Galen Center · at USC
LineNo line yet
Total—
| 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 87–63 · win probability USC 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.3
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: USC has more of the edges
UL 1, USC 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: UL 28.7, USC 44.2. Allowed: UL 45.8, USC 33.4
UL offense vs USC defense
Offense 292nd of 366 against a defense 55th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UL has played the 226th-hardest schedule, USC the 42nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: UL plays 64.1 a game (359th fastest), USC 72.4 (25th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: UL 47.1 and allows 52.6; USC 50.4 and allows 49.7
USC offense vs UL defense
Offense 27th of 366 against a defense 157th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UL 16.8%, USC 17.4%. Forced: UL 18.3%, USC 16.4%
Three-pointers
UL hits 33.6% and allows 35.6%; USC hits 31.7% and allows 30.9%. Threes are 40.5% and 34.1% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UL 28.4%, USC 32.4%. Defensive: UL 67.7%, USC 67.8%
Home court
USC at home. This season: USC 0-0 at home, UL 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UL 59%, USC 64%. Transfers in: UL 3, USC 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 | — | USC -24.4 | — |
| Total | — | 149.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | UL 62.5 · USC 86.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | USC -14.4 | — |
| 1H total | 69.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | UL 27.7 · USC 42.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | |
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Louisiana
33 games played
Straight up
11-22
33% wins
Against the spread
15-18
45% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-18
45% overs · avg −0.2 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 3 | @ | L 64-75 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 58-52 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | U 110 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 62-66 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 62-88 | +15.5 | L −10.5 | 134.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 66-93 | +20.5 | L −6.5 | 139.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 43-80 | +19.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 56-77 | +9.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 45-51 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | U 96 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 55-65 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 129.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 63-70 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 130.5 | O 133 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 44-65 | +9.5 | L −11.5 | 126.5 | U 109 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 54-62 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 132.5 | U 116 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 76-62 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 136.5 | O 138 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 63-54 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 126.5 | U 117 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 58-63 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 127.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 67-74 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 129.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 85-79 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 139.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 70-90 | +9.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 54-59 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 133.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 59-56 | +9.5 | W +12.5 | 129.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 58-72 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 124.5 | O 130 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 82-72 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 129.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 69-60 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 64-61 | +9.5 | W +12.5 | 132.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 85-80 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 134.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 65-69 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 132.5 | O 134 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 72-83 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 62-79 | +8.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 67-54 | +3.5 | W +16.5 | 134.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 59-78 | +11.5 | L −7.5 | 134.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 58-81 | +13.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 84-75 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 134.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 72-87 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 134.5 | O 159 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
BALL
L 64-75
−6.5
7
vs
SELA
W 58-52
+2.5
11
vs
TULN
L 62-66
+1.5
14
@
MCN
L 62-88
−10.5
18
@
STAN
L 66-93
−6.5
21
@
SCU
L 43-80
−17.5
24
@
UCD
L 56-77
−11.5
28
vs
JKST
L 45-51
−11.5
3
@
LAM
L 55-65
+0.5
6
vs
UNCW
L 63-70
+5.5
13
@
LT
L 44-65
−11.5
18
@
USM
L 54-62
+3.5
20
@
ULM
W 76-62
+12.5
28
vs
NORF
W 63-54
+5.5
31
vs
USA
L 58-63
−1.5
3
vs
USM
L 67-74
−3.5
8
vs
ULM
W 85-79
−1.5
10
vs
TROY
L 70-90
−10.5
14
@
TXST
L 54-59
+3.5
17
@
USA
W 59-56
+12.5
22
@
APP
L 58-72
−4.5
29
vs
GAST
W 82-72
+11.5
31
vs
GASO
W 69-60
+11.5
4
@
JMU
W 64-61
+12.5
7
vs
CMU
W 85-80
+2.5
12
vs
CCU
L 65-69
−2.5
16
@
ODU
L 72-83
−4.5
19
vs
ARST
L 62-79
−8.5
21
vs
TXST
W 67-54
+16.5
24
@
TROY
L 59-78
−7.5
27
@
ARST
L 58-81
−9.5
3
vs
GAST
W 84-75
+10.5
4
vs
JMU
L 72-87
−8.5
covered 15didn’t cover 18avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
BALL
L 64-75
−2.5
7
vs
SELA
W 58-52
−25.5
11
vs
TULN
L 62-66
−7.5
14
@
MCN
L 62-88
+15.5
18
@
STAN
L 66-93
+19.5
21
@
SCU
L 43-80
−17.5
24
@
UCD
L 56-77
−3.5
28
vs
JKST
L 45-51
−40.5
3
@
LAM
L 55-65
−9.5
6
vs
UNCW
L 63-70
+2.5
13
@
LT
L 44-65
−17.5
18
@
USM
L 54-62
−16.5
20
@
ULM
W 76-62
+1.5
28
vs
NORF
W 63-54
−9.5
31
vs
USA
L 58-63
−6.5
3
vs
USM
L 67-74
+11.5
8
vs
ULM
W 85-79
+24.5
10
vs
TROY
L 70-90
+23.5
14
@
TXST
L 54-59
−20.5
17
@
USA
W 59-56
−14.5
22
@
APP
L 58-72
+5.5
29
vs
GAST
W 82-72
+24.5
31
vs
GASO
W 69-60
−15.5
4
@
JMU
W 64-61
−7.5
7
vs
CMU
W 85-80
+30.5
12
vs
CCU
L 65-69
+1.5
16
@
ODU
L 72-83
+19.5
19
vs
ARST
L 62-79
−3.5
21
vs
TXST
W 67-54
−13.5
24
@
TROY
L 59-78
+2.5
27
@
ARST
L 58-81
−7.5
3
vs
GAST
W 84-75
+24.5
4
vs
JMU
L 72-87
+24.5
over 15under 18avg −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
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 | W 94-64 | -24.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 114-83 | -28.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 87-67 | -15.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 107-106 | -18.5 | L −17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 70-67 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 83-81 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 88-75 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 161.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 82-77 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 76-84 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 154.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 9 | @ | W 94-81 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 68-61 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 97-70 | -25.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 66-96 | +22.5 | L −7.5 | 173.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 51-80 | +11.5 | L −17.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 70-69 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 88-71 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 64-69 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 68-74 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 25 | @ | W 73-71 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 158.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 72-73 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 78-75 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 81-75 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 77-75 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 82-89 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 65-101 | +8.5 | L −27.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 70-71 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 62-81 | +6.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 67-82 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 72-91 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 68-89 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CP
W 94-64
+5.5
9
vs
MAN
W 114-83
+2.5
14
vs
ILST
W 87-67
+4.5
20
vs
TROY
W 107-106
−17.5
24
vs
BOIS
W 70-67
−0.5
25
vs
HALL
W 83-81
−4.5
26
vs
ASU
W 88-75
+8.5
2
@
ORE
W 82-77
+2.5
6
vs
WASH
L 76-84
−12.5
9
@
USD
W 94-81
−1.5
14
vs
WSU
W 68-61
−5.5
17
vs
UTSA
W 97-70
+1.5
2
@
MICH
L 66-96
−7.5
5
@
MSU
L 51-80
−17.5
9
@
MINN
W 70-69
+4.5
13
vs
MD
W 88-71
+7.5
17
vs
PUR
L 64-69
+4.5
21
vs
NU
L 68-74
−12.5
25
@
WIS
W 73-71
+9.5
28
@
IOWA
L 72-73
+8.5
31
vs
RUTG
W 78-75
−8.5
3
vs
IU
W 81-75
+7.5
8
@
PSU
W 77-75
−1.5
11
@
OSU
L 82-89
+0.5
18
vs
ILL
L 65-101
−27.5
21
vs
ORE
L 70-71
−6.5
24
@
UCLA
L 62-81
−12.5
28
vs
NEB
L 67-82
−9.5
4
@
WASH
L 72-91
−13.5
7
vs
UCLA
L 68-89
−16.5
11
vs
WASH
L 79-83
−0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CP
W 94-64
−5.5
9
vs
MAN
W 114-83
+41.5
14
vs
ILST
W 87-67
−1.5
20
vs
TROY
W 107-106
+53.5
24
vs
BOIS
W 70-67
−18.5
25
vs
HALL
W 83-81
+18.5
26
vs
ASU
W 88-75
+1.5
2
@
ORE
W 82-77
+4.5
6
vs
WASH
L 76-84
+5.5
9
@
USD
W 94-81
+16.5
14
vs
WSU
W 68-61
−27.5
17
vs
UTSA
W 97-70
+9.5
2
@
MICH
L 66-96
−11.5
5
@
MSU
L 51-80
−20.5
9
@
MINN
W 70-69
−8.5
13
vs
MD
W 88-71
+8.5
17
vs
PUR
L 64-69
−22.5
21
vs
NU
L 68-74
−7.5
25
@
WIS
W 73-71
−14.5
28
@
IOWA
L 72-73
+3.5
31
vs
RUTG
W 78-75
+6.5
3
vs
IU
W 81-75
+2.5
8
@
PSU
W 77-75
−5.5
11
@
OSU
L 82-89
+18.5
18
vs
ILL
L 65-101
+14.5
21
vs
ORE
L 70-71
−8.5
24
@
UCLA
L 62-81
−7.5
28
vs
NEB
L 67-82
−0.5
4
@
WASH
L 72-91
+12.5
7
vs
UCLA
L 68-89
+5.5
11
vs
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: Louisiana 0, USC 4, even 1
LouisianaBetterUSC
G D. Lavergne9.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 40
→USCBig
G J. Cox TR18.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 5.2 ast
Score 96
G M. Cooper5.9 pts · 2.7 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 1
→USCBig
G J. Jones15.5 pts · 8.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
G T. Middleton TR12.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 3 ast
Score 49
→USCBig
G R. Rice20.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 6 ast
Score 97
G J. Keller17 pts · 2 reb · 3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G I. Bruns TR20.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 88
F J. Harris TR9.3 pts · 6.3 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 34
→USCBig
F J. Cofie9.8 pts · 6.8 reb · 2 ast
Score 77
LouisianaBetterUSC
UL offense292nd of 366 · -9.0
→USCBig
USC defense55th of 366 · +1.4
UL defense157th of 366 · -3.4
→USCBig
USC offense27th of 366 · +7.0
Backcourt-6.4 · 4 players
→USCBig
Backcourt+15.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 1 player
→USCSmall
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
Bench-0.5 · 4 players
→USCBig
Bench+2.9 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUL betterUSC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Lavergne30 minM. Cooper30 minT. Middleton30 min · TRJ. Keller30 minL. Myers2 minD. WareNew
Forwards
J. Harris27 min · TRD. Pounds18 min · TRT. Jones17 minJ. Evans11 minR. OlajuwonNewT. DuncanNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 63.7 #354 | Points per game | 77.8 #97 |
| 0.99 #333 | Points per possession | 1.07 #199 |
| 64.1 #359 | Pace (possessions) | 72.4 #25 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.1 #334 | Effective FG% | 50.4 #225 |
| 33.6 #189 | 3-point % | 31.7 #299 |
| 40.5 #160 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.1 #292 |
| 28.7 #334 | Free throw rate | 44.2 #8 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #185 | Turnover rate | 17.4 #228 |
| 28.4 #251 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.4 #113 |
| 10.3 #354 | Assists per game | 14.9 #92 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.7 #69 | Points allowed | 78.4 #277 |
| 1.10 #227 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #173 |
| 52.6 #247 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.7 #89 |
| 35.6 #286 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.9 #31 |
| 18.3 #85 | Turnovers forced | 16.4 #198 |
| 67.7 #272 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.8 #269 |
| 5.8 #257 | Steals per game | 6.2 #217 |
| 3.5 #141 | Blocks per game | 5.5 #8 |
Louisiana
11-22 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs James Madison72–87
- Wvs Georgia St84–75
- L@ Arkansas St58–81
- L@ Troy59–78
- Wvs Texas St67–54
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.