Pensacola Bay Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | VAL | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VAL 76–72 · win probability VAL 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.3
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: VAL has more of the edges
USM 0, VAL 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
USM hits 28.9% and allows 34.5%; VAL hits 33.9% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 28.7% and 36.8% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: USM plays 70.1 a game (113th fastest), VAL 67.4 (258th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USM 18.4%, VAL 15.7%. Forced: USM 17.8%, VAL 16.9%
Free throws
Free throw rate: USM 43.2, VAL 39.1. Allowed: USM 43.6, VAL 35.1
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USM 23%, VAL 51%. Transfers in: USM 3, VAL 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
USM has played the 184th-hardest schedule, VAL the 143rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
VAL offense vs USM defense
Offense 199th of 366 against a defense 239th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USM 32.5%, VAL 32.5%. Defensive: USM 71.2%, VAL 69.9%
Even
USM offense vs VAL defense
Offense 203rd of 366 against a defense 170th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: USM 49.0 and allows 51.4; VAL 47.6 and allows 50.5
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 | — | VAL -3.8 | — |
| Total | — | 147.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | USM 71.7 · VAL 75.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | VAL -2.1 | — |
| 1H total | 68.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | USM 33.4 · VAL 35.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% | |
| 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
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 79-85 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 79-83 | +17.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 70-75 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 92-83 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 70-60 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 82-75 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 64-88 | +19.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 8 | vs | W 68-60 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 67-71 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 62-54 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 132.5 | U 116 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 86-93 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 62-90 | +21.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 87-73 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 74-67 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 129.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 80-70 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 70-60 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 65-91 | +8.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 67-74 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 62-69 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 67-85 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 63-70 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 134.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 73-65 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 77-81 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 66-65 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 78-84 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 135.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 69-65 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 86-81 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 84-89 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 68-55 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 86-80 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 81-77 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 86-73 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 70-78 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
BUF
L 79-85
−2.5
9
@
SC
L 79-83
+13.5
13
@
GRAM
L 70-75
−2.5
22
vs
UNF
W 92-83
−0.5
23
vs
UTM
W 70-60
+11.5
3
@
RAD
W 82-75
+10.5
6
@
MIA
L 64-88
−4.5
8
vs
GRAM
W 68-60
−0.5
13
vs
MISS
L 67-71
+8.5
18
vs
UL
W 62-54
−3.5
20
vs
ARST
L 86-93
−5.5
29
@
LSU
L 62-90
−6.5
1
@
ULM
W 87-73
+4.5
3
@
UL
W 74-67
+3.5
8
vs
TXST
W 80-70
+7.5
10
vs
ULM
W 70-60
−4.5
14
@
TROY
L 65-91
−17.5
17
@
TXST
L 67-74
−4.5
22
@
GAST
L 62-69
−5.5
24
@
CCU
L 67-85
−15.5
29
vs
APP
L 63-70
−5.5
31
vs
JMU
W 73-65
+6.5
4
@
MRSH
L 77-81
+6.5
7
vs
KENT
W 66-65
+5.5
12
vs
USA
L 78-84
−7.5
14
vs
TROY
W 69-65
+9.5
21
vs
ODU
W 86-81
+0.5
24
@
ARST
L 84-89
+4.5
27
@
USA
W 68-55
+17.5
5
vs
JMU
W 86-80
+8.5
6
vs
TXST
W 81-77
+5.5
7
vs
APP
W 86-73
+17.5
8
vs
TROY
L 70-78
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
BUF
L 79-85
+10.5
9
@
SC
L 79-83
+14.5
13
@
GRAM
L 70-75
−3.5
22
vs
UNF
W 92-83
+20.5
23
vs
UTM
W 70-60
−16.5
3
@
RAD
W 82-75
+4.5
6
@
MIA
L 64-88
+6.5
8
vs
GRAM
W 68-60
−14.5
13
vs
MISS
L 67-71
−0.5
18
vs
UL
W 62-54
−16.5
20
vs
ARST
L 86-93
+23.5
29
@
LSU
L 62-90
−2.5
1
@
ULM
W 87-73
+7.5
3
@
UL
W 74-67
+11.5
8
vs
TXST
W 80-70
+5.5
10
vs
ULM
W 70-60
−25.5
14
@
TROY
L 65-91
+10.5
17
@
TXST
L 67-74
+0.5
22
@
GAST
L 62-69
−13.5
24
@
CCU
L 67-85
+10.5
29
vs
APP
L 63-70
−1.5
31
vs
JMU
W 73-65
−5.5
4
@
MRSH
L 77-81
+9.5
7
vs
KENT
W 66-65
−19.5
12
vs
USA
L 78-84
+26.5
14
vs
TROY
W 69-65
−10.5
21
vs
ODU
W 86-81
+19.5
24
@
ARST
L 84-89
+14.5
27
@
USA
W 68-55
−18.5
5
vs
JMU
W 86-80
+22.5
6
vs
TXST
W 81-77
+17.5
7
vs
APP
W 86-73
+21.5
8
vs
TROY
L 70-78
+5.5
over 20under 13avg +3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Valparaiso
32 games played
Straight up
17-15
53% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +2.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg −0.9 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 4 | vs | W 66-63 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 59-107 | +32.5 | L −15.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 68-63 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 68-50 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 143.5 | U 118 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 90-75 | +2.5 | W +17.5 | 158.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 56-64 | -9.5 | L −17.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 84-55 | -4.5 | W +24.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 72-75 | +17.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 70-73 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 70-86 | +14.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 79-85 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 48-58 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 131.5 | U 106 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 70-75 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 66-59 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 77-71 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 79-92 | +12.5 | L −0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 74-78 | +11.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 54-44 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 130.5 | U 98 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 69-63 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 77-78 | +5.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 76-72 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 65-72 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 6 | vs | W 70-63 | -8.5 | L −1.5 | 136.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 81-76 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 64-86 | +8.5 | L −13.5 | 138.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 76-75 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 79-72 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 71-67 | +7.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 74-71 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 79-80 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 63-62 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 84-90 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | O 174 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
EIU
W 66-63
−2.5
7
@
UK
L 59-107
−15.5
12
vs
NICH
W 68-63
+2.5
16
vs
BRY
W 68-50
+11.5
19
@
CLE
W 90-75
+17.5
26
vs
USI
L 56-64
−17.5
29
vs
WMU
W 84-55
+24.5
2
@
MARQ
L 72-75
+14.5
13
vs
UNCW
L 70-73
+1.5
16
@
NU
L 70-86
−1.5
21
vs
MUR
L 79-85
−0.5
29
@
UNI
L 48-58
−1.5
1
@
SIU
L 70-75
+2.5
4
vs
UIC
W 66-59
+4.5
7
vs
ILST
W 77-71
+12.5
10
@
MUR
L 79-92
−0.5
13
@
BEL
L 74-78
+7.5
17
vs
UNI
W 54-44
+11.5
21
vs
SIU
W 69-63
+4.5
28
vs
BEL
L 77-78
+4.5
31
@
INST
W 76-72
+6.5
3
@
BRAD
L 65-72
+0.5
6
vs
EVAN
W 70-63
−1.5
9
@
DRKE
W 81-76
+8.5
12
@
ILST
L 64-86
−13.5
15
vs
INST
W 76-75
−3.5
18
vs
BRAD
W 79-72
+9.5
21
@
UIC
W 71-67
+11.5
25
vs
DRKE
W 74-71
+0.5
28
@
EVAN
L 79-80
−6.5
5
vs
INST
W 63-62
−1.5
6
vs
BRAD
L 84-90
−0.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +2.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
EIU
W 66-63
−15.5
7
@
UK
L 59-107
+8.5
12
vs
NICH
W 68-63
−13.5
16
vs
BRY
W 68-50
−25.5
19
@
CLE
W 90-75
+6.5
26
vs
USI
L 56-64
−30.5
29
vs
WMU
W 84-55
−7.5
2
@
MARQ
L 72-75
+0.5
13
vs
UNCW
L 70-73
+6.5
16
@
NU
L 70-86
+10.5
21
vs
MUR
L 79-85
+8.5
29
@
UNI
L 48-58
−25.5
1
@
SIU
L 70-75
−0.5
4
vs
UIC
W 66-59
−19.5
7
vs
ILST
W 77-71
+9.5
10
@
MUR
L 79-92
+18.5
13
@
BEL
L 74-78
+5.5
17
vs
UNI
W 54-44
−32.5
21
vs
SIU
W 69-63
−10.5
28
vs
BEL
L 77-78
+9.5
31
@
INST
W 76-72
+2.5
3
@
BRAD
L 65-72
−7.5
6
vs
EVAN
W 70-63
−3.5
9
@
DRKE
W 81-76
+12.5
12
@
ILST
L 64-86
+11.5
15
vs
INST
W 76-75
+5.5
18
vs
BRAD
W 79-72
+8.5
21
@
UIC
W 71-67
−0.5
25
vs
DRKE
W 74-71
−1.5
28
@
EVAN
L 79-80
+21.5
5
vs
INST
W 63-62
−15.5
6
vs
BRAD
L 84-90
+34.5
over 17under 15avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Southern Miss 2, Valparaiso 2, even 1
Southern MissBetterValparaiso
G J. Gaines-Wyatt TR11.8 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 59
=Even
G R. Chaney10.6 pts · 3.4 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 62
G I. Taveras15.4 pts · 6.6 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 90
←USMBig
G B. Alocen TR6.4 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 34
G B. Carruth2.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 6
→VALBig
G J. McNair7.9 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 65
F C. Wallace TR12.1 pts · 6.8 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 53
→VALSmall
F J. Pettigrew12.6 pts · 6.9 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 70
F M. Overstreet TR2.4 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 39
←USMSmall
F C. Hopoi3.5 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 23
Southern MissBetterValparaiso
USM offense203rd of 366 · -6.3
=Even
VAL defense170th of 366 · -3.9
USM defense239th of 366 · -6.3
=Even
VAL offense199th of 366 · -6.1
Backcourt+0.4 · 3 players
←USMSmall
Backcourt-1.1 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.5 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.1 · 2 players
Bench-0.9 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.5 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUSM betterVAL betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
R. Chaney29 minB. Alocen22 min · TRJ. McNair18 minS. Servilus10 minN. Lombardi1 minC. Webster1 min
Forwards
J. Pettigrew28 minC. Hopoi15 minK. WalkerNewG. RichardsonNewH. ScrogginsNew
Centers
K. Yu8 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #197 | Points per game | 71.2 #263 |
| 1.05 #242 | Points per possession | 1.06 #233 |
| 70.1 #113 | Pace (possessions) | 67.4 #258 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.0 #289 | Effective FG% | 47.6 #322 |
| 28.9 #355 | 3-point % | 33.9 #180 |
| 28.7 #358 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.8 #234 |
| 43.2 #18 | Free throw rate | 39.1 #79 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.4 #290 | Turnover rate | 15.7 #116 |
| 32.5 #103 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.5 #110 |
| 11.2 #330 | Assists per game | 11.7 #307 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.8 #183 | Points allowed | 71.9 #103 |
| 1.07 #127 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #116 |
| 51.4 #177 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #130 |
| 34.5 #217 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #70 |
| 17.8 #109 | Turnovers forced | 16.9 #161 |
| 71.2 #97 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.9 #167 |
| 7.3 #98 | Steals per game | 5.9 #245 |
| 3.6 #127 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #124 |
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.
Valparaiso
17-15 in 2025-26 overall · 12-10 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Bradley84–90
- Wvs Indiana St63–62
- L@ Evansville79–80
- Wvs Drake74–71
- W@ UIC71–67
A week or more of rest.