Burr Gymnasium · at Howard
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | HOW | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 HOW 80–68 · win probability HOW 84%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.4
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
GRAM 0, HOW 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
GRAM offense vs HOW defense
Offense 347th of 366 against a defense 206th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
GRAM hits 32.3% and allows 32.7%; HOW hits 35.8% and allows 31.4%. Threes are 38.1% and 34.7% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: GRAM 30.3%, HOW 35.8%. Defensive: GRAM 67.5%, HOW 68.6%
HOW offense vs GRAM defense
Offense 196th of 366 against a defense 302nd, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: GRAM 23%, HOW 76%. Transfers in: GRAM 4, HOW 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Shooting
Effective FG%: GRAM 48.8 and allows 50.0; HOW 50.9 and allows 48.7
Home court
HOW at home. This season: HOW 0-0 at home, GRAM 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: GRAM 41.1, HOW 43.5. Allowed: GRAM 40.0, HOW 38.4
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: GRAM 21.2%, HOW 19.3%. Forced: GRAM 20.8%, HOW 20.7%
Context
Schedule so far
GRAM has played the 355th-hardest schedule, HOW the 348th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: GRAM plays 69.4 a game (155th fastest), HOW 69.5 (144th). 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 | — | HOW -11.6 | — |
| Total | — | 147.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | GRAM 67.9 · HOW 79.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HOW -6.8 | — |
| 1H total | 68.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | GRAM 31.1 · HOW 37.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 9-1 90% | 9-1 90% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
GRAM 1–0 HOWGRAM leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · GRAM 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2025-26 | GRAM 73 @ HOW 70 | HOW -4.5 | 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
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 6 | @ | L 62-102 | +33.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 9 | @ | W 73-70 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 75-70 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 68-78 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 59-72 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 74-83 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 63-65 | +11.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 8 | @ | L 60-68 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 80-68 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 135.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 81-72 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 63-89 | +28.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 76-72 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 84-67 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 65-74 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 84-91 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 53-71 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 153.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 69-66 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 74-50 | -5.5 | W +18.5 | 143.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 64-67 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 57-47 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 58-66 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 136.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 79-82 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 139.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 63-68 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 73-87 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 23 | vs | W 83-62 | -16.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 71-76 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 59-66 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 63-77 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 65-63 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 77-52 | -13.5 | W +11.5 | 135.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 65-68 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
ISU
L 62-102
−6.5
9
@
HOW
W 73-70
+7.5
13
vs
USM
W 75-70
+2.5
18
@
USD
L 68-78
−3.5
21
@
CBU
L 59-72
+1.5
24
@
UCR
L 74-83
−5.5
2
@
TULN
L 63-65
+9.5
8
@
USM
L 60-68
+0.5
18
vs
NORF
W 80-68
+13.5
19
vs
HAMP
W 81-72
+10.5
23
@
OSU
L 63-89
+2.5
3
vs
PV
W 76-72
−3.5
5
vs
TXSO
W 84-67
+11.5
10
@
BCU
L 65-74
−5.5
12
@
FAMU
L 84-91
−8.5
17
vs
SOU
L 53-71
−19.5
31
@
JKST
W 69-66
+0.5
2
@
ALCN
W 74-50
+18.5
4
vs
UAPB
L 64-67
−9.5
7
vs
ALST
W 57-47
+5.5
9
vs
AAMU
L 58-66
−12.5
14
@
TXSO
L 79-82
−1.5
16
@
PV
L 63-68
−6.5
21
@
SOU
L 73-87
−8.5
23
vs
MVSU
W 83-62
+4.5
26
vs
BCU
L 71-76
−6.5
28
vs
FAMU
L 59-66
−11.5
3
@
AAMU
L 63-77
−11.5
5
@
ALST
W 65-63
+4.5
9
vs
MVSU
W 77-52
+11.5
10
vs
JKST
L 65-68
−10.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
ISU
L 62-102
+19.5
9
@
HOW
W 73-70
−9.5
13
vs
USM
W 75-70
−3.5
18
@
USD
L 68-78
−3.5
21
@
CBU
L 59-72
−13.5
24
@
UCR
L 74-83
+12.5
2
@
TULN
L 63-65
−20.5
8
@
USM
L 60-68
−14.5
18
vs
NORF
W 80-68
+12.5
19
vs
HAMP
W 81-72
+15.5
23
@
OSU
L 63-89
−1.5
3
vs
PV
W 76-72
−7.5
5
vs
TXSO
W 84-67
+4.5
10
@
BCU
L 65-74
−5.5
12
@
FAMU
L 84-91
+33.5
17
vs
SOU
L 53-71
−29.5
31
@
JKST
W 69-66
−13.5
2
@
ALCN
W 74-50
−19.5
4
vs
UAPB
L 64-67
−14.5
7
vs
ALST
W 57-47
−40.5
9
vs
AAMU
L 58-66
−12.5
14
@
TXSO
L 79-82
+21.5
16
@
PV
L 63-68
−20.5
21
@
SOU
L 73-87
+17.5
23
vs
MVSU
W 83-62
+8.5
26
vs
BCU
L 71-76
+2.5
28
vs
FAMU
L 59-66
−15.5
3
@
AAMU
L 63-77
−0.5
5
@
ALST
W 65-63
−16.5
9
vs
MVSU
W 77-52
−6.5
10
vs
JKST
L 65-68
−6.5
over 10under 21avg −4.1 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
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 | L 67-88 | +20.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 9 | vs | L 70-73 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 72-64 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 60-64 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 80-70 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 56-93 | +43.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 75-79 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 73-69 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 61-57 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | U 118 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 74-66 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 138.5 | O 140 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 67-66 | +15.5 | W +16.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 60-80 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 57-58 | -8.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 57-69 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 130.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 84-58 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 129.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 83-69 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 77-78 | -14.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 88-60 | -7.5 | W +20.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 72-53 | -14.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 85-57 | -14.5 | W +13.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 81-87 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-53 | -10.5 | W +15.5 | 132.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 91-59 | -11.5 | W +20.5 | 131.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 100-67 | -12.5 | W +20.5 | 143.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 84-59 | -8.5 | W +16.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 90-70 | -19.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 84-76 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 78-61 | -15.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 70-63 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 17 | vs | W 86-83 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 80-101 | +30.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | O 181 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MIZ
L 67-88
−0.5
9
vs
GRAM
L 70-73
−7.5
13
vs
ALCN
W 72-64
+1.5
19
@
STET
L 60-64
−5.5
22
vs
NIA
W 80-70
+5.5
23
@
DUKE
L 56-93
+6.5
29
@
MSM
L 75-79
−1.5
9
vs
NCAT
W 73-69
+6.5
13
vs
HAMP
W 61-57
+6.5
16
@
DREX
W 74-66
+14.5
20
@
UNCW
W 67-66
+16.5
30
@
NU
L 60-80
−0.5
3
@
SCST
L 57-58
−9.5
10
@
UMES
L 57-69
−14.5
12
vs
DSU
W 84-58
+17.5
17
@
NCCU
W 83-69
+11.5
24
vs
MORG
L 77-78
−15.5
31
vs
NORF
W 88-60
+20.5
2
@
COPP
W 72-53
+4.5
7
vs
SCST
W 85-57
+13.5
9
vs
YALE
L 81-87
+0.5
14
vs
UMES
W 79-53
+15.5
16
@
DSU
W 91-59
+20.5
21
vs
NCCU
W 100-67
+20.5
28
@
MORG
W 84-59
+16.5
2
vs
COPP
W 90-70
+0.5
5
@
NORF
W 84-76
+1.5
13
vs
SCST
W 78-61
+1.5
14
vs
NCCU
W 70-63
−4.5
17
vs
UMBC
W 86-83
+1.5
19
vs
MICH
L 80-101
+9.5
covered 22didn’t cover 9avg +5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MIZ
L 67-88
−3.5
9
vs
GRAM
L 70-73
−9.5
13
vs
ALCN
W 72-64
−18.5
19
@
STET
L 60-64
−25.5
22
vs
NIA
W 80-70
+11.5
23
@
DUKE
L 56-93
−5.5
29
@
MSM
L 75-79
+7.5
9
vs
NCAT
W 73-69
−7.5
13
vs
HAMP
W 61-57
−24.5
16
@
DREX
W 74-66
+1.5
20
@
UNCW
W 67-66
−8.5
30
@
NU
L 60-80
−8.5
3
@
SCST
L 57-58
−29.5
10
@
UMES
L 57-69
−4.5
12
vs
DSU
W 84-58
+12.5
17
@
NCCU
W 83-69
+10.5
24
vs
MORG
L 77-78
+6.5
31
vs
NORF
W 88-60
+1.5
2
@
COPP
W 72-53
−21.5
7
vs
SCST
W 85-57
+0.5
9
vs
YALE
L 81-87
+20.5
14
vs
UMES
W 79-53
−0.5
16
@
DSU
W 91-59
+18.5
21
vs
NCCU
W 100-67
+23.5
28
@
MORG
W 84-59
−15.5
2
vs
COPP
W 90-70
+19.5
5
@
NORF
W 84-76
+10.5
13
vs
SCST
W 78-61
−6.5
14
vs
NCCU
W 70-63
−9.5
17
vs
UMBC
W 86-83
+25.5
19
vs
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.
Howard has the better starters
Position by position: Grambling 0, Howard 3, even 2
GramblingBetterHoward
G I. Howard13 pts · 1 reb · 4 ast
Score 18
→HOWSmall
G C. Gillus10.8 pts · 4.4 reb · 4.7 ast
Score 52
G D. Pierce TR19 pts · 0 reb · 8 ast
Score 36
→HOWBig
G C. Taylor17.2 pts · 6.4 reb · 3 ast
Score 89
G B. Hardy TR3.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 2
=Even
G A. Cotton8.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 15
F H. Washington TR4.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 2
→HOWBig
G O. Okojie10.3 pts · 4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 61
F M. Fitts2.8 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 17
=Even
C G. Kocevar TR3.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 31
GramblingBetterHoward
GRAM offense347th of 366 · -12.0
→HOWBig
HOW defense206th of 366 · -5.2
GRAM defense302nd of 366 · -7.7
→HOWSmall
HOW offense196th of 366 · -6.1
Backcourt-6.4 · 3 players
→HOWBig
Backcourt-1.0 · 4 players
Frontcourt-3.5 · 2 players
→HOWSmall
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
Bench-0.6 · 2 players
←GRAMSmall
Bench-3.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestGRAM betterHOW betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 69.0 #299 | Points per game | 75.5 #155 |
| 1.00 #331 | Points per possession | 1.09 #162 |
| 69.4 #155 | Pace (possessions) | 69.5 #144 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.8 #295 | Effective FG% | 50.9 #198 |
| 32.3 #265 | 3-point % | 35.8 #68 |
| 38.1 #210 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.7 #283 |
| 41.1 #45 | Free throw rate | 43.5 #17 |
| Possessions | ||
| 21.2 #357 | Turnover rate | 19.3 #331 |
| 30.3 #188 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.8 #28 |
| 11.9 #292 | Assists per game | 15.2 #78 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.3 #83 | Points allowed | 69.3 #51 |
| 1.03 #51 | Points allowed per possession | 1.00 #24 |
| 50.0 #97 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.7 #53 |
| 32.7 #99 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.4 #41 |
| 20.8 #12 | Turnovers forced | 20.7 #13 |
| 67.5 #280 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.6 #223 |
| 7.7 #68 | Steals per game | 8.3 #29 |
| 2.7 #283 | Blocks per game | 3.7 #113 |
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.
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.