McKenzie Arena · at Chattanooga
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UTC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UTC 78–70 · win probability UTC 76%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.3
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: UTC has more of the edges
AAMU 2, UTC 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: AAMU 45.4, UTC 29.7. Allowed: AAMU 38.6, UTC 42.6
Shooting
Effective FG%: AAMU 49.2 and allows 52.1; UTC 54.2 and allows 51.7
UTC offense vs AAMU defense
Offense 193rd of 366 against a defense 305th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: AAMU 27.4%, UTC 21.8%. Defensive: AAMU 70.5%, UTC 68.3%
Context
Schedule so far
AAMU has played the 363rd-hardest schedule, UTC the 306th. A record against a soft schedule means less
AAMU offense vs UTC defense
Offense 325th of 366 against a defense 270th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
UTC at home. This season: UTC 0-0 at home, AAMU 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
AAMU hits 35.0% and allows 35.4%; UTC hits 35.0% and allows 34.2%. Threes are 34.0% and 49.2% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: AAMU 51%, UTC 32%. Transfers in: AAMU 2, UTC 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: AAMU 16.5%, UTC 14.5%. Forced: AAMU 16.6%, UTC 13.1%
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: AAMU plays 67.6 a game (250th fastest), UTC 67.6 (249th). 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 | — | UTC -8.0 | — |
| Total | — | 147.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | AAMU 69.6 · UTC 77.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UTC -4.6 | — |
| 1H total | 68.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | AAMU 32.1 · UTC 36.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
AAMU 0–3 UTCUTC leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · UTC has won the last 3 meetings · AAMU 0-3 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2025-26 | UTC 73 @ AAMU 66 | AAMU +2.5 | UTC W |
| Dec 15, 2024-25 | AAMU 63 @ UTC 85 | UTC -16.5 | UTC W |
| Dec 16, 2023-24 | UTC 88 @ AAMU 72 | AAMU +8.5 | UTC W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Alabama A&M
30 games played
Straight up
15-15
50% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg +2.3 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 51-98 | +30.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 68-64 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 74-65 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 56-92 | +27.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 60-67 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 80-53 | +4.5 | W +31.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 58-92 | +11.5 | L −22.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 15 | vs | W 68-60 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 66-80 | +20.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 66-73 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 83-95 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 5 | @ | W 71-51 | -10.5 | W +9.5 | 135.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 62-64 | -9.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 100-91 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | O 191 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 73-69 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 74-89 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 145.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 80-60 | +2.5 | W +22.5 | 152.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 72-65 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 62-80 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-81 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 66-58 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 136.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 72-65 | -15.5 | L −8.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 82-70 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 63-61 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 76-85 | +6.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 88-89 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | O 177 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 77-63 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 85-88 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 85-74 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 55-74 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 140.5 | U 129 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
@
IU
L 51-98
−16.5
13
vs
CHSO
W 68-64
+2.5
16
vs
LIN
W 74-65
+5.5
28
@
CLEM
L 56-92
−8.5
30
@
CCU
L 60-67
+0.5
3
vs
TNST
W 80-53
+31.5
7
@
LIP
L 58-92
−22.5
15
vs
UNA
W 68-60
+12.5
17
vs
MISS
L 66-80
+6.5
21
vs
UTC
L 66-73
−4.5
3
@
UAPB
L 83-95
−13.5
5
@
MVSU
W 71-51
+9.5
10
vs
ALCN
L 62-64
−11.5
12
vs
JKST
W 100-91
+2.5
19
vs
ALST
W 73-69
+5.5
24
@
TXSO
L 74-89
−16.5
27
@
PV
W 80-60
+22.5
31
vs
FAMU
W 72-65
+3.5
2
vs
BCU
L 62-80
−15.5
7
@
SOU
L 68-81
−6.5
9
@
GRAM
W 66-58
+12.5
14
vs
MVSU
W 72-65
−8.5
16
vs
UAPB
W 82-70
+8.5
19
@
FAMU
W 63-61
+3.5
21
@
BCU
L 76-85
−2.5
28
vs
ALST
L 88-89
−2.5
3
vs
GRAM
W 77-63
+11.5
5
vs
SOU
L 85-88
−1.5
12
vs
TXSO
W 85-74
+9.5
13
vs
PV
L 55-74
−20.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
@
IU
L 51-98
+1.5
13
vs
CHSO
W 68-64
−20.5
16
vs
LIN
W 74-65
−10.5
28
@
CLEM
L 56-92
+6.5
30
@
CCU
L 60-67
−13.5
3
vs
TNST
W 80-53
−14.5
7
@
LIP
L 58-92
+3.5
15
vs
UNA
W 68-60
−12.5
17
vs
MISS
L 66-80
+10.5
21
vs
UTC
L 66-73
+0.5
3
@
UAPB
L 83-95
+28.5
5
@
MVSU
W 71-51
−13.5
10
vs
ALCN
L 62-64
−14.5
12
vs
JKST
W 100-91
+50.5
19
vs
ALST
W 73-69
−4.5
24
@
TXSO
L 74-89
+17.5
27
@
PV
W 80-60
−12.5
31
vs
FAMU
W 72-65
−1.5
2
vs
BCU
L 62-80
+0.5
7
@
SOU
L 68-81
+5.5
9
@
GRAM
W 66-58
−12.5
14
vs
MVSU
W 72-65
−1.5
16
vs
UAPB
W 82-70
+7.5
19
@
FAMU
W 63-61
−15.5
21
@
BCU
L 76-85
+18.5
28
vs
ALST
L 88-89
+33.5
3
vs
GRAM
W 77-63
−0.5
5
vs
SOU
L 85-88
+27.5
12
vs
TXSO
W 85-74
+16.5
13
vs
PV
L 55-74
−11.5
over 15under 15avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Chattanooga
29 games played
Straight up
10-19
34% wins
Against the spread
12-17
41% covers · avg −3.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-13
55% overs · avg +2.6 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 7 | @ | L 66-87 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 69-101 | +7.5 | L −24.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 73-91 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 78-66 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 154.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 71-57 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 64-70 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 155.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 70-74 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 78-92 | +19.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-79 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 73-66 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 72-77 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 71-79 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 67-78 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 88-79 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 76-67 | +5.5 | W +14.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 90-82 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 66-67 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 64-75 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 55-81 | -1.5 | L −27.5 | 150.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 70-75 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 79-75 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 71-78 | -9.5 | L −16.5 | 142.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 61-73 | +10.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 76-81 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 94-90 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 93-72 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 80-85 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 86-79 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-88 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
SMC
L 66-87
−5.5
8
@
UNLV
L 69-101
−24.5
15
@
FGCU
L 73-91
−19.5
19
@
SCST
W 78-66
+0.5
22
vs
UNA
W 71-57
+4.5
30
vs
TNST
L 64-70
−14.5
6
vs
SEMO
L 70-74
−7.5
13
vs
AUB
L 78-92
+5.5
17
@
BELL
L 64-79
−16.5
21
@
AAMU
W 73-66
+4.5
1
@
UNCG
L 72-77
−7.5
3
@
VMI
L 71-79
−14.5
7
vs
FUR
L 67-78
−8.5
10
vs
SAM
W 88-79
+7.5
14
@
WOF
W 76-67
+14.5
17
@
WCU
W 90-82
+9.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 66-67
+3.5
24
@
SAM
L 64-75
−6.5
29
vs
WOF
L 55-81
−27.5
1
@
FUR
L 70-75
+2.5
5
vs
MER
W 79-75
+8.5
7
vs
CIT
L 71-78
−16.5
11
@
ETSU
L 61-73
−1.5
14
vs
WCU
L 76-81
−6.5
19
@
MER
W 94-90
+14.5
21
@
CIT
W 93-72
+16.5
26
vs
UNCG
L 80-85
−9.5
28
vs
VMI
W 86-79
−4.5
6
vs
CIT
L 85-88
−10.5
covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
SMC
L 66-87
+7.5
8
@
UNLV
L 69-101
+14.5
15
@
FGCU
L 73-91
+11.5
19
@
SCST
W 78-66
−10.5
22
vs
UNA
W 71-57
−21.5
30
vs
TNST
L 64-70
−21.5
6
vs
SEMO
L 70-74
−5.5
13
vs
AUB
L 78-92
+19.5
17
@
BELL
L 64-79
−3.5
21
@
AAMU
W 73-66
+0.5
1
@
UNCG
L 72-77
+1.5
3
@
VMI
L 71-79
+0.5
7
vs
FUR
L 67-78
−1.5
10
vs
SAM
W 88-79
+18.5
14
@
WOF
W 76-67
−11.5
17
@
WCU
W 90-82
+21.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 66-67
−10.5
24
@
SAM
L 64-75
−13.5
29
vs
WOF
L 55-81
−14.5
1
@
FUR
L 70-75
−1.5
5
vs
MER
W 79-75
−1.5
7
vs
CIT
L 71-78
+6.5
11
@
ETSU
L 61-73
−11.5
14
vs
WCU
L 76-81
+5.5
19
@
MER
W 94-90
+32.5
21
@
CIT
W 93-72
+20.5
26
vs
UNCG
L 80-85
+7.5
28
vs
VMI
W 86-79
+10.5
6
vs
CIT
L 85-88
+24.5
over 16under 13avg +2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Chattanooga has the better starters
Position by position: Alabama A&M 1, Chattanooga 2, even 2
Alabama A&MBetterChattanooga
G S. Pissis10.4 pts · 3.1 reb · 4 ast
Score 38
=Even
G T. Darner9.8 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 49
G J. Graham9.8 pts · 4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 41
=No call
G S. Cusano2.5 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
G J. Edwards TR6.8 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 9
→UTCBig
F T. Houser TR14.4 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
G G. Kincy3.8 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 3
→UTCSmall
F Y. Levy TR5 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 18
G B. Abdur-Rahman4.6 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 65
←AAMUBig
F J. Bowman3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 22
Alabama A&MBetterChattanooga
AAMU offense325th of 366 · -10.6
→UTCSmall
UTC defense270th of 366 · -6.8
AAMU defense305th of 366 · -7.8
→UTCSmall
UTC offense193rd of 366 · -5.9
Backcourt-8.1 · 5 players
→UTCBig
Backcourt-1.6 · 2 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-1.6 · 3 players
Bench-3.2 · 3 players
→UTCSmall
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestAAMU betterUTC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
S. Pissis30 minJ. Graham25 minJ. Edwards23 min · TRG. Kincy19 minB. Abdur-Rahman12 minN. Johnson10 min · TR
Forwards
S. Onu7 minS. WalkerNewD. MeriwetherNewK. PaulNewD. BrownNew
Guards
T. Darner29 minS. Cusano13 minH. Holland11 minL. VittersNewM. HamptonNewT. PowellNew
Forwards
T. Houser33 min · TRY. Levy21 min · TRJ. Bowman12 minA. SwiftNewC. HardawayNew
Centers
J. FleemanNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.4 #261 | Points per game | 74.1 #192 |
| 1.05 #240 | Points per possession | 1.10 #132 |
| 67.6 #250 | Pace (possessions) | 67.6 #249 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.2 #281 | Effective FG% | 54.2 #60 |
| 35.0 #114 | 3-point % | 35.0 #116 |
| 34.0 #295 | 3-point attempt rate | 49.2 #18 |
| 45.4 #3 | Free throw rate | 29.7 #319 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.5 #167 | Turnover rate | 14.5 #40 |
| 27.4 #283 | Offensive rebound rate | 21.8 #358 |
| 11.2 #328 | Assists per game | 14.3 #127 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.9 #152 | Points allowed | 78.1 #269 |
| 1.09 #212 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #325 |
| 52.1 #220 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.7 #195 |
| 35.4 #272 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.2 #195 |
| 16.6 #176 | Turnovers forced | 13.1 #351 |
| 70.5 #138 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #240 |
| 6.2 #211 | Steals per game | 5.0 #336 |
| 2.7 #271 | Blocks per game | 2.5 #305 |
Alabama A&M
15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 11-9 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Prairie View55–74
- Wvs Texas Southern85–74
- Lvs Southern85–88
- Wvs Grambling77–63
- Lvs Alabama St88–89
A week or more of rest.
Chattanooga
10-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs The Citadel85–88
- Wvs VMI86–79
- Lvs UNC Greensboro80–85
- W@ The Citadel93–72
- W@ Mercer94–90
A week or more of rest.