Thomas Assembly Center · at Louisiana Tech
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SFA 71–69 · win probability SFA 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 139.3
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: SFA has more of the edges
SFA 4, LT 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
SFA hits 35.8% and allows 30.3%; LT hits 28.6% and allows 33.9%. Threes are 39.8% and 33.4% of their shots
LT offense vs SFA defense
Offense 302nd of 366 against a defense 156th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
SFA has played the 338th-hardest schedule, LT the 197th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SFA 14.2%, LT 18.2%. Forced: SFA 17.7%, LT 17.9%
Shooting
Effective FG%: SFA 51.7 and allows 47.7; LT 47.4 and allows 48.7
SFA offense vs LT defense
Offense 252nd of 366 against a defense 184th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
LT at home. This season: LT 0-0 at home, SFA 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: SFA 30.1, LT 33.1. Allowed: SFA 31.1, LT 36.3
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SFA 26%, LT 11%. Transfers in: SFA 6, LT 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SFA 33.8%, LT 36.4%. Defensive: SFA 70.5%, LT 68.4%
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: SFA plays 66.4 a game (298th fastest), LT 65.5 (332nd). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | SFA -1.7 | — |
| Total | — | 139.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | SFA 70.5 · LT 68.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SFA -1.1 | — |
| 1H total | 65.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | SFA 33.2 · LT 32 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
SFA 1–1 LTSeries tied · 2 games since 2021-22 · SFA 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2023-24 | LT 56 @ SFA 49 | SFA -4.5 | LT W |
| Dec 14, 2022-23 | SFA 80 @ LT 79 | LT -4.5 | SFA W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
SF Austin
32 games played
Straight up
26-6
81% wins
Against the spread
23-9
72% covers · avg +2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% 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 | vs | W 90-65 | +1.5 | W +26.5 | 155.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 81-69 | +2.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 76-66 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 78-80 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 63-60 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 61-66 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 73-60 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 96-76 | -19.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 69-60 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 75-48 | -4.5 | W +22.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 74-64 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 73-63 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 64-66 | +10.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 85-67 | -12.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 56-46 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-79 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 79-62 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 88-81 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 69-67 | -14.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 85-58 | -9.5 | W +17.5 | 135.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 67-60 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-74 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 74-70 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 66-57 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 78-68 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 81-78 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 73-77 | -11.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 77-56 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 76-68 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 60-58 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 59-76 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 134.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 84-89 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
ARST
W 90-65
+26.5
11
@
RICE
W 81-69
+14.5
14
vs
ACU
W 76-66
+3.5
18
@
FRES
L 78-80
−4.5
21
@
PEPP
W 63-60
+1.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-66
−3.5
3
vs
RGV
W 73-60
+6.5
7
vs
ULM
W 96-76
+0.5
17
vs
AMCC
W 69-60
+2.5
29
@
ETAM
W 75-48
+22.5
31
@
NWST
W 74-64
+1.5
3
@
SELA
W 73-63
+6.5
5
@
MCN
L 64-66
+8.5
10
vs
HCU
W 85-67
+5.5
12
vs
UIW
W 56-46
+2.5
17
@
NOLA
W 84-79
−1.5
19
@
NICH
W 79-62
+12.5
24
@
LAM
W 88-81
+2.5
27
vs
NWST
W 69-67
−12.5
31
vs
SELA
W 85-58
+17.5
2
vs
MCN
W 67-60
+9.5
7
vs
LAM
W 84-74
+1.5
9
vs
ETAM
W 74-70
−12.5
14
@
RGV
W 66-57
+7.5
16
@
AMCC
W 78-68
+4.5
21
vs
NICH
W 81-78
−9.5
23
vs
NOLA
L 73-77
−15.5
28
@
HCU
W 77-56
+12.5
2
@
UIW
W 76-68
+0.5
10
vs
AMCC
W 60-58
−4.5
11
vs
MCN
L 59-76
−13.5
17
@
TLSA
L 84-89
+0.5
covered 23didn’t cover 9avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
ARST
W 90-65
−0.5
11
@
RICE
W 81-69
+0.5
14
vs
ACU
W 76-66
−0.5
18
@
FRES
L 78-80
+11.5
21
@
PEPP
W 63-60
−25.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-66
−11.5
3
vs
RGV
W 73-60
−10.5
7
vs
ULM
W 96-76
+29.5
17
vs
AMCC
W 69-60
−10.5
29
@
ETAM
W 75-48
−23.5
31
@
NWST
W 74-64
−0.5
3
@
SELA
W 73-63
−1.5
5
@
MCN
L 64-66
−14.5
10
vs
HCU
W 85-67
+14.5
12
vs
UIW
W 56-46
−38.5
17
@
NOLA
W 84-79
+15.5
19
@
NICH
W 79-62
−3.5
24
@
LAM
W 88-81
+32.5
27
vs
NWST
W 69-67
−5.5
31
vs
SELA
W 85-58
+7.5
2
vs
MCN
W 67-60
−14.5
7
vs
LAM
W 84-74
+19.5
9
vs
ETAM
W 74-70
+0.5
14
@
RGV
W 66-57
−21.5
16
@
AMCC
W 78-68
+10.5
21
vs
NICH
W 81-78
+11.5
23
vs
NOLA
L 73-77
−3.5
28
@
HCU
W 77-56
−5.5
2
@
UIW
W 76-68
+1.5
10
vs
AMCC
W 60-58
−17.5
11
vs
MCN
L 59-76
+0.5
17
@
TLSA
L 84-89
+23.5
over 14under 18avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Louisiana Tech
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg −2.2 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 50-77 | +9.5 | L −17.5 | 136.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 68-51 | -8.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 51-60 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 75-73 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 83-58 | -16.5 | W +8.5 | 137.5 | O 141 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 69-77 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 65-44 | -9.5 | W +11.5 | 126.5 | U 109 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 53-61 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 75-63 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 130.5 | O 138 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 51-88 | +6.5 | L −30.5 | 134.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 61-66 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 56-72 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 70-68 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 123.5 | O 138 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 59-58 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 131.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 60-64 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 127.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 82-76 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 69-59 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 130.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 67-83 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 63-72 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 87-78 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 143.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 79-78 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 64-77 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 77-71 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 132.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 55-58 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 72-70 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 76-84 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 76-71 | +8.5 | W +13.5 | 136.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 81-38 | -2.5 | W +40.5 | 132.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-69 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 134.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 69-66 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 60-71 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 142.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
NEV
L 50-77
−17.5
15
vs
JKST
W 68-51
+8.5
19
@
INST
L 51-60
−5.5
26
vs
INST
W 75-73
−0.5
29
vs
ALCN
W 83-58
+8.5
3
@
GASO
L 69-77
−6.5
13
vs
UL
W 65-44
+11.5
17
@
TULN
L 53-61
−3.5
29
vs
UTEP
W 75-63
+9.5
2
@
MTSU
L 51-88
−30.5
4
@
WKU
L 61-66
+4.5
8
vs
LIB
L 56-72
−11.5
10
vs
DEL
W 70-68
−4.5
14
vs
MTSU
W 59-58
+4.5
17
@
JXST
L 60-64
+0.5
23
vs
KENN
W 82-76
+7.5
28
@
UTEP
W 69-59
+12.5
31
@
SHSU
L 67-83
−8.5
4
vs
NMSU
L 63-72
−10.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 87-78
+12.5
12
@
MOST
W 79-78
+4.5
14
@
FIU
L 64-77
−9.5
18
vs
JXST
W 77-71
+3.5
21
@
KENN
L 55-58
+2.5
26
vs
MOST
W 72-70
−0.5
28
vs
FIU
L 76-84
−10.5
5
@
LIB
W 76-71
+13.5
7
@
DEL
W 81-38
+40.5
12
vs
MTSU
W 80-69
+12.5
13
vs
MOST
W 69-66
+4.5
14
vs
KENN
L 60-71
−9.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
NEV
L 50-77
−9.5
15
vs
JKST
W 68-51
−27.5
19
@
INST
L 51-60
−36.5
26
vs
INST
W 75-73
+6.5
29
vs
ALCN
W 83-58
+3.5
3
@
GASO
L 69-77
+0.5
13
vs
UL
W 65-44
−17.5
17
@
TULN
L 53-61
−26.5
29
vs
UTEP
W 75-63
+7.5
2
@
MTSU
L 51-88
+4.5
4
@
WKU
L 61-66
−18.5
8
vs
LIB
L 56-72
−7.5
10
vs
DEL
W 70-68
+14.5
14
vs
MTSU
W 59-58
−14.5
17
@
JXST
L 60-64
−3.5
23
vs
KENN
W 82-76
+13.5
28
@
UTEP
W 69-59
−2.5
31
@
SHSU
L 67-83
+8.5
4
vs
NMSU
L 63-72
−0.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 87-78
+21.5
12
@
MOST
W 79-78
+20.5
14
@
FIU
L 64-77
−5.5
18
vs
JXST
W 77-71
+15.5
21
@
KENN
L 55-58
−34.5
26
vs
MOST
W 72-70
+3.5
28
vs
FIU
L 76-84
+14.5
5
@
LIB
W 76-71
+10.5
7
@
DEL
W 81-38
−13.5
12
vs
MTSU
W 80-69
+14.5
13
vs
MOST
W 69-66
+0.5
14
vs
KENN
L 60-71
−11.5
over 16under 15avg −2.2 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: SF Austin 0, Louisiana Tech 0, even 5
SF AustinBetterLouisiana Tech
G M. Russell TR15 pts · 3.9 reb · 2 ast
Score 36
=Even
G J. Fenner5.3 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 27
G N. Chotikavanic9.6 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 60
=No call
G D. Bates NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F E. Daniel TR3.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 41
=No call
G K. Tilley NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F G. Alisas4.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 52
=No call
F E. Blackmon NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F A. Reed TR2.7 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 42
=No call
F L. Rowe NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
SF AustinBetterLouisiana Tech
SFA offense252nd of 366 · -7.6
→LTSmall
LT defense184th of 366 · -4.3
SFA defense156th of 366 · -3.4
←SFABig
LT offense302nd of 366 · -9.4
Backcourt-1.9 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt-1.6 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 3 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-1.9 · 5 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestSFA betterLT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Russell36 min · TRN. Chotikavanic23 minC. Green7 minM. Scurry7 minA. Simmons4 min · TRB. Melvin3 min
Forwards
E. Daniel14 min · TRG. Alisas14 minA. Reed11 min · TRK. Pearson8 min · TR
Guards
J. Fenner22 minD. BatesNewK. TilleyNewJ. TylerNewJ. SandersonNewA. BoydNew
Forwards
E. BlackmonNewL. RoweNewB. WengerNewI. EmelifeNewI. FrancisNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.9 #166 | Points per game | 67.8 #318 |
| 1.13 #88 | Points per possession | 1.03 #284 |
| 66.4 #298 | Pace (possessions) | 65.5 #332 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.7 #160 | Effective FG% | 47.4 #329 |
| 35.8 #71 | 3-point % | 28.6 #359 |
| 39.8 #176 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.4 #310 |
| 30.1 #306 | Free throw rate | 33.1 #234 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.2 #29 | Turnover rate | 18.2 #283 |
| 33.8 #74 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.4 #21 |
| 13.1 #209 | Assists per game | 11.9 #297 |
| Defense | ||
| 66.7 #20 | Points allowed | 67.8 #30 |
| 1.00 #29 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #75 |
| 47.7 #35 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.7 #51 |
| 30.3 #11 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.9 #178 |
| 17.7 #116 | Turnovers forced | 17.9 #102 |
| 70.5 #131 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.4 #232 |
| 6.9 #136 | Steals per game | 6.8 #144 |
| 3.7 #118 | Blocks per game | 4.6 #31 |
SF Austin
26-6 in 2025-26 overall · 21-3 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Tulsa84–89
- Lvs McNeese59–76
- Wvs Texas A&M-CC60–58
- W@ Incarnate Word76–68
- W@ Hou Christian77–56
A week or more of rest.
Louisiana Tech
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 13-10 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Kennesaw St60–71
- Wvs Missouri St69–66
- Wvs MTSU80–69
- W@ Delaware81–38
- W@ Liberty76–71
A week or more of rest.