John Glaser Arena · at La Salle
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LAS | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LAS 78–64 · win probability LAS 89%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 141.6
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: LAS has more of the edges
LIU 2, LAS 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
LIU hits 35.8% and allows 32.2%; LAS hits 30.0% and allows 36.5%. Threes are 29.3% and 31.5% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: LIU 52.8 and allows 50.0; LAS 45.4 and allows 55.0
LIU offense vs LAS defense
Offense 339th of 366 against a defense 111th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
LIU has played the 290th-hardest schedule, LAS the 92nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
LAS offense vs LIU defense
Offense 157th of 366 against a defense 283rd, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LIU 6%, LAS 56%. Transfers in: LIU 6, LAS 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Free throws
Free throw rate: LIU 34.0, LAS 37.5. Allowed: LIU 34.7, LAS 31.5
Home court
LAS at home. This season: LAS 0-0 at home, LIU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: LIU plays 68.5 a game (206th fastest), LAS 66.4 (300th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LIU 19.0%, LAS 18.2%. Forced: LIU 18.7%, LAS 17.2%
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LIU 33.9%, LAS 33.7%. Defensive: LIU 67.0%, LAS 67.7%
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 | — | LAS -14.2 | — |
| Total | — | 141.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | LIU 63.7 · LAS 77.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LAS -8.3 | — |
| 1H total | 66.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | LIU 29 · LAS 37.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LIU 1–0 LASLIU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · LIU 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2025-26 | LAS 60 @ LIU 70 | LIU -2.5 | LIU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Long Island
35 games played
Straight up
24-11
69% wins
Against the spread
17-18
49% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-20
43% overs · avg −0.2 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 3 | @ | L 67-89 | +15.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 6 | @ | W 94-90 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 185.5 | U 184 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 76-72 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 88-79 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 53-69 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 58-98 | +34.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | @ | W 75-61 | +4.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 92-94 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 87-82 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 70-60 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 83-87 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 79-86 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 74-89 | +30.5 | W +15.5 | 179.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 84-78 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 74-55 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 60-58 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 139.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 67-63 | -15.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 66-59 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 77-83 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 66-63 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 83-61 | -8.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 80-59 | -2.5 | W +18.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 60-55 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 61-54 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 132.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 67-57 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 52-55 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 129.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 83-65 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 91-89 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 83-91 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 73-56 | -11.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-60 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 79-75 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 64-56 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 79-70 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 58-92 | +30.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
ND
L 67-89
−6.5
6
@
IUIN
W 94-90
+8.5
11
@
AF
W 76-72
−1.5
15
vs
JMU
W 88-79
+5.5
20
@
FOR
L 53-69
−11.5
22
@
ILL
L 58-98
−5.5
24
@
MOST
W 75-61
+18.5
2
vs
WIN
L 92-94
+3.5
6
@
LEH
W 87-82
+3.5
13
vs
LAS
W 70-60
+7.5
16
@
MSST
L 83-87
+12.5
20
@
FIU
L 79-86
−0.5
29
@
UGA
L 74-89
+15.5
2
vs
CCSU
W 84-78
−0.5
4
@
CHST
W 74-55
+11.5
8
vs
MERC
W 60-58
−6.5
10
vs
SFPA
W 67-63
−11.5
17
@
FDU
W 66-59
−0.5
19
@
LEM
L 77-83
−7.5
23
@
STO
W 66-63
−2.5
29
vs
LEM
W 83-61
+13.5
31
@
CCSU
W 80-59
+18.5
5
vs
NHVN
W 60-55
−4.5
7
vs
STO
W 61-54
−3.5
12
@
WAG
W 67-57
+3.5
14
@
NHVN
L 52-55
−9.5
16
vs
WAG
W 83-65
+7.5
19
@
SFPA
W 91-89
−7.5
21
@
MERC
L 83-91
−11.5
26
vs
CHST
W 73-56
+5.5
28
vs
FDU
W 74-60
+4.5
4
vs
CHST
W 79-75
−6.5
7
vs
WAG
W 64-56
+1.5
10
vs
MERC
W 79-70
+4.5
20
vs
ARIZ
L 58-92
−3.5
covered 17didn’t cover 18avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
ND
L 67-89
+20.5
6
@
IUIN
W 94-90
−1.5
11
@
AF
W 76-72
+10.5
15
vs
JMU
W 88-79
+19.5
20
@
FOR
L 53-69
−23.5
22
@
ILL
L 58-98
−4.5
24
@
MOST
W 75-61
−9.5
2
vs
WIN
L 92-94
+32.5
6
@
LEH
W 87-82
+26.5
13
vs
LAS
W 70-60
−13.5
16
@
MSST
L 83-87
+17.5
20
@
FIU
L 79-86
+3.5
29
@
UGA
L 74-89
−16.5
2
vs
CCSU
W 84-78
+15.5
4
@
CHST
W 74-55
−22.5
8
vs
MERC
W 60-58
−21.5
10
vs
SFPA
W 67-63
−18.5
17
@
FDU
W 66-59
−18.5
19
@
LEM
L 77-83
+9.5
23
@
STO
W 66-63
−8.5
29
vs
LEM
W 83-61
−3.5
31
@
CCSU
W 80-59
−3.5
5
vs
NHVN
W 60-55
−20.5
7
vs
STO
W 61-54
−17.5
12
@
WAG
W 67-57
−11.5
14
@
NHVN
L 52-55
−22.5
16
vs
WAG
W 83-65
+9.5
19
@
SFPA
W 91-89
+31.5
21
@
MERC
L 83-91
+33.5
26
vs
CHST
W 73-56
−12.5
28
vs
FDU
W 74-60
−3.5
4
vs
CHST
W 79-75
+16.5
7
vs
WAG
W 64-56
−18.5
10
vs
MERC
W 79-70
+14.5
20
vs
ARIZ
L 58-92
+2.5
over 15under 20avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
La Salle
31 games played
Straight up
8-23
26% wins
Against the spread
14-17
45% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg −0.8 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 5 | vs | W 87-59 | -17.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 73-60 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 63-90 | +6.5 | L −20.5 | 148.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 69-83 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 55-70 | +12.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 58-63 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 71-73 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 60-66 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 132.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 69-64 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | O 133 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 60-70 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 72-84 | +13.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 50-102 | +40.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 75-80 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 134.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 55-77 | +16.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 79-72 | +11.5 | W +18.5 | 135.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 72-84 | +17.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 53-74 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 78-74 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 67-64 | +9.5 | W +12.5 | 137.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 58-64 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 136.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 58-67 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 61-71 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 58-82 | +22.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 68-77 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 61-62 | +11.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 59-46 | +3.5 | W +16.5 | 135.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 77-104 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 64-71 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 133.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 87-84 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 131.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-88 | +11.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 80-99 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | O 179 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
COPP
W 87-59
+10.5
8
vs
MONM
W 73-60
+8.5
11
@
TEM
L 63-90
−20.5
15
vs
PSU
L 69-83
−5.5
19
vs
VILL
L 55-70
−2.5
28
vs
HOF
L 58-63
−1.5
29
@
PENN
L 71-73
−0.5
30
vs
MRMK
L 60-66
−8.5
6
vs
DREX
W 69-64
+6.5
13
@
LIU
L 60-70
−7.5
19
@
HPU
L 72-84
+1.5
21
@
MICH
L 50-102
−11.5
31
vs
GMU
L 75-80
+3.5
3
@
GW
L 55-77
−5.5
7
@
URI
W 79-72
+18.5
10
vs
SLU
L 72-84
+5.5
14
@
RICH
L 53-74
−12.5
17
vs
SBU
W 78-74
+9.5
21
vs
DAY
W 67-64
+12.5
28
@
FOR
L 58-64
−0.5
31
vs
JOES
L 58-67
−6.5
3
@
LUC
L 61-71
−7.5
7
@
SLU
L 58-82
−1.5
11
vs
VCU
L 68-77
+3.5
18
@
DUQ
L 61-62
+10.5
21
vs
URI
W 59-46
+16.5
24
vs
GW
L 77-104
−18.5
1
@
DAV
L 64-71
+3.5
4
vs
FOR
W 87-84
+6.5
7
@
JOES
L 76-88
−0.5
11
vs
SBU
L 80-99
−11.5
covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
COPP
W 87-59
+6.5
8
vs
MONM
W 73-60
−10.5
11
@
TEM
L 63-90
+4.5
15
vs
PSU
L 69-83
+6.5
19
vs
VILL
L 55-70
−19.5
28
vs
HOF
L 58-63
−17.5
29
@
PENN
L 71-73
−5.5
30
vs
MRMK
L 60-66
−6.5
6
vs
DREX
W 69-64
+3.5
13
@
LIU
L 60-70
−13.5
19
@
HPU
L 72-84
+6.5
21
@
MICH
L 50-102
−3.5
31
vs
GMU
L 75-80
+20.5
3
@
GW
L 55-77
−18.5
7
@
URI
W 79-72
+15.5
10
vs
SLU
L 72-84
+3.5
14
@
RICH
L 53-74
−20.5
17
vs
SBU
W 78-74
+10.5
21
vs
DAY
W 67-64
−6.5
28
@
FOR
L 58-64
−14.5
31
vs
JOES
L 58-67
−17.5
3
@
LUC
L 61-71
−8.5
7
@
SLU
L 58-82
−13.5
11
vs
VCU
L 68-77
−2.5
18
@
DUQ
L 61-62
−22.5
21
vs
URI
W 59-46
−30.5
24
vs
GW
L 77-104
+34.5
1
@
DAV
L 64-71
+1.5
4
vs
FOR
W 87-84
+39.5
7
@
JOES
L 76-88
+21.5
11
vs
SBU
L 80-99
+32.5
over 14under 17avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
La Salle has the better starters
Position by position: Long Island 0, La Salle 2, even 3
Long IslandBetterLa Salle
G J. Pickett TR5.7 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 2
→LASSmall
G J. Johnson6.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 29
G K. Jones TR4.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 13
→LASBig
G R. Dockery12.5 pts · 6.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 91
G D. Davis TR0.7 pts · 0.3 reb · 1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Brewer11.3 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 75
G D. Jean-Charles TR0.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F V. Zanki TR8.1 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 46
F J. Johnson TR6.5 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
=Even
F A. Finkley TR5.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 19
Long IslandBetterLa Salle
LIU offense339th of 366 · -11.1
→LASBig
LAS defense111th of 366 · -1.3
LIU defense283rd of 366 · -7.1
→LASSmall
LAS offense157th of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt-6.7 · 4 players
→LASBig
Backcourt+0.4 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-0.6 · 3 players
Bench-1.6 · 3 players
←LIUSmall
Bench-3.6 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestLIU betterLAS betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Pickett27 min · TRK. Jones11 min · TRD. Davis9 min · TRD. Jean-Charles9 min · TRM. Ndlovu-Fraser8 minV. AlletteNew
Forwards
J. Johnson15 min · TRJ. Howard7 min · TRX. Li4 minM. BewleyNewR. BewleyNewT. BowlesNew
Guards
J. Johnson30 minR. Dockery27 minK. Burton19 min · TRD. Booker8 min · TRA. Masharaliyev1 minT. MossNew
Forwards
J. Brewer27 minV. Zanki21 min · TRA. Finkley19 min · TRN. Collier14 minE. Rink12 min · TRB. Beatty10 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.6 #214 | Points per game | 66.8 #336 |
| 1.08 #185 | Points per possession | 1.00 #322 |
| 68.5 #206 | Pace (possessions) | 66.4 #300 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.8 #112 | Effective FG% | 45.4 #357 |
| 35.8 #67 | 3-point % | 30.0 #342 |
| 29.3 #354 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.5 #333 |
| 34.0 #207 | Free throw rate | 37.5 #113 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.0 #320 | Turnover rate | 18.2 #281 |
| 33.9 #70 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.7 #75 |
| 13.7 #170 | Assists per game | 12.9 #221 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.7 #99 | Points allowed | 75.0 #186 |
| 1.04 #80 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #293 |
| 50.0 #102 | Opponent effective FG% | 55.0 #329 |
| 32.2 #72 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.5 #324 |
| 18.7 #61 | Turnovers forced | 17.2 #136 |
| 67.0 #299 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.7 #274 |
| 7.8 #56 | Steals per game | 6.7 #155 |
| 5.4 #9 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #295 |
Long Island
24-11 in 2025-26 overall · 18-3 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona58–92
- Wvs Mercyhurst79–70
- Wvs Wagner64–56
- Wvs Chicago St79–75
- Wvs FDU74–60
A week or more of rest.
La Salle
8-23 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs St Bonaventure80–99
- L@ Saint Joseph's76–88
- Wvs Fordham87–84
- L@ Davidson64–71
- Lvs G Washington77–104
A week or more of rest.