Reynolds Center · at Tulsa
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TLSA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TLSA 84–65 · win probability TLSA 95%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.4
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: TLSA has more of the edges
FAMU 1, TLSA 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
FAMU has played the 323rd-hardest schedule, TLSA the 111th. A record against a soft schedule means less
TLSA offense vs FAMU defense
Offense 99th of 366 against a defense 303rd, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
FAMU hits 32.6% and allows 34.9%; TLSA hits 38.5% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 37.7% and 46.7% of their shots
FAMU offense vs TLSA defense
Offense 326th of 366 against a defense 133rd, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: FAMU 49.2 and allows 51.2; TLSA 55.4 and allows 49.5
Free throws
Free throw rate: FAMU 37.4, TLSA 41.4. Allowed: FAMU 39.6, TLSA 32.0
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FAMU 30.9%, TLSA 32.8%. Defensive: FAMU 69.1%, TLSA 71.0%
Home court
TLSA at home. This season: TLSA 0-0 at home, FAMU 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FAMU 43%, TLSA 18%. Transfers in: FAMU 3, TLSA 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FAMU 21.5%, TLSA 15.6%. Forced: FAMU 19.1%, TLSA 15.4%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: FAMU plays 70.6 a game (92nd fastest), TLSA 70.1 (115th). 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 | — | TLSA -19.2 | — |
| Total | — | 149.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | FAMU 65.1 · TLSA 84.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TLSA -11.3 | — |
| 1H total | 69.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | FAMU 29.3 · TLSA 40.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | |
| 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Florida A&M
29 games played
Straight up
13-16
45% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-18
38% 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 3 | @ | L 67-102 | +25.5 | L −9.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 72-92 | +11.5 | L −8.5 | 166.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 60-97 | +23.5 | L −13.5 | 169.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 57-87 | +40.5 | W +10.5 | 170.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 82-85 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 72-65 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 54-78 | +14.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 56-80 | +29.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 65-89 | +19.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 83-87 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 67-59 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 153.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 91-84 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 71-67 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 62-48 | -11.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 66-58 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 26 | vs | L 65-66 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 65-72 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 66-79 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 57-62 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 100-96 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 60-80 | -2.5 | L −22.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 86-78 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 61-63 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 76-63 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 82-71 | +8.5 | W +19.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 66-59 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 81-77 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 70-60 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 70-73 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 143 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
USF
L 67-102
−9.5
8
vs
KENN
L 72-92
−8.5
11
@
UCF
L 60-97
−13.5
17
@
UGA
L 57-87
+10.5
2
@
JAX
L 82-85
+7.5
17
vs
JAX
W 72-65
+10.5
19
@
TAR
L 54-78
−9.5
21
@
TCU
L 56-80
+5.5
28
@
GT
L 65-89
−4.5
3
@
BCU
L 83-87
+3.5
10
vs
SOU
W 67-59
+12.5
12
vs
GRAM
W 91-84
+8.5
17
@
UAPB
W 71-67
+6.5
19
@
MVSU
W 62-48
+2.5
24
vs
ALCN
W 66-58
−0.5
26
vs
JKST
L 65-66
−8.5
31
@
AAMU
L 65-72
−3.5
2
@
ALST
L 66-79
−9.5
7
vs
TXSO
L 57-62
−6.5
9
vs
PV
W 100-96
+0.5
14
@
JKST
L 60-80
−22.5
16
@
ALCN
W 86-78
+5.5
19
vs
AAMU
L 61-63
−3.5
21
vs
ALST
W 76-63
+14.5
26
@
SOU
W 82-71
+19.5
28
@
GRAM
W 66-59
+11.5
5
vs
BCU
W 81-77
+6.5
11
vs
JKST
W 70-60
+3.5
13
vs
SOU
L 70-73
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
USF
L 67-102
+15.5
8
vs
KENN
L 72-92
−2.5
11
@
UCF
L 60-97
−12.5
17
@
UGA
L 57-87
−26.5
2
@
JAX
L 82-85
+28.5
17
vs
JAX
W 72-65
−2.5
19
@
TAR
L 54-78
−13.5
21
@
TCU
L 56-80
−6.5
28
@
GT
L 65-89
+7.5
3
@
BCU
L 83-87
+24.5
10
vs
SOU
W 67-59
−27.5
12
vs
GRAM
W 91-84
+33.5
17
@
UAPB
W 71-67
−11.5
19
@
MVSU
W 62-48
−29.5
24
vs
ALCN
W 66-58
−17.5
26
vs
JKST
L 65-66
−19.5
31
@
AAMU
L 65-72
−1.5
2
@
ALST
L 66-79
+5.5
7
vs
TXSO
L 57-62
−27.5
9
vs
PV
W 100-96
+46.5
14
@
JKST
L 60-80
−4.5
16
@
ALCN
W 86-78
+26.5
19
vs
AAMU
L 61-63
−15.5
21
vs
ALST
W 76-63
−5.5
26
@
SOU
W 82-71
+5.5
28
@
GRAM
W 66-59
−15.5
5
vs
BCU
W 81-77
+12.5
11
vs
JKST
W 70-60
−11.5
13
vs
SOU
L 70-73
+1.5
over 11under 18avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Tulsa
36 games played
Straight up
28-8
78% wins
Against the spread
19-17
53% covers · avg +4.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
24-12
67% overs · avg +4.7 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 82-65 | +3.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 12 | @ | W 88-87 | -5.5 | L −4.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 83-84 | +12.5 | W +11.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 84-75 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 81-51 | -5.5 | W +24.5 | 149.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 63-60 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 98-74 | -7.5 | W +16.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 117-84 | -25.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 201 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 83-70 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 19 | @ | W 82-81 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 90-85 | -16.5 | L −11.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 97-48 | -12.5 | W +36.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 67-72 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 78-93 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 163.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 86-74 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 99-77 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 83-66 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 87-81 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 82-66 | -8.5 | W +7.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 93-83 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 78-76 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 8 | @ | L 74-80 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 170.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 63-68 | -10.5 | L −15.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 77-81 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 79-74 | -12.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 100-74 | -21.5 | W +4.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 90-56 | -5.5 | W +28.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 93-66 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 156.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-76 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 90-84 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 174 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 68-81 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 17 | vs | W 89-84 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 77-66 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 24 | vs | W 83-79 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Apr 2 | vs | W 74-69 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Apr 5 | vs | L 86-92 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 178 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
URI
W 82-65
+20.5
12
@
ORU
W 88-87
−4.5
17
@
KSU
L 83-84
+11.5
21
vs
APSU
W 84-75
+0.5
25
vs
SJSU
W 81-51
+24.5
26
vs
UNI
W 63-60
+5.5
6
vs
MOST
W 98-74
+16.5
10
vs
UAPB
W 117-84
+7.5
13
vs
NMSU
W 83-70
+8.5
19
@
WKU
W 82-81
−1.5
22
vs
DEN
W 90-85
−11.5
31
vs
RICE
W 97-48
+36.5
4
@
UNT
L 67-72
−7.5
10
vs
USF
L 78-93
−16.5
14
@
CLT
W 86-74
+8.5
18
@
UAB
W 99-77
+23.5
21
vs
MEM
W 83-66
+10.5
24
@
RICE
W 87-81
−2.5
28
vs
UNT
W 82-66
+7.5
1
vs
WICH
W 93-83
+4.5
4
@
FAU
W 78-76
−1.5
8
@
USF
L 74-80
−1.5
11
vs
UAB
L 63-68
−15.5
14
@
WICH
L 77-81
−2.5
18
vs
CLT
W 79-74
−7.5
22
vs
UTSA
W 100-74
+4.5
25
@
TULN
W 90-56
+28.5
5
@
ECU
W 93-66
+18.5
8
vs
TEM
W 78-76
−9.5
13
vs
UNT
W 90-84
−1.5
14
vs
WICH
L 68-81
−14.5
17
vs
SFA
W 89-84
−0.5
22
vs
UNLV
W 77-66
+6.5
24
vs
WICH
W 83-79
−0.5
2
vs
UNM
W 74-69
+7.5
5
vs
AUB
L 86-92
−0.5
covered 19didn’t cover 17avg +4.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
URI
W 82-65
−6.5
12
@
ORU
W 88-87
+14.5
17
@
KSU
L 83-84
+6.5
21
vs
APSU
W 84-75
+10.5
25
vs
SJSU
W 81-51
−17.5
26
vs
UNI
W 63-60
−14.5
6
vs
MOST
W 98-74
+29.5
10
vs
UAPB
W 117-84
+45.5
13
vs
NMSU
W 83-70
+6.5
19
@
WKU
W 82-81
+4.5
22
vs
DEN
W 90-85
+14.5
31
vs
RICE
W 97-48
−7.5
4
@
UNT
L 67-72
+0.5
10
vs
USF
L 78-93
+7.5
14
@
CLT
W 86-74
+13.5
18
@
UAB
W 99-77
+16.5
21
vs
MEM
W 83-66
−4.5
24
@
RICE
W 87-81
+15.5
28
vs
UNT
W 82-66
+6.5
1
vs
WICH
W 93-83
+21.5
4
@
FAU
W 78-76
−8.5
8
@
USF
L 74-80
−16.5
11
vs
UAB
L 63-68
−30.5
14
@
WICH
L 77-81
+5.5
18
vs
CLT
W 79-74
+1.5
22
vs
UTSA
W 100-74
+14.5
25
@
TULN
W 90-56
−10.5
5
@
ECU
W 93-66
+2.5
8
vs
TEM
W 78-76
+4.5
13
vs
UNT
W 90-84
+32.5
14
vs
WICH
L 68-81
−3.5
17
vs
SFA
W 89-84
+23.5
22
vs
UNLV
W 77-66
−18.5
24
vs
WICH
W 83-79
+7.5
2
vs
UNM
W 74-69
−18.5
5
vs
AUB
L 86-92
+19.5
over 24under 12avg +4.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Tulsa has the better starters
Position by position: Florida A&M 1, Tulsa 2, even 2
Florida A&MBetterTulsa
G J. Kempson TR10.7 pts · 4.4 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 33
=Even
G K. Williams TR14.2 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 46
G J. Sanders12 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 42
→TLSASmall
G J. Johnson TR15 pts · 3.5 reb · 2 ast
Score 69
G A. Baker9.6 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 35
→TLSASmall
G B. Moss TR9.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 54
G R. Martino6.5 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 44
←FAMUSmall
F M. Emory TR11.3 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 27
F D. Williford TR2.2 pts · 0.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F C. Loofe TR7.1 pts · 6.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 26
Florida A&MBetterTulsa
FAMU offense326th of 366 · -10.6
→TLSABig
TLSA defense133rd of 366 · -2.5
FAMU defense303rd of 366 · -7.8
→TLSABig
TLSA offense99th of 366 · -0.8
Backcourt-5.5 · 4 players
→TLSABig
Backcourt-0.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player
←FAMUBig
Frontcourt-3.8 · 2 players
Bench-0.2 · 2 players
→TLSASmall
Bench+1.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestFAMU betterTLSA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Kempson32 min · TRJ. Sanders32 minA. Baker27 minR. Martino22 minC. DavisNewA. WilliamsNew
Forwards
D. Williford6 min · TRT. Onuoha5 minM. StijovicNewJ. LomickaNewB. NdourNew
Centers
A. Mbaye1 min · TRJ. MokwezaNew
Guards
K. Williams36 min · TRJ. Johnson33 min · TRB. Moss27 min · TRM. Williams21 min · TRM. Rigsby19 minJ. Lawal13 min
Forwards
M. Emory37 min · TRC. Loofe26 min · TRK. Banks16 min · TRD. DesireNewA. DimitrijevicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.0 #285 | Points per game | 83.9 #20 |
| 0.99 #334 | Points per possession | 1.20 #16 |
| 70.6 #92 | Pace (possessions) | 70.1 #115 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.2 #283 | Effective FG% | 55.4 #29 |
| 32.6 #249 | 3-point % | 38.5 #10 |
| 37.7 #219 | 3-point attempt rate | 46.7 #37 |
| 37.4 #116 | Free throw rate | 41.4 #39 |
| Possessions | ||
| 21.5 #359 | Turnover rate | 15.6 #109 |
| 30.9 #168 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.8 #95 |
| 12.7 #236 | Assists per game | 15.1 #79 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.1 #192 | Points allowed | 74.4 #172 |
| 1.06 #114 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #111 |
| 51.2 #171 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.5 #82 |
| 34.9 #243 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.4 #85 |
| 19.1 #43 | Turnovers forced | 15.4 #260 |
| 69.1 #198 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.0 #108 |
| 8.1 #35 | Steals per game | 6.6 #170 |
| 3.0 #220 | Blocks per game | 2.5 #306 |
Florida A&M
13-16 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Southern70–73
- Wvs Jackson St70–60
- Wvs Bethune81–77
- W@ Grambling66–59
- W@ Southern82–71
A week or more of rest.
Tulsa
28-8 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Auburn86–92
- Wvs New Mexico74–69
- Wvs Wichita St83–79
- Wvs UNLV77–66
- Wvs SF Austin89–84
A week or more of rest.