Arkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions at USC Trojans: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 15, 7:00 PM ETGalen Center · at USC

#36USCUSC AP #21

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: AR-Pine Bluff and USC
UAPB	This season	USC
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 USC 97–62 · win probability USC 100%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 158.6

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: USC has more of the edges

UAPB 0, USC 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

USCBig

USC offense vs UAPB defense

Offense 27th of 366 against a defense 365th, on the model’s ratings

USCBig

UAPB offense vs USC defense

Offense 337th of 366 against a defense 55th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

UAPB has played the 300th-hardest schedule, USC the 42nd. A record against a soft schedule means less

USCBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: UAPB 38.4, USC 44.2. Allowed: UAPB 43.6, USC 33.4

USCSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: UAPB 27.9%, USC 32.4%. Defensive: UAPB 65.8%, USC 67.8%

USCSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: UAPB 8%, USC 64%. Transfers in: UAPB 3, USC 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

USCSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: UAPB 50.0 and allows 52.6; USC 50.4 and allows 49.7

USCSmall

Home court

USC at home. This season: USC 0-0 at home, UAPB 0-0 away

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: UAPB 18.7%, USC 17.4%. Forced: UAPB 16.4%, USC 16.4%

Context

Tempo

About 72 possessions: UAPB plays 71.5 a game (53rd fastest), USC 72.4 (25th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Three-pointers

UAPB hits 33.6% and allows 33.2%; USC hits 31.7% and allows 30.9%. Threes are 37.1% and 34.1% of their shots

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	USC -35.3	—
Total	—	158.6	—
Projected score	—	UAPB 61.7 · USC 96.9

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	USC -20.8	—
1H total	74.1	—
1H projected score	UAPB 26.6 · USC 47.5	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
UAPB LLLWW	13-17	43%	9-11	—
USC LLLLL	13-18	42%	6-9	—

Venue/role: UAPB away; USC home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
UAPB OUOUO	14-16	47%	11-19
USC UUOOO	17-14	55%	17-14

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
UAPB	4-6 40%	3-7 30%	5-5 50%
USC	2-8 20%	2-8 20%	6-4 60%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

AR-Pine Bluff

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 18	@ ARST	L73–84PO
Nov 25	@ SDAK	No recent meeting
Nov 27	@ MIZ	L63–112LO

USC

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 19	vs TAR	No recent meeting
Nov 22	vs UL	No recent meeting
Nov 25	vs SC	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

AR-Pine Bluff

30 games played

Straight up

11-19

37% wins

Against the spread

13-17

43% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line

Over / Under

14-16

47% overs · avg −0.2 pts vs the total

Straight up

11-1937%

L L L L L L L L W L L W W W L L L W W W W W L L L W L L W L

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-1743%

L W L W W L L L W W L W W W L L L W L W L W L L L L L L W W

2 straight covers2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

14-1647%

U U O U O U O O U U O O O U U U O U O U O U U O U O U O U O

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@WASH	L 50-94	+34.5	L −9.5	160.5	U 144
Nov 6	@PORT	L 74-83	+12.5	W +3.5	164.5	U 157
Nov 8	@LMU	L 72-94	+19.5	L −2.5	157.5	O 166
Nov 11	@OU	L 69-95	+36.5	W +10.5	168.5	U 164
Nov 15	@VAN	L 75-104	+41.5	W +12.5	172.5	O 179
Nov 18	@SMU	L 60-106	+35.5	L −10.5	168.5	U 166
Nov 20	@MRSH	L 70-98	+20.5	L −7.5	164.5	O 168
Nov 23	@M-OH	L 84-111	+21.5	L −5.5	160.5	O 195
Dec 3	@UIC	W 63-62	+16.5	W +17.5	163.5	U 125
Dec 6	@DEP	L 72-76	+23.5	W +19.5	156.5	U 148
Dec 10	@TLSA	L 84-117	+25.5	L −7.5	155.5	O 201
Jan 3	vsAAMU	W 95-83	+1.5	W +13.5	149.5	O 178
Jan 5	vsALST	W 90-79	+1.5	W +12.5	159.5	O 169
Jan 10	@TXSO	W 74-66	+1.5	W +9.5	162.5	U 140
Jan 12	@PV	L 61-73	+3.5	L −8.5	164.5	U 134
Jan 17	vsFAMU	L 67-71	-2.5	L −6.5	149.5	U 138
Jan 19	vsBCU	L 82-87	+2.5	L −2.5	155.5	O 169
Jan 24	@SOU	W 75-74	+9.5	W +10.5	154.5	U 149
Jan 31	@MVSU	W 78-70	-10.5	L −2.5	143.5	O 148
Feb 4	@GRAM	W 67-64	+6.5	W +9.5	145.5	U 131
Feb 7	vsALCN	W 84-77	-7.5	L −0.5	145.5	O 161
Feb 9	vsJKST	W 84-63	-7.5	W +13.5	155.5	U 147
Feb 14	@ALST	L 61-79	+3.5	L −14.5	149.5	U 140
Feb 16	@AAMU	L 70-82	+3.5	L −8.5	144.5	O 152
Feb 19	vsTXSO	L 64-83	-1.5	L −20.5	152.5	U 147
Feb 21	vsPV	W 84-82	-3.5	L −1.5	159.5	O 166
Feb 28	vsMVSU	L 69-70	-14.5	L −15.5	147.5	U 139
Mar 3	@JKST	L 78-81	-1.5	L −4.5	153.5	O 159
Mar 5	@ALCN	W 83-48	-1.5	W +33.5	145.5	U 131
Mar 12	vsSOU	L 81-84	+4.5	W +1.5	151.5	O 165

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

WASH

L 50-94

−9.5

PORT

L 74-83

+3.5

LMU

L 72-94

−2.5

L 69-95

+10.5

VAN

L 75-104

+12.5

SMU

L 60-106

−10.5

MRSH

L 70-98

−7.5

M-OH

L 84-111

−5.5

UIC

W 63-62

+17.5

DEP

L 72-76

+19.5

TLSA

L 84-117

−7.5

AAMU

W 95-83

+13.5

ALST

W 90-79

+12.5

TXSO

W 74-66

+9.5

L 61-73

−8.5

FAMU

L 67-71

−6.5

BCU

L 82-87

−2.5

SOU

W 75-74

+10.5

MVSU

W 78-70

−2.5

GRAM

W 67-64

+9.5

ALCN

W 84-77

−0.5

JKST

W 84-63

+13.5

ALST

L 61-79

−14.5

AAMU

L 70-82

−8.5

TXSO

L 64-83

−20.5

W 84-82

−1.5

MVSU

L 69-70

−15.5

JKST

L 78-81

−4.5

ALCN

W 83-48

+33.5

SOU

L 81-84

+1.5

covered 13didn’t cover 17avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

WASH

L 50-94

−16.5

PORT

L 74-83

−7.5

LMU

L 72-94

+8.5

L 69-95

−4.5

VAN

L 75-104

+6.5

SMU

L 60-106

−2.5

MRSH

L 70-98

+3.5

M-OH

L 84-111

+34.5

UIC

W 63-62

−38.5

DEP

L 72-76

−8.5

TLSA

L 84-117

+45.5

AAMU

W 95-83

+28.5

ALST

W 90-79

+9.5

TXSO

W 74-66

−22.5

L 61-73

−30.5

FAMU

L 67-71

−11.5

BCU

L 82-87

+13.5

SOU

W 75-74

−5.5

MVSU

W 78-70

+4.5

GRAM

W 67-64

−14.5

ALCN

W 84-77

+15.5

JKST

W 84-63

−8.5

ALST

L 61-79

−9.5

AAMU

L 70-82

+7.5

TXSO

L 64-83

−5.5

W 84-82

+6.5

MVSU

L 69-70

−8.5

JKST

L 78-81

+5.5

ALCN

W 83-48

−14.5

SOU

L 81-84

+13.5

over 14under 16avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

USC

31 games played

Straight up

17-14

55% wins

Against the spread

13-18

42% covers · avg −3.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-14

55% overs · avg +2.3 pts vs the total

Straight up

17-1455%

W W W W W W W W L W W W L L W W L L W L W W W L L L L L L L L

8 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

13-1842%

W W W L L L W W L L L W L L W W W L W W L W L W L L L L L L L

7 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

17-1455%

U O U O U O O O O O U O U U U O U U U O O O U O O U U U O O O

3 straight overs3 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsCP	W 94-64	-24.5	W +5.5	163.5	U 158
Nov 9	vsMAN	W 114-83	-28.5	W +2.5	155.5	O 197
Nov 14	vsILST	W 87-67	-15.5	W +4.5	155.5	U 154
Nov 20	vsTROY	W 107-106	-18.5	L −17.5	159.5	O 213
Nov 24	vsBOIS	W 70-67	-3.5	L −0.5	155.5	U 137
Nov 25	vsHALL	W 83-81	-6.5	L −4.5	145.5	O 164
Nov 26	vsASU	W 88-75	-4.5	W +8.5	161.5	O 163
Dec 2	@ORE	W 82-77	-2.5	W +2.5	154.5	O 159
Dec 6	vsWASH	L 76-84	-4.5	L −12.5	154.5	O 160
Dec 9	@USD	W 94-81	-14.5	L −1.5	158.5	O 175
Dec 14	vsWSU	W 68-61	-12.5	L −5.5	156.5	U 129
Dec 17	vsUTSA	W 97-70	-25.5	W +1.5	157.5	O 167
Jan 2	@MICH	L 66-96	+22.5	L −7.5	173.5	U 162
Jan 5	@MSU	L 51-80	+11.5	L −17.5	151.5	U 131
Jan 9	@MINN	W 70-69	+3.5	W +4.5	147.5	U 139
Jan 13	vsMD	W 88-71	-9.5	W +7.5	150.5	O 159
Jan 17	vsPUR	L 64-69	+9.5	W +4.5	155.5	U 133
Jan 21	vsNU	L 68-74	-6.5	L −12.5	149.5	U 142
Jan 25	@WIS	W 73-71	+7.5	W +9.5	158.5	U 144
Jan 28	@IOWA	L 72-73	+9.5	W +8.5	141.5	O 145
Jan 31	vsRUTG	W 78-75	-11.5	L −8.5	146.5	O 153
Feb 3	vsIU	W 81-75	+1.5	W +7.5	153.5	O 156
Feb 8	@PSU	W 77-75	-3.5	L −1.5	157.5	U 152
Feb 11	@OSU	L 82-89	+7.5	W +0.5	152.5	O 171
Feb 18	vsILL	L 65-101	+8.5	L −27.5	151.5	O 166
Feb 21	vsORE	L 70-71	-5.5	L −6.5	149.5	U 141
Feb 24	@UCLA	L 62-81	+6.5	L −12.5	150.5	U 143
Feb 28	vsNEB	L 67-82	+5.5	L −9.5	149.5	U 149
Mar 4	@WASH	L 72-91	+5.5	L −13.5	150.5	O 163
Mar 7	vsUCLA	L 68-89	+4.5	L −16.5	151.5	O 157
Mar 11	vsWASH	L 79-83	+3.5	L −0.5	154.5	O 162

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

W 94-64

+5.5

MAN

W 114-83

+2.5

ILST

W 87-67

+4.5

TROY

W 107-106

−17.5

BOIS

W 70-67

−0.5

HALL

W 83-81

−4.5

ASU

W 88-75

+8.5

ORE

W 82-77

+2.5

WASH

L 76-84

−12.5

USD

W 94-81

−1.5

WSU

W 68-61

−5.5

UTSA

W 97-70

+1.5

MICH

L 66-96

−7.5

MSU

L 51-80

−17.5

MINN

W 70-69

+4.5

W 88-71

+7.5

PUR

L 64-69

+4.5

L 68-74

−12.5

WIS

W 73-71

+9.5

IOWA

L 72-73

+8.5

RUTG

W 78-75

−8.5

W 81-75

+7.5

PSU

W 77-75

−1.5

OSU

L 82-89

+0.5

ILL

L 65-101

−27.5

ORE

L 70-71

−6.5

UCLA

L 62-81

−12.5

NEB

L 67-82

−9.5

WASH

L 72-91

−13.5

UCLA

L 68-89

−16.5

WASH

L 79-83

−0.5

covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

W 94-64

−5.5

MAN

W 114-83

+41.5

ILST

W 87-67

−1.5

TROY

W 107-106

+53.5

BOIS

W 70-67

−18.5

HALL

W 83-81

+18.5

ASU

W 88-75

+1.5

ORE

W 82-77

+4.5

WASH

L 76-84

+5.5

USD

W 94-81

+16.5

WSU

W 68-61

−27.5

UTSA

W 97-70

+9.5

MICH

L 66-96

−11.5

MSU

L 51-80

−20.5

MINN

W 70-69

−8.5

W 88-71

+8.5

PUR

L 64-69

−22.5

L 68-74

−7.5

WIS

W 73-71

−14.5

IOWA

L 72-73

+3.5

RUTG

W 78-75

+6.5

W 81-75

+2.5

PSU

W 77-75

−5.5

OSU

L 82-89

+18.5

ILL

L 65-101

+14.5

ORE

L 70-71

−8.5

UCLA

L 62-81

−7.5

NEB

L 67-82

−0.5

WASH

L 72-91

+12.5

UCLA

L 68-89

+5.5

WASH

L 79-83

+7.5

over 17under 14avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

USC has the better starters

Position by position: AR-Pine Bluff 0, USC 1, even 4

AR-Pine BluffBetterUSC

G J. Tatum TR7.7 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.8 ast Score 25

USCBig

G J. Cox TR18.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 5.2 ast Score 96

G J. Hayes4.9 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.3 ast Not ranked

No call

G J. Jones15.5 pts · 8.8 reb · 2.6 ast Score 86

G D. Giddens TR3 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.3 ast Not ranked

No call

G R. Rice20.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 6 ast Score 97

G H. Pickett0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

G I. Bruns TR20.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast Score 88

F C. Smith TR0.6 pts · 1 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

No call

F J. Cofie9.8 pts · 6.8 reb · 2 ast Score 77

AR-Pine BluffBetterUSC

UAPB offense337th of 366 · -11.1

USCBig

USC defense55th of 366 · +1.4

UAPB defense365th of 366 · -12.7

USCBig

USC offense27th of 366 · +7.0

Backcourt-5.1 · 4 players

USCBig

Backcourt+15.2 · 4 players

Frontcourt-0.7 · 1 player

USCSmall

Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player

BenchNo numbers yet

No call

Bench+2.9 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestUAPB betterUSC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

AR-Pine Bluff

Guards

J. Tatum27 min · TRJ. Hayes15 minD. Giddens9 min · TRH. Pickett1 minD. CapriottiNewE. HernandezNew

Forwards

C. Smith7 min · TRC. WilliamsonNewM. WilliamsNewJ. NyakundiNew

USC

Guards

J. Cox35 min · TRJ. Jones35 minR. Rice34 minI. Bruns32 min · TRK. Lewis30 min · TRA. Hunkin-Claytor28 min · TR

Forwards

J. Cofie31 minJ. Hughes28 min · TRA. RatliffNewC. CollinsNew

Centers

E. Reibe14 min · TRD. RatliffNewO. Joe AguNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

UAPB74.0 #195

USC77.8 #97

Points per possession

UAPB1.04 #277

USC1.07 #199

Pace (possessions)

UAPB71.5 #53

USC72.4 #25

Shooting

Effective FG%

UAPB50.0 #233

USC50.4 #225

3-point %

UAPB33.6 #190

USC31.7 #299

3-point attempt rate

UAPB37.1 #227

USC34.1 #292

Free throw rate

UAPB38.4 #91

USC44.2 #8

Possessions

Turnover rate

UAPB18.7 #310

USC17.4 #228

Offensive rebound rate

UAPB27.9 #271

USC32.4 #113

Assists per game

UAPB14.1 #136

USC14.9 #92

Defense

Points allowed

UAPB81.9 #340

USC78.4 #277

Points allowed per possession

UAPB1.14 #309

USC1.08 #173

Opponent effective FG%

UAPB52.6 #249

USC49.7 #89

Opponent 3-point %

UAPB33.2 #136

USC30.9 #31

Turnovers forced

UAPB16.4 #192

USC16.4 #198

Defensive rebound rate

UAPB65.8 #321

USC67.8 #269

Steals per game

UAPB6.8 #142

USC6.2 #217

Blocks per game

UAPB2.9 #244

USC5.5 #8

UAPB		USC
Scoring
74.0 #195	Points per game	77.8 #97
1.04 #277	Points per possession	1.07 #199
71.5 #53	Pace (possessions)	72.4 #25
Shooting
50.0 #233	Effective FG%	50.4 #225
33.6 #190	3-point %	31.7 #299
37.1 #227	3-point attempt rate	34.1 #292
38.4 #91	Free throw rate	44.2 #8
Possessions
18.7 #310	Turnover rate	17.4 #228
27.9 #271	Offensive rebound rate	32.4 #113
14.1 #136	Assists per game	14.9 #92
Defense
81.9 #340	Points allowed	78.4 #277
1.14 #309	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #173
52.6 #249	Opponent effective FG%	49.7 #89
33.2 #136	Opponent 3-point %	30.9 #31
16.4 #192	Turnovers forced	16.4 #198
65.8 #321	Defensive rebound rate	67.8 #269
6.8 #142	Steals per game	6.2 #217
2.9 #244	Blocks per game	5.5 #8

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

AR-Pine Bluff

11-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Southern81–84
W@ Alcorn St83–48
L@ Jackson St78–81
Lvs Miss Valley St69–70
Wvs Prairie View84–82

A week or more of rest.

USC

17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 7-14 in conference · Big Ten Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Washington79–83
Lvs UCLA68–89
L@ Washington72–91
Lvs Nebraska67–82
L@ UCLA62–81

A week or more of rest.

Arkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions at USC Trojans

What could decide it: USC has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

AR-Pine Bluff

USC

USC has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

AR-Pine Bluff

USC