Dean E. Smith Center · at North Carolina
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UNC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ARK 83–81 · win probability ARK 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 163.8
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: UNC has more of the edges
ARK 3, UNC 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
ARK hits 38.2% and allows 31.8%; UNC hits 34.2% and allows 34.7%. Threes are 33.0% and 42.2% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: ARK plays 73.8 a game (12th fastest), UNC 69.0 (180th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ARK 12.2%, UNC 13.9%. Forced: ARK 15.5%, UNC 13.6%
Shooting
Effective FG%: ARK 56.4 and allows 51.8; UNC 54.3 and allows 48.4
Free throws
Free throw rate: ARK 35.9, UNC 37.1. Allowed: ARK 31.2, UNC 23.8
Context
Schedule so far
ARK has played the 8th-hardest schedule, UNC the 61st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
UNC at home. This season: UNC 0-0 at home, ARK 0-0 away
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ARK 32.0%, UNC 31.2%. Defensive: ARK 69.1%, UNC 72.2%
ARK offense vs UNC defense
Offense 6th of 366 against a defense 52nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
UNC offense vs ARK defense
Offense 40th of 366 against a defense 47th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ARK 19%, UNC 20%. Transfers in: ARK 2, UNC 5. 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 | — | ARK -2.6 | — |
| Total | — | 163.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | ARK 83.2 · UNC 80.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ARK -1.6 | — |
| 1H total | 76.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | ARK 39.1 · UNC 37.4 | — |
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% | 8-2 80% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
ARK 0–1 UNCUNC leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ARK 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2023-24 | ARK 72 vs UNC 87 | UNC -3.5 | UNC W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Arkansas
37 games played
Straight up
28-9
76% wins
Against the spread
23-14
62% covers · avg +1.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-15
59% overs · avg +8.1 pts vs the total
Against the spread
23-1462%
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 109-77 | -26.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 186 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 66-69 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 93-56 | -35.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 79-75 | -24.5 | L −20.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 84-83 | -23.5 | L −22.5 | 168.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 115-61 | -29.5 | W +24.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 71-80 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 89-80 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 82-58 | -19.5 | W +4.5 | 161.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 93-86 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 108-80 | -23.5 | W +4.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 85-94 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 103-74 | -23.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 86-75 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 94-87 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 73-95 | +2.5 | L −19.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 108-74 | -12.5 | W +21.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 76-90 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 181.5 | U 166 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 93-68 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 173.5 | U 161 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-81 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 83-79 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 167.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 77-85 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 88-68 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 163.5 | U 156 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 91-62 | -4.5 | W +24.5 | 159.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 88-75 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 165.5 | U 163 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 115-117 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 181.5 | O 232 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 94-86 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 99-84 | -7.5 | W +7.5 | 170.5 | O 183 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 77-111 | +9.5 | L −24.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 105-85 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 163.5 | O 190 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 88-84 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 82-79 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 166.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 93-90 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 15 | vs | W 86-75 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 97-78 | -14.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 94-88 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 171.5 | O 182 |
| Mar 26 | vs | L 88-109 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 166.5 | O 197 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SOU
W 109-77
+5.5
8
@
MSU
L 66-69
−0.5
11
vs
CARK
W 93-56
+1.5
14
vs
SAM
W 79-75
−20.5
18
vs
WIN
W 84-83
−22.5
21
vs
JKST
W 115-61
+24.5
27
vs
DUKE
L 71-80
+3.5
3
vs
LOU
W 89-80
+10.5
6
vs
FRES
W 82-58
+4.5
13
vs
TTU
W 93-86
+9.5
16
vs
QUC
W 108-80
+4.5
20
vs
HOU
L 85-94
−3.5
29
vs
JMU
W 103-74
+5.5
3
vs
TENN
W 86-75
+12.5
7
@
MISS
W 94-87
+3.5
10
@
AUB
L 73-95
−19.5
14
vs
SC
W 108-74
+21.5
17
@
UGA
L 76-90
−11.5
20
vs
VAN
W 93-68
+23.5
24
vs
LSU
W 85-81
−6.5
27
@
OU
W 83-79
+0.5
31
vs
UK
L 77-85
−14.5
7
@
MSST
W 88-68
+14.5
10
@
LSU
W 91-62
+24.5
14
vs
AUB
W 88-75
+5.5
18
@
ALA
L 115-117
+1.5
21
vs
MIZ
W 94-86
−1.5
25
vs
TA&M
W 99-84
+7.5
28
@
FLA
L 77-111
−24.5
4
vs
TEX
W 105-85
+13.5
7
@
MIZ
W 88-84
+6.5
13
vs
OU
W 82-79
−3.5
14
vs
MISS
W 93-90
−5.5
15
vs
VAN
W 86-75
+13.5
19
vs
HAW
W 97-78
+4.5
21
vs
HPU
W 94-88
−6.5
26
vs
ARIZ
L 88-109
−12.5
covered 23didn’t cover 14avg +1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SOU
W 109-77
+35.5
8
@
MSU
L 66-69
−20.5
11
vs
CARK
W 93-56
−9.5
14
vs
SAM
W 79-75
−4.5
18
vs
WIN
W 84-83
−1.5
21
vs
JKST
W 115-61
+16.5
27
vs
DUKE
L 71-80
−8.5
3
vs
LOU
W 89-80
+2.5
6
vs
FRES
W 82-58
−21.5
13
vs
TTU
W 93-86
+23.5
16
vs
QUC
W 108-80
+18.5
20
vs
HOU
L 85-94
+32.5
29
vs
JMU
W 103-74
+17.5
3
vs
TENN
W 86-75
+2.5
7
@
MISS
W 94-87
+27.5
10
@
AUB
L 73-95
−1.5
14
vs
SC
W 108-74
+26.5
17
@
UGA
L 76-90
−15.5
20
vs
VAN
W 93-68
−12.5
24
vs
LSU
W 85-81
+2.5
27
@
OU
W 83-79
−5.5
31
vs
UK
L 77-85
+2.5
7
@
MSST
W 88-68
−7.5
10
@
LSU
W 91-62
−6.5
14
vs
AUB
W 88-75
−2.5
18
@
ALA
L 115-117
+50.5
21
vs
MIZ
W 94-86
+20.5
25
vs
TA&M
W 99-84
+12.5
28
@
FLA
L 77-111
+18.5
4
vs
TEX
W 105-85
+26.5
7
@
MIZ
W 88-84
+8.5
13
vs
OU
W 82-79
−5.5
14
vs
MISS
W 93-90
+23.5
15
vs
VAN
W 86-75
−4.5
19
vs
HAW
W 97-78
+16.5
21
vs
HPU
W 94-88
+10.5
26
vs
ARIZ
L 88-109
+30.5
over 22under 15avg +8.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
North Carolina
33 games played
Straight up
24-9
73% wins
Against the spread
19-14
58% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg −2.3 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 3 | vs | W 94-54 | -31.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 87-74 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 89-74 | -20.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 97-53 | -34.5 | W +9.5 | 159.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 73-61 | -26.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 85-70 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 58-74 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 67-64 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 163.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 81-61 | -10.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 80-62 | -29.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 77-58 | -17.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 71-70 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 99-51 | -25.5 | W +22.5 | 144.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 79-66 | -12.5 | W +0.5 | 166.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 83-97 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 155.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 87-84 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 90-95 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 78-84 | -7.5 | L −13.5 | 151.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 91-69 | -13.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 85-80 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 91-75 | -9.5 | W +6.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 87-77 | -11.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 71-68 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 10 | @ | L 66-75 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-65 | -11.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 58-82 | +8.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 77-64 | +2.5 | W +15.5 | 154.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 23 | vs | W 77-74 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 89-82 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 67-63 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 61-76 | +18.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 79-80 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 78-82 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CARK
W 94-54
+8.5
7
vs
KU
W 87-74
+10.5
11
vs
RAD
W 89-74
−5.5
14
vs
NCCU
W 97-53
+9.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 73-61
−14.5
25
vs
SBU
W 85-70
+4.5
27
vs
MSU
L 58-74
−14.5
2
@
UK
W 67-64
+10.5
7
vs
GTWN
W 81-61
+9.5
13
vs
UPST
W 80-62
−11.5
16
vs
ETSU
W 77-58
+1.5
20
vs
OSU
W 71-70
−1.5
22
vs
ECU
W 99-51
+22.5
30
vs
FSU
W 79-66
+0.5
3
@
SMU
L 83-97
−12.5
10
vs
WAKE
W 87-84
−7.5
14
@
STAN
L 90-95
−9.5
17
@
CAL
L 78-84
−13.5
21
vs
ND
W 91-69
+8.5
24
@
UVA
W 85-80
+11.5
31
@
GT
W 91-75
+6.5
2
vs
SYR
W 87-77
−1.5
7
vs
DUKE
W 71-68
+9.5
10
@
MIA
L 66-75
−7.5
14
vs
PITT
W 79-65
+2.5
17
@
NCSU
L 58-82
−15.5
21
@
SYR
W 77-64
+15.5
23
vs
LOU
W 77-74
+6.5
28
vs
VT
W 89-82
−0.5
3
vs
CLEM
W 67-63
+1.5
7
@
DUKE
L 61-76
+3.5
12
vs
CLEM
L 79-80
+1.5
19
vs
VCU
L 78-82
−6.5
covered 19didn’t cover 14avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CARK
W 94-54
−9.5
7
vs
KU
W 87-74
+1.5
11
vs
RAD
W 89-74
+0.5
14
vs
NCCU
W 97-53
−9.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 73-61
−26.5
25
vs
SBU
W 85-70
+2.5
27
vs
MSU
L 58-74
−20.5
2
@
UK
W 67-64
−32.5
7
vs
GTWN
W 81-61
−7.5
13
vs
UPST
W 80-62
−9.5
16
vs
ETSU
W 77-58
−15.5
20
vs
OSU
W 71-70
−16.5
22
vs
ECU
W 99-51
+5.5
30
vs
FSU
W 79-66
−21.5
3
@
SMU
L 83-97
+24.5
10
vs
WAKE
W 87-84
+16.5
14
@
STAN
L 90-95
+37.5
17
@
CAL
L 78-84
+10.5
21
vs
ND
W 91-69
+10.5
24
@
UVA
W 85-80
+12.5
31
@
GT
W 91-75
+5.5
2
vs
SYR
W 87-77
+5.5
7
vs
DUKE
W 71-68
−13.5
10
@
MIA
L 66-75
−15.5
14
vs
PITT
W 79-65
+1.5
17
@
NCSU
L 58-82
−16.5
21
@
SYR
W 77-64
−13.5
23
vs
LOU
W 77-74
−11.5
28
vs
VT
W 89-82
+21.5
3
vs
CLEM
W 67-63
−11.5
7
@
DUKE
L 61-76
−10.5
12
vs
CLEM
L 79-80
+18.5
19
vs
VCU
L 78-82
+9.5
over 16under 17avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Arkansas has the better starters
Position by position: Arkansas 2, North Carolina 0, even 3
ArkansasBetterNorth Carolina
G B. Richmond11.2 pts · 4.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 85
←ARKSmall
G N. Avdalas TR12.1 pts · 3.1 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 67
G J. Wilkinson TR17.4 pts · 2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 98
=Even
G T. Brown TR19.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 98
G A. Brown0.1 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G A. Brizzi TR14.7 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 65
F C. Bowser TR13.7 pts · 5.8 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 91
←ARKSmall
F J. Stevenson8.1 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 65
F I. Sealy2.9 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C C. Fens TR14.8 pts · 8.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 85
ArkansasBetterNorth Carolina
ARK offense6th of 366 · +10.8
=Even
UNC defense52nd of 366 · +1.9
ARK defense47th of 366 · +2.2
=Even
UNC offense40th of 366 · +5.0
Backcourt+5.9 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt+6.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt+3.7 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt+3.9 · 2 players
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
=Even
Bench+0.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestARK betterUNC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Richmond28 minJ. Wilkinson26 min · TRA. Brown2 minA. Kelley2 minJ. SmithNewD. ThompsonNew
Forwards
C. Bowser30 min · TRI. Sealy7 minP. SemedoNewM. MakerNewJ. AndrewsNewM. MuurinenNew
Guards
N. Avdalas32 min · TRT. Brown32 min · TRA. Brizzi30 min · TRM. Able22 min · TRJ. Young7 minI. Denis3 min
Forwards
J. Stevenson26 minJ. Holbrook2 minA. SamodurovNewM. AdamsNew
Centers
C. Fens26 min · TRC. BennermanNewS. KeitaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 90.2 #2 | Points per game | 79.7 #73 |
| 1.23 #3 | Points per possession | 1.16 #50 |
| 73.8 #12 | Pace (possessions) | 69.0 #180 |
| Shooting | ||
| 56.4 #16 | Effective FG% | 54.3 #57 |
| 38.2 #16 | 3-point % | 34.2 #159 |
| 33.0 #315 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.2 #132 |
| 35.9 #155 | Free throw rate | 37.1 #127 |
| Possessions | ||
| 12.2 #1 | Turnover rate | 13.9 #20 |
| 32.0 #121 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.2 #159 |
| 17.2 #20 | Assists per game | 16.0 #47 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.0 #333 | Points allowed | 71.6 #97 |
| 1.09 #213 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #65 |
| 51.8 #201 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.4 #44 |
| 31.8 #54 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.7 #234 |
| 15.5 #246 | Turnovers forced | 13.6 #344 |
| 69.1 #197 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.2 #59 |
| 7.3 #96 | Steals per game | 5.4 #308 |
| 5.2 #12 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #167 |
Arkansas
28-9 in 2025-26 overall · 16-5 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona88–109
- Wvs High Point94–88
- Wvs Hawai'i97–78
- Wvs Vanderbilt86–75
- Wvs Ole Miss93–90
A week or more of rest.
North Carolina
24-9 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs VCU78–82
- Lvs Clemson79–80
- L@ Duke61–76
- Wvs Clemson67–63
- Wvs Virginia Tech89–82
A week or more of rest.