Moody Coliseum (Dallas) · at SMU
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SMU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SMU 86–65 · win probability SMU 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.6
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: SMU has more of the edges
USA 2, SMU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
USA offense vs SMU defense
Offense 242nd of 366 against a defense 69th, on the model’s ratings
SMU offense vs USA defense
Offense 45th of 366 against a defense 212th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: USA 38.5, SMU 30.4. Allowed: USA 25.4, SMU 32.1
Context
Schedule so far
USA has played the 223rd-hardest schedule, SMU the 70th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USA 25.0%, SMU 35.4%. Defensive: USA 68.6%, SMU 68.4%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: USA plays 67.1 a game (277th fastest), SMU 71.1 (68th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USA 13.1%, SMU 15.8%. Forced: USA 18.0%, SMU 16.8%
Home court
SMU at home. This season: SMU 0-0 at home, USA 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
USA hits 34.5% and allows 33.1%; SMU hits 37.1% and allows 34.1%. Threes are 36.5% and 35.9% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: USA 52.6 and allows 50.1; SMU 55.6 and allows 51.6
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USA 21%, SMU 20%. Transfers in: USA 0, SMU 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | SMU -21.2 | — |
| Total | — | 151.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | USA 65.2 · SMU 86.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SMU -12.5 | — |
| 1H total | 70.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | USA 29.2 · SMU 41.7 | — |
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% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
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
SMU
34 games played
Straight up
20-14
59% wins
Against the spread
15-19
44% covers · avg +0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-14
59% overs · avg +2.4 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 | W 96-76 | -21.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 69-58 | -23.5 | L −12.5 | 160.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 102-91 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 164.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 87-85 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 106-60 | -35.5 | W +10.5 | 168.5 | U 166 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 100-69 | -14.5 | W +16.5 | 172.5 | U 169 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 89-72 | -23.5 | L −6.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Nov 28 | @ | W 87-81 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 69-88 | +10.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 93-80 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 164.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 77-89 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 99-82 | -24.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 181 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 110-63 | -21.5 | W +25.5 | 170.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 97-83 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 155.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 70-74 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 75-82 | +15.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 77-76 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-72 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 91-79 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 157.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 83-80 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 163.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-88 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 163.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 83-84 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 86-67 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 89-81 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 78-79 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 95-85 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 168.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 94-70 | -15.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 69-73 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 75-95 | -1.5 | L −21.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 69-77 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 78-91 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 158.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 86-69 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 58-62 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 18 | vs | L 79-89 | -6.5 | L −16.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TAR
W 96-76
−1.5
6
vs
AMCC
W 69-58
−12.5
11
vs
MUR
W 102-91
+0.5
15
vs
BTLR
W 87-85
−5.5
18
vs
UAPB
W 106-60
+10.5
21
vs
ARST
W 100-69
+16.5
24
vs
RAD
W 89-72
−6.5
28
@
MSST
W 87-81
+7.5
3
@
VAN
L 69-88
−8.5
7
vs
TA&M
W 93-80
+14.5
13
vs
LSU
L 77-89
−10.5
21
vs
CARK
W 99-82
−7.5
28
vs
CSUF
W 110-63
+25.5
3
vs
UNC
W 97-83
+12.5
7
@
CLEM
L 70-74
−0.5
10
@
DUKE
L 75-82
+8.5
14
vs
VT
W 77-76
−7.5
17
vs
UVA
L 68-72
−1.5
20
@
WAKE
W 91-79
+13.5
24
vs
FSU
W 83-80
−8.5
31
@
LOU
L 74-88
−4.5
3
vs
NCSU
L 83-84
+0.5
7
@
PITT
W 86-67
+14.5
10
vs
ND
W 89-81
−2.5
14
@
SYR
L 78-79
−2.5
17
vs
LOU
W 95-85
+14.5
21
vs
BC
W 94-70
+8.5
25
@
CAL
L 69-73
−8.5
28
@
STAN
L 75-95
−21.5
4
vs
MIA
L 69-77
−9.5
7
@
FSU
L 78-91
−11.5
10
vs
SYR
W 86-69
+13.5
11
vs
LOU
L 58-62
+3.5
18
vs
M-OH
L 79-89
−16.5
covered 15didn’t cover 19avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TAR
W 96-76
+27.5
6
vs
AMCC
W 69-58
−33.5
11
vs
MUR
W 102-91
+28.5
15
vs
BTLR
W 87-85
+8.5
18
vs
UAPB
W 106-60
−2.5
21
vs
ARST
W 100-69
−3.5
24
vs
RAD
W 89-72
−4.5
28
@
MSST
W 87-81
+5.5
3
@
VAN
L 69-88
−8.5
7
vs
TA&M
W 93-80
+8.5
13
vs
LSU
L 77-89
+7.5
21
vs
CARK
W 99-82
+24.5
28
vs
CSUF
W 110-63
+2.5
3
vs
UNC
W 97-83
+24.5
7
@
CLEM
L 70-74
−5.5
10
@
DUKE
L 75-82
+1.5
14
vs
VT
W 77-76
−2.5
17
vs
UVA
L 68-72
−13.5
20
@
WAKE
W 91-79
+12.5
24
vs
FSU
W 83-80
−0.5
31
@
LOU
L 74-88
−1.5
3
vs
NCSU
L 83-84
+7.5
7
@
PITT
W 86-67
+5.5
10
vs
ND
W 89-81
+15.5
14
@
SYR
L 78-79
−0.5
17
vs
LOU
W 95-85
+11.5
21
vs
BC
W 94-70
+13.5
25
@
CAL
L 69-73
−21.5
28
@
STAN
L 75-95
+14.5
4
vs
MIA
L 69-77
−10.5
7
@
FSU
L 78-91
+10.5
10
vs
SYR
W 86-69
+0.5
11
vs
LOU
L 58-62
−44.5
18
vs
M-OH
L 79-89
+5.5
over 20under 14avg +2.4 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 2, SMU 0, even 3
South AlabamaBetterSMU
G A. Goldstein NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G R. Brumbaugh TR19.1 pts · 4.8 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 95
G A. Lewis NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Terrell TR13.6 pts · 3.8 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 89
G J. Langsy NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G O. Sellers TR10.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 78
F P. Law13.1 pts · 5.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
←USASmall
G J. Patrick TR7.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 59
F S. Williams6 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 84
←USASmall
F J. Munch TR7.9 pts · 5.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 69
South AlabamaBetterSMU
USA offense242nd of 366 · -7.3
→SMUBig
SMU defense69th of 366 · +0.8
USA defense212th of 366 · -5.4
→SMUBig
SMU offense45th of 366 · +4.2
BackcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Backcourt+8.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt+3.5 · 2 players
←USASmall
Frontcourt+0.7 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUSA betterSMU 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
R. Brumbaugh36 min · TRD. Terrell33 min · TRO. Sellers29 min · TRJ. Patrick20 min · TRN. Kalischer-Stork1 minG. NormandNew
Forwards
J. Munch21 min · TRJ. Toombs20 minJ. Stewart16 min · TRN. Codie16 min · TRJ. O'Neal15 minN. Walls3 min
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 | 84.1 #19 |
| 1.10 #139 | Points per possession | 1.19 #26 |
| 67.1 #277 | Pace (possessions) | 71.1 #68 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.6 #120 | Effective FG% | 55.6 #27 |
| 34.5 #146 | 3-point % | 37.1 #27 |
| 36.5 #237 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.9 #252 |
| 38.5 #89 | Free throw rate | 30.4 #301 |
| Possessions | ||
| 13.1 #8 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #119 |
| 25.0 #341 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.4 #37 |
| 11.9 #287 | Assists per game | 16.9 #27 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.3 #85 | Points allowed | 77.9 #265 |
| 1.06 #100 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #199 |
| 50.1 #105 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.6 #189 |
| 33.1 #133 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.1 #188 |
| 18.0 #96 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #171 |
| 68.6 #222 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.4 #237 |
| 7.9 #46 | Steals per game | 7.0 #129 |
| 2.2 #330 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #132 |
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.
SMU
20-14 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Miami OH79–89
- Lvs Louisville58–62
- Wvs Syracuse86–69
- L@ Florida St78–91
- Lvs Miami69–77
A week or more of rest.