Madison Square Garden · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | HOU | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 0-0 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 0-0 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 0-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects HOU 84–76 · win probability HOU 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 159.9
Model edge
—
No market line yet
Public
—
No split yet for this game
The model has not beaten the closing line: with an edge of 3 or more it went 409-367 in 2025-26. Model record
What could decide it: HOU has more of the edges
ALA 1, HOU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: ALA 36.0, HOU 26.3. Allowed: ALA 32.0, HOU 38.7
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ALA 13.1%, HOU 12.8%. Forced: ALA 12.8%, HOU 20.7%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: ALA plays 74.7 a game (7th fastest), HOU 65.0 (346th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ALA 32.4%, HOU 35.7%. Defensive: ALA 67.2%, HOU 69.7%
HOU offense vs ALA defense
Offense 10th of 366 against a defense 54th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ALA 46%, HOU 26%. Transfers in: ALA 3, HOU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: ALA 55.2 and allows 49.2; HOU 51.9 and allows 46.2
Even
Three-pointers
ALA hits 35.8% and allows 33.8%; HOU hits 34.7% and allows 31.6%. Threes are 54.3% and 40.7% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
ALA has played the 1st-hardest schedule, HOU the 17th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
ALA offense vs HOU defense
Offense 2nd of 366 against a defense 1st, on the model’s ratings
Market
Open → current
Spread
Open—
no open
Now—
Opening line not available
Total
Open—
no open
Now—
Moneyline
—
Pre-game lines only (ESPN, DraftKings first). After tip-off the line shown is the closing line.
Model vs market
| Market | Model | Model edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spread | — | HOU -7.9 | — |
| Total | — | 159.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | ALA 76 · HOU 83.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HOU -4.5 | — |
| 1H total | 74.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | ALA 35.1 · HOU 39.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
ALA 3–0 HOUALA leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · ALA has won the last 3 meetings · ALA 2-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2024-25 | ALA 85 vs HOU 80 | HOU -3.5 | ALA W |
| Dec 10, 2022-23 | ALA 71 @ HOU 65 | HOU -8.5 | ALA W |
| Dec 11, 2021-22 | HOU 82 @ ALA 83 | ALA -3 | HOU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Alabama
35 games played
Straight up
25-10
71% wins
Against the spread
16-19
46% covers · avg +1.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-16
54% overs · avg +0.8 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total
| Date | Opp | Result | Line | ATS | Total | O/U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3 | vs | W 91-62 | -36.5 | L −7.5 | 170.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 103-96 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 172.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 13 | vs | L 80-87 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 172.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 90-86 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 180.5 | U 176 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 85-95 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 178.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 115-76 | -13.5 | W +25.5 | 181.5 | O 191 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 105-72 | -14.5 | W +18.5 | 166.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 90-84 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | O 174 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 97-55 | -33.5 | W +8.5 | 171.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 75-96 | +2.5 | L −18.5 | 178.5 | U 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 104-93 | -14.5 | L −3.5 | 178.5 | O 197 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 92-81 | -20.5 | L −9.5 | 182.5 | U 173 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 102-78 | -15.5 | W +8.5 | 171.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 89-74 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 173.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 90-96 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 176.5 | O 186 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 88-92 | -11.5 | L −15.5 | 177.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 97-82 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 171.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 83-81 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 177.5 | U 164 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 73-79 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 167.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 90-64 | -10.5 | W +15.5 | 167.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 77-100 | +9.5 | L −13.5 | 176.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 100-97 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 180.5 | O 197 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 96-92 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 175.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 93-74 | -6.5 | W +12.5 | 164.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 89-75 | -17.5 | L −3.5 | 170.5 | U 164 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 117-115 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 181.5 | O 232 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 90-83 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 172.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 100-75 | -12.5 | W +12.5 | 176.5 | U 175 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 71-69 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 88-98 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 179.5 | O 186 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 96-84 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 175.5 | O 180 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 79-80 | -12.5 | L −13.5 | 166.5 | U 159 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 90-70 | -11.5 | W +8.5 | 158.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 90-65 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 164.5 | U 155 |
| Mar 27 | vs | L 77-90 | +9.5 | L −3.5 | 172.5 | U 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UND
W 91-62
−7.5
8
@
SJU
W 103-96
+11.5
13
vs
PUR
L 80-87
−10.5
19
vs
ILL
W 90-86
+6.5
24
vs
GONZ
L 85-95
−5.5
25
vs
UNLV
W 115-76
+25.5
26
vs
MD
W 105-72
+18.5
3
vs
CLEM
W 90-84
−2.5
7
vs
UTSA
W 97-55
+8.5
13
vs
ARIZ
L 75-96
−18.5
17
vs
USF
W 104-93
−3.5
21
vs
KENN
W 92-81
−9.5
29
vs
YALE
W 102-78
+8.5
3
vs
UK
W 89-74
+9.5
7
@
VAN
L 90-96
−2.5
10
vs
TEX
L 88-92
−15.5
13
@
MSST
W 97-82
+10.5
17
@
OU
W 83-81
−3.5
24
vs
TENN
L 73-79
−10.5
27
vs
MIZ
W 90-64
+15.5
1
@
FLA
L 77-100
−13.5
4
vs
TA&M
W 100-97
−5.5
7
@
AUB
W 96-92
+6.5
11
@
MISS
W 93-74
+12.5
14
vs
SC
W 89-75
−3.5
18
vs
ARK
W 117-115
−1.5
21
@
LSU
W 90-83
−0.5
25
vs
MSST
W 100-75
+12.5
28
@
TENN
W 71-69
+7.5
3
@
UGA
L 88-98
−11.5
7
vs
AUB
W 96-84
+6.5
13
vs
MISS
L 79-80
−13.5
20
vs
HOF
W 90-70
+8.5
22
vs
TTU
W 90-65
+23.5
27
vs
MICH
L 77-90
−3.5
covered 16didn’t cover 19avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UND
W 91-62
−17.5
8
@
SJU
W 103-96
+26.5
13
vs
PUR
L 80-87
−5.5
19
vs
ILL
W 90-86
−4.5
24
vs
GONZ
L 85-95
+1.5
25
vs
UNLV
W 115-76
+9.5
26
vs
MD
W 105-72
+10.5
3
vs
CLEM
W 90-84
+8.5
7
vs
UTSA
W 97-55
−19.5
13
vs
ARIZ
L 75-96
−7.5
17
vs
USF
W 104-93
+18.5
21
vs
KENN
W 92-81
−9.5
29
vs
YALE
W 102-78
+8.5
3
vs
UK
W 89-74
−10.5
7
@
VAN
L 90-96
+9.5
10
vs
TEX
L 88-92
+2.5
13
@
MSST
W 97-82
+7.5
17
@
OU
W 83-81
−13.5
24
vs
TENN
L 73-79
−15.5
27
vs
MIZ
W 90-64
−13.5
1
@
FLA
L 77-100
+0.5
4
vs
TA&M
W 100-97
+16.5
7
@
AUB
W 96-92
+12.5
11
@
MISS
W 93-74
+2.5
14
vs
SC
W 89-75
−6.5
18
vs
ARK
W 117-115
+50.5
21
@
LSU
W 90-83
+0.5
25
vs
MSST
W 100-75
−1.5
28
@
TENN
W 71-69
−22.5
3
@
UGA
L 88-98
+6.5
7
vs
AUB
W 96-84
+4.5
13
vs
MISS
L 79-80
−7.5
20
vs
HOF
W 90-70
+1.5
22
vs
TTU
W 90-65
−9.5
27
vs
MICH
L 77-90
−5.5
over 19under 16avg +0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Houston
37 games played
Straight up
30-7
81% wins
Against the spread
19-18
51% covers · avg +0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-22
41% overs · avg −1 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total
| Date | Opp | Result | Line | ATS | Total | O/U |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3 | vs | W 75-57 | -36.5 | L −18.5 | 136.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 65-48 | -26.5 | L −9.5 | 130.5 | U 113 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 78-45 | -30.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 73-72 | -7.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 91-45 | -40.5 | W +5.5 | 134.5 | O 136 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 78-74 | -14.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 73-76 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 136.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 66-56 | -11.5 | L −1.5 | 132.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 82-67 | -12.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 80-38 | -40.5 | W +1.5 | 137.5 | U 118 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 99-57 | -32.5 | W +9.5 | 138.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 94-85 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 69-60 | -25.5 | L −16.5 | 138.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 67-60 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 69-65 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 77-55 | -2.5 | W +19.5 | 142.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 77-48 | -13.5 | W +15.5 | 127.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 18 | vs | W 103-73 | -18.5 | W +11.5 | 142.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 86-90 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 79-70 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 139.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 76-54 | -13.5 | W +8.5 | 135.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 79-55 | -15.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 77-66 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 66-52 | -16.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 118 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 78-64 | -22.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 67-70 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 66-73 | -6.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 56-69 | -2.5 | L −15.5 | 138.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 102-62 | -20.5 | W +19.5 | 139.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 77-64 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 82-75 | -13.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 73-66 | -9.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 69-47 | -5.5 | W +16.5 | 139.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 74-79 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 78-47 | -24.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 88-57 | -10.5 | W +20.5 | 142.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 26 | vs | L 55-65 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | U 120 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
LEH
W 75-57
−18.5
8
vs
TOW
W 65-48
−9.5
12
vs
OAK
W 78-45
+2.5
16
vs
AUB
W 73-72
−6.5
20
vs
RID
W 91-45
+5.5
24
vs
SYR
W 78-74
−10.5
25
vs
TENN
L 73-76
−5.5
26
vs
ND
W 66-56
−1.5
6
vs
FSU
W 82-67
+2.5
10
vs
JKST
W 80-38
+1.5
13
vs
NOLA
W 99-57
+9.5
20
vs
ARK
W 94-85
+3.5
29
vs
MTSU
W 69-60
−16.5
3
@
CIN
W 67-60
+2.5
6
vs
TTU
W 69-65
−3.5
10
@
BAY
W 77-55
+19.5
13
vs
WVU
W 77-48
+15.5
18
vs
ASU
W 103-73
+11.5
24
@
TTU
L 86-90
−5.5
28
@
TCU
W 79-70
+0.5
31
vs
CIN
W 76-54
+8.5
4
vs
UCF
W 79-55
+8.5
7
@
BYU
W 77-66
+9.5
10
@
UTAH
W 66-52
−2.5
14
vs
KSU
W 78-64
−8.5
16
@
ISU
L 67-70
−0.5
21
vs
ARIZ
L 66-73
−13.5
23
@
KU
L 56-69
−15.5
28
vs
COLO
W 102-62
+19.5
4
vs
BAY
W 77-64
+0.5
7
@
OKST
W 82-75
−6.5
12
vs
BYU
W 73-66
−2.5
13
vs
KU
W 69-47
+16.5
14
vs
ARIZ
L 74-79
−3.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 78-47
+6.5
21
vs
TA&M
W 88-57
+20.5
26
vs
ILL
L 55-65
−12.5
covered 19didn’t cover 18avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
LEH
W 75-57
−4.5
8
vs
TOW
W 65-48
−17.5
12
vs
OAK
W 78-45
−15.5
16
vs
AUB
W 73-72
+4.5
20
vs
RID
W 91-45
+1.5
24
vs
SYR
W 78-74
+11.5
25
vs
TENN
L 73-76
+12.5
26
vs
ND
W 66-56
−10.5
6
vs
FSU
W 82-67
+0.5
10
vs
JKST
W 80-38
−19.5
13
vs
NOLA
W 99-57
+17.5
20
vs
ARK
W 94-85
+32.5
29
vs
MTSU
W 69-60
−9.5
3
@
CIN
W 67-60
−8.5
6
vs
TTU
W 69-65
−8.5
10
@
BAY
W 77-55
−10.5
13
vs
WVU
W 77-48
−2.5
18
vs
ASU
W 103-73
+33.5
24
@
TTU
L 86-90
+34.5
28
@
TCU
W 79-70
+9.5
31
vs
CIN
W 76-54
−5.5
4
vs
UCF
W 79-55
−12.5
7
@
BYU
W 77-66
−8.5
10
@
UTAH
W 66-52
−24.5
14
vs
KSU
W 78-64
−2.5
16
@
ISU
L 67-70
+2.5
21
vs
ARIZ
L 66-73
−3.5
23
@
KU
L 56-69
−13.5
28
vs
COLO
W 102-62
+24.5
4
vs
BAY
W 77-64
−2.5
7
@
OKST
W 82-75
+5.5
12
vs
BYU
W 73-66
−7.5
13
vs
KU
W 69-47
−23.5
14
vs
ARIZ
L 74-79
+14.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 78-47
−12.5
21
vs
TA&M
W 88-57
+2.5
26
vs
ILL
L 55-65
−21.5
over 15under 22avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Houston has the better starters
Position by position: Alabama 0, Houston 2, even 3
AlabamaBetterHouston
G A. Holloway16.8 pts · 2.8 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 99
=Even
G C. Hadnot TR20.6 pts · 3.7 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 95
G A. Allen11.4 pts · 6.9 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 94
=Even
G D. Thomas TR15.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 6.5 ast
Score 99
F D. Fielder TR14.4 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 98
=Even
F D. Gillespie TR17.9 pts · 11.4 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 94
F J. Davis-Fleming TR3.7 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 59
→HOUSmall
F B. East TR12.8 pts · 9.3 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 92
F B. Garrison TR4.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 73
→HOUSmall
F J. Tugler8.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 96
AlabamaBetterHouston
ALA offense2nd of 366 · +13.7
=Even
HOU defense1st of 366 · +13.2
ALA defense54th of 366 · +1.5
=Even
HOU offense10th of 366 · +10.1
Backcourt+8.7 · 2 players
→HOUSmall
Backcourt+10.0 · 2 players
Frontcourt+5.2 · 3 players
→HOUBig
Frontcourt+11.5 · 3 players
Bench+0.5 · 4 players
→HOUBig
Bench+3.6 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestALA betterHOU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Holloway28 minA. Allen28 minP. Murphy3 minC. CloerNewQ. SamuelsNewA. DiazNew
Forwards
D. Fielder24 min · TRJ. Davis-Fleming20 min · TRB. Garrison16 min · TRL. Jemison16 minK. Bristow13 minJ. RichardsonNew
Centers
C. Onyejiaka6 minT. St. LouisNew
Guards
C. Hadnot35 min · TRD. Thomas29 min · TRC. Weaver21 min · TRM. Miller12 minK. Jefferson4 minB. JacksonNew
Forwards
D. Gillespie33 min · TRB. East24 min · TRJ. Tugler24 minC. McCarty12 min
Centers
A. DianeNewD. SilimanaNew
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Matchup stats
2025-26 · rank among 365 teams
Scoring
Points per game
Points per possession
Pace (possessions)
Shooting
Effective FG%
3-point %
3-point attempt rate
Free throw rate
Possessions
Turnover rate
Offensive rebound rate
Assists per game
Defense
Points allowed
Points allowed per possession
Opponent effective FG%
Opponent 3-point %
Turnovers forced
Defensive rebound rate
Steals per game
Blocks per game
| Scoring | ||
|---|---|---|
| 91.2 #1 | Points per game | 76.9 #119 |
| 1.22 #5 | Points per possession | 1.18 #36 |
| 74.7 #7 | Pace (possessions) | 65.0 #346 |
| Shooting | ||
| 55.2 #34 | Effective FG% | 51.9 #150 |
| 35.8 #66 | 3-point % | 34.7 #134 |
| 54.3 #1 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.7 #153 |
| 36.0 #150 | Free throw rate | 26.3 #355 |
| Possessions | ||
| 13.1 #10 | Turnover rate | 12.8 #3 |
| 32.4 #111 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.7 #32 |
| 16.3 #39 | Assists per game | 14.6 #111 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.7 #343 | Points allowed | 62.3 #1 |
| 1.11 #232 | Points allowed per possession | 0.96 #5 |
| 49.2 #73 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.2 #12 |
| 33.8 #170 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.6 #49 |
| 12.8 #361 | Turnovers forced | 20.7 #14 |
| 67.2 #295 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.7 #173 |
| 6.4 #186 | Steals per game | 7.5 #75 |
| 5.0 #17 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #96 |
Alabama
25-10 in 2025-26 overall · 13-6 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan77–90
- Wvs Texas Tech90–65
- Wvs Hofstra90–70
- Lvs Ole Miss79–80
- Wvs Auburn96–84
A week or more of rest.
Houston
30-7 in 2025-26 overall · 16-5 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Illinois55–65
- Wvs Texas A&M88–57
- Wvs Idaho78–47
- Lvs Arizona74–79
- Wvs Kansas69–47
A week or more of rest.