Banterra Center · at S Illinois
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SIU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RICH 75–72 · win probability RICH 61%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.6
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: RICH has more of the edges
RICH 4, SIU 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RICH 25.0%, SIU 30.9%. Defensive: RICH 69.0%, SIU 72.7%
Three-pointers
RICH hits 37.1% and allows 32.7%; SIU hits 27.8% and allows 30.4%. Threes are 42.6% and 29.2% of their shots
SIU offense vs RICH defense
Offense 227th of 366 against a defense 105th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RICH 14.3%, SIU 17.1%. Forced: RICH 17.8%, SIU 18.5%
RICH offense vs SIU defense
Offense 113th of 366 against a defense 181st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: RICH plays 68.8 a game (194th fastest), SIU 70.6 (91st). Faster games mean more points
Home court
SIU at home. This season: SIU 0-0 at home, RICH 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: RICH 36.9, SIU 31.3. Allowed: RICH 35.1, SIU 31.4
Context
Schedule so far
RICH has played the 125th-hardest schedule, SIU the 139th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RICH 29%, SIU 22%. Transfers in: RICH 6, SIU 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: RICH 52.7 and allows 52.0; SIU 49.1 and allows 49.0
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 | — | RICH -3.1 | — |
| Total | — | 146.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | RICH 74.8 · SIU 71.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | RICH -2.0 | — |
| 1H total | 68.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | RICH 35.3 · SIU 33.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
RICH 1–0 SIURICH leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · RICH 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2025-26 | SIU 84 @ RICH 93 | RICH -3.5 | RICH W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Richmond
31 games played
Straight up
14-17
45% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg +0.7 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 87-72 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 90-86 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 164.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 87-54 | -14.5 | W +18.5 | 152.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 102-67 | -19.5 | W +15.5 | 154.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 72-73 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 71-66 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 84-76 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 156.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 86-77 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 93-84 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 70-73 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 80-56 | -18.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 72-77 | -11.5 | L −16.5 | 159.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 85-99 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 162.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 83-75 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 89-80 | +6.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 65-67 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 74-53 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 63-88 | +14.5 | L −10.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 68-69 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 69-85 | +10.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 69-77 | +12.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 54-79 | -1.5 | L −26.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 77-82 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 82-70 | +3.5 | W +15.5 | 139.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 67-78 | +7.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 63-65 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 99-94 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 66-69 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 60-65 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 77-79 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 67-75 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
vs
ECU
W 87-72
+9.5
11
vs
W&M
W 90-86
−5.5
19
vs
VMI
W 87-54
+18.5
22
vs
GWEB
W 102-67
+15.5
27
vs
FUR
L 72-73
−4.5
28
vs
CLT
W 71-66
−1.5
3
@
BEL
W 84-76
+14.5
6
vs
ODU
W 86-77
−3.5
13
vs
SIU
W 93-84
+5.5
17
@
ELON
L 70-73
−6.5
20
vs
CIT
W 80-56
+5.5
28
vs
CHSO
L 72-77
−16.5
31
vs
GW
L 85-99
−11.5
4
@
FOR
W 83-75
+5.5
7
@
SBU
W 89-80
+15.5
11
vs
JOES
L 65-67
−9.5
14
vs
LAS
W 74-53
+12.5
17
@
SLU
L 63-88
−10.5
21
vs
URI
L 68-69
−4.5
24
@
GW
L 69-85
−5.5
27
@
VCU
L 69-77
+4.5
31
vs
DAV
L 54-79
−26.5
7
@
URI
L 77-82
+0.5
10
vs
GMU
W 82-70
+15.5
14
vs
VCU
L 67-78
−3.5
18
@
DAV
L 63-65
+3.5
21
vs
SBU
W 99-94
+3.5
28
@
LUC
L 66-69
−5.5
3
vs
DAY
L 60-65
+0.5
7
@
DUQ
L 77-79
+2.5
11
vs
LUC
L 67-75
−12.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
vs
ECU
W 87-72
+15.5
11
vs
W&M
W 90-86
+11.5
19
vs
VMI
W 87-54
−11.5
22
vs
GWEB
W 102-67
+14.5
27
vs
FUR
L 72-73
−2.5
28
vs
CLT
W 71-66
−4.5
3
@
BEL
W 84-76
+3.5
6
vs
ODU
W 86-77
+9.5
13
vs
SIU
W 93-84
+23.5
17
@
ELON
L 70-73
−18.5
20
vs
CIT
W 80-56
−10.5
28
vs
CHSO
L 72-77
−10.5
31
vs
GW
L 85-99
+21.5
4
@
FOR
W 83-75
+15.5
7
@
SBU
W 89-80
+15.5
11
vs
JOES
L 65-67
−18.5
14
vs
LAS
W 74-53
−20.5
17
@
SLU
L 63-88
−11.5
21
vs
URI
L 68-69
−7.5
24
@
GW
L 69-85
−5.5
27
@
VCU
L 69-77
−9.5
31
vs
DAV
L 54-79
−7.5
7
@
URI
L 77-82
+16.5
10
vs
GMU
W 82-70
+12.5
14
vs
VCU
L 67-78
−9.5
18
@
DAV
L 63-65
−13.5
21
vs
SBU
W 99-94
+45.5
28
@
LUC
L 66-69
−11.5
3
vs
DAY
L 60-65
−19.5
7
@
DUQ
L 77-79
+8.5
11
vs
LUC
L 67-75
+0.5
over 14under 17avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
S Illinois
31 games played
Straight up
15-16
48% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-22
29% overs · avg −5.3 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 | vs | W 101-78 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 81-86 | +11.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 85-92 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 79-59 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 73-81 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 58-74 | +10.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 74-65 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 86-84 | +9.5 | W +11.5 | 162.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 83-54 | -8.5 | W +20.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 84-93 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 68-75 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 69-73 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 81-84 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | U 165 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 75-70 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 68-67 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 57-70 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 73-76 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-73 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 63-69 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 65-50 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 130.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 66-68 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 54-50 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 6 | vs | L 81-91 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 80-65 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 86-60 | -12.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 60-70 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 66-61 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 59-57 | +6.5 | W +8.5 | 134.5 | U 116 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 66-55 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 81-67 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 63-67 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
KC
W 101-78
+10.5
12
@
NEV
L 81-86
+6.5
17
@
NDSU
L 85-92
−5.5
23
vs
DEL
W 79-59
+11.5
24
vs
UAB
L 73-81
−5.5
26
@
MEM
L 58-74
−5.5
29
vs
LR
W 74-65
−4.5
3
@
HPU
W 86-84
+11.5
10
vs
UTM
W 83-54
+20.5
13
@
RICH
L 84-93
−5.5
18
vs
ILST
L 68-75
−8.5
21
@
BRAD
L 69-73
+2.5
29
@
MUR
L 81-84
+3.5
1
vs
VAL
W 75-70
−2.5
4
@
BEL
W 68-67
+7.5
7
@
UIC
L 57-70
−14.5
14
vs
DRKE
L 73-76
−8.5
17
vs
BEL
L 68-73
−1.5
21
@
VAL
L 63-69
−4.5
28
vs
UNI
W 65-50
+16.5
31
vs
UIC
L 66-68
−5.5
3
@
ILST
W 54-50
+12.5
6
vs
MUR
L 81-91
−8.5
9
@
INST
W 80-65
+13.5
12
vs
EVAN
W 86-60
+13.5
15
vs
BRAD
L 60-70
−12.5
18
@
DRKE
W 66-61
+3.5
21
@
UNI
W 59-57
+8.5
25
vs
INST
W 66-55
+2.5
1
@
EVAN
W 81-67
+4.5
5
vs
DRKE
L 63-67
−9.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
KC
W 101-78
+37.5
12
@
NEV
L 81-86
+14.5
17
@
NDSU
L 85-92
+23.5
23
vs
DEL
W 79-59
−15.5
24
vs
UAB
L 73-81
−7.5
26
@
MEM
L 58-74
−24.5
29
vs
LR
W 74-65
−2.5
3
@
HPU
W 86-84
+7.5
10
vs
UTM
W 83-54
−9.5
13
@
RICH
L 84-93
+23.5
18
vs
ILST
L 68-75
−10.5
21
@
BRAD
L 69-73
−10.5
29
@
MUR
L 81-84
−0.5
1
vs
VAL
W 75-70
−0.5
4
@
BEL
W 68-67
−23.5
7
@
UIC
L 57-70
−19.5
14
vs
DRKE
L 73-76
+4.5
17
vs
BEL
L 68-73
−10.5
21
@
VAL
L 63-69
−10.5
28
vs
UNI
W 65-50
−15.5
31
vs
UIC
L 66-68
−8.5
3
@
ILST
W 54-50
−36.5
6
vs
MUR
L 81-91
+14.5
9
@
INST
W 80-65
−1.5
12
vs
EVAN
W 86-60
+3.5
15
vs
BRAD
L 60-70
−16.5
18
@
DRKE
W 66-61
−22.5
21
@
UNI
W 59-57
−18.5
25
vs
INST
W 66-55
−26.5
1
@
EVAN
W 81-67
+8.5
5
vs
DRKE
L 63-67
−10.5
over 9under 22avg −5.3 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: Richmond 1, S Illinois 1, even 3
RichmondBetterS Illinois
G D. Saran TR11.3 pts · 5 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 52
→SIUSmall
G J. Haynes7.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 71
G A. Argabright10.8 pts · 2 reb · 2 ast
Score 87
=No call
G C. Hawkins1.1 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
G D. Stewart TR6.6 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 44
←RICHSmall
F M. Pikaar1.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 19
F J. Kaiser TR9.5 pts · 4.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 60
=No call
F D. Hill NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
C A. Dorries TR16.2 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 62
=No call
C J. Webber1.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
RichmondBetterS Illinois
RICH offense113th of 366 · -2.0
←RICHSmall
SIU defense181st of 366 · -4.1
RICH defense105th of 366 · -1.0
←RICHSmall
SIU offense227th of 366 · -7.0
Backcourt+0.4 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt+0.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt+1.5 · 2 players
←RICHSmall
Frontcourt-1.0 · 3 players
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestRICH betterSIU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Saran30 min · TRA. Argabright24 minD. Stewart23 min · TRC. Tanner18 minW. Harper11 minK. Mooney5 min
Forwards
J. Kaiser29 min · TRA. Ball21 min · TRJ. McCaffery10 min · TRC. CookNewD. CaldwellNew
Centers
A. Dorries33 min · TRD. HomenickNew
Guards
J. Haynes21 minC. Hawkins5 minB. McClureNewJ. FugateNewL. WalshNewJ. JacksonNew
Forwards
M. Pikaar11 minD. HillNewD. PauliukonisNewP. RanieriNewT. LaurNew
Centers
J. Webber7 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.5 #132 | Points per game | 72.7 #229 |
| 1.11 #119 | Points per possession | 1.03 #285 |
| 68.8 #194 | Pace (possessions) | 70.6 #91 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.7 #115 | Effective FG% | 49.1 #286 |
| 37.1 #28 | 3-point % | 27.8 #363 |
| 42.6 #126 | 3-point attempt rate | 29.2 #355 |
| 36.9 #133 | Free throw rate | 31.3 #275 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.3 #32 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #207 |
| 25.0 #340 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.9 #167 |
| 14.0 #145 | Assists per game | 13.3 #188 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.5 #175 | Points allowed | 70.5 #62 |
| 1.09 #183 | Points allowed per possession | 1.00 #25 |
| 52.0 #216 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.0 #70 |
| 32.7 #103 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.4 #17 |
| 17.8 #111 | Turnovers forced | 18.5 #74 |
| 69.0 #200 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.7 #44 |
| 6.8 #139 | Steals per game | 8.0 #38 |
| 2.3 #323 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #157 |
Richmond
14-17 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Loyola Chicago67–75
- L@ Duquesne77–79
- Lvs Dayton60–65
- L@ Loyola Chicago66–69
- Wvs St Bonaventure99–94
A week or more of rest.
S Illinois
15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 10-11 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Drake63–67
- W@ Evansville81–67
- Wvs Indiana St66–55
- W@ Northern Iowa59–57
- W@ Drake66–61
A week or more of rest.