Bridgestone Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | GT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GT 82–78 · win probability GT 66%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 159.6
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
MUR 2, GT 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
GT offense vs MUR defense
Offense 71st of 366 against a defense 197th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: MUR 38.6, GT 33.3. Allowed: MUR 32.2, GT 34.2
Three-pointers
MUR hits 35.0% and allows 36.2%; GT hits 35.1% and allows 33.1%. Threes are 44.8% and 33.1% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
MUR has played the 165th-hardest schedule, GT the 78th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MUR 16.4%, GT 18.6%. Forced: MUR 15.7%, GT 15.6%
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MUR 32.6%, GT 29.9%. Defensive: MUR 68.7%, GT 69.3%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MUR 28%, GT 16%. Transfers in: MUR 4, GT 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
MUR offense vs GT defense
Offense 110th of 366 against a defense 123rd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: MUR 53.8 and allows 52.4; GT 50.0 and allows 49.9
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: MUR plays 72.3 a game (30th fastest), GT 71.9 (38th). 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 | — | GT -4.6 | — |
| Total | — | 159.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | MUR 77.5 · GT 82.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | GT -2.6 | — |
| 1H total | 74.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | MUR 36 · GT 38.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | |
| 0-10 0% | 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Murray St
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
19-14
58% overs · avg +4.9 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
8 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 | vs | W 85-77 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 108-60 | -38.5 | W +9.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 91-102 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 164.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 99-79 | -14.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 89-68 | -13.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 87-90 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 60-73 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 158.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 96-95 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 167.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 84-52 | -16.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 81-68 | -16.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 115-100 | +4.5 | W +19.5 | 168.5 | O 215 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 81-72 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 85-79 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 84-81 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 165.5 | U 165 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 81-77 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 86-66 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 162.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 79-69 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 92-79 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 85-81 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 167.5 | U 166 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 90-101 | -4.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | O 191 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 76-81 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 65-70 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 86-103 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 163.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 81-74 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 6 | @ | W 91-81 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 60-89 | -4.5 | L −33.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 74-72 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 70-87 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 166.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 61-78 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 158.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 88-75 | -15.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 78-87 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 79-92 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 75-89 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
OMA
W 85-77
+2.5
7
vs
MVSU
W 108-60
+9.5
11
@
SMU
L 91-102
−0.5
15
vs
NICH
W 99-79
+5.5
18
vs
LR
W 89-68
+7.5
23
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
−9.5
24
vs
MCN
L 60-73
−10.5
25
vs
GW
W 96-95
+8.5
2
vs
MORE
W 84-52
+15.5
6
vs
BELL
W 81-68
−3.5
13
vs
AKR
W 115-100
+19.5
18
vs
DRKE
W 81-72
+1.5
21
@
VAL
W 85-79
+0.5
29
vs
SIU
W 84-81
−3.5
1
@
UIC
W 81-77
−1.5
4
vs
BRAD
W 86-66
+14.5
7
@
EVAN
W 79-69
+1.5
10
vs
VAL
W 92-79
+0.5
17
vs
INST
W 85-81
−7.5
21
@
DRKE
L 90-101
−15.5
24
@
UNI
L 76-81
−6.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-70
−8.5
31
@
BEL
L 86-103
−13.5
3
vs
UIC
W 81-74
+0.5
6
@
SIU
W 91-81
+8.5
9
vs
UNI
L 60-89
−33.5
12
@
INST
W 74-72
−1.5
15
vs
BEL
L 70-87
−15.5
18
@
ILST
L 61-78
−14.5
21
vs
EVAN
W 88-75
−2.5
1
@
BRAD
L 78-87
−5.5
6
vs
UIC
L 79-92
−11.5
18
@
NEV
L 75-89
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
OMA
W 85-77
+8.5
7
vs
MVSU
W 108-60
+8.5
11
@
SMU
L 91-102
+28.5
15
vs
NICH
W 99-79
+20.5
18
vs
LR
W 89-68
+3.5
23
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
+15.5
24
vs
MCN
L 60-73
−25.5
25
vs
GW
W 96-95
+23.5
2
vs
MORE
W 84-52
−22.5
6
vs
BELL
W 81-68
−8.5
13
vs
AKR
W 115-100
+46.5
18
vs
DRKE
W 81-72
−3.5
21
@
VAL
W 85-79
+8.5
29
vs
SIU
W 84-81
−0.5
1
@
UIC
W 81-77
−1.5
4
vs
BRAD
W 86-66
−10.5
7
@
EVAN
W 79-69
−5.5
10
vs
VAL
W 92-79
+18.5
17
vs
INST
W 85-81
−1.5
21
@
DRKE
L 90-101
+34.5
24
@
UNI
L 76-81
+11.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-70
−24.5
31
@
BEL
L 86-103
+25.5
3
vs
UIC
W 81-74
−2.5
6
@
SIU
W 91-81
+14.5
9
vs
UNI
L 60-89
+3.5
12
@
INST
W 74-72
−17.5
15
vs
BEL
L 70-87
−9.5
18
@
ILST
L 61-78
−19.5
21
vs
EVAN
W 88-75
+9.5
1
@
BRAD
L 78-87
+7.5
6
vs
UIC
L 79-92
+20.5
18
@
NEV
L 75-89
+4.5
over 19under 14avg +4.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Georgia Tech
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −2.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% overs · avg +1.5 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 | W 56-52 | -28.5 | L −24.5 | 139.5 | U 108 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 74-45 | -15.5 | W +13.5 | 138.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 70-60 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 133.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 87-92 | +15.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 68-66 | -10.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 82-66 | -18.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 61-75 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 74-84 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 137.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 73-85 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 79-67 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 87-76 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 95-81 | -16.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 89-65 | -19.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 79-85 | +27.5 | W +21.5 | 153.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 65-53 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 72-82 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 81-91 | +15.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 66-89 | +1.5 | L −21.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 78-74 | +17.5 | W +21.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 63-77 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 65-71 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 75-91 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 85-90 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 72-95 | +9.5 | L −13.5 | 151.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 67-83 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 74-89 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 68-94 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 70-87 | +23.5 | W +6.5 | 167.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 71-80 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 65-76 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 154.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-79 | +15.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UMES
W 56-52
−24.5
7
vs
BRY
W 74-45
+13.5
10
vs
SELA
W 70-60
−4.5
14
@
UGA
L 87-92
+10.5
18
vs
GASO
W 68-66
−8.5
23
vs
WGA
W 82-66
−2.5
28
vs
DEP
L 61-75
−12.5
29
vs
DRKE
L 74-84
−14.5
3
vs
MSST
L 73-85
−10.5
6
vs
MONM
W 79-67
+1.5
16
vs
MRST
W 87-76
+4.5
20
vs
LAF
W 95-81
−2.5
28
vs
FAMU
W 89-65
+4.5
31
@
DUKE
L 79-85
+21.5
3
vs
BC
W 65-53
+5.5
6
vs
SYR
L 72-82
−7.5
10
@
MIA
L 81-91
+5.5
14
vs
PITT
L 66-89
−21.5
17
@
NCSU
W 78-74
+21.5
24
vs
CLEM
L 63-77
−5.5
27
@
VT
L 65-71
+3.5
31
vs
UNC
L 75-91
−6.5
4
@
CAL
L 85-90
+2.5
7
@
STAN
L 72-95
−13.5
11
vs
WAKE
L 67-83
−12.5
14
@
ND
L 74-89
−9.5
18
vs
UVA
L 68-94
−12.5
21
@
LOU
L 70-87
+6.5
28
vs
FSU
L 71-80
−3.5
4
vs
CAL
L 65-76
−8.5
7
@
CLEM
L 76-79
+12.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UMES
W 56-52
−31.5
7
vs
BRY
W 74-45
−19.5
10
vs
SELA
W 70-60
−3.5
14
@
UGA
L 87-92
+23.5
18
vs
GASO
W 68-66
−30.5
23
vs
WGA
W 82-66
+3.5
28
vs
DEP
L 61-75
−11.5
29
vs
DRKE
L 74-84
+20.5
3
vs
MSST
L 73-85
+7.5
6
vs
MONM
W 79-67
+1.5
16
vs
MRST
W 87-76
+21.5
20
vs
LAF
W 95-81
+28.5
28
vs
FAMU
W 89-65
+7.5
31
@
DUKE
L 79-85
+10.5
3
vs
BC
W 65-53
−27.5
6
vs
SYR
L 72-82
+7.5
10
@
MIA
L 81-91
+15.5
14
vs
PITT
L 66-89
+9.5
17
@
NCSU
W 78-74
−2.5
24
vs
CLEM
L 63-77
−2.5
27
@
VT
L 65-71
−19.5
31
vs
UNC
L 75-91
+5.5
4
@
CAL
L 85-90
+22.5
7
@
STAN
L 72-95
+15.5
11
vs
WAKE
L 67-83
−8.5
14
@
ND
L 74-89
+12.5
18
vs
UVA
L 68-94
+11.5
21
@
LOU
L 70-87
−10.5
28
vs
FSU
L 71-80
−7.5
4
vs
CAL
L 65-76
−13.5
7
@
CLEM
L 76-79
+9.5
over 18under 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Georgia Tech has the better starters
Position by position: Murray St 0, Georgia Tech 2, even 3
Murray StBetterGeorgia Tech
G C. Jones TR10 pts · 3 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 61
→GTSmall
G N. Whitlock TR20.4 pts · 3.3 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 87
G R. Domon14.2 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 95
=Even
G C. Garland TR20.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 98
G M. Courbon4.6 pts · 2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 31
=Even
G K. Craft7.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 43
F S. Tupuola TR6.3 pts · 5.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 55
→GTSmall
F V. Valdes TR14.9 pts · 4 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 74
F B. Rogers TR6.7 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 67
=No call
F J. Fields TR4.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Not ranked
Murray StBetterGeorgia Tech
MUR offense110th of 366 · -1.8
=Even
GT defense123rd of 366 · -2.1
MUR defense197th of 366 · -4.8
→GTSmall
GT offense71st of 366 · +1.7
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
→GTBig
Backcourt+7.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt+0.4 · 2 players
→GTSmall
Frontcourt+2.6 · 2 players
Bench-1.0 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-1.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestMUR betterGT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Jones26 min · TRR. Domon25 minM. Courbon16 minB. Shorter15 minK. Magwood11 min · TRB. ShtolzbergNew
Forwards
S. Tupuola25 min · TRB. Rogers18 min · TRP. NikolicNewJ. BoulefaaNew
Guards
N. Whitlock35 min · TRC. Garland35 min · TRK. Craft21 minC. Muldrew14 min · TRK. BaileyNewK. AllenNew
Forwards
V. Valdes30 min · TRJ. Fields14 min · TRT. JordanNewM. DiopNewI. KurucsNew
Centers
C. Kirouac12 minJ. McVeyNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 83.1 #26 | Points per game | 73.8 #208 |
| 1.15 #56 | Points per possession | 1.03 #292 |
| 72.3 #30 | Pace (possessions) | 71.9 #38 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.8 #70 | Effective FG% | 50.0 #234 |
| 35.0 #120 | 3-point % | 35.1 #109 |
| 44.8 #72 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.1 #313 |
| 38.6 #86 | Free throw rate | 33.3 #229 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.4 #160 | Turnover rate | 18.6 #306 |
| 32.6 #100 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.9 #203 |
| 13.7 #165 | Assists per game | 15.8 #55 |
| Defense | ||
| 80.2 #323 | Points allowed | 77.4 #247 |
| 1.11 #233 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #148 |
| 52.4 #236 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.9 #94 |
| 36.2 #310 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.1 #134 |
| 15.7 #234 | Turnovers forced | 15.6 #244 |
| 68.7 #214 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.3 #189 |
| 5.9 #248 | Steals per game | 6.1 #229 |
| 4.1 #69 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #80 |
Murray St
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Nevada75–89
- Lvs UIC79–92
- L@ Bradley78–87
- Wvs Evansville88–75
- L@ Illinois St61–78
A week or more of rest.
Georgia Tech
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 2-16 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Clemson76–79
- Lvs California65–76
- Lvs Florida St71–80
- L@ Louisville70–87
- Lvs Virginia68–94
A week or more of rest.