McKale Center at ALKEME Arena · at Arizona
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ARIZ | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ARIZ 76–70 · win probability ARIZ 69%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.4
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: ARIZ has more of the edges
CONN 0, ARIZ 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: CONN 29.9, ARIZ 43.9. Allowed: CONN 40.7, ARIZ 27.1
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: CONN plays 66.1 a game (307th fastest), ARIZ 71.6 (49th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
ARIZ at home. This season: ARIZ 0-0 at home, CONN 0-0 away
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CONN 35.7%, ARIZ 38.4%. Defensive: CONN 71.2%, ARIZ 73.1%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CONN 51%, ARIZ 29%. Transfers in: CONN 7, ARIZ 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Three-pointers
CONN hits 34.4% and allows 30.1%; ARIZ hits 36.6% and allows 31.4%. Threes are 40.9% and 26.4% of their shots
Even
CONN offense vs ARIZ defense
Offense 25th of 366 against a defense 7th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: CONN 54.3 and allows 45.7; ARIZ 54.7 and allows 45.3
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CONN 16.4%, ARIZ 15.1%. Forced: CONN 17.8%, ARIZ 16.2%
Context
Schedule so far
CONN has played the 4th-hardest schedule, ARIZ the 11th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
ARIZ offense vs CONN defense
Offense 4th of 366 against a defense 2nd, 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 | — | ARIZ -5.8 | — |
| Total | — | 146.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | CONN 70.3 · ARIZ 76.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ARIZ -3.3 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | CONN 32.6 · ARIZ 35.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | |
| 9-1 90% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CONN 0–1 ARIZARIZ leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CONN 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2025-26 | ARIZ 71 @ CONN 67 | CONN -4.5 | ARIZ W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UConn
40 games played
Straight up
34-6
85% wins
Against the spread
17-23
43% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-21
48% overs · avg −1.6 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-2343%
5 straight covers4 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 3 | vs | W 79-55 | -42.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 110-47 | -36.5 | W +26.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 89-62 | -32.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 86-84 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 156.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 67-71 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 72-49 | -36.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 74-61 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 61-56 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 117 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 83-59 | -36.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 77-73 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 12 | vs | W 71-63 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 79-60 | -15.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 72-54 | -12.5 | W +5.5 | 133.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 90-67 | -11.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 73-57 | -17.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 103-98 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 201 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 72-60 | -19.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 69-64 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 132.5 | O 133 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 64-62 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-67 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 87-81 | -15.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 85-58 | -6.5 | W +20.5 | 142.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 92-60 | -16.5 | W +15.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 6 | @ | L 72-81 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 143.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 80-70 | -11.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-75 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 84-91 | -15.5 | L −22.5 | 143.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 73-63 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 72-40 | -5.5 | W +26.5 | 145.5 | U 112 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 71-67 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | O 138 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 62-68 | -9.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 93-68 | -17.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 67-51 | -14.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 14 | @ | L 52-72 | -2.5 | L −22.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 82-71 | -20.5 | L −9.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 73-57 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 27 | vs | W 67-63 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 29 | vs | W 73-72 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | O 145 |
| Apr 4 | vs | W 71-62 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
| Apr 6 | vs | L 63-69 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 132 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NHVN
W 79-55
−18.5
7
vs
UML
W 110-47
+26.5
10
vs
COLU
W 89-62
−5.5
15
vs
BYU
W 86-84
−4.5
19
vs
ARIZ
L 67-71
−8.5
23
vs
BRY
W 72-49
−13.5
28
vs
ILL
W 74-61
+8.5
2
@
KU
W 61-56
+1.5
5
vs
ETAM
W 83-59
−12.5
9
vs
FLA
W 77-73
−0.5
12
vs
TEX
W 71-63
−3.5
16
vs
BTLR
W 79-60
+3.5
21
@
DEP
W 72-54
+5.5
31
@
XAV
W 90-67
+11.5
4
vs
MARQ
W 73-57
−1.5
7
@
PROV
W 103-98
−4.5
10
vs
DEP
W 72-60
−7.5
13
@
HALL
W 69-64
−1.5
17
@
GTWN
W 64-62
−9.5
24
vs
VILL
W 75-67
−3.5
27
vs
PROV
W 87-81
−9.5
31
@
CREI
W 85-58
+20.5
3
vs
XAV
W 92-60
+15.5
6
@
SJU
L 72-81
−10.5
11
@
BTLR
W 80-70
−1.5
14
vs
GTWN
W 79-75
−12.5
18
vs
CREI
L 84-91
−22.5
21
@
VILL
W 73-63
+6.5
25
vs
SJU
W 72-40
+26.5
28
vs
HALL
W 71-67
−8.5
7
@
MARQ
L 62-68
−15.5
12
vs
XAV
W 93-68
+7.5
13
vs
GTWN
W 67-51
+1.5
14
@
SJU
L 52-72
−22.5
20
vs
FUR
W 82-71
−9.5
22
vs
UCLA
W 73-57
+10.5
27
vs
MSU
W 67-63
+1.5
29
vs
DUKE
W 73-72
+5.5
4
vs
ILL
W 71-62
+10.5
6
vs
MICH
L 63-69
+0.5
covered 17didn’t cover 23avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NHVN
W 79-55
−11.5
7
vs
UML
W 110-47
+5.5
10
vs
COLU
W 89-62
−4.5
15
vs
BYU
W 86-84
+13.5
19
vs
ARIZ
L 67-71
−18.5
23
vs
BRY
W 72-49
−26.5
28
vs
ILL
W 74-61
−15.5
2
@
KU
W 61-56
−24.5
5
vs
ETAM
W 83-59
+0.5
9
vs
FLA
W 77-73
+4.5
12
vs
TEX
W 71-63
−11.5
16
vs
BTLR
W 79-60
−5.5
21
@
DEP
W 72-54
−7.5
31
@
XAV
W 90-67
+12.5
4
vs
MARQ
W 73-57
−14.5
7
@
PROV
W 103-98
+48.5
10
vs
DEP
W 72-60
−5.5
13
@
HALL
W 69-64
+0.5
17
@
GTWN
W 64-62
−15.5
24
vs
VILL
W 75-67
+4.5
27
vs
PROV
W 87-81
+15.5
31
@
CREI
W 85-58
+0.5
3
vs
XAV
W 92-60
+4.5
6
@
SJU
L 72-81
+9.5
11
@
BTLR
W 80-70
+6.5
14
vs
GTWN
W 79-75
+15.5
18
vs
CREI
L 84-91
+31.5
21
@
VILL
W 73-63
−5.5
25
vs
SJU
W 72-40
−33.5
28
vs
HALL
W 71-67
+7.5
7
@
MARQ
L 62-68
−13.5
12
vs
XAV
W 93-68
+10.5
13
vs
GTWN
W 67-51
−20.5
14
@
SJU
L 52-72
−15.5
20
vs
FUR
W 82-71
+19.5
22
vs
UCLA
W 73-57
−5.5
27
vs
MSU
W 67-63
−6.5
29
vs
DUKE
W 73-72
+9.5
4
vs
ILL
W 71-62
−6.5
6
vs
MICH
L 63-69
−14.5
over 19under 21avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Arizona
39 games played
Straight up
36-3
92% wins
Against the spread
23-16
59% covers · avg +2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-19
51% overs · avg −1.5 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 3 | vs | W 93-87 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 93-67 | -33.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 84-49 | -35.5 | L −0.5 | 163.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 69-65 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 71-67 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 103-73 | -32.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 98-61 | -35.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 97-68 | -11.5 | W +17.5 | 162.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 96-75 | -2.5 | W +18.5 | 178.5 | U 171 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 96-62 | -34.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 68-45 | -13.5 | W +9.5 | 153.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 107-71 | -39.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 99-71 | -31.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 97-78 | -17.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 101-76 | -17.5 | W +7.5 | 171.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 86-73 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 89-82 | -21.5 | L −14.5 | 167.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-77 | -9.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 77-51 | -13.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 88-53 | -17.5 | W +17.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 26 | @ | W 86-83 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 166.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 87-74 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | U 161 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-47 | -20.5 | W +16.5 | 168.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 78-82 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 75-78 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 156.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 75-68 | -11.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 73-66 | +6.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 87-80 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 84-61 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 73-57 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 89-79 | -13.5 | L −3.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 81-59 | -15.5 | W +6.5 | 159.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 82-80 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 79-74 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 92-58 | -30.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 78-66 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 26 | vs | W 109-88 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 166.5 | O 197 |
| Mar 28 | vs | W 79-64 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Apr 4 | vs | L 73-91 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 157.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
FLA
W 93-87
+9.5
7
vs
UTU
W 93-67
−7.5
11
vs
NAU
W 84-49
−0.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 69-65
+2.5
19
@
CONN
W 71-67
+8.5
24
vs
DEN
W 103-73
−2.5
29
vs
NORF
W 98-61
+1.5
6
vs
AUB
W 97-68
+17.5
13
vs
ALA
W 96-75
+18.5
16
vs
ACU
W 96-62
−0.5
20
vs
SDSU
W 68-45
+9.5
22
vs
BCU
W 107-71
−3.5
29
vs
SDST
W 99-71
−3.5
3
@
UTAH
W 97-78
+1.5
7
vs
KSU
W 101-76
+7.5
10
@
TCU
W 86-73
+5.5
14
vs
ASU
W 89-82
−14.5
17
@
UCF
W 84-77
−2.5
21
vs
CIN
W 77-51
+12.5
24
vs
WVU
W 88-53
+17.5
26
@
BYU
W 86-83
+1.5
31
@
ASU
W 87-74
−1.5
7
vs
OKST
W 84-47
+16.5
9
@
KU
L 78-82
−9.5
14
vs
TTU
L 75-78
−11.5
18
vs
BYU
W 75-68
−4.5
21
@
HOU
W 73-66
+13.5
24
@
BAY
W 87-80
−0.5
28
vs
KU
W 84-61
+13.5
2
vs
ISU
W 73-57
+8.5
7
@
COLO
W 89-79
−3.5
12
vs
UCF
W 81-59
+6.5
13
vs
ISU
W 82-80
−1.5
14
vs
HOU
W 79-74
+3.5
20
vs
LIU
W 92-58
+3.5
22
vs
USU
W 78-66
+0.5
26
vs
ARK
W 109-88
+12.5
28
vs
PUR
W 79-64
+9.5
4
vs
MICH
L 73-91
−19.5
covered 23didn’t cover 16avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
FLA
W 93-87
+15.5
7
vs
UTU
W 93-67
−2.5
11
vs
NAU
W 84-49
−30.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 69-65
−19.5
19
@
CONN
W 71-67
−18.5
24
vs
DEN
W 103-73
+21.5
29
vs
NORF
W 98-61
+12.5
6
vs
AUB
W 97-68
+2.5
13
vs
ALA
W 96-75
−7.5
16
vs
ACU
W 96-62
+12.5
20
vs
SDSU
W 68-45
−40.5
22
vs
BCU
W 107-71
+23.5
29
vs
SDST
W 99-71
+10.5
3
@
UTAH
W 97-78
+12.5
7
vs
KSU
W 101-76
+5.5
10
@
TCU
W 86-73
+1.5
14
vs
ASU
W 89-82
+3.5
17
@
UCF
W 84-77
−4.5
21
vs
CIN
W 77-51
−24.5
24
vs
WVU
W 88-53
−2.5
26
@
BYU
W 86-83
+2.5
31
@
ASU
W 87-74
−2.5
7
vs
OKST
W 84-47
−37.5
9
@
KU
L 78-82
+7.5
14
vs
TTU
L 75-78
−3.5
18
vs
BYU
W 75-68
−22.5
21
@
HOU
W 73-66
−3.5
24
@
BAY
W 87-80
+11.5
28
vs
KU
W 84-61
−6.5
2
vs
ISU
W 73-57
−19.5
7
@
COLO
W 89-79
+11.5
12
vs
UCF
W 81-59
−19.5
13
vs
ISU
W 82-80
+17.5
14
vs
HOU
W 79-74
+14.5
20
vs
LIU
W 92-58
+2.5
22
vs
USU
W 78-66
−9.5
26
vs
ARK
W 109-88
+30.5
28
vs
PUR
W 79-64
−9.5
4
vs
MICH
L 73-91
+6.5
over 20under 19avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UConn has the better starters
Position by position: UConn 2, Arizona 1, even 2
UConnBetterArizona
G N. Machowski TR17.8 pts · 5.9 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 80
←CONNSmall
G D. Dixon TR6.5 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 55
G S. Demary10.1 pts · 4.5 reb · 5.9 ast
Score 98
←CONNBig
G J. Mandaquit TR5.2 pts · 2.1 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 62
G S. Ball12.8 pts · 3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 87
=Even
F I. Kharchenkov10.4 pts · 4.3 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 83
G B. Mullins12 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 88
=Even
F R. Godfrey TR12 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 96
G J. Nash TR5.2 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 26
→ARIZBig
C M. Krivas10.4 pts · 8.2 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 95
UConnBetterArizona
CONN offense25th of 366 · +7.1
=Even
ARIZ defense7th of 366 · +8.8
CONN defense2nd of 366 · +11.5
=Even
ARIZ offense4th of 366 · +11.0
Backcourt+8.5 · 5 players
←CONNBig
Backcourt-0.3 · 2 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+10.8 · 3 players
Bench+3.4 · 5 players
←CONNBig
Bench-0.1 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestCONN betterARIZ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. Machowski35 min · TRS. Demary28 minS. Ball28 minB. Mullins28 minJ. Nash26 min · TRJ. CountyNew
Forwards
N. Khamenia20 min · TRI. Shaw18 min · TRJ. Ross18 minJ. RossNewC. LandrewNewE. AmosovNew
Centers
N. Hines18 min · TRO. Giltay15 min · TRE. Dzafic2 min · TR
Guards
D. Dixon22 min · TRJ. Mandaquit20 min · TRA. Arnold2 minJ. Cook1 minB. JamesNewC. HolmesNew
Forwards
I. Kharchenkov28 minR. Godfrey25 min · TRE. Otten15 min · TRU. Jarusevicius11 min · TRM. MawutNewE. AiyamenkhueNew
Centers
M. Krivas25 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.6 #129 | Points per game | 86.2 #11 |
| 1.16 #52 | Points per possession | 1.21 #11 |
| 66.1 #307 | Pace (possessions) | 71.6 #49 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.3 #59 | Effective FG% | 54.7 #45 |
| 34.4 #150 | 3-point % | 36.6 #37 |
| 40.9 #149 | 3-point attempt rate | 26.4 #363 |
| 29.9 #313 | Free throw rate | 43.9 #11 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.4 #163 | Turnover rate | 15.1 #76 |
| 35.7 #30 | Offensive rebound rate | 38.4 #5 |
| 18.1 #9 | Assists per game | 16.4 #38 |
| Defense | ||
| 65.2 #6 | Points allowed | 69.4 #53 |
| 0.99 #17 | Points allowed per possession | 0.97 #6 |
| 45.7 #7 | Opponent effective FG% | 45.3 #4 |
| 30.1 #8 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.4 #42 |
| 17.8 #107 | Turnovers forced | 16.2 #209 |
| 71.2 #99 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.1 #34 |
| 6.8 #143 | Steals per game | 7.4 #95 |
| 5.0 #15 | Blocks per game | 4.2 #55 |
UConn
34-6 in 2025-26 overall · 19-4 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan63–69
- Wvs Illinois71–62
- Wvs Duke73–72
- Wvs Michigan St67–63
- Wvs UCLA73–57
A week or more of rest.
Arizona
36-3 in 2025-26 overall · 19-2 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan73–91
- Wvs Purdue79–64
- Wvs Arkansas109–88
- Wvs Utah State78–66
- Wvs Long Island92–58
A week or more of rest.