Sharp Gymnasium · at Hou Christian
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | HCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 HCU 75–71 · win probability HCU 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.1
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
GASO 3, HCU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: GASO 14.7%, HCU 18.9%. Forced: GASO 18.7%, HCU 17.6%
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: GASO plays 71.8 a game (42nd fastest), HCU 64.7 (352nd). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: GASO 51.4 and allows 52.3; HCU 49.7 and allows 54.2
Free throws
Free throw rate: GASO 39.6, HCU 36.0. Allowed: GASO 41.4, HCU 30.7
Three-pointers
GASO hits 33.4% and allows 34.4%; HCU hits 31.7% and allows 35.0%. Threes are 48.9% and 36.5% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
GASO has played the 279th-hardest schedule, HCU the 332nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
HCU at home. This season: HCU 0-0 at home, GASO 0-0 away
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: GASO 28.8%, HCU 29.9%. Defensive: GASO 64.8%, HCU 67.5%
Even
GASO offense vs HCU defense
Offense 233rd of 366 against a defense 203rd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: GASO 16%, HCU 25%. Transfers in: GASO 3, HCU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
HCU offense vs GASO defense
Offense 342nd of 366 against a defense 347th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | HCU -3.9 | — |
| Total | — | 146.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | GASO 71.1 · HCU 75 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HCU -2.2 | — |
| 1H total | 68.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | GASO 33.1 · HCU 35.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
GASO 2–0 HCUGASO leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · GASO has won the last 2 meetings · GASO 2-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29, 2025-26 | HCU 62 @ GASO 80 | GASO -7.5 | GASO W |
| Nov 19, 2022-23 | GASO 84 @ HCU 77 | HCU +4.5 | GASO W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
GA Southern
35 games played
Straight up
19-16
54% wins
Against the spread
17-17
50% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-15
56% overs · avg +2.9 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 4 | @ | L 89-92 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 93-90 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 162.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 95-94 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 163.5 | O 189 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 66-68 | +10.5 | W +8.5 | 164.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 72-98 | +18.5 | L −7.5 | 175.5 | U 170 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 61-67 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 163.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 64-77 | -3.5 | L −16.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 80-62 | -7.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 77-69 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 88-84 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 91-85 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 90-67 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 159.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 96-92 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 82-81 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 93-86 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 161.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 71-87 | +2.5 | L −13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 87-84 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 162.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 75-79 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 68-85 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 172.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 78-83 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 79-76 | — | — | — | — |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 60-69 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 71-77 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 65-81 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 143.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 101-87 | +2.5 | W +16.5 | 162.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 64-66 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 74-89 | +7.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 66-82 | +5.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 99-82 | +7.5 | W +24.5 | 168.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 88-84 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 80-77 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 165.5 | U 157 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 94-85 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 96-72 | +1.5 | W +25.5 | 151.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 82-78 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 166.5 | U 160 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 61-77 | +5.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
ECU
L 89-92
+2.5
8
vs
UNCA
W 93-90
−2.5
11
@
FGCU
W 95-94
+4.5
18
@
GT
L 66-68
+8.5
21
@
FSU
L 72-98
−7.5
24
vs
YSU
L 61-67
−4.5
25
vs
UTSA
L 64-77
−16.5
29
vs
HCU
W 80-62
+10.5
3
vs
LT
W 77-69
+6.5
6
@
GWEB
W 88-84
−6.5
13
@
WGA
W 91-85
+2.5
18
vs
GAST
W 90-67
+13.5
20
vs
JMU
W 96-92
+1.5
1
@
CCU
W 82-81
+2.5
3
@
ODU
W 93-86
+5.5
10
@
USA
L 71-87
−13.5
15
vs
ODU
W 87-84
−2.5
17
vs
CCU
L 75-79
−10.5
22
vs
ARST
L 68-85
−15.5
24
vs
TROY
L 78-83
−0.5
31
@
UL
L 60-69
−11.5
4
vs
TXST
L 71-77
−10.5
11
vs
APP
L 65-81
−14.5
14
vs
MRSH
W 101-87
+16.5
19
@
GAST
L 64-66
−3.5
21
@
APP
L 74-89
−7.5
25
@
JMU
L 66-82
−10.5
27
@
MRSH
W 99-82
+24.5
4
vs
ODU
W 88-84
+1.5
5
vs
ARST
W 80-77
+10.5
6
vs
USA
W 94-85
+13.5
7
vs
CCU
W 96-72
+25.5
8
vs
MRSH
W 82-78
+6.5
9
vs
TROY
L 61-77
−10.5
covered 17didn’t cover 17avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
ECU
L 89-92
+29.5
8
vs
UNCA
W 93-90
+20.5
11
@
FGCU
W 95-94
+25.5
18
@
GT
L 66-68
−30.5
21
@
FSU
L 72-98
−5.5
24
vs
YSU
L 61-67
−35.5
25
vs
UTSA
L 64-77
−19.5
29
vs
HCU
W 80-62
−6.5
3
vs
LT
W 77-69
+0.5
6
@
GWEB
W 88-84
+9.5
13
@
WGA
W 91-85
+21.5
18
vs
GAST
W 90-67
−2.5
20
vs
JMU
W 96-92
+34.5
1
@
CCU
W 82-81
+5.5
3
@
ODU
W 93-86
+17.5
10
@
USA
L 71-87
+9.5
15
vs
ODU
W 87-84
+8.5
17
vs
CCU
L 75-79
−3.5
22
vs
ARST
L 68-85
−19.5
24
vs
TROY
L 78-83
+1.5
31
@
UL
L 60-69
−15.5
4
vs
TXST
L 71-77
−3.5
11
vs
APP
L 65-81
+2.5
14
vs
MRSH
W 101-87
+25.5
19
@
GAST
L 64-66
−24.5
21
@
APP
L 74-89
+15.5
25
@
JMU
L 66-82
−5.5
27
@
MRSH
W 99-82
+12.5
4
vs
ODU
W 88-84
+14.5
5
vs
ARST
W 80-77
−8.5
6
vs
USA
W 94-85
+29.5
7
vs
CCU
W 96-72
+16.5
8
vs
MRSH
W 82-78
−6.5
9
vs
TROY
L 61-77
−14.5
over 19under 15avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Hou Christian has the better starters
Position by position: GA Southern 0, Hou Christian 3, even 2
GA SouthernBetterHou Christian
G J. Dixon TR9 pts · 1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 39
=Even
G C. Mubiru TR6.7 pts · 4 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 37
G D. Williams3.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 10
→HCUBig
G D. Samuels8.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 46
G J. Williams1 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G E. Pippa-White TR4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 5
F T. Claytor TR6.5 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 8
→HCUSmall
F S. Simmons TR6.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 33
F T. Sotirov2.5 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 1
→HCUSmall
F M. Mara5.4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
GA SouthernBetterHou Christian
GASO offense233rd of 366 · -7.2
=Even
HCU defense203rd of 366 · -5.0
GASO defense347th of 366 · -9.4
=Even
HCU offense342nd of 366 · -11.7
Backcourt-3.8 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-4.6 · 3 players
Frontcourt-3.7 · 2 players
→HCUSmall
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
Bench-0.8 · 1 player
←GASOBig
Bench-3.9 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestGASO betterHCU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Dixon19 min · TRD. Williams12 minJ. Williams8 minD. GardnerNewA. HendersonNewR. WilliamsNew
Forwards
T. Claytor17 min · TRT. Sotirov11 minE. Smith6 min · TRC. CrissmanNewE. SavaneNewE. JamesNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 79.9 #69 | Points per game | 66.3 #342 |
| 1.12 #109 | Points per possession | 1.03 #297 |
| 71.8 #42 | Pace (possessions) | 64.7 #352 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #176 | Effective FG% | 49.7 #252 |
| 33.4 #207 | 3-point % | 31.7 #291 |
| 48.9 #20 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.5 #239 |
| 39.6 #62 | Free throw rate | 36.0 #151 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.7 #49 | Turnover rate | 18.9 #317 |
| 28.8 #238 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.9 #205 |
| 10.7 #344 | Assists per game | 13.7 #164 |
| Defense | ||
| 80.3 #325 | Points allowed | 72.4 #113 |
| 1.11 #259 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #268 |
| 52.3 #230 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.2 #304 |
| 34.4 #208 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.0 #248 |
| 18.7 #65 | Turnovers forced | 17.6 #117 |
| 64.8 #342 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.5 #279 |
| 8.1 #36 | Steals per game | 6.3 #200 |
| 3.6 #128 | Blocks per game | 3.7 #111 |
GA Southern
19-16 in 2025-26 overall · 13-11 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Troy61–77
- Wvs Marshall82–78
- Wvs Coastal96–72
- Wvs South Alabama94–85
- Wvs Arkansas St80–77
A week or more of rest.
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.