Wintrust Arena · at DePaul
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DEP | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 DEP 75–74 · win probability DEP 53%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.2
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: SMU has more of the edges
SMU 3, DEP 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
SMU hits 37.1% and allows 34.1%; DEP hits 32.5% and allows 35.4%. Threes are 35.9% and 39.0% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: SMU plays 71.1 a game (68th fastest), DEP 67.7 (240th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SMU 35.4%, DEP 30.1%. Defensive: SMU 68.4%, DEP 69.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: SMU 55.6 and allows 51.6; DEP 49.8 and allows 49.3
Home court
DEP at home. This season: DEP 0-0 at home, SMU 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SMU 20%, DEP 38%. Transfers in: SMU 7, DEP 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
DEP offense vs SMU defense
Offense 92nd of 366 against a defense 69th, on the model’s ratings
Even
SMU offense vs DEP defense
Offense 45th of 366 against a defense 31st, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SMU 15.8%, DEP 17.7%. Forced: SMU 16.8%, DEP 18.7%
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: SMU 30.4, DEP 35.3. Allowed: SMU 32.1, DEP 37.8
Context
Schedule so far
SMU has played the 70th-hardest schedule, DEP the 72nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | DEP -0.7 | — |
| Total | — | 148.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | SMU 73.7 · DEP 74.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | DEP -0.3 | — |
| 1H total | 69.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | SMU 34.5 · DEP 34.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
SMU
34 games played
Straight up
20-14
59% wins
Against the spread
15-19
44% covers · avg +0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-14
59% overs · avg +2.4 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 96-76 | -21.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 69-58 | -23.5 | L −12.5 | 160.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 102-91 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 164.5 | O 193 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 87-85 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 106-60 | -35.5 | W +10.5 | 168.5 | U 166 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 100-69 | -14.5 | W +16.5 | 172.5 | U 169 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 89-72 | -23.5 | L −6.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Nov 28 | @ | W 87-81 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 69-88 | +10.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 157 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 93-80 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 164.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 77-89 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 99-82 | -24.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 181 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 110-63 | -21.5 | W +25.5 | 170.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 97-83 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 155.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 70-74 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 75-82 | +15.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 77-76 | -8.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-72 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 91-79 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 157.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 83-80 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 163.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-88 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 163.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 83-84 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 86-67 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 89-81 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 78-79 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 95-85 | +4.5 | W +14.5 | 168.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 94-70 | -15.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 69-73 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 75-95 | -1.5 | L −21.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 69-77 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 78-91 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 158.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 86-69 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 58-62 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 18 | vs | L 79-89 | -6.5 | L −16.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TAR
W 96-76
−1.5
6
vs
AMCC
W 69-58
−12.5
11
vs
MUR
W 102-91
+0.5
15
vs
BTLR
W 87-85
−5.5
18
vs
UAPB
W 106-60
+10.5
21
vs
ARST
W 100-69
+16.5
24
vs
RAD
W 89-72
−6.5
28
@
MSST
W 87-81
+7.5
3
@
VAN
L 69-88
−8.5
7
vs
TA&M
W 93-80
+14.5
13
vs
LSU
L 77-89
−10.5
21
vs
CARK
W 99-82
−7.5
28
vs
CSUF
W 110-63
+25.5
3
vs
UNC
W 97-83
+12.5
7
@
CLEM
L 70-74
−0.5
10
@
DUKE
L 75-82
+8.5
14
vs
VT
W 77-76
−7.5
17
vs
UVA
L 68-72
−1.5
20
@
WAKE
W 91-79
+13.5
24
vs
FSU
W 83-80
−8.5
31
@
LOU
L 74-88
−4.5
3
vs
NCSU
L 83-84
+0.5
7
@
PITT
W 86-67
+14.5
10
vs
ND
W 89-81
−2.5
14
@
SYR
L 78-79
−2.5
17
vs
LOU
W 95-85
+14.5
21
vs
BC
W 94-70
+8.5
25
@
CAL
L 69-73
−8.5
28
@
STAN
L 75-95
−21.5
4
vs
MIA
L 69-77
−9.5
7
@
FSU
L 78-91
−11.5
10
vs
SYR
W 86-69
+13.5
11
vs
LOU
L 58-62
+3.5
18
vs
M-OH
L 79-89
−16.5
covered 15didn’t cover 19avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TAR
W 96-76
+27.5
6
vs
AMCC
W 69-58
−33.5
11
vs
MUR
W 102-91
+28.5
15
vs
BTLR
W 87-85
+8.5
18
vs
UAPB
W 106-60
−2.5
21
vs
ARST
W 100-69
−3.5
24
vs
RAD
W 89-72
−4.5
28
@
MSST
W 87-81
+5.5
3
@
VAN
L 69-88
−8.5
7
vs
TA&M
W 93-80
+8.5
13
vs
LSU
L 77-89
+7.5
21
vs
CARK
W 99-82
+24.5
28
vs
CSUF
W 110-63
+2.5
3
vs
UNC
W 97-83
+24.5
7
@
CLEM
L 70-74
−5.5
10
@
DUKE
L 75-82
+1.5
14
vs
VT
W 77-76
−2.5
17
vs
UVA
L 68-72
−13.5
20
@
WAKE
W 91-79
+12.5
24
vs
FSU
W 83-80
−0.5
31
@
LOU
L 74-88
−1.5
3
vs
NCSU
L 83-84
+7.5
7
@
PITT
W 86-67
+5.5
10
vs
ND
W 89-81
+15.5
14
@
SYR
L 78-79
−0.5
17
vs
LOU
W 95-85
+11.5
21
vs
BC
W 94-70
+13.5
25
@
CAL
L 69-73
−21.5
28
@
STAN
L 75-95
+14.5
4
vs
MIA
L 69-77
−10.5
7
@
FSU
L 78-91
+10.5
10
vs
SYR
W 86-69
+0.5
11
vs
LOU
L 58-62
−44.5
18
vs
M-OH
L 79-89
+5.5
over 20under 14avg +2.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
SMU has the better starters
Position by position: SMU 2, DePaul 1, even 2
SMUBetterDePaul
G R. Brumbaugh TR19.1 pts · 4.8 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 95
=Even
G K. Holmes TR19.8 pts · 5.8 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 96
G D. Terrell TR13.6 pts · 3.8 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 89
←SMUSmall
G A. Popoola TR10.9 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 57
G O. Sellers TR10.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 78
=Even
G L. Blocker11.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 77
G J. Patrick TR7.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 59
→DEPSmall
G K. Cotton TR14.1 pts · 5.5 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 87
F J. Munch TR7.9 pts · 5.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 69
←SMUSmall
C W. Jacques TR8.9 pts · 8.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 52
SMUBetterDePaul
SMU offense45th of 366 · +4.2
=Even
DEP defense31st of 366 · +3.5
SMU defense69th of 366 · +0.8
=Even
DEP offense92nd of 366 · -0.3
Backcourt+8.2 · 4 players
=Even
Backcourt+7.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt+0.7 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt+0.5 · 1 player
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
=Even
Bench+0.9 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSMU betterDEP betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
R. Brumbaugh36 min · TRD. Terrell33 min · TRO. Sellers29 min · TRJ. Patrick20 min · TRN. Kalischer-Stork1 minG. NormandNew
Forwards
J. Munch21 min · TRJ. Toombs20 minJ. Stewart16 min · TRN. Codie16 min · TRJ. O'Neal15 minN. Walls3 min
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 84.1 #19 | Points per game | 70.3 #279 |
| 1.19 #26 | Points per possession | 1.04 #280 |
| 71.1 #68 | Pace (possessions) | 67.7 #240 |
| Shooting | ||
| 55.6 #27 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #243 |
| 37.1 #27 | 3-point % | 32.5 #253 |
| 35.9 #252 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.0 #191 |
| 30.4 #301 | Free throw rate | 35.3 #169 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.8 #119 | Turnover rate | 17.7 #253 |
| 35.4 #37 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.1 #197 |
| 16.9 #27 | Assists per game | 15.0 #87 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.9 #265 | Points allowed | 69.6 #57 |
| 1.09 #199 | Points allowed per possession | 1.03 #55 |
| 51.6 #189 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.3 #77 |
| 34.1 #188 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.4 #274 |
| 16.8 #171 | Turnovers forced | 18.7 #64 |
| 68.4 #237 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.0 #205 |
| 7.0 #129 | Steals per game | 6.9 #134 |
| 3.6 #132 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #152 |
SMU
20-14 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Miami OH79–89
- Lvs Louisville58–62
- Wvs Syracuse86–69
- L@ Florida St78–91
- Lvs Miami69–77
A week or more of rest.
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.