Townsley Law Arena · at McNeese · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MCN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MCN 80–65 · win probability MCN 90%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.9
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: MCN has more of the edges
UIW 1, MCN 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UIW 17.1%, MCN 14.2%. Forced: UIW 15.8%, MCN 24.4%
UIW offense vs MCN defense
Offense 291st of 366 against a defense 117th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: UIW 50.2 and allows 54.5; MCN 50.7 and allows 49.3
MCN offense vs UIW defense
Offense 153rd of 366 against a defense 280th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
UIW hits 36.1% and allows 34.4%; MCN hits 31.7% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 39.1% and 35.2% of their shots
Home court
MCN at home. This season: MCN 0-0 at home, UIW 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: UIW 34.0, MCN 37.4. Allowed: UIW 41.6, MCN 42.0
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: UIW plays 65.4 a game (335th fastest), MCN 67.1 (276th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UIW 17%, MCN 33%. Transfers in: UIW 5, MCN 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
UIW has played the 285th-hardest schedule, MCN the 258th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UIW 32.1%, MCN 35.1%. Defensive: UIW 68.0%, MCN 65.1%
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 | — | MCN -14.8 | — |
| Total | — | 144.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | UIW 65.1 · MCN 79.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MCN -8.7 | — |
| 1H total | 67.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | UIW 29.6 · MCN 38.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 9 since 2021-22
UIW 3–6 MCNMCN leads · 9 games since 2021-22 · UIW 7-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2025-26 | UIW 64 @ MCN 81 | MCN -16.5 | MCN W |
| Dec 1, 2025-26 | MCN 67 @ UIW 71 | UIW +10.5 | UIW W |
| Feb 3, 2024-25 | UIW 65 @ MCN 67 | MCN -15.5 | UIW W |
| Feb 24, 2023-24 | UIW 71 @ MCN 87 | MCN -26.5 | UIW W |
| Jan 20, 2023-24 | MCN 80 @ UIW 66 | UIW +14.5 | UIW W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Incarnate Word
28 games played
Straight up
9-19
32% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-14
50% 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 | @ | L 64-98 | +10.5 | L −23.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 61-69 | +28.5 | W +20.5 | 157.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 87-81 | -9.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-91 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 71-67 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 67-74 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 8 | @ | L 83-84 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 65-69 | +19.5 | W +15.5 | 143.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 90-66 | -6.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 79-70 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 73-56 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 67-80 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 51-63 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 46-56 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 76-74 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 58-80 | -6.5 | L −28.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 71-79 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 75-81 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 93-106 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 71-69 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 64-81 | +16.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 62-74 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 83-91 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 16 | vs | L 64-78 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 154.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 82-73 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 49-54 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 103 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 72-60 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 68-76 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
−23.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
+20.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
−3.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+1.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
+14.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−8.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
−2.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
+15.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+17.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+2.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
+10.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
−11.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−10.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−2.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
−6.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−28.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
−9.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
−7.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
−11.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
+6.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−10.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
−10.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−16.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+12.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−3.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
+10.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
−0.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
+14.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
−27.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
+22.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+10.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
−7.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−4.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
+18.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
−9.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+15.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+13.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
−12.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
+0.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−26.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−38.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
+8.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−4.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
+13.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
+15.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
+58.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
−0.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−1.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
+25.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−12.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+9.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−35.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
−6.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
+1.5
over 14under 14avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
McNeese
32 games played
Straight up
26-6
81% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-17
47% overs · avg −0.9 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 7 | @ | L 67-79 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 88-62 | -15.5 | W +10.5 | 134.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 92-86 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 73-60 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 158.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 72-62 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 67-71 | -10.5 | L −14.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 92-54 | -19.5 | W +18.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 9 | @ | W 66-64 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 12 | vs | W 102-66 | -20.5 | W +15.5 | 142.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 15 | @ | W 78-68 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 71-112 | +24.5 | L −16.5 | 161.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 82-70 | -16.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 66-64 | -10.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 73-61 | -16.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 94-68 | -15.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 76-79 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 69-53 | -9.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 82-63 | -18.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 76-66 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 64-63 | -10.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 60-67 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 81-64 | -16.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 73-69 | -21.5 | L −17.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 97-54 | -13.5 | W +29.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 75-64 | -14.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 70-54 | -14.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 23 | vs | W 75-68 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 66-63 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 75-65 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 84-80 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 76-59 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 134.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 68-78 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
SCU
L 67-79
−5.5
14
vs
UL
W 88-62
+10.5
23
vs
GW
W 92-86
+11.5
24
vs
MUR
W 73-60
+10.5
25
vs
MTSU
W 72-62
+0.5
1
@
UIW
L 67-71
−14.5
5
vs
NWST
W 92-54
+18.5
9
@
URI
W 66-64
+0.5
12
vs
ETAM
W 102-66
+15.5
15
@
HCU
W 78-68
−4.5
29
@
MICH
L 71-112
−16.5
2
vs
LAM
W 82-70
−4.5
5
vs
SFA
W 66-64
−8.5
10
vs
SELA
W 73-61
−4.5
12
vs
NICH
W 94-68
+10.5
17
@
RGV
L 76-79
−12.5
19
@
AMCC
W 69-53
+6.5
24
vs
NOLA
W 82-63
+0.5
27
@
SELA
W 76-66
−2.5
31
@
LAM
W 64-63
−9.5
2
@
SFA
L 60-67
−9.5
7
vs
UIW
W 81-64
+0.5
9
vs
HCU
W 73-69
−17.5
14
@
ETAM
W 97-54
+29.5
16
@
NWST
W 75-64
−3.5
21
vs
AMCC
W 70-54
+1.5
23
vs
RGV
W 75-68
−4.5
28
@
NOLA
W 66-63
−7.5
2
@
NICH
W 75-65
+0.5
10
vs
RGV
W 84-80
−4.5
11
vs
SFA
W 76-59
+13.5
19
vs
VAN
L 68-78
+2.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
SCU
L 67-79
−5.5
14
vs
UL
W 88-62
+15.5
23
vs
GW
W 92-86
+20.5
24
vs
MUR
W 73-60
−25.5
25
vs
MTSU
W 72-62
−13.5
1
@
UIW
L 67-71
−7.5
5
vs
NWST
W 92-54
+6.5
9
@
URI
W 66-64
−16.5
12
vs
ETAM
W 102-66
+25.5
15
@
HCU
W 78-68
+8.5
29
@
MICH
L 71-112
+21.5
2
vs
LAM
W 82-70
+6.5
5
vs
SFA
W 66-64
−14.5
10
vs
SELA
W 73-61
−4.5
12
vs
NICH
W 94-68
+15.5
17
@
RGV
L 76-79
+8.5
19
@
AMCC
W 69-53
−18.5
24
vs
NOLA
W 82-63
−11.5
27
@
SELA
W 76-66
+2.5
31
@
LAM
W 64-63
−17.5
2
@
SFA
L 60-67
−14.5
7
vs
UIW
W 81-64
−0.5
9
vs
HCU
W 73-69
+4.5
14
@
ETAM
W 97-54
+8.5
16
@
NWST
W 75-64
+0.5
21
vs
AMCC
W 70-54
−15.5
23
vs
RGV
W 75-68
−3.5
28
@
NOLA
W 66-63
−21.5
2
@
NICH
W 75-65
−5.5
10
vs
RGV
W 84-80
+23.5
11
vs
SFA
W 76-59
+0.5
19
vs
VAN
L 68-78
−2.5
over 15under 17avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
McNeese has the better starters
Position by position: Incarnate Word 0, McNeese 2, even 3
Incarnate WordBetterMcNeese
G I. Habib14.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 36
→MCNBig
G L. Johnson16.8 pts · 5.5 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 98
G M. Conner TR7.8 pts · 3.4 reb · 6.2 ast
Score 19
→MCNSmall
G C. Cherenfant3.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 38
G B. McCreesh TR7.4 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 40
=No call
G D. Warren TR1.2 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Not ranked
F D. Goodwin TR4.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Colbert5.3 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 29
F G. Erheriene TR0.8 pts · 0.7 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F C. Chest TR2.6 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 71
Incarnate WordBetterMcNeese
UIW offense291st of 366 · -9.0
→MCNBig
MCN defense117th of 366 · -1.6
UIW defense280th of 366 · -7.0
→MCNBig
MCN offense153rd of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt-5.7 · 3 players
→MCNBig
Backcourt+3.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.1 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-0.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUIW betterMCN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
I. Habib33 minM. Conner30 min · TRB. McCreesh28 min · TRD. Barbee2 minJ. ThomasNewD. CasonNew
Forwards
D. Goodwin14 min · TRG. Erheriene5 min · TRK. Spencer2 min · TRD. EmetuNewK. IoaneNewT. CollinsNew
Centers
C. PareNew
Guards
L. Johnson26 minC. Cherenfant16 minD. Warren8 min · TRE. Moore5 min · TRJ. Rembert4 minJ. Dean-Vines3 min · TR
Forwards
J. Colbert20 minC. Chest13 min · TRA. Maluk7 min · TRC. NituNewM. MadisonNewA. MazouNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.4 #275 | Points per game | 76.6 #131 |
| 1.07 #206 | Points per possession | 1.14 #69 |
| 65.4 #335 | Pace (possessions) | 67.1 #276 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.2 #228 | Effective FG% | 50.7 #202 |
| 36.1 #54 | 3-point % | 31.7 #290 |
| 39.1 #190 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.2 #269 |
| 34.0 #210 | Free throw rate | 37.4 #114 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #206 | Turnover rate | 14.2 #28 |
| 32.1 #120 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.1 #46 |
| 10.8 #342 | Assists per game | 13.1 #205 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.0 #189 | Points allowed | 67.4 #23 |
| 1.15 #331 | Points allowed per possession | 1.00 #27 |
| 54.5 #314 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.3 #76 |
| 34.4 #214 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #102 |
| 15.8 #233 | Turnovers forced | 24.4 #1 |
| 68.0 #260 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.1 #338 |
| 5.1 #329 | Steals per game | 10.3 #1 |
| 2.4 #310 | Blocks per game | 4.4 #42 |
Incarnate Word
9-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SF Austin68–76
- Wvs Lamar72–60
- L@ N'Western St49–54
- W@ East Texas A&M82–73
- Lvs LSU N Orleans64–78
A week or more of rest.
McNeese
26-6 in 2025-26 overall · 21-3 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Vanderbilt68–78
- Wvs SF Austin76–59
- Wvs UT Rio Grande84–80
- W@ Nicholls75–65
- W@ LSU N Orleans66–63
A week or more of rest.