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 85–74 · win probability BAY 83%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 158.8
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
MEM 1, BAY 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: MEM 34.7, BAY 34.1. Allowed: MEM 42.4, BAY 30.1
BAY offense vs MEM defense
Offense 29th of 366 against a defense 116th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MEM 35.3%, BAY 36.9%. Defensive: MEM 64.3%, BAY 68.7%
Context
Schedule so far
MEM has played the 81st-hardest schedule, BAY the 19th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: MEM plays 71.9 a game (37th fastest), BAY 69.3 (161st). Faster games mean more points
Home court
BAY at home. This season: BAY 0-0 at home, MEM 0-0 away
Three-pointers
MEM hits 31.6% and allows 30.6%; BAY hits 33.9% and allows 34.8%. Threes are 33.7% and 39.6% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MEM 15%, BAY 26%. Transfers in: MEM 9, BAY 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
MEM offense vs BAY defense
Offense 62nd of 366 against a defense 45th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: MEM 48.7 and allows 48.7; BAY 53.4 and allows 52.4
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MEM 18.9%, BAY 16.2%. Forced: MEM 18.6%, BAY 15.9%
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 -10.8 | — |
| Total | — | 158.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | MEM 74 · BAY 84.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BAY -6.3 | — |
| 1H total | 74.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | MEM 34 · BAY 40.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
MEM 1–0 BAYMEM leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · MEM 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2025-26 | BAY 71 @ MEM 78 | MEM +3.5 | MEM W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Memphis
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg −2.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% overs · avg −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 8 | vs | W 76-70 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 77-83 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 78-92 | -9.5 | L −23.5 | 163.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 71-80 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 68-69 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-58 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 86-70 | -14.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 78-71 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 158.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 73-99 | +16.5 | L −9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 70-77 | +9.5 | W +2.5 | 159.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 66-71 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 88-67 | -20.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 57-48 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 137.5 | U 105 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 76-70 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 78-89 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 55-53 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 18 | vs | W 95-69 | -20.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 66-83 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 59-74 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 92-65 | -3.5 | W +23.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 76-78 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 90-80 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 8 | vs | W 77-54 | -10.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 69-76 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 75-99 | +13.5 | L −10.5 | 155.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 66-87 | +9.5 | L −11.5 | 163.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 22 | vs | L 67-78 | -5.5 | L −16.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 82-88 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 68-84 | -4.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 89-96 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | O 185 |
| Mar 8 | @ | W 96-95 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | O 191 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 69-81 | -4.5 | L −16.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
vs
SF
W 76-70
+3.5
11
@
MISS
L 77-83
+3.5
16
vs
UNLV
L 78-92
−23.5
20
vs
PUR
L 71-80
+5.5
21
vs
WAKE
L 68-69
+1.5
26
vs
SIU
W 74-58
+5.5
3
vs
NOLA
W 86-70
+1.5
6
vs
BAY
W 78-71
+10.5
13
@
LOU
L 73-99
−9.5
17
vs
VAN
L 70-77
+2.5
20
@
MSST
L 66-71
−1.5
22
vs
ALST
W 88-67
+0.5
31
vs
UNT
W 57-48
−0.5
3
@
RICE
W 76-70
−1.5
11
@
FAU
L 78-89
−9.5
14
vs
TEM
W 55-53
−5.5
18
vs
UTSA
W 95-69
+5.5
21
@
TLSA
L 66-83
−10.5
24
@
WICH
L 59-74
−11.5
29
vs
FAU
W 92-65
+23.5
1
vs
TULN
L 76-78
−10.5
5
@
UAB
W 90-80
+11.5
8
vs
CLT
W 77-54
+12.5
12
@
UNT
L 69-76
−9.5
14
@
USU
L 75-99
−10.5
19
@
USF
L 66-87
−11.5
22
vs
UAB
L 67-78
−16.5
26
vs
WICH
L 82-88
−7.5
1
@
ECU
L 68-84
−20.5
5
vs
USF
L 89-96
+0.5
8
@
TULN
W 96-95
−1.5
11
vs
TULN
L 69-81
−16.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg −2.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
vs
SF
W 76-70
−11.5
11
@
MISS
L 77-83
+7.5
16
vs
UNLV
L 78-92
+6.5
20
vs
PUR
L 71-80
−5.5
21
vs
WAKE
L 68-69
−23.5
26
vs
SIU
W 74-58
−24.5
3
vs
NOLA
W 86-70
+6.5
6
vs
BAY
W 78-71
−9.5
13
@
LOU
L 73-99
+9.5
17
vs
VAN
L 70-77
−12.5
20
@
MSST
L 66-71
−16.5
22
vs
ALST
W 88-67
+3.5
31
vs
UNT
W 57-48
−32.5
3
@
RICE
W 76-70
+1.5
11
@
FAU
L 78-89
+14.5
14
vs
TEM
W 55-53
−35.5
18
vs
UTSA
W 95-69
+16.5
21
@
TLSA
L 66-83
−4.5
24
@
WICH
L 59-74
−12.5
29
vs
FAU
W 92-65
+4.5
1
vs
TULN
L 76-78
+2.5
5
@
UAB
W 90-80
+14.5
8
vs
CLT
W 77-54
−13.5
12
@
UNT
L 69-76
+6.5
14
@
USU
L 75-99
+18.5
19
@
USF
L 66-87
−10.5
22
vs
UAB
L 67-78
−7.5
26
vs
WICH
L 82-88
+20.5
1
@
ECU
L 68-84
−0.5
5
vs
USF
L 89-96
+21.5
8
@
TULN
W 96-95
+36.5
11
vs
TULN
L 69-81
−1.5
over 16under 16avg −1 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.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Memphis 0, Baylor 0, even 5
MemphisBetterBaylor
G L. Almodovar TR14.6 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 80
=Even
G B. Decker TR16.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 76
G B. Cummings TR12.5 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 84
=Even
G K. Mingo TR13.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 4.3 ast
Score 92
G J. Reid TR10.1 pts · 1.4 reb · 5 ast
Score 83
=Even
G I. Williams10.1 pts · 2.2 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 89
F T. Weeks TR20.1 pts · 5.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 88
=Even
F I. Celiscar TR13.1 pts · 6.4 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 88
F C. Williams TR11.7 pts · 9.1 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 68
=Even
F E. Chatman TR8.9 pts · 8.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 71
MemphisBetterBaylor
MEM offense62nd of 366 · +2.6
=Even
BAY defense45th of 366 · +2.4
MEM defense116th of 366 · -1.5
→BAYSmall
BAY offense29th of 366 · +6.5
Backcourt+4.5 · 3 players
→BAYSmall
Backcourt+6.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt+4.1 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt+4.0 · 2 players
Bench+4.4 · 5 players
←MEMSmall
Bench+1.5 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestMEM betterBAY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
L. Almodovar28 min · TRB. Cummings26 min · TRJ. Reid26 min · TRJ. Thedford20 minJ. Holloway13 min · TRP. PoundsNew
Forwards
T. Weeks34 min · TRC. Williams33 min · TRR. Vavers25 min · TRJ. Deng13 min · TRM. Logue11 min · TRW. Whorton9 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.2 #158 | Points per game | 80.4 #59 |
| 1.04 #264 | Points per possession | 1.16 #51 |
| 71.9 #37 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #161 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.7 #298 | Effective FG% | 53.4 #84 |
| 31.6 #303 | 3-point % | 33.9 #179 |
| 33.7 #305 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.6 #181 |
| 34.7 #190 | Free throw rate | 34.1 #202 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.9 #316 | Turnover rate | 16.2 #153 |
| 35.3 #41 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.9 #18 |
| 13.3 #193 | Assists per game | 14.8 #96 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.6 #234 | Points allowed | 76.9 #238 |
| 1.07 #124 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #248 |
| 48.7 #55 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #237 |
| 30.6 #22 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.8 #240 |
| 18.6 #69 | Turnovers forced | 15.9 #226 |
| 64.3 #350 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.7 #219 |
| 8.4 #19 | Steals per game | 6.3 #198 |
| 4.3 #49 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #85 |
Memphis
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Tulane69–81
- W@ Tulane96–95
- Lvs South Florida89–96
- L@ East Carolina68–84
- Lvs Wichita St82–88
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.