SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
2026–27 / Basketball scouting brief

Louisiana
vs UL Monroe

The projected game, the historical pressure points and the personnel questions to take into preparation. Generated from published statistics and reviewed announcements.

Dec 16, 2026 · start time unconfirmedUL Monroe designated home · Fant-Ewing Coliseum

Louisiana72.5Projected away score
Preseason baselineLouisiana by 2.3Projected winning margin · 67.5 possessions / 40 min

UL Monroe win estimate 47.7%

UL Monroe70.1Projected home score

Projected total 142.6. Nominal 80% range for home scoring margin: -18.2 to +13.6. Either team winning falls within that range.

The model uses historical opponent-adjusted efficiency and tempo. It has no current roster or injury inputs. Schedule details are partial and may change. Model edition: Sep 12, 2026.

Checking the latest registered D1 forecast for this game…

Pre-tip readiness / Four checks

Know what is settled before you scout.

Updated with this brief edition
Forecast signal
Model baseline

Home win estimate 47.7% · 31.8-point nominal range.

Model notebook
Schedule status
Start time unconfirmed

The source schedule has not confirmed a tip time; recheck before distributing a plan.

Source schedule
Roster evidence
Both teams observed

Louisiana 100% prior minutes represented · UL Monroe 100% prior minutes represented

Roster evidence
Market evidence
No licensed quote

No qualifying bookmaker observation is published; an edge cannot be reported.

Record a manual check

These checks describe source coverage and model state. They do not convert a roster listing into eligibility, a schedule into availability, or a market quote into a recommendation.

Reader tool / Manual quote check

Compare a line you observed.

Browser only · never published · checking model edition

Enter a home spread, game total or both sides of a moneyline from a source you are reviewing. Results use the current forecast when available and stay in this browser; they are not a verified market observation, recommendation or ledger record.

Up to 20 notes · never uploaded
Spread edge-2.3 ptsObserved line is more favorable to the home side.Normal approximation: 42.6% chance the home margin clears this line.
Total edge+142.6 ptsModel total is above the observed number.
Moneyline probability edgeEnter both moneylines to calculate a no-vig market probability.
Moneyline expected returnEnter both valid prices to compare home and away returns.

Convention: spread edge = model home margin + home spread; total edge = model total − observed total. This arithmetic does not account for vig, pushes, limits, timing or player availability. The spread-cover probability is a normal approximation from the published nominal 80% margin interval; it is not a calibrated betting probability. Moneyline edge uses both sides to remove two-way vig. Expected return is a hypothetical arithmetic output from the model probability and quoted price; it is not a recommendation or a realized result.

01 / Prior-season evidence → Film questions

Where the styles meet.

2025–26 observations

These are historical questions, not forecast adjustments. Each direction highlights up to two Four Factors with the largest difference in favorable percentile between one offense and the opposing defense. Rates came against different schedules and personnel; their difference is not an expected matchup outcome.

01 / Offensive concern / defensive strength

Keeping the game off the line

Louisiana offense UL Monroe defense

Louisiana · offense28.7%33 games · rank 332/366
UL Monroe · opponent rate27.0%32 games · rank 28/366

Free-throw attempts / FGA. Favorable percentile: 9.3 offense / 92.6 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Which actions draw shooting fouls, and which defenders can contain them without fouling? Check the personnel and foul context before assigning a coverage.

02 / Two historical concerns

Finishing the possession

Louisiana offense UL Monroe defense

Louisiana · offense28.3%33 games · rank 275/366
UL Monroe · opponent rate34.8%32 games · rank 346/366

Offensive rebound rate. Favorable percentile: 24.9 offense / 5.5 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Who earns the second-chance possessions, and who must take the first box-out assignment? Check whether extra crashers leave transition chances at the other end.

03 / Offensive strength / defensive concern

Keeping the game off the line

UL Monroe offense Louisiana defense

UL Monroe · offense39.4%32 games · rank 65/366
Louisiana · opponent rate45.8%33 games · rank 358/366

Free-throw attempts / FGA. Favorable percentile: 82.5 offense / 2.2 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Which actions draw shooting fouls, and which defenders can contain them without fouling? Check the personnel and foul context before assigning a coverage.

04 / A contrast to investigate

Protecting the possession

UL Monroe offense Louisiana defense

UL Monroe · offense16.9%32 games · rank 201/366
Louisiana · turnovers forced18.3%33 games · rank 93/366

Turnovers / possessions. Favorable percentile: 45.2 offense / 74.8 defense. Higher favorable percentile is better, including for statistics where a lower raw rate is better.

On film: Do the turnovers come from ball pressure, passing-lane help or unforced mistakes? Identify the ball handlers and distinguish live-ball losses from dead-ball turnovers.

02 / Both directions, all the evidence

The possession matchup.

Louisiana with the ball.

Historical rateLouisianaOffenseUL MonroeDefense
Effective FG%47.1%33 games · rank 345/36655.8%32 games · rank 354/366
Turnovers / possessions16.8%33 games · rank 192/36615.8%32 games · rank 249/366
Offensive rebound rate28.3%33 games · rank 275/36634.8%32 games · rank 346/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA28.7%33 games · rank 332/36627.0%32 games · rank 28/366
Three-point attempt share40.5%33 games41.1%32 games
Two-point FG%44.8%33 games · rank 357/36657.3%32 games · rank 353/366
Three-point FG%33.6%33 games · rank 201/36635.7%32 games · rank 310/366

Defense reports opponent rates, except turnovers forced. Each statistic pools its own valid numerators and denominators; game counts can differ. Three-point attempt share describes style and has no favorable rank.

Open Louisiana’s full dossier →

UL Monroe with the ball.

Historical rateUL MonroeOffenseLouisianaDefense
Effective FG%47.9%32 games · rank 334/36652.6%33 games · rank 274/366
Turnovers / possessions16.9%32 games · rank 201/36618.3%33 games · rank 93/366
Offensive rebound rate25.3%32 games · rank 345/36632.3%33 games · rank 292/366
Free-throw attempts / FGA39.4%32 games · rank 65/36645.8%33 games · rank 358/366
Three-point attempt share41.5%32 games36.2%33 games
Two-point FG%48.0%32 games · rank 332/36652.2%33 games · rank 228/366
Three-point FG%31.9%32 games · rank 297/36635.6%33 games · rank 302/366

Defense reports opponent rates, except turnovers forced. Each statistic pools its own valid numerators and denominators; game counts can differ. Three-point attempt share describes style and has no favorable rank.

Open UL Monroe’s full dossier →
Stat definitions and denominators

Effective FG%: (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) / FGA.

Turnovers / possessions: Turnovers / estimated possessions.

Offensive rebound rate: ORB / (ORB + opponent DRB).

Free-throw attempts / FGA: FTA / FGA; displayed per 100 field-goal attempts.

Rates are pooled from the source records, not averages of game percentages. Rankings compare the 366 programs in the model field. Some source games include opponents outside Division I.

The pace question.

Louisiana recorded 64.1 possessions per 40 minutes across 33 paired games; UL Monroe recorded 71.1 across 32. The adjusted forecast for this matchup is 67.5. Identify which team’s personnel can dictate the first pass, early offense and transition balance; the historical tempo gap alone does not identify a tactical winner.

Five-v-five archive / source-native handoff

See which lineups actually shared the floor.

The matchup-stint archive keeps each publisher-native five-player group beside the opposing five, with possessions, repeat games and scoring margin. Search these teams to turn the factor question into a film assignment; the source IDs remain separate from the forecast and recruiting identities.

03 / Prior meetings / exact source IDs

What happened when these programs met?

2025–26 source schedule

This is a descriptive look at completed meetings where the home and away source team IDs matched exactly in the scouting archive. It is context for preparation, not a head-to-head forecast; a missing row means this source edition did not retain a qualifying meeting.

2Recorded meetings
02UL Monroe record
-10.0Average UL Monroe margin
Jan 9, 2026Latest shown
DateLocationScoreResultMarginEvidence
Jan 9, 2026Game 401808605UL Monroe road7985L-6.0ESPN source ↗
Dec 20, 2025Game 401808585UL Monroe home6276L-14.0ESPN source ↗
04 / Schedule-adjusted lens

What survives a harder schedule?

These four-factor role estimates adjust for opponent and season recency using the same team-and-venue design as the efficiency model. A positive gap means the offense’s favorable rate is stronger than the opposing defense’s corresponding rate. This is a descriptive lens for preparation, not a new forecast or a claim about the next rotation.

Louisiana offense vs UL Monroe defense.

Adjusted rateLouisianaOffenseUL MonroeDefenseFavorable gap
Effective FG%48.4%55.2%-6.8 ppfavors this defense
Offensive rebound rate28.2%31.9%-3.8 ppfavors this defense
Turnover rate16.7%16.2%-0.5 ppfavors this defense
Free-throw attempt rate30.3%30.1%+0.1 ppfavors this offense

For turnover rate, lower offensive turnover rate and higher forced-turnover rate are favorable. The other rows favor more efficient offense and lower opponent rates.

UL Monroe offense vs Louisiana defense.

Adjusted rateUL MonroeOffenseLouisianaDefenseFavorable gap
Free-throw attempt rate35.0%42.7%-7.7 ppfavors this defense
Effective FG%47.2%52.5%-5.3 ppfavors this defense
Offensive rebound rate27.5%31.7%-4.2 ppfavors this defense
Turnover rate17.1%18.7%+1.6 ppfavors this offense

For turnover rate, lower offensive turnover rate and higher forced-turnover rate are favorable. The other rows favor more efficient offense and lower opponent rates.

05 / Historical workload, then roster verification

Who carried the old possessions?

The three largest recorded minute totals on each 2025–26 team, among players with at least 200 minutes. These are historical contributors, not a projected 2026–27 rotation. Follow the player history and verify availability before assigning matchups.

Louisiana / 2025–26

Dorian FinisterG · 31 games · 1,008 total minutes
32.5 MPG14.9 PPG25.3% est. usage55.8% TS

Usage sample: 31 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

De'Vion LavergneG · 33 games · 1,000 total minutes
30.3 MPG9.9 PPG22.1% est. usage45.5% TS

Usage sample: 33 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Jaxon OlveraG · 33 games · 962 total minutes
29.2 MPG13.7 PPG30.7% est. usage48.5% TS

Usage sample: 33 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Inspect the historical shot map →

UL Monroe / 2025–26

Krystian LewisG · 32 games · 1,159 total minutes
36.2 MPG18.4 PPG28.4% est. usage51.7% TS

Usage sample: 32 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

MJ RussellG · 32 games · 1,141 total minutes
35.7 MPG15.3 PPG24.1% est. usage50.1% TS

Usage sample: 32 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Lavell BrodnexG · 26 games · 821 total minutes
31.6 MPG14.7 PPG21.7% est. usage60.9% TS

Usage sample: 26 games. An opportunity estimate from matched minutes and boxes, not measured on-court possessions.

Inspect the historical shot map →
06 / Source roster observation

How much old workload is represented?

2026–27 listing · unconfirmed

This is an exact-ID comparison between the published 2026–27 roster listing and recorded 2025–26 minutes. It describes what the source currently represents; it does not establish eligibility, availability, a returning decision or a projected rotation, and it does not change the forecast.

Louisiana

Players listed18
Roster shape · G / F / C10 / 8 / 0
Listed as same program15
New to source dataset3
Returning IDs with prior minutes15
Prior minutes represented6,599 · 100.0%
Role workloadPrior minReturningIncomingUnrepresented
Guard10 listed4,411100%
Forward8 listed2,188100%
Center0 listed

Roster shape uses only the source-reported position labels on this listing; it is descriptive and does not identify a viable lineup or positional matchup.

Role rows use prior production attached to the currently listed source records. They are a narrower sample than the team denominator above; a missing or unclassified listing remains unknown.

The percentage uses 6,599 recorded 2025–26 minutes for this program as its denominator. A missing listing is not evidence of a departure; a new entry is not proof of a freshman or transfer.

Review roster observations and announcements →Build a role shortlist for Louisiana

UL Monroe

Players listed15
Roster shape · G / F / C10 / 5 / 0
Listed as same program13
New to source dataset2
Returning IDs with prior minutes13
Prior minutes represented6,450 · 100.0%
Role workloadPrior minReturningIncomingUnrepresented
Guard10 listed5,116100%
Forward5 listed1,334100%
Center0 listed

Roster shape uses only the source-reported position labels on this listing; it is descriptive and does not identify a viable lineup or positional matchup.

Role rows use prior production attached to the currently listed source records. They are a narrower sample than the team denominator above; a missing or unclassified listing remains unknown.

The percentage uses 6,450 recorded 2025–26 minutes for this program as its denominator. A missing listing is not evidence of a departure; a new entry is not proof of a freshman or transfer.

Review roster observations and announcements →Build a role shortlist for UL Monroe
07 / Dated school evidence

What changed after those box scores?

Announcement board reviewed Sep 8, 2026

This board covers a limited set of schools. An announced addition does not by itself prove game-day availability. Later statements remain in the player’s timeline; a missing entry is not evidence that a player left or that a roster stayed unchanged.

Louisiana

This program is outside the reviewed school-announcement coverage in this edition. Check its official roster and availability reports.

Open the recruiting evidence board →

UL Monroe

This program is outside the reviewed school-announcement coverage in this edition. Check its official roster and availability reports.

Open the recruiting evidence board →
09 / Compare only matching records

The forecast and market trail.

Published ledger edition Sep 15, 2026. Only a record matching this game’s model, participants, start and prediction can appear here. Quotes are last qualifying observations, not verified closing lines or a live price feed.

Forecast registered . Status: Excluded · Start time unconfirmed.

No qualifying timestamped market comparison is available for this forecast in this ledger edition. A model-versus-market edge cannot be reported.

For spreads, a positive difference is model home margin plus the observed home spread; for totals it is model total minus the line; for moneylines it is model home probability minus the two-way normalized market probability. These are model disagreements, not placed bets or profit estimates.

Inspect this game’s complete forecast and source history →

Retained reading snapshots of this brief →

Your preparation / Private browser notes

Take it into the film room.

Loading browser notes…

How to read this brief.

The preseason model’s independent 2025–26 evaluation covered 5,734 games, with 10.26-point margin MAE and 79.1% empirical coverage for nominal 80% ranges. The weekly model experiment is separate from these forecasts.

Historical scouting and player statistics: Sep 12, 2026 source edition. Model: basketball-efficiency-v2-b7df2377c580. Training cutoff: 2026-09-12T12:53:26.061472Z. Model notebook and source receipts →

Bulk observations: SportsDataverse, whose publisher labels its datasets CC BY 4.0. Independent calculations and text templates: Silvermine. School announcements are linked individually. The film questions are hypotheses to verify, not measured descriptions of a current lineup.