Ford Center · at Evansville
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | EVAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 EVAN 76–69 · win probability EVAN 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.6
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: LEM has more of the edges
LEM 3, EVAN 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
LEM has played the 344th-hardest schedule, EVAN the 127th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: LEM 52.6 and allows 49.3; EVAN 49.3 and allows 55.1
LEM offense vs EVAN defense
Offense 333rd of 366 against a defense 220th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: LEM 39.5, EVAN 29.8. Allowed: LEM 32.7, EVAN 31.4
Three-pointers
LEM hits 34.3% and allows 36.0%; EVAN hits 32.3% and allows 37.6%. Threes are 40.8% and 43.1% of their shots
Home court
EVAN at home. This season: EVAN 0-0 at home, LEM 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LEM 25.2%, EVAN 22.0%. Defensive: LEM 71.0%, EVAN 69.8%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: LEM plays 69.2 a game (168th fastest), EVAN 67.9 (232nd). Faster games mean more points
Even
EVAN offense vs LEM defense
Offense 277th of 366 against a defense 308th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LEM 24%, EVAN 35%. Transfers in: LEM 7, EVAN 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LEM 19.1%, EVAN 19.1%. Forced: LEM 15.0%, EVAN 15.4%
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 | — | EVAN -7.6 | — |
| Total | — | 144.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | LEM 68.5 · EVAN 76.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | EVAN -4.4 | — |
| 1H total | 67.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | LEM 31.6 · EVAN 36 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Le Moyne
31 games played
Straight up
14-17
45% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg +0.4 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 6 | @ | L 69-74 | +24.5 | W +19.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 60-83 | +11.5 | L −11.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 80-94 | +16.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 74-68 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 83-97 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 28 | @ | W 76-63 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 83-79 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 85-96 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | O 181 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 78-63 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 53-95 | +29.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 81-92 | +21.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 64-72 | +12.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 84-58 | -5.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 60-74 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 141.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 73-47 | -5.5 | W +20.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 59-69 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 72-57 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 83-77 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 69-67 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 26 | @ | W 87-74 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-83 | +8.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 54-65 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 78-79 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 86-84 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 58-57 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 81-63 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 77-78 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 68-77 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 76-59 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 59-66 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 71-81 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
XAV
L 69-74
+19.5
9
@
BGSU
L 60-83
−11.5
13
@
MASS
L 80-94
+2.5
17
vs
NIA
W 74-68
+3.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 83-97
−12.5
28
@
LAF
W 76-63
+17.5
29
vs
MONM
W 83-79
+10.5
30
vs
BALL
L 85-96
−12.5
6
@
BING
W 78-63
+12.5
16
@
TEX
L 53-95
−12.5
20
@
SBU
L 81-92
+10.5
28
@
BC
L 64-72
+4.5
2
@
SFPA
W 84-58
+20.5
4
@
MERC
L 60-74
−11.5
8
vs
NHVN
W 73-47
+20.5
10
vs
CCSU
L 59-69
−11.5
17
@
CHST
W 72-57
+8.5
19
vs
LIU
W 83-77
+7.5
23
vs
WAG
W 69-67
−5.5
26
@
FDU
W 87-74
+14.5
29
@
LIU
L 61-83
−13.5
31
vs
STO
L 54-65
−13.5
5
@
WAG
L 78-79
−2.5
7
vs
SFPA
W 86-84
−5.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-57
−1.5
14
vs
CHST
W 81-63
+11.5
19
@
CCSU
L 77-78
+7.5
21
@
STO
L 68-77
−10.5
26
vs
FDU
W 76-59
+12.5
28
@
NHVN
L 59-66
−8.5
4
vs
STO
L 71-81
−14.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
XAV
L 69-74
−13.5
9
@
BGSU
L 60-83
−11.5
13
@
MASS
L 80-94
+20.5
17
vs
NIA
W 74-68
+3.5
22
vs
FAIR
L 83-97
+34.5
28
@
LAF
W 76-63
−12.5
29
vs
MONM
W 83-79
+16.5
30
vs
BALL
L 85-96
+40.5
6
@
BING
W 78-63
−3.5
16
@
TEX
L 53-95
−4.5
20
@
SBU
L 81-92
+21.5
28
@
BC
L 64-72
−10.5
2
@
SFPA
W 84-58
−9.5
4
@
MERC
L 60-74
−7.5
8
vs
NHVN
W 73-47
−17.5
10
vs
CCSU
L 59-69
−18.5
17
@
CHST
W 72-57
−17.5
19
vs
LIU
W 83-77
+9.5
23
vs
WAG
W 69-67
−7.5
26
@
FDU
W 87-74
+21.5
29
@
LIU
L 61-83
−3.5
31
vs
STO
L 54-65
−21.5
5
@
WAG
L 78-79
+18.5
7
vs
SFPA
W 86-84
+16.5
12
vs
MERC
W 58-57
−23.5
14
vs
CHST
W 81-63
−0.5
19
@
CCSU
L 77-78
−10.5
21
@
STO
L 68-77
+7.5
26
vs
FDU
W 76-59
−4.5
28
@
NHVN
L 59-66
−12.5
4
vs
STO
L 71-81
+11.5
over 12under 19avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Evansville
30 games played
Straight up
5-25
17% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −3.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg +2.2 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 4 | @ | L 51-82 | +33.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 12 | vs | L 72-77 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 76-84 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 138.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 73-69 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 59-97 | +11.5 | L −26.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 59-78 | +4.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 64-52 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 136.5 | U 116 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 79-80 | +11.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 58-82 | +14.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 78-83 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 65-66 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 68-76 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 47-73 | +12.5 | L −13.5 | 144.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 48-62 | +4.5 | L −9.5 | 131.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 69-79 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 72-69 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 90-94 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 49-76 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 78-82 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 55-71 | +11.5 | L −4.5 | 128.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 63-84 | +1.5 | L −19.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 6 | @ | L 63-70 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 88-80 | +10.5 | W +18.5 | 137.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 60-86 | +12.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 46-84 | +8.5 | L −29.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-88 | +15.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 64-98 | +18.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 80-79 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 67-81 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 59-68 | +13.5 | W +4.5 | 127.5 | U 127 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
PUR
L 51-82
+2.5
12
vs
MTSU
L 72-77
−7.5
18
vs
UTA
L 76-84
−10.5
21
vs
ORST
W 73-69
+10.5
23
vs
AKR
L 59-97
−26.5
24
vs
COFC
L 59-78
−14.5
3
vs
BALL
W 64-52
+5.5
6
@
WKU
L 79-80
+10.5
13
@
ND
L 58-82
−9.5
16
vs
BEL
L 78-83
+3.5
21
vs
DRKE
L 65-66
−3.5
29
@
BRAD
L 68-76
+3.5
1
@
ILST
L 47-73
−13.5
4
vs
UNI
L 48-62
−9.5
7
vs
MUR
L 69-79
−1.5
10
@
INST
W 72-69
+10.5
13
vs
BRAD
L 90-94
+3.5
20
@
UIC
L 49-76
−18.5
28
@
DRKE
L 78-82
+4.5
31
@
UNI
L 55-71
−4.5
3
vs
INST
L 63-84
−19.5
6
@
VAL
L 63-70
+1.5
9
vs
ILST
W 88-80
+18.5
12
@
SIU
L 60-86
−13.5
18
vs
UIC
L 46-84
−29.5
21
@
MUR
L 75-88
+2.5
25
@
BEL
L 64-98
−15.5
28
vs
VAL
W 80-79
+6.5
1
vs
SIU
L 67-81
−4.5
5
vs
UNI
L 59-68
+4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
PUR
L 51-82
−17.5
12
vs
MTSU
L 72-77
+8.5
18
vs
UTA
L 76-84
+21.5
21
vs
ORST
W 73-69
+5.5
23
vs
AKR
L 59-97
−0.5
24
vs
COFC
L 59-78
−4.5
3
vs
BALL
W 64-52
−20.5
6
@
WKU
L 79-80
+11.5
13
@
ND
L 58-82
+3.5
16
vs
BEL
L 78-83
+13.5
21
vs
DRKE
L 65-66
−10.5
29
@
BRAD
L 68-76
−0.5
1
@
ILST
L 47-73
−24.5
4
vs
UNI
L 48-62
−21.5
7
vs
MUR
L 69-79
−5.5
10
@
INST
W 72-69
−4.5
13
vs
BRAD
L 90-94
+41.5
20
@
UIC
L 49-76
−14.5
28
@
DRKE
L 78-82
+16.5
31
@
UNI
L 55-71
−2.5
3
vs
INST
L 63-84
+1.5
6
@
VAL
L 63-70
−3.5
9
vs
ILST
W 88-80
+30.5
12
@
SIU
L 60-86
+3.5
18
vs
UIC
L 46-84
−10.5
21
@
MUR
L 75-88
+9.5
25
@
BEL
L 64-98
+9.5
28
vs
VAL
W 80-79
+21.5
1
vs
SIU
L 67-81
+8.5
5
vs
UNI
L 59-68
−0.5
over 15under 15avg +2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Evansville has the better starters
Position by position: Le Moyne 1, Evansville 2, even 2
Le MoyneBetterEvansville
G A. Moss10 pts · 7 reb · 5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G B. Quinet8.6 pts · 2 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 31
G J. Clayville TR6.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 11
=No call
G M. Langenfeld TR2.6 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
G D. King TR4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 59
→EVANSmall
F A. Casey13.9 pts · 6 reb · 2 ast
Score 86
F K. Stuckey TR4.4 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 5
→EVANBig
F G. Winther TR7.9 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 51
F T. Francis TR4.5 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 27
←LEMSmall
F J. Dyson-Merwe2.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 8
Le MoyneBetterEvansville
LEM offense333rd of 366 · -10.8
→EVANSmall
EVAN defense220th of 366 · -5.7
LEM defense308th of 366 · -8.0
=Even
EVAN offense277th of 366 · -8.5
Backcourt-4.4 · 3 players
→EVANSmall
Backcourt-2.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
→EVANBig
Frontcourt+0.8 · 3 players
Bench-6.1 · 5 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestLEM betterEVAN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Moss37 minJ. Clayville20 min · TRD. King14 min · TRJ. Teat14 min · TRK. Williams12 min · TRJ. Lee4 min
Forwards
K. Stuckey19 min · TRT. Francis15 min · TRT. Roe7 minI. BrownNewC. SchreinerNewC. JohnsonNew
Centers
P. Hartman9 min · TR
Guards
B. Quinet27 minM. Langenfeld7 min · TRM. RiekNewL. EllspermannNewA. GutmanNewR. MasumyanNew
Forwards
A. Casey30 minG. Winther22 min · TRJ. Dyson-Merwe13 minD. NejezchlebNewY. PinasNewJ. GenschawNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.3 #234 | Points per game | 65.8 #347 |
| 1.04 #265 | Points per possession | 0.97 #344 |
| 69.2 #168 | Pace (possessions) | 67.9 #232 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.6 #118 | Effective FG% | 49.3 #280 |
| 34.3 #152 | 3-point % | 32.3 #268 |
| 40.8 #151 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.1 #109 |
| 39.5 #68 | Free throw rate | 29.8 #315 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.1 #323 | Turnover rate | 19.1 #324 |
| 25.2 #337 | Offensive rebound rate | 22.0 #355 |
| 14.0 #149 | Assists per game | 12.6 #245 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.9 #154 | Points allowed | 78.3 #275 |
| 1.07 #132 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #329 |
| 49.3 #75 | Opponent effective FG% | 55.1 #332 |
| 36.0 #303 | Opponent 3-point % | 37.6 #351 |
| 15.0 #289 | Turnovers forced | 15.4 #258 |
| 71.0 #107 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.8 #170 |
| 5.5 #300 | Steals per game | 5.0 #335 |
| 3.3 #177 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #171 |
Le Moyne
14-17 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Stonehill71–81
- L@ New Haven59–66
- Wvs FDU76–59
- L@ Stonehill68–77
- L@ C Connecticut77–78
A week or more of rest.
Evansville
5-25 in 2025-26 overall · 3-18 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Northern Iowa59–68
- Lvs S Illinois67–81
- Wvs Valparaiso80–79
- L@ Belmont64–98
- L@ Murray St75–88
A week or more of rest.