Stephen C. O'Connell Center · at Florida
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FLA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FLA 81–74 · win probability FLA 74%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.2
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: DUKE has more of the edges
DUKE 3, FLA 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: DUKE plays 66.8 a game (285th fastest), FLA 72.0 (34th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
DUKE hits 34.7% and allows 30.6%; FLA hits 31.2% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 43.5% and 37.0% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DUKE 16.0%, FLA 16.4%. Forced: DUKE 17.2%, FLA 15.2%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DUKE 47%, FLA 85%. Transfers in: DUKE 3, FLA 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Free throws
Free throw rate: DUKE 38.2, FLA 39.0. Allowed: DUKE 22.8, FLA 34.0
Home court
FLA at home. This season: FLA 0-0 at home, DUKE 0-0 away
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: DUKE 56.6 and allows 46.2; FLA 54.1 and allows 46.1
Context
Schedule so far
DUKE has played the 23rd-hardest schedule, FLA the 9th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
DUKE offense vs FLA defense
Offense 11th of 366 against a defense 4th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DUKE 38.4%, FLA 43.4%. Defensive: DUKE 74.8%, FLA 75.2%
Even
FLA offense vs DUKE defense
Offense 1st of 366 against a defense 3rd, 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 | — | FLA -7.5 | — |
| Total | — | 155.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | DUKE 73.9 · FLA 81.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FLA -4.3 | — |
| 1H total | 72.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | DUKE 34.1 · FLA 38.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9-1 90% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 8-2 80% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
DUKE 1–0 FLADUKE leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · DUKE 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2025-26 | FLA 66 @ DUKE 67 | DUKE -9.5 | FLA W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Duke
38 games played
Straight up
35-3
92% wins
Against the spread
21-17
55% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-24
37% overs · avg −3.4 pts vs the total
Against the spread
21-1755%
2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered
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 4 | vs | W 75-60 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 95-54 | -36.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 114-59 | -33.5 | W +21.5 | 152.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 100-62 | -37.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | U 162 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 78-66 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 100-42 | -39.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 93-56 | -43.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 80-71 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 67-66 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 66-60 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 97-73 | -32.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 81-82 | -9.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 85-79 | -27.5 | L −21.5 | 153.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 91-87 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 163.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 84-73 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 161.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 82-75 | -15.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 71-56 | -14.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-50 | -11.5 | W +18.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 90-69 | -19.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 26 | vs | W 83-52 | -8.5 | W +22.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 72-58 | -13.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 67-49 | -26.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-71 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 70-54 | -17.5 | L −1.5 | 136.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 67-54 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 101-64 | -20.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 68-63 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 100-56 | -16.5 | W +27.5 | 141.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 77-51 | -9.5 | W +16.5 | 143.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 93-64 | -8.5 | W +20.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 76-61 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-79 | -16.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 73-61 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 74-70 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | O 144 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 71-65 | -28.5 | L −22.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 81-58 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 27 | vs | W 80-75 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 29 | vs | L 72-73 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | O 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
TEX
W 75-60
+4.5
8
vs
WCU
W 95-54
+4.5
11
@
ARMY
W 114-59
+21.5
14
vs
INST
W 100-62
+0.5
18
vs
KU
W 78-66
+1.5
21
vs
NIA
W 100-42
+18.5
23
vs
HOW
W 93-56
−6.5
27
vs
ARK
W 80-71
−3.5
2
vs
FLA
W 67-66
−8.5
6
@
MSU
W 66-60
+4.5
16
vs
LIP
W 97-73
−8.5
20
vs
TTU
L 81-82
−10.5
31
vs
GT
W 85-79
−21.5
3
@
FSU
W 91-87
−12.5
6
@
LOU
W 84-73
+9.5
10
vs
SMU
W 82-75
−8.5
14
@
CAL
W 71-56
+0.5
17
@
STAN
W 80-50
+18.5
24
vs
WAKE
W 90-69
+1.5
26
vs
LOU
W 83-52
+22.5
31
@
VT
W 72-58
+0.5
3
vs
BC
W 67-49
−8.5
7
@
UNC
L 68-71
−9.5
10
@
PITT
W 70-54
−1.5
14
vs
CLEM
W 67-54
+0.5
16
vs
SYR
W 101-64
+16.5
21
vs
MICH
W 68-63
+8.5
24
@
ND
W 100-56
+27.5
28
vs
UVA
W 77-51
+16.5
2
@
NCSU
W 93-64
+20.5
7
vs
UNC
W 76-61
−3.5
12
vs
FSU
W 80-79
−15.5
13
vs
CLEM
W 73-61
+1.5
14
vs
UVA
W 74-70
−2.5
19
vs
SIE
W 71-65
−22.5
21
vs
TCU
W 81-58
+10.5
27
vs
SJU
W 80-75
−1.5
29
vs
CONN
L 72-73
−5.5
covered 21didn’t cover 17avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
TEX
W 75-60
−18.5
8
vs
WCU
W 95-54
−3.5
11
@
ARMY
W 114-59
+20.5
14
vs
INST
W 100-62
−1.5
18
vs
KU
W 78-66
−5.5
21
vs
NIA
W 100-42
−4.5
23
vs
HOW
W 93-56
−5.5
27
vs
ARK
W 80-71
−8.5
2
vs
FLA
W 67-66
−24.5
6
@
MSU
W 66-60
−15.5
16
vs
LIP
W 97-73
+18.5
20
vs
TTU
L 81-82
+10.5
31
vs
GT
W 85-79
+10.5
3
@
FSU
W 91-87
+14.5
6
@
LOU
W 84-73
−4.5
10
vs
SMU
W 82-75
+1.5
14
@
CAL
W 71-56
−22.5
17
@
STAN
W 80-50
−18.5
24
vs
WAKE
W 90-69
+5.5
26
vs
LOU
W 83-52
−22.5
31
@
VT
W 72-58
−18.5
3
vs
BC
W 67-49
−25.5
7
@
UNC
L 68-71
−13.5
10
@
PITT
W 70-54
−12.5
14
vs
CLEM
W 67-54
−13.5
16
vs
SYR
W 101-64
+20.5
21
vs
MICH
W 68-63
−20.5
24
@
ND
W 100-56
+14.5
28
vs
UVA
W 77-51
−15.5
2
@
NCSU
W 93-64
+6.5
7
vs
UNC
W 76-61
−10.5
12
vs
FSU
W 80-79
+8.5
13
vs
CLEM
W 73-61
−0.5
14
vs
UVA
W 74-70
+3.5
19
vs
SIE
W 71-65
−1.5
21
vs
TCU
W 81-58
−1.5
27
vs
SJU
W 80-75
+14.5
29
vs
CONN
L 72-73
+9.5
over 14under 24avg −3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Florida
35 games played
Straight up
27-8
77% wins
Against the spread
19-16
54% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-20
43% overs · avg −2 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 | L 87-93 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 104-64 | -43.5 | L −3.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 78-76 | -17.5 | L −15.5 | 180.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 82-68 | -10.5 | W +3.5 | 171.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 80-45 | -36.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 80-84 | -11.5 | L −15.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 90-78 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 66-67 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 73-77 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 80-70 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 102-61 | -44.5 | L −3.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 90-60 | -27.5 | W +2.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 94-72 | -35.5 | L −13.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 74-76 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 92-77 | -9.5 | W +5.5 | 172.5 | U 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 91-67 | -4.5 | W +19.5 | 151.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 96-79 | -7.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 98-94 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 164.5 | O 192 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 79-61 | -15.5 | W +2.5 | 158.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 67-76 | -11.5 | L −20.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 95-48 | -13.5 | W +33.5 | 151.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 100-77 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 176.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 86-67 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 167.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 86-66 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 164.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 92-83 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 76-62 | -23.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 94-75 | -13.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 84-71 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 111-77 | -9.5 | W +24.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 108-74 | -20.5 | W +13.5 | 161.5 | O 182 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 84-77 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 71-63 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 74-91 | -7.5 | L −24.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 114-55 | -35.5 | W +23.5 | 154.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 72-73 | -10.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
ARIZ
L 87-93
−9.5
6
vs
UNF
W 104-64
−3.5
11
vs
FSU
W 78-76
−15.5
16
vs
MIA
W 82-68
+3.5
21
vs
MRMK
W 80-45
−1.5
27
vs
TCU
L 80-84
−15.5
28
vs
PROV
W 90-78
−0.5
2
@
DUKE
L 66-67
+8.5
9
vs
CONN
L 73-77
+0.5
13
vs
GW
W 80-70
−4.5
17
vs
SFPA
W 102-61
−3.5
21
vs
COLG
W 90-60
+2.5
29
vs
DART
W 94-72
−13.5
3
@
MIZ
L 74-76
−9.5
6
vs
UGA
W 92-77
+5.5
10
vs
TENN
W 91-67
+19.5
13
@
OU
W 96-79
+9.5
17
@
VAN
W 98-94
+2.5
20
vs
LSU
W 79-61
+2.5
24
vs
AUB
L 67-76
−20.5
28
@
SC
W 95-48
+33.5
1
vs
ALA
W 100-77
+13.5
7
@
TA&M
W 86-67
+13.5
11
@
UGA
W 86-66
+11.5
14
vs
UK
W 92-83
−3.5
17
vs
SC
W 76-62
−9.5
21
@
MISS
W 94-75
+5.5
25
@
TEX
W 84-71
+6.5
28
vs
ARK
W 111-77
+24.5
3
vs
MSST
W 108-74
+13.5
7
@
UK
W 84-77
+1.5
13
vs
UK
W 71-63
−2.5
14
vs
VAN
L 74-91
−24.5
20
vs
PV
W 114-55
+23.5
22
vs
IOWA
L 72-73
−11.5
covered 19didn’t cover 16avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
ARIZ
L 87-93
+15.5
6
vs
UNF
W 104-64
−1.5
11
vs
FSU
W 78-76
−26.5
16
vs
MIA
W 82-68
−21.5
21
vs
MRMK
W 80-45
−33.5
27
vs
TCU
L 80-84
+8.5
28
vs
PROV
W 90-78
−1.5
2
@
DUKE
L 66-67
−24.5
9
vs
CONN
L 73-77
+4.5
13
vs
GW
W 80-70
−12.5
17
vs
SFPA
W 102-61
+6.5
21
vs
COLG
W 90-60
−6.5
29
vs
DART
W 94-72
+5.5
3
@
MIZ
L 74-76
−4.5
6
vs
UGA
W 92-77
−3.5
10
vs
TENN
W 91-67
+6.5
13
@
OU
W 96-79
+17.5
17
@
VAN
W 98-94
+27.5
20
vs
LSU
W 79-61
−18.5
24
vs
AUB
L 67-76
−16.5
28
@
SC
W 95-48
−8.5
1
vs
ALA
W 100-77
+0.5
7
@
TA&M
W 86-67
−14.5
11
@
UGA
W 86-66
−12.5
14
vs
UK
W 92-83
+20.5
17
vs
SC
W 76-62
−18.5
21
@
MISS
W 94-75
+16.5
25
@
TEX
W 84-71
−2.5
28
vs
ARK
W 111-77
+18.5
3
vs
MSST
W 108-74
+20.5
7
@
UK
W 84-77
−1.5
13
vs
UK
W 71-63
−27.5
14
vs
VAN
L 74-91
+3.5
20
vs
PV
W 114-55
+14.5
22
vs
IOWA
L 72-73
−0.5
over 15under 20avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Florida has the better starters
Position by position: Duke 0, Florida 1, even 4
DukeBetterFlorida
G J. Blackwell TR19.1 pts · 5.1 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 97
=Even
G D. Aberdeen TR13.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 90
G C. Foster8.3 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 76
=Even
G B. Fland11.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 89
G J. Theodosiou TR12.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
=Even
F T. Haugh17.1 pts · 6.1 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 97
G C. Boozer7.7 pts · 2.3 reb · 3 ast
Score 85
=Even
F A. Condon15.1 pts · 7.5 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 98
F D. Sarr6.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 52
→FLABig
C R. Chinyelu10.9 pts · 11.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 97
DukeBetterFlorida
DUKE offense11th of 366 · +10.1
=Even
FLA defense4th of 366 · +10.4
DUKE defense3rd of 366 · +11.4
=Even
FLA offense1st of 366 · +17.0
Backcourt+9.2 · 4 players
←DUKEBig
Backcourt+5.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.2 · 1 player
→FLABig
Frontcourt+17.1 · 3 players
Bench+7.0 · 2 players
←DUKEBig
Bench+3.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestDUKE betterFLA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Blackwell34 min · TRC. Foster25 minJ. Theodosiou23 min · TRC. Boozer23 minB. DavisNewD. RippeyNew
Forwards
D. Sarr24 minD. Scharnowski22 min · TRS. WilkinsNewC. WilliamsNew
Centers
P. Ngongba22 minM. MeyerNewJ. Boumtje BoumtjeNew
Guards
D. Aberdeen31 min · TRB. Fland30 minU. Klavzar21 minI. Brown13 minC. Ingram6 minA. Lloyd5 min
Forwards
T. Haugh33 minA. Condon31 minD. PetrovicNewA. ButajevasNew
Centers
R. Chinyelu25 minV. Mikic3 minJ. LayNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.6 #36 | Points per game | 87.1 #5 |
| 1.23 #4 | Points per possession | 1.21 #7 |
| 66.8 #285 | Pace (possessions) | 72.0 #34 |
| Shooting | ||
| 56.6 #13 | Effective FG% | 54.1 #63 |
| 34.7 #133 | 3-point % | 31.2 #315 |
| 43.5 #100 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.0 #230 |
| 38.2 #97 | Free throw rate | 39.0 #80 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.0 #139 | Turnover rate | 16.4 #162 |
| 38.4 #4 | Offensive rebound rate | 43.4 #2 |
| 16.7 #32 | Assists per game | 17.0 #26 |
| Defense | ||
| 63.6 #3 | Points allowed | 71.5 #93 |
| 0.95 #2 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #19 |
| 46.2 #13 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.1 #10 |
| 30.6 #27 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #66 |
| 17.2 #133 | Turnovers forced | 15.2 #269 |
| 74.8 #10 | Defensive rebound rate | 75.2 #7 |
| 7.4 #92 | Steals per game | 6.6 #158 |
| 3.4 #164 | Blocks per game | 5.0 #16 |
Duke
35-3 in 2025-26 overall · 20-1 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn72–73
- Wvs St John's80–75
- Wvs TCU81–58
- Wvs Siena71–65
- Wvs Virginia74–70
A week or more of rest.
Florida
27-8 in 2025-26 overall · 17-3 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Iowa72–73
- Wvs Prairie View114–55
- Lvs Vanderbilt74–91
- Wvs Kentucky71–63
- W@ Kentucky84–77
A week or more of rest.