Foster Pavilion · at Baylor
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | BAY | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 BAY 96–61 · win probability BAY 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 157.0
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: BAY has more of the edges
UAPB 1, BAY 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
BAY offense vs UAPB defense
Offense 29th of 366 against a defense 365th, on the model’s ratings
UAPB offense vs BAY defense
Offense 337th of 366 against a defense 45th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UAPB has played the 300th-hardest schedule, BAY the 19th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UAPB 27.9%, BAY 36.9%. Defensive: UAPB 65.8%, BAY 68.7%
Free throws
Free throw rate: UAPB 38.4, BAY 34.1. Allowed: UAPB 43.6, BAY 30.1
Shooting
Effective FG%: UAPB 50.0 and allows 52.6; BAY 53.4 and allows 52.4
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UAPB 18.7%, BAY 16.2%. Forced: UAPB 16.4%, BAY 15.9%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UAPB plays 71.5 a game (53rd fastest), BAY 69.3 (161st). Faster games mean more points
Home court
BAY at home. This season: BAY 0-0 at home, UAPB 0-0 away
Three-pointers
UAPB hits 33.6% and allows 33.2%; BAY hits 33.9% and allows 34.8%. Threes are 37.1% and 39.6% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UAPB 8%, BAY 26%. Transfers in: UAPB 3, BAY 4. 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 | — | BAY -35.2 | — |
| Total | — | 157.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | UAPB 60.9 · BAY 96.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BAY -20.8 | — |
| 1H total | 73.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | UAPB 26.3 · BAY 47.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UAPB 0–1 BAYBAY leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UAPB 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2021-22 | UAPB 54 @ BAY 99 | BAY -38.5 | BAY W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
AR-Pine Bluff
30 games played
Straight up
11-19
37% wins
Against the spread
13-17
43% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg −0.2 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 | @ | L 50-94 | +34.5 | L −9.5 | 160.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 74-83 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 72-94 | +19.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 69-95 | +36.5 | W +10.5 | 168.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 75-104 | +41.5 | W +12.5 | 172.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 60-106 | +35.5 | L −10.5 | 168.5 | U 166 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 70-98 | +20.5 | L −7.5 | 164.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 84-111 | +21.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 63-62 | +16.5 | W +17.5 | 163.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 72-76 | +23.5 | W +19.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 84-117 | +25.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 201 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 95-83 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 90-79 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 74-66 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 61-73 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 67-71 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 82-87 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 75-74 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 78-70 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 67-64 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-77 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 84-63 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 155.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 61-79 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 70-82 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 64-83 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 84-82 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 69-70 | -14.5 | L −15.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 78-81 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 83-48 | -1.5 | W +33.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 81-84 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | O 165 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
WASH
L 50-94
−9.5
6
@
PORT
L 74-83
+3.5
8
@
LMU
L 72-94
−2.5
11
@
OU
L 69-95
+10.5
15
@
VAN
L 75-104
+12.5
18
@
SMU
L 60-106
−10.5
20
@
MRSH
L 70-98
−7.5
23
@
M-OH
L 84-111
−5.5
3
@
UIC
W 63-62
+17.5
6
@
DEP
L 72-76
+19.5
10
@
TLSA
L 84-117
−7.5
3
vs
AAMU
W 95-83
+13.5
5
vs
ALST
W 90-79
+12.5
10
@
TXSO
W 74-66
+9.5
12
@
PV
L 61-73
−8.5
17
vs
FAMU
L 67-71
−6.5
19
vs
BCU
L 82-87
−2.5
24
@
SOU
W 75-74
+10.5
31
@
MVSU
W 78-70
−2.5
4
@
GRAM
W 67-64
+9.5
7
vs
ALCN
W 84-77
−0.5
9
vs
JKST
W 84-63
+13.5
14
@
ALST
L 61-79
−14.5
16
@
AAMU
L 70-82
−8.5
19
vs
TXSO
L 64-83
−20.5
21
vs
PV
W 84-82
−1.5
28
vs
MVSU
L 69-70
−15.5
3
@
JKST
L 78-81
−4.5
5
@
ALCN
W 83-48
+33.5
12
vs
SOU
L 81-84
+1.5
covered 13didn’t cover 17avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
WASH
L 50-94
−16.5
6
@
PORT
L 74-83
−7.5
8
@
LMU
L 72-94
+8.5
11
@
OU
L 69-95
−4.5
15
@
VAN
L 75-104
+6.5
18
@
SMU
L 60-106
−2.5
20
@
MRSH
L 70-98
+3.5
23
@
M-OH
L 84-111
+34.5
3
@
UIC
W 63-62
−38.5
6
@
DEP
L 72-76
−8.5
10
@
TLSA
L 84-117
+45.5
3
vs
AAMU
W 95-83
+28.5
5
vs
ALST
W 90-79
+9.5
10
@
TXSO
W 74-66
−22.5
12
@
PV
L 61-73
−30.5
17
vs
FAMU
L 67-71
−11.5
19
vs
BCU
L 82-87
+13.5
24
@
SOU
W 75-74
−5.5
31
@
MVSU
W 78-70
+4.5
4
@
GRAM
W 67-64
−14.5
7
vs
ALCN
W 84-77
+15.5
9
vs
JKST
W 84-63
−8.5
14
@
ALST
L 61-79
−9.5
16
@
AAMU
L 70-82
+7.5
19
vs
TXSO
L 64-83
−5.5
21
vs
PV
W 84-82
+6.5
28
vs
MVSU
L 69-70
−8.5
3
@
JKST
L 78-81
+5.5
5
@
ALCN
W 83-48
−14.5
12
vs
SOU
L 81-84
+13.5
over 14under 16avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Baylor
33 games played
Straight up
16-17
48% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-15
55% overs · avg +3.1 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 | vs | W 96-81 | -24.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 78-69 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 156.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 94-81 | -23.5 | L −10.5 | 149.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 81-74 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 81-96 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 159.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 91-81 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 110-88 | -29.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | O 198 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 71-78 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 158.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 97-67 | -26.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 113-56 | -35.5 | W +21.5 | 160.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 111-67 | -26.5 | W +17.5 | 169.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 63-69 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 60-70 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 55-77 | +2.5 | L −19.5 | 142.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 94-79 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 16 | @ | L 62-80 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 156.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 73-92 | +1.5 | L −17.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 90-97 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | O 187 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 57-67 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 63-53 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | U 116 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 86-67 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 69-72 | +14.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 10 | vs | L 94-99 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 71-82 | +7.5 | L −3.5 | 162.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 74-90 | -3.5 | L −19.5 | 159.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 73-68 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 80-87 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 87-86 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 64-77 | +12.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 101-75 | -13.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 176 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 79-83 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Apr 1 | vs | W 67-48 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | U 115 |
| Apr 4 | vs | L 69-82 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
RGV
W 96-81
−9.5
9
vs
WASH
W 78-69
+2.5
14
vs
TAR
W 94-81
−10.5
24
vs
CREI
W 81-74
+3.5
25
vs
SJU
L 81-96
−9.5
26
vs
SDSU
W 91-81
+7.5
2
vs
SAC
W 110-88
−7.5
6
@
MEM
L 71-78
−10.5
10
vs
NORF
W 97-67
+3.5
19
vs
ALCN
W 113-56
+21.5
21
vs
SOU
W 111-67
+17.5
3
@
TCU
L 63-69
−3.5
7
vs
ISU
L 60-70
−6.5
10
vs
HOU
L 55-77
−19.5
13
@
OKST
W 94-79
+13.5
16
@
KU
L 62-80
−10.5
20
vs
TTU
L 73-92
−17.5
24
vs
TCU
L 90-97
−11.5
28
@
CIN
L 57-67
−6.5
31
@
WVU
W 63-53
+12.5
4
vs
COLO
W 86-67
+11.5
7
@
ISU
L 69-72
+11.5
10
vs
BYU
L 94-99
−1.5
14
vs
LOU
L 71-82
−3.5
17
@
KSU
L 74-90
−19.5
21
vs
ASU
W 73-68
−3.5
24
vs
ARIZ
L 80-87
+0.5
28
@
UCF
W 87-86
+2.5
4
@
HOU
L 64-77
−0.5
7
vs
UTAH
W 101-75
+12.5
10
vs
ASU
L 79-83
−9.5
1
vs
MINN
W 67-48
+15.5
4
vs
OU
L 69-82
−14.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
RGV
W 96-81
+22.5
9
vs
WASH
W 78-69
−9.5
14
vs
TAR
W 94-81
+25.5
24
vs
CREI
W 81-74
+0.5
25
vs
SJU
L 81-96
+17.5
26
vs
SDSU
W 91-81
+23.5
2
vs
SAC
W 110-88
+39.5
6
@
MEM
L 71-78
−9.5
10
vs
NORF
W 97-67
+15.5
19
vs
ALCN
W 113-56
+8.5
21
vs
SOU
W 111-67
+8.5
3
@
TCU
L 63-69
−22.5
7
vs
ISU
L 60-70
−25.5
10
vs
HOU
L 55-77
−10.5
13
@
OKST
W 94-79
+7.5
16
@
KU
L 62-80
−14.5
20
vs
TTU
L 73-92
+10.5
24
vs
TCU
L 90-97
+39.5
28
@
CIN
L 57-67
−21.5
31
@
WVU
W 63-53
−23.5
4
vs
COLO
W 86-67
−2.5
7
@
ISU
L 69-72
−10.5
10
vs
BYU
L 94-99
+34.5
14
vs
LOU
L 71-82
−9.5
17
@
KSU
L 74-90
+4.5
21
vs
ASU
W 73-68
−16.5
24
vs
ARIZ
L 80-87
+11.5
28
@
UCF
W 87-86
+13.5
4
@
HOU
L 64-77
−2.5
7
vs
UTAH
W 101-75
+27.5
10
vs
ASU
L 79-83
+9.5
1
vs
MINN
W 67-48
−31.5
4
vs
OU
L 69-82
−8.5
over 18under 15avg +3.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Baylor has the better starters
Position by position: AR-Pine Bluff 0, Baylor 1, even 4
AR-Pine BluffBetterBaylor
G J. Tatum TR7.7 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 25
→BAYBig
G B. Decker TR16.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 76
G J. Hayes4.9 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G K. Mingo TR13.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 4.3 ast
Score 92
G D. Giddens TR3 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G I. Williams10.1 pts · 2.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 89
G H. Pickett0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F I. Celiscar TR13.1 pts · 6.4 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 88
F C. Smith TR0.6 pts · 1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F E. Chatman TR8.9 pts · 8.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 71
AR-Pine BluffBetterBaylor
UAPB offense337th of 366 · -11.1
→BAYBig
BAY defense45th of 366 · +2.4
UAPB defense365th of 366 · -12.7
→BAYBig
BAY offense29th of 366 · +6.5
Backcourt-5.1 · 4 players
→BAYBig
Backcourt+6.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.7 · 1 player
→BAYBig
Frontcourt+4.0 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+1.5 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestUAPB betterBAY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Tatum27 min · TRJ. Hayes15 minD. Giddens9 min · TRH. Pickett1 minD. CapriottiNewE. HernandezNew
Forwards
C. Smith7 min · TRC. WilliamsonNewM. WilliamsNewJ. NyakundiNew
Guards
B. Decker34 min · TRK. Mingo32 min · TRI. Williams25 minD. Perry2 minJ. Goodis1 minA. IguodalaNew
Forwards
I. Celiscar32 min · TRE. Chatman29 min · TRM. PerezNewE. WilliamsNew
Centers
C. Powell24 minJ. Bodo BodoNewM. SoyoyeNewT. MakabuNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.0 #195 | Points per game | 80.4 #59 |
| 1.04 #277 | Points per possession | 1.16 #51 |
| 71.5 #53 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #161 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.0 #233 | Effective FG% | 53.4 #84 |
| 33.6 #190 | 3-point % | 33.9 #179 |
| 37.1 #227 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.6 #181 |
| 38.4 #91 | Free throw rate | 34.1 #202 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.7 #310 | Turnover rate | 16.2 #153 |
| 27.9 #271 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.9 #18 |
| 14.1 #136 | Assists per game | 14.8 #96 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.9 #340 | Points allowed | 76.9 #238 |
| 1.14 #309 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #248 |
| 52.6 #249 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #237 |
| 33.2 #136 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.8 #240 |
| 16.4 #192 | Turnovers forced | 15.9 #226 |
| 65.8 #321 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.7 #219 |
| 6.8 #142 | Steals per game | 6.3 #198 |
| 2.9 #244 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #85 |
AR-Pine Bluff
11-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Southern81–84
- W@ Alcorn St83–48
- L@ Jackson St78–81
- Lvs Miss Valley St69–70
- Wvs Prairie View84–82
A week or more of rest.
Baylor
16-17 in 2025-26 overall · 6-13 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Oklahoma69–82
- Wvs Minnesota67–48
- Lvs Arizona St79–83
- Wvs Utah101–75
- L@ Houston64–77
A week or more of rest.