Lakefront Arena · at LSU N Orleans · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | NOLA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NOLA 73–72 · win probability NOLA 55%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.4
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: AMCC has more of the edges
AMCC 4, NOLA 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: AMCC 19.4%, NOLA 20.4%. Forced: AMCC 19.0%, NOLA 14.9%
Three-pointers
AMCC hits 35.0% and allows 31.6%; NOLA hits 31.8% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 31.4% and 33.7% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: AMCC plays 66.9 a game (284th fastest), NOLA 70.2 (110th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
AMCC has played the 245th-hardest schedule, NOLA the 173rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: AMCC 31.7%, NOLA 35.6%. Defensive: AMCC 71.2%, NOLA 65.5%
NOLA offense vs AMCC defense
Offense 230th of 366 against a defense 176th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
NOLA at home. This season: NOLA 0-0 at home, AMCC 0-0 away
Free throws
Free throw rate: AMCC 41.1, NOLA 46.4. Allowed: AMCC 46.3, NOLA 39.5
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: AMCC 49.5 and allows 50.1; NOLA 49.6 and allows 49.0
Even
AMCC offense vs NOLA defense
Offense 303rd of 366 against a defense 316th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: AMCC 19%, NOLA 22%. Transfers in: AMCC 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 -1.4 | — |
| Total | — | 145.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | AMCC 72 · NOLA 73.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | NOLA -0.7 | — |
| 1H total | 68.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | AMCC 33.7 · NOLA 34.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 11 since 2021-22
AMCC 7–4 NOLAAMCC leads · 11 games since 2021-22 · AMCC 6-5 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2025-26 | NOLA 61 vs AMCC 74 | AMCC -2.5 | AMCC W |
| Feb 9, 2025-26 | AMCC 78 @ NOLA 84 | NOLA +1.5 | NOLA W |
| Dec 31, 2025-26 | NOLA 69 @ AMCC 83 | AMCC -4.5 | AMCC W |
| Mar 3, 2024-25 | NOLA 62 @ AMCC 95 | AMCC -14.5 | AMCC W |
| Jan 6, 2024-25 | AMCC 97 @ NOLA 83 | NOLA +11.5 | AMCC W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Texas A&M-CC
29 games played
Straight up
14-15
48% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +1.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg −1.9 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 6 | @ | L 58-69 | +23.5 | W +12.5 | 160.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 77-85 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 46-77 | +25.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 69-85 | +20.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 67-88 | +13.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 57-49 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 136.5 | U 106 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 60-69 | +6.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 71-76 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 83-69 | -4.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 63-59 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 5 | @ | W 81-65 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 132.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 78-79 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 12 | @ | W 61-50 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 142.5 | U 111 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 68-56 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 130.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 53-69 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 79-71 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 136.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 26 | vs | L 55-64 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 135.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 73-71 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 69-71 | -4.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 83-76 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 78-84 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 76-63 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 16 | vs | L 68-78 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 54-70 | +14.5 | L −1.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 23 | @ | W 73-68 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 130.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 71-59 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 134.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 84-71 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 136.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 74-61 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 58-60 | +6.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | U 118 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
SMU
L 58-69
+12.5
8
@
TAR
L 77-85
−4.5
11
@
KU
L 46-77
−5.5
16
@
OKST
L 69-85
+4.5
28
@
XAV
L 67-88
−7.5
6
@
LAM
W 57-49
+11.5
17
@
SFA
L 60-69
−2.5
29
vs
NICH
L 71-76
−10.5
31
vs
NOLA
W 83-69
+9.5
3
@
RGV
W 63-59
+6.5
5
@
HCU
W 81-65
+12.5
10
@
NWST
L 78-79
−6.5
12
@
ETAM
W 61-50
+7.5
17
vs
SELA
W 68-56
+6.5
19
vs
MCN
L 53-69
−6.5
24
@
UIW
W 79-71
+9.5
26
vs
RGV
L 55-64
−11.5
31
vs
HCU
W 73-71
−5.5
2
vs
UIW
L 69-71
−6.5
7
@
NICH
W 83-76
+8.5
9
@
NOLA
L 78-84
−7.5
14
vs
LAM
W 76-63
+10.5
16
vs
SFA
L 68-78
−4.5
21
@
MCN
L 54-70
−1.5
23
@
SELA
W 73-68
+3.5
28
vs
NWST
W 71-59
+6.5
2
vs
ETAM
W 84-71
+5.5
9
vs
NOLA
W 74-61
+10.5
10
vs
SFA
L 58-60
+4.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
SMU
L 58-69
−33.5
8
@
TAR
L 77-85
+19.5
11
@
KU
L 46-77
−22.5
16
@
OKST
L 69-85
−0.5
28
@
XAV
L 67-88
+8.5
6
@
LAM
W 57-49
−30.5
17
@
SFA
L 60-69
−10.5
29
vs
NICH
L 71-76
+9.5
31
vs
NOLA
W 83-69
+9.5
3
@
RGV
W 63-59
−15.5
5
@
HCU
W 81-65
+13.5
10
@
NWST
L 78-79
+18.5
12
@
ETAM
W 61-50
−31.5
17
vs
SELA
W 68-56
−6.5
19
vs
MCN
L 53-69
−18.5
24
@
UIW
W 79-71
+13.5
26
vs
RGV
L 55-64
−16.5
31
vs
HCU
W 73-71
+8.5
2
vs
UIW
L 69-71
−0.5
7
@
NICH
W 83-76
+21.5
9
@
NOLA
L 78-84
+15.5
14
vs
LAM
W 76-63
+3.5
16
vs
SFA
L 68-78
+10.5
21
@
MCN
L 54-70
−15.5
23
@
SELA
W 73-68
+10.5
28
vs
NWST
W 71-59
−4.5
2
vs
ETAM
W 84-71
+18.5
9
vs
NOLA
W 74-61
−12.5
10
vs
SFA
L 58-60
−17.5
over 14under 15avg −1.9 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.
Texas A&M-CC has the better starters
Position by position: Texas A&M-CC 2, LSU N Orleans 1, even 2
Texas A&M-CCBetterLSU N Orleans
G J. Mizell TR5 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 12
→NOLABig
G K. Singleton TR13.8 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 50
G S. Robinson TR14.6 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 76
=Even
G N. Jones TR14.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 65
G I. Lewis TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 10
=No call
G J. Chretien1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
G D. Michelini-Jackson4.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 34
←AMCCSmall
F E. Boudouma5.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 13
F B. Basil TR8.7 pts · 6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 53
←AMCCBig
F K. Osby4.9 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 10
Texas A&M-CCBetterLSU N Orleans
AMCC offense303rd of 366 · -9.4
=Even
NOLA defense316th of 366 · -8.2
AMCC defense176th of 366 · -4.0
←AMCCSmall
NOLA offense230th of 366 · -7.1
Backcourt-5.9 · 4 players
→NOLABig
Backcourt-1.8 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.1 · 1 player
←AMCCBig
Frontcourt-3.6 · 2 players
Bench-1.2 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-1.4 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestAMCC betterNOLA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Mizell28 min · TRS. Robinson28 min · TRI. Lewis22 min · TRD. Michelini-Jackson17 minB. Wheatfall11 minC. Horton6 min
Forwards
B. Basil23 min · TRD. MukunaNewK. WallaceNewC. WorshamNew
Centers
J. Ambrose5 minL. FoonNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.5 #305 | Points per game | 74.5 #178 |
| 1.03 #296 | Points per possession | 1.06 #226 |
| 66.9 #284 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #110 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #270 | Effective FG% | 49.6 #258 |
| 35.0 #122 | 3-point % | 31.8 #287 |
| 31.4 #334 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.7 #302 |
| 41.1 #46 | Free throw rate | 46.4 #1 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.4 #336 | Turnover rate | 20.4 #353 |
| 31.7 #138 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.6 #34 |
| 12.1 #280 | Assists per game | 12.9 #214 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.4 #52 | Points allowed | 77.7 #260 |
| 1.04 #67 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #238 |
| 50.1 #104 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.0 #71 |
| 31.6 #48 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.4 #86 |
| 19.0 #48 | Turnovers forced | 14.9 #301 |
| 71.2 #95 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.5 #325 |
| 7.0 #125 | Steals per game | 5.8 #258 |
| 2.6 #290 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #105 |
Texas A&M-CC
14-15 in 2025-26 overall · 14-10 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SF Austin58–60
- Wvs LSU N Orleans74–61
- Wvs East Texas A&M84–71
- Wvs N'Western St71–59
- W@ SE Louisiana73–68
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.