Who will win Marquette vs Texas A&M?
The model gives Marquette a 56% chance to beat Texas A&M, with a projected score of Marquette 76, Texas A&M 74.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 50–60% have been right 55.4% of the time in 16,654 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Marquette | |||||
| ParhamF · 27 min | 12.3 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 10+ 64% | |
| StevensG · 26 min | 9.9 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 10+ 48% | |
| James Jr.G · 23 min | 8.5 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 10+ 37% | |
| MinessaleG · 19 min | 8.3 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 10+ 36% | |
 Texas A&M | |||||
| HaggertyG · 27 min | 17.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 15+ 63% | |
| PopeG · 25 min | 13.4 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 15+ 39% | |
| ShelleyF · 22 min | 9.4 | 6.2 | 2.0 | 10+ 44% | |
| MgbakoF · 22 min | 8.7 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 10+ 39% | |
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 Sananda Fru: Marquette 40%Texas A&M 60%
The white mark is the call with him: Marquette 56%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | Marquette without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marquette | ||||
| Sananda Fru | 4.1 | 40% | −16 | 74–76 |
| Nigel James Jr. | 3.0 | 45% | −11 | 74–76 |
| Royce Parham | 2.9 | 45% | −11 | 75–76 |
| Nolan Minessale | 2.9 | 45% | −11 | 75–76 |
| Texas A&M | ||||
| PJ Haggerty | 3.2 | 69% | +13 | 78–73 |
| Rylan Griffen | 3.1 | 68% | +12 | 78–73 |
| Jordan Pope | 2.8 | 67% | +11 | 77–73 |
| Mackenzie Mgbako | 2.3 | 65% | +9 | 77–73 |
Change is in Marquette's win chance, in points. Scores read Marquette, then Texas A&M. 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
Marquette 2-1WWL
- Nov 11L 70-84at MichiganDidn't cover +3.5 · Under 156.5
- Nov 6W 93-32vs Detroit MercyCovered −32.5 · Under 154.5
- Nov 2W 78-43vs Mercyhurst
- Last 3
- 2–1, scoring 80.3 and allowing 53.0
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–1
- Totals, this season
- 0 over, 2 under
Texas A&M 4-0WWWW
- Nov 12W 88-69vs Oklahoma StCovered −8.5 · Under 179.5
- Nov 9W 108-67vs UL MonroeCovered −36.5 · Over 169.5
- Nov 6W 104-67vs N KentuckyCovered −27.5 · Under 172.5
- Nov 3W 97-66vs Alabama St
- Last 4
- 4–0, scoring 99.2 and allowing 67.2
- Against the spread, this season
- 3–0
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 2 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
| Marquette | Texas A&M | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 114.7 56th | 115.4 49th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 92.0 11th | 93.8 16th |
| Possessions a game | 71.0 157th | 73.7 5th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 50.0% 224th | 53.1% 33rd |
| Opponents' shooting | 47.7% 26th | 46.1% 5th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 16.4% 20th | 17.8% 146th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 35.2% 20th | 31.3% 212th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.21 359th | 0.28 74th |
The widest gap: Texas A&M's defense (16th) against Marquette's offense (56th), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Marquette 36, Texas A&M 35
- First-half margin
- Marquette by 0.9
- First-half points, both teams
- 70.5
- Projected second half
- Marquette 40, Texas A&M 40
- Second-half points, both teams
- 79.8
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Marquette, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 3 · 34.7 scored, 22.7 allowed
- Texas A&M, first halves so far
- Led 4 of 4 · 50.0 scored, 31.2 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
Marquette
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Royce ParhamF | 27 | 12.3 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 1.0 |
| 10+ pts 64% · 6+ reb 48% · 1+ threes 59% | |||||
| Adrien StevensG | 26 | 9.9 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.8 |
| 10+ pts 48% · 3+ reb 45% · 2+ threes 48% | |||||
| Sananda FruF | 24 | 8.2 | 6.3 | 1.2 | 0.3 |
| 10+ pts 35% · 6+ reb 57% · 2+ ast 32% | |||||
| Nigel James Jr.G | 23 | 8.5 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 1.1 |
| 10+ pts 37% · 2+ reb 58% · 4+ ast 51% | |||||
| Nolan MinessaleG | 19 | 8.3 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 36% · 3+ reb 49% · 1+ threes 55% | |||||
| Damarius OwensSF | 16 | 6.1 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 57% · 3+ reb 44% · 1+ threes 49% | |||||
| Colin PorterG | 15 | 6.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 5+ pts 63% · 2+ reb 40% · 2+ ast 38% | |||||
| Alex EgbuonuSF | 15 | 6.8 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 |
| 5+ pts 63% · 3+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 54% | |||||
Texas A&M
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PJ HaggertyG | 27 | 17.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.0 |
| 15+ pts 63% · 3+ reb 58% · 1+ threes 58% | |||||
| Jordan PopeG | 25 | 13.4 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| 15+ pts 39% · 2+ reb 46% · 2+ threes 56% | |||||
| Rylan GriffenG | 23 | 8.2 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.2 |
| 10+ pts 35% · 3+ reb 53% · 2+ ast 49% | |||||
| Jalen ShelleyF | 22 | 9.4 | 6.2 | 2.0 | 0.8 |
| 10+ pts 44% · 6+ reb 55% · 1+ threes 53% | |||||
| Mackenzie MgbakoF | 22 | 8.7 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| 10+ pts 39% · 5+ reb 43% · 2+ threes 37% | |||||
| Zach ClemenceF | 18 | 7.7 | 3.0 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 31% · 3+ reb 53% · 1+ threes 55% | |||||
| Cade PhillipsF | 16 | 4.8 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| 53% to play · 5+ pts 44% · 4+ reb 46% | |||||
| Josh IrvingF | 15 | 5.8 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
| 5+ pts 54% · 4+ reb 47% · 1+ threes 17% | |||||
Missed the last game: Cade Phillips (18 min a game).
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…