Chicago St at LMU
Sunday, November 15, 2026, 4:00 PM ET at Gersten Pavilion. Chicago St our rank 349 · 2-2; LMU our rank 161 · 1-3.
Who will win Chicago St vs LMU?
The model gives Loyola Marymount a 91% chance to beat Chicago State, with a projected score of LMU 81, Chicago St 66.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LMU | |||||
| SensleyG · 30 min | 16.3 | 9.7 | 1.4 | 15+ 57% | |
| PorterF · 27 min | 12.2 | 6.5 | 2.3 | 10+ 63% | |
| SigiscarF · 18 min | 10.0 | 4.9 | 0.7 | 10+ 48% | |
| WrightG · 29 min | 8.8 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 10+ 39% | |
| Chicago St | |||||
| PriceG · 27 min | 17.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 15+ 62% | |
| Lovings-WattsG · 26 min | 8.9 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 10+ 40% | |
| SheriffF · 18 min | 7.1 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 5+ 66% | |
| CarrawayG · 16 min | 6.2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 5+ 57% | |
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 Jevon Porter: Chicago St 11%LMU 89%
The white mark is the call with him: LMU 91%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | LMU without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LMU | ||||
| Jevon Porter | 1.4 | 89% | −2 | 67–81 |
| Zion Sensley | 1.3 | 89% | −2 | 67–81 |
| Andy Sigiscar | 0.8 | 90% | −1 | 67–81 |
| Aaron McBride | 0.6 | 90% | −1 | 67–81 |
Change is in LMU's win chance, in points. Scores read Chicago St, then LMU. 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
Chicago St 2-2LWLW
- Nov 11W 81-62at CA BaptistCovered +11.5 · Over 138.5
- Nov 9L 67-82vs SC StateDidn't cover −2.5 · Over 144.5
- Nov 5W 66-54at Incarnate WordCovered +8.5 · Under 142.5
- Nov 2L 59-109at Texas
- Last 4
- 2–2, scoring 68.2 and allowing 76.8
- Against the spread, this season
- 2–1
- Totals, this season
- 2 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
| Chicago St | LMU | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 94.9 338th | 107.1 123rd |
| Points allowed per 100 | 114.4 329th | 110.6 245th |
| Possessions a game | 69.7 292nd | 70.2 245th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 49.6% 250th | 49.6% 245th |
| Opponents' shooting | 51.6% 263rd | 53.9% 349th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 19.8% 333rd | 17.0% 61st |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 34.4% 43rd | 34.9% 23rd |
| Free throws per shot | 0.29 65th | 0.24 295th |
The widest gap: LMU's offense (123rd) against Chicago St's defense (329th), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Chicago St 31, LMU 39
- First-half margin
- LMU by 8.2
- First-half points, both teams
- 69.4
- Projected second half
- Chicago St 36, LMU 43
- Second-half points, both teams
- 78.5
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Chicago St, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 4 · 34.0 scored, 39.2 allowed
- LMU, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 4 · 44.5 scored, 34.2 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
Chicago St
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike PriceG | 27 | 17.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 2.4 |
| 15+ pts 62% · 2+ ast 46% · 3+ threes 41% | |||||
| Will Lovings-WattsG | 26 | 8.9 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 40% · 4+ reb 50% · 1+ threes 55% | |||||
| Kameron FomanF | 24 | 3.7 | 5.5 | 0.7 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 32% · 6+ reb 45% · 2+ ast 16% | |||||
| Malik OlafioyeG | 22 | 5.5 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 0.2 |
| 5+ pts 51% · 3+ reb 47% · 2+ ast 56% | |||||
| Malek RobinsonG | 22 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 33% · 2+ reb 51% · 2+ ast 43% | |||||
| Foday SheriffF | 18 | 7.1 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 66% · 4+ reb 45% · 1+ threes 34% | |||||
| Ben KalonjiC | 16 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 30% · 3+ reb 57% | |||||
| Armari CarrawayG | 16 | 6.2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.4 |
| 5+ pts 57% · 2+ reb 30% · 2+ threes 39% | |||||
LMU
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zion SensleyG | 30 | 16.3 | 9.7 | 1.4 | 2.9 |
| 15+ pts 57% · 10+ reb 49% · 3+ threes 51% | |||||
| Mazi MosleyG | 29 | 7.6 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 1.4 |
| 5+ pts 69% · 3+ reb 48% · 3+ ast 49% | |||||
| All WrightG | 29 | 8.8 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 1.7 |
| 10+ pts 39% · 2+ reb 47% · 3+ ast 52% | |||||
| Jevon PorterF | 27 | 12.2 | 6.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 |
| 10+ pts 63% · 7+ reb 46% · 3+ ast 40% | |||||
| Jasai MilesG | 26 | 8.8 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 1.8 |
| 10+ pts 39% · 5+ reb 43% · 2+ threes 49% | |||||
| Aaron McBrideF | 22 | 7.3 | 4.3 | 0.8 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 67% · 4+ reb 58% · 2+ ast 19% | |||||
| Andy SigiscarF | 18 | 10.0 | 4.9 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
| 10+ pts 48% · 5+ reb 51% · 2+ ast 16% | |||||
| Zamir PaschalG | 11 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| 32% to play · 5+ pts 33% · 2+ reb 38% · 1+ threes 35% | |||||
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…