Bowling Green v Texas A&M
Women's · Friday, November 27, 2026, 11:00 AM ET at Community School of Naples. Bowling Green our rank 166 · 3-0; Texas A&M our rank 99 · 3-0.
Who will win Bowling Green vs Texas A&M?
The model gives Texas A&M a 73% chance to beat Bowling Green, with a projected score of Texas A&M 72, Bowling Green 65.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 70–80% have been right 74.9% of the time in 7,564 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 9.5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas A&M | |||||
| GilbertG · 34 min | 14.5 | 5.5 | 3.7 | 15+ 46% | |
| ParkerC · 26 min | 12.0 | 6.9 | 0.5 | 10+ 62% | |
| VerseF · 25 min | 7.8 | 7.1 | 0.6 | 10+ 32% | |
| KentG · 24 min | 6.5 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 5+ 61% | |
| Bowling Green | |||||
| GerkenF · 30 min | 15.8 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 15+ 54% | |
| SilvaF · 28 min | 13.6 | 6.5 | 2.1 | 15+ 40% | |
| CaetanoG · 21 min | 7.5 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 5+ 69% | |
| MonteiroG · 22 min | 7.2 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 5+ 67% | |
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 Kailyn Gilbert: Bowling Green 37%Texas A&M 63%
The white mark is the call with her: Texas A&M 73%.
| Player | Points a game she adds | Texas A&M without her | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas A&M | ||||
| Kailyn Gilbert | 3.4 | 63% | −10 | 66–71 |
| Miyah Verse | 2.8 | 65% | −8 | 66–71 |
| Kaniya Boyd | 1.8 | 68% | −5 | 66–71 |
| Emerald Parker | 1.6 | 69% | −4 | 65–71 |
| Bowling Green | ||||
| Lauren Gerken | 1.9 | 78% | +5 | 64–73 |
| Carol Silva | 0.8 | 75% | +2 | 64–73 |
| Joniyah Bland-Fitzpatrick | 0.6 | 75% | +2 | 64–73 |
| Sara Caetano | 0.6 | 75% | +2 | 64–73 |
Change is in Texas A&M's win chance, in points. Scores read Bowling Green, then Texas A&M. A player's value is what the team is better by with her than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
Bowling Green 3-0WWW
- Nov 10W 91-66vs Bellarmine
- Nov 5W 77-73vs Cleveland St
- Nov 2W 82-59vs GA Southern
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 83.3 and allowing 66.0
Texas A&M 3-0WWW
- Nov 7W 90-63vs LSU N Orleans
- Nov 5W 62-51vs Louisiana
- Nov 2W 77-54vs AR-Pine Bluff
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 76.3 and allowing 56.0
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
| Bowling Green | Texas A&M | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 91.2 161st | 95.3 111th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 93.4 160th | 88.5 84th |
| Possessions a game | 74.6 20th | 72.3 148th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 47.7% 61st | 44.1% 271st |
| Opponents' shooting | 45.9% 211th | 44.8% 139th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 24.3% 250th | 24.2% 246th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 31.7% 242nd | 36.0% 48th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.18 338th | 0.19 302nd |
The widest gap: Texas A&M's defense (84th) against Bowling Green's offense (161st), of 363 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Bowling Green 30, Texas A&M 35
- First-half margin
- Texas A&M by 4.4
- First-half points, both teams
- 64.9
- Projected second half
- Bowling Green 34, Texas A&M 38
- Second-half points, both teams
- 72.0
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Bowling Green, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 41.3 scored, 26.7 allowed
- Texas A&M, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 36.0 scored, 21.7 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 10,911 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 73.0% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.0 points on average. This season: 404 of 492 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
Bowling Green
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lauren GerkenF | 30 | 15.8 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
| 15+ pts 54% · 5+ reb 49% · 2+ threes 48% | |||||
| Carol SilvaF | 28 | 13.6 | 6.5 | 2.1 | 1.3 |
| 15+ pts 40% · 7+ reb 46% · 2+ ast 60% | |||||
| Joniyah Bland-FitzpatrickF | 24 | 6.6 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 62% · 4+ reb 51% · 2+ ast 52% | |||||
| Mafalda MonteiroG | 22 | 7.2 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 67% · 3+ reb 49% · 1+ threes 51% | |||||
| Sara CaetanoG | 21 | 7.5 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 69% · 4+ reb 49% · 2+ ast 45% | |||||
| Kayla StidhamG | 19 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 41% · 3+ reb 45% · 1+ threes 45% | |||||
| Sol DepetrisG | 16 | 3.3 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 28% · 2+ reb 45% · 1+ threes 36% | |||||
| Aurelie VanderstraetenF | 16 | 4.2 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 38% · 4+ reb 45% · 1+ threes 33% | |||||
Texas A&M
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kailyn GilbertG | 34 | 14.5 | 5.5 | 3.7 | 1.5 |
| 15+ pts 46% · 6+ reb 45% · 4+ ast 49% | |||||
| Emerald ParkerC | 26 | 12.0 | 6.9 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| 10+ pts 62% · 7+ reb 51% | |||||
| Chaney SpencerG | 26 | 4.7 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.0 |
| 5+ pts 43% · 2+ reb 52% · 2+ ast 48% | |||||
| Miyah VerseF | 25 | 7.8 | 7.1 | 0.6 | 0.0 |
| 10+ pts 32% · 7+ reb 53% | |||||
| Janae KentG | 24 | 6.5 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 5+ pts 61% · 3+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 54% | |||||
| Rieyan DeSouzeG | 23 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 0.9 |
| 5+ pts 44% · 3+ reb 46% · 1+ threes 54% | |||||
| Kaniya BoydG | 20 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 41% · 2+ reb 57% · 2+ ast 35% | |||||
| Pien SteenbergenG | 12 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 28% · 2+ reb 59% · 1+ threes 49% | |||||
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…