Pensacola Bay Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | NICH | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TROY 78–71 · win probability TROY 73%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.5
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: TROY has more of the edges
TROY 6, NICH 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
TROY offense vs NICH defense
Offense 143rd of 366 against a defense 282nd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: TROY 34.5%, NICH 28.1%. Defensive: TROY 68.3%, NICH 66.3%
NICH offense vs TROY defense
Offense 283rd of 366 against a defense 162nd, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: TROY 51.5 and allows 50.2; NICH 50.6 and allows 54.4
Context
Schedule so far
TROY has played the 166th-hardest schedule, NICH the 277th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: TROY 36.2, NICH 34.5. Allowed: TROY 31.4, NICH 37.9
Three-pointers
TROY hits 33.0% and allows 31.6%; NICH hits 33.3% and allows 34.6%. Threes are 45.9% and 43.9% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: TROY 17.3%, NICH 17.4%. Forced: TROY 16.7%, NICH 20.5%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: TROY plays 69.6 a game (141st fastest), NICH 68.3 (210th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: TROY 11%, NICH 20%. Transfers in: TROY 6, NICH 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | TROY -6.9 | — |
| Total | — | 148.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | TROY 77.7 · NICH 70.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TROY -4.2 | — |
| 1H total | 69.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | TROY 36.8 · NICH 32.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Troy
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
18-14
56% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg +2.9 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 3 | @ | W 103-97 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 200 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 64-61 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 63-74 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 108-107 | +14.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 215 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 106-107 | +18.5 | W +17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-75 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-64 | -21.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 1 | vs | L 89-93 | -17.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 86-85 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 100-80 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 59-49 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 74-86 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 160.5 | U 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-70 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 91-65 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 99-74 | -3.5 | W +21.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 83-77 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 83-78 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 64-73 | -9.5 | L −18.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 44-66 | -7.5 | L −29.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-69 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 62-74 | -5.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-69 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 77-76 | -17.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 54-65 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 78-59 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 134.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-65 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-70 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 77-61 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 47-76 | +13.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+9.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
+5.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−6.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
−13.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+15.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+17.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−9.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−11.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
−21.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+7.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
+2.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+11.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
+0.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−7.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+10.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+17.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+21.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+0.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+0.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−18.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−29.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
+4.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
+12.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−17.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−9.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−16.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−13.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+7.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−3.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+2.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
+10.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−15.5
covered 18didn’t cover 14avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+57.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
−27.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−3.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
+21.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+77.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+53.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−16.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−13.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
+31.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+15.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
−22.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+34.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
−40.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−0.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+23.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+10.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+7.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+7.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+1.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−10.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−27.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
−7.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
−9.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−4.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−10.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−0.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−23.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+2.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−8.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+5.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
−14.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−16.5
over 14under 18avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Nicholls
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +1.5 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 4 | @ | L 51-77 | +31.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 57-65 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 63-68 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 79-99 | +14.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 81-95 | +23.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 72-82 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 76-96 | +18.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 74-67 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 79-64 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 82-95 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 76-71 | +5.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 71-69 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 80-58 | -6.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 74-72 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-77 | -3.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 68-94 | +15.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 80-90 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 62-79 | +4.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 61-67 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 62-80 | -4.5 | L −22.5 | 157.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 72-68 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 61-58 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 76-83 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 72-92 | +3.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 91-83 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 68-72 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 78-81 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 23 | @ | W 53-52 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 68-60 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 65-75 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 61-47 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | U 108 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 68-86 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
UK
L 51-77
+5.5
7
@
EIU
L 57-65
−10.5
12
@
VAL
L 63-68
−2.5
15
@
MUR
L 79-99
−5.5
22
@
OKST
L 81-95
+9.5
28
@
TULN
L 72-82
−1.5
2
@
CREI
L 76-96
−1.5
6
vs
UIW
W 74-67
+8.5
17
vs
HCU
W 79-64
+11.5
21
@
PAC
L 82-95
−4.5
29
@
AMCC
W 76-71
+10.5
31
@
RGV
W 71-69
+5.5
3
vs
ETAM
W 80-58
+15.5
5
vs
NWST
W 74-72
−6.5
10
@
NOLA
W 90-77
+9.5
12
@
MCN
L 68-94
−10.5
17
vs
LAM
L 80-90
−13.5
19
vs
SFA
L 62-79
−12.5
24
@
SELA
L 61-67
−3.5
27
vs
NOLA
L 62-80
−22.5
31
@
ETAM
W 72-68
+5.5
2
@
NWST
W 61-58
+1.5
7
vs
AMCC
L 76-83
−8.5
9
vs
RGV
L 72-92
−16.5
14
@
UIW
W 91-83
+10.5
16
@
HCU
L 68-72
−2.5
21
@
SFA
L 78-81
+9.5
23
@
LAM
W 53-52
+4.5
28
vs
SELA
W 68-60
+3.5
2
vs
MCN
L 65-75
−0.5
8
vs
NWST
W 61-47
+12.5
9
vs
RGV
L 68-86
−12.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
UK
L 51-77
−29.5
7
@
EIU
L 57-65
−13.5
12
@
VAL
L 63-68
−13.5
15
@
MUR
L 79-99
+20.5
22
@
OKST
L 81-95
+20.5
28
@
TULN
L 72-82
+5.5
2
@
CREI
L 76-96
+28.5
6
vs
UIW
W 74-67
−4.5
17
vs
HCU
W 79-64
+5.5
21
@
PAC
L 82-95
+37.5
29
@
AMCC
W 76-71
+9.5
31
@
RGV
W 71-69
−5.5
3
vs
ETAM
W 80-58
−8.5
5
vs
NWST
W 74-72
+1.5
10
@
NOLA
W 90-77
+12.5
12
@
MCN
L 68-94
+15.5
17
vs
LAM
L 80-90
+30.5
19
vs
SFA
L 62-79
−3.5
24
@
SELA
L 61-67
−13.5
27
vs
NOLA
L 62-80
−15.5
31
@
ETAM
W 72-68
−6.5
2
@
NWST
W 61-58
−28.5
7
vs
AMCC
L 76-83
+21.5
9
vs
RGV
L 72-92
+16.5
14
@
UIW
W 91-83
+25.5
16
@
HCU
L 68-72
+3.5
21
@
SFA
L 78-81
+11.5
23
@
LAM
W 53-52
−38.5
28
vs
SELA
W 68-60
−11.5
2
vs
MCN
L 65-75
−5.5
8
vs
NWST
W 61-47
−30.5
9
vs
RGV
L 68-86
+10.5
over 17under 15avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Troy has the better starters
Position by position: Troy 2, Nicholls 1, even 2
TroyBetterNicholls
G R. Davis TR9.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 14
→NICHBig
G D. Cockrill TR11.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 75
G D. Oday TR18.9 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 95
←TROYBig
G C. Winborne7.9 pts · 1.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 29
G J. Hutchinson TR12.1 pts · 3.4 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 76
←TROYBig
G S. Sharp4.1 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 19
F C. Diggs TR10.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
=No call
F A. Dent TR6 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
F K. Kiel3.6 pts · 3.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 23
=No call
F J. Sileu TR0.3 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
TroyBetterNicholls
TROY offense143rd of 366 · -4.3
←TROYBig
NICH defense282nd of 366 · -7.0
TROY defense162nd of 366 · -3.6
←TROYSmall
NICH offense283rd of 366 · -8.7
Backcourt+1.4 · 3 players
←TROYBig
Backcourt-2.5 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.7 · 2 players
Bench-2.0 · 4 players
→NICHSmall
Bench-0.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestTROY betterNICH betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
R. Davis31 min · TRD. Oday30 min · TRJ. Hutchinson29 min · TRH. Awata2 minJ. KontuniemiNewR. ValakouNew
Forwards
C. Diggs23 min · TRK. Kiel16 minM. Ikegwuruka13 min · TRS. Walters9 min · TRE. Griffin5 min
Centers
A. PachecoNew
Guards
D. Cockrill24 min · TRC. Winborne23 minS. Sharp17 minH. Carter4 min · TRC. Simpson3 min · TRJ. Matthews2 min
Forwards
A. Dent13 min · TRJ. Sileu7 min · TRA. Arop2 min · TRM. MboupNewJ. TaylorNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.3 #110 | Points per game | 71.0 #266 |
| 1.11 #113 | Points per possession | 1.04 #275 |
| 69.6 #141 | Pace (possessions) | 68.3 #210 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.5 #171 | Effective FG% | 50.6 #205 |
| 33.0 #229 | 3-point % | 33.3 #215 |
| 45.9 #47 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.9 #90 |
| 36.2 #147 | Free throw rate | 34.5 #195 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.3 #226 | Turnover rate | 17.4 #232 |
| 34.5 #59 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #263 |
| 15.0 #86 | Assists per game | 12.9 #219 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.5 #178 | Points allowed | 75.7 #209 |
| 1.07 #128 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #243 |
| 50.2 #111 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.4 #311 |
| 31.6 #47 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.6 #224 |
| 16.7 #173 | Turnovers forced | 20.5 #15 |
| 68.3 #243 | Defensive rebound rate | 66.3 #314 |
| 7.2 #107 | Steals per game | 8.7 #15 |
| 3.3 #169 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #270 |
Troy
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Nebraska47–76
- Wvs GA Southern77–61
- Wvs Southern Miss78–70
- Wvs UL Monroe80–65
- Wvs Louisiana78–59
A week or more of rest.
Nicholls
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 13-11 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UT Rio Grande68–86
- Wvs N'Western St61–47
- Lvs McNeese65–75
- Wvs SE Louisiana68–60
- W@ Lamar53–52
A week or more of rest.