Cam Henderson Center · at Marshall
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MRSH | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MRSH 78–70 · win probability MRSH 77%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.3
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: MRSH has more of the edges
ETAM 1, MRSH 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
ETAM hits 31.3% and allows 37.3%; MRSH hits 36.8% and allows 33.6%. Threes are 46.2% and 44.3% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: ETAM 49.2 and allows 52.9; MRSH 54.8 and allows 50.3
MRSH offense vs ETAM defense
Offense 198th of 366 against a defense 317th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: ETAM 32.0, MRSH 29.2. Allowed: ETAM 34.5, MRSH 41.1
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ETAM 25.7%, MRSH 31.9%. Defensive: ETAM 67.2%, MRSH 66.2%
ETAM offense vs MRSH defense
Offense 344th of 366 against a defense 277th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: ETAM plays 68.5 a game (203rd fastest), MRSH 70.7 (86th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ETAM 19.2%, MRSH 16.6%. Forced: ETAM 17.0%, MRSH 16.2%
Home court
MRSH at home. This season: MRSH 0-0 at home, ETAM 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ETAM 7%, MRSH 27%. Transfers in: ETAM 2, MRSH 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
ETAM has played the 265th-hardest schedule, MRSH the 234th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | MRSH -8.5 | — |
| Total | — | 148.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | ETAM 69.9 · MRSH 78.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MRSH -4.9 | — |
| 1H total | 69.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | ETAM 32.2 · MRSH 37.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 2-8 20% | 9-1 90% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
East Texas A&M
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% 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 5 | @ | L 54-76 | +22.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 74-100 | +18.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 64-71 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 24 | @ | W 70-65 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 84-67 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 59-83 | +36.5 | W +12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 75-68 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 12 | @ | L 66-102 | +20.5 | L −15.5 | 142.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 15 | @ | W 70-69 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 77-118 | +28.5 | L −12.5 | 166.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 48-75 | +4.5 | L −22.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 62-69 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 58-80 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 73-83 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 77-69 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 12 | vs | L 50-61 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 142.5 | U 111 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 70-81 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 80-58 | +6.5 | W +28.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 61-82 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 68-72 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 85-94 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 74-68 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 52-48 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | U 100 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 70-74 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 54-97 | +13.5 | L −29.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 70-53 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 136.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 73-82 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 68-69 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 55-63 | +10.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 71-84 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 136.5 | O 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
@
UNM
L 54-76
+0.5
10
@
HAW
L 74-100
−7.5
14
@
RICE
L 64-71
+3.5
24
@
FDU
W 70-65
+1.5
25
vs
ARMY
W 84-67
+14.5
5
@
CONN
L 59-83
+12.5
7
vs
CARK
W 75-68
+4.5
12
@
MCN
L 66-102
−15.5
15
@
SELA
W 70-69
+5.5
21
@
TA&M
L 77-118
−12.5
29
vs
SFA
L 48-75
−22.5
31
vs
LAM
L 62-69
−1.5
3
@
NICH
L 58-80
−15.5
5
@
NOLA
L 73-83
−3.5
10
vs
RGV
W 77-69
+11.5
12
vs
AMCC
L 50-61
−7.5
17
@
HCU
L 70-81
−8.5
19
@
UIW
W 80-58
+28.5
27
@
LAM
L 61-82
−14.5
31
vs
NICH
L 68-72
−5.5
2
vs
NOLA
L 85-94
−7.5
4
@
NWST
W 74-68
+9.5
7
vs
NWST
W 52-48
+2.5
9
@
SFA
L 70-74
+12.5
14
vs
MCN
L 54-97
−29.5
16
vs
SELA
W 70-53
+14.5
21
vs
UIW
L 73-82
−12.5
23
vs
HCU
L 68-69
−3.5
28
@
RGV
L 55-63
+2.5
2
@
AMCC
L 71-84
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
@
UNM
L 54-76
−13.5
10
@
HAW
L 74-100
+28.5
14
@
RICE
L 64-71
−11.5
24
@
FDU
W 70-65
−14.5
25
vs
ARMY
W 84-67
+7.5
5
@
CONN
L 59-83
+0.5
7
vs
CARK
W 75-68
−2.5
12
@
MCN
L 66-102
+25.5
15
@
SELA
W 70-69
+1.5
21
@
TA&M
L 77-118
+28.5
29
vs
SFA
L 48-75
−23.5
31
vs
LAM
L 62-69
−12.5
3
@
NICH
L 58-80
−8.5
5
@
NOLA
L 73-83
+5.5
10
vs
RGV
W 77-69
+0.5
12
vs
AMCC
L 50-61
−31.5
17
@
HCU
L 70-81
+11.5
19
@
UIW
W 80-58
−4.5
27
@
LAM
L 61-82
+2.5
31
vs
NICH
L 68-72
−6.5
2
vs
NOLA
L 85-94
+27.5
4
@
NWST
W 74-68
−1.5
7
vs
NWST
W 52-48
−40.5
9
@
SFA
L 70-74
+0.5
14
vs
MCN
L 54-97
+8.5
16
vs
SELA
W 70-53
−13.5
21
vs
UIW
L 73-82
+9.5
23
vs
HCU
L 68-69
−1.5
28
@
RGV
L 55-63
−28.5
2
@
AMCC
L 71-84
+18.5
over 15under 15avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Marshall
31 games played
Straight up
18-13
58% wins
Against the spread
10-21
32% covers · avg −1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-12
61% overs · avg +4.1 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 3 | @ | W 78-72 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 85-73 | +2.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 96-89 | -8.5 | L −1.5 | 155.5 | O 185 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 78-104 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 98-70 | -20.5 | W +7.5 | 164.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 69-60 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 67-90 | -7.5 | L −30.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 69-70 | +8.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 81-88 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 77-61 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 159.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 76-74 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 63-70 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 84-80 | -13.5 | L −9.5 | 151.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 88-81 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 66-64 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 73-81 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 83-85 | -9.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 77-72 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 115-60 | -18.5 | W +36.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 68-72 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 70-61 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 165.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 81-77 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 74-90 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 162.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 81-79 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 87-101 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 162.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 84-80 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 94-93 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 187 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-79 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 97-88 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 82-99 | -7.5 | L −24.5 | 168.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 78-82 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 166.5 | U 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MASS
W 78-72
+10.5
8
@
TOL
W 85-73
+14.5
12
vs
ELON
W 96-89
−1.5
15
@
UVA
L 78-104
−5.5
20
vs
UAPB
W 98-70
+7.5
23
vs
MERC
W 69-60
−2.5
26
vs
LIP
L 67-90
−30.5
3
@
UNCW
L 69-70
+7.5
6
@
OHIO
L 81-88
−3.5
10
vs
WKU
W 77-61
+14.5
13
vs
WRST
W 76-74
−1.5
20
@
TROY
L 63-70
−2.5
31
vs
GAST
W 84-80
−9.5
3
vs
APP
W 88-81
−0.5
7
@
JMU
W 66-64
+3.5
10
@
GAST
L 73-81
−12.5
14
vs
CCU
L 83-85
−11.5
17
vs
JMU
W 77-72
−1.5
22
vs
ULM
W 115-60
+36.5
28
@
TXST
L 68-72
−7.5
31
@
ARST
W 70-61
+12.5
4
vs
USM
W 81-77
−6.5
7
vs
M-OH
L 74-90
−14.5
11
@
ODU
W 81-79
−1.5
14
@
GASO
L 87-101
−16.5
16
vs
USA
W 84-80
−2.5
19
@
APP
W 94-93
+4.5
21
@
CCU
L 75-79
−6.5
24
vs
ODU
W 97-88
+1.5
27
vs
GASO
L 82-99
−24.5
8
vs
GASO
L 78-82
−6.5
covered 10didn’t cover 21avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MASS
W 78-72
−2.5
8
@
TOL
W 85-73
−2.5
12
vs
ELON
W 96-89
+29.5
15
@
UVA
L 78-104
+26.5
20
vs
UAPB
W 98-70
+3.5
23
vs
MERC
W 69-60
−18.5
26
vs
LIP
L 67-90
−0.5
3
@
UNCW
L 69-70
−11.5
6
@
OHIO
L 81-88
+11.5
10
vs
WKU
W 77-61
−21.5
13
vs
WRST
W 76-74
+0.5
20
@
TROY
L 63-70
−22.5
31
vs
GAST
W 84-80
+12.5
3
vs
APP
W 88-81
+27.5
7
@
JMU
W 66-64
−22.5
10
@
GAST
L 73-81
+0.5
14
vs
CCU
L 83-85
+16.5
17
vs
JMU
W 77-72
−0.5
22
vs
ULM
W 115-60
+14.5
28
@
TXST
L 68-72
−7.5
31
@
ARST
W 70-61
−34.5
4
vs
USM
W 81-77
+9.5
7
vs
M-OH
L 74-90
+1.5
11
@
ODU
W 81-79
+4.5
14
@
GASO
L 87-101
+25.5
16
vs
USA
W 84-80
+13.5
19
@
APP
W 94-93
+43.5
21
@
CCU
L 75-79
+0.5
24
vs
ODU
W 97-88
+25.5
27
vs
GASO
L 82-99
+12.5
8
vs
GASO
L 78-82
−6.5
over 19under 12avg +4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: East Texas A&M 1, Marshall 1, even 3
East Texas A&MBetterMarshall
G A. Dodd TR14.3 pts · 5.3 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 82
←ETAMBig
G N. Otshudi14.5 pts · 3.3 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 45
G E. Phelps1.3 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 0
→MRSHBig
G F. Oshodi TR8.6 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 47
G K. Tolbert NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G L. Rasmussen TR2.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 15
F J. Ford TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Johnson TR2.5 pts · 2.1 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 17
F B. Aldridge NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F E. Harding3.8 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 11
East Texas A&MBetterMarshall
ETAM offense344th of 366 · -11.8
→MRSHSmall
MRSH defense277th of 366 · -7.0
ETAM defense317th of 366 · -8.2
→MRSHSmall
MRSH offense198th of 366 · -6.1
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
←ETAMSmall
Backcourt-4.7 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.5 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-1.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestETAM betterMRSH betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Dodd32 min · TRE. Phelps15 minK. TolbertNewC. AdlamNewK. RobinsonNewG. SkorjancNew
Forwards
J. Ford10 min · TRB. AldridgeNewY. VidalNewM. DiakiteNewC. DinuNewM. CarrioNew
Guards
N. Otshudi32 minF. Oshodi20 min · TRL. Rasmussen15 min · TRD. Johnson15 min · TRB. Slay8 minE. Manyuon2 min · TR
Forwards
E. Harding14 minC. Langdon3 min · TRV. Kuridza2 min · TRB. DjigoNew
Centers
K. Maker6 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.1 #331 | Points per game | 80.5 #56 |
| 0.98 #342 | Points per possession | 1.14 #71 |
| 68.5 #203 | Pace (possessions) | 70.7 #86 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.2 #282 | Effective FG% | 54.8 #42 |
| 31.3 #313 | 3-point % | 36.8 #34 |
| 46.2 #43 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.3 #82 |
| 32.0 #257 | Free throw rate | 29.2 #328 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.2 #330 | Turnover rate | 16.6 #172 |
| 25.7 #328 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.9 #127 |
| 14.6 #109 | Assists per game | 16.2 #43 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.0 #218 | Points allowed | 78.9 #292 |
| 1.11 #240 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #253 |
| 52.9 #261 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.3 #118 |
| 37.3 #347 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.6 #162 |
| 17.0 #156 | Turnovers forced | 16.2 #206 |
| 67.2 #288 | Defensive rebound rate | 66.2 #316 |
| 6.7 #150 | Steals per game | 6.1 #225 |
| 3.1 #196 | Blocks per game | 4.8 #23 |
East Texas A&M
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-16 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Texas A&M-CC71–84
- L@ UT Rio Grande55–63
- Lvs Hou Christian68–69
- Lvs Incarnate Word73–82
- Wvs SE Louisiana70–53
A week or more of rest.
Marshall
18-13 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs GA Southern78–82
- Lvs GA Southern82–99
- Wvs Old Dominion97–88
- L@ Coastal75–79
- W@ App State94–93
A week or more of rest.