Townsley Law Arena · at McNeese
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 79–68 · win probability MCN 83%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.1
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: MCN has more of the edges
USM 1, MCN 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USM 18.4%, MCN 14.2%. Forced: USM 17.8%, MCN 24.4%
Shooting
Effective FG%: USM 49.0 and allows 51.4; MCN 50.7 and allows 49.3
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USM 32.5%, MCN 35.1%. Defensive: USM 71.2%, MCN 65.1%
Three-pointers
USM hits 28.9% and allows 34.5%; MCN hits 31.7% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 28.7% and 35.2% of their shots
USM offense vs MCN defense
Offense 203rd of 366 against a defense 117th, on the model’s ratings
MCN offense vs USM defense
Offense 153rd of 366 against a defense 239th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: USM plays 70.1 a game (113th fastest), MCN 67.1 (276th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
USM has played the 184th-hardest schedule, MCN the 258th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
MCN at home. This season: MCN 0-0 at home, USM 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: USM 43.2, MCN 37.4. Allowed: USM 43.6, MCN 42.0
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USM 23%, MCN 33%. Transfers in: USM 3, MCN 5. 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 | — | MCN -10.9 | — |
| Total | — | 147.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | USM 68.1 · MCN 79 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MCN -6.4 | — |
| 1H total | 68.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | USM 31.2 · MCN 37.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% | |
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
USM 1–1 MCNSeries tied · 2 games since 2021-22 · USM 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2023-24 | USM 48 @ MCN 67 | MCN -5.5 | MCN W |
| Dec 18, 2022-23 | MCN 67 @ USM 86 | USM -14.5 | USM W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Southern Miss
33 games played
Straight up
17-16
52% wins
Against the spread
17-16
52% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-13
61% overs · avg +3.5 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 79-85 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 79-83 | +17.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 70-75 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 92-83 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 70-60 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 82-75 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 64-88 | +19.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 8 | vs | W 68-60 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 67-71 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 62-54 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 132.5 | U 116 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 86-93 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 62-90 | +21.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 87-73 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 74-67 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 129.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 80-70 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 70-60 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 65-91 | +8.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 67-74 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 62-69 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 67-85 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 63-70 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 73-65 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 77-81 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 66-65 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 78-84 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 135.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 69-65 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 86-81 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 84-89 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 68-55 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 86-80 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 81-77 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 86-73 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 70-78 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
BUF
L 79-85
−2.5
9
@
SC
L 79-83
+13.5
13
@
GRAM
L 70-75
−2.5
22
vs
UNF
W 92-83
−0.5
23
vs
UTM
W 70-60
+11.5
3
@
RAD
W 82-75
+10.5
6
@
MIA
L 64-88
−4.5
8
vs
GRAM
W 68-60
−0.5
13
vs
MISS
L 67-71
+8.5
18
vs
UL
W 62-54
−3.5
20
vs
ARST
L 86-93
−5.5
29
@
LSU
L 62-90
−6.5
1
@
ULM
W 87-73
+4.5
3
@
UL
W 74-67
+3.5
8
vs
TXST
W 80-70
+7.5
10
vs
ULM
W 70-60
−4.5
14
@
TROY
L 65-91
−17.5
17
@
TXST
L 67-74
−4.5
22
@
GAST
L 62-69
−5.5
24
@
CCU
L 67-85
−15.5
29
vs
APP
L 63-70
−5.5
31
vs
JMU
W 73-65
+6.5
4
@
MRSH
L 77-81
+6.5
7
vs
KENT
W 66-65
+5.5
12
vs
USA
L 78-84
−7.5
14
vs
TROY
W 69-65
+9.5
21
vs
ODU
W 86-81
+0.5
24
@
ARST
L 84-89
+4.5
27
@
USA
W 68-55
+17.5
5
vs
JMU
W 86-80
+8.5
6
vs
TXST
W 81-77
+5.5
7
vs
APP
W 86-73
+17.5
8
vs
TROY
L 70-78
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
BUF
L 79-85
+10.5
9
@
SC
L 79-83
+14.5
13
@
GRAM
L 70-75
−3.5
22
vs
UNF
W 92-83
+20.5
23
vs
UTM
W 70-60
−16.5
3
@
RAD
W 82-75
+4.5
6
@
MIA
L 64-88
+6.5
8
vs
GRAM
W 68-60
−14.5
13
vs
MISS
L 67-71
−0.5
18
vs
UL
W 62-54
−16.5
20
vs
ARST
L 86-93
+23.5
29
@
LSU
L 62-90
−2.5
1
@
ULM
W 87-73
+7.5
3
@
UL
W 74-67
+11.5
8
vs
TXST
W 80-70
+5.5
10
vs
ULM
W 70-60
−25.5
14
@
TROY
L 65-91
+10.5
17
@
TXST
L 67-74
+0.5
22
@
GAST
L 62-69
−13.5
24
@
CCU
L 67-85
+10.5
29
vs
APP
L 63-70
−1.5
31
vs
JMU
W 73-65
−5.5
4
@
MRSH
L 77-81
+9.5
7
vs
KENT
W 66-65
−19.5
12
vs
USA
L 78-84
+26.5
14
vs
TROY
W 69-65
−10.5
21
vs
ODU
W 86-81
+19.5
24
@
ARST
L 84-89
+14.5
27
@
USA
W 68-55
−18.5
5
vs
JMU
W 86-80
+22.5
6
vs
TXST
W 81-77
+17.5
7
vs
APP
W 86-73
+21.5
8
vs
TROY
L 70-78
+5.5
over 20under 13avg +3.5 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.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Southern Miss 2, McNeese 2, even 1
Southern MissBetterMcNeese
G J. Gaines-Wyatt TR11.8 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 59
→MCNBig
G L. Johnson16.8 pts · 5.5 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 98
G I. Taveras15.4 pts · 6.6 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 90
←USMBig
G C. Cherenfant3.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 38
G B. Carruth2.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 6
=No call
G D. Warren TR1.2 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Not ranked
F C. Wallace TR12.1 pts · 6.8 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 53
←USMSmall
F J. Colbert5.3 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 29
F M. Overstreet TR2.4 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 39
→MCNSmall
F C. Chest TR2.6 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 71
Southern MissBetterMcNeese
USM offense203rd of 366 · -6.3
→MCNSmall
MCN defense117th of 366 · -1.6
USM defense239th of 366 · -6.3
→MCNSmall
MCN offense153rd of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt+0.4 · 3 players
→MCNSmall
Backcourt+3.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.5 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.9 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUSM betterMCN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Gaines-Wyatt27 min · TRI. Taveras27 minB. Carruth12 minB. WestonNewA. IgiedeNewC. CereseNew
Forwards
C. Wallace29 min · TRM. Overstreet10 min · TRM. MontanoNew
Centers
F. Diagne6 minM. BlankNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #197 | Points per game | 76.6 #131 |
| 1.05 #242 | Points per possession | 1.14 #69 |
| 70.1 #113 | Pace (possessions) | 67.1 #276 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.0 #289 | Effective FG% | 50.7 #202 |
| 28.9 #355 | 3-point % | 31.7 #290 |
| 28.7 #358 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.2 #269 |
| 43.2 #18 | Free throw rate | 37.4 #114 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.4 #290 | Turnover rate | 14.2 #28 |
| 32.5 #103 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.1 #46 |
| 11.2 #330 | Assists per game | 13.1 #205 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.8 #183 | Points allowed | 67.4 #23 |
| 1.07 #127 | Points allowed per possession | 1.00 #27 |
| 51.4 #177 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.3 #76 |
| 34.5 #217 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #102 |
| 17.8 #109 | Turnovers forced | 24.4 #1 |
| 71.2 #97 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.1 #338 |
| 7.3 #98 | Steals per game | 10.3 #1 |
| 3.6 #127 | Blocks per game | 4.4 #42 |
Southern Miss
17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 12-10 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Troy70–78
- Wvs App State86–73
- Wvs Texas St81–77
- Wvs James Madison86–80
- W@ South Alabama68–55
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.