Lloyd Noble Center · at Oklahoma
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | OU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 OU 91–60 · win probability OU 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.9
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: OU has more of the edges
UNA 1, OU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
UNA has played the 294th-hardest schedule, OU the 32nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
UNA offense vs OU defense
Offense 308th of 366 against a defense 51st, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: UNA 48.0 and allows 55.2; OU 54.9 and allows 51.0
OU offense vs UNA defense
Offense 28th of 366 against a defense 251st, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
UNA hits 30.7% and allows 35.7%; OU hits 36.5% and allows 34.1%. Threes are 33.6% and 43.6% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UNA 17.5%, OU 14.3%. Forced: UNA 14.6%, OU 15.5%
Free throws
Free throw rate: UNA 37.6, OU 35.5. Allowed: UNA 30.3, OU 34.9
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: UNA plays 66.2 a game (304th fastest), OU 69.4 (154th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
OU at home. This season: OU 0-0 at home, UNA 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UNA 16%, OU 43%. Transfers in: UNA 5, OU 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UNA 31.2%, OU 32.8%. Defensive: UNA 67.8%, OU 67.1%
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 | — | OU -30.1 | — |
| Total | — | 150.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | UNA 60.4 · OU 90.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | OU -17.8 | — |
| 1H total | 70.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | UNA 26.4 · OU 44.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
North Alabama
28 games played
Straight up
7-21
25% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −4.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-16
43% overs · avg −0.5 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 5 | @ | L 62-86 | +24.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 87-83 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 74-78 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 61-81 | +25.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 57-71 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 1 | @ | W 73-66 | +6.5 | W +13.5 | 134.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 65-63 | +16.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 60-68 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 57-91 | +10.5 | L −23.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 67-70 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 55-72 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 80-88 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 82-73 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 91-105 | -9.5 | L −23.5 | 157.5 | O 196 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-90 | -1.5 | L −23.5 | 133.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 62-87 | +12.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 64-72 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-66 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 60-81 | +10.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 62-91 | +12.5 | L −16.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 65-72 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 73-82 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 84-78 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 78-85 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 51-73 | +12.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 73-68 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 63-75 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 58-69 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | U 127 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
@
MSST
L 62-86
+0.5
11
vs
NWST
W 87-83
−2.5
15
vs
ETSU
L 74-78
−5.5
17
@
CLEM
L 61-81
+5.5
22
@
UTC
L 57-71
−4.5
1
@
JXST
W 73-66
+13.5
3
@
SF
W 65-63
+18.5
15
@
AAMU
L 60-68
−12.5
19
@
LMU
L 57-91
−23.5
1
vs
STET
L 67-70
−12.5
3
vs
FGCU
L 55-72
−14.5
8
@
EKU
L 80-88
−2.5
10
@
BELL
W 82-73
+13.5
15
vs
UNF
L 91-105
−23.5
17
vs
JAX
L 68-90
−23.5
21
@
QUC
L 62-87
−12.5
29
@
FGCU
L 64-72
+1.5
31
@
STET
W 68-66
+3.5
4
@
CARK
L 60-81
−10.5
7
@
APSU
L 62-91
−16.5
9
vs
CARK
L 65-72
−0.5
11
vs
WGA
L 73-82
−10.5
15
vs
EKU
W 84-78
+10.5
18
vs
QUC
L 78-85
+1.5
21
@
LIP
L 51-73
−9.5
25
vs
BELL
W 73-68
+7.5
28
@
WGA
L 63-75
−7.5
4
vs
FGCU
L 58-69
−2.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −4.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
@
MSST
L 62-86
−3.5
11
vs
NWST
W 87-83
+27.5
15
vs
ETSU
L 74-78
+6.5
17
@
CLEM
L 61-81
−2.5
22
@
UTC
L 57-71
−21.5
1
@
JXST
W 73-66
+4.5
3
@
SF
W 65-63
−17.5
15
@
AAMU
L 60-68
−12.5
19
@
LMU
L 57-91
+7.5
1
vs
STET
L 67-70
−5.5
3
vs
FGCU
L 55-72
−20.5
8
@
EKU
L 80-88
+19.5
10
@
BELL
W 82-73
+8.5
15
vs
UNF
L 91-105
+38.5
17
vs
JAX
L 68-90
+24.5
21
@
QUC
L 62-87
−13.5
29
@
FGCU
L 64-72
−11.5
31
@
STET
W 68-66
−10.5
4
@
CARK
L 60-81
−6.5
7
@
APSU
L 62-91
+7.5
9
vs
CARK
L 65-72
−8.5
11
vs
WGA
L 73-82
+9.5
15
vs
EKU
W 84-78
+11.5
18
vs
QUC
L 78-85
+6.5
21
@
LIP
L 51-73
−25.5
25
vs
BELL
W 73-68
−5.5
28
@
WGA
L 63-75
−8.5
4
vs
FGCU
L 58-69
−12.5
over 12under 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Oklahoma
37 games played
Straight up
21-16
57% wins
Against the spread
17-20
46% covers · avg +0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-19
49% overs · avg +1.8 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 102-66 | -31.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 68-83 | +10.5 | L −4.5 | 166.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 95-69 | -36.5 | L −10.5 | 168.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 99-105 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 163.5 | O 204 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 95-71 | -24.5 | L −0.5 | 166.5 | U 166 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 72-53 | -31.5 | L −12.5 | 160.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 75-74 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 162.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 86-68 | +4.5 | W +22.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 70-86 | -5.5 | L −21.5 | 157.5 | U 156 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 85-76 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 169.5 | U 161 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 89-67 | -30.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 107-54 | -31.5 | W +21.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 93-69 | -44.5 | L −20.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 86-70 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 53-72 | +1.5 | L −17.5 | 158.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 76-83 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 79-96 | +7.5 | L −9.5 | 157.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 81-83 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 177.5 | U 164 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 76-85 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 87-88 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 151.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 167.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 69-79 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 78-94 | +8.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 92-91 | +11.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | O 183 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 94-78 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 164.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 66-89 | +11.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 71-75 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 91-79 | +3.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 83-67 | +1.5 | W +17.5 | 155.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 80-64 | +1.5 | W +17.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 88-85 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 86-74 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 83-63 | +2.5 | W +22.5 | 162.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 79-82 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 166.5 | U 161 |
| Apr 1 | vs | W 90-86 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | O 176 |
| Apr 4 | vs | W 82-69 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Apr 5 | vs | L 82-89 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | O 171 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SFPA
W 102-66
+4.5
8
@
GONZ
L 68-83
−4.5
11
vs
UAPB
W 95-69
−10.5
15
vs
NEB
L 99-105
−4.5
20
vs
ORU
W 95-71
−0.5
23
vs
ALCN
W 72-53
−12.5
28
vs
MARQ
W 75-74
−0.5
2
@
WAKE
W 86-68
+22.5
6
vs
ASU
L 70-86
−21.5
13
vs
OKST
W 85-76
+6.5
16
vs
KC
W 89-67
−8.5
22
vs
STET
W 107-54
+21.5
29
vs
MVSU
W 93-69
−20.5
3
vs
MISS
W 86-70
+9.5
7
@
MSST
L 53-72
−17.5
10
@
TA&M
L 76-83
−2.5
13
vs
FLA
L 79-96
−9.5
17
vs
ALA
L 81-83
+3.5
20
@
SC
L 76-85
−11.5
24
@
MIZ
L 87-88
+3.5
27
vs
ARK
L 79-83
−0.5
31
vs
TEX
L 69-79
−8.5
4
@
UK
L 78-94
−7.5
7
@
VAN
W 92-91
+12.5
14
vs
UGA
W 94-78
+14.5
18
@
TENN
L 66-89
−11.5
21
vs
TA&M
L 71-75
−2.5
24
vs
AUB
W 91-79
+15.5
28
@
LSU
W 83-67
+17.5
3
vs
MIZ
W 80-64
+17.5
7
@
TEX
W 88-85
+9.5
11
vs
SC
W 86-74
+4.5
12
vs
TA&M
W 83-63
+22.5
13
vs
ARK
L 79-82
+3.5
1
vs
COLO
W 90-86
−5.5
4
vs
BAY
W 82-69
+14.5
5
vs
WVU
L 82-89
−10.5
covered 17didn’t cover 20avg +0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SFPA
W 102-66
+18.5
8
@
GONZ
L 68-83
−15.5
11
vs
UAPB
W 95-69
−4.5
15
vs
NEB
L 99-105
+40.5
20
vs
ORU
W 95-71
−0.5
23
vs
ALCN
W 72-53
−35.5
28
vs
MARQ
W 75-74
−13.5
2
@
WAKE
W 86-68
−5.5
6
vs
ASU
L 70-86
−1.5
13
vs
OKST
W 85-76
−8.5
16
vs
KC
W 89-67
+2.5
22
vs
STET
W 107-54
+12.5
29
vs
MVSU
W 93-69
+8.5
3
vs
MISS
W 86-70
+9.5
7
@
MSST
L 53-72
−33.5
10
@
TA&M
L 76-83
−6.5
13
vs
FLA
L 79-96
+17.5
17
vs
ALA
L 81-83
−13.5
20
@
SC
L 76-85
+10.5
24
@
MIZ
L 87-88
+23.5
27
vs
ARK
L 79-83
−5.5
31
vs
TEX
L 69-79
−7.5
4
@
UK
L 78-94
+19.5
7
@
VAN
W 92-91
+23.5
14
vs
UGA
W 94-78
+7.5
18
@
TENN
L 66-89
+5.5
21
vs
TA&M
L 71-75
−19.5
24
vs
AUB
W 91-79
+12.5
28
@
LSU
W 83-67
−5.5
3
vs
MIZ
W 80-64
−9.5
7
@
TEX
W 88-85
+18.5
11
vs
SC
W 86-74
+10.5
12
vs
TA&M
W 83-63
−16.5
13
vs
ARK
L 79-82
−5.5
1
vs
COLO
W 90-86
+13.5
4
vs
BAY
W 82-69
−8.5
5
vs
WVU
L 82-89
+29.5
over 18under 19avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Oklahoma has the better starters
Position by position: North Alabama 0, Oklahoma 4, even 1
North AlabamaBetterOklahoma
G M. Evbagharu TR9.2 pts · 7 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 43
→OUBig
G B. Edwards TR12.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 93
G B. Patton6 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 17
→OUBig
G X. Brown15.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 92
G J. Clark TR6.1 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G T. Hendricks TR11.1 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 60
F D. Yates TR6.5 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 59
→OUBig
F D. Brennan TR12.4 pts · 10.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 95
F J. Whitted TR2.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 9
→OUBig
F D. Reid11.7 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 84
North AlabamaBetterOklahoma
UNA offense308th of 366 · -9.6
→OUBig
OU defense51st of 366 · +1.9
UNA defense251st of 366 · -6.6
→OUBig
OU offense28th of 366 · +6.6
Backcourt-3.3 · 3 players
→OUBig
Backcourt+6.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
→OUBig
Frontcourt+6.9 · 2 players
Bench-3.8 · 2 players
→OUBig
Bench+2.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUNA betterOU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Evbagharu34 min · TRB. Patton18 minJ. Clark15 min · TRQ. Lax15 min · TRC. Graham-Howard14 minC. HarrisNew
Forwards
D. Yates17 min · TRJ. Whitted15 min · TRD. CarterNewA. OsmanNewJ. GulleyNew
Centers
M. ChaffeeNew
Guards
B. Edwards33 min · TRX. Brown32 minT. Hendricks31 min · TRP. Isaacs22 min · TRD. Forsythe17 minB. MoserNew
Forwards
D. Brennan31 min · TRD. Reid28 minK. Rooths16 min · TRK. Rogers8 minF. KeeffeNewG. MayfieldNew
Centers
Y. Yaak15 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.9 #317 | Points per game | 82.9 #29 |
| 1.02 #300 | Points per possession | 1.19 #23 |
| 66.2 #304 | Pace (possessions) | 69.4 #154 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.0 #312 | Effective FG% | 54.9 #40 |
| 30.7 #327 | 3-point % | 36.5 #41 |
| 33.6 #306 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.6 #97 |
| 37.6 #111 | Free throw rate | 35.5 #161 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.5 #238 | Turnover rate | 14.3 #33 |
| 31.2 #160 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.8 #92 |
| 9.7 #363 | Assists per game | 14.5 #116 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.0 #267 | Points allowed | 77.4 #248 |
| 1.18 #350 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #271 |
| 55.2 #337 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #162 |
| 35.7 #292 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.1 #189 |
| 14.6 #319 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #247 |
| 67.8 #268 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.1 #296 |
| 6.3 #202 | Steals per game | 6.3 #193 |
| 3.7 #112 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #89 |
North Alabama
7-21 in 2025-26 overall · 4-15 in conference · United Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs FGCU58–69
- L@ West Georgia63–75
- Wvs Bellarmine73–68
- L@ Lipscomb51–73
- Lvs Queens University Royals78–85
A week or more of rest.
Oklahoma
21-16 in 2025-26 overall · 9-12 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs West Virginia82–89
- Wvs Baylor82–69
- Wvs Colorado90–86
- Lvs Arkansas79–82
- Wvs Texas A&M83–63
A week or more of rest.