Grambling Tigers at Kentucky Wildcats: Model Line and Edge

Mon, Nov 16, 7:00 PM ETRupp Arena · at Kentucky

#19UKKentucky AP #23

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Grambling and Kentucky
GRAM	This season	UK
0-1	Record	0-0
1-0	ATS	0-0
1-0	O/U	0-0

ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders

Model: projects UK 95–59 · win probability UK 100%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 154.1

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: UK has more of the edges

GRAM 0, UK 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Schedule so far

GRAM has played the 355th-hardest schedule, UK the 5th. A record against a soft schedule means less

UKBig

GRAM offense vs UK defense

Offense 347th of 366 against a defense 32nd, on the model’s ratings

UKBig

UK offense vs GRAM defense

Offense 13th of 366 against a defense 302nd, on the model’s ratings

UKBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: GRAM 48.8 and allows 50.0; UK 53.4 and allows 48.9

UKBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: GRAM 30.3%, UK 33.2%. Defensive: GRAM 67.5%, UK 70.0%

UKSmall

Three-pointers

GRAM hits 32.3% and allows 32.7%; UK hits 34.2% and allows 31.8%. Threes are 38.1% and 39.7% of their shots

UKSmall

Home court

UK at home. This season: UK 0-0 at home, GRAM 0-0 away

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: GRAM plays 69.4 a game (155th fastest), UK 69.9 (123rd). Faster games mean more points

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: GRAM 21.2%, UK 15.4%. Forced: GRAM 20.8%, UK 15.5%

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: GRAM 23%, UK 26%. Transfers in: GRAM 4, UK 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: GRAM 41.1, UK 37.4. Allowed: GRAM 40.0, UK 36.4

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	—	UK -35.5	—
Total	—	154.1	—
Projected score	—	GRAM 59.3 · UK 94.8

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	UK -21.0	—
1H total	72.0	—
1H projected score	GRAM 25.5 · UK 46.5	—

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
GRAM LLWWL	15-16	48%	8-9	—
UK LWWWL	18-18	50%	9-9	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
GRAM UUUUU	10-21	32%	12-19
UK OOUOU	18-18	50%	22-14

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
GRAM	3-7 30%	3-7 30%	4-6 40%
UK	5-5 50%	6-4 60%	5-5 50%

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

Grambling

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 19	vs USM	L60–68WU
Nov 25	@ NOLA	No recent meeting
Nov 29	@ USM	L60–68WU

Kentucky

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 20	vs IU	W72–60WU
Nov 27	vs WICH	No recent meeting
Dec 2	@ UVA	No recent meeting

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

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Grambling

31 games played

Straight up

12-19

39% wins

Against the spread

15-16

48% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line

Over / Under

10-21

32% overs · avg −4.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

12-1939%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

15-1648%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

10-2132%

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

5 straight unders0 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 6	@ISU	L 62-102	+33.5	L −6.5	144.5	O 164
Nov 9	@HOW	W 73-70	+4.5	W +7.5	152.5	U 143
Nov 13	vsUSM	W 75-70	-2.5	W +2.5	148.5	U 145
Nov 18	@USD	L 68-78	+6.5	L −3.5	149.5	U 146
Nov 21	@CBU	L 59-72	+14.5	W +1.5	144.5	U 131
Nov 24	@UCR	L 74-83	+3.5	L −5.5	144.5	O 157
Dec 2	@TULN	L 63-65	+11.5	W +9.5	148.5	U 128
Dec 8	@USM	L 60-68	+8.5	W +0.5	142.5	U 128
Dec 18	vsNORF	W 80-68	+1.5	W +13.5	135.5	O 148
Dec 19	vsHAMP	W 81-72	+1.5	W +10.5	137.5	O 153
Dec 23	@OSU	L 63-89	+28.5	W +2.5	153.5	U 152
Jan 3	vsPV	W 76-72	-7.5	L −3.5	155.5	U 148
Jan 5	vsTXSO	W 84-67	-5.5	W +11.5	146.5	O 151
Jan 10	@BCU	L 65-74	+3.5	L −5.5	144.5	U 139
Jan 12	@FAMU	L 84-91	-1.5	L −8.5	141.5	O 175
Jan 17	vsSOU	L 53-71	-1.5	L −19.5	153.5	U 124
Jan 31	@JKST	W 69-66	-2.5	W +0.5	148.5	U 135
Feb 2	@ALCN	W 74-50	-5.5	W +18.5	143.5	U 124
Feb 4	vsUAPB	L 64-67	-6.5	L −9.5	145.5	U 131
Feb 7	vsALST	W 57-47	-4.5	W +5.5	144.5	U 104
Feb 9	vsAAMU	L 58-66	-4.5	L −12.5	136.5	U 124
Feb 14	@TXSO	L 79-82	+1.5	L −1.5	139.5	O 161
Feb 16	@PV	L 63-68	-1.5	L −6.5	151.5	U 131
Feb 21	@SOU	L 73-87	+5.5	L −8.5	142.5	O 160
Feb 23	vsMVSU	W 83-62	-16.5	W +4.5	136.5	O 145
Feb 26	vsBCU	L 71-76	-1.5	L −6.5	144.5	O 147
Feb 28	vsFAMU	L 59-66	-4.5	L −11.5	140.5	U 125
Mar 3	@AAMU	L 63-77	+2.5	L −11.5	140.5	U 140
Mar 5	@ALST	W 65-63	+2.5	W +4.5	144.5	U 128
Mar 9	vsMVSU	W 77-52	-13.5	W +11.5	135.5	U 129
Mar 10	vsJKST	L 65-68	-7.5	L −10.5	139.5	U 133

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

ISU

L 62-102

−6.5

HOW

W 73-70

+7.5

USM

W 75-70

+2.5

USD

L 68-78

−3.5

CBU

L 59-72

+1.5

UCR

L 74-83

−5.5

TULN

L 63-65

+9.5

USM

L 60-68

+0.5

NORF

W 80-68

+13.5

HAMP

W 81-72

+10.5

OSU

L 63-89

+2.5

W 76-72

−3.5

TXSO

W 84-67

+11.5

BCU

L 65-74

−5.5

FAMU

L 84-91

−8.5

SOU

L 53-71

−19.5

JKST

W 69-66

+0.5

ALCN

W 74-50

+18.5

UAPB

L 64-67

−9.5

ALST

W 57-47

+5.5

AAMU

L 58-66

−12.5

TXSO

L 79-82

−1.5

L 63-68

−6.5

SOU

L 73-87

−8.5

MVSU

W 83-62

+4.5

BCU

L 71-76

−6.5

FAMU

L 59-66

−11.5

AAMU

L 63-77

−11.5

ALST

W 65-63

+4.5

MVSU

W 77-52

+11.5

JKST

L 65-68

−10.5

covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

ISU

L 62-102

+19.5

HOW

W 73-70

−9.5

USM

W 75-70

−3.5

USD

L 68-78

−3.5

CBU

L 59-72

−13.5

UCR

L 74-83

+12.5

TULN

L 63-65

−20.5

USM

L 60-68

−14.5

NORF

W 80-68

+12.5

HAMP

W 81-72

+15.5

OSU

L 63-89

−1.5

W 76-72

−7.5

TXSO

W 84-67

+4.5

BCU

L 65-74

−5.5

FAMU

L 84-91

+33.5

SOU

L 53-71

−29.5

JKST

W 69-66

−13.5

ALCN

W 74-50

−19.5

UAPB

L 64-67

−14.5

ALST

W 57-47

−40.5

AAMU

L 58-66

−12.5

TXSO

L 79-82

+21.5

L 63-68

−20.5

SOU

L 73-87

+17.5

MVSU

W 83-62

+8.5

BCU

L 71-76

+2.5

FAMU

L 59-66

−15.5

AAMU

L 63-77

−0.5

ALST

W 65-63

−16.5

MVSU

W 77-52

−6.5

JKST

L 65-68

−6.5

over 10under 21avg −4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Kentucky

36 games played

Straight up

22-14

61% wins

Against the spread

18-18

50% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

18-18

50% overs · avg −0.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

22-1461%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

18-1850%

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

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

18-1850%

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

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 4	vsNICH	W 77-51	-31.5	L −5.5	157.5	U 128
Nov 7	vsVAL	W 107-59	-32.5	W +15.5	157.5	O 166
Nov 11	@LOU	L 88-96	+5.5	L −2.5	173.5	O 184
Nov 14	vsEIU	W 99-53	-35.5	W +10.5	147.5	O 152
Nov 18	vsMSU	L 66-83	-3.5	L −20.5	152.5	U 149
Nov 21	vsL-MD	W 88-46	-35.5	W +6.5	159.5	U 134
Nov 26	vsTNTC	W 104-54	-37.5	W +12.5	157.5	O 158
Dec 2	vsUNC	L 64-67	-7.5	L −10.5	163.5	U 131
Dec 5	vsGONZ	L 59-94	+5.5	L −29.5	159.5	U 153
Dec 9	vsNCCU	W 103-67	-42.5	L −6.5	148.5	O 170
Dec 13	vsIU	W 72-60	-3.5	W +8.5	156.5	U 132
Dec 20	vsSJU	W 78-66	-1.5	W +10.5	154.5	U 144
Dec 23	vsBELL	W 99-85	-34.5	L −20.5	152.5	O 184
Jan 3	@ALA	L 74-89	+5.5	L −9.5	173.5	U 163
Jan 7	vsMIZ	L 68-73	-12.5	L −17.5	150.5	U 141
Jan 10	vsMSST	W 92-68	-10.5	W +13.5	152.5	O 160
Jan 14	@LSU	W 75-74	-3.5	L −2.5	151.5	U 149
Jan 17	@TENN	W 80-78	+6.5	W +8.5	145.5	O 158
Jan 21	vsTEX	W 85-80	-7.5	L −2.5	152.5	O 165
Jan 24	vsMISS	W 72-63	-11.5	L −2.5	145.5	U 135
Jan 27	@VAN	L 55-80	+5.5	L −19.5	155.5	U 135
Jan 31	@ARK	W 85-77	+6.5	W +14.5	159.5	O 162
Feb 4	vsOU	W 94-78	-8.5	W +7.5	152.5	O 172
Feb 7	vsTENN	W 74-71	-1.5	W +1.5	147.5	U 145
Feb 14	@FLA	L 83-92	+12.5	W +3.5	154.5	O 175
Feb 17	vsUGA	L 78-86	-6.5	L −14.5	161.5	O 164
Feb 21	@AUB	L 74-75	+3.5	W +2.5	153.5	U 149
Feb 24	@SC	W 72-63	-7.5	W +1.5	151.5	U 135
Feb 28	vsVAN	W 91-77	-1.5	W +12.5	157.5	O 168
Mar 3	@TA&M	L 85-96	+1.5	L −9.5	162.5	O 181
Mar 7	vsFLA	L 77-84	+5.5	L −1.5	162.5	U 161
Mar 11	vsLSU	W 87-82	-8.5	L −3.5	151.5	O 169
Mar 12	vsMIZ	W 78-72	-2.5	W +3.5	148.5	O 150
Mar 13	vsFLA	L 63-71	+10.5	W +2.5	161.5	U 134
Mar 20	vsSCU	W 89-84	-3.5	W +1.5	157.5	O 173
Mar 22	vsISU	L 63-82	+5.5	L −13.5	146.5	U 145

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

NICH

W 77-51

−5.5

VAL

W 107-59

+15.5

LOU

L 88-96

−2.5

EIU

W 99-53

+10.5

MSU

L 66-83

−20.5

L-MD

W 88-46

+6.5

TNTC

W 104-54

+12.5

UNC

L 64-67

−10.5

GONZ

L 59-94

−29.5

NCCU

W 103-67

−6.5

W 72-60

+8.5

SJU

W 78-66

+10.5

BELL

W 99-85

−20.5

ALA

L 74-89

−9.5

MIZ

L 68-73

−17.5

MSST

W 92-68

+13.5

LSU

W 75-74

−2.5

TENN

W 80-78

+8.5

TEX

W 85-80

−2.5

MISS

W 72-63

−2.5

VAN

L 55-80

−19.5

ARK

W 85-77

+14.5

W 94-78

+7.5

TENN

W 74-71

+1.5

FLA

L 83-92

+3.5

UGA

L 78-86

−14.5

AUB

L 74-75

+2.5

W 72-63

+1.5

VAN

W 91-77

+12.5

TA&M

L 85-96

−9.5

FLA

L 77-84

−1.5

LSU

W 87-82

−3.5

MIZ

W 78-72

+3.5

FLA

L 63-71

+2.5

SCU

W 89-84

+1.5

ISU

L 63-82

−13.5

covered 18didn’t cover 18avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

NICH

W 77-51

−29.5

VAL

W 107-59

+8.5

LOU

L 88-96

+10.5

EIU

W 99-53

+4.5

MSU

L 66-83

−3.5

L-MD

W 88-46

−25.5

TNTC

W 104-54

+0.5

UNC

L 64-67

−32.5

GONZ

L 59-94

−6.5

NCCU

W 103-67

+21.5

W 72-60

−24.5

SJU

W 78-66

−10.5

BELL

W 99-85

+31.5

ALA

L 74-89

−10.5

MIZ

L 68-73

−9.5

MSST

W 92-68

+7.5

LSU

W 75-74

−2.5

TENN

W 80-78

+12.5

TEX

W 85-80

+12.5

MISS

W 72-63

−10.5

VAN

L 55-80

−20.5

ARK

W 85-77

+2.5

W 94-78

+19.5

TENN

W 74-71

−2.5

FLA

L 83-92

+20.5

UGA

L 78-86

+2.5

AUB

L 74-75

−4.5

W 72-63

−16.5

VAN

W 91-77

+10.5

TA&M

L 85-96

+18.5

FLA

L 77-84

−1.5

LSU

W 87-82

+17.5

MIZ

W 78-72

+1.5

FLA

L 63-71

−27.5

SCU

W 89-84

+15.5

ISU

L 63-82

−1.5

over 18under 18avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Kentucky has the better starters

Position by position: Grambling 0, Kentucky 5, even 0

GramblingBetterKentucky

G I. Howard13 pts · 1 reb · 4 ast Score 18

UKBig

G A. Wilkins TR18.2 pts · 2 reb · 4.7 ast Score 81

G D. Pierce TR19 pts · 0 reb · 8 ast Score 36

UKBig

G Z. Diallo TR15.7 pts · 3.9 reb · 4.5 ast Score 96

G B. Hardy TR3.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.7 ast Score 2

UKBig

G J. Morton TR7.8 pts · 1.8 reb · 2.6 ast Score 48

F H. Washington TR4.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast Score 2

UKBig

F M. Momcilovic TR16.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 1 ast Score 97

F M. Fitts2.8 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.3 ast Score 17

UKBig

F J. McBride TR15.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.4 ast Score 87

GramblingBetterKentucky

GRAM offense347th of 366 · -12.0

UKBig

UK defense32nd of 366 · +3.5

GRAM defense302nd of 366 · -7.7

UKBig

UK offense13th of 366 · +9.5

Backcourt-6.4 · 3 players

UKBig

Backcourt+4.9 · 3 players

Frontcourt-3.5 · 2 players

UKBig

Frontcourt+8.1 · 2 players

Bench-0.6 · 2 players

UKBig

Bench+5.1 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestGRAM betterUK 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

Grambling

Guards

I. Howard31 minD. Pierce31 min · TRB. Hardy19 min · TRC. Perkins5 minK. LaytonNewT. BeyNew

Forwards

H. Washington17 min · TRM. Fitts10 minI. Miranda8 min · TRI. ErimsNew

Kentucky

Guards

A. Wilkins30 min · TRZ. Diallo30 min · TRJ. Morton25 min · TRK. Williams19 minM. WilliamsNewZ. HawthorneNew

Forwards

M. Momcilovic30 min · TRJ. McBride27 min · TRT. Noah11 minR. PotterNewO. N'DiayeNewB. HawthorneNew

Centers

F. Kepnang23 min · TRM. Moreno23 min

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

GRAM69.0 #299

UK80.5 #55

Points per possession

GRAM1.00 #331

UK1.15 #57

Pace (possessions)

GRAM69.4 #155

UK69.9 #123

Shooting

Effective FG%

GRAM48.8 #295

UK53.4 #87

3-point %

GRAM32.3 #265

UK34.2 #158

3-point attempt rate

GRAM38.1 #210

UK39.7 #180

Free throw rate

GRAM41.1 #45

UK37.4 #119

Possessions

Turnover rate

GRAM21.2 #357

UK15.4 #98

Offensive rebound rate

GRAM30.3 #188

UK33.2 #84

Assists per game

GRAM11.9 #292

UK15.9 #50

Defense

Points allowed

GRAM71.3 #83

UK74.3 #167

Points allowed per possession

GRAM1.03 #51

UK1.06 #115

Opponent effective FG%

GRAM50.0 #97

UK48.9 #63

Opponent 3-point %

GRAM32.7 #99

UK31.8 #55

Turnovers forced

GRAM20.8 #12

UK15.5 #248

Defensive rebound rate

GRAM67.5 #280

UK70.0 #158

Steals per game

GRAM7.7 #68

UK7.0 #123

Blocks per game

GRAM2.7 #283

UK4.6 #33

GRAM		UK
Scoring
69.0 #299	Points per game	80.5 #55
1.00 #331	Points per possession	1.15 #57
69.4 #155	Pace (possessions)	69.9 #123
Shooting
48.8 #295	Effective FG%	53.4 #87
32.3 #265	3-point %	34.2 #158
38.1 #210	3-point attempt rate	39.7 #180
41.1 #45	Free throw rate	37.4 #119
Possessions
21.2 #357	Turnover rate	15.4 #98
30.3 #188	Offensive rebound rate	33.2 #84
11.9 #292	Assists per game	15.9 #50
Defense
71.3 #83	Points allowed	74.3 #167
1.03 #51	Points allowed per possession	1.06 #115
50.0 #97	Opponent effective FG%	48.9 #63
32.7 #99	Opponent 3-point %	31.8 #55
20.8 #12	Turnovers forced	15.5 #248
67.5 #280	Defensive rebound rate	70.0 #158
7.7 #68	Steals per game	7.0 #123
2.7 #283	Blocks per game	4.6 #33

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.

Grambling

12-19 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Jackson St65–68
Wvs Miss Valley St77–52
W@ Alabama St65–63
L@ Alabama A&M63–77
Lvs Florida A&M59–66

A week or more of rest.

Kentucky

22-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Southeastern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Iowa State63–82
Wvs Santa Clara89–84
Lvs Florida63–71
Wvs Missouri78–72
Wvs LSU87–82

A week or more of rest.

Grambling Tigers at Kentucky Wildcats

What could decide it: UK has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Grambling

Kentucky

Kentucky has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Grambling

Kentucky