Templeton Center · at Presbyterian
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PRES | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PRES 75–72 · win probability PRES 60%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.5
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: SAM has more of the edges
SAM 3, PRES 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SAM 13.4%, PRES 19.4%. Forced: SAM 13.0%, PRES 15.7%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SAM 41%, PRES 86%. Transfers in: SAM 5, PRES 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Free throws
Free throw rate: SAM 41.9, PRES 39.4. Allowed: SAM 32.9, PRES 37.1
Three-pointers
SAM hits 35.6% and allows 36.5%; PRES hits 31.6% and allows 34.7%. Threes are 45.7% and 28.0% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: SAM plays 69.3 a game (163rd fastest), PRES 66.9 (283rd). Faster games mean more points
Home court
PRES at home. This season: PRES 0-0 at home, SAM 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SAM 25.3%, PRES 33.1%. Defensive: SAM 74.3%, PRES 69.3%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: SAM 53.1 and allows 51.9; PRES 51.0 and allows 51.2
Context
Schedule so far
SAM has played the 251st-hardest schedule, PRES the 272nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
SAM offense vs PRES defense
Offense 147th of 366 against a defense 160th, on the model’s ratings
Even
PRES offense vs SAM defense
Offense 222nd of 366 against a defense 224th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | PRES -3.0 | — |
| Total | — | 146.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | SAM 71.7 · PRES 74.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PRES -1.7 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | SAM 33.4 · PRES 35.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% | |
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Samford
30 games played
Straight up
16-14
53% wins
Against the spread
18-12
60% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-11
63% overs · avg +2.5 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 72-85 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 82-72 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 12 | @ | W 93-90 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 153.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 75-79 | +24.5 | W +20.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 84-77 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 62-77 | -5.5 | L −20.5 | 154.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 72-81 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 78-63 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 45-89 | +7.5 | L −36.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 57-83 | +19.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 93-90 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 166.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 78-58 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 82-89 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 82-77 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 79-88 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 73-77 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 75-76 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 78-88 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-64 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 73-78 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 88-74 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-64 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 69-49 | +1.5 | W +21.5 | 160.5 | U 118 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 97-80 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 82-72 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 78-75 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 86-89 | +3.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 80-61 | -17.5 | W +1.5 | 155.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 87-78 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 81-86 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
TULN
L 72-85
−5.5
7
vs
SCST
W 82-72
−4.5
12
@
TXSO
W 93-90
+0.5
14
@
ARK
L 75-79
+20.5
16
@
CARK
W 84-77
+0.5
19
vs
FGCU
L 62-77
−20.5
21
@
NMSU
L 72-81
−0.5
25
vs
GAST
W 78-63
+9.5
26
vs
UVU
L 45-89
−36.5
5
@
VCU
L 57-83
−6.5
7
vs
COR
W 93-90
+0.5
1
@
VMI
W 78-58
+13.5
3
@
UNCG
L 82-89
−9.5
7
vs
WCU
W 82-77
+0.5
10
@
UTC
L 79-88
−7.5
14
vs
FUR
L 73-77
−2.5
17
vs
ETSU
L 75-76
+2.5
21
@
WOF
L 78-88
−6.5
24
vs
UTC
W 75-64
+6.5
29
@
FUR
L 73-78
+0.5
1
@
WCU
W 88-74
+12.5
5
vs
CIT
W 78-64
+0.5
7
vs
MER
W 69-49
+21.5
11
vs
WOF
W 97-80
+10.5
14
@
ETSU
W 82-72
+17.5
19
@
CIT
W 78-75
−7.5
21
@
MER
L 86-89
+0.5
26
vs
VMI
W 80-61
+1.5
28
vs
UNCG
W 87-78
+0.5
7
vs
FUR
L 81-86
−6.5
covered 18didn’t cover 12avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
TULN
L 72-85
+2.5
7
vs
SCST
W 82-72
−0.5
12
@
TXSO
W 93-90
+29.5
14
@
ARK
L 75-79
−4.5
16
@
CARK
W 84-77
+9.5
19
vs
FGCU
L 62-77
−15.5
21
@
NMSU
L 72-81
+7.5
25
vs
GAST
W 78-63
−5.5
26
vs
UVU
L 45-89
−14.5
5
@
VCU
L 57-83
−14.5
7
vs
COR
W 93-90
+16.5
1
@
VMI
W 78-58
−18.5
3
@
UNCG
L 82-89
+19.5
7
vs
WCU
W 82-77
+5.5
10
@
UTC
L 79-88
+18.5
14
vs
FUR
L 73-77
+0.5
17
vs
ETSU
L 75-76
+2.5
21
@
WOF
L 78-88
+11.5
24
vs
UTC
W 75-64
−13.5
29
@
FUR
L 73-78
+1.5
1
@
WCU
W 88-74
+7.5
5
vs
CIT
W 78-64
−4.5
7
vs
MER
W 69-49
−42.5
11
vs
WOF
W 97-80
+26.5
14
@
ETSU
W 82-72
+8.5
19
@
CIT
W 78-75
+9.5
21
@
MER
L 86-89
+18.5
26
vs
VMI
W 80-61
−14.5
28
vs
UNCG
W 87-78
+8.5
7
vs
FUR
L 81-86
+19.5
over 19under 11avg +2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Presbyterian
30 games played
Straight up
12-18
40% wins
Against the spread
17-13
57% covers · avg +0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +1.3 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 | vs | L 55-76 | +3.5 | L −17.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 68-64 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 10 | @ | W 63-61 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 61-81 | +16.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 62-64 | +6.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 57-67 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 124.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 46-86 | +25.5 | L −14.5 | 131.5 | O 132 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 69-41 | -8.5 | W +19.5 | 133.5 | U 110 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 56-63 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 80-72 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 53-74 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 131.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 81-87 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 138.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 86-77 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 137.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 61-80 | +6.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 70-77 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 139.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 71-70 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 92-55 | -8.5 | W +28.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 87-83 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 72-82 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 81-84 | +14.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 84-93 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 68-62 | -17.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 67-84 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 58-57 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | U 115 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 72-65 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 74-76 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 73-79 | +12.5 | W +6.5 | 151.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 70-74 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 91-85 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 71-73 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NAVY
L 55-76
−17.5
8
vs
ETSU
W 68-64
+10.5
10
@
GAST
W 63-61
+5.5
12
@
SC
L 61-81
−3.5
16
@
SAC
L 62-64
+4.5
18
@
CAL
L 57-67
+0.5
21
@
UCLA
L 46-86
−14.5
30
vs
CIT
W 69-41
+19.5
3
@
WOF
L 56-63
−2.5
6
vs
MORE
W 80-72
+0.5
17
@
ECU
L 53-74
−16.5
21
@
MAN
L 81-87
−8.5
3
vs
UPST
W 86-77
+7.5
7
@
RAD
L 61-80
−12.5
10
@
LONG
L 70-77
−3.5
14
vs
UNCA
W 71-70
+3.5
17
@
GWEB
W 92-55
+28.5
21
vs
CHSO
W 87-83
+5.5
24
vs
WIN
L 72-82
−4.5
29
@
HPU
L 81-84
+11.5
31
vs
RAD
L 84-93
−10.5
7
vs
GWEB
W 68-62
−11.5
12
@
CHSO
L 67-84
−15.5
14
@
UNCA
W 58-57
+6.5
19
vs
LONG
W 72-65
+4.5
21
@
UPST
L 74-76
−3.5
26
vs
HPU
L 73-79
+6.5
28
@
WIN
L 70-74
+3.5
6
vs
RAD
W 91-85
+8.5
7
vs
WIN
L 71-73
+5.5
covered 17didn’t cover 13avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NAVY
L 55-76
−10.5
8
vs
ETSU
W 68-64
−9.5
10
@
GAST
W 63-61
−17.5
12
@
SC
L 61-81
+4.5
16
@
SAC
L 62-64
−24.5
18
@
CAL
L 57-67
−0.5
21
@
UCLA
L 46-86
+0.5
30
vs
CIT
W 69-41
−23.5
3
@
WOF
L 56-63
−19.5
6
vs
MORE
W 80-72
+17.5
17
@
ECU
L 53-74
−4.5
21
@
MAN
L 81-87
+29.5
3
vs
UPST
W 86-77
+25.5
7
@
RAD
L 61-80
−6.5
10
@
LONG
L 70-77
+7.5
14
vs
UNCA
W 71-70
+2.5
17
@
GWEB
W 92-55
+1.5
21
vs
CHSO
W 87-83
+22.5
24
vs
WIN
L 72-82
+7.5
29
@
HPU
L 81-84
+15.5
31
vs
RAD
L 84-93
+25.5
7
vs
GWEB
W 68-62
−15.5
12
@
CHSO
L 67-84
+4.5
14
@
UNCA
W 58-57
−22.5
19
vs
LONG
W 72-65
−2.5
21
@
UPST
L 74-76
+8.5
26
vs
HPU
L 73-79
+0.5
28
@
WIN
L 70-74
−6.5
6
vs
RAD
W 91-85
+29.5
7
vs
WIN
L 71-73
−1.5
over 16under 14avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Presbyterian has the better starters
Position by position: Samford 0, Presbyterian 3, even 2
SamfordBetterPresbyterian
G N. George TR11.4 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 25
→PRESSmall
G C. Parrish14.7 pts · 2.9 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 56
G C. Norris8.9 pts · 4.4 reb · 2 ast
Score 34
→PRESSmall
G T. Wilson11.6 pts · 3.3 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 52
G C. Noard TR19 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 94
=No call
G E. Taylor5.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 3.6 ast
Not ranked
G I. Campbell-Finch7.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
=Even
G I. King3.7 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 2
G T. Davis TR1.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 22
→PRESBig
F J. Peterson11 pts · 7.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 71
SamfordBetterPresbyterian
SAM offense147th of 366 · -4.5
=Even
PRES defense160th of 366 · -3.5
SAM defense224th of 366 · -5.9
=Even
PRES offense222nd of 366 · -6.8
Backcourt-4.7 · 5 players
=Even
Backcourt-4.4 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+1.1 · 1 player
Bench-3.6 · 5 players
→PRESSmall
Bench-1.6 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSAM betterPRES betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. George35 min · TRC. Norris31 minC. Noard29 min · TRI. Campbell-Finch24 minT. Davis11 min · TRW. Miller9 min · TR
Forwards
J. Bjornstad8 minB. MacVicar7 min · TRC. Harrison3 minJ. HughesNewB. KempNew
Centers
W. Shaver9 minL. LeeNew
Guards
C. Parrish35 minT. Wilson32 minE. Taylor21 minI. King19 minK. Hudson11 minJ. Bowden8 min
Forwards
J. Peterson30 minC. Chiakwelu11 minA. AyelyineNewL. HackworthNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.8 #98 | Points per game | 70.0 #286 |
| 1.12 #99 | Points per possession | 1.05 #249 |
| 69.3 #163 | Pace (possessions) | 66.9 #283 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.1 #101 | Effective FG% | 51.0 #196 |
| 35.6 #84 | 3-point % | 31.6 #302 |
| 45.7 #54 | 3-point attempt rate | 28.0 #360 |
| 41.9 #32 | Free throw rate | 39.4 #71 |
| Possessions | ||
| 13.4 #11 | Turnover rate | 19.4 #335 |
| 25.3 #333 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.1 #86 |
| 14.3 #128 | Assists per game | 12.4 #260 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.0 #240 | Points allowed | 73.1 #133 |
| 1.11 #251 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #192 |
| 51.9 #206 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.2 #170 |
| 36.5 #326 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.7 #235 |
| 13.0 #354 | Turnovers forced | 15.7 #237 |
| 74.3 #17 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.3 #188 |
| 4.4 #358 | Steals per game | 5.5 #303 |
| 2.7 #277 | Blocks per game | 4.5 #35 |
Samford
16-14 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Furman81–86
- Wvs UNC Greensboro87–78
- Wvs VMI80–61
- L@ Mercer86–89
- W@ The Citadel78–75
A week or more of rest.
Presbyterian
12-18 in 2025-26 overall · 8-10 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Winthrop71–73
- Wvs Radford91–85
- L@ Winthrop70–74
- Lvs High Point73–79
- L@ SC Upstate74–76
A week or more of rest.