The Palestra · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | BUCK | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LAS 77–65 · win probability LAS 86%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 141.7
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: LAS has more of the edges
LAS 4, BUCK 0 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
BUCK offense vs LAS defense
Offense 317th of 366 against a defense 111th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: LAS 37.5, BUCK 29.8. Allowed: LAS 31.5, BUCK 35.3
Context
Schedule so far
LAS has played the 92nd-hardest schedule, BUCK the 227th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LAS 33.7%, BUCK 27.0%. Defensive: LAS 67.7%, BUCK 68.7%
LAS offense vs BUCK defense
Offense 157th of 366 against a defense 237th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LAS 56%, BUCK 39%. Transfers in: LAS 5, BUCK 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LAS 45.4 and allows 55.0; BUCK 48.5 and allows 54.7
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: LAS plays 66.4 a game (300th fastest), BUCK 67.7 (242nd). Faster games mean more points
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Three-pointers
LAS hits 30.0% and allows 36.5%; BUCK hits 30.6% and allows 37.0%. Threes are 31.5% and 42.8% of their shots
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LAS 18.2%, BUCK 18.9%. Forced: LAS 17.2%, BUCK 17.9%
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 | — | LAS -12.1 | — |
| Total | — | 141.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | LAS 76.9 · BUCK 64.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LAS -7.3 | — |
| 1H total | 66.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | LAS 36.8 · BUCK 29.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LAS 2–1 BUCKLAS leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · LAS has won the last 2 meetings · LAS 2-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2023-24 | BUCK 57 @ LAS 69 | LAS -11.5 | LAS W |
| Dec 6, 2022-23 | BUCK 72 @ LAS 82 | LAS -5.5 | LAS W |
| Dec 18, 2021-22 | LAS 70 @ BUCK 82 | BUCK +2.5 | BUCK W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
La Salle
31 games played
Straight up
8-23
26% wins
Against the spread
14-17
45% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg −0.8 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 | vs | W 87-59 | -17.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 73-60 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 63-90 | +6.5 | L −20.5 | 148.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 69-83 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 55-70 | +12.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 58-63 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 71-73 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 60-66 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 132.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 69-64 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | O 133 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 60-70 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 72-84 | +13.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 50-102 | +40.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 75-80 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 134.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 55-77 | +16.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 79-72 | +11.5 | W +18.5 | 135.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 72-84 | +17.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 53-74 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 78-74 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 67-64 | +9.5 | W +12.5 | 137.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 58-64 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 136.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 58-67 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 61-71 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 58-82 | +22.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 68-77 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 61-62 | +11.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 59-46 | +3.5 | W +16.5 | 135.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 77-104 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 64-71 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 133.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 87-84 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 131.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-88 | +11.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 80-99 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | O 179 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
COPP
W 87-59
+10.5
8
vs
MONM
W 73-60
+8.5
11
@
TEM
L 63-90
−20.5
15
vs
PSU
L 69-83
−5.5
19
vs
VILL
L 55-70
−2.5
28
vs
HOF
L 58-63
−1.5
29
@
PENN
L 71-73
−0.5
30
vs
MRMK
L 60-66
−8.5
6
vs
DREX
W 69-64
+6.5
13
@
LIU
L 60-70
−7.5
19
@
HPU
L 72-84
+1.5
21
@
MICH
L 50-102
−11.5
31
vs
GMU
L 75-80
+3.5
3
@
GW
L 55-77
−5.5
7
@
URI
W 79-72
+18.5
10
vs
SLU
L 72-84
+5.5
14
@
RICH
L 53-74
−12.5
17
vs
SBU
W 78-74
+9.5
21
vs
DAY
W 67-64
+12.5
28
@
FOR
L 58-64
−0.5
31
vs
JOES
L 58-67
−6.5
3
@
LUC
L 61-71
−7.5
7
@
SLU
L 58-82
−1.5
11
vs
VCU
L 68-77
+3.5
18
@
DUQ
L 61-62
+10.5
21
vs
URI
W 59-46
+16.5
24
vs
GW
L 77-104
−18.5
1
@
DAV
L 64-71
+3.5
4
vs
FOR
W 87-84
+6.5
7
@
JOES
L 76-88
−0.5
11
vs
SBU
L 80-99
−11.5
covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
COPP
W 87-59
+6.5
8
vs
MONM
W 73-60
−10.5
11
@
TEM
L 63-90
+4.5
15
vs
PSU
L 69-83
+6.5
19
vs
VILL
L 55-70
−19.5
28
vs
HOF
L 58-63
−17.5
29
@
PENN
L 71-73
−5.5
30
vs
MRMK
L 60-66
−6.5
6
vs
DREX
W 69-64
+3.5
13
@
LIU
L 60-70
−13.5
19
@
HPU
L 72-84
+6.5
21
@
MICH
L 50-102
−3.5
31
vs
GMU
L 75-80
+20.5
3
@
GW
L 55-77
−18.5
7
@
URI
W 79-72
+15.5
10
vs
SLU
L 72-84
+3.5
14
@
RICH
L 53-74
−20.5
17
vs
SBU
W 78-74
+10.5
21
vs
DAY
W 67-64
−6.5
28
@
FOR
L 58-64
−14.5
31
vs
JOES
L 58-67
−17.5
3
@
LUC
L 61-71
−8.5
7
@
SLU
L 58-82
−13.5
11
vs
VCU
L 68-77
−2.5
18
@
DUQ
L 61-62
−22.5
21
vs
URI
W 59-46
−30.5
24
vs
GW
L 77-104
+34.5
1
@
DAV
L 64-71
+1.5
4
vs
FOR
W 87-84
+39.5
7
@
JOES
L 76-88
+21.5
11
vs
SBU
L 80-99
+32.5
over 14under 17avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Bucknell
33 games played
Straight up
10-23
30% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −3.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-20
39% overs · avg +1.4 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 | vs | W 78-70 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 73-62 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 63-73 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 77-83 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 50-84 | +16.5 | L −17.5 | 141.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 49-97 | +28.5 | L −19.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 66-71 | +10.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 71-73 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 72-101 | +5.5 | L −23.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 77-97 | +23.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | O 174 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 66-73 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 9 | @ | W 51-38 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | U 89 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 39-94 | +25.5 | L −29.5 | 133.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 58-65 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 133.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 72-65 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 55-76 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 137.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 70-67 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 76-69 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 76-95 | +8.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 84-87 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 62-67 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 79-81 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 103-97 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 200 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 60-59 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 59-78 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 60-76 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 135.5 | O 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 69-82 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 57-75 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 63-72 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 75-73 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 79-89 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 65-55 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 69-74 | +15.5 | W +10.5 | 133.5 | O 143 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
DEL
W 78-70
+5.5
7
@
MSM
W 73-62
+12.5
11
@
PRIN
L 63-73
−5.5
14
vs
HOF
L 77-83
−1.5
17
@
PITT
L 50-84
−17.5
20
@
SJU
L 49-97
−19.5
24
vs
BGSU
L 66-71
+5.5
26
vs
BUF
L 71-73
+2.5
30
vs
COR
L 72-101
−23.5
3
@
AKR
L 77-97
+3.5
6
vs
UMBC
L 66-73
−8.5
9
@
RID
W 51-38
+10.5
20
@
IOWA
L 39-94
−29.5
31
@
HC
L 58-65
−8.5
3
vs
LEH
W 72-65
+2.5
7
@
NAVY
L 55-76
−12.5
10
vs
L-MD
W 70-67
−3.5
14
vs
LAF
W 76-69
+4.5
17
@
COLG
L 76-95
−10.5
21
vs
ARMY
L 84-87
−7.5
24
@
L-MD
L 62-67
−2.5
28
@
LAF
L 79-81
+2.5
31
vs
BU
W 103-97
+7.5
4
@
AMER
W 60-59
+8.5
7
vs
COLG
L 59-78
−13.5
9
vs
NAVY
L 60-76
−9.5
14
@
BU
L 69-82
−7.5
18
vs
AMER
L 57-75
−14.5
22
vs
HC
L 63-72
−11.5
25
@
ARMY
W 75-73
+4.5
28
@
LEH
L 79-89
−4.5
3
vs
ARMY
W 65-55
+8.5
5
@
NAVY
L 69-74
+10.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −3.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
DEL
W 78-70
−1.5
7
@
MSM
W 73-62
−8.5
11
@
PRIN
L 63-73
−10.5
14
vs
HOF
L 77-83
+20.5
17
@
PITT
L 50-84
−7.5
20
@
SJU
L 49-97
−12.5
24
vs
BGSU
L 66-71
−7.5
26
vs
BUF
L 71-73
−2.5
30
vs
COR
L 72-101
+13.5
3
@
AKR
L 77-97
+16.5
6
vs
UMBC
L 66-73
−4.5
9
@
RID
W 51-38
−46.5
20
@
IOWA
L 39-94
−0.5
31
@
HC
L 58-65
−10.5
3
vs
LEH
W 72-65
−0.5
7
@
NAVY
L 55-76
−6.5
10
vs
L-MD
W 70-67
−6.5
14
vs
LAF
W 76-69
+7.5
17
@
COLG
L 76-95
+31.5
21
vs
ARMY
L 84-87
+26.5
24
@
L-MD
L 62-67
−18.5
28
@
LAF
L 79-81
+21.5
31
vs
BU
W 103-97
+61.5
4
@
AMER
W 60-59
−22.5
7
vs
COLG
L 59-78
−4.5
9
vs
NAVY
L 60-76
+0.5
14
@
BU
L 69-82
+13.5
18
vs
AMER
L 57-75
−8.5
22
vs
HC
L 63-72
−7.5
25
@
ARMY
W 75-73
+5.5
28
@
LEH
L 79-89
+29.5
3
vs
ARMY
W 65-55
−24.5
5
@
NAVY
L 69-74
+9.5
over 13under 20avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
La Salle has the better starters
Position by position: La Salle 2, Bucknell 0, even 3
La SalleBetterBucknell
G J. Johnson6.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 29
=Even
G J. Williams7.5 pts · 2.9 reb · 4 ast
Score 23
G R. Dockery12.5 pts · 6.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 91
←LASBig
G A. Pachucki5.9 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 25
F J. Brewer11.3 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 75
=No call
G K. Marshall TR3.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 2 ast
Not ranked
F V. Zanki TR8.1 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 46
←LASBig
G J. Meachem1.5 pts · 0.5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 2
F A. Finkley TR5.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 19
=Even
F L. Soroa Schaller TR5.6 pts · 3.4 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 13
La SalleBetterBucknell
LAS offense157th of 366 · -4.7
←LASSmall
BUCK defense237th of 366 · -6.2
LAS defense111th of 366 · -1.3
←LASBig
BUCK offense317th of 366 · -10.4
Backcourt+0.4 · 2 players
←LASBig
Backcourt-6.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.6 · 3 players
←LASSmall
Frontcourt-2.0 · 1 player
Bench-3.6 · 5 players
→BUCKSmall
Bench-0.9 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestLAS betterBUCK betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Johnson30 minR. Dockery27 minK. Burton19 min · TRD. Booker8 min · TRA. Masharaliyev1 minT. MossNew
Forwards
J. Brewer27 minV. Zanki21 min · TRA. Finkley19 min · TRN. Collier14 minE. Rink12 min · TRB. Beatty10 min
Guards
J. Williams33 minA. Pachucki21 minK. Marshall17 min · TRJ. Meachem10 minM. Lange3 minR. LamunoNew
Forwards
L. Soroa Schaller21 min · TRP. O'Brien10 minK. Welch2 minE. Marten-ConeyNewL. BergsengNewA. RousseauNew
Centers
D. KennardNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.8 #336 | Points per game | 67.4 #327 |
| 1.00 #322 | Points per possession | 0.99 #332 |
| 66.4 #300 | Pace (possessions) | 67.7 #242 |
| Shooting | ||
| 45.4 #357 | Effective FG% | 48.5 #304 |
| 30.0 #342 | 3-point % | 30.6 #328 |
| 31.5 #333 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.8 #123 |
| 37.5 #113 | Free throw rate | 29.8 #314 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.2 #281 | Turnover rate | 18.9 #319 |
| 33.7 #75 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.0 #295 |
| 12.9 #221 | Assists per game | 12.7 #235 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.0 #186 | Points allowed | 76.3 #226 |
| 1.13 #293 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #289 |
| 55.0 #329 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.7 #323 |
| 36.5 #324 | Opponent 3-point % | 37.0 #344 |
| 17.2 #136 | Turnovers forced | 17.9 #100 |
| 67.7 #274 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.7 #216 |
| 6.7 #155 | Steals per game | 7.2 #105 |
| 2.6 #295 | Blocks per game | 1.8 #354 |
La Salle
8-23 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs St Bonaventure80–99
- L@ Saint Joseph's76–88
- Wvs Fordham87–84
- L@ Davidson64–71
- Lvs G Washington77–104
A week or more of rest.
Bucknell
10-23 in 2025-26 overall · 7-13 in conference · Patriot League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Navy69–74
- Wvs Army65–55
- L@ Lehigh79–89
- W@ Army75–73
- Lvs Holy Cross63–72
A week or more of rest.