Grambling Tigers at Southern Miss Golden Eagles: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 29, 4:00 PM ETReed Green Coliseum · at Southern Miss

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Grambling and Southern Miss
GRAM	This season	USM
0-1	Record	0-0
1-0	ATS	0-0
1-0	O/U	0-0

ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders

Model: projects USM 80–69 · win probability USM 83%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 148.8

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: USM has more of the edges

GRAM 1, USM 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Schedule so far

GRAM has played the 355th-hardest schedule, USM the 184th. A record against a soft schedule means less

USMBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: GRAM 30.3%, USM 32.5%. Defensive: GRAM 67.5%, USM 71.2%

USMSmall

GRAM offense vs USM defense

Offense 347th of 366 against a defense 239th, on the model’s ratings

GRAMSmall

Three-pointers

GRAM hits 32.3% and allows 32.7%; USM hits 28.9% and allows 34.5%. Threes are 38.1% and 28.7% of their shots

USMSmall

USM offense vs GRAM defense

Offense 203rd of 366 against a defense 302nd, on the model’s ratings

USMSmall

Home court

USM at home. This season: USM 0-0 at home, GRAM 0-0 away

Even

Shooting

Effective FG%: GRAM 48.8 and allows 50.0; USM 49.0 and allows 51.4

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: GRAM plays 69.4 a game (155th fastest), USM 70.1 (113th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: GRAM 21.2%, USM 18.4%. Forced: GRAM 20.8%, USM 17.8%

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: GRAM 41.1, USM 43.2. Allowed: GRAM 40.0, USM 43.6

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: GRAM 23%, USM 23%. Transfers in: GRAM 4, USM 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

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	—	USM -10.9	—
Total	—	148.8	—
Projected score	—	GRAM 68.9 · USM 79.8

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	USM -6.3	—
1H total	69.6	—
1H projected score	GRAM 31.6 · USM 38	—

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
GRAM LLWWL	15-16	48%	8-9	—
USM WWWWL	17-16	52%	5-6	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
GRAM UUUUU	10-21	32%	12-19
USM UOOOO	20-13	61%	17-16

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
GRAM	3-7 30%	3-7 30%	4-6 40%
USM	7-3 70%	8-2 80%	7-3 70%

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

Grambling

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 3	@ HOW	W73–70WU
Dec 4	vs TNST	No recent meeting
Dec 13	vs NOLA	No recent meeting

Southern Miss

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 2	vs TULN	L58–86LU
Dec 5	@ ORST	No recent meeting
Dec 10	@ MCN	L48–67LU

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

GRAM 1–1 USMSeries tied · 2 games since 2021-22 · GRAM 2-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 8, 2025-26	GRAM 60 @ USM 68	USM -8.5	GRAM W
Nov 13, 2025-26	USM 70 @ GRAM 75	GRAM -2.5	GRAM W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

Grambling

31 games played

Straight up

12-19

39% wins

Against the spread

15-16

48% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line

Over / Under

10-21

32% overs · avg −4.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

12-1939%

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

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

15-1648%

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

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

10-2132%

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

5 straight unders0 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 6	@ISU	L 62-102	+33.5	L −6.5	144.5	O 164
Nov 9	@HOW	W 73-70	+4.5	W +7.5	152.5	U 143
Nov 13	vsUSM	W 75-70	-2.5	W +2.5	148.5	U 145
Nov 18	@USD	L 68-78	+6.5	L −3.5	149.5	U 146
Nov 21	@CBU	L 59-72	+14.5	W +1.5	144.5	U 131
Nov 24	@UCR	L 74-83	+3.5	L −5.5	144.5	O 157
Dec 2	@TULN	L 63-65	+11.5	W +9.5	148.5	U 128
Dec 8	@USM	L 60-68	+8.5	W +0.5	142.5	U 128
Dec 18	vsNORF	W 80-68	+1.5	W +13.5	135.5	O 148
Dec 19	vsHAMP	W 81-72	+1.5	W +10.5	137.5	O 153
Dec 23	@OSU	L 63-89	+28.5	W +2.5	153.5	U 152
Jan 3	vsPV	W 76-72	-7.5	L −3.5	155.5	U 148
Jan 5	vsTXSO	W 84-67	-5.5	W +11.5	146.5	O 151
Jan 10	@BCU	L 65-74	+3.5	L −5.5	144.5	U 139
Jan 12	@FAMU	L 84-91	-1.5	L −8.5	141.5	O 175
Jan 17	vsSOU	L 53-71	-1.5	L −19.5	153.5	U 124
Jan 31	@JKST	W 69-66	-2.5	W +0.5	148.5	U 135
Feb 2	@ALCN	W 74-50	-5.5	W +18.5	143.5	U 124
Feb 4	vsUAPB	L 64-67	-6.5	L −9.5	145.5	U 131
Feb 7	vsALST	W 57-47	-4.5	W +5.5	144.5	U 104
Feb 9	vsAAMU	L 58-66	-4.5	L −12.5	136.5	U 124
Feb 14	@TXSO	L 79-82	+1.5	L −1.5	139.5	O 161
Feb 16	@PV	L 63-68	-1.5	L −6.5	151.5	U 131
Feb 21	@SOU	L 73-87	+5.5	L −8.5	142.5	O 160
Feb 23	vsMVSU	W 83-62	-16.5	W +4.5	136.5	O 145
Feb 26	vsBCU	L 71-76	-1.5	L −6.5	144.5	O 147
Feb 28	vsFAMU	L 59-66	-4.5	L −11.5	140.5	U 125
Mar 3	@AAMU	L 63-77	+2.5	L −11.5	140.5	U 140
Mar 5	@ALST	W 65-63	+2.5	W +4.5	144.5	U 128
Mar 9	vsMVSU	W 77-52	-13.5	W +11.5	135.5	U 129
Mar 10	vsJKST	L 65-68	-7.5	L −10.5	139.5	U 133

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

ISU

L 62-102

−6.5

HOW

W 73-70

+7.5

USM

W 75-70

+2.5

USD

L 68-78

−3.5

CBU

L 59-72

+1.5

UCR

L 74-83

−5.5

TULN

L 63-65

+9.5

USM

L 60-68

+0.5

NORF

W 80-68

+13.5

HAMP

W 81-72

+10.5

OSU

L 63-89

+2.5

W 76-72

−3.5

TXSO

W 84-67

+11.5

BCU

L 65-74

−5.5

FAMU

L 84-91

−8.5

SOU

L 53-71

−19.5

JKST

W 69-66

+0.5

ALCN

W 74-50

+18.5

UAPB

L 64-67

−9.5

ALST

W 57-47

+5.5

AAMU

L 58-66

−12.5

TXSO

L 79-82

−1.5

L 63-68

−6.5

SOU

L 73-87

−8.5

MVSU

W 83-62

+4.5

BCU

L 71-76

−6.5

FAMU

L 59-66

−11.5

AAMU

L 63-77

−11.5

ALST

W 65-63

+4.5

MVSU

W 77-52

+11.5

JKST

L 65-68

−10.5

covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

ISU

L 62-102

+19.5

HOW

W 73-70

−9.5

USM

W 75-70

−3.5

USD

L 68-78

−3.5

CBU

L 59-72

−13.5

UCR

L 74-83

+12.5

TULN

L 63-65

−20.5

USM

L 60-68

−14.5

NORF

W 80-68

+12.5

HAMP

W 81-72

+15.5

OSU

L 63-89

−1.5

W 76-72

−7.5

TXSO

W 84-67

+4.5

BCU

L 65-74

−5.5

FAMU

L 84-91

+33.5

SOU

L 53-71

−29.5

JKST

W 69-66

−13.5

ALCN

W 74-50

−19.5

UAPB

L 64-67

−14.5

ALST

W 57-47

−40.5

AAMU

L 58-66

−12.5

TXSO

L 79-82

+21.5

L 63-68

−20.5

SOU

L 73-87

+17.5

MVSU

W 83-62

+8.5

BCU

L 71-76

+2.5

FAMU

L 59-66

−15.5

AAMU

L 63-77

−0.5

ALST

W 65-63

−16.5

MVSU

W 77-52

−6.5

JKST

L 65-68

−6.5

over 10under 21avg −4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Southern Miss

33 games played

Straight up

17-16

52% wins

Against the spread

17-16

52% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

20-13

61% overs · avg +3.5 pts vs the total

Straight up

17-1652%

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

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

17-1652%

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

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

20-1361%

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

4 straight overs4 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	@BUF	L 79-85	+3.5	L −2.5	153.5	O 164
Nov 9	@SC	L 79-83	+17.5	W +13.5	147.5	O 162
Nov 13	@GRAM	L 70-75	+2.5	L −2.5	148.5	U 145
Nov 22	vsUNF	W 92-83	-9.5	L −0.5	154.5	O 175
Nov 23	vsUTM	W 70-60	+1.5	W +11.5	146.5	U 130
Dec 3	@RAD	W 82-75	+3.5	W +10.5	152.5	O 157
Dec 6	@MIA	L 64-88	+19.5	L −4.5	145.5	O 152
Dec 8	vsGRAM	W 68-60	-8.5	L −0.5	142.5	U 128
Dec 13	vsMISS	L 67-71	+12.5	W +8.5	138.5	U 138
Dec 18	vsUL	W 62-54	-11.5	L −3.5	132.5	U 116
Dec 20	vsARST	L 86-93	+1.5	L −5.5	155.5	O 179
Dec 29	@LSU	L 62-90	+21.5	L −6.5	154.5	U 152
Jan 1	@ULM	W 87-73	-9.5	W +4.5	152.5	O 160
Jan 3	@UL	W 74-67	-3.5	W +3.5	129.5	O 141
Jan 8	vsTXST	W 80-70	-2.5	W +7.5	144.5	O 150
Jan 10	vsULM	W 70-60	-14.5	L −4.5	155.5	U 130
Jan 14	@TROY	L 65-91	+8.5	L −17.5	145.5	O 156
Jan 17	@TXST	L 67-74	+2.5	L −4.5	140.5	O 141
Jan 22	@GAST	L 62-69	+1.5	L −5.5	144.5	U 131
Jan 24	@CCU	L 67-85	+2.5	L −15.5	141.5	O 152
Jan 29	vsAPP	L 63-70	+1.5	L −5.5	134.5	U 133
Jan 31	vsJMU	W 73-65	-1.5	W +6.5	143.5	U 138
Feb 4	@MRSH	L 77-81	+10.5	W +6.5	148.5	O 158
Feb 7	vsKENT	W 66-65	+4.5	W +5.5	150.5	U 131
Feb 12	vsUSA	L 78-84	-1.5	L −7.5	135.5	O 162
Feb 14	vsTROY	W 69-65	+5.5	W +9.5	144.5	U 134
Feb 21	vsODU	W 86-81	-4.5	W +0.5	147.5	O 167
Feb 24	@ARST	L 84-89	+9.5	W +4.5	158.5	O 173
Feb 27	@USA	W 68-55	+4.5	W +17.5	141.5	U 123
Mar 5	vsJMU	W 86-80	+2.5	W +8.5	143.5	O 166
Mar 6	vsTXST	W 81-77	+1.5	W +5.5	140.5	O 158
Mar 7	vsAPP	W 86-73	+4.5	W +17.5	137.5	O 159
Mar 8	vsTROY	L 70-78	+5.5	L −2.5	142.5	O 148

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

BUF

L 79-85

−2.5

L 79-83

+13.5

GRAM

L 70-75

−2.5

UNF

W 92-83

−0.5

UTM

W 70-60

+11.5

RAD

W 82-75

+10.5

MIA

L 64-88

−4.5

GRAM

W 68-60

−0.5

MISS

L 67-71

+8.5

W 62-54

−3.5

ARST

L 86-93

−5.5

LSU

L 62-90

−6.5

ULM

W 87-73

+4.5

W 74-67

+3.5

TXST

W 80-70

+7.5

ULM

W 70-60

−4.5

TROY

L 65-91

−17.5

TXST

L 67-74

−4.5

GAST

L 62-69

−5.5

CCU

L 67-85

−15.5

APP

L 63-70

−5.5

JMU

W 73-65

+6.5

MRSH

L 77-81

+6.5

KENT

W 66-65

+5.5

USA

L 78-84

−7.5

TROY

W 69-65

+9.5

ODU

W 86-81

+0.5

ARST

L 84-89

+4.5

USA

W 68-55

+17.5

JMU

W 86-80

+8.5

TXST

W 81-77

+5.5

APP

W 86-73

+17.5

TROY

L 70-78

−2.5

covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

BUF

L 79-85

+10.5

L 79-83

+14.5

GRAM

L 70-75

−3.5

UNF

W 92-83

+20.5

UTM

W 70-60

−16.5

RAD

W 82-75

+4.5

MIA

L 64-88

+6.5

GRAM

W 68-60

−14.5

MISS

L 67-71

−0.5

W 62-54

−16.5

ARST

L 86-93

+23.5

LSU

L 62-90

−2.5

ULM

W 87-73

+7.5

W 74-67

+11.5

TXST

W 80-70

+5.5

ULM

W 70-60

−25.5

TROY

L 65-91

+10.5

TXST

L 67-74

+0.5

GAST

L 62-69

−13.5

CCU

L 67-85

+10.5

APP

L 63-70

−1.5

JMU

W 73-65

−5.5

MRSH

L 77-81

+9.5

KENT

W 66-65

−19.5

USA

L 78-84

+26.5

TROY

W 69-65

−10.5

ODU

W 86-81

+19.5

ARST

L 84-89

+14.5

USA

W 68-55

−18.5

JMU

W 86-80

+22.5

TXST

W 81-77

+17.5

APP

W 86-73

+21.5

TROY

L 70-78

+5.5

over 20under 13avg +3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Southern Miss has the better starters

Position by position: Grambling 0, Southern Miss 4, even 1

GramblingBetterSouthern Miss

G I. Howard13 pts · 1 reb · 4 ast Score 18

USMBig

G J. Gaines-Wyatt TR11.8 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.9 ast Score 59

G D. Pierce TR19 pts · 0 reb · 8 ast Score 36

USMBig

G I. Taveras15.4 pts · 6.6 reb · 2.2 ast Score 90

G B. Hardy TR3.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.7 ast Score 2

Even

G B. Carruth2.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.3 ast Score 6

F H. Washington TR4.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast Score 2

USMBig

F C. Wallace TR12.1 pts · 6.8 reb · 1.7 ast Score 53

F M. Fitts2.8 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.3 ast Score 17

USMSmall

F M. Overstreet TR2.4 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.3 ast Score 39

GramblingBetterSouthern Miss

GRAM offense347th of 366 · -12.0

USMSmall

USM defense239th of 366 · -6.3

GRAM defense302nd of 366 · -7.7

USMSmall

USM offense203rd of 366 · -6.3

Backcourt-6.4 · 3 players

USMBig

Backcourt+0.4 · 3 players

Frontcourt-3.5 · 2 players

USMSmall

Frontcourt-0.5 · 2 players

Bench-0.6 · 2 players

Even

Bench-0.9 · 1 player

Score, worst to bestGRAM betterUSM 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

Grambling

Guards

I. Howard31 minD. Pierce31 min · TRB. Hardy19 min · TRC. Perkins5 minK. LaytonNewT. BeyNew

Forwards

H. Washington17 min · TRM. Fitts10 minI. Miranda8 min · TRI. ErimsNew

Southern Miss

Guards

J. Gaines-Wyatt27 min · TRI. Taveras27 minB. Carruth12 minB. WestonNewA. IgiedeNewC. CereseNew

Forwards

C. Wallace29 min · TRM. Overstreet10 min · TRM. MontanoNew

Centers

F. Diagne6 minM. BlankNew

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

GRAM69.0 #299

USM73.9 #197

Points per possession

GRAM1.00 #331

USM1.05 #242

Pace (possessions)

GRAM69.4 #155

USM70.1 #113

Shooting

Effective FG%

GRAM48.8 #295

USM49.0 #289

3-point %

GRAM32.3 #265

USM28.9 #355

3-point attempt rate

GRAM38.1 #210

USM28.7 #358

Free throw rate

GRAM41.1 #45

USM43.2 #18

Possessions

Turnover rate

GRAM21.2 #357

USM18.4 #290

Offensive rebound rate

GRAM30.3 #188

USM32.5 #103

Assists per game

GRAM11.9 #292

USM11.2 #330

Defense

Points allowed

GRAM71.3 #83

USM74.8 #183

Points allowed per possession

GRAM1.03 #51

USM1.07 #127

Opponent effective FG%

GRAM50.0 #97

USM51.4 #177

Opponent 3-point %

GRAM32.7 #99

USM34.5 #217

Turnovers forced

GRAM20.8 #12

USM17.8 #109

Defensive rebound rate

GRAM67.5 #280

USM71.2 #97

Steals per game

GRAM7.7 #68

USM7.3 #98

Blocks per game

GRAM2.7 #283

USM3.6 #127

GRAM		USM
Scoring
69.0 #299	Points per game	73.9 #197
1.00 #331	Points per possession	1.05 #242
69.4 #155	Pace (possessions)	70.1 #113
Shooting
48.8 #295	Effective FG%	49.0 #289
32.3 #265	3-point %	28.9 #355
38.1 #210	3-point attempt rate	28.7 #358
41.1 #45	Free throw rate	43.2 #18
Possessions
21.2 #357	Turnover rate	18.4 #290
30.3 #188	Offensive rebound rate	32.5 #103
11.9 #292	Assists per game	11.2 #330
Defense
71.3 #83	Points allowed	74.8 #183
1.03 #51	Points allowed per possession	1.07 #127
50.0 #97	Opponent effective FG%	51.4 #177
32.7 #99	Opponent 3-point %	34.5 #217
20.8 #12	Turnovers forced	17.8 #109
67.5 #280	Defensive rebound rate	71.2 #97
7.7 #68	Steals per game	7.3 #98
2.7 #283	Blocks per game	3.6 #127

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.

Grambling

12-19 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Jackson St65–68
Wvs Miss Valley St77–52
W@ Alabama St65–63
L@ Alabama A&M63–77
Lvs Florida A&M59–66

A week or more of rest.

Southern Miss

17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 12-10 in conference · Sun Belt Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Troy70–78
Wvs App State86–73
Wvs Texas St81–77
Wvs James Madison86–80
W@ South Alabama68–55

A week or more of rest.

Grambling Tigers at Southern Miss Golden Eagles

What could decide it: USM has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Grambling

Southern Miss

Southern Miss has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Grambling

Southern Miss