Who will win Hofstra vs Murray St?
The model gives Murray State a 79% chance to beat Hofstra, with a projected score of Murray St 78, Hofstra 69.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 70–80% have been right 74.5% of the time in 14,414 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Murray St | |||||
| DomonG · 30 min | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 20+ 45% | |
| ShorterG · 24 min | 14.6 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 15+ 46% | |
| RogersF · 26 min | 7.7 | 6.4 | 2.2 | 10+ 31% | |
| JonesG · 21 min | 6.9 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 5+ 63% | |
 Hofstra | |||||
| ThomasG · 27 min | 10.9 | 5.0 | 0.9 | 10+ 55% | |
| JeffersonG · 26 min | 9.5 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 10+ 44% | |
| Boyd IIIG · 24 min | 9.1 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 10+ 42% | |
| MooreG · 22 min | 7.5 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 5+ 69% | |
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 Roman Domon: Hofstra 29%Murray St 71%
The white mark is the call with him: Murray St 79%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | Murray St without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Murray St | ||||
| Roman Domon | 3.1 | 71% | −8 | 70–77 |
| Brigham Rogers | 2.6 | 72% | −7 | 70–77 |
| Christian Jones | 1.8 | 75% | −4 | 70–77 |
| Brayden Shorter | 1.2 | 76% | −3 | 69–78 |
| Hofstra | ||||
| Imanuel Zorgvol | 0.9 | 82% | +3 | 68–79 |
| Joshua DeCady | 0.8 | 81% | +2 | 68–79 |
| Tanner Thomas | 0.8 | 81% | +2 | 68–79 |
Change is in Murray St's win chance, in points. Scores read Hofstra, then Murray St. 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
Hofstra 1-2WLL
- Nov 10L 63-85at Arizona StDidn't cover +18.5 · Over 133.5
- Nov 5L 58-60at PrincetonCovered +2.5 · Under 137.5
- Nov 2W 97-51vs St. Joseph's Long Island
- Last 3
- 1–2, scoring 72.7 and allowing 65.3
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–1
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 1 under
Murray St 3-0WWW
- Nov 10W 94-57vs Alcorn StCovered −30.5 · Under 165.5
- Nov 7W 93-71vs N'Western StDidn't cover −23.5 · Over 155.5
- Nov 2W 94-64vs Tennessee St
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 93.7 and allowing 64.0
- 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
| Hofstra | Murray St | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 102.8 202nd | 109.5 95th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 105.5 122nd | 100.1 60th |
| Possessions a game | 68.9 337th | 73.5 7th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 50.6% 179th | 52.4% 66th |
| Opponents' shooting | 49.4% 106th | 48.8% 59th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 17.8% 151st | 18.9% 274th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 30.8% 242nd | 33.5% 85th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.23 313th | 0.27 124th |
The widest gap: Murray St's defense (60th) against Hofstra's offense (202nd), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Hofstra 32, Murray St 37
- First-half margin
- Murray St by 5.1
- First-half points, both teams
- 68.9
- Projected second half
- Hofstra 37, Murray St 41
- Second-half points, both teams
- 78.0
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Hofstra, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 3 · 34.0 scored, 29.0 allowed
- Murray St, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 46.3 scored, 34.7 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
Hofstra
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tanner ThomasG | 27 | 10.9 | 5.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| 10+ pts 55% · 5+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 63% | |||||
| Nick JeffersonG | 26 | 9.5 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 44% · 3+ ast 49% · 1+ threes 50% | |||||
| Trey Boyd IIIG | 24 | 9.1 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 |
| 10+ pts 42% · 3+ reb 46% · 2+ threes 40% | |||||
| Joshua DeCadyF | 24 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 52% · 4+ reb 43% · 1+ threes 23% | |||||
| Justin MooreG | 22 | 7.5 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 1.0 |
| 5+ pts 69% · 3+ reb 48% · 3+ ast 48% | |||||
| Spence WeweF | 19 | 3.7 | 4.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 32% · 5+ reb 47% | |||||
| Deywilk TavarezG | 18 | 7.2 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
| 5+ pts 66% · 3+ reb 44% · 2+ threes 40% | |||||
| Imanuel ZorgvolF | 15 | 5.8 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 54% · 3+ reb 50% | |||||
Murray St
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roman DomonG | 30 | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 1.7 |
| 20+ pts 45% · 5+ reb 53% · 2+ threes 46% | |||||
| Brigham RogersF | 26 | 7.7 | 6.4 | 2.2 | 0.0 |
| 10+ pts 31% · 7+ reb 45% · 2+ ast 60% | |||||
| Brayden ShorterG | 24 | 14.6 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 2.9 |
| 15+ pts 46% · 3+ reb 48% · 3+ threes 51% | |||||
| Christian JonesG | 21 | 6.9 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 1.3 |
| 5+ pts 63% · 3+ reb 44% · 3+ ast 58% | |||||
| Talis SoulhacG | 19 | 6.8 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 63% · 2+ ast 59% · 1+ threes 44% | |||||
| Lachlan CrateG | 19 | 5.0 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 46% · 3+ reb 51% · 1+ threes 34% | |||||
| Mathis CourbonG | 16 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 42% · 2+ reb 57% · 1+ threes 44% | |||||
| Ben ShtolzbergG | 15 | 4.4 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 40% · 2+ reb 51% · 2+ ast 33% | |||||
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…