Baxter Arena · at Omaha
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | OMA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 OMA 73–71 · win probability OMA 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.1
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: OMA has more of the edges
LAM 1, OMA 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: LAM 27.9, OMA 34.5. Allowed: LAM 44.4, OMA 33.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LAM 35.7%, OMA 25.5%. Defensive: LAM 70.6%, OMA 71.3%
Three-pointers
LAM hits 32.9% and allows 35.3%; OMA hits 34.0% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 33.9% and 40.9% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: LAM plays 66.1 a game (311th fastest), OMA 68.9 (184th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
OMA at home. This season: OMA 0-0 at home, LAM 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LAM 0%, OMA 23%. Transfers in: LAM 6, OMA 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
LAM has played the 328th-hardest schedule, OMA the 287th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LAM 18.1%, OMA 16.1%. Forced: LAM 17.3%, OMA 14.1%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LAM 47.8 and allows 50.9; OMA 52.2 and allows 52.7
Even
OMA offense vs LAM defense
Offense 247th of 366 against a defense 213th, on the model’s ratings
Even
LAM offense vs OMA defense
Offense 334th of 366 against a defense 306th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | OMA -2.7 | — |
| Total | — | 144.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | LAM 70.7 · OMA 73.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | OMA -1.5 | — |
| 1H total | 67.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | LAM 33 · OMA 34.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LAM 0–2 OMAOMA leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · OMA has won the last 2 meetings · LAM 0-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2025-26 | OMA 85 @ LAM 82 | LAM -5.5 | OMA W |
| Nov 24, 2024-25 | OMA 65 vs LAM 59 | LAM +1.5 | OMA W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Lamar
29 games played
Straight up
10-19
34% wins
Against the spread
12-17
41% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% 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 10 | @ | L 65-78 | +18.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 17 | @ | W 79-66 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 68-63 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-83 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 65-55 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 129.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 49-57 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | U 106 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 71-89 | +17.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 72-83 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 82-85 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 76-61 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 69-62 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 70-82 | +16.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 52-60 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 135.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 63-51 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 64-56 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 90-80 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 76-89 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 81-88 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 140.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 63-64 | +10.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 73-54 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 74-84 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 68-70 | -6.5 | L −8.5 | 135.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-76 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 65-70 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 71-77 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 52-53 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-72 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 53-75 | -2.5 | L −24.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
10
@
TCU
L 65-78
+5.5
17
@
ULM
W 79-66
+1.5
23
@
MONT
W 68-63
+9.5
24
vs
OAK
L 68-83
−11.5
3
vs
UL
W 65-55
−0.5
6
vs
AMCC
L 49-57
−11.5
10
@
SDSU
L 71-89
−0.5
16
vs
RGV
L 72-83
−14.5
20
vs
OMA
L 82-85
−8.5
29
@
NWST
W 76-61
+11.5
31
@
ETAM
W 69-62
+1.5
2
@
MCN
L 70-82
+4.5
5
@
SELA
L 52-60
−9.5
10
vs
UIW
W 63-51
+10.5
12
vs
HCU
W 64-56
−0.5
17
@
NICH
W 90-80
+13.5
19
@
NOLA
L 76-89
−14.5
24
vs
SFA
L 81-88
−2.5
27
vs
ETAM
W 82-61
+14.5
31
vs
MCN
L 63-64
+9.5
2
vs
SELA
W 73-54
+13.5
7
@
SFA
L 74-84
−1.5
9
vs
NWST
L 68-70
−8.5
14
@
AMCC
L 63-76
−10.5
16
@
RGV
L 65-70
+1.5
21
vs
NOLA
L 71-77
−10.5
23
vs
NICH
L 52-53
−4.5
28
@
UIW
L 60-72
−10.5
2
@
HCU
L 53-75
−24.5
covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
10
@
TCU
L 65-78
−4.5
17
@
ULM
W 79-66
+4.5
23
@
MONT
W 68-63
−17.5
24
vs
OAK
L 68-83
+2.5
3
vs
UL
W 65-55
−9.5
6
vs
AMCC
L 49-57
−30.5
10
@
SDSU
L 71-89
+24.5
16
vs
RGV
L 72-83
+15.5
20
vs
OMA
L 82-85
+25.5
29
@
NWST
W 76-61
−1.5
31
@
ETAM
W 69-62
−12.5
2
@
MCN
L 70-82
+6.5
5
@
SELA
L 52-60
−23.5
10
vs
UIW
W 63-51
−26.5
12
vs
HCU
W 64-56
−14.5
17
@
NICH
W 90-80
+30.5
19
@
NOLA
L 76-89
+20.5
24
vs
SFA
L 81-88
+32.5
27
vs
ETAM
W 82-61
+2.5
31
vs
MCN
L 63-64
−17.5
2
vs
SELA
W 73-54
−5.5
7
@
SFA
L 74-84
+19.5
9
vs
NWST
L 68-70
+2.5
14
@
AMCC
L 63-76
+3.5
16
@
RGV
L 65-70
−6.5
21
vs
NOLA
L 71-77
+1.5
23
vs
NICH
L 52-53
−38.5
28
@
UIW
L 60-72
−6.5
2
@
HCU
L 53-75
−4.5
over 14under 15avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Omaha
29 games played
Straight up
12-17
41% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg −0.7 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 | L 77-85 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 71-73 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 74-97 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 90-85 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 73-99 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 77-88 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 61-74 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 70-75 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 60-55 | +12.5 | W +17.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 85-82 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 57-80 | +21.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 69-84 | +9.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 66-73 | -8.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 90-79 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 76-78 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 73-62 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 64-68 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 77-60 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 80-71 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 84-82 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 73-76 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 84-92 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 98-94 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | O 192 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-76 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 80-71 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 72-89 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 53-68 | +11.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 76-62 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 50-74 | +8.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | U 124 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MUR
L 77-85
−2.5
6
@
ACU
L 71-73
+2.5
9
@
CSU
L 74-97
−8.5
15
vs
SUU
W 90-85
−3.5
21
@
LSU
L 73-99
−5.5
25
vs
JMU
L 77-88
−9.5
26
@
FIU
L 61-74
−8.5
3
vs
UNCO
L 70-75
−1.5
6
@
PRST
W 60-55
+17.5
20
@
LAM
W 85-82
+8.5
28
@
ORE
L 57-80
−1.5
1
@
SDST
L 69-84
−5.5
3
vs
KC
L 66-73
−15.5
8
vs
UND
W 90-79
+5.5
10
vs
NDSU
L 76-78
+3.5
17
@
ORU
W 73-62
+12.5
21
vs
SDAK
L 64-68
−10.5
24
@
KC
W 77-60
+12.5
28
vs
SDST
W 80-71
+10.5
31
@
DEN
W 84-82
+3.5
5
@
UND
L 73-76
−1.5
7
@
NDSU
L 84-92
+1.5
12
vs
STMN
W 98-94
+8.5
15
vs
DEN
W 83-76
+4.5
18
vs
ORU
W 80-71
+2.5
25
@
SDAK
L 72-89
−15.5
28
@
STMN
L 53-68
−3.5
6
vs
SDAK
W 76-62
+12.5
7
vs
NDSU
L 50-74
−15.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MUR
L 77-85
+8.5
6
@
ACU
L 71-73
−6.5
9
@
CSU
L 74-97
+17.5
15
vs
SUU
W 90-85
+21.5
21
@
LSU
L 73-99
+8.5
25
vs
JMU
L 77-88
+12.5
26
@
FIU
L 61-74
−22.5
3
vs
UNCO
L 70-75
−12.5
6
@
PRST
W 60-55
−29.5
20
@
LAM
W 85-82
+25.5
28
@
ORE
L 57-80
−14.5
1
@
SDST
L 69-84
+0.5
3
vs
KC
L 66-73
−9.5
8
vs
UND
W 90-79
+22.5
10
vs
NDSU
L 76-78
+6.5
17
@
ORU
W 73-62
−14.5
21
vs
SDAK
L 64-68
−28.5
24
@
KC
W 77-60
−11.5
28
vs
SDST
W 80-71
+0.5
31
@
DEN
W 84-82
+7.5
5
@
UND
L 73-76
−1.5
7
@
NDSU
L 84-92
+29.5
12
vs
STMN
W 98-94
+35.5
15
vs
DEN
W 83-76
−1.5
18
vs
ORU
W 80-71
−0.5
25
@
SDAK
L 72-89
+8.5
28
@
STMN
L 53-68
−37.5
6
vs
SDAK
W 76-62
−12.5
7
vs
NDSU
L 50-74
−22.5
over 14under 15avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Omaha has the better starters
Position by position: Lamar 0, Omaha 3, even 2
LamarBetterOmaha
G F. Radakovic TR9.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 38
→OMASmall
G G. Stubblefield9.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 64
G N. Moretti TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 24
=Even
G C. Crosby TR2.5 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 24
G Q. Berry TR6.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 61
=No call
G A. Skradis0.4 pts · 0.3 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
G M. Collins TR1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 12
→OMASmall
F C. Dockery TR7.3 pts · 5.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 41
F M. Ljubicic TR5.5 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 7
→OMASmall
F B. Scholl3.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 26
LamarBetterOmaha
LAM offense334th of 366 · -10.9
=Even
OMA defense306th of 366 · -7.8
LAM defense213th of 366 · -5.4
=Even
OMA offense247th of 366 · -7.5
Backcourt-4.6 · 4 players
→OMABig
Backcourt-0.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.4 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.8 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestLAM betterOMA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
F. Radakovic27 min · TRN. Moretti27 min · TRQ. Berry18 min · TRM. Collins9 min · TRJ. JonesNewS. LynchNew
Forwards
M. Ljubicic20 min · TRM. Reed7 min · TRC. HinkerNewA. AgotNewD. EasonNew
Guards
G. Stubblefield29 minC. Crosby9 min · TRA. Skradis2 minD. Thompson1 min · TRB. OrgilboldNewC. CurtisNew
Forwards
C. Dockery22 min · TRB. Scholl14 minJ. Bolis2 min · TRD. PleasantNewE. SheatsNewG. BakerNew
Centers
I. OndekaneNewH. BukingaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.4 #308 | Points per game | 73.9 #202 |
| 1.04 #279 | Points per possession | 1.07 #201 |
| 66.1 #311 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #184 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.8 #318 | Effective FG% | 52.2 #139 |
| 32.9 #238 | 3-point % | 34.0 #169 |
| 33.9 #297 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.9 #150 |
| 27.9 #344 | Free throw rate | 34.5 #196 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.1 #273 | Turnover rate | 16.1 #146 |
| 35.7 #31 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.5 #331 |
| 13.9 #157 | Assists per game | 12.1 #276 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.5 #64 | Points allowed | 77.7 #259 |
| 1.07 #122 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #278 |
| 50.9 #153 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.7 #258 |
| 35.3 #266 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #114 |
| 17.3 #130 | Turnovers forced | 14.1 #333 |
| 70.6 #130 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.3 #90 |
| 6.1 #227 | Steals per game | 5.7 #277 |
| 4.2 #54 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #234 |
Lamar
10-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Hou Christian53–75
- L@ Incarnate Word60–72
- Lvs Nicholls52–53
- Lvs LSU N Orleans71–77
- L@ UT Rio Grande65–70
A week or more of rest.
Omaha
12-17 in 2025-26 overall · 9-9 in conference · Summit League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs N Dakota St50–74
- Wvs South Dakota76–62
- L@ St Thomas53–68
- L@ South Dakota72–89
- Wvs Oral Roberts80–71
A week or more of rest.