Fairleigh Dickinson Knights at East Texas A&M Lions: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Nov 11, 12:00 AM ETThe Field House · at East Texas A&M

#356FDUFDU

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: FDU and East Texas A&M
FDU	This season	ETAM
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 ETAM 73–67 · win probability ETAM 68%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 140.2

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: ETAM has more of the edges

FDU 1, ETAM 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

FDUBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: FDU 32.0%, ETAM 25.7%. Defensive: FDU 72.7%, ETAM 67.2%

Context

Tempo

About 66 possessions: FDU plays 64.4 a game (356th fastest), ETAM 68.5 (203rd). Faster games mean more points

ETAMSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: FDU 47.1 and allows 55.2; ETAM 49.2 and allows 52.9

ETAMSmall

Home court

ETAM at home. This season: ETAM 0-0 at home, FDU 0-0 away

Context

Schedule so far

FDU has played the 308th-hardest schedule, ETAM the 265th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

FDU offense vs ETAM defense

Offense 356th of 366 against a defense 317th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: FDU 27%, ETAM 7%. Transfers in: FDU 3, ETAM 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

ETAM offense vs FDU defense

Offense 344th of 366 against a defense 320th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: FDU 32.8, ETAM 32.0. Allowed: FDU 36.3, ETAM 34.5

Even

Three-pointers

FDU hits 30.3% and allows 37.8%; ETAM hits 31.3% and allows 37.3%. Threes are 45.2% and 46.2% of their shots

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: FDU 18.2%, ETAM 19.2%. Forced: FDU 16.1%, ETAM 17.0%

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	ETAM -5.5	—
Total	—	140.2	—
Projected score	—	FDU 67.4 · ETAM 72.9

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	ETAM -3.1	—
1H total	65.6	—
1H projected score	FDU 31.2 · ETAM 34.4	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
FDU LLLLL	10-19	34%	5-13	—
ETAM WLLWL	14-16	47%	4-8	—

Venue/role: FDU away; ETAM home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
FDU UOUUU	10-19	34%	8-21
ETAM UOUUO	15-15	50%	9-21

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
FDU	4-6 40%	2-8 20%	3-7 30%
ETAM	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	5-5 50%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

FDU

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 13	@ OU	No recent meeting
Nov 18	vs NJIT	L81–93LO
Nov 23	@ IONA	No recent meeting

East Texas A&M

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 13	@ PORT	No recent meeting
Nov 16	@ ORST	No recent meeting
Nov 19	@ CAL	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

FDU 0–1 ETAMETAM leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · FDU 0-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 24, 2025-26	ETAM 70 @ FDU 65	FDU +3.5	ETAM W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

FDU

29 games played

Straight up

8-21

28% wins

Against the spread

10-19

34% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

10-19

34% overs · avg −2.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

8-2128%

L L L L L L L L L L W L W L L W W L L L W W W L W L L L L

4 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

10-1934%

L L L L L L L L W W W L W L W W W L W L W W L L L L L L L

7 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

10-1934%

U O U O U O U U U U O O U U U U O O U O O U U U U O U U U

3 straight unders1 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@ISU	L 50-88	+37.5	L −0.5	147.5	U 138
Nov 8	@SPU	L 83-93	+6.5	L −3.5	137.5	O 176
Nov 12	@TEX	L 58-93	+31.5	L −3.5	158.5	U 151
Nov 15	@NJIT	L 81-93	+2.5	L −9.5	146.5	O 174
Nov 24	vsETAM	L 65-70	+3.5	L −1.5	149.5	U 135
Nov 26	vsARMY	L 73-81	-4.5	L −12.5	152.5	O 154
Dec 2	@PROV	L 64-94	+26.5	L −3.5	162.5	U 158
Dec 10	@FOR	L 54-75	+11.5	L −9.5	141.5	U 129
Dec 22	@BC	L 61-72	+16.5	W +5.5	141.5	U 133
Dec 29	@MINN	L 43-60	+25.5	W +8.5	139.5	U 103
Jan 2	@MERC	W 74-67	+5.5	W +12.5	133.5	O 141
Jan 4	@SFPA	L 82-85	-2.5	L −5.5	143.5	O 167
Jan 8	vsCHST	W 70-63	-4.5	W +2.5	143.5	U 133
Jan 10	@NHVN	L 55-65	+1.5	L −8.5	130.5	U 120
Jan 17	vsLIU	L 59-66	+7.5	W +0.5	143.5	U 125
Jan 19	vsWAG	W 68-61	-2.5	W +4.5	137.5	U 129
Jan 23	@CCSU	W 76-66	+7.5	W +17.5	140.5	O 142
Jan 26	vsLEM	L 74-87	-1.5	L −14.5	139.5	O 161
Jan 29	@STO	L 57-58	+2.5	W +1.5	131.5	U 115
Jan 31	@WAG	L 72-75	+1.5	L −1.5	133.5	O 147
Feb 5	vsSTO	W 74-58	-1.5	W +14.5	130.5	O 132
Feb 7	vsMERC	W 55-52	-2.5	W +0.5	131.5	U 107
Feb 12	vsSFPA	W 66-59	-7.5	L −0.5	141.5	U 125
Feb 14	vsCCSU	L 57-63	-1.5	L −7.5	133.5	U 120
Feb 19	@CHST	W 60-59	-1.5	L −0.5	131.5	U 119
Feb 21	vsNHVN	L 77-84	-2.5	L −9.5	123.5	O 161
Feb 26	@LEM	L 59-76	+4.5	L −12.5	139.5	U 135
Feb 28	@LIU	L 60-74	+9.5	L −4.5	137.5	U 134
Mar 4	@MERC	L 61-70	+3.5	L −5.5	131.5	U 131

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

ISU

L 50-88

−0.5

SPU

L 83-93

−3.5

TEX

L 58-93

−3.5

NJIT

L 81-93

−9.5

ETAM

L 65-70

−1.5

ARMY

L 73-81

−12.5

PROV

L 64-94

−3.5

FOR

L 54-75

−9.5

L 61-72

+5.5

MINN

L 43-60

+8.5

MERC

W 74-67

+12.5

SFPA

L 82-85

−5.5

CHST

W 70-63

+2.5

NHVN

L 55-65

−8.5

LIU

L 59-66

+0.5

WAG

W 68-61

+4.5

CCSU

W 76-66

+17.5

LEM

L 74-87

−14.5

STO

L 57-58

+1.5

WAG

L 72-75

−1.5

STO

W 74-58

+14.5

MERC

W 55-52

+0.5

SFPA

W 66-59

−0.5

CCSU

L 57-63

−7.5

CHST

W 60-59

−0.5

NHVN

L 77-84

−9.5

LEM

L 59-76

−12.5

LIU

L 60-74

−4.5

MERC

L 61-70

−5.5

covered 10didn’t cover 19avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

ISU

L 50-88

−9.5

SPU

L 83-93

+38.5

TEX

L 58-93

−7.5

NJIT

L 81-93

+27.5

ETAM

L 65-70

−14.5

ARMY

L 73-81

+1.5

PROV

L 64-94

−4.5

FOR

L 54-75

−12.5

L 61-72

−8.5

MINN

L 43-60

−36.5

MERC

W 74-67

+7.5

SFPA

L 82-85

+23.5

CHST

W 70-63

−10.5

NHVN

L 55-65

−10.5

LIU

L 59-66

−18.5

WAG

W 68-61

−8.5

CCSU

W 76-66

+1.5

LEM

L 74-87

+21.5

STO

L 57-58

−16.5

WAG

L 72-75

+13.5

STO

W 74-58

+1.5

MERC

W 55-52

−24.5

SFPA

W 66-59

−16.5

CCSU

L 57-63

−13.5

CHST

W 60-59

−12.5

NHVN

L 77-84

+37.5

LEM

L 59-76

−4.5

LIU

L 60-74

−3.5

MERC

L 61-70

−0.5

over 10under 19avg −2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

East Texas A&M

30 games played

Straight up

9-21

30% wins

Against the spread

14-16

47% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-15

50% overs · avg −1.3 pts vs the total

Straight up

9-2130%

L L L W W L W L W L L L L L W L L W L L L W W L L W L L L L

4 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1647%

W L W W W W W L W L L L L L W L L W L L L W W W L W L L W L

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1550%

U O U U O O U O O O U U U O O U O U O U O U U O O U O U U O

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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 5	@UNM	L 54-76	+22.5	W +0.5	143.5	U 130
Nov 10	@HAW	L 74-100	+18.5	L −7.5	145.5	O 174
Nov 14	@RICE	L 64-71	+10.5	W +3.5	146.5	U 135
Nov 24	@FDU	W 70-65	-3.5	W +1.5	149.5	U 135
Nov 25	vsARMY	W 84-67	-2.5	W +14.5	143.5	O 151
Dec 5	@CONN	L 59-83	+36.5	W +12.5	141.5	O 142
Dec 7	vsCARK	W 75-68	-2.5	W +4.5	145.5	U 143
Dec 12	@MCN	L 66-102	+20.5	L −15.5	142.5	O 168
Dec 15	@SELA	W 70-69	+4.5	W +5.5	137.5	O 139
Dec 21	@TA&M	L 77-118	+28.5	L −12.5	166.5	O 195
Dec 29	vsSFA	L 48-75	+4.5	L −22.5	146.5	U 123
Dec 31	vsLAM	L 62-69	+5.5	L −1.5	143.5	U 131
Jan 3	@NICH	L 58-80	+6.5	L −15.5	146.5	U 138
Jan 5	@NOLA	L 73-83	+6.5	L −3.5	150.5	O 156
Jan 10	vsRGV	W 77-69	+3.5	W +11.5	145.5	O 146
Jan 12	vsAMCC	L 50-61	+3.5	L −7.5	142.5	U 111
Jan 17	@HCU	L 70-81	+2.5	L −8.5	139.5	O 151
Jan 19	@UIW	W 80-58	+6.5	W +28.5	142.5	U 138
Jan 27	@LAM	L 61-82	+6.5	L −14.5	140.5	O 143
Jan 31	vsNICH	L 68-72	-1.5	L −5.5	146.5	U 140
Feb 2	vsNOLA	L 85-94	+1.5	L −7.5	151.5	O 179
Feb 4	@NWST	W 74-68	+3.5	W +9.5	143.5	U 142
Feb 7	vsNWST	W 52-48	-1.5	W +2.5	140.5	U 100
Feb 9	@SFA	L 70-74	+16.5	W +12.5	143.5	O 144
Feb 14	vsMCN	L 54-97	+13.5	L −29.5	142.5	O 151
Feb 16	vsSELA	W 70-53	-2.5	W +14.5	136.5	U 123
Feb 21	vsUIW	L 73-82	-3.5	L −12.5	145.5	O 155
Feb 23	vsHCU	L 68-69	-2.5	L −3.5	138.5	U 137
Feb 28	@RGV	L 55-63	+10.5	W +2.5	146.5	U 118
Mar 2	@AMCC	L 71-84	+7.5	L −5.5	136.5	O 155

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UNM

L 54-76

+0.5

HAW

L 74-100

−7.5

RICE

L 64-71

+3.5

FDU

W 70-65

+1.5

ARMY

W 84-67

+14.5

CONN

L 59-83

+12.5

CARK

W 75-68

+4.5

MCN

L 66-102

−15.5

SELA

W 70-69

+5.5

TA&M

L 77-118

−12.5

SFA

L 48-75

−22.5

LAM

L 62-69

−1.5

NICH

L 58-80

−15.5

NOLA

L 73-83

−3.5

RGV

W 77-69

+11.5

AMCC

L 50-61

−7.5

HCU

L 70-81

−8.5

UIW

W 80-58

+28.5

LAM

L 61-82

−14.5

NICH

L 68-72

−5.5

NOLA

L 85-94

−7.5

NWST

W 74-68

+9.5

NWST

W 52-48

+2.5

SFA

L 70-74

+12.5

MCN

L 54-97

−29.5

SELA

W 70-53

+14.5

UIW

L 73-82

−12.5

HCU

L 68-69

−3.5

RGV

L 55-63

+2.5

AMCC

L 71-84

−5.5

covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UNM

L 54-76

−13.5

HAW

L 74-100

+28.5

RICE

L 64-71

−11.5

FDU

W 70-65

−14.5

ARMY

W 84-67

+7.5

CONN

L 59-83

+0.5

CARK

W 75-68

−2.5

MCN

L 66-102

+25.5

SELA

W 70-69

+1.5

TA&M

L 77-118

+28.5

SFA

L 48-75

−23.5

LAM

L 62-69

−12.5

NICH

L 58-80

−8.5

NOLA

L 73-83

+5.5

RGV

W 77-69

+0.5

AMCC

L 50-61

−31.5

HCU

L 70-81

+11.5

UIW

W 80-58

−4.5

LAM

L 61-82

+2.5

NICH

L 68-72

−6.5

NOLA

L 85-94

+27.5

NWST

W 74-68

−1.5

NWST

W 52-48

−40.5

SFA

L 70-74

+0.5

MCN

L 54-97

+8.5

SELA

W 70-53

−13.5

UIW

L 73-82

+9.5

HCU

L 68-69

−1.5

RGV

L 55-63

−28.5

AMCC

L 71-84

+18.5

over 15under 15avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

East Texas A&M has the better starters

Position by position: FDU 0, East Texas A&M 1, even 4

FDUBetterEast Texas A&M

G D. Jevtic6.6 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.2 ast Score 25

ETAMBig

G A. Dodd TR14.3 pts · 5.3 reb · 4.1 ast Score 82

G R. Johnson4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 10

Even

G E. Phelps1.3 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast Score 0

G R. Elijah Godbolt1 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.9 ast Score 1

No call

G K. Tolbert NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

F P. Stosic TR3.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 16

No call

F J. Ford TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.5 ast Not ranked

F B. Agu TR2.7 pts · 2 reb · 0.2 ast Not ranked

No call

F B. Aldridge NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

FDUBetterEast Texas A&M

FDU offense356th of 366 · -13.3

Even

ETAM defense317th of 366 · -8.2

FDU defense320th of 366 · -8.3

Even

ETAM offense344th of 366 · -11.8

Backcourt-5.8 · 3 players

ETAMBig

Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players

Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players

Even

Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players

Bench-1.3 · 3 players

No call

BenchNo numbers yet

Score, worst to bestFDU betterETAM betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

FDU

Guards

D. Jevtic21 minR. Johnson17 minR. Elijah Godbolt12 minT. McQuaid2 minJ. JacobsNewA. CandaNew

Forwards

P. Stosic16 min · TRB. Agu10 min · TRT. Torain9 min · TRA. RatliffNew

Centers

S. Haubro3 min

East Texas A&M

Guards

A. Dodd32 min · TRE. Phelps15 minK. TolbertNewC. AdlamNewK. RobinsonNewG. SkorjancNew

Forwards

J. Ford10 min · TRB. AldridgeNewY. VidalNewM. DiakiteNewC. DinuNewM. CarrioNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

FDU65.1 #349

ETAM67.1 #331

Points per possession

FDU1.01 #314

ETAM0.98 #342

Pace (possessions)

FDU64.4 #356

ETAM68.5 #203

Shooting

Effective FG%

FDU47.1 #333

ETAM49.2 #282

3-point %

FDU30.3 #339

ETAM31.3 #313

3-point attempt rate

FDU45.2 #63

ETAM46.2 #43

Free throw rate

FDU32.8 #240

ETAM32.0 #257

Possessions

Turnover rate

FDU18.2 #280

ETAM19.2 #330

Offensive rebound rate

FDU32.0 #125

ETAM25.7 #328

Assists per game

FDU11.4 #316

ETAM14.6 #109

Defense

Points allowed

FDU72.7 #123

ETAM76.0 #218

Points allowed per possession

FDU1.13 #280

ETAM1.11 #240

Opponent effective FG%

FDU55.2 #336

ETAM52.9 #261

Opponent 3-point %

FDU37.8 #354

ETAM37.3 #347

Turnovers forced

FDU16.1 #218

ETAM17.0 #156

Defensive rebound rate

FDU72.7 #46

ETAM67.2 #288

Steals per game

FDU4.8 #344

ETAM6.7 #150

Blocks per game

FDU1.5 #362

ETAM3.1 #196

FDU		ETAM
Scoring
65.1 #349	Points per game	67.1 #331
1.01 #314	Points per possession	0.98 #342
64.4 #356	Pace (possessions)	68.5 #203
Shooting
47.1 #333	Effective FG%	49.2 #282
30.3 #339	3-point %	31.3 #313
45.2 #63	3-point attempt rate	46.2 #43
32.8 #240	Free throw rate	32.0 #257
Possessions
18.2 #280	Turnover rate	19.2 #330
32.0 #125	Offensive rebound rate	25.7 #328
11.4 #316	Assists per game	14.6 #109
Defense
72.7 #123	Points allowed	76.0 #218
1.13 #280	Points allowed per possession	1.11 #240
55.2 #336	Opponent effective FG%	52.9 #261
37.8 #354	Opponent 3-point %	37.3 #347
16.1 #218	Turnovers forced	17.0 #156
72.7 #46	Defensive rebound rate	67.2 #288
4.8 #344	Steals per game	6.7 #150
1.5 #362	Blocks per game	3.1 #196

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

FDU

8-21 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Northeast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Mercyhurst61–70
L@ Long Island60–74
L@ Le Moyne59–76
Lvs New Haven77–84
W@ Chicago St60–59

A week or more of rest.

East Texas A&M

9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-16 in conference · Southland Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Texas A&M-CC71–84
L@ UT Rio Grande55–63
Lvs Hou Christian68–69
Lvs Incarnate Word73–82
Wvs SE Louisiana70–53

A week or more of rest.

Fairleigh Dickinson Knights at East Texas A&M Lions

What could decide it: ETAM has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

FDU

East Texas A&M

East Texas A&M has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

FDU

East Texas A&M