.5 #33 |
| 68.5 #230 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.9 #112 |
| 7.9 #50 | Steals per game | 7.7 #61 |
| 3.8 #102 | Blocks per game | 4.5 #39 |
Alabama St
9-22 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Alcorn St65–77
- Lvs Grambling63–65
- Lvs Southern64–71
- W@ Alabama A&M89–88
- L@ Florida A&M63–76
A week or more of rest.
TCU
23-12 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Duke58–81
- Wvs Ohio State66–64
- Lvs Kansas73–78
- Wvs Oklahoma St95–88
- Wvs Cincinnati73–63
A week or more of rest.