David R. Stopher Gymnasium · at Nicholls · Conference game
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 NICH 71–71 · win probability NICH 51%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.2
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, NICH 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: AMCC 31.7%, NICH 28.1%. Defensive: AMCC 71.2%, NICH 66.3%
Three-pointers
AMCC hits 35.0% and allows 31.6%; NICH hits 33.3% and allows 34.6%. Threes are 31.4% and 43.9% of their shots
NICH offense vs AMCC defense
Offense 283rd of 366 against a defense 176th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: AMCC 49.5 and allows 50.1; NICH 50.6 and allows 54.4
Turnovers
Turnover rate: AMCC 19.4%, NICH 17.4%. Forced: AMCC 19.0%, NICH 20.5%
Home court
NICH at home. This season: NICH 0-0 at home, AMCC 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: AMCC plays 66.9 a game (284th fastest), NICH 68.3 (210th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
AMCC has played the 245th-hardest schedule, NICH the 277th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: AMCC 41.1, NICH 34.5. Allowed: AMCC 46.3, NICH 37.9
Even
AMCC offense vs NICH defense
Offense 303rd of 366 against a defense 282nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: AMCC 19%, NICH 20%. Transfers in: AMCC 4, NICH 6. 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 | — | NICH -0.2 | — |
| Total | — | 142.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | AMCC 71 · NICH 71.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | NICH -0.0 | — |
| 1H total | 66.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | AMCC 33.3 · NICH 33.3 | — |
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% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 13 since 2021-22
AMCC 6–7 NICHNICH leads · 13 games since 2021-22 · AMCC 8-5 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2025-26 | AMCC 83 @ NICH 76 | NICH -1.5 | AMCC W |
| Dec 29, 2025-26 | NICH 76 @ AMCC 71 | AMCC -5.5 | NICH W |
| Feb 24, 2024-25 | AMCC 69 @ NICH 71 | NICH -4.5 | AMCC W |
| Jan 25, 2024-25 | NICH 57 @ AMCC 61 | AMCC -3.5 | AMCC W |
| Mar 12, 2023-24 | NICH 81 vs AMCC 73 | AMCC -4.5 | NICH 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
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.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Texas A&M-CC 1, Nicholls 1, even 3
Texas A&M-CCBetterNicholls
G J. Mizell TR5 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 12
→NICHBig
G D. Cockrill TR11.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 75
G S. Robinson TR14.6 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 76
←AMCCBig
G C. Winborne7.9 pts · 1.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 29
G I. Lewis TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 10
=Even
G S. Sharp4.1 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 19
G D. Michelini-Jackson4.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 34
=No call
F A. Dent TR6 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
F B. Basil TR8.7 pts · 6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 53
=No call
F J. Sileu TR0.3 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
Texas A&M-CCBetterNicholls
AMCC offense303rd of 366 · -9.4
=Even
NICH defense282nd of 366 · -7.0
AMCC defense176th of 366 · -4.0
←AMCCSmall
NICH offense283rd of 366 · -8.7
Backcourt-5.9 · 4 players
→NICHBig
Backcourt-2.5 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.1 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-0.7 · 2 players
Bench-1.2 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestAMCC betterNICH 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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.5 #305 | Points per game | 71.0 #266 |
| 1.03 #296 | Points per possession | 1.04 #275 |
| 66.9 #284 | Pace (possessions) | 68.3 #210 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #270 | Effective FG% | 50.6 #205 |
| 35.0 #122 | 3-point % | 33.3 #215 |
| 31.4 #334 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.9 #90 |
| 41.1 #46 | Free throw rate | 34.5 #195 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.4 #336 | Turnover rate | 17.4 #232 |
| 31.7 #138 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #263 |
| 12.1 #280 | Assists per game | 12.9 #219 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.4 #52 | Points allowed | 75.7 #209 |
| 1.04 #67 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #243 |
| 50.1 #104 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.4 #311 |
| 31.6 #48 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.6 #224 |
| 19.0 #48 | Turnovers forced | 20.5 #15 |
| 71.2 #95 | Defensive rebound rate | 66.3 #314 |
| 7.0 #125 | Steals per game | 8.7 #15 |
| 2.6 #290 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #270 |
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.
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.