East Texas A&M Lions at Rice Owls: Model Line and Edge

Thu, Nov 5, 8:00 PM ETTudor Fieldhouse · at Rice

#177RICERice

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: East Texas A&M and Rice
ETAM	This season	RICE
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 RICE 77–66 · win probability RICE 83%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 143.1

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: RICE has more of the edges

ETAM 1, RICE 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

RICEBig

ETAM offense vs RICE defense

Offense 344th of 366 against a defense 163rd, on the model’s ratings

RICEBig

Three-pointers

ETAM hits 31.3% and allows 37.3%; RICE hits 34.3% and allows 34.0%. Threes are 46.2% and 44.1% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

ETAM has played the 265th-hardest schedule, RICE the 116th. A record against a soft schedule means less

RICEBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: ETAM 25.7%, RICE 35.3%. Defensive: ETAM 67.2%, RICE 65.4%

RICESmall

RICE offense vs ETAM defense

Offense 210th of 366 against a defense 317th, on the model’s ratings

RICESmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: ETAM 7%, RICE 44%. Transfers in: ETAM 2, RICE 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

RICESmall

Home court

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

ETAMSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: ETAM 32.0, RICE 33.9. Allowed: ETAM 34.5, RICE 40.4

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: ETAM 49.2 and allows 52.9; RICE 48.5 and allows 51.0

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: ETAM plays 68.5 a game (203rd fastest), RICE 67.9 (236th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: ETAM 19.2%, RICE 17.9%. Forced: ETAM 17.0%, RICE 15.7%

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	—	RICE -10.9	—
Total	—	143.1	—
Projected score	—	ETAM 66.1 · RICE 77

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	RICE -6.3	—
1H total	67.0	—
1H projected score	ETAM 30.3 · RICE 36.7	—

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	—
RICE LLWWL	16-13	55%	7-7	—

Venue/role: ETAM away; RICE 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
RICE OUOUU	17-12	59%	11-18

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%
RICE	4-6 40%	5-5 50%	6-4 60%

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
Nov 11	vs FDU	W70–65WU
Nov 13	@ PORT	No recent meeting
Nov 16	@ ORST	No recent meeting

Rice

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 9	@ STAN	No recent meeting
Nov 14	@ SFA	L69–81LO
Nov 17	vs AMCC	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

ETAM 0–1 RICERICE leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ETAM 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 14, 2025-26	ETAM 64 @ RICE 71	RICE -10.5	ETAM 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

Rice

29 games played

Straight up

11-18

38% wins

Against the spread

16-13

55% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-12

59% overs · avg +2.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

11-1838%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1355%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

17-1259%

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

2 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 7	@ORE	L 63-67	+15.5	W +11.5	145.5	U 130
Nov 11	vsSFA	L 69-81	-2.5	L −14.5	149.5	O 150
Nov 14	vsETAM	W 71-64	-10.5	L −3.5	146.5	U 135
Nov 17	@TENN	L 66-91	+26.5	W +1.5	143.5	O 157
Nov 20	vsTAR	L 74-90	-4.5	L −20.5	146.5	O 164
Nov 24	vsKENN	L 84-89	+4.5	L −0.5	159.5	O 173
Nov 25	@FGCU	L 63-78	+5.5	L −9.5	149.5	U 141
Nov 26	vsORU	W 81-62	-5.5	W +13.5	150.5	U 143
Dec 3	vsTXST	W 77-72	-3.5	W +1.5	133.5	O 149
Dec 13	vsARST	W 77-76	+2.5	W +3.5	155.5	U 153
Dec 20	@PEPP	L 62-84	-1.5	L −23.5	140.5	O 146
Dec 31	@TLSA	L 48-97	+12.5	L −36.5	152.5	U 145
Jan 3	vsMEM	L 70-76	+7.5	W +1.5	144.5	O 146
Jan 7	@WICH	W 66-64	+13.5	W +15.5	145.5	U 130
Jan 11	vsCLT	L 73-74	+1.5	W +0.5	137.5	O 147
Jan 14	@UTSA	W 89-73	-6.5	W +9.5	144.5	O 162
Jan 21	vsTEM	L 65-69	-1.5	L −5.5	142.5	U 134
Jan 24	vsTLSA	L 81-87	+8.5	W +2.5	152.5	O 168
Jan 28	@ECU	W 83-77	+2.5	W +8.5	140.5	O 160
Jan 30	@CLT	L 70-80	+4.5	L −5.5	141.5	O 150
Feb 4	vsUNT	W 86-83	+1.5	W +4.5	134.5	O 169
Feb 8	@UAB	L 65-71	+8.5	W +2.5	153.5	U 136
Feb 11	vsFAU	W 81-73	+3.5	W +11.5	151.5	O 154
Feb 14	vsECU	L 75-85	-4.5	L −14.5	146.5	O 160
Feb 22	@TULN	L 75-81	+4.5	L −1.5	147.5	O 156
Feb 25	vsUSF	L 56-75	+11.5	L −7.5	157.5	U 131
Mar 1	@TEM	W 80-74	+6.5	W +12.5	142.5	O 154
Mar 4	@UNT	L 58-62	+6.5	W +2.5	137.5	U 120
Mar 8	vsUTSA	W 80-71	-11.5	L −2.5	151.5	U 151

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

ORE

L 63-67

+11.5

SFA

L 69-81

−14.5

ETAM

W 71-64

−3.5

TENN

L 66-91

+1.5

TAR

L 74-90

−20.5

KENN

L 84-89

−0.5

FGCU

L 63-78

−9.5

ORU

W 81-62

+13.5

TXST

W 77-72

+1.5

ARST

W 77-76

+3.5

PEPP

L 62-84

−23.5

TLSA

L 48-97

−36.5

MEM

L 70-76

+1.5

WICH

W 66-64

+15.5

CLT

L 73-74

+0.5

UTSA

W 89-73

+9.5

TEM

L 65-69

−5.5

TLSA

L 81-87

+2.5

ECU

W 83-77

+8.5

CLT

L 70-80

−5.5

UNT

W 86-83

+4.5

UAB

L 65-71

+2.5

FAU

W 81-73

+11.5

ECU

L 75-85

−14.5

TULN

L 75-81

−1.5

USF

L 56-75

−7.5

TEM

W 80-74

+12.5

UNT

L 58-62

+2.5

UTSA

W 80-71

−2.5

covered 16didn’t cover 13avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

ORE

L 63-67

−15.5

SFA

L 69-81

+0.5

ETAM

W 71-64

−11.5

TENN

L 66-91

+13.5

TAR

L 74-90

+17.5

KENN

L 84-89

+13.5

FGCU

L 63-78

−8.5

ORU

W 81-62

−7.5

TXST

W 77-72

+15.5

ARST

W 77-76

−2.5

PEPP

L 62-84

+5.5

TLSA

L 48-97

−7.5

MEM

L 70-76

+1.5

WICH

W 66-64

−15.5

CLT

L 73-74

+9.5

UTSA

W 89-73

+17.5

TEM

L 65-69

−8.5

TLSA

L 81-87

+15.5

ECU

W 83-77

+19.5

CLT

L 70-80

+8.5

UNT

W 86-83

+34.5

UAB

L 65-71

−17.5

FAU

W 81-73

+2.5

ECU

L 75-85

+13.5

TULN

L 75-81

+8.5

USF

L 56-75

−26.5

TEM

W 80-74

+11.5

UNT

L 58-62

−17.5

UTSA

W 80-71

−0.5

over 17under 12avg +2.4 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, Rice 1, even 3

East Texas A&MBetterRice

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

ETAMSmall

G C. Adkins TR13.1 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast Score 50

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

RICESmall

G C. Carroll6.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 2 ast Score 19

G K. Tolbert NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

No call

G D. Hobbs4.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 2 ast Not ranked

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

No call

F J. Elouna Eyenga TR3.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast Score 7

F B. Aldridge NEWNo Division I numbers yet Not ranked

No call

F E. Eguagie5.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 24

East Texas A&MBetterRice

ETAM offense344th of 366 · -11.8

RICEBig

RICE defense163rd of 366 · -3.6

ETAM defense317th of 366 · -8.2

RICESmall

RICE offense210th of 366 · -6.4

Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players

ETAMBig

Backcourt-4.8 · 3 players

Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players

ETAMSmall

Frontcourt-3.4 · 2 players

BenchNo numbers yet

No call

Bench-1.4 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestETAM betterRICE 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

Rice

Guards

C. Adkins31 min · TRC. Carroll24 minD. Hobbs18 minJ. Dar10 min · TRB. Howell10 minC. Andrews-HeitzNew

Forwards

J. Elouna Eyenga18 min · TRE. Eguagie17 minJ. Oladokun17 minE. Cochran2 minA. LeethNewZ. FlasarNew

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

RICE72.0 #240

Points per possession

ETAM0.98 #342

RICE1.06 #229

Pace (possessions)

ETAM68.5 #203

RICE67.9 #236

Shooting

Effective FG%

ETAM49.2 #282

RICE48.5 #303

3-point %

ETAM31.3 #313

RICE34.3 #153

3-point attempt rate

ETAM46.2 #43

RICE44.1 #86

Free throw rate

ETAM32.0 #257

RICE33.9 #214

Possessions

Turnover rate

ETAM19.2 #330

RICE17.9 #265

Offensive rebound rate

ETAM25.7 #328

RICE35.3 #38

Assists per game

ETAM14.6 #109

RICE11.3 #320

Defense

Points allowed

ETAM76.0 #218

RICE76.8 #235

Points allowed per possession

ETAM1.11 #240

RICE1.13 #294

Opponent effective FG%

ETAM52.9 #261

RICE51.0 #160

Opponent 3-point %

ETAM37.3 #347

RICE34.0 #184

Turnovers forced

ETAM17.0 #156

RICE15.7 #236

Defensive rebound rate

ETAM67.2 #288

RICE65.4 #329

Steals per game

ETAM6.7 #150

RICE6.5 #185

Blocks per game

ETAM3.1 #196

RICE3.9 #91

ETAM		RICE
Scoring
67.1 #331	Points per game	72.0 #240
0.98 #342	Points per possession	1.06 #229
68.5 #203	Pace (possessions)	67.9 #236
Shooting
49.2 #282	Effective FG%	48.5 #303
31.3 #313	3-point %	34.3 #153
46.2 #43	3-point attempt rate	44.1 #86
32.0 #257	Free throw rate	33.9 #214
Possessions
19.2 #330	Turnover rate	17.9 #265
25.7 #328	Offensive rebound rate	35.3 #38
14.6 #109	Assists per game	11.3 #320
Defense
76.0 #218	Points allowed	76.8 #235
1.11 #240	Points allowed per possession	1.13 #294
52.9 #261	Opponent effective FG%	51.0 #160
37.3 #347	Opponent 3-point %	34.0 #184
17.0 #156	Turnovers forced	15.7 #236
67.2 #288	Defensive rebound rate	65.4 #329
6.7 #150	Steals per game	6.5 #185
3.1 #196	Blocks per game	3.9 #91

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.

Rice

11-18 in 2025-26 overall · 7-11 in conference · American Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Wvs UTSA80–71
L@ North Texas58–62
W@ Temple80–74
Lvs South Florida56–75
L@ Tulane75–81

A week or more of rest.

East Texas A&M Lions at Rice Owls

What could decide it: RICE 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

Rice

The starting fives are even

Depth chart

Matchup stats

East Texas A&M

Rice