Loyola Chicago Ramblers at Howard Bison: Model Line and Edge

Thu, Dec 10, 12:00 AM ETBurr Gymnasium · at Howard

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Loyola Chicago and Howard
LUC	This season	HOW
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 LUC 74–71 · win probability LUC 60%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 145.0

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: HOW has more of the edges

LUC 2, HOW 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

HOWBig

Three-pointers

LUC hits 31.7% and allows 36.8%; HOW hits 35.8% and allows 31.4%. Threes are 47.7% and 34.7% of their shots

Context

Schedule so far

LUC has played the 112th-hardest schedule, HOW the 348th. A record against a soft schedule means less

HOWBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: LUC 19.8%, HOW 19.3%. Forced: LUC 12.9%, HOW 20.7%

LUCSmall

HOW offense vs LUC defense

Offense 196th of 366 against a defense 90th, on the model’s ratings

HOWSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: LUC 49.8 and allows 52.0; HOW 50.9 and allows 48.7

HOWSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: LUC 22%, HOW 76%. Transfers in: LUC 9, HOW 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Context

Tempo

About 68 possessions: LUC plays 66.1 a game (309th fastest), HOW 69.5 (144th). Faster games mean more points

LUCSmall

LUC offense vs HOW defense

Offense 132nd of 366 against a defense 206th, on the model’s ratings

HOWSmall

Home court

HOW at home. This season: HOW 0-0 at home, LUC 0-0 away

Even

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: LUC 30.5%, HOW 35.8%. Defensive: LUC 70.3%, HOW 68.6%

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: LUC 34.8, HOW 43.5. Allowed: LUC 33.6, HOW 38.4

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	—	LUC -2.9	—
Total	—	145.0	—
Projected score	—	LUC 74 · HOW 71.1

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	LUC -1.9	—
1H total	67.9	—
1H projected score	LUC 34.9 · HOW 33	—

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
LUC WWWWW	13-20	39%	4-7	—
HOW WWLWW	22-9	71%	8-3	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
LUC UUUOU	15-18	45%	9-24
HOW OUUOO	15-16	48%	20-11

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
LUC	4-6 40%	7-3 70%	2-8 20%
HOW	9-1 90%	9-1 90%	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

Loyola Chicago

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 12	vs IUIN	No recent meeting

Howard

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 14	vs TOW	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

Loyola Chicago

33 games played

Straight up

9-24

27% wins

Against the spread

13-20

39% covers · avg −4.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-18

45% overs · avg −1.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

9-2427%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

13-2039%

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

5 straight covers4 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1845%

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

1 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	vsCLE	W 91-88	-17.5	L −14.5	151.5	O 179
Nov 6	vsMERC	L 65-73	-21.5	L −29.5	144.5	U 138
Nov 9	vsUNT	L 62-64	-1.5	L −3.5	138.5	U 126
Nov 13	@WICH	L 74-95	+5.5	L −15.5	153.5	O 169
Nov 16	vsCSU	L 67-80	+3.5	L −9.5	151.5	U 147
Nov 21	vsNIU	L 59-76	-13.5	L −30.5	148.5	U 135
Nov 25	vsUNI	L 51-72	+8.5	L −12.5	134.5	U 123
Nov 26	vsSJSU	L 51-63	+1.5	L −10.5	136.5	U 114
Dec 2	vsCMU	W 83-72	-6.5	W +4.5	140.5	O 155
Dec 6	vsPRIN	W 73-68	-6.5	L −1.5	136.5	O 141
Dec 14	vsCHST	L 75-84	-15.5	L −24.5	140.5	O 159
Dec 17	@SF	L 71-85	+11.5	L −2.5	143.5	O 156
Dec 20	vsSCU	W 80-78	+15.5	W +17.5	151.5	O 158
Dec 31	@URI	W 61-57	+9.5	W +13.5	145.5	U 118
Jan 3	vsDAY	L 68-70	+7.5	W +5.5	140.5	U 138
Jan 7	vsDAV	L 64-79	+1.5	L −13.5	136.5	O 143
Jan 10	@GW	L 66-101	+14.5	L −20.5	154.5	O 167
Jan 13	vsGMU	L 74-82	+11.5	W +3.5	140.5	O 156
Jan 16	@DAY	L 51-78	+16.5	L −10.5	141.5	U 129
Jan 20	@SBU	L 70-84	+10.5	L −3.5	147.5	O 154
Jan 24	vsDUQ	L 59-71	+5.5	L −6.5	152.5	U 130
Jan 27	vsJOES	L 64-85	+1.5	L −19.5	143.5	O 149
Jan 30	@VCU	L 75-89	+18.5	W +4.5	150.5	O 164
Feb 3	vsLAS	W 71-61	-2.5	W +7.5	140.5	U 132
Feb 6	@DAV	L 64-84	+9.5	L −10.5	140.5	O 148
Feb 13	vsSLU	L 59-86	+17.5	L −9.5	155.5	U 145
Feb 18	@FOR	L 59-62	+8.5	W +5.5	135.5	U 121
Feb 21	@JOES	L 61-75	+9.5	L −4.5	142.5	U 136
Feb 28	vsRICH	W 69-66	+2.5	W +5.5	146.5	U 135
Mar 4	@SLU	L 65-79	+21.5	W +7.5	155.5	U 144
Mar 7	vsGW	W 68-62	+9.5	W +15.5	148.5	U 130
Mar 11	vsRICH	W 75-67	+4.5	W +12.5	141.5	O 142
Mar 12	vsDAV	L 59-64	+5.5	W +0.5	132.5	U 123

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

CLE

W 91-88

−14.5

MERC

L 65-73

−29.5

UNT

L 62-64

−3.5

WICH

L 74-95

−15.5

CSU

L 67-80

−9.5

NIU

L 59-76

−30.5

UNI

L 51-72

−12.5

SJSU

L 51-63

−10.5

CMU

W 83-72

+4.5

PRIN

W 73-68

−1.5

CHST

L 75-84

−24.5

L 71-85

−2.5

SCU

W 80-78

+17.5

URI

W 61-57

+13.5

DAY

L 68-70

+5.5

DAV

L 64-79

−13.5

L 66-101

−20.5

GMU

L 74-82

+3.5

DAY

L 51-78

−10.5

SBU

L 70-84

−3.5

DUQ

L 59-71

−6.5

JOES

L 64-85

−19.5

VCU

L 75-89

+4.5

LAS

W 71-61

+7.5

DAV

L 64-84

−10.5

SLU

L 59-86

−9.5

FOR

L 59-62

+5.5

JOES

L 61-75

−4.5

RICH

W 69-66

+5.5

SLU

L 65-79

+7.5

W 68-62

+15.5

RICH

W 75-67

+12.5

DAV

L 59-64

+0.5

covered 13didn’t cover 20avg −4.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

CLE

W 91-88

+27.5

MERC

L 65-73

−6.5

UNT

L 62-64

−12.5

WICH

L 74-95

+15.5

CSU

L 67-80

−4.5

NIU

L 59-76

−13.5

UNI

L 51-72

−11.5

SJSU

L 51-63

−22.5

CMU

W 83-72

+14.5

PRIN

W 73-68

+4.5

CHST

L 75-84

+18.5

L 71-85

+12.5

SCU

W 80-78

+6.5

URI

W 61-57

−27.5

DAY

L 68-70

−2.5

DAV

L 64-79

+6.5

L 66-101

+12.5

GMU

L 74-82

+15.5

DAY

L 51-78

−12.5

SBU

L 70-84

+6.5

DUQ

L 59-71

−22.5

JOES

L 64-85

+5.5

VCU

L 75-89

+13.5

LAS

W 71-61

−8.5

DAV

L 64-84

+7.5

SLU

L 59-86

−10.5

FOR

L 59-62

−14.5

JOES

L 61-75

−6.5

RICH

W 69-66

−11.5

SLU

L 65-79

−11.5

W 68-62

−18.5

RICH

W 75-67

+0.5

DAV

L 59-64

−9.5

over 15under 18avg −1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Howard

31 games played

Straight up

20-11

65% wins

Against the spread

22-9

71% covers · avg +5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-16

48% overs · avg +0 pts vs the total

Straight up

20-1165%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

22-971%

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

2 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1648%

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

2 straight overs2 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	vsMIZ	L 67-88	+20.5	L −0.5	158.5	U 155
Nov 9	vsGRAM	L 70-73	-4.5	L −7.5	152.5	U 143
Nov 13	vsALCN	W 72-64	-6.5	W +1.5	154.5	U 136
Nov 19	@STET	L 60-64	-1.5	L −5.5	149.5	U 124
Nov 22	vsNIA	W 80-70	-4.5	W +5.5	138.5	O 150
Nov 23	@DUKE	L 56-93	+43.5	W +6.5	154.5	U 149
Nov 29	@MSM	L 75-79	+2.5	L −1.5	146.5	O 154
Dec 9	vsNCAT	W 73-69	+2.5	W +6.5	149.5	U 142
Dec 13	vsHAMP	W 61-57	+2.5	W +6.5	142.5	U 118
Dec 16	@DREX	W 74-66	+6.5	W +14.5	138.5	O 140
Dec 20	@UNCW	W 67-66	+15.5	W +16.5	141.5	U 133
Dec 30	@NU	L 60-80	+19.5	L −0.5	148.5	U 140
Jan 3	@SCST	L 57-58	-8.5	L −9.5	144.5	U 115
Jan 10	@UMES	L 57-69	-2.5	L −14.5	130.5	U 126
Jan 12	vsDSU	W 84-58	-8.5	W +17.5	129.5	O 142
Jan 17	@NCCU	W 83-69	-2.5	W +11.5	141.5	O 152
Jan 24	vsMORG	L 77-78	-14.5	L −15.5	148.5	O 155
Jan 31	vsNORF	W 88-60	-7.5	W +20.5	146.5	O 148
Feb 2	@COPP	W 72-53	-14.5	W +4.5	146.5	U 125
Feb 7	vsSCST	W 85-57	-14.5	W +13.5	141.5	O 142
Feb 9	vsYALE	L 81-87	+6.5	W +0.5	147.5	O 168
Feb 14	vsUMES	W 79-53	-10.5	W +15.5	132.5	U 132
Feb 16	@DSU	W 91-59	-11.5	W +20.5	131.5	O 150
Feb 21	vsNCCU	W 100-67	-12.5	W +20.5	143.5	O 167
Feb 28	@MORG	W 84-59	-8.5	W +16.5	158.5	U 143
Mar 2	vsCOPP	W 90-70	-19.5	W +0.5	140.5	O 160
Mar 5	@NORF	W 84-76	-6.5	W +1.5	149.5	O 160
Mar 13	vsSCST	W 78-61	-15.5	W +1.5	145.5	U 139
Mar 14	vsNCCU	W 70-63	-11.5	L −4.5	142.5	U 133
Mar 17	vsUMBC	W 86-83	-1.5	W +1.5	143.5	O 169
Mar 19	vsMICH	L 80-101	+30.5	W +9.5	151.5	O 181

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

MIZ

L 67-88

−0.5

GRAM

L 70-73

−7.5

ALCN

W 72-64

+1.5

STET

L 60-64

−5.5

NIA

W 80-70

+5.5

DUKE

L 56-93

+6.5

MSM

L 75-79

−1.5

NCAT

W 73-69

+6.5

HAMP

W 61-57

+6.5

DREX

W 74-66

+14.5

UNCW

W 67-66

+16.5

L 60-80

−0.5

SCST

L 57-58

−9.5

UMES

L 57-69

−14.5

DSU

W 84-58

+17.5

NCCU

W 83-69

+11.5

MORG

L 77-78

−15.5

NORF

W 88-60

+20.5

COPP

W 72-53

+4.5

SCST

W 85-57

+13.5

YALE

L 81-87

+0.5

UMES

W 79-53

+15.5

DSU

W 91-59

+20.5

NCCU

W 100-67

+20.5

MORG

W 84-59

+16.5

COPP

W 90-70

+0.5

NORF

W 84-76

+1.5

SCST

W 78-61

+1.5

NCCU

W 70-63

−4.5

UMBC

W 86-83

+1.5

MICH

L 80-101

+9.5

covered 22didn’t cover 9avg +5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

MIZ

L 67-88

−3.5

GRAM

L 70-73

−9.5

ALCN

W 72-64

−18.5

STET

L 60-64

−25.5

NIA

W 80-70

+11.5

DUKE

L 56-93

−5.5

MSM

L 75-79

+7.5

NCAT

W 73-69

−7.5

HAMP

W 61-57

−24.5

DREX

W 74-66

+1.5

UNCW

W 67-66

−8.5

L 60-80

−8.5

SCST

L 57-58

−29.5

UMES

L 57-69

−4.5

DSU

W 84-58

+12.5

NCCU

W 83-69

+10.5

MORG

L 77-78

+6.5

NORF

W 88-60

+1.5

COPP

W 72-53

−21.5

SCST

W 85-57

+0.5

YALE

L 81-87

+20.5

UMES

W 79-53

−0.5

DSU

W 91-59

+18.5

NCCU

W 100-67

+23.5

MORG

W 84-59

−15.5

COPP

W 90-70

+19.5

NORF

W 84-76

+10.5

SCST

W 78-61

−6.5

NCCU

W 70-63

−9.5

UMBC

W 86-83

+25.5

MICH

L 80-101

+29.5

over 15under 16avg +0 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Loyola Chicago has the better starters

Position by position: Loyola Chicago 1, Howard 0, even 4

Loyola ChicagoBetterHoward

G D. Hand TR12.4 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.3 ast Score 58

Even

G C. Gillus10.8 pts · 4.4 reb · 4.7 ast Score 52

G D. Nessah TR15.8 pts · 6.3 reb · 2.4 ast Score 91

Even

G C. Taylor17.2 pts · 6.4 reb · 3 ast Score 89

G R. Agarwal TR5.9 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.8 ast Score 26

Even

G A. Cotton8.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.1 ast Score 15

F E. Ricks TR7.3 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.6 ast Score 53

Even

G O. Okojie10.3 pts · 4 reb · 1.6 ast Score 61

F X. Amos11.1 pts · 4.3 reb · 0.7 ast Score 65

LUCSmall

C G. Kocevar TR3.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.6 ast Score 31

Loyola ChicagoBetterHoward

LUC offense132nd of 366 · -3.9

LUCSmall

HOW defense206th of 366 · -5.2

LUC defense90th of 366 · -0.2

LUCSmall

HOW offense196th of 366 · -6.1

Backcourt+0.8 · 3 players

LUCSmall

Backcourt-1.0 · 4 players

Frontcourt+0.4 · 2 players

Even

Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player

Bench+0.6 · 5 players

LUCBig

Bench-3.1 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestLUC betterHOW 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

Loyola Chicago

Guards

D. Hand31 min · TRD. Nessah28 min · TRR. Agarwal22 min · TRN. Anderson17 minJ. Dawson10 min · TRC. Jeffrey8 min · TR

Forwards

E. Ricks27 min · TRX. Amos26 minE. Rapieque15 min · TRA. WingNew

Centers

J. Schofield17 min · TRM. Diallo7 min · TRR. KreagerNew

Howard

Guards

C. Gillus34 minC. Taylor32 minA. Cotton27 minO. Okojie26 minI. Brown10 minJ. Johnson6 min

Forwards

C. Robins6 minJ. Johnson3 minJ. LawsonNewD. HarrisNew

Centers

G. Kocevar13 min · TRJ. Brown6 min · TR

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

LUC66.8 #337

HOW75.5 #155

Points per possession

LUC1.01 #313

HOW1.09 #162

Pace (possessions)

LUC66.1 #309

HOW69.5 #144

Shooting

Effective FG%

LUC49.8 #246

HOW50.9 #198

3-point %

LUC31.7 #296

HOW35.8 #68

3-point attempt rate

LUC47.7 #27

HOW34.7 #283

Free throw rate

LUC34.8 #188

HOW43.5 #17

Possessions

Turnover rate

LUC19.8 #343

HOW19.3 #331

Offensive rebound rate

LUC30.5 #179

HOW35.8 #28

Assists per game

LUC13.9 #151

HOW15.2 #78

Defense

Points allowed

LUC75.8 #212

HOW69.3 #51

Points allowed per possession

LUC1.14 #315

HOW1.00 #24

Opponent effective FG%

LUC52.0 #214

HOW48.7 #53

Opponent 3-point %

LUC36.8 #342

HOW31.4 #41

Turnovers forced

LUC12.9 #357

HOW20.7 #13

Defensive rebound rate

LUC70.3 #146

HOW68.6 #223

Steals per game

LUC4.1 #363

HOW8.3 #29

Blocks per game

LUC3.8 #101

HOW3.7 #113

LUC		HOW
Scoring
66.8 #337	Points per game	75.5 #155
1.01 #313	Points per possession	1.09 #162
66.1 #309	Pace (possessions)	69.5 #144
Shooting
49.8 #246	Effective FG%	50.9 #198
31.7 #296	3-point %	35.8 #68
47.7 #27	3-point attempt rate	34.7 #283
34.8 #188	Free throw rate	43.5 #17
Possessions
19.8 #343	Turnover rate	19.3 #331
30.5 #179	Offensive rebound rate	35.8 #28
13.9 #151	Assists per game	15.2 #78
Defense
75.8 #212	Points allowed	69.3 #51
1.14 #315	Points allowed per possession	1.00 #24
52.0 #214	Opponent effective FG%	48.7 #53
36.8 #342	Opponent 3-point %	31.4 #41
12.9 #357	Turnovers forced	20.7 #13
70.3 #146	Defensive rebound rate	68.6 #223
4.1 #363	Steals per game	8.3 #29
3.8 #101	Blocks per game	3.7 #113

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.

Loyola Chicago

9-24 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Davidson59–64
Wvs Richmond75–67
Wvs G Washington68–62
L@ Saint Louis65–79
Wvs Richmond69–66

A week or more of rest.

Howard

20-11 in 2025-26 overall · 13-3 in conference · Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Michigan80–101
Wvs UMBC86–83
Wvs NC Central70–63
Wvs SC State78–61
W@ Norfolk St84–76

A week or more of rest.

Loyola Chicago Ramblers at Howard Bison

What could decide it: HOW has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Loyola Chicago

Howard

Loyola Chicago has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Loyola Chicago

Howard