Marquette Golden Eagles vs Texas A&M Aggies: Model Line and Edge

Fri, Nov 27, 5:00 PM ETImperial Arena · Neutral site

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Marquette and Texas A&M
MARQ	This season	TA&M
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 TA&M 81–79 · win probability TA&M 55%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 159.7

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: TA&M has more of the edges

MARQ 1, TA&M 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

TA&MBig

Three-pointers

MARQ hits 31.7% and allows 32.7%; TA&M hits 35.9% and allows 31.8%. Threes are 42.2% and 46.2% of their shots

MARQSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: MARQ 64%, TA&M 25%. Transfers in: MARQ 3, TA&M 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

TA&MSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: MARQ 50.5 and allows 50.6; TA&M 53.8 and allows 50.7

TA&MSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: MARQ 29.7%, TA&M 32.0%. Defensive: MARQ 65.3%, TA&M 67.0%

Context

Tempo

About 72 possessions: MARQ plays 70.9 a game (79th fastest), TA&M 73.5 (15th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: MARQ 16.1%, TA&M 14.7%. Forced: MARQ 19.3%, TA&M 18.4%

Context

Schedule so far

MARQ has played the 37th-hardest schedule, TA&M the 57th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

TA&M offense vs MARQ defense

Offense 20th of 366 against a defense 36th, on the model’s ratings

Even

MARQ offense vs TA&M defense

Offense 46th of 366 against a defense 62nd, on the model’s ratings

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: MARQ 32.8, TA&M 37.1. Allowed: MARQ 32.0, TA&M 35.4

Context

Neutral floor

No home court: the model takes it out of the line

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	—	TA&M -1.5	—
Total	—	159.7	—
Projected score	—	MARQ 79.1 · TA&M 80.6

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	TA&M -0.8	—
1H total	74.6	—
1H projected score	MARQ 36.9 · TA&M 37.7	—

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	Neutral	Role
MARQ WLWWL	13-19	41%	1-2	—
TA&M WWLWL	19-15	56%	2-3	—

Venue/role: MARQ neutral site; TA&M neutral site. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
MARQ UUUUO	15-17	47%	12-20
TA&M OOUUO	19-15	56%	22-12

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
MARQ	4-6 40%	7-3 70%	3-7 30%
TA&M	5-5 50%	4-6 40%	4-6 40%

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

Marquette

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 1	vs WAG	No recent meeting
Dec 5	vs WIS	L76–96LO
Dec 9	vs UNH	W75–70LO

Texas A&M

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 2	vs STAN	No recent meeting
Dec 6	vs UAPB	No recent meeting
Dec 12	vs FSU	W95–59WU

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

ATS History · 2025-26

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

Marquette

32 games played

Straight up

12-20

38% wins

Against the spread

13-19

41% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-17

47% overs · avg −1.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

12-2038%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-1941%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1747%

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

1 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 3	vsUALB	W 80-53	-24.5	W +2.5	149.5	U 133
Nov 5	vsSOU	W 100-82	-24.5	L −6.5	155.5	O 182
Nov 9	vsIU	L 77-100	+3.5	L −19.5	156.5	O 177
Nov 12	vsLR	W 89-49	-21.5	W +18.5	155.5	U 138
Nov 15	vsMD	L 82-89	-8.5	L −15.5	146.5	O 171
Nov 19	vsDAY	L 71-77	-6.5	L −12.5	151.5	U 148
Nov 22	vsCMU	W 85-71	-25.5	L −11.5	152.5	O 156
Nov 28	vsOU	L 74-75	+1.5	W +0.5	162.5	U 149
Dec 2	vsVAL	W 75-72	-17.5	L −14.5	146.5	O 147
Dec 6	@WIS	L 76-96	+11.5	L −8.5	160.5	O 172
Dec 13	@PUR	L 59-79	+16.5	L −3.5	154.5	U 138
Dec 17	vsGTWN	L 69-78	-6.5	L −15.5	149.5	U 147
Dec 20	@CREI	L 63-84	+6.5	L −14.5	151.5	U 147
Dec 30	vsHALL	L 73-79	-1.5	L −7.5	145.5	O 152
Jan 4	@CONN	L 57-73	+17.5	W +1.5	144.5	U 130
Jan 7	vsXAV	W 66-65	-5.5	L −4.5	157.5	U 131
Jan 10	vsVILL	L 73-76	+3.5	W +0.5	146.5	O 149
Jan 13	@SJU	L 68-92	+15.5	L −8.5	155.5	O 160
Jan 16	@DEP	L 75-80	+2.5	L −2.5	145.5	O 155
Jan 19	vsPROV	W 105-104	-2.5	L −1.5	167.5	O 209
Jan 23	@BTLR	L 76-87	+5.5	L −5.5	161.5	O 163
Jan 27	vsCREI	W 86-62	+1.5	W +25.5	154.5	U 148
Jan 31	@HALL	L 64-69	+6.5	W +1.5	143.5	U 133
Feb 7	vsBTLR	W 70-55	-3.5	W +11.5	155.5	U 125
Feb 10	@VILL	L 74-77	+9.5	W +6.5	144.5	O 151
Feb 14	@XAV	L 88-96	+1.5	L −6.5	157.5	O 184
Feb 18	vsSJU	L 70-76	+8.5	W +2.5	157.5	U 146
Feb 24	@GTWN	W 76-60	+2.5	W +18.5	150.5	U 136
Mar 1	vsDEP	L 51-62	-4.5	L −15.5	139.5	U 113
Mar 4	@PROV	W 78-56	+3.5	W +25.5	161.5	U 134
Mar 7	vsCONN	W 68-62	+9.5	W +15.5	143.5	U 130
Mar 11	vsXAV	L 87-89	-4.5	L −6.5	157.5	O 176

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UALB

W 80-53

+2.5

SOU

W 100-82

−6.5

L 77-100

−19.5

W 89-49

+18.5

L 82-89

−15.5

DAY

L 71-77

−12.5

CMU

W 85-71

−11.5

L 74-75

+0.5

VAL

W 75-72

−14.5

WIS

L 76-96

−8.5

PUR

L 59-79

−3.5

GTWN

L 69-78

−15.5

CREI

L 63-84

−14.5

HALL

L 73-79

−7.5

CONN

L 57-73

+1.5

XAV

W 66-65

−4.5

VILL

L 73-76

+0.5

SJU

L 68-92

−8.5

DEP

L 75-80

−2.5

PROV

W 105-104

−1.5

BTLR

L 76-87

−5.5

CREI

W 86-62

+25.5

HALL

L 64-69

+1.5

BTLR

W 70-55

+11.5

VILL

L 74-77

+6.5

XAV

L 88-96

−6.5

SJU

L 70-76

+2.5

GTWN

W 76-60

+18.5

DEP

L 51-62

−15.5

PROV

W 78-56

+25.5

CONN

W 68-62

+15.5

XAV

L 87-89

−6.5

covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UALB

W 80-53

−16.5

SOU

W 100-82

+26.5

L 77-100

+20.5

W 89-49

−17.5

L 82-89

+24.5

DAY

L 71-77

−3.5

CMU

W 85-71

+3.5

L 74-75

−13.5

VAL

W 75-72

+0.5

WIS

L 76-96

+11.5

PUR

L 59-79

−16.5

GTWN

L 69-78

−2.5

CREI

L 63-84

−4.5

HALL

L 73-79

+6.5

CONN

L 57-73

−14.5

XAV

W 66-65

−26.5

VILL

L 73-76

+2.5

SJU

L 68-92

+4.5

DEP

L 75-80

+9.5

PROV

W 105-104

+41.5

BTLR

L 76-87

+1.5

CREI

W 86-62

−6.5

HALL

L 64-69

−10.5

BTLR

W 70-55

−30.5

VILL

L 74-77

+6.5

XAV

L 88-96

+26.5

SJU

L 70-76

−11.5

GTWN

W 76-60

−14.5

DEP

L 51-62

−26.5

PROV

W 78-56

−27.5

CONN

W 68-62

−13.5

XAV

L 87-89

+18.5

over 15under 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Texas A&M

34 games played

Straight up

22-12

65% wins

Against the spread

19-15

56% covers · avg +0.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-15

56% overs · avg +1.7 pts vs the total

Straight up

22-1265%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

19-1556%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

19-1556%

O O U U O O O U O O O O O U O U O U U O U O U O U U U O U O 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 3	vsNWST	W 98-68	-21.5	W +8.5	153.5	O 166
Nov 6	vsTXSO	W 104-70	-29.5	W +4.5	161.5	O 174
Nov 9	@OKST	L 63-87	-2.5	L −26.5	174.5	U 150
Nov 14	vsUCF	L 74-86	-10.5	L −22.5	172.5	U 160
Nov 18	vsMONT	W 86-81	-17.5	L −12.5	164.5	O 167
Nov 21	vsMAN	W 109-68	-23.5	W +17.5	162.5	O 177
Nov 25	vsMVSU	W 120-84	-42.5	L −6.5	154.5	O 204
Nov 28	vsFSU	W 95-59	+1.5	W +37.5	174.5	U 154
Dec 2	@PITT	W 81-73	-3.5	W +4.5	152.5	O 154
Dec 7	vsSMU	L 80-93	-1.5	L −14.5	164.5	O 173
Dec 14	vsJAX	W 112-75	-26.5	W +10.5	147.5	O 187
Dec 21	vsETAM	W 118-77	-28.5	W +12.5	166.5	O 195
Dec 29	vsPV	W 111-82	-29.5	L −0.5	177.5	O 193
Jan 3	vsLSU	W 75-72	-5.5	L −2.5	168.5	U 147
Jan 6	@AUB	W 90-88	+6.5	W +8.5	168.5	O 178
Jan 10	vsOU	W 83-76	-4.5	W +2.5	165.5	U 159
Jan 13	@TENN	L 82-87	+11.5	W +6.5	159.5	O 169
Jan 17	@TEX	W 74-70	+4.5	W +8.5	166.5	U 144
Jan 21	vsMSST	W 88-68	-8.5	W +11.5	163.5	U 156
Jan 24	vsSC	W 92-69	-10.5	W +12.5	155.5	O 161
Jan 31	@UGA	W 92-77	+4.5	W +19.5	173.5	U 169
Feb 4	@ALA	L 97-100	+8.5	W +5.5	180.5	O 197
Feb 7	vsFLA	L 67-86	+5.5	L −13.5	167.5	U 153
Feb 11	vsMIZ	L 85-86	-7.5	L −8.5	160.5	O 171
Feb 14	@VAN	L 69-82	+7.5	L −5.5	165.5	U 151
Feb 18	vsMISS	W 80-77	-9.5	L −6.5	157.5	U 157
Feb 21	@OU	W 75-71	-1.5	W +2.5	165.5	U 146
Feb 25	@ARK	L 84-99	+7.5	L −7.5	170.5	O 183
Feb 28	vsTEX	L 70-76	-2.5	L −8.5	159.5	U 146
Mar 3	vsUK	W 96-85	-1.5	W +9.5	162.5	O 181
Mar 7	@LSU	W 94-91	-2.5	W +0.5	161.5	O 185
Mar 12	vsOU	L 63-83	-2.5	L −22.5	162.5	U 146
Mar 19	vsSMC	W 63-50	+2.5	W +15.5	149.5	U 113
Mar 21	vsHOU	L 57-88	+10.5	L −20.5	142.5	O 145

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

NWST

W 98-68

+8.5

TXSO

W 104-70

+4.5

OKST

L 63-87

−26.5

UCF

L 74-86

−22.5

MONT

W 86-81

−12.5

MAN

W 109-68

+17.5

MVSU

W 120-84

−6.5

FSU

W 95-59

+37.5

PITT

W 81-73

+4.5

SMU

L 80-93

−14.5

JAX

W 112-75

+10.5

ETAM

W 118-77

+12.5

W 111-82

−0.5

LSU

W 75-72

−2.5

AUB

W 90-88

+8.5

W 83-76

+2.5

TENN

L 82-87

+6.5

TEX

W 74-70

+8.5

MSST

W 88-68

+11.5

W 92-69

+12.5

UGA

W 92-77

+19.5

ALA

L 97-100

+5.5

FLA

L 67-86

−13.5

MIZ

L 85-86

−8.5

VAN

L 69-82

−5.5

MISS

W 80-77

−6.5

W 75-71

+2.5

ARK

L 84-99

−7.5

TEX

L 70-76

−8.5

W 96-85

+9.5

LSU

W 94-91

+0.5

L 63-83

−22.5

SMC

W 63-50

+15.5

HOU

L 57-88

−20.5

covered 19didn’t cover 15avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

NWST

W 98-68

+12.5

TXSO

W 104-70

+12.5

OKST

L 63-87

−24.5

UCF

L 74-86

−12.5

MONT

W 86-81

+2.5

MAN

W 109-68

+14.5

MVSU

W 120-84

+49.5

FSU

W 95-59

−20.5

PITT

W 81-73

+1.5

SMU

L 80-93

+8.5

JAX

W 112-75

+39.5

ETAM

W 118-77

+28.5

W 111-82

+15.5

LSU

W 75-72

−21.5

AUB

W 90-88

+9.5

W 83-76

−6.5

TENN

L 82-87

+9.5

TEX

W 74-70

−22.5

MSST

W 88-68

−7.5

W 92-69

+5.5

UGA

W 92-77

−4.5

ALA

L 97-100

+16.5

FLA

L 67-86

−14.5

MIZ

L 85-86

+10.5

VAN

L 69-82

−14.5

MISS

W 80-77

−0.5

W 75-71

−19.5

ARK

L 84-99

+12.5

TEX

L 70-76

−13.5

W 96-85

+18.5

LSU

W 94-91

+23.5

L 63-83

−16.5

SMC

W 63-50

−36.5

HOU

L 57-88

+2.5

over 19under 15avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Marquette has the better starters

Position by position: Marquette 2, Texas A&M 1, even 2

MarquetteBetterTexas A&M

G C. Porter TR11.2 pts · 3 reb · 3.3 ast Score 45

TA&MBig

G P. Haggerty TR23.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 3.8 ast Score 98

G N. Minessale TR19.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 4.2 ast Score 97

MARQSmall

G J. Pope TR13.1 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.7 ast Score 78

G N. James16.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 4.9 ast Score 99

Even

G T. Archie TR14.2 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.8 ast Score 91

G A. Stevens7.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.6 ast Score 65

MARQSmall

G L. Walls TR7.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 1 ast Score 37

F R. Parham12.5 pts · 4.9 reb · 0.9 ast Score 87

Even

F J. Shelley TR13.9 pts · 6.6 reb · 2.6 ast Score 76

MarquetteBetterTexas A&M

MARQ offense46th of 366 · +4.2

Even

TA&M defense62nd of 366 · +1.2

MARQ defense36th of 366 · +3.1

Even

TA&M offense20th of 366 · +7.7

Backcourt+8.9 · 4 players

Even

Backcourt+8.6 · 4 players

Frontcourt+2.5 · 1 player

Even

Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player

Bench+2.8 · 5 players

Even

Bench+2.5 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestMARQ betterTA&M 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

Marquette

Guards

C. Porter35 min · TRN. Minessale32 min · TRN. James29 minA. Stevens26 minE. JohnstonNewN. WalkerNew

Forwards

R. Parham29 minS. Fru22 min · TRD. Owens16 minC. Hamilton13 minM. Phillips8 minJ. Clark6 min

Texas A&M

Guards

P. Haggerty35 min · TRJ. Pope29 min · TRT. Archie26 min · TRL. Walls24 min · TRJ. Reece24 min · TRJ. Green5 min

Forwards

J. Shelley32 min · TRM. Mgbako19 minZ. Clemence17 minC. Phillips17 min · TRJ. Vinson7 minC. McDermott4 min

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

MARQ75.2 #160

TA&M86.1 #12

Points per possession

MARQ1.06 #223

TA&M1.17 #43

Pace (possessions)

MARQ70.9 #79

TA&M73.5 #15

Shooting

Effective FG%

MARQ50.5 #215

TA&M53.8 #71

3-point %

MARQ31.7 #297

TA&M35.9 #63

3-point attempt rate

MARQ42.2 #133

TA&M46.2 #42

Free throw rate

MARQ32.8 #243

TA&M37.1 #128

Possessions

Turnover rate

MARQ16.1 #145

TA&M14.7 #48

Offensive rebound rate

MARQ29.7 #216

TA&M32.0 #122

Assists per game

MARQ15.5 #63

TA&M17.8 #11

Defense

Points allowed

MARQ75.8 #213

TA&M78.9 #296

Points allowed per possession

MARQ1.07 #125

TA&M1.08 #151

Opponent effective FG%

MARQ50.6 #131

TA&M50.7 #141

Opponent 3-point %

MARQ32.7 #104

TA&M31.8 #53

Turnovers forced

MARQ19.3 #39

TA&M18.4 #81

Defensive rebound rate

MARQ65.3 #331

TA&M67.0 #300

Steals per game

MARQ9.3 #5

TA&M8.1 #34

Blocks per game

MARQ3.1 #207

TA&M3.1 #210

MARQ		TA&M
Scoring
75.2 #160	Points per game	86.1 #12
1.06 #223	Points per possession	1.17 #43
70.9 #79	Pace (possessions)	73.5 #15
Shooting
50.5 #215	Effective FG%	53.8 #71
31.7 #297	3-point %	35.9 #63
42.2 #133	3-point attempt rate	46.2 #42
32.8 #243	Free throw rate	37.1 #128
Possessions
16.1 #145	Turnover rate	14.7 #48
29.7 #216	Offensive rebound rate	32.0 #122
15.5 #63	Assists per game	17.8 #11
Defense
75.8 #213	Points allowed	78.9 #296
1.07 #125	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #151
50.6 #131	Opponent effective FG%	50.7 #141
32.7 #104	Opponent 3-point %	31.8 #53
19.3 #39	Turnovers forced	18.4 #81
65.3 #331	Defensive rebound rate	67.0 #300
9.3 #5	Steals per game	8.1 #34
3.1 #207	Blocks per game	3.1 #210

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.

Marquette

12-20 in 2025-26 overall · 7-14 in conference · Big East Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Xavier87–89
Wvs UConn68–62
W@ Providence78–56
Lvs DePaul51–62
W@ Georgetown76–60

A week or more of rest.

Texas A&M

22-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Southeastern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Houston57–88
Wvs Saint Mary's63–50
Lvs Oklahoma63–83
W@ LSU94–91
Wvs Kentucky96–85

A week or more of rest.

Marquette Golden Eagles vs Texas A&M Aggies

What could decide it: TA&M has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Marquette

Texas A&M

Marquette has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Marquette

Texas A&M