Mizzou Arena · at Missouri
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MIZ | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MIZ 88–61 · win probability MIZ 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.4
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: MIZ has more of the edges
LEM 0, MIZ 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
LEM has played the 344th-hardest schedule, MIZ the 45th. A record against a soft schedule means less
LEM offense vs MIZ defense
Offense 333rd of 366 against a defense 49th, on the model’s ratings
MIZ offense vs LEM defense
Offense 52nd of 366 against a defense 308th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LEM 19.1%, MIZ 17.7%. Forced: LEM 15.0%, MIZ 16.6%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LEM 25.2%, MIZ 34.9%. Defensive: LEM 71.0%, MIZ 68.3%
Home court
MIZ at home. This season: MIZ 0-0 at home, LEM 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LEM 24%, MIZ 33%. Transfers in: LEM 7, MIZ 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: LEM 39.5, MIZ 42.1. Allowed: LEM 32.7, MIZ 35.5
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LEM 52.6 and allows 49.3; MIZ 55.0 and allows 51.5
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: LEM plays 69.2 a game (168th fastest), MIZ 68.8 (191st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
LEM hits 34.3% and allows 36.0%; MIZ hits 35.0% and allows 36.8%. Threes are 40.8% and 36.4% of their shots
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 | — | MIZ -26.9 | — |
| Total | — | 148.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | LEM 60.7 · MIZ 87.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MIZ -15.9 | — |
| 1H total | 69.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | LEM 26.8 · MIZ 42.6 | — |
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% | |
| 4-6 40% | 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
Missouri
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg −0.3 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
4 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered
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 | @ | W 88-67 | -20.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 89-84 | -25.5 | L −20.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 106-68 | -23.5 | W +14.5 | 161.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 83-60 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 91-73 | -35.5 | L −17.5 | 166.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 102-68 | -24.5 | W +9.5 | 171.5 | U 170 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 98-66 | -34.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-59 | -31.5 | L −4.5 | 170.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 71-76 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 60-80 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 11 | vs | W 85-77 | -26.5 | L −18.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 82-60 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 22 | vs | L 48-91 | +8.5 | L −34.5 | 153.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 76-74 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 73-68 | +12.5 | W +17.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 69-76 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 84-74 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 70-78 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 72-74 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 163.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 88-87 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 64-90 | +10.5 | L −15.5 | 167.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 84-79 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 78-59 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 86-85 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 68-85 | -2.5 | L −19.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 81-80 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 86-94 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 73-69 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 88-64 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 64-80 | -1.5 | L −17.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 84-88 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 72-78 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 66-80 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
HOW
W 88-67
+0.5
7
vs
SEMO
W 89-84
−20.5
9
vs
VMI
W 106-68
+14.5
12
vs
MINN
W 83-60
+15.5
17
vs
PV
W 91-73
−17.5
20
vs
SDAK
W 102-68
+9.5
25
vs
SCST
W 98-66
−2.5
28
vs
CLE
W 86-59
−4.5
2
@
ND
L 71-76
−6.5
7
vs
KU
L 60-80
−14.5
11
vs
ALST
W 85-77
−18.5
14
vs
BCU
W 82-60
+1.5
22
vs
ILL
L 48-91
−34.5
3
vs
FLA
W 76-74
+9.5
7
@
UK
W 73-68
+17.5
10
@
MISS
L 69-76
−5.5
14
vs
AUB
W 84-74
+11.5
17
@
LSU
L 70-78
−6.5
20
vs
UGA
L 72-74
−3.5
24
vs
OU
W 88-87
−3.5
27
@
ALA
L 64-90
−15.5
31
vs
MSST
W 84-79
−1.5
7
@
SC
W 78-59
+15.5
11
@
TA&M
W 86-85
+8.5
14
vs
TEX
L 68-85
−19.5
18
vs
VAN
W 81-80
+4.5
21
@
ARK
L 86-94
+1.5
24
vs
TENN
W 73-69
+7.5
28
@
MSST
W 88-64
+22.5
3
@
OU
L 64-80
−17.5
7
vs
ARK
L 84-88
−6.5
12
vs
UK
L 72-78
−3.5
20
vs
MIA
L 66-80
−12.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
HOW
W 88-67
−3.5
7
vs
SEMO
W 89-84
+15.5
9
vs
VMI
W 106-68
+12.5
12
vs
MINN
W 83-60
−15.5
17
vs
PV
W 91-73
−2.5
20
vs
SDAK
W 102-68
−1.5
25
vs
SCST
W 98-66
+3.5
28
vs
CLE
W 86-59
−25.5
2
@
ND
L 71-76
+0.5
7
vs
KU
L 60-80
−10.5
11
vs
ALST
W 85-77
+6.5
14
vs
BCU
W 82-60
−4.5
22
vs
ILL
L 48-91
−14.5
3
vs
FLA
W 76-74
−4.5
7
@
UK
W 73-68
−9.5
10
@
MISS
L 69-76
+1.5
14
vs
AUB
W 84-74
+4.5
17
@
LSU
L 70-78
−0.5
20
vs
UGA
L 72-74
−17.5
24
vs
OU
W 88-87
+23.5
27
@
ALA
L 64-90
−13.5
31
vs
MSST
W 84-79
+16.5
7
@
SC
W 78-59
−10.5
11
@
TA&M
W 86-85
+10.5
14
vs
TEX
L 68-85
+2.5
18
vs
VAN
W 81-80
+6.5
21
@
ARK
L 86-94
+20.5
24
vs
TENN
W 73-69
−1.5
28
@
MSST
W 88-64
−2.5
3
@
OU
L 64-80
−9.5
7
vs
ARK
L 84-88
+8.5
12
vs
UK
L 72-78
+1.5
20
vs
MIA
L 66-80
+1.5
over 16under 17avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Missouri has the better starters
Position by position: Le Moyne 0, Missouri 3, even 2
Le MoyneBetterMissouri
G A. Moss10 pts · 7 reb · 5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Crawford TR14.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 44
G J. Clayville TR6.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 11
→MIZBig
G C. Stansberry TR14.6 pts · 4 reb · 2 ast
Score 69
G D. King TR4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 59
=Even
G K. Davis TR8.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 48
F K. Stuckey TR4.4 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 5
→MIZBig
G T. Pierce10.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 80
F T. Francis TR4.5 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 27
→MIZBig
F B. Tiller TR7.9 pts · 6.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 68
Le MoyneBetterMissouri
LEM offense333rd of 366 · -10.8
→MIZBig
MIZ defense49th of 366 · +2.0
LEM defense308th of 366 · -8.0
→MIZBig
MIZ offense52nd of 366 · +3.3
Backcourt-4.4 · 3 players
→MIZBig
Backcourt-0.0 · 4 players
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
→MIZBig
Frontcourt+0.8 · 1 player
Bench-6.1 · 5 players
→MIZBig
Bench+2.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestLEM betterMIZ 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
J. Crawford32 min · TRC. Stansberry30 min · TRK. Davis30 min · TRT. Pierce28 minJ. Jones26 min · TRA. Boateng12 min
Forwards
B. Tiller26 min · TRJ. Carey18 min · TRL. Northweather12 minN. Randall6 minT. BryantNew
Centers
T. Burns9 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.3 #234 | Points per game | 79.2 #78 |
| 1.04 #265 | Points per possession | 1.15 #65 |
| 69.2 #168 | Pace (possessions) | 68.8 #191 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.6 #118 | Effective FG% | 55.0 #36 |
| 34.3 #152 | 3-point % | 35.0 #112 |
| 40.8 #151 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.4 #240 |
| 39.5 #68 | Free throw rate | 42.1 #28 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.1 #323 | Turnover rate | 17.7 #255 |
| 25.2 #337 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.9 #48 |
| 14.0 #149 | Assists per game | 14.2 #132 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.9 #154 | Points allowed | 75.5 #204 |
| 1.07 #132 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #224 |
| 49.3 #75 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.5 #183 |
| 36.0 #303 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.8 #341 |
| 15.0 #289 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #182 |
| 71.0 #107 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #238 |
| 5.5 #300 | Steals per game | 6.6 #162 |
| 3.3 #177 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #140 |
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.
Missouri
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Miami66–80
- Lvs Kentucky72–78
- Lvs Arkansas84–88
- L@ Oklahoma64–80
- W@ Mississippi St88–64
A week or more of rest.