Lakefront Arena · at LSU N Orleans
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | NOLA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NOLA 80–71 · win probability NOLA 79%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.4
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: NOLA has more of the edges
GRAM 1, NOLA 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
GRAM has played the 355th-hardest schedule, NOLA the 173rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: GRAM 21.2%, NOLA 20.4%. Forced: GRAM 20.8%, NOLA 14.9%
NOLA offense vs GRAM defense
Offense 230th of 366 against a defense 302nd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: GRAM 30.3%, NOLA 35.6%. Defensive: GRAM 67.5%, NOLA 65.5%
Home court
NOLA at home. This season: NOLA 0-0 at home, GRAM 0-0 away
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: GRAM 48.8 and allows 50.0; NOLA 49.6 and allows 49.0
Even
GRAM offense vs NOLA defense
Offense 347th of 366 against a defense 316th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: GRAM 41.1, NOLA 46.4. Allowed: GRAM 40.0, NOLA 39.5
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: GRAM plays 69.4 a game (155th fastest), NOLA 70.2 (110th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
GRAM hits 32.3% and allows 32.7%; NOLA hits 31.8% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 38.1% and 33.7% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: GRAM 23%, NOLA 22%. Transfers in: GRAM 4, NOLA 4. 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 | — | NOLA -9.2 | — |
| Total | — | 150.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | GRAM 70.6 · NOLA 79.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | NOLA -5.3 | — |
| 1H total | 70.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | GRAM 32.5 · NOLA 37.8 | — |
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% | |
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% |
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
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 6 | @ | L 62-102 | +33.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 9 | @ | W 73-70 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 75-70 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 68-78 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 59-72 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 74-83 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 63-65 | +11.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 8 | @ | L 60-68 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 80-68 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 135.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 81-72 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 63-89 | +28.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 76-72 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 84-67 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 65-74 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 84-91 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 53-71 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 153.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 69-66 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 74-50 | -5.5 | W +18.5 | 143.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 64-67 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 57-47 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 58-66 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 136.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 79-82 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 139.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 63-68 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 73-87 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 23 | vs | W 83-62 | -16.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 71-76 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 59-66 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 63-77 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 65-63 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 77-52 | -13.5 | W +11.5 | 135.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 65-68 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
ISU
L 62-102
−6.5
9
@
HOW
W 73-70
+7.5
13
vs
USM
W 75-70
+2.5
18
@
USD
L 68-78
−3.5
21
@
CBU
L 59-72
+1.5
24
@
UCR
L 74-83
−5.5
2
@
TULN
L 63-65
+9.5
8
@
USM
L 60-68
+0.5
18
vs
NORF
W 80-68
+13.5
19
vs
HAMP
W 81-72
+10.5
23
@
OSU
L 63-89
+2.5
3
vs
PV
W 76-72
−3.5
5
vs
TXSO
W 84-67
+11.5
10
@
BCU
L 65-74
−5.5
12
@
FAMU
L 84-91
−8.5
17
vs
SOU
L 53-71
−19.5
31
@
JKST
W 69-66
+0.5
2
@
ALCN
W 74-50
+18.5
4
vs
UAPB
L 64-67
−9.5
7
vs
ALST
W 57-47
+5.5
9
vs
AAMU
L 58-66
−12.5
14
@
TXSO
L 79-82
−1.5
16
@
PV
L 63-68
−6.5
21
@
SOU
L 73-87
−8.5
23
vs
MVSU
W 83-62
+4.5
26
vs
BCU
L 71-76
−6.5
28
vs
FAMU
L 59-66
−11.5
3
@
AAMU
L 63-77
−11.5
5
@
ALST
W 65-63
+4.5
9
vs
MVSU
W 77-52
+11.5
10
vs
JKST
L 65-68
−10.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
ISU
L 62-102
+19.5
9
@
HOW
W 73-70
−9.5
13
vs
USM
W 75-70
−3.5
18
@
USD
L 68-78
−3.5
21
@
CBU
L 59-72
−13.5
24
@
UCR
L 74-83
+12.5
2
@
TULN
L 63-65
−20.5
8
@
USM
L 60-68
−14.5
18
vs
NORF
W 80-68
+12.5
19
vs
HAMP
W 81-72
+15.5
23
@
OSU
L 63-89
−1.5
3
vs
PV
W 76-72
−7.5
5
vs
TXSO
W 84-67
+4.5
10
@
BCU
L 65-74
−5.5
12
@
FAMU
L 84-91
+33.5
17
vs
SOU
L 53-71
−29.5
31
@
JKST
W 69-66
−13.5
2
@
ALCN
W 74-50
−19.5
4
vs
UAPB
L 64-67
−14.5
7
vs
ALST
W 57-47
−40.5
9
vs
AAMU
L 58-66
−12.5
14
@
TXSO
L 79-82
+21.5
16
@
PV
L 63-68
−20.5
21
@
SOU
L 73-87
+17.5
23
vs
MVSU
W 83-62
+8.5
26
vs
BCU
L 71-76
+2.5
28
vs
FAMU
L 59-66
−15.5
3
@
AAMU
L 63-77
−0.5
5
@
ALST
W 65-63
−16.5
9
vs
MVSU
W 77-52
−6.5
10
vs
JKST
L 65-68
−6.5
over 10under 21avg −4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
LSU N Orleans
33 games played
Straight up
15-18
45% wins
Against the spread
19-14
58% covers · avg +3.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-14
58% overs · avg +1.8 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 | @ | W 78-74 | +21.5 | W +25.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 58-93 | +19.5 | L −15.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 85-63 | +11.5 | W +33.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 79-90 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 76-85 | +6.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 78-81 | +23.5 | W +20.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 50-82 | +29.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 70-86 | +14.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 76-85 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 140.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 8 | vs | W 84-83 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 57-99 | +32.5 | L −9.5 | 138.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 85-69 | +6.5 | W +22.5 | 152.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 69-83 | +4.5 | L −9.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 68-74 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 83-73 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 77-90 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 12 | @ | W 79-76 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 79-84 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 89-76 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 63-82 | +18.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 80-62 | +4.5 | W +22.5 | 157.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 75-64 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 94-85 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 76-95 | +1.5 | L −17.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 84-78 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 60-61 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 78-64 | +2.5 | W +16.5 | 154.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 77-71 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 23 | @ | W 77-73 | +11.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 63-66 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 78-82 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 143.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 73-60 | -5.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 61-74 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
TCU
W 78-74
+25.5
10
@
LSU
L 58-93
−15.5
14
@
TULN
W 85-63
+33.5
18
@
PEPP
L 79-90
−5.5
21
@
FRES
L 76-85
−2.5
24
@
MSST
L 78-81
+20.5
26
@
TTU
L 50-82
−2.5
3
@
MEM
L 70-86
−1.5
6
vs
HCU
L 76-85
−13.5
8
vs
UIW
W 84-83
+2.5
13
@
HOU
L 57-99
−9.5
29
@
RGV
W 85-69
+22.5
31
@
AMCC
L 69-83
−9.5
3
@
NWST
L 68-74
−7.5
5
vs
ETAM
W 83-73
+3.5
10
vs
NICH
L 77-90
−9.5
12
@
SELA
W 79-76
+5.5
17
vs
SFA
L 79-84
+1.5
19
vs
LAM
W 89-76
+14.5
24
@
MCN
L 63-82
−0.5
27
@
NICH
W 80-62
+22.5
31
vs
NWST
W 75-64
+6.5
2
@
ETAM
W 94-85
+7.5
7
vs
RGV
L 76-95
−17.5
9
vs
AMCC
W 84-78
+7.5
14
@
HCU
L 60-61
+0.5
16
@
UIW
W 78-64
+16.5
21
@
LAM
W 77-71
+10.5
23
@
SFA
W 77-73
+15.5
28
vs
MCN
L 63-66
+7.5
2
vs
SELA
L 78-82
−10.5
8
vs
HCU
W 73-60
+7.5
9
vs
AMCC
L 61-74
−10.5
covered 19didn’t cover 14avg +3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
TCU
W 78-74
+2.5
10
@
LSU
L 58-93
−11.5
14
@
TULN
W 85-63
−5.5
18
@
PEPP
L 79-90
+11.5
21
@
FRES
L 76-85
+6.5
24
@
MSST
L 78-81
−1.5
26
@
TTU
L 50-82
−25.5
3
@
MEM
L 70-86
+6.5
6
vs
HCU
L 76-85
+20.5
8
vs
UIW
W 84-83
+18.5
13
@
HOU
L 57-99
+17.5
29
@
RGV
W 85-69
+1.5
31
@
AMCC
L 69-83
+9.5
3
@
NWST
L 68-74
−7.5
5
vs
ETAM
W 83-73
+5.5
10
vs
NICH
L 77-90
+12.5
12
@
SELA
W 79-76
+12.5
17
vs
SFA
L 79-84
+15.5
19
vs
LAM
W 89-76
+20.5
24
@
MCN
L 63-82
−11.5
27
@
NICH
W 80-62
−15.5
31
vs
NWST
W 75-64
−14.5
2
@
ETAM
W 94-85
+27.5
7
vs
RGV
L 76-95
+19.5
9
vs
AMCC
W 84-78
+15.5
14
@
HCU
L 60-61
−27.5
16
@
UIW
W 78-64
−12.5
21
@
LAM
W 77-71
+1.5
23
@
SFA
W 77-73
−3.5
28
vs
MCN
L 63-66
−21.5
2
vs
SELA
L 78-82
+16.5
8
vs
HCU
W 73-60
−10.5
9
vs
AMCC
L 61-74
−12.5
over 19under 14avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
LSU N Orleans has the better starters
Position by position: Grambling 0, LSU N Orleans 2, even 3
GramblingBetterLSU N Orleans
G I. Howard13 pts · 1 reb · 4 ast
Score 18
→NOLASmall
G K. Singleton TR13.8 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
G D. Pierce TR19 pts · 0 reb · 8 ast
Score 36
→NOLASmall
G N. Jones TR14.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 65
G B. Hardy TR3.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 2
=No call
G J. Chretien1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
F H. Washington TR4.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 2
=Even
F E. Boudouma5.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 13
F M. Fitts2.8 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 17
=Even
F K. Osby4.9 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 10
GramblingBetterLSU N Orleans
GRAM offense347th of 366 · -12.0
=Even
NOLA defense316th of 366 · -8.2
GRAM defense302nd of 366 · -7.7
→NOLASmall
NOLA offense230th of 366 · -7.1
Backcourt-6.4 · 3 players
→NOLABig
Backcourt-1.8 · 3 players
Frontcourt-3.5 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-3.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.6 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-1.4 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestGRAM betterNOLA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
K. Singleton35 min · TRN. Jones32 min · TRJ. Chretien9 minC. OkeyNewY. OrtizNewS. ParsonNew
Forwards
E. Boudouma18 minK. Osby17 minK. Ratliff9 min · TRW. CampbellNewS. OminuNewE. NwakammaNew
Centers
J. Pace5 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 69.0 #299 | Points per game | 74.5 #178 |
| 1.00 #331 | Points per possession | 1.06 #226 |
| 69.4 #155 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #110 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.8 #295 | Effective FG% | 49.6 #258 |
| 32.3 #265 | 3-point % | 31.8 #287 |
| 38.1 #210 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.7 #302 |
| 41.1 #45 | Free throw rate | 46.4 #1 |
| Possessions | ||
| 21.2 #357 | Turnover rate | 20.4 #353 |
| 30.3 #188 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.6 #34 |
| 11.9 #292 | Assists per game | 12.9 #214 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.3 #83 | Points allowed | 77.7 #260 |
| 1.03 #51 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #238 |
| 50.0 #97 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.0 #71 |
| 32.7 #99 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.4 #86 |
| 20.8 #12 | Turnovers forced | 14.9 #301 |
| 67.5 #280 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.5 #325 |
| 7.7 #68 | Steals per game | 5.8 #258 |
| 2.7 #283 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #105 |
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.
LSU N Orleans
15-18 in 2025-26 overall · 13-11 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Texas A&M-CC61–74
- Wvs Hou Christian73–60
- Lvs SE Louisiana78–82
- Lvs McNeese63–66
- W@ SF Austin77–73
A week or more of rest.