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 91–58 · win probability OU 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.9
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
FDU 1, OU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
FDU offense vs OU defense
Offense 356th of 366 against a defense 51st, on the model’s ratings
OU offense vs FDU defense
Offense 28th of 366 against a defense 320th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
FDU has played the 308th-hardest schedule, OU the 32nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: FDU 47.1 and allows 55.2; OU 54.9 and allows 51.0
Three-pointers
FDU hits 30.3% and allows 37.8%; OU hits 36.5% and allows 34.1%. Threes are 45.2% and 43.6% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: FDU 18.2%, OU 14.3%. Forced: FDU 16.1%, OU 15.5%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: FDU 32.0%, OU 32.8%. Defensive: FDU 72.7%, OU 67.1%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: FDU plays 64.4 a game (356th fastest), OU 69.4 (154th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: FDU 32.8, OU 35.5. Allowed: FDU 36.3, OU 34.9
Home court
OU at home. This season: OU 0-0 at home, FDU 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: FDU 27%, OU 43%. Transfers in: FDU 3, OU 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 -33.3 | — |
| Total | — | 148.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | FDU 57.8 · OU 91.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | OU -19.7 | — |
| 1H total | 69.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | FDU 25 · OU 44.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | |
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
FDU
29 games played
Straight up
8-21
28% wins
Against the spread
10-19
34% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
10-19
34% overs · avg −2.1 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 | @ | L 50-88 | +37.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 83-93 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 58-93 | +31.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 81-93 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 65-70 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 73-81 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 64-94 | +26.5 | L −3.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 54-75 | +11.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 61-72 | +16.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 43-60 | +25.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | U 103 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 74-67 | +5.5 | W +12.5 | 133.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 82-85 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 55-65 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 59-66 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 68-61 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 76-66 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 26 | vs | L 74-87 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 57-58 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 131.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 72-75 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 133.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 74-58 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 55-52 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 66-59 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 57-63 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 133.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 60-59 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 131.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 77-84 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 123.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 59-76 | +4.5 | L −12.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-74 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 61-70 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 131.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
ISU
L 50-88
−0.5
8
@
SPU
L 83-93
−3.5
12
@
TEX
L 58-93
−3.5
15
@
NJIT
L 81-93
−9.5
24
vs
ETAM
L 65-70
−1.5
26
vs
ARMY
L 73-81
−12.5
2
@
PROV
L 64-94
−3.5
10
@
FOR
L 54-75
−9.5
22
@
BC
L 61-72
+5.5
29
@
MINN
L 43-60
+8.5
2
@
MERC
W 74-67
+12.5
4
@
SFPA
L 82-85
−5.5
8
vs
CHST
W 70-63
+2.5
10
@
NHVN
L 55-65
−8.5
17
vs
LIU
L 59-66
+0.5
19
vs
WAG
W 68-61
+4.5
23
@
CCSU
W 76-66
+17.5
26
vs
LEM
L 74-87
−14.5
29
@
STO
L 57-58
+1.5
31
@
WAG
L 72-75
−1.5
5
vs
STO
W 74-58
+14.5
7
vs
MERC
W 55-52
+0.5
12
vs
SFPA
W 66-59
−0.5
14
vs
CCSU
L 57-63
−7.5
19
@
CHST
W 60-59
−0.5
21
vs
NHVN
L 77-84
−9.5
26
@
LEM
L 59-76
−12.5
28
@
LIU
L 60-74
−4.5
4
@
MERC
L 61-70
−5.5
covered 10didn’t cover 19avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
ISU
L 50-88
−9.5
8
@
SPU
L 83-93
+38.5
12
@
TEX
L 58-93
−7.5
15
@
NJIT
L 81-93
+27.5
24
vs
ETAM
L 65-70
−14.5
26
vs
ARMY
L 73-81
+1.5
2
@
PROV
L 64-94
−4.5
10
@
FOR
L 54-75
−12.5
22
@
BC
L 61-72
−8.5
29
@
MINN
L 43-60
−36.5
2
@
MERC
W 74-67
+7.5
4
@
SFPA
L 82-85
+23.5
8
vs
CHST
W 70-63
−10.5
10
@
NHVN
L 55-65
−10.5
17
vs
LIU
L 59-66
−18.5
19
vs
WAG
W 68-61
−8.5
23
@
CCSU
W 76-66
+1.5
26
vs
LEM
L 74-87
+21.5
29
@
STO
L 57-58
−16.5
31
@
WAG
L 72-75
+13.5
5
vs
STO
W 74-58
+1.5
7
vs
MERC
W 55-52
−24.5
12
vs
SFPA
W 66-59
−16.5
14
vs
CCSU
L 57-63
−13.5
19
@
CHST
W 60-59
−12.5
21
vs
NHVN
L 77-84
+37.5
26
@
LEM
L 59-76
−4.5
28
@
LIU
L 60-74
−3.5
4
@
MERC
L 61-70
−0.5
over 10under 19avg −2.1 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: FDU 0, Oklahoma 4, even 1
FDUBetterOklahoma
G D. Jevtic6.6 pts · 3.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 25
→OUBig
G B. Edwards TR12.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 93
G R. Johnson4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 10
→OUBig
G X. Brown15.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 92
G R. Elijah Godbolt1 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 1
→OUBig
G T. Hendricks TR11.1 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 60
F P. Stosic TR3.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 16
→OUBig
F D. Brennan TR12.4 pts · 10.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 95
F B. Agu TR2.7 pts · 2 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Reid11.7 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 84
FDUBetterOklahoma
FDU offense356th of 366 · -13.3
→OUBig
OU defense51st of 366 · +1.9
FDU defense320th of 366 · -8.3
→OUBig
OU offense28th of 366 · +6.6
Backcourt-5.8 · 3 players
→OUBig
Backcourt+6.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
→OUBig
Frontcourt+6.9 · 2 players
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
→OUBig
Bench+2.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestFDU betterOU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Jevtic21 minR. Johnson17 minR. Elijah Godbolt12 minT. McQuaid2 minJ. JacobsNewA. CandaNew
Forwards
P. Stosic16 min · TRB. Agu10 min · TRT. Torain9 min · TRA. RatliffNew
Centers
S. Haubro3 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 65.1 #349 | Points per game | 82.9 #29 |
| 1.01 #314 | Points per possession | 1.19 #23 |
| 64.4 #356 | Pace (possessions) | 69.4 #154 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.1 #333 | Effective FG% | 54.9 #40 |
| 30.3 #339 | 3-point % | 36.5 #41 |
| 45.2 #63 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.6 #97 |
| 32.8 #240 | Free throw rate | 35.5 #161 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.2 #280 | Turnover rate | 14.3 #33 |
| 32.0 #125 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.8 #92 |
| 11.4 #316 | Assists per game | 14.5 #116 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.7 #123 | Points allowed | 77.4 #248 |
| 1.13 #280 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #271 |
| 55.2 #336 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #162 |
| 37.8 #354 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.1 #189 |
| 16.1 #218 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #247 |
| 72.7 #46 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.1 #296 |
| 4.8 #344 | Steals per game | 6.3 #193 |
| 1.5 #362 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #89 |
FDU
8-21 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Mercyhurst61–70
- L@ Long Island60–74
- L@ Le Moyne59–76
- Lvs New Haven77–84
- W@ Chicago St60–59
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.