Chaifetz Arena · at Saint Louis
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SLU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SLU 87–68 · win probability SLU 95%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.9
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: SLU has more of the edges
NKU 1, SLU 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
NKU hits 33.6% and allows 36.6%; SLU hits 39.9% and allows 30.3%. Threes are 44.9% and 45.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: NKU 53.2 and allows 54.2; SLU 59.7 and allows 45.2
Context
Schedule so far
NKU has played the 289th-hardest schedule, SLU the 99th. A record against a soft schedule means less
SLU offense vs NKU defense
Offense 61st of 366 against a defense 249th, on the model’s ratings
NKU offense vs SLU defense
Offense 209th of 366 against a defense 87th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NKU 16.3%, SLU 17.2%. Forced: NKU 18.6%, SLU 15.9%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NKU 32.2%, SLU 30.7%. Defensive: NKU 68.4%, SLU 72.8%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NKU 26%, SLU 63%. Transfers in: NKU 4, SLU 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
SLU at home. This season: SLU 0-0 at home, NKU 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: NKU 35.9, SLU 33.7. Allowed: NKU 37.2, SLU 37.1
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: NKU plays 71.5 a game (55th fastest), SLU 72.1 (32nd). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | SLU -18.9 | — |
| Total | — | 154.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | NKU 68 · SLU 86.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SLU -11.1 | — |
| 1H total | 72.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | NKU 30.6 · SLU 41.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | |
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
N Kentucky
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
21-10
68% overs · avg +5.2 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 8 | @ | L 56-95 | +27.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 63-75 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 20 | @ | W 90-66 | +4.5 | W +28.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 82-71 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 93-83 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 74-65 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 95-80 | -14.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 77-79 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 80-76 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 77-82 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 163.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 74-85 | -5.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 79-77 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 81-72 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 176.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 94-79 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 85-67 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 78-80 | -4.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 96-71 | -10.5 | W +14.5 | 159.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 89-92 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 80-88 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 77-90 | -5.5 | L −18.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 65-76 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 166.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 84-87 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 67-62 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 156.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 84-81 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 87-71 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 58-64 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 81-70 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 166.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 91-92 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 85-84 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 161.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 96-76 | -3.5 | W +16.5 | 146.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 90-103 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 157.5 | O 193 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
TENN
L 56-95
−11.5
12
@
ETSU
L 63-75
−5.5
20
@
CMU
W 90-66
+28.5
24
vs
EKU
W 82-71
+6.5
26
vs
WOF
W 93-83
+6.5
29
vs
BU
W 74-65
+1.5
3
vs
CLE
W 95-80
+0.5
6
@
PFW
L 77-79
−0.5
13
@
BELL
W 80-76
−0.5
17
vs
OAK
L 77-82
−8.5
21
vs
COFC
L 74-85
−16.5
29
@
RMU
W 79-77
+0.5
1
vs
IUIN
W 81-72
−4.5
4
vs
YSU
W 94-79
+10.5
9
@
MILW
W 85-67
+19.5
11
@
GB
L 78-80
−6.5
15
vs
DETM
W 96-71
+14.5
17
vs
RMU
L 89-92
−10.5
24
@
WRST
L 80-88
−6.5
30
@
DETM
L 77-90
−18.5
1
@
OAK
L 65-76
−7.5
4
vs
GB
L 84-87
−10.5
7
vs
MILW
W 67-62
−1.5
12
@
IUIN
W 84-81
−2.5
18
vs
PFW
W 87-71
+10.5
22
@
YSU
L 58-64
−3.5
25
@
CLE
W 81-70
+2.5
28
vs
WRST
L 91-92
−4.5
4
@
OAK
W 85-84
+2.5
8
vs
GB
W 96-76
+16.5
9
vs
WRST
L 90-103
−14.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
TENN
L 56-95
+13.5
12
@
ETSU
L 63-75
−4.5
20
@
CMU
W 90-66
+9.5
24
vs
EKU
W 82-71
−3.5
26
vs
WOF
W 93-83
+26.5
29
vs
BU
W 74-65
−4.5
3
vs
CLE
W 95-80
+16.5
6
@
PFW
L 77-79
+2.5
13
@
BELL
W 80-76
+9.5
17
vs
OAK
L 77-82
−4.5
21
vs
COFC
L 74-85
+5.5
29
@
RMU
W 79-77
+6.5
1
vs
IUIN
W 81-72
−23.5
4
vs
YSU
W 94-79
+26.5
9
@
MILW
W 85-67
−5.5
11
@
GB
L 78-80
+13.5
15
vs
DETM
W 96-71
+7.5
17
vs
RMU
L 89-92
+27.5
24
@
WRST
L 80-88
+12.5
30
@
DETM
L 77-90
+5.5
1
@
OAK
L 65-76
−25.5
4
vs
GB
L 84-87
+21.5
7
vs
MILW
W 67-62
−27.5
12
@
IUIN
W 84-81
+0.5
18
vs
PFW
W 87-71
+4.5
22
@
YSU
L 58-64
−30.5
25
@
CLE
W 81-70
−15.5
28
vs
WRST
L 91-92
+29.5
4
@
OAK
W 85-84
+7.5
8
vs
GB
W 96-76
+25.5
9
vs
WRST
L 90-103
+35.5
over 21under 10avg +5.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Saint Louis
34 games played
Straight up
28-6
82% wins
Against the spread
20-14
59% covers · avg +2.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-17
50% overs · avg −0.4 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 92-67 | -19.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 108-86 | -30.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 109-66 | -24.5 | W +18.5 | 165.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 78-64 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 167.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 91-60 | -19.5 | W +11.5 | 166.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 71-70 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 77-78 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | U 155 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 91-70 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 107-65 | -24.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 85-75 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 112-53 | -26.5 | W +32.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 93-79 | -34.5 | L −20.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 102-79 | -19.5 | W +3.5 | 161.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 71-62 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 171.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 84-72 | -17.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 78-56 | -17.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 88-63 | -14.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 81-77 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 97-62 | -8.5 | W +26.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 79-76 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 167.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 102-71 | -9.5 | W +21.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 91-82 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-58 | -22.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 86-59 | -17.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 76-81 | -9.5 | L −14.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 88-75 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 164.5 | U 163 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 62-77 | -3.5 | L −18.5 | 157.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 91-76 | -13.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 79-65 | -21.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 57-86 | -7.5 | L −36.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 88-81 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 69-70 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 102-77 | +1.5 | W +26.5 | 167.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 72-95 | +12.5 | L −10.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SEMO
W 92-67
+5.5
6
vs
CHST
W 108-86
−8.5
10
vs
LIN
W 109-66
+18.5
15
vs
GCU
W 78-64
+5.5
21
vs
PFW
W 91-60
+11.5
27
vs
SCU
W 71-70
−0.5
28
vs
STAN
L 77-78
−2.5
2
@
LMU
W 91-70
+13.5
7
vs
CMU
W 107-65
+17.5
13
vs
SF
W 85-75
−2.5
17
vs
BCU
W 112-53
+32.5
21
vs
UNH
W 93-79
−20.5
31
vs
JOES
W 102-79
+3.5
7
@
VCU
W 71-62
+10.5
10
@
LAS
W 84-72
−5.5
14
vs
FOR
W 78-56
+4.5
17
vs
RICH
W 88-63
+10.5
20
@
DUQ
W 81-77
−4.5
23
@
SBU
W 97-62
+26.5
27
vs
GW
W 79-76
−7.5
30
vs
DAY
W 102-71
+21.5
3
@
DAV
W 91-82
+0.5
7
vs
LAS
W 82-58
+1.5
13
@
LUC
W 86-59
+9.5
17
@
URI
L 76-81
−14.5
20
vs
VCU
W 88-75
+5.5
24
@
DAY
L 62-77
−18.5
28
vs
DUQ
W 91-76
+1.5
4
vs
LUC
W 79-65
−7.5
7
@
GMU
L 57-86
−36.5
13
vs
GW
W 88-81
+0.5
14
vs
DAY
L 69-70
−5.5
19
vs
UGA
W 102-77
+26.5
21
vs
MICH
L 72-95
−10.5
covered 20didn’t cover 14avg +2.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SEMO
W 92-67
+5.5
6
vs
CHST
W 108-86
+38.5
10
vs
LIN
W 109-66
+9.5
15
vs
GCU
W 78-64
−25.5
21
vs
PFW
W 91-60
−15.5
27
vs
SCU
W 71-70
−17.5
28
vs
STAN
L 77-78
−5.5
2
@
LMU
W 91-70
+10.5
7
vs
CMU
W 107-65
+11.5
13
vs
SF
W 85-75
+4.5
17
vs
BCU
W 112-53
+7.5
21
vs
UNH
W 93-79
+14.5
31
vs
JOES
W 102-79
+19.5
7
@
VCU
W 71-62
−38.5
10
@
LAS
W 84-72
+3.5
14
vs
FOR
W 78-56
−20.5
17
vs
RICH
W 88-63
−11.5
20
@
DUQ
W 81-77
−7.5
23
@
SBU
W 97-62
−0.5
27
vs
GW
W 79-76
−12.5
30
vs
DAY
W 102-71
+21.5
3
@
DAV
W 91-82
+21.5
7
vs
LAS
W 82-58
−13.5
13
@
LUC
W 86-59
−10.5
17
@
URI
L 76-81
+5.5
20
vs
VCU
W 88-75
−1.5
24
@
DAY
L 62-77
−18.5
28
vs
DUQ
W 91-76
+6.5
4
vs
LUC
W 79-65
−11.5
7
@
GMU
L 57-86
−3.5
13
vs
GW
W 88-81
+10.5
14
vs
DAY
L 69-70
−6.5
19
vs
UGA
W 102-77
+11.5
21
vs
MICH
L 72-95
+5.5
over 17under 17avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Saint Louis has the better starters
Position by position: N Kentucky 0, Saint Louis 5, even 0
N KentuckyBetterSaint Louis
G E. Elliott4.8 pts · 2.8 reb · 4.4 ast
Score 3
→SLUBig
G Q. Jones9 pts · 3.8 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 51
G E. Acker TR5.7 pts · 1.3 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 38
→SLUBig
G T. Green11.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 86
F N. Pagotto TR10.5 pts · 5.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 68
→SLUSmall
G A. McCottry10.5 pts · 5.3 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 84
F W. Shortt TR6.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 51
→SLUSmall
F I. Sharma9.2 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 67
F D. Rakotonanahary3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 25
→SLUSmall
F A. Michaeli TR7.1 pts · 3.9 reb · 1 ast
Score 58
N KentuckyBetterSaint Louis
NKU offense209th of 366 · -6.3
→SLUSmall
SLU defense87th of 366 · -0.1
NKU defense249th of 366 · -6.5
→SLUBig
SLU offense61st of 366 · +2.6
Backcourt-5.4 · 2 players
→SLUBig
Backcourt+2.6 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.2 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt+0.6 · 2 players
Bench-2.4 · 3 players
→SLUBig
Bench+3.7 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestNKU betterSLU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
E. Elliott29 minE. Acker19 min · TRB. Davis-Ray7 min · TRB. Darbyshire6 minJ. ApathjangNewW. FosterNew
Forwards
N. Pagotto27 min · TRW. Shortt20 min · TRD. Rakotonanahary12 minR. Tolliver6 minJ. RuizNewP. Otto MaeNew
Guards
Q. Jones27 minT. Green24 minA. McCottry23 minK. Thames17 minC. Hutson4 minI. Holmes2 min
Forwards
I. Sharma22 minA. Michaeli18 min · TRE. Strong17 min · TRJ. Kerr6 minS. PearsonNewB. DiakiteNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80.9 #47 | Points per game | 86.4 #7 |
| 1.13 #81 | Points per possession | 1.20 #14 |
| 71.5 #55 | Pace (possessions) | 72.1 #32 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.2 #93 | Effective FG% | 59.7 #2 |
| 33.6 #193 | 3-point % | 39.9 #2 |
| 44.9 #71 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.1 #64 |
| 35.9 #158 | Free throw rate | 33.7 #221 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.3 #158 | Turnover rate | 17.2 #218 |
| 32.2 #117 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.7 #173 |
| 15.5 #65 | Assists per game | 18.3 #8 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.7 #284 | Points allowed | 71.6 #94 |
| 1.10 #225 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #21 |
| 54.2 #305 | Opponent effective FG% | 45.2 #3 |
| 36.6 #333 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.3 #14 |
| 18.6 #66 | Turnovers forced | 15.9 #224 |
| 68.4 #236 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.8 #43 |
| 8.3 #25 | Steals per game | 7.1 #117 |
| 3.5 #134 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #168 |
N Kentucky
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-11 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Wright St90–103
- Wvs Green Bay96–76
- W@ Oakland85–84
- Lvs Wright St91–92
- W@ Cleveland St81–70
A week or more of rest.
Saint Louis
28-6 in 2025-26 overall · 16-4 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan72–95
- Wvs Georgia102–77
- Lvs Dayton69–70
- Wvs G Washington88–81
- L@ George Mason57–86
A week or more of rest.