CFSB Center · at Murray St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MUR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MUR 90–68 · win probability MUR 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 157.7
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: MUR has more of the edges
UAPB 1, MUR 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MUR offense vs UAPB defense
Offense 110th of 366 against a defense 365th, on the model’s ratings
UAPB offense vs MUR defense
Offense 337th of 366 against a defense 197th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UAPB 27.9%, MUR 32.6%. Defensive: UAPB 65.8%, MUR 68.7%
Context
Schedule so far
UAPB has played the 300th-hardest schedule, MUR the 165th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: UAPB 38.4, MUR 38.6. Allowed: UAPB 43.6, MUR 32.2
Shooting
Effective FG%: UAPB 50.0 and allows 52.6; MUR 53.8 and allows 52.4
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UAPB 18.7%, MUR 16.4%. Forced: UAPB 16.4%, MUR 15.7%
Three-pointers
UAPB hits 33.6% and allows 33.2%; MUR hits 35.0% and allows 36.2%. Threes are 37.1% and 44.8% of their shots
Home court
MUR at home. This season: MUR 0-0 at home, UAPB 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UAPB 8%, MUR 28%. Transfers in: UAPB 3, MUR 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: UAPB plays 71.5 a game (53rd fastest), MUR 72.3 (30th). 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 | — | MUR -21.6 | — |
| Total | — | 157.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | UAPB 68 · MUR 89.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MUR -12.7 | — |
| 1H total | 73.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | UAPB 30.5 · MUR 43.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% |
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
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 50-94 | +34.5 | L −9.5 | 160.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 74-83 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 72-94 | +19.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 69-95 | +36.5 | W +10.5 | 168.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 75-104 | +41.5 | W +12.5 | 172.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 60-106 | +35.5 | L −10.5 | 168.5 | U 166 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 70-98 | +20.5 | L −7.5 | 164.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 84-111 | +21.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 63-62 | +16.5 | W +17.5 | 163.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 72-76 | +23.5 | W +19.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 84-117 | +25.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 201 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 95-83 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 90-79 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 74-66 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 61-73 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 67-71 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 82-87 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 75-74 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 78-70 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 67-64 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-77 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 84-63 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 155.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 61-79 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 70-82 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 64-83 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 84-82 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 69-70 | -14.5 | L −15.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 78-81 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 83-48 | -1.5 | W +33.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 81-84 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | O 165 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
WASH
L 50-94
−9.5
6
@
PORT
L 74-83
+3.5
8
@
LMU
L 72-94
−2.5
11
@
OU
L 69-95
+10.5
15
@
VAN
L 75-104
+12.5
18
@
SMU
L 60-106
−10.5
20
@
MRSH
L 70-98
−7.5
23
@
M-OH
L 84-111
−5.5
3
@
UIC
W 63-62
+17.5
6
@
DEP
L 72-76
+19.5
10
@
TLSA
L 84-117
−7.5
3
vs
AAMU
W 95-83
+13.5
5
vs
ALST
W 90-79
+12.5
10
@
TXSO
W 74-66
+9.5
12
@
PV
L 61-73
−8.5
17
vs
FAMU
L 67-71
−6.5
19
vs
BCU
L 82-87
−2.5
24
@
SOU
W 75-74
+10.5
31
@
MVSU
W 78-70
−2.5
4
@
GRAM
W 67-64
+9.5
7
vs
ALCN
W 84-77
−0.5
9
vs
JKST
W 84-63
+13.5
14
@
ALST
L 61-79
−14.5
16
@
AAMU
L 70-82
−8.5
19
vs
TXSO
L 64-83
−20.5
21
vs
PV
W 84-82
−1.5
28
vs
MVSU
L 69-70
−15.5
3
@
JKST
L 78-81
−4.5
5
@
ALCN
W 83-48
+33.5
12
vs
SOU
L 81-84
+1.5
covered 13didn’t cover 17avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
WASH
L 50-94
−16.5
6
@
PORT
L 74-83
−7.5
8
@
LMU
L 72-94
+8.5
11
@
OU
L 69-95
−4.5
15
@
VAN
L 75-104
+6.5
18
@
SMU
L 60-106
−2.5
20
@
MRSH
L 70-98
+3.5
23
@
M-OH
L 84-111
+34.5
3
@
UIC
W 63-62
−38.5
6
@
DEP
L 72-76
−8.5
10
@
TLSA
L 84-117
+45.5
3
vs
AAMU
W 95-83
+28.5
5
vs
ALST
W 90-79
+9.5
10
@
TXSO
W 74-66
−22.5
12
@
PV
L 61-73
−30.5
17
vs
FAMU
L 67-71
−11.5
19
vs
BCU
L 82-87
+13.5
24
@
SOU
W 75-74
−5.5
31
@
MVSU
W 78-70
+4.5
4
@
GRAM
W 67-64
−14.5
7
vs
ALCN
W 84-77
+15.5
9
vs
JKST
W 84-63
−8.5
14
@
ALST
L 61-79
−9.5
16
@
AAMU
L 70-82
+7.5
19
vs
TXSO
L 64-83
−5.5
21
vs
PV
W 84-82
+6.5
28
vs
MVSU
L 69-70
−8.5
3
@
JKST
L 78-81
+5.5
5
@
ALCN
W 83-48
−14.5
12
vs
SOU
L 81-84
+13.5
over 14under 16avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Murray St
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-14
58% overs · avg +4.9 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
8 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered
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 85-77 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 108-60 | -38.5 | W +9.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 91-102 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 164.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 99-79 | -14.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 89-68 | -13.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 87-90 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 60-73 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 158.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 96-95 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 167.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 84-52 | -16.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 81-68 | -16.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 115-100 | +4.5 | W +19.5 | 168.5 | O 215 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 81-72 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 85-79 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 84-81 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 165.5 | U 165 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 81-77 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 86-66 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 162.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 79-69 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 92-79 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 85-81 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 167.5 | U 166 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 90-101 | -4.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | O 191 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 76-81 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 65-70 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 86-103 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 163.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 81-74 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 6 | @ | W 91-81 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 60-89 | -4.5 | L −33.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 74-72 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 70-87 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 166.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 61-78 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 158.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 88-75 | -15.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 78-87 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 79-92 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 75-89 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
OMA
W 85-77
+2.5
7
vs
MVSU
W 108-60
+9.5
11
@
SMU
L 91-102
−0.5
15
vs
NICH
W 99-79
+5.5
18
vs
LR
W 89-68
+7.5
23
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
−9.5
24
vs
MCN
L 60-73
−10.5
25
vs
GW
W 96-95
+8.5
2
vs
MORE
W 84-52
+15.5
6
vs
BELL
W 81-68
−3.5
13
vs
AKR
W 115-100
+19.5
18
vs
DRKE
W 81-72
+1.5
21
@
VAL
W 85-79
+0.5
29
vs
SIU
W 84-81
−3.5
1
@
UIC
W 81-77
−1.5
4
vs
BRAD
W 86-66
+14.5
7
@
EVAN
W 79-69
+1.5
10
vs
VAL
W 92-79
+0.5
17
vs
INST
W 85-81
−7.5
21
@
DRKE
L 90-101
−15.5
24
@
UNI
L 76-81
−6.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-70
−8.5
31
@
BEL
L 86-103
−13.5
3
vs
UIC
W 81-74
+0.5
6
@
SIU
W 91-81
+8.5
9
vs
UNI
L 60-89
−33.5
12
@
INST
W 74-72
−1.5
15
vs
BEL
L 70-87
−15.5
18
@
ILST
L 61-78
−14.5
21
vs
EVAN
W 88-75
−2.5
1
@
BRAD
L 78-87
−5.5
6
vs
UIC
L 79-92
−11.5
18
@
NEV
L 75-89
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
OMA
W 85-77
+8.5
7
vs
MVSU
W 108-60
+8.5
11
@
SMU
L 91-102
+28.5
15
vs
NICH
W 99-79
+20.5
18
vs
LR
W 89-68
+3.5
23
vs
MTSU
L 87-90
+15.5
24
vs
MCN
L 60-73
−25.5
25
vs
GW
W 96-95
+23.5
2
vs
MORE
W 84-52
−22.5
6
vs
BELL
W 81-68
−8.5
13
vs
AKR
W 115-100
+46.5
18
vs
DRKE
W 81-72
−3.5
21
@
VAL
W 85-79
+8.5
29
vs
SIU
W 84-81
−0.5
1
@
UIC
W 81-77
−1.5
4
vs
BRAD
W 86-66
−10.5
7
@
EVAN
W 79-69
−5.5
10
vs
VAL
W 92-79
+18.5
17
vs
INST
W 85-81
−1.5
21
@
DRKE
L 90-101
+34.5
24
@
UNI
L 76-81
+11.5
28
vs
ILST
L 65-70
−24.5
31
@
BEL
L 86-103
+25.5
3
vs
UIC
W 81-74
−2.5
6
@
SIU
W 91-81
+14.5
9
vs
UNI
L 60-89
+3.5
12
@
INST
W 74-72
−17.5
15
vs
BEL
L 70-87
−9.5
18
@
ILST
L 61-78
−19.5
21
vs
EVAN
W 88-75
+9.5
1
@
BRAD
L 78-87
+7.5
6
vs
UIC
L 79-92
+20.5
18
@
NEV
L 75-89
+4.5
over 19under 14avg +4.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Murray St has the better starters
Position by position: AR-Pine Bluff 0, Murray St 1, even 4
AR-Pine BluffBetterMurray St
G J. Tatum TR7.7 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 25
→MURBig
G C. Jones TR10 pts · 3 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 61
G J. Hayes4.9 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G R. Domon14.2 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 95
G D. Giddens TR3 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Courbon4.6 pts · 2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 31
G H. Pickett0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F S. Tupuola TR6.3 pts · 5.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 55
F C. Smith TR0.6 pts · 1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F B. Rogers TR6.7 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 67
AR-Pine BluffBetterMurray St
UAPB offense337th of 366 · -11.1
→MURBig
MUR defense197th of 366 · -4.8
UAPB defense365th of 366 · -12.7
→MURBig
MUR offense110th of 366 · -1.8
Backcourt-5.1 · 4 players
→MURBig
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.7 · 1 player
→MURSmall
Frontcourt+0.4 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-1.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestUAPB betterMUR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Tatum27 min · TRJ. Hayes15 minD. Giddens9 min · TRH. Pickett1 minD. CapriottiNewE. HernandezNew
Forwards
C. Smith7 min · TRC. WilliamsonNewM. WilliamsNewJ. NyakundiNew
Guards
C. Jones26 min · TRR. Domon25 minM. Courbon16 minB. Shorter15 minK. Magwood11 min · TRB. ShtolzbergNew
Forwards
S. Tupuola25 min · TRB. Rogers18 min · TRP. NikolicNewJ. BoulefaaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.0 #195 | Points per game | 83.1 #26 |
| 1.04 #277 | Points per possession | 1.15 #56 |
| 71.5 #53 | Pace (possessions) | 72.3 #30 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.0 #233 | Effective FG% | 53.8 #70 |
| 33.6 #190 | 3-point % | 35.0 #120 |
| 37.1 #227 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.8 #72 |
| 38.4 #91 | Free throw rate | 38.6 #86 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.7 #310 | Turnover rate | 16.4 #160 |
| 27.9 #271 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.6 #100 |
| 14.1 #136 | Assists per game | 13.7 #165 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.9 #340 | Points allowed | 80.2 #323 |
| 1.14 #309 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #233 |
| 52.6 #249 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #236 |
| 33.2 #136 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.2 #310 |
| 16.4 #192 | Turnovers forced | 15.7 #234 |
| 65.8 #321 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.7 #214 |
| 6.8 #142 | Steals per game | 5.9 #248 |
| 2.9 #244 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #69 |
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.
Murray St
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Nevada75–89
- Lvs UIC79–92
- L@ Bradley78–87
- Wvs Evansville88–75
- L@ Illinois St61–78
A week or more of rest.