Pete Maravich Assembly Center · at LSU
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LSU 85–63 · win probability LSU 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.4
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: LSU has more of the edges
LT 0, LSU 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
LT offense vs LSU defense
Offense 302nd of 366 against a defense 77th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
LT has played the 197th-hardest schedule, LSU the 49th. A record against a soft schedule means less
LSU offense vs LT defense
Offense 37th of 366 against a defense 184th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: LT plays 65.5 a game (332nd fastest), LSU 70.5 (95th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: LT 33.1, LSU 40.9. Allowed: LT 36.3, LSU 37.8
Shooting
Effective FG%: LT 47.4 and allows 48.7; LSU 52.8 and allows 50.9
Home court
LSU at home. This season: LSU 0-0 at home, LT 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LT 36.4%, LSU 33.1%. Defensive: LT 68.4%, LSU 68.3%
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LT 18.2%, LSU 15.5%. Forced: LT 17.9%, LSU 14.0%
Even
Three-pointers
LT hits 28.6% and allows 33.9%; LSU hits 33.1% and allows 35.4%. Threes are 33.4% and 34.5% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LT 11%, LSU 0%. Transfers in: LT 0, LSU 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | LSU -21.8 | — |
| Total | — | 148.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | LT 63.3 · LSU 85.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LSU -12.9 | — |
| 1H total | 69.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | LT 28.3 · LSU 41.1 | — |
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% | 6-4 60% | |
| 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LT 0–1 LSULSU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · LT 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2021-22 | LSU 66 vs LT 57 | LT +11 | LT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Louisiana Tech
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg −2.2 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 50-77 | +9.5 | L −17.5 | 136.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 68-51 | -8.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 51-60 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 75-73 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 83-58 | -16.5 | W +8.5 | 137.5 | O 141 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 69-77 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 65-44 | -9.5 | W +11.5 | 126.5 | U 109 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 53-61 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 75-63 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 130.5 | O 138 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 51-88 | +6.5 | L −30.5 | 134.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 61-66 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 56-72 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 70-68 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 123.5 | O 138 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 59-58 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 131.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 60-64 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 127.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 82-76 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 69-59 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 130.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 67-83 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 63-72 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 87-78 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 143.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 79-78 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 64-77 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 77-71 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 132.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 55-58 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 72-70 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 76-84 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 76-71 | +8.5 | W +13.5 | 136.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 81-38 | -2.5 | W +40.5 | 132.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-69 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 69-66 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 60-71 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 142.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
NEV
L 50-77
−17.5
15
vs
JKST
W 68-51
+8.5
19
@
INST
L 51-60
−5.5
26
vs
INST
W 75-73
−0.5
29
vs
ALCN
W 83-58
+8.5
3
@
GASO
L 69-77
−6.5
13
vs
UL
W 65-44
+11.5
17
@
TULN
L 53-61
−3.5
29
vs
UTEP
W 75-63
+9.5
2
@
MTSU
L 51-88
−30.5
4
@
WKU
L 61-66
+4.5
8
vs
LIB
L 56-72
−11.5
10
vs
DEL
W 70-68
−4.5
14
vs
MTSU
W 59-58
+4.5
17
@
JXST
L 60-64
+0.5
23
vs
KENN
W 82-76
+7.5
28
@
UTEP
W 69-59
+12.5
31
@
SHSU
L 67-83
−8.5
4
vs
NMSU
L 63-72
−10.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 87-78
+12.5
12
@
MOST
W 79-78
+4.5
14
@
FIU
L 64-77
−9.5
18
vs
JXST
W 77-71
+3.5
21
@
KENN
L 55-58
+2.5
26
vs
MOST
W 72-70
−0.5
28
vs
FIU
L 76-84
−10.5
5
@
LIB
W 76-71
+13.5
7
@
DEL
W 81-38
+40.5
12
vs
MTSU
W 80-69
+12.5
13
vs
MOST
W 69-66
+4.5
14
vs
KENN
L 60-71
−9.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
NEV
L 50-77
−9.5
15
vs
JKST
W 68-51
−27.5
19
@
INST
L 51-60
−36.5
26
vs
INST
W 75-73
+6.5
29
vs
ALCN
W 83-58
+3.5
3
@
GASO
L 69-77
+0.5
13
vs
UL
W 65-44
−17.5
17
@
TULN
L 53-61
−26.5
29
vs
UTEP
W 75-63
+7.5
2
@
MTSU
L 51-88
+4.5
4
@
WKU
L 61-66
−18.5
8
vs
LIB
L 56-72
−7.5
10
vs
DEL
W 70-68
+14.5
14
vs
MTSU
W 59-58
−14.5
17
@
JXST
L 60-64
−3.5
23
vs
KENN
W 82-76
+13.5
28
@
UTEP
W 69-59
−2.5
31
@
SHSU
L 67-83
+8.5
4
vs
NMSU
L 63-72
−0.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 87-78
+21.5
12
@
MOST
W 79-78
+20.5
14
@
FIU
L 64-77
−5.5
18
vs
JXST
W 77-71
+15.5
21
@
KENN
L 55-58
−34.5
26
vs
MOST
W 72-70
+3.5
28
vs
FIU
L 76-84
+14.5
5
@
LIB
W 76-71
+10.5
7
@
DEL
W 81-38
−13.5
12
vs
MTSU
W 80-69
+14.5
13
vs
MOST
W 69-66
+0.5
14
vs
KENN
L 60-71
−11.5
over 16under 15avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
LSU
32 games played
Straight up
15-17
47% wins
Against the spread
18-14
56% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% overs · avg +4.6 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 96-60 | -15.5 | W +20.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 93-58 | -19.5 | W +15.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 98-81 | -21.5 | L −4.5 | 158.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 107-81 | -32.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 99-73 | -20.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 71-62 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 96-63 | -5.5 | W +27.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 78-69 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 58-82 | +5.5 | L −18.5 | 154.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 89-77 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 78-65 | -24.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 104-90 | -29.5 | L −15.5 | 161.5 | O 194 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 90-62 | -21.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 72-75 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 168.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 68-78 | -7.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 73-84 | +13.5 | W +2.5 | 159.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 74-75 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 78-70 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 61-79 | +15.5 | L −2.5 | 158.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 81-85 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 66-80 | -7.5 | L −21.5 | 154.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 92-87 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 71-83 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 10 | vs | L 62-91 | +4.5 | L −24.5 | 159.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-73 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 85-88 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 83-90 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 172.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 106-99 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | O 205 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 67-83 | -1.5 | L −17.5 | 155.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 74-88 | +10.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 91-94 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | O 185 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 82-87 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
TAR
W 96-60
+20.5
10
vs
NOLA
W 93-58
+15.5
13
vs
FIU
W 98-81
−4.5
18
vs
ALCN
W 107-81
−6.5
21
vs
OMA
W 99-73
+5.5
28
vs
DRKE
W 71-62
−2.5
29
vs
DEP
W 96-63
+27.5
3
@
BC
W 78-69
+1.5
7
vs
TTU
L 58-82
−18.5
13
vs
SMU
W 89-77
+10.5
19
vs
SELA
W 78-65
−11.5
22
vs
PV
W 104-90
−15.5
29
vs
USM
W 90-62
+6.5
3
@
TA&M
L 72-75
+2.5
6
vs
SC
L 68-78
−17.5
10
@
VAN
L 73-84
+2.5
14
vs
UK
L 74-75
+2.5
17
vs
MIZ
W 78-70
+6.5
20
@
FLA
L 61-79
−2.5
24
@
ARK
L 81-85
+6.5
28
vs
MSST
L 66-80
−21.5
31
@
SC
W 92-87
+2.5
7
vs
UGA
L 71-83
−10.5
10
vs
ARK
L 62-91
−24.5
14
@
TENN
L 63-73
+4.5
17
@
TEX
L 85-88
+7.5
21
vs
ALA
L 83-90
+0.5
25
@
MISS
W 106-99
+9.5
28
vs
OU
L 67-83
−17.5
3
@
AUB
L 74-88
−3.5
7
vs
TA&M
L 91-94
−0.5
11
vs
UK
L 82-87
+3.5
covered 18didn’t cover 14avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
TAR
W 96-60
+7.5
10
vs
NOLA
W 93-58
−11.5
13
vs
FIU
W 98-81
+20.5
18
vs
ALCN
W 107-81
+32.5
21
vs
OMA
W 99-73
+8.5
28
vs
DRKE
W 71-62
−18.5
29
vs
DEP
W 96-63
+6.5
3
@
BC
W 78-69
−2.5
7
vs
TTU
L 58-82
−14.5
13
vs
SMU
W 89-77
+7.5
19
vs
SELA
W 78-65
−1.5
22
vs
PV
W 104-90
+32.5
29
vs
USM
W 90-62
−2.5
3
@
TA&M
L 72-75
−21.5
6
vs
SC
L 68-78
+0.5
10
@
VAN
L 73-84
−2.5
14
vs
UK
L 74-75
−2.5
17
vs
MIZ
W 78-70
−0.5
20
@
FLA
L 61-79
−18.5
24
@
ARK
L 81-85
+2.5
28
vs
MSST
L 66-80
−8.5
31
@
SC
W 92-87
+31.5
7
vs
UGA
L 71-83
−7.5
10
vs
ARK
L 62-91
−6.5
14
@
TENN
L 63-73
−7.5
17
@
TEX
L 85-88
+22.5
21
vs
ALA
L 83-90
+0.5
25
@
MISS
W 106-99
+57.5
28
vs
OU
L 67-83
−5.5
3
@
AUB
L 74-88
+6.5
7
vs
TA&M
L 91-94
+23.5
11
vs
UK
L 82-87
+17.5
over 16under 16avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
LSU has the better starters
Position by position: Louisiana Tech 0, LSU 1, even 4
Louisiana TechBetterLSU
G J. Fenner5.3 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 27
→LSUBig
G D. Dent TR13.3 pts · 2.9 reb · 7.6 ast
Score 95
G D. Bates NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G A. Nunez TR9.6 pts · 2.1 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 17
G K. Tilley NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G S. Clark TR11.5 pts · 2.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 87
F E. Blackmon NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G A. Bashir TR13.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 92
F L. Rowe NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F M. Dioubate TR8.8 pts · 5.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 94
Louisiana TechBetterLSU
LT offense302nd of 366 · -9.4
→LSUBig
LSU defense77th of 366 · +0.5
LT defense184th of 366 · -4.3
→LSUBig
LSU offense37th of 366 · +5.0
Backcourt-1.6 · 3 players
→LSUBig
Backcourt+5.8 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+3.1 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+0.4 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestLT betterLSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Fenner22 minD. BatesNewK. TilleyNewJ. TylerNewJ. SandersonNewA. BoydNew
Forwards
E. BlackmonNewL. RoweNewB. WengerNewI. EmelifeNewI. FrancisNew
Guards
D. Dent34 min · TRA. Nunez29 min · TRS. Clark29 min · TRA. Bashir25 min · TRD. Ugochukwu16 min · TRL. StansburyNew
Forwards
M. Dioubate22 min · TRS. NiangNewJ. BenderNew
Centers
B. DessertNewG. LevyNewS. PearsonNewM. RuzicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.8 #318 | Points per game | 81.4 #41 |
| 1.03 #284 | Points per possession | 1.15 #60 |
| 65.5 #332 | Pace (possessions) | 70.5 #95 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.4 #329 | Effective FG% | 52.8 #111 |
| 28.6 #359 | 3-point % | 33.1 #225 |
| 33.4 #310 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.5 #286 |
| 33.1 #234 | Free throw rate | 40.9 #49 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.2 #283 | Turnover rate | 15.5 #106 |
| 36.4 #21 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.1 #87 |
| 11.9 #297 | Assists per game | 14.7 #106 |
| Defense | ||
| 67.8 #30 | Points allowed | 78.5 #279 |
| 1.04 #75 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #270 |
| 48.7 #51 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #150 |
| 33.9 #178 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.4 #271 |
| 17.9 #102 | Turnovers forced | 14.0 #335 |
| 68.4 #232 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #239 |
| 6.8 #144 | Steals per game | 6.0 #240 |
| 4.6 #31 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #87 |
Louisiana Tech
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 13-10 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Kennesaw St60–71
- Wvs Missouri St69–66
- Wvs MTSU80–69
- W@ Delaware81–38
- W@ Liberty76–71
A week or more of rest.
LSU
15-17 in 2025-26 overall · 3-16 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Kentucky82–87
- Lvs Texas A&M91–94
- L@ Auburn74–88
- Lvs Oklahoma67–83
- W@ Ole Miss106–99
A week or more of rest.