East Texas A&M Lions at Lamar Cardinals: Model Line and Edge

Mon, Dec 7, 12:00 AM ETMontagne Center · at Lamar · Conference game

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: East Texas A&M and Lamar
ETAM	This season	LAM
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 LAM 73–67 · win probability LAM 72%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 140.2

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: LAM has more of the edges

ETAM 1, LAM 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

LAMBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: ETAM 25.7%, LAM 35.7%. Defensive: ETAM 67.2%, LAM 70.6%

ETAMBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: ETAM 32.0, LAM 27.9. Allowed: ETAM 34.5, LAM 44.4

LAMBig

ETAM offense vs LAM defense

Offense 344th of 366 against a defense 213th, on the model’s ratings

LAMSmall

Three-pointers

ETAM hits 31.3% and allows 37.3%; LAM hits 32.9% and allows 35.3%. Threes are 46.2% and 33.9% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

ETAM has played the 265th-hardest schedule, LAM the 328th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: ETAM plays 68.5 a game (203rd fastest), LAM 66.1 (311th). Faster games mean more points

LAMSmall

Home court

LAM at home. This season: LAM 0-0 at home, ETAM 0-0 away

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: ETAM 19.2%, LAM 18.1%. Forced: ETAM 17.0%, LAM 17.3%

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: ETAM 49.2 and allows 52.9; LAM 47.8 and allows 50.9

Even

LAM offense vs ETAM defense

Offense 334th of 366 against a defense 317th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: ETAM 7%, LAM 0%. Transfers in: ETAM 2, LAM 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

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	—	LAM -6.6	—
Total	—	140.2	—
Projected score	—	ETAM 66.8 · LAM 73.4

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	LAM -3.8	—
1H total	65.6	—
1H projected score	ETAM 30.9 · LAM 34.7	—

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	Venue	Role
ETAM WLLWL	14-16	47%	9-8	—
LAM WLLLL	12-17	41%	4-9	—

Venue/role: ETAM away; LAM home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
ETAM UOUUO	15-15	50%	9-21
LAM UOUUU	14-15	48%	10-19

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
ETAM	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	5-5 50%
LAM	1-9 10%	3-7 30%	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

East Texas A&M

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 15	@ CARK	W75–68WU

Lamar

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 10	@ PORT	No recent meeting
Dec 11	@ ORST	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Last 5 of 8 since 2021-22

ETAM 2–6 LAMLAM leads · 8 games since 2021-22 · LAM has won the last 6 meetings · ETAM 2-6 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Jan 27, 2025-26	ETAM 61 @ LAM 82	LAM -6.5	LAM W
Dec 31, 2025-26	LAM 69 @ ETAM 62	ETAM +5.5	LAM W
Feb 15, 2024-25	LAM 65 @ ETAM 55	ETAM +5.5	LAM W
Jan 25, 2024-25	ETAM 58 @ LAM 61	LAM -9.5	ETAM W
Mar 4, 2023-24	LAM 70 @ ETAM 53	ETAM +4.5	LAM W

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

Straight up

9-2130%

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

4 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

14-1647%

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

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1550%

U O U U O O U O O O U U U O O U O U O U O U U O O U 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 5	@UNM	L 54-76	+22.5	W +0.5	143.5	U 130
Nov 10	@HAW	L 74-100	+18.5	L −7.5	145.5	O 174
Nov 14	@RICE	L 64-71	+10.5	W +3.5	146.5	U 135
Nov 24	@FDU	W 70-65	-3.5	W +1.5	149.5	U 135
Nov 25	vsARMY	W 84-67	-2.5	W +14.5	143.5	O 151
Dec 5	@CONN	L 59-83	+36.5	W +12.5	141.5	O 142
Dec 7	vsCARK	W 75-68	-2.5	W +4.5	145.5	U 143
Dec 12	@MCN	L 66-102	+20.5	L −15.5	142.5	O 168
Dec 15	@SELA	W 70-69	+4.5	W +5.5	137.5	O 139
Dec 21	@TA&M	L 77-118	+28.5	L −12.5	166.5	O 195
Dec 29	vsSFA	L 48-75	+4.5	L −22.5	146.5	U 123
Dec 31	vsLAM	L 62-69	+5.5	L −1.5	143.5	U 131
Jan 3	@NICH	L 58-80	+6.5	L −15.5	146.5	U 138
Jan 5	@NOLA	L 73-83	+6.5	L −3.5	150.5	O 156
Jan 10	vsRGV	W 77-69	+3.5	W +11.5	145.5	O 146
Jan 12	vsAMCC	L 50-61	+3.5	L −7.5	142.5	U 111
Jan 17	@HCU	L 70-81	+2.5	L −8.5	139.5	O 151
Jan 19	@UIW	W 80-58	+6.5	W +28.5	142.5	U 138
Jan 27	@LAM	L 61-82	+6.5	L −14.5	140.5	O 143
Jan 31	vsNICH	L 68-72	-1.5	L −5.5	146.5	U 140
Feb 2	vsNOLA	L 85-94	+1.5	L −7.5	151.5	O 179
Feb 4	@NWST	W 74-68	+3.5	W +9.5	143.5	U 142
Feb 7	vsNWST	W 52-48	-1.5	W +2.5	140.5	U 100
Feb 9	@SFA	L 70-74	+16.5	W +12.5	143.5	O 144
Feb 14	vsMCN	L 54-97	+13.5	L −29.5	142.5	O 151
Feb 16	vsSELA	W 70-53	-2.5	W +14.5	136.5	U 123
Feb 21	vsUIW	L 73-82	-3.5	L −12.5	145.5	O 155
Feb 23	vsHCU	L 68-69	-2.5	L −3.5	138.5	U 137
Feb 28	@RGV	L 55-63	+10.5	W +2.5	146.5	U 118
Mar 2	@AMCC	L 71-84	+7.5	L −5.5	136.5	O 155

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UNM

L 54-76

+0.5

HAW

L 74-100

−7.5

RICE

L 64-71

+3.5

FDU

W 70-65

+1.5

ARMY

W 84-67

+14.5

CONN

L 59-83

+12.5

CARK

W 75-68

+4.5

MCN

L 66-102

−15.5

SELA

W 70-69

+5.5

TA&M

L 77-118

−12.5

SFA

L 48-75

−22.5

LAM

L 62-69

−1.5

NICH

L 58-80

−15.5

NOLA

L 73-83

−3.5

RGV

W 77-69

+11.5

AMCC

L 50-61

−7.5

HCU

L 70-81

−8.5

UIW

W 80-58

+28.5

LAM

L 61-82

−14.5

NICH

L 68-72

−5.5

NOLA

L 85-94

−7.5

NWST

W 74-68

+9.5

NWST

W 52-48

+2.5

SFA

L 70-74

+12.5

MCN

L 54-97

−29.5

SELA

W 70-53

+14.5

UIW

L 73-82

−12.5

HCU

L 68-69

−3.5

RGV

L 55-63

+2.5

AMCC

L 71-84

−5.5

covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UNM

L 54-76

−13.5

HAW

L 74-100

+28.5

RICE

L 64-71

−11.5

FDU

W 70-65

−14.5

ARMY

W 84-67

+7.5

CONN

L 59-83

+0.5

CARK

W 75-68

−2.5

MCN

L 66-102

+25.5

SELA

W 70-69

+1.5

TA&M

L 77-118

+28.5

SFA

L 48-75

−23.5

LAM

L 62-69

−12.5

NICH

L 58-80

−8.5

NOLA

L 73-83

+5.5

RGV

W 77-69

+0.5

AMCC

L 50-61

−31.5

HCU

L 70-81

+11.5

UIW

W 80-58

−4.5

LAM

L 61-82

+2.5

NICH

L 68-72

−6.5

NOLA

L 85-94

+27.5

NWST

W 74-68

−1.5

NWST

W 52-48

−40.5

SFA

L 70-74

+0.5

MCN

L 54-97

+8.5

SELA

W 70-53

−13.5

UIW

L 73-82

+9.5

HCU

L 68-69

−1.5

RGV

L 55-63

−28.5

AMCC

L 71-84

+18.5

over 15under 15avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Lamar

29 games played

Straight up

10-19

34% wins

Against the spread

12-17

41% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

14-15

48% overs · avg −0.9 pts vs the total

Straight up

10-1934%

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

8 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

12-1741%

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

4 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

14-1548%

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

3 straight unders1 of last 4 over

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 10	@TCU	L 65-78	+18.5	W +5.5	147.5	U 143
Nov 17	@ULM	W 79-66	-11.5	W +1.5	140.5	O 145
Nov 23	@MONT	W 68-63	+4.5	W +9.5	148.5	U 131
Nov 24	vsOAK	L 68-83	+3.5	L −11.5	148.5	O 151
Dec 3	vsUL	W 65-55	-10.5	L −0.5	129.5	U 120
Dec 6	vsAMCC	L 49-57	-3.5	L −11.5	136.5	U 106
Dec 10	@SDSU	L 71-89	+17.5	L −0.5	135.5	O 160
Dec 16	vsRGV	L 72-83	-3.5	L −14.5	139.5	O 155
Dec 20	vsOMA	L 82-85	-5.5	L −8.5	141.5	O 167
Dec 29	@NWST	W 76-61	-3.5	W +11.5	138.5	U 137
Dec 31	@ETAM	W 69-62	-5.5	W +1.5	143.5	U 131
Jan 2	@MCN	L 70-82	+16.5	W +4.5	145.5	O 152
Jan 5	@SELA	L 52-60	-1.5	L −9.5	135.5	U 112
Jan 10	vsUIW	W 63-51	-1.5	W +10.5	140.5	U 114
Jan 12	vsHCU	W 64-56	-8.5	L −0.5	134.5	U 120
Jan 17	@NICH	W 90-80	+3.5	W +13.5	139.5	O 170
Jan 19	@NOLA	L 76-89	-1.5	L −14.5	144.5	O 165
Jan 24	vsSFA	L 81-88	+4.5	L −2.5	136.5	O 169
Jan 27	vsETAM	W 82-61	-6.5	W +14.5	140.5	O 143
Jan 31	vsMCN	L 63-64	+10.5	W +9.5	144.5	U 127
Feb 2	vsSELA	W 73-54	-5.5	W +13.5	132.5	U 127
Feb 7	@SFA	L 74-84	+8.5	L −1.5	138.5	O 158
Feb 9	vsNWST	L 68-70	-6.5	L −8.5	135.5	O 138
Feb 14	@AMCC	L 63-76	+2.5	L −10.5	135.5	O 139
Feb 16	@RGV	L 65-70	+6.5	W +1.5	141.5	U 135
Feb 21	vsNOLA	L 71-77	-4.5	L −10.5	146.5	O 148
Feb 23	vsNICH	L 52-53	-3.5	L −4.5	143.5	U 105
Feb 28	@UIW	L 60-72	+1.5	L −10.5	138.5	U 132
Mar 2	@HCU	L 53-75	-2.5	L −24.5	132.5	U 128

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

TCU

L 65-78

+5.5

ULM

W 79-66

+1.5

MONT

W 68-63

+9.5

OAK

L 68-83

−11.5

W 65-55

−0.5

AMCC

L 49-57

−11.5

SDSU

L 71-89

−0.5

RGV

L 72-83

−14.5

OMA

L 82-85

−8.5

NWST

W 76-61

+11.5

ETAM

W 69-62

+1.5

MCN

L 70-82

+4.5

SELA

L 52-60

−9.5

UIW

W 63-51

+10.5

HCU

W 64-56

−0.5

NICH

W 90-80

+13.5

NOLA

L 76-89

−14.5

SFA

L 81-88

−2.5

ETAM

W 82-61

+14.5

MCN

L 63-64

+9.5

SELA

W 73-54

+13.5

SFA

L 74-84

−1.5

NWST

L 68-70

−8.5

AMCC

L 63-76

−10.5

RGV

L 65-70

+1.5

NOLA

L 71-77

−10.5

NICH

L 52-53

−4.5

UIW

L 60-72

−10.5

HCU

L 53-75

−24.5

covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

TCU

L 65-78

−4.5

ULM

W 79-66

+4.5

MONT

W 68-63

−17.5

OAK

L 68-83

+2.5

W 65-55

−9.5

AMCC

L 49-57

−30.5

SDSU

L 71-89

+24.5

RGV

L 72-83

+15.5

OMA

L 82-85

+25.5

NWST

W 76-61

−1.5

ETAM

W 69-62

−12.5

MCN

L 70-82

+6.5

SELA

L 52-60

−23.5

UIW

W 63-51

−26.5

HCU

W 64-56

−14.5

NICH

W 90-80

+30.5

NOLA

L 76-89

+20.5

SFA

L 81-88

+32.5

ETAM

W 82-61

+2.5

MCN

L 63-64

−17.5

SELA

W 73-54

−5.5

SFA

L 74-84

+19.5

NWST

L 68-70

+2.5

AMCC

L 63-76

+3.5

RGV

L 65-70

−6.5

NOLA

L 71-77

+1.5

NICH

L 52-53

−38.5

UIW

L 60-72

−6.5

HCU

L 53-75

−4.5

over 14under 15avg −0.9 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, Lamar 1, even 3

East Texas A&MBetterLamar

G A. Dodd TR14.3 pts · 5.3 reb · 4.1 ast Score 82

ETAMBig

G F. Radakovic TR9.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 2.5 ast Score 38

G E. Phelps1.3 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast Score 0

LAMSmall

G N. Moretti TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 3.2 ast Score 24

G K. Tolbert NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

No call

G Q. Berry TR6.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast Score 61

F J. Ford TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.5 ast Not ranked

No call

G M. Collins TR1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast Score 12

F B. Aldridge NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

No call

F M. Ljubicic TR5.5 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.6 ast Score 7

East Texas A&MBetterLamar

ETAM offense344th of 366 · -11.8

LAMBig

LAM defense213th of 366 · -5.4

ETAM defense317th of 366 · -8.2

Even

LAM offense334th of 366 · -10.9

Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players

ETAMSmall

Backcourt-4.6 · 4 players

Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players

ETAMSmall

Frontcourt-2.4 · 1 player

BenchNo numbers yet

No call

Bench-0.8 · 1 player

Score, worst to bestETAM betterLAM 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

East Texas A&M

Guards

A. Dodd32 min · TRE. Phelps15 minK. TolbertNewC. AdlamNewK. RobinsonNewG. SkorjancNew

Forwards

J. Ford10 min · TRB. AldridgeNewY. VidalNewM. DiakiteNewC. DinuNewM. CarrioNew

Lamar

Guards

F. Radakovic27 min · TRN. Moretti27 min · TRQ. Berry18 min · TRM. Collins9 min · TRJ. JonesNewS. LynchNew

Forwards

M. Ljubicic20 min · TRM. Reed7 min · TRC. HinkerNewA. AgotNewD. EasonNew

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

ETAM67.1 #331

LAM68.4 #308

Points per possession

ETAM0.98 #342

LAM1.04 #279

Pace (possessions)

ETAM68.5 #203

LAM66.1 #311

Shooting

Effective FG%

ETAM49.2 #282

LAM47.8 #318

3-point %

ETAM31.3 #313

LAM32.9 #238

3-point attempt rate

ETAM46.2 #43

LAM33.9 #297

Free throw rate

ETAM32.0 #257

LAM27.9 #344

Possessions

Turnover rate

ETAM19.2 #330

LAM18.1 #273

Offensive rebound rate

ETAM25.7 #328

LAM35.7 #31

Assists per game

ETAM14.6 #109

LAM13.9 #157

Defense

Points allowed

ETAM76.0 #218

LAM70.5 #64

Points allowed per possession

ETAM1.11 #240

LAM1.07 #122

Opponent effective FG%

ETAM52.9 #261

LAM50.9 #153

Opponent 3-point %

ETAM37.3 #347

LAM35.3 #266

Turnovers forced

ETAM17.0 #156

LAM17.3 #130

Defensive rebound rate

ETAM67.2 #288

LAM70.6 #130

Steals per game

ETAM6.7 #150

LAM6.1 #227

Blocks per game

ETAM3.1 #196

LAM4.2 #54

ETAM		LAM
Scoring
67.1 #331	Points per game	68.4 #308
0.98 #342	Points per possession	1.04 #279
68.5 #203	Pace (possessions)	66.1 #311
Shooting
49.2 #282	Effective FG%	47.8 #318
31.3 #313	3-point %	32.9 #238
46.2 #43	3-point attempt rate	33.9 #297
32.0 #257	Free throw rate	27.9 #344
Possessions
19.2 #330	Turnover rate	18.1 #273
25.7 #328	Offensive rebound rate	35.7 #31
14.6 #109	Assists per game	13.9 #157
Defense
76.0 #218	Points allowed	70.5 #64
1.11 #240	Points allowed per possession	1.07 #122
52.9 #261	Opponent effective FG%	50.9 #153
37.3 #347	Opponent 3-point %	35.3 #266
17.0 #156	Turnovers forced	17.3 #130
67.2 #288	Defensive rebound rate	70.6 #130
6.7 #150	Steals per game	6.1 #227
3.1 #196	Blocks per game	4.2 #54

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.

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.

Lamar

10-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference

Last five, 2025-26

L@ Hou Christian53–75
L@ Incarnate Word60–72
Lvs Nicholls52–53
Lvs LSU N Orleans71–77
L@ UT Rio Grande65–70

A week or more of rest.

East Texas A&M Lions at Lamar Cardinals

What could decide it: LAM has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

East Texas A&M

Lamar

The starting fives are even

Depth chart

Matchup stats

East Texas A&M

Lamar