University Center · at SE Louisiana · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SELA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SELA 70–65 · win probability SELA 66%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 135.2
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
HCU 3, SELA 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
HCU offense vs SELA defense
Offense 342nd of 366 against a defense 177th, on the model’s ratings
SELA offense vs HCU defense
Offense 315th of 366 against a defense 203rd, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: HCU 36.0, SELA 40.3. Allowed: HCU 30.7, SELA 41.2
Three-pointers
HCU hits 31.7% and allows 35.0%; SELA hits 28.4% and allows 36.0%. Threes are 36.5% and 39.5% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
HCU has played the 332nd-hardest schedule, SELA the 276th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
SELA at home. This season: SELA 0-0 at home, HCU 0-0 away
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HCU 18.9%, SELA 18.4%. Forced: HCU 17.6%, SELA 19.1%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HCU 25%, SELA 4%. Transfers in: HCU 5, SELA 10. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 65 possessions: HCU plays 64.7 a game (352nd fastest), SELA 65.9 (318th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: HCU 49.7 and allows 54.2; SELA 46.7 and allows 52.4
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HCU 29.9%, SELA 28.6%. Defensive: HCU 67.5%, SELA 68.6%
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 | — | SELA -4.6 | — |
| Total | — | 135.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | HCU 65.3 · SELA 69.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SELA -2.6 | — |
| 1H total | 63.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | HCU 30.4 · SELA 33 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | |
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 11 since 2021-22
HCU 2–9 SELASELA leads · 11 games since 2021-22 · SELA has won the last 3 meetings · HCU 4-7 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2025-26 | HCU 47 @ SELA 55 | SELA -4.5 | SELA W |
| Dec 13, 2025-26 | SELA 74 @ HCU 71 | HCU -2.5 | SELA W |
| Feb 10, 2024-25 | SELA 69 @ HCU 60 | HCU -1.5 | SELA W |
| Jan 27, 2024-25 | HCU 70 @ SELA 62 | SELA -6.5 | HCU W |
| Feb 17, 2023-24 | HCU 78 @ SELA 81 | SELA -15.5 | HCU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Hou Christian
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg −0.1 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 8 | @ | L 60-78 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 72-61 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 69-74 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 72-65 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 62-80 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 75-77 | +11.5 | W +9.5 | 127.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 85-76 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 71-74 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 132.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 15 | vs | L 68-78 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-79 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 61-89 | +35.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 56-73 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 5 | vs | L 65-81 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 132.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 67-85 | +12.5 | L −5.5 | 137.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 56-64 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 81-70 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 82-80 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 51-68 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 81-75 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-73 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 57-74 | +9.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 47-55 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | U 102 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 69-73 | +21.5 | W +17.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 61-60 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 72-68 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 53-71 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 134.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 23 | @ | W 69-68 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 56-77 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 75-53 | +2.5 | W +24.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 60-73 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
UCSD
L 60-78
−10.5
13
vs
ULM
W 72-61
+2.5
25
@
BELL
L 69-74
−7.5
26
@
CIT
W 72-65
+5.5
29
@
GASO
L 62-80
−10.5
2
@
UNT
L 75-77
+9.5
6
@
NOLA
W 85-76
+13.5
13
vs
SELA
L 71-74
−5.5
15
vs
MCN
L 68-78
+4.5
17
@
NICH
L 64-79
−11.5
29
@
ISU
L 61-89
+7.5
3
@
UIW
L 56-73
−10.5
5
vs
AMCC
L 65-81
−12.5
10
@
SFA
L 67-85
−5.5
12
@
LAM
L 56-64
+0.5
17
vs
ETAM
W 81-70
+8.5
19
vs
NWST
W 82-80
−0.5
24
vs
RGV
L 51-68
−14.5
27
vs
UIW
W 81-75
+7.5
31
@
AMCC
L 71-73
+5.5
2
@
RGV
L 57-74
−7.5
7
@
SELA
L 47-55
−3.5
9
@
MCN
L 69-73
+17.5
14
vs
NOLA
W 61-60
−0.5
16
vs
NICH
W 72-68
+2.5
21
@
NWST
L 53-71
−15.5
23
@
ETAM
W 69-68
+3.5
28
vs
SFA
L 56-77
−12.5
2
vs
LAM
W 75-53
+24.5
8
vs
NOLA
L 60-73
−7.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
UCSD
L 60-78
−3.5
13
vs
ULM
W 72-61
−10.5
25
@
BELL
L 69-74
−1.5
26
@
CIT
W 72-65
−0.5
29
@
GASO
L 62-80
−6.5
2
@
UNT
L 75-77
+24.5
6
@
NOLA
W 85-76
+20.5
13
vs
SELA
L 71-74
+12.5
15
vs
MCN
L 68-78
+8.5
17
@
NICH
L 64-79
+5.5
29
@
ISU
L 61-89
+4.5
3
@
UIW
L 56-73
−12.5
5
vs
AMCC
L 65-81
+13.5
10
@
SFA
L 67-85
+14.5
12
@
LAM
L 56-64
−14.5
17
vs
ETAM
W 81-70
+11.5
19
vs
NWST
W 82-80
+22.5
24
vs
RGV
L 51-68
−21.5
27
vs
UIW
W 81-75
+15.5
31
@
AMCC
L 71-73
+8.5
2
@
RGV
L 57-74
−10.5
7
@
SELA
L 47-55
−31.5
9
@
MCN
L 69-73
+4.5
14
vs
NOLA
W 61-60
−27.5
16
vs
NICH
W 72-68
+3.5
21
@
NWST
L 53-71
−10.5
23
@
ETAM
W 69-68
−1.5
28
vs
SFA
L 56-77
−5.5
2
vs
LAM
W 75-53
−4.5
8
vs
NOLA
L 60-73
−10.5
over 14under 16avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
SE Louisiana
30 games played
Straight up
8-22
27% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-17
43% overs · avg −1.3 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 58-88 | +21.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 52-58 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 110 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 60-70 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 133.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 68-75 | +27.5 | W +20.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 57-70 | +11.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 76-68 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 69-65 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 136.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 68-76 | -7.5 | L −15.5 | 133.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 74-71 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 132.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 15 | vs | L 69-70 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 137.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 65-78 | +24.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 70-79 | +6.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 63-73 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 60-52 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 135.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 61-73 | +16.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 12 | vs | L 76-79 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 56-68 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 130.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 65-68 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 67-61 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 66-76 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 58-85 | +9.5 | L −17.5 | 135.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 54-73 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 55-47 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 133.5 | U 102 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 74-62 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-69 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 131.5 | O 135 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 53-70 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 136.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 75-96 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 138.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 68-73 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 130.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-68 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 139.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 82-78 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 143.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MISS
L 58-88
−8.5
7
@
UL
L 52-58
−2.5
10
@
GT
L 60-70
+4.5
15
@
MSST
L 68-75
+20.5
26
@
UNCW
L 57-70
−1.5
28
vs
GWEB
W 76-68
+1.5
29
vs
NAVY
W 69-65
+7.5
7
vs
NWST
L 68-76
−15.5
13
@
HCU
W 74-71
+5.5
15
vs
ETAM
L 69-70
−5.5
19
@
LSU
L 65-78
+11.5
30
@
UIW
L 70-79
−2.5
3
vs
SFA
L 63-73
−6.5
5
vs
LAM
W 60-52
+9.5
10
@
MCN
L 61-73
+4.5
12
vs
NOLA
L 76-79
−5.5
17
@
AMCC
L 56-68
−6.5
19
@
RGV
L 65-68
+2.5
24
vs
NICH
W 67-61
+3.5
27
vs
MCN
L 66-76
+2.5
31
@
SFA
L 58-85
−17.5
2
@
LAM
L 54-73
−13.5
7
vs
HCU
W 55-47
+3.5
9
vs
UIW
W 74-62
+10.5
14
@
NWST
L 66-69
−1.5
16
@
ETAM
L 53-70
−14.5
21
vs
RGV
L 75-96
−16.5
23
vs
AMCC
L 68-73
−3.5
28
@
NICH
L 60-68
−3.5
2
@
NOLA
W 82-78
+10.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MISS
L 58-88
+2.5
7
@
UL
L 52-58
−25.5
10
@
GT
L 60-70
−3.5
15
@
MSST
L 68-75
−7.5
26
@
UNCW
L 57-70
−10.5
28
vs
GWEB
W 76-68
+2.5
29
vs
NAVY
W 69-65
−2.5
7
vs
NWST
L 68-76
+10.5
13
@
HCU
W 74-71
+12.5
15
vs
ETAM
L 69-70
+1.5
19
@
LSU
L 65-78
−1.5
30
@
UIW
L 70-79
+13.5
3
vs
SFA
L 63-73
−1.5
5
vs
LAM
W 60-52
−23.5
10
@
MCN
L 61-73
−4.5
12
vs
NOLA
L 76-79
+12.5
17
@
AMCC
L 56-68
−6.5
19
@
RGV
L 65-68
−2.5
24
vs
NICH
W 67-61
−13.5
27
vs
MCN
L 66-76
+2.5
31
@
SFA
L 58-85
+7.5
2
@
LAM
L 54-73
−5.5
7
vs
HCU
W 55-47
−31.5
9
vs
UIW
W 74-62
−1.5
14
@
NWST
L 66-69
+3.5
16
@
ETAM
L 53-70
−13.5
21
vs
RGV
L 75-96
+32.5
23
vs
AMCC
L 68-73
+10.5
28
@
NICH
L 60-68
−11.5
2
@
NOLA
W 82-78
+16.5
over 13under 17avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
SE Louisiana has the better starters
Position by position: Hou Christian 1, SE Louisiana 2, even 2
Hou ChristianBetterSE Louisiana
G C. Mubiru TR6.7 pts · 4 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 37
→SELASmall
G Q. Allen TR9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 62
G D. Samuels8.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 46
←HCUSmall
G J. Furman TR8.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
G E. Pippa-White TR4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 5
=Even
G T. Bailey TR6.5 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 12
F S. Simmons TR6.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 33
→SELASmall
G T. Rolison TR5.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 58
F M. Mara5.4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
=Even
F A. Sims TR7.2 pts · 4.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 28
Hou ChristianBetterSE Louisiana
HCU offense342nd of 366 · -11.7
→SELABig
SELA defense177th of 366 · -4.0
HCU defense203rd of 366 · -5.0
←HCUSmall
SELA offense315th of 366 · -10.2
Backcourt-4.6 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-5.3 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.9 · 1 player
Bench-3.9 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-3.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestHCU betterSELA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Mubiru27 min · TRD. Samuels23 minE. Pippa-White18 min · TRB. Alvarez15 min · TRK. Clark7 minM. AlexanderNew
Forwards
S. Simmons26 min · TRM. Mara20 minA. Miller15 min · TRI. SackoNewK. KeinysNewJ. PapeNew
Guards
Q. Allen25 min · TRJ. Furman24 min · TRT. Bailey23 min · TRT. Rolison17 min · TRG. Sanford12 min · TRJ. Nyam1 min · TR
Forwards
A. Sims32 min · TRJ. Massaquoi17 min · TRY. Ndjonga10 min · TRG. Shoemaker7 min
Centers
D. Akoue12 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.3 #342 | Points per game | 64.8 #350 |
| 1.03 #297 | Points per possession | 0.98 #339 |
| 64.7 #352 | Pace (possessions) | 65.9 #318 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.7 #252 | Effective FG% | 46.7 #343 |
| 31.7 #291 | 3-point % | 28.4 #362 |
| 36.5 #239 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.5 #183 |
| 36.0 #151 | Free throw rate | 40.3 #56 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.9 #317 | Turnover rate | 18.4 #291 |
| 29.9 #205 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.6 #245 |
| 13.7 #164 | Assists per game | 11.4 #319 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.4 #113 | Points allowed | 71.3 #86 |
| 1.12 #268 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #172 |
| 54.2 #304 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #233 |
| 35.0 #248 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.0 #301 |
| 17.6 #117 | Turnovers forced | 19.1 #47 |
| 67.5 #279 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.6 #225 |
| 6.3 #200 | Steals per game | 6.8 #145 |
| 3.7 #111 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #272 |
Hou Christian
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs LSU N Orleans60–73
- Wvs Lamar75–53
- Lvs SF Austin56–77
- W@ East Texas A&M69–68
- L@ N'Western St53–71
A week or more of rest.
SE Louisiana
8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 6-16 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- W@ LSU N Orleans82–78
- L@ Nicholls60–68
- Lvs Texas A&M-CC68–73
- Lvs UT Rio Grande75–96
- L@ East Texas A&M53–70
A week or more of rest.