Suncoast Credit Union Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PUR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PUR 75–68 · win probability PUR 72%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.7
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: PUR has more of the edges
DEP 0, PUR 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DEP 30.1%, PUR 36.4%. Defensive: DEP 69.0%, PUR 72.9%
Three-pointers
DEP hits 32.5% and allows 35.4%; PUR hits 38.3% and allows 34.1%. Threes are 39.0% and 40.2% of their shots
DEP offense vs PUR defense
Offense 92nd of 366 against a defense 18th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
DEP has played the 72nd-hardest schedule, PUR the 6th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: DEP plays 67.7 a game (240th fastest), PUR 65.4 (333rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: DEP 35.3, PUR 28.6. Allowed: DEP 37.8, PUR 25.5
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: DEP 49.8 and allows 49.3; PUR 57.6 and allows 52.4
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DEP 17.7%, PUR 13.7%. Forced: DEP 18.7%, PUR 15.3%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DEP 38%, PUR 43%. Transfers in: DEP 6, PUR 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
PUR offense vs DEP defense
Offense 38th of 366 against a defense 31st, 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 | — | PUR -6.7 | — |
| Total | — | 142.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | DEP 68 · PUR 74.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PUR -3.9 | — |
| 1H total | 66.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | DEP 31.5 · PUR 35.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
DePaul
32 games played
Straight up
16-16
50% wins
Against the spread
20-12
63% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-21
34% overs · avg −5.2 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 | W 92-62 | -24.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 72-64 | -22.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 53-66 | -18.5 | L −31.5 | 153.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 79-81 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 93-62 | -21.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 95-75 | -19.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 75-61 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 63-96 | +5.5 | L −27.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 76-72 | -23.5 | L −19.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 92-49 | -21.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 61-58 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 66-79 | +19.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 54-72 | +12.5 | L −5.5 | 133.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 66-71 | +12.5 | W +7.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 86-77 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 56-50 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 106 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 60-72 | +19.5 | W +7.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 16 | vs | W 80-75 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 80-87 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 67-60 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 135.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 61-70 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 66-68 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 56-68 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 72-90 | +4.5 | L −13.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 72-71 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 69-57 | +7.5 | W +19.5 | 129.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 68-71 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 72-71 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 143 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 62-51 | +4.5 | W +15.5 | 139.5 | U 113 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 57-76 | +1.5 | L −17.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 71-81 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 56-63 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 136.5 | U 119 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CHST
W 92-62
+5.5
7
vs
STO
W 72-64
−14.5
11
vs
BUF
L 53-66
−31.5
14
vs
NU
L 79-81
+3.5
18
vs
GWEB
W 93-62
+9.5
23
vs
DETM
W 95-75
+0.5
28
vs
GT
W 75-61
+12.5
29
vs
LSU
L 63-96
−27.5
6
vs
UAPB
W 76-72
−19.5
9
vs
MORG
W 92-49
+21.5
13
@
WICH
W 61-58
+10.5
16
@
SJU
L 66-79
+6.5
21
vs
CONN
L 54-72
−5.5
31
@
VILL
L 66-71
+7.5
3
vs
XAV
W 86-77
+6.5
6
vs
GTWN
W 56-50
+3.5
10
@
CONN
L 60-72
+7.5
16
vs
MARQ
W 80-75
+2.5
20
@
BTLR
L 80-87
+0.5
24
vs
HALL
W 67-60
+9.5
28
@
GTWN
L 61-70
−5.5
31
@
XAV
L 66-68
+2.5
3
vs
SJU
L 56-68
−2.5
7
@
PROV
L 72-90
−13.5
11
vs
CREI
W 72-71
+2.5
18
@
HALL
W 69-57
+19.5
21
vs
PROV
L 68-71
−5.5
25
@
CREI
W 72-71
+4.5
1
@
MARQ
W 62-51
+15.5
4
vs
VILL
L 57-76
−17.5
7
vs
BTLR
L 71-81
−14.5
11
vs
GTWN
L 56-63
−5.5
covered 20didn’t cover 12avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CHST
W 92-62
+10.5
7
vs
STO
W 72-64
−11.5
11
vs
BUF
L 53-66
−34.5
14
vs
NU
L 79-81
+14.5
18
vs
GWEB
W 93-62
−0.5
23
vs
DETM
W 95-75
+18.5
28
vs
GT
W 75-61
−11.5
29
vs
LSU
L 63-96
+6.5
6
vs
UAPB
W 76-72
−8.5
9
vs
MORG
W 92-49
−9.5
13
@
WICH
W 61-58
−26.5
16
@
SJU
L 66-79
−2.5
21
vs
CONN
L 54-72
−7.5
31
@
VILL
L 66-71
−2.5
3
vs
XAV
W 86-77
+13.5
6
vs
GTWN
W 56-50
−38.5
10
@
CONN
L 60-72
−5.5
16
vs
MARQ
W 80-75
+9.5
20
@
BTLR
L 80-87
+19.5
24
vs
HALL
W 67-60
−8.5
28
@
GTWN
L 61-70
−8.5
31
@
XAV
L 66-68
−16.5
3
vs
SJU
L 56-68
−21.5
7
@
PROV
L 72-90
+8.5
11
vs
CREI
W 72-71
+1.5
18
@
HALL
W 69-57
−3.5
21
vs
PROV
L 68-71
−13.5
25
@
CREI
W 72-71
+0.5
1
@
MARQ
W 62-51
−26.5
4
vs
VILL
L 57-76
−2.5
7
vs
BTLR
L 71-81
+9.5
11
vs
GTWN
L 56-63
−17.5
over 11under 21avg −5.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Purdue
39 games played
Straight up
30-9
77% wins
Against the spread
17-22
44% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-19
51% overs · avg +1.4 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-2244%
2 straight misses ATS2 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 82-51 | -33.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 87-77 | -31.5 | L −21.5 | 158.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 13 | @ | W 87-80 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 172.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 97-79 | -18.5 | L −0.5 | 163.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 80-71 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 86-56 | -3.5 | W +26.5 | 153.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 109-62 | -40.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 81-65 | -13.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 58-81 | -4.5 | L −27.5 | 154.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 85-57 | -19.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 79-59 | -16.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 88-60 | -7.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 101-60 | -24.5 | W +16.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 89-73 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 81-73 | -16.5 | L −8.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 93-85 | -22.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 79-72 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-64 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 67-69 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 82-88 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 67-72 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 93-63 | -15.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 68-64 | -19.5 | L −15.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 80-77 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-57 | -2.5 | W +18.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 80-91 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 93-64 | -11.5 | W +17.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 74-76 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 74-82 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 70-66 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 93-97 | -9.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | O 190 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 81-68 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 74-58 | -4.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 73-66 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 15 | vs | W 80-72 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 104-71 | -25.5 | W +7.5 | 159.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 79-69 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 26 | vs | W 79-77 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 28 | vs | L 64-79 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
EVAN
W 82-51
−2.5
7
vs
OAK
W 87-77
−21.5
13
@
ALA
W 87-80
+10.5
16
vs
AKR
W 97-79
−0.5
20
vs
MEM
W 80-71
−5.5
21
vs
TTU
W 86-56
+26.5
28
vs
EIU
W 109-62
+6.5
2
@
RUTG
W 81-65
+2.5
6
vs
ISU
L 58-81
−27.5
10
vs
MINN
W 85-57
+8.5
13
vs
MARQ
W 79-59
+3.5
20
vs
AUB
W 88-60
+20.5
29
vs
KENT
W 101-60
+16.5
3
@
WIS
W 89-73
+10.5
7
vs
WASH
W 81-73
−8.5
10
vs
PSU
W 93-85
−14.5
14
vs
IOWA
W 79-72
−3.5
17
@
USC
W 69-64
−4.5
20
@
UCLA
L 67-69
−7.5
24
vs
ILL
L 82-88
−11.5
27
@
IU
L 67-72
−9.5
1
@
MD
W 93-63
+14.5
7
vs
ORE
W 68-64
−15.5
10
@
NEB
W 80-77
+5.5
14
@
IOWA
W 78-57
+18.5
17
vs
MICH
L 80-91
−8.5
20
vs
IU
W 93-64
+17.5
26
vs
MSU
L 74-76
−7.5
1
@
OSU
L 74-82
−14.5
4
@
NU
W 70-66
−8.5
7
vs
WIS
L 93-97
−13.5
12
vs
NU
W 81-68
−0.5
13
vs
NEB
W 74-58
+11.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 73-66
−0.5
15
vs
MICH
W 80-72
+12.5
20
vs
QUC
W 104-71
+7.5
22
vs
MIA
W 79-69
+1.5
26
vs
TEX
W 79-77
−6.5
28
vs
ARIZ
L 64-79
−9.5
covered 17didn’t cover 22avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
EVAN
W 82-51
−17.5
7
vs
OAK
W 87-77
+5.5
13
@
ALA
W 87-80
−5.5
16
vs
AKR
W 97-79
+12.5
20
vs
MEM
W 80-71
−5.5
21
vs
TTU
W 86-56
−11.5
28
vs
EIU
W 109-62
+29.5
2
@
RUTG
W 81-65
−0.5
6
vs
ISU
L 58-81
−15.5
10
vs
MINN
W 85-57
−1.5
13
vs
MARQ
W 79-59
−16.5
20
vs
AUB
W 88-60
−4.5
29
vs
KENT
W 101-60
+5.5
3
@
WIS
W 89-73
+8.5
7
vs
WASH
W 81-73
−0.5
10
vs
PSU
W 93-85
+25.5
14
vs
IOWA
W 79-72
+5.5
17
@
USC
W 69-64
−22.5
20
@
UCLA
L 67-69
−11.5
24
vs
ILL
L 82-88
+17.5
27
@
IU
L 67-72
−11.5
1
@
MD
W 93-63
+7.5
7
vs
ORE
W 68-64
−12.5
10
@
NEB
W 80-77
+10.5
14
@
IOWA
W 78-57
−7.5
17
vs
MICH
L 80-91
+14.5
20
vs
IU
W 93-64
+6.5
26
vs
MSU
L 74-76
+6.5
1
@
OSU
L 74-82
+6.5
4
@
NU
W 70-66
−9.5
7
vs
WIS
L 93-97
+35.5
12
vs
NU
W 81-68
+9.5
13
vs
NEB
W 74-58
−13.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 73-66
−4.5
15
vs
MICH
W 80-72
+2.5
20
vs
QUC
W 104-71
+15.5
22
vs
MIA
W 79-69
+1.5
26
vs
TEX
W 79-77
+9.5
28
vs
ARIZ
L 64-79
−9.5
over 20under 19avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Purdue has the better starters
Position by position: DePaul 1, Purdue 2, even 2
DePaulBetterPurdue
G K. Holmes TR19.8 pts · 5.8 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 96
=Even
G C. Cox8.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 82
G A. Popoola TR10.9 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 57
→PURSmall
G G. Harris4.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 75
G L. Blocker11.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 77
=Even
G J. Benter4.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 75
G K. Cotton TR14.1 pts · 5.5 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 87
←DEPSmall
G O. Mayer5.5 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 64
C W. Jacques TR8.9 pts · 8.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 52
→PURBig
C D. Jacobsen5.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 88
DePaulBetterPurdue
DEP offense92nd of 366 · -0.3
→PURSmall
PUR defense18th of 366 · +6.0
DEP defense31st of 366 · +3.5
=Even
PUR offense38th of 366 · +5.0
Backcourt+7.2 · 4 players
←DEPBig
Backcourt+2.4 · 4 players
Frontcourt+0.5 · 1 player
→PURSmall
Frontcourt+1.8 · 1 player
Bench+0.9 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-0.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestDEP betterPUR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Holmes32 min · TRA. Popoola29 min · TRL. Blocker29 minK. Cotton28 min · TRN. Meeusen27 min · TRK. McClure19 min
Forwards
M. Gwath19 min · TRT. Pierre-Justin16 minJ. JohnsonNewA. JensenNew
Centers
W. Jacques28 min · TRF. Flores11 min
Guards
C. Cox24 minG. Harris16 minJ. Benter15 minO. Mayer14 minJ. Rayl2 minJ. Lusk2 min
Forwards
S. KingNewC. PierceNewE. ShahrvinNewR. BurgessNewR. KnightNew
Centers
D. Jacobsen13 minS. HuanNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.3 #279 | Points per game | 81.6 #35 |
| 1.04 #280 | Points per possession | 1.25 #2 |
| 67.7 #240 | Pace (possessions) | 65.4 #333 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.8 #243 | Effective FG% | 57.6 #10 |
| 32.5 #253 | 3-point % | 38.3 #11 |
| 39.0 #191 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.2 #164 |
| 35.3 #169 | Free throw rate | 28.6 #336 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.7 #253 | Turnover rate | 13.7 #16 |
| 30.1 #197 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.4 #19 |
| 15.0 #87 | Assists per game | 19.6 #2 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.6 #57 | Points allowed | 70.5 #65 |
| 1.03 #55 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #162 |
| 49.3 #77 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #232 |
| 35.4 #274 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.1 #192 |
| 18.7 #64 | Turnovers forced | 15.3 #263 |
| 69.0 #205 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.9 #39 |
| 6.9 #134 | Steals per game | 5.5 #297 |
| 3.4 #152 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #257 |
DePaul
16-16 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Georgetown56–63
- Lvs Butler71–81
- Lvs Villanova57–76
- W@ Marquette62–51
- W@ Creighton72–71
A week or more of rest.
Purdue
30-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-7 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona64–79
- Wvs Texas79–77
- Wvs Miami79–69
- Wvs Queens University Royals104–71
- Wvs Michigan80–72
A week or more of rest.