Convocation Center (LA) · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FRES | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FRES 75–71 · win probability FRES 65%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.5
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: USA has more of the edges
USA 3, FRES 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USA 13.1%, FRES 18.1%. Forced: USA 18.0%, FRES 18.2%
Context
Schedule so far
USA has played the 223rd-hardest schedule, FRES the 103rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: USA 52.6 and allows 50.1; FRES 50.6 and allows 51.5
Free throws
Free throw rate: USA 38.5, FRES 33.8. Allowed: USA 25.4, FRES 28.6
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: USA plays 67.1 a game (277th fastest), FRES 69.3 (156th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USA 25.0%, FRES 27.9%. Defensive: USA 68.6%, FRES 69.4%
USA offense vs FRES defense
Offense 242nd of 366 against a defense 190th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USA 21%, FRES 0%. Transfers in: USA 0, FRES 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
FRES offense vs USA defense
Offense 176th of 366 against a defense 212th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
USA hits 34.5% and allows 33.1%; FRES hits 32.1% and allows 30.7%. Threes are 36.5% and 40.9% of their shots
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | FRES -4.4 | — |
| Total | — | 146.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | USA 71.1 · FRES 75.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FRES -2.5 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | USA 33 · FRES 35.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 2-8 20% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
South Alabama
31 games played
Straight up
19-12
61% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg +2.3 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 | @ | W 76-74 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 76-70 | -18.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 66-64 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 72-62 | -18.5 | L −8.5 | 133.5 | O 134 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 71-65 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 135.5 | O 136 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 72-80 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 82-58 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 77-75 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 65-91 | +7.5 | L −18.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 57-58 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 96-92 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 65-67 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 63-58 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 127.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 49-59 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 87-71 | -2.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 91-87 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 154.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 56-59 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 129.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 90-83 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 53-48 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | U 101 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 69-67 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 57-65 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 81-69 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 84-78 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 135.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 92-88 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 80-84 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 82-90 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 65-54 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 89-54 | -14.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 55-68 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 67-78 | +18.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
TOL
W 76-74
+4.5
6
vs
ALCN
W 76-70
−12.5
13
vs
CMU
W 66-64
−3.5
15
vs
COPP
W 72-62
−8.5
19
@
JXST
W 71-65
+8.5
21
@
UAB
L 72-80
−0.5
30
@
UTSA
W 82-58
+22.5
2
vs
NMSU
W 77-75
+4.5
5
@
ETSU
L 65-91
−18.5
14
vs
UNT
L 57-58
−2.5
17
@
ULM
W 96-92
−5.5
20
@
TXST
L 65-67
+1.5
31
@
UL
W 63-58
+1.5
3
@
TROY
L 49-59
−0.5
10
vs
GASO
W 87-71
+13.5
15
vs
ARST
W 91-87
+8.5
17
vs
UL
L 56-59
−12.5
22
@
JMU
W 90-83
+11.5
29
vs
CCU
W 53-48
+1.5
31
vs
GAST
W 69-67
−3.5
4
@
APP
L 57-65
−2.5
7
vs
BUF
W 81-69
+8.5
12
@
USM
W 84-78
+7.5
14
@
ARST
W 92-88
+12.5
16
@
MRSH
L 80-84
+2.5
19
vs
TXST
L 82-90
−11.5
21
vs
TROY
W 65-54
+13.5
25
vs
ULM
W 89-54
+20.5
27
vs
USM
L 55-68
−17.5
6
vs
GASO
L 85-94
−13.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-78
+7.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
TOL
W 76-74
−0.5
6
vs
ALCN
W 76-70
+4.5
13
vs
CMU
W 66-64
−12.5
15
vs
COPP
W 72-62
+0.5
19
@
JXST
W 71-65
+0.5
21
@
UAB
L 72-80
+2.5
30
@
UTSA
W 82-58
−1.5
2
vs
NMSU
W 77-75
+16.5
5
@
ETSU
L 65-91
+12.5
14
vs
UNT
L 57-58
−20.5
17
@
ULM
W 96-92
+39.5
20
@
TXST
L 65-67
−4.5
31
@
UL
W 63-58
−6.5
3
@
TROY
L 49-59
−40.5
10
vs
GASO
W 87-71
+9.5
15
vs
ARST
W 91-87
+23.5
17
vs
UL
L 56-59
−14.5
22
@
JMU
W 90-83
+34.5
29
vs
CCU
W 53-48
−38.5
31
vs
GAST
W 69-67
−4.5
4
@
APP
L 57-65
−9.5
7
vs
BUF
W 81-69
+4.5
12
@
USM
W 84-78
+26.5
14
@
ARST
W 92-88
+30.5
16
@
MRSH
L 80-84
+13.5
19
vs
TXST
L 82-90
+34.5
21
vs
TROY
W 65-54
−23.5
25
vs
ULM
W 89-54
−10.5
27
vs
USM
L 55-68
−18.5
6
vs
GASO
L 85-94
+29.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-78
−6.5
over 16under 15avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Fresno St
31 games played
Straight up
12-19
39% wins
Against the spread
21-10
68% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-19
39% overs · avg −4.7 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 5 | vs | L 66-67 | -9.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 82-62 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 12 | vs | L 73-78 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 75-74 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 80-78 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 85-76 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 76-53 | -2.5 | W +20.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 71-76 | -10.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 58-82 | +19.5 | L −4.5 | 161.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 87-89 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 161.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 72-84 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | U 156 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 63-72 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 65-66 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 70-55 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 52-71 | +14.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 79-69 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 63-60 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 74-83 | +15.5 | W +6.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 57-68 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-62 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 141.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 98-96 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 59-69 | +11.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 10 | @ | L 78-91 | +21.5 | W +8.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 93-63 | -14.5 | W +15.5 | 142.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 82-92 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 78-80 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 156.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 70-74 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 53-69 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 122 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 82-68 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 60-85 | +12.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 63-67 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
UPST
L 66-67
−10.5
8
vs
LBSU
W 82-62
+13.5
12
vs
UCSD
L 73-78
−6.5
15
vs
UVU
W 75-74
+5.5
18
vs
SFA
W 80-78
+4.5
21
vs
NOLA
W 85-76
+2.5
26
vs
PEPP
W 76-53
+20.5
30
vs
CSUB
L 71-76
−15.5
6
@
ARK
L 58-82
−4.5
10
@
CSUN
L 87-89
+1.5
20
@
UNLV
L 72-84
−3.5
30
vs
USU
L 63-72
+5.5
3
vs
NEV
L 65-66
+3.5
6
@
SJSU
W 70-55
+13.5
10
@
SDSU
L 52-71
−4.5
13
vs
CSU
W 79-69
+13.5
17
vs
WYO
W 63-60
+6.5
21
@
UNM
L 74-83
+6.5
24
vs
GCU
L 57-68
−6.5
31
@
AF
W 79-62
+7.5
3
vs
UNLV
W 98-96
+3.5
7
@
NEV
L 59-69
+1.5
10
@
USU
L 78-91
+8.5
14
vs
AF
W 93-63
+15.5
17
@
WYO
L 82-92
−0.5
21
vs
UNM
L 78-80
+7.5
24
@
CSU
L 70-74
+4.5
28
vs
BOIS
L 53-69
−8.5
3
vs
SJSU
W 82-68
+6.5
7
@
GCU
L 60-85
−12.5
11
vs
CSU
L 63-67
+3.5
covered 21didn’t cover 10avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
UPST
L 66-67
−31.5
8
vs
LBSU
W 82-62
+1.5
12
vs
UCSD
L 73-78
+2.5
15
vs
UVU
W 75-74
−7.5
18
vs
SFA
W 80-78
+11.5
21
vs
NOLA
W 85-76
+6.5
26
vs
PEPP
W 76-53
−21.5
30
vs
CSUB
L 71-76
−3.5
6
@
ARK
L 58-82
−21.5
10
@
CSUN
L 87-89
+14.5
20
@
UNLV
L 72-84
−3.5
30
vs
USU
L 63-72
−19.5
3
vs
NEV
L 65-66
−15.5
6
@
SJSU
W 70-55
−24.5
10
@
SDSU
L 52-71
−23.5
13
vs
CSU
W 79-69
+8.5
17
vs
WYO
W 63-60
−22.5
21
@
UNM
L 74-83
+5.5
24
vs
GCU
L 57-68
−20.5
31
@
AF
W 79-62
−0.5
3
vs
UNLV
W 98-96
+40.5
7
@
NEV
L 59-69
−21.5
10
@
USU
L 78-91
+16.5
14
vs
AF
W 93-63
+13.5
17
@
WYO
L 82-92
+25.5
21
vs
UNM
L 78-80
+1.5
24
@
CSU
L 70-74
−5.5
28
vs
BOIS
L 53-69
−27.5
3
vs
SJSU
W 82-68
−1.5
7
@
GCU
L 60-85
−4.5
11
vs
CSU
L 63-67
−16.5
over 12under 19avg −4.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
South Alabama has the better starters
Position by position: South Alabama 1, Fresno St 0, even 4
South AlabamaBetterFresno St
G A. Goldstein NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Lungu TR13.2 pts · 5.4 reb · 3 ast
Not ranked
G A. Lewis NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G R. Candelino TR11.2 pts · 5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 76
G J. Langsy NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G B. Amuneke TR2.1 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 28
F P. Law13.1 pts · 5.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
←USABig
F B. Henige TR4.9 pts · 5.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 38
F S. Williams6 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 84
=No call
C B. Fall TR0.6 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
South AlabamaBetterFresno St
USA offense242nd of 366 · -7.3
=Even
FRES defense190th of 366 · -4.4
USA defense212th of 366 · -5.4
=Even
FRES offense176th of 366 · -5.4
BackcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Backcourt+1.3 · 3 players
Frontcourt+3.5 · 2 players
←USABig
Frontcourt-0.8 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestUSA betterFRES betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. GoldsteinNewA. LewisNewJ. LangsyNewS. ShoptawNewD. WilliamsNewD. RomanNew
Forwards
P. Law26 minS. Williams15 minL. KunzewitschNewO. KenneyNewR. WilliamsNewD. HueittNew
Guards
D. Lungu27 min · TRR. Candelino25 min · TRB. Amuneke8 min · TRN. ZulemieNewK. PerryNewQ. RhymesNew
Forwards
B. Henige20 min · TRR. ParsleyNewY. Kesse-BedaNewA. GrangerNewM. VuckovicNewC. SchroederNew
Centers
B. Fall5 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.2 #218 | Points per game | 72.3 #233 |
| 1.10 #139 | Points per possession | 1.04 #266 |
| 67.1 #277 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #156 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.6 #120 | Effective FG% | 50.6 #206 |
| 34.5 #146 | 3-point % | 32.1 #274 |
| 36.5 #237 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.9 #146 |
| 38.5 #89 | Free throw rate | 33.8 #218 |
| Possessions | ||
| 13.1 #8 | Turnover rate | 18.1 #277 |
| 25.0 #341 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.9 #272 |
| 11.9 #287 | Assists per game | 12.6 #247 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.3 #85 | Points allowed | 73.5 #142 |
| 1.06 #100 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #110 |
| 50.1 #105 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.5 #184 |
| 33.1 #133 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.7 #30 |
| 18.0 #96 | Turnovers forced | 18.2 #88 |
| 68.6 #222 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.4 #183 |
| 7.9 #46 | Steals per game | 6.7 #154 |
| 2.2 #330 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #331 |
South Alabama
19-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Auburn67–78
- Lvs GA Southern85–94
- Lvs Southern Miss55–68
- Wvs UL Monroe89–54
- Wvs Troy65–54
A week or more of rest.
Fresno St
12-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-14 in conference · Pac-12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Colorado St63–67
- L@ Grand Canyon60–85
- Wvs San José St82–68
- Lvs Boise St53–69
- L@ Colorado St70–74
A week or more of rest.