UL Monroe at Grand Canyon
Saturday, November 14, 2026, 8:00 PM ET at Global Credit Union Arena. UL Monroe our rank 298 · 1-3; Grand Canyon our rank 70 · 3-0.
Who will win UL Monroe vs Grand Canyon?
The model gives Grand Canyon a 98% chance to beat UL Monroe, with a projected score of Grand Canyon 92, UL Monroe 68.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 90–100% have been right 95.4% of the time in 11,767 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 8.8 points. After the final, the result is pinned to this strip. As of 2:23 AM ET on November 13, 2026. Updated three times a day until tip-off.
Players to watch
| Player | Pts | Reb | Ast | Last games | Chance of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grand Canyon | |||||
| HenleyG · 25 min | 17.5 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 15+ 63% | |
| WilliamsG · 25 min | 14.9 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 15+ 48% | |
| DarlingG · 24 min | 10.6 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 10+ 52% | |
| BarkleyF · 19 min | 10.4 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 10+ 51% | |
| UL Monroe | |||||
| AndersonG · 31 min | 13.4 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 15+ 39% | |
| McPhersonG · 25 min | 12.7 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 15+ 35% | |
| LondonG · 21 min | 9.8 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 10+ 47% | |
| TillmanG · 26 min | 8.6 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 10+ 38% | |
Bars: points in the player's latest games this season. Blue line: tonight's projection. Every regular's line
The game without one player
Without Jaden Henley: UL Monroe 3%Grand Canyon 97%
The white mark is the call with him: Grand Canyon 98%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | Grand Canyon without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grand Canyon | ||||
| Jaden Henley | 2.8 | 97% | −1 | 70–91 |
| Dylan Darling | 2.5 | 97% | −1 | 70–91 |
| Makaih Williams | 2.4 | 97% | −1 | 70–91 |
| Tre Holloman | 1.7 | 98% | 0 | 69–91 |
Change is in Grand Canyon's win chance, in points. Scores read UL Monroe, then Grand Canyon. A player's value is what the team is better by with him than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
UL Monroe 1-3LWLL
- Nov 10L 92-100at TCUCovered +33.5 · Over 160.5
- Nov 9L 67-108at Texas A&MDidn't cover +36.5 · Over 169.5
- Nov 4W 99-55vs Champion Christian
- Nov 2L 78-83vs C Michigan
- Last 4
- 1–3, scoring 84.0 and allowing 86.5
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–1
- Totals, this season
- 2 over, 0 under
Grand Canyon 3-0WWW
- Nov 11W 99-71vs Cal PolyCovered −18.5 · Under 181.5
- Nov 7W 99-81vs BethuneDidn't cover −22.5 · Over 155.5
- Nov 2W 103-79vs Texas Southern
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 100.3 and allowing 77.0
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–1
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 1 under
The spread and the total are the lines logged with each prediction. Form is what happened; the ratings above already count recent games more.
Offense against defense
| UL Monroe | Grand Canyon | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 100.3 264th | 113.4 65th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 113.7 319th | 101.8 79th |
| Possessions a game | 72.3 49th | 72.7 29th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 50.9% 149th | 51.5% 108th |
| Opponents' shooting | 50.3% 166th | 51.0% 221st |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 19.4% 311th | 16.9% 58th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 34.1% 55th | 32.4% 144th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.25 242nd | 0.27 143rd |
The widest gap: Grand Canyon's offense (65th) against UL Monroe's defense (319th), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- UL Monroe 31, Grand Canyon 44
- First-half margin
- Grand Canyon by 13.1
- First-half points, both teams
- 75.4
- Projected second half
- UL Monroe 37, Grand Canyon 48
- Second-half points, both teams
- 85.3
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- UL Monroe, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 4 · 39.8 scored, 38.0 allowed
- Grand Canyon, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 47.0 scored, 36.3 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 11,516 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 67.2% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.1 points on average. This season: 366 of 476 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
UL Monroe
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dayjaun AndersonG | 31 | 13.4 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 2.5 |
| 15+ pts 39% · 5+ reb 53% · 2+ ast 53% | |||||
| Lance CarrF | 26 | 6.2 | 5.9 | 0.7 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 57% · 6+ reb 51% · 2+ ast 18% | |||||
| Phillip TillmanG | 26 | 8.6 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 38% · 2+ ast 55% · 1+ threes 47% | |||||
| Quaran McPhersonG | 25 | 12.7 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 1.5 |
| 15+ pts 35% · 3+ reb 52% · 2+ threes 40% | |||||
| Khalil LondonG | 21 | 9.8 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 1.2 |
| 10+ pts 47% · 2+ reb 61% · 2+ ast 40% | |||||
| Ziyade NdanckyC | 19 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 66% · 5+ reb 51% · 1+ threes 27% | |||||
| Mike WhiteG | 18 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 33% · 2+ ast 49% · 1+ threes 46% | |||||
| Robert CowherdG | 16 | 4.9 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.0 |
| 5+ pts 45% · 2+ reb 33% · 1+ threes 59% | |||||
Grand Canyon
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makaih WilliamsG | 25 | 14.9 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| 15+ pts 48% · 3+ reb 52% · 3+ ast 46% | |||||
| Jaden HenleyG | 25 | 17.5 | 3.9 | 2.7 | 1.3 |
| 15+ pts 63% · 4+ reb 51% · 3+ ast 50% | |||||
| Dylan DarlingG | 24 | 10.6 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 1.3 |
| 10+ pts 52% · 4+ reb 42% · 4+ ast 51% | |||||
| Tre HollomanG | 21 | 8.5 | 1.7 | 3.7 | 1.6 |
| 10+ pts 37% · 2+ reb 47% · 4+ ast 49% | |||||
| Amarion DickersonF | 20 | 8.5 | 3.8 | 2.1 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 37% · 4+ reb 49% · 1+ threes 48% | |||||
| Blake BarkleyF | 19 | 10.4 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 51% · 4+ reb 56% · 1+ threes 47% | |||||
| Tyler BehrendF | 19 | 8.6 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 |
| 10+ pts 37% · 6+ reb 45% · 2+ ast 41% | |||||
| Efe DemirelC | 15 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 60% · 5+ reb 45% | |||||
Our own projections from each player's minutes and production, this opponent and the game's pace: not a sportsbook's lines. Under each name, the round numbers the player is about as likely as not to reach. How they have done
Win probability
Game chat
Loading the chat…