Cameron Indoor Stadium · at Duke
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DUKE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 DUKE 89–50 · win probability DUKE 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 139.3
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
SIUE 0, DUKE 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
SIUE has played the 365th-hardest schedule, DUKE the 23rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
SIUE offense vs DUKE defense
Offense 329th of 366 against a defense 3rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SIUE 30.1%, DUKE 38.4%. Defensive: SIUE 68.4%, DUKE 74.8%
Free throws
Free throw rate: SIUE 30.6, DUKE 38.2. Allowed: SIUE 34.3, DUKE 22.8
DUKE offense vs SIUE defense
Offense 11th of 366 against a defense 161st, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: SIUE 49.5 and allows 45.6; DUKE 56.6 and allows 46.2
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SIUE 17.9%, DUKE 16.0%. Forced: SIUE 17.1%, DUKE 17.2%
Home court
DUKE at home. This season: DUKE 0-0 at home, SIUE 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
SIUE hits 35.0% and allows 30.2%; DUKE hits 34.7% and allows 30.6%. Threes are 36.2% and 43.5% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: SIUE plays 66.1 a game (306th fastest), DUKE 66.8 (285th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SIUE 52%, DUKE 47%. Transfers in: SIUE 2, DUKE 3. 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 | — | DUKE -39.5 | — |
| Total | — | 139.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | SIUE 49.9 · DUKE 89.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | DUKE -23.4 | — |
| 1H total | 65.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | SIUE 20.9 · DUKE 44.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 9-1 90% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
SIUE
29 games played
Straight up
16-13
55% wins
Against the spread
15-14
52% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-18
38% overs · avg −4.5 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 7 | @ | W 77-60 | +6.5 | W +23.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 10 | vs | L 55-64 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 61-59 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 69-94 | +25.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 63-77 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 130.5 | O 140 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 83-68 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 72-63 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 73-83 | -5.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 72-76 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 134.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 22 | @ | W 66-61 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 59-55 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 136.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 72-73 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 131.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 66-62 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 70-73 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 59-65 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 131.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 68-55 | +9.5 | W +22.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 74-66 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 62-58 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 65-67 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 58-46 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 130.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 78-72 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 71-61 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 132.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 74-56 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 137.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 76-81 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 129.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 52-62 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 134.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 53-80 | +2.5 | L −24.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 67-47 | -13.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 77-50 | -5.5 | W +21.5 | 129.5 | U 127 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 71-77 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 128.5 | O 148 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
UTSA
W 77-60
+23.5
10
vs
INST
L 55-64
−11.5
14
@
DRKE
W 61-59
+9.5
17
@
WIS
L 69-94
+0.5
21
@
AF
L 63-77
−16.5
23
vs
ALST
W 83-68
+13.5
2
@
UNF
W 72-63
+1.5
6
vs
WMU
L 73-83
−15.5
18
@
EIU
L 72-76
−10.5
22
@
WIU
W 66-61
−1.5
1
vs
USI
W 59-55
−6.5
3
vs
MORE
L 72-73
−5.5
6
vs
LIN
W 66-62
+2.5
8
vs
LR
L 70-73
−6.5
15
@
UTM
L 59-65
+1.5
17
@
SEMO
W 68-55
+22.5
22
vs
TNST
W 74-66
+6.5
24
vs
TNTC
W 62-58
−3.5
29
@
MORE
L 65-67
−0.5
31
@
USI
W 58-46
+10.5
3
@
LIN
W 78-72
+10.5
7
@
LR
W 71-61
+11.5
12
vs
SEMO
W 74-56
+19.5
14
vs
UTM
L 76-81
−3.5
19
@
TNTC
L 52-62
−11.5
21
@
TNST
L 53-80
−24.5
26
vs
WIU
W 67-47
+6.5
28
vs
EIU
W 77-50
+21.5
4
vs
EIU
L 71-77
−9.5
covered 15didn’t cover 14avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
UTSA
W 77-60
−16.5
10
vs
INST
L 55-64
−40.5
14
@
DRKE
W 61-59
−22.5
17
@
WIS
L 69-94
+16.5
21
@
AF
L 63-77
+9.5
23
vs
ALST
W 83-68
+8.5
2
@
UNF
W 72-63
−18.5
6
vs
WMU
L 73-83
+16.5
18
@
EIU
L 72-76
+13.5
22
@
WIU
W 66-61
−11.5
1
vs
USI
W 59-55
−22.5
3
vs
MORE
L 72-73
+13.5
6
vs
LIN
W 66-62
−14.5
8
vs
LR
L 70-73
+11.5
15
@
UTM
L 59-65
−7.5
17
@
SEMO
W 68-55
−16.5
22
vs
TNST
W 74-66
−2.5
24
vs
TNTC
W 62-58
−15.5
29
@
MORE
L 65-67
+1.5
31
@
USI
W 58-46
−26.5
3
@
LIN
W 78-72
+9.5
7
@
LR
W 71-61
−0.5
12
vs
SEMO
W 74-56
−7.5
14
vs
UTM
L 76-81
+27.5
19
@
TNTC
L 52-62
−20.5
21
@
TNST
L 53-80
−10.5
26
vs
WIU
W 67-47
−21.5
28
vs
EIU
W 77-50
−2.5
4
vs
EIU
L 71-77
+19.5
over 11under 18avg −4.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Duke has the better starters
Position by position: SIUE 0, Duke 3, even 2
SIUEBetterDuke
G G. Cobb TR9.8 pts · 2.6 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 40
→DUKEBig
G J. Blackwell TR19.1 pts · 5.1 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 97
G T. King10.1 pts · 2.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 66
=Even
G C. Foster8.3 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 76
G J. Pickett4.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 7
→DUKEBig
G J. Theodosiou TR12.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
F G. Liberis7 pts · 4.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 9
→DUKEBig
G C. Boozer7.7 pts · 2.3 reb · 3 ast
Score 85
F D. Baker7.7 pts · 4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 40
=Even
F D. Sarr6.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 52
SIUEBetterDuke
SIUE offense329th of 366 · -10.6
→DUKEBig
DUKE defense3rd of 366 · +11.4
SIUE defense161st of 366 · -3.6
→DUKEBig
DUKE offense11th of 366 · +10.1
Backcourt-3.6 · 3 players
→DUKEBig
Backcourt+9.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
→DUKEBig
Frontcourt-0.2 · 1 player
Bench-1.5 · 4 players
→DUKEBig
Bench+7.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestSIUE betterDUKE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
G. Cobb29 min · TRT. King22 minJ. Pickett20 minC. Efono9 minH. Alexander7 minD. McCaskillNew
Forwards
G. Liberis24 minD. Baker21 minI. Baganc2 minD. WilsonNewB. SohaibNewB. MillerNew
Centers
J. Martin1 min · TR
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.7 #321 | Points per game | 81.6 #36 |
| 1.02 #304 | Points per possession | 1.23 #4 |
| 66.1 #306 | Pace (possessions) | 66.8 #285 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #266 | Effective FG% | 56.6 #13 |
| 35.0 #123 | 3-point % | 34.7 #133 |
| 36.2 #246 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.5 #100 |
| 30.6 #294 | Free throw rate | 38.2 #97 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.9 #266 | Turnover rate | 16.0 #139 |
| 30.1 #195 | Offensive rebound rate | 38.4 #4 |
| 12.4 #255 | Assists per game | 16.7 #32 |
| Defense | ||
| 65.9 #13 | Points allowed | 63.6 #3 |
| 1.00 #26 | Points allowed per possession | 0.95 #2 |
| 45.6 #6 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.2 #13 |
| 30.2 #10 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.6 #27 |
| 17.1 #143 | Turnovers forced | 17.2 #133 |
| 68.4 #235 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.8 #10 |
| 6.9 #138 | Steals per game | 7.4 #92 |
| 4.0 #70 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #164 |
SIUE
16-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs E Illinois71–77
- Wvs E Illinois77–50
- Wvs W Illinois67–47
- L@ Tennessee St53–80
- L@ Tennessee Tech52–62
A week or more of rest.
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.