The Reef · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UIC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UIC 78–76 · win probability UIC 57%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.8
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: M-OH has more of the edges
M-OH 4, UIC 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
M-OH hits 37.1% and allows 33.1%; UIC hits 31.6% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 45.6% and 32.8% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: M-OH 58.6 and allows 51.2; UIC 49.8 and allows 50.5
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: M-OH plays 72.1 a game (33rd fastest), UIC 68.1 (227th). Faster games mean more points
UIC offense vs M-OH defense
Offense 117th of 366 against a defense 207th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: M-OH 39.6, UIC 36.2. Allowed: M-OH 30.2, UIC 33.9
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: M-OH 25.5%, UIC 36.3%. Defensive: M-OH 71.3%, UIC 68.0%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: M-OH 14.3%, UIC 17.6%. Forced: M-OH 17.4%, UIC 19.7%
Context
Schedule so far
M-OH has played the 207th-hardest schedule, UIC the 161st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: M-OH 65%, UIC 60%. Transfers in: M-OH 3, UIC 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
M-OH offense vs UIC defense
Offense 100th of 366 against a defense 106th, 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 | — | UIC -1.9 | — |
| Total | — | 154.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | M-OH 76.4 · UIC 78.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UIC -1.0 | — |
| 1H total | 72.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | M-OH 35.7 · UIC 36.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Miami OH
31 games played
Straight up
29-2
94% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-11
65% overs · avg +5.4 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 87-72 | -16.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 76-61 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 76-71 | -15.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 111-84 | -21.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | O 195 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 82-71 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 93-61 | -17.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 10 | @ | W 90-87 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 79-69 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 83-76 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 86-77 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 93-83 | +6.5 | W +16.5 | 150.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 76-73 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 177.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 87-76 | -14.5 | L −3.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 87-73 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 166.5 | U 160 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 100-61 | -15.5 | W +23.5 | 158.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 105-102 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | O 207 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 107-101 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 167.5 | O 208 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 86-84 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 164.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 85-61 | -16.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 73-71 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 90-74 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 162.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 90-74 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 163.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 86-77 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 163 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 91-77 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 74-64 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 69-67 | -12.5 | L −10.5 | 161.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 74-72 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 6 | @ | W 110-108 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 218 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 83-87 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 161.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 18 | vs | W 89-79 | +6.5 | W +16.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 56-78 | +12.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
ODU
W 87-72
−1.5
15
@
AF
W 76-61
+4.5
20
vs
MERC
W 76-71
−10.5
23
vs
UAPB
W 111-84
+5.5
26
vs
UNCG
W 82-71
+0.5
6
vs
ME
W 93-61
+14.5
10
@
UNCA
W 90-87
−3.5
13
@
EKU
W 79-69
+4.5
16
@
WRST
W 83-76
+5.5
20
@
BALL
W 86-77
+1.5
30
@
BGSU
W 93-83
+16.5
3
vs
AKR
W 76-73
+7.5
6
vs
WMU
W 87-76
−3.5
9
@
TOL
W 87-73
+15.5
13
vs
CMU
W 100-61
+23.5
17
vs
BUF
W 105-102
−7.5
20
@
KENT
W 107-101
+7.5
27
vs
MASS
W 86-84
−7.5
31
vs
NIU
W 85-61
+7.5
3
@
BUF
W 73-71
−2.5
7
@
MRSH
W 90-74
+14.5
13
vs
OHIO
W 90-74
+8.5
17
@
MASS
W 86-77
+5.5
20
vs
BGSU
W 91-77
+5.5
24
@
EMU
W 74-64
+1.5
27
@
WMU
W 69-67
−10.5
3
vs
TOL
W 74-72
−5.5
6
@
OHIO
W 110-108
−1.5
12
vs
MASS
L 83-87
−10.5
18
vs
SMU
W 89-79
+16.5
20
vs
TENN
L 56-78
−9.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
ODU
W 87-72
+5.5
15
@
AF
W 76-61
−6.5
20
vs
MERC
W 76-71
+7.5
23
vs
UAPB
W 111-84
+34.5
26
vs
UNCG
W 82-71
+2.5
6
vs
ME
W 93-61
+14.5
10
@
UNCA
W 90-87
+24.5
13
@
EKU
W 79-69
−10.5
16
@
WRST
W 83-76
+9.5
20
@
BALL
W 86-77
+15.5
30
@
BGSU
W 93-83
+25.5
3
vs
AKR
W 76-73
−28.5
6
vs
WMU
W 87-76
+2.5
9
@
TOL
W 87-73
−6.5
13
vs
CMU
W 100-61
+2.5
17
vs
BUF
W 105-102
+44.5
20
@
KENT
W 107-101
+40.5
27
vs
MASS
W 86-84
+5.5
31
vs
NIU
W 85-61
−12.5
3
@
BUF
W 73-71
−21.5
7
@
MRSH
W 90-74
+1.5
13
vs
OHIO
W 90-74
+0.5
17
@
MASS
W 86-77
−0.5
20
vs
BGSU
W 91-77
+13.5
24
@
EMU
W 74-64
−13.5
27
@
WMU
W 69-67
−25.5
3
vs
TOL
W 74-72
−16.5
6
@
OHIO
W 110-108
+58.5
12
vs
MASS
L 83-87
+8.5
18
vs
SMU
W 89-79
+5.5
20
vs
TENN
L 56-78
−14.5
over 20under 11avg +5.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
UIC
33 games played
Straight up
17-16
52% wins
Against the spread
18-15
55% covers · avg +3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg −0.7 pts vs the total
Against the spread
18-1555%
2 straight misses ATS2 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 91-71 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 73-76 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 67-63 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 80-90 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 84-73 | -11.5 | L −0.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 74-88 | -1.5 | L −15.5 | 151.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 62-63 | -16.5 | L −17.5 | 163.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 66-80 | +12.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 84-87 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 54-60 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 133.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 76-88 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 77-81 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 59-66 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 70-57 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 63-59 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 69-61 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 128.5 | O 130 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 74-67 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 76-49 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 85-70 | +7.5 | W +22.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 76-74 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-66 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 74-81 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 6 | vs | L 62-68 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 80-70 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-56 | +1.5 | W +28.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 84-46 | -8.5 | W +29.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 67-71 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 93-86 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 63-79 | -3.5 | L −19.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 92-79 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 72-51 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 69-84 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 125.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 73-91 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
DETM
W 91-71
+10.5
7
@
ORST
L 73-76
+3.5
15
@
CHST
W 67-63
−5.5
20
vs
HPU
L 80-90
+0.5
22
vs
USI
W 84-73
−0.5
26
@
RMU
L 74-88
−15.5
3
vs
UAPB
L 62-63
−17.5
7
@
YALE
L 66-80
−1.5
13
@
BEL
L 84-87
+9.5
17
vs
UNI
L 54-60
−0.5
21
@
CLT
L 76-88
−10.5
1
vs
MUR
L 77-81
+1.5
4
@
VAL
L 59-66
−4.5
7
vs
SIU
W 70-57
+14.5
10
@
ILST
W 63-59
+14.5
13
@
UNI
W 69-61
+14.5
17
vs
DRKE
W 74-67
+1.5
20
vs
EVAN
W 76-49
+18.5
24
@
BRAD
W 85-70
+22.5
27
vs
INST
W 76-74
−3.5
31
@
SIU
W 68-66
+5.5
3
@
MUR
L 74-81
−0.5
6
vs
BEL
L 62-68
−4.5
12
@
DRKE
W 80-70
+8.5
15
vs
ILST
W 83-56
+28.5
18
@
EVAN
W 84-46
+29.5
21
vs
VAL
L 67-71
−11.5
24
vs
BRAD
W 93-86
+5.5
1
@
INST
L 63-79
−19.5
6
vs
MUR
W 92-79
+11.5
7
vs
DRKE
W 72-51
+16.5
8
vs
UNI
L 69-84
−12.5
18
@
CAL
L 73-91
−11.5
covered 18didn’t cover 15avg +3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
DETM
W 91-71
+19.5
7
@
ORST
L 73-76
+2.5
15
@
CHST
W 67-63
−26.5
20
vs
HPU
L 80-90
+11.5
22
vs
USI
W 84-73
+3.5
26
@
RMU
L 74-88
+10.5
3
vs
UAPB
L 62-63
−38.5
7
@
YALE
L 66-80
−2.5
13
@
BEL
L 84-87
+16.5
17
vs
UNI
L 54-60
−19.5
21
@
CLT
L 76-88
+26.5
1
vs
MUR
L 77-81
−1.5
4
@
VAL
L 59-66
−19.5
7
vs
SIU
W 70-57
−19.5
10
@
ILST
W 63-59
−19.5
13
@
UNI
W 69-61
+1.5
17
vs
DRKE
W 74-67
+1.5
20
vs
EVAN
W 76-49
−14.5
24
@
BRAD
W 85-70
+10.5
27
vs
INST
W 76-74
+2.5
31
@
SIU
W 68-66
−8.5
3
@
MUR
L 74-81
−2.5
6
vs
BEL
L 62-68
−21.5
12
@
DRKE
W 80-70
+3.5
15
vs
ILST
W 83-56
−1.5
18
@
EVAN
W 84-46
−10.5
21
vs
VAL
L 67-71
−0.5
24
vs
BRAD
W 93-86
+37.5
1
@
INST
L 63-79
−2.5
6
vs
MUR
W 92-79
+20.5
7
vs
DRKE
W 72-51
−21.5
8
vs
UNI
L 69-84
+27.5
18
@
CAL
L 73-91
+13.5
over 16under 17avg −0.7 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: Miami OH 0, UIC 0, even 5
Miami OHBetterUIC
G E. Ipsaro14.4 pts · 2.4 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 85
=Even
G B. Gealer TR10.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 79
G L. Skaljac10.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 61
=Even
G A. Johnson11 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 55
G S. Elam TR10.5 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 64
=Even
G A. Thomas TR11.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 69
F R. Rolf TR8.9 pts · 4.4 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 51
=Even
G M. Lowery7.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
F A. Woolfolk10 pts · 5.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 76
=Even
G R. Washington8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 77
Miami OHBetterUIC
M-OH offense100th of 366 · -0.9
=Even
UIC defense106th of 366 · -1.0
M-OH defense207th of 366 · -5.2
→UICSmall
UIC offense117th of 366 · -2.6
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt+2.1 · 5 players
Frontcourt+0.9 · 2 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-2.4 · 5 players
→UICSmall
Bench+0.5 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestM-OH betterUIC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
E. Ipsaro30 minL. Skaljac29 minS. Elam26 min · TRJ. Kirby17 minB. AndersonNewL. StowersNew
Forwards
R. Rolf27 min · TRA. Woolfolk24 minP. Copeland19 min · TRA. Atlason19 minK. Waltz5 minT. Robbins5 min
Guards
B. Gealer30 min · TRA. Johnson29 minA. Thomas28 min · TRM. Lowery26 minR. Washington23 minA. Henderson21 min
Forwards
J. Nathaniel20 minL. Scroggins17 min · TRN. BarrantesNewD. HudsonNewD. ShawNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 86.3 #10 | Points per game | 73.9 #196 |
| 1.20 #15 | Points per possession | 1.09 #171 |
| 72.1 #33 | Pace (possessions) | 68.1 #227 |
| Shooting | ||
| 58.6 #6 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #245 |
| 37.1 #25 | 3-point % | 31.6 #300 |
| 45.6 #55 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.8 #319 |
| 39.6 #64 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #145 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #36 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #247 |
| 25.5 #332 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.3 #22 |
| 15.1 #80 | Assists per game | 14.1 #143 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.5 #229 | Points allowed | 71.2 #81 |
| 1.06 #102 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #83 |
| 51.2 #167 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #125 |
| 33.1 #131 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #147 |
| 17.4 #128 | Turnovers forced | 19.7 #30 |
| 71.3 #92 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #255 |
| 7.0 #124 | Steals per game | 7.6 #70 |
| 3.1 #202 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #126 |
Miami OH
29-2 in 2025-26 overall · 18-1 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Tennessee56–78
- Wvs SMU89–79
- Lvs UMass83–87
- W@ Ohio110–108
- Wvs Toledo74–72
A week or more of rest.
UIC
17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 14-9 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ California73–91
- Lvs Northern Iowa69–84
- Wvs Drake72–51
- Wvs Murray St92–79
- L@ Indiana St63–79
A week or more of rest.