United Supermarkets Arena · at Texas Tech
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TTU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ILL 80–77 · win probability ILL 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.7
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
ILL 2, TTU 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ILL 39.2%, TTU 33.3%. Defensive: ILL 73.3%, TTU 69.4%
Free throws
Free throw rate: ILL 33.2, TTU 27.7. Allowed: ILL 19.7, TTU 31.4
Three-pointers
ILL hits 34.5% and allows 31.3%; TTU hits 39.1% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 49.7% and 47.6% of their shots
Home court
TTU at home. This season: TTU 0-0 at home, ILL 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: ILL plays 66.5 a game (292nd fastest), TTU 68.2 (222nd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ILL 63%, TTU 45%. Transfers in: ILL 1, TTU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ILL 13.1%, TTU 15.8%. Forced: ILL 11.6%, TTU 14.8%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: ILL 54.7 and allows 47.3; TTU 56.1 and allows 49.7
Even
ILL offense vs TTU defense
Offense 3rd of 366 against a defense 12th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
ILL has played the 18th-hardest schedule, TTU the 12th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
TTU offense vs ILL defense
Offense 12th of 366 against a defense 8th, 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 | — | ILL -2.7 | — |
| Total | — | 156.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | ILL 79.7 · TTU 77 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ILL -1.7 | — |
| 1H total | 73.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | ILL 37.5 · TTU 35.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
ILL 1–0 TTUILL leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ILL 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2025-26 | TTU 77 @ ILL 81 | ILL -3.5 | ILL W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Illinois
37 games played
Straight up
28-9
76% wins
Against the spread
22-15
59% covers · avg +2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-22
41% overs · avg −1.5 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 113-55 | -28.5 | W +29.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 113-70 | -29.5 | W +13.5 | 160.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 81-77 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 168.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 84-65 | -30.5 | L −11.5 | 164.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 86-90 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 180.5 | U 176 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 98-58 | -34.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 87-73 | -33.5 | L −19.5 | 164.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 61-74 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 75-62 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 9 | @ | W 88-80 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 80-83 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 91-48 | -8.5 | W +34.5 | 153.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 90-55 | -33.5 | W +1.5 | 163.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 73-65 | -14.5 | L −6.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 81-55 | -22.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 75-69 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 79-68 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 77-67 | -15.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 89-70 | -18.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 88-82 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 75-66 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 78-69 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 84-44 | -16.5 | W +23.5 | 149.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 82-85 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 10 | vs | L 90-92 | -9.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 71-51 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 101-65 | -8.5 | W +27.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 94-95 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 70-84 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 80-54 | -17.5 | W +8.5 | 147.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 8 | @ | W 78-72 | -14.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 88-91 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 158.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 105-70 | -25.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 76-55 | -12.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 26 | vs | W 65-55 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 141.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 28 | vs | W 71-59 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
| Apr 4 | vs | L 62-71 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
JKST
W 113-55
+29.5
7
vs
FGCU
W 113-70
+13.5
11
vs
TTU
W 81-77
+0.5
14
vs
COLG
W 84-65
−11.5
19
vs
ALA
L 86-90
−6.5
22
vs
LIU
W 98-58
+5.5
24
vs
RGV
W 87-73
−19.5
28
vs
CONN
L 61-74
−8.5
6
vs
TENN
W 75-62
+14.5
9
@
OSU
W 88-80
+4.5
13
vs
NEB
L 80-83
−12.5
22
vs
MIZ
W 91-48
+34.5
29
vs
SOU
W 90-55
+1.5
3
@
PSU
W 73-65
−6.5
8
vs
RUTG
W 81-55
+3.5
11
@
IOWA
W 75-69
+4.5
14
@
NU
W 79-68
+1.5
17
vs
MINN
W 77-67
−5.5
21
vs
MD
W 89-70
+0.5
24
@
PUR
W 88-82
+11.5
29
vs
WASH
W 75-66
−3.5
1
@
NEB
W 78-69
+10.5
4
vs
NU
W 84-44
+23.5
7
@
MSU
L 82-85
−1.5
10
vs
WIS
L 90-92
−11.5
15
vs
IU
W 71-51
+11.5
18
@
USC
W 101-65
+27.5
21
@
UCLA
L 94-95
−7.5
27
vs
MICH
L 70-84
−12.5
3
vs
ORE
W 80-54
+8.5
8
@
MD
W 78-72
−8.5
13
vs
WIS
L 88-91
−11.5
19
vs
PENN
W 105-70
+9.5
21
vs
VCU
W 76-55
+8.5
26
vs
HOU
W 65-55
+12.5
28
vs
IOWA
W 71-59
+5.5
4
vs
CONN
L 62-71
−10.5
covered 22didn’t cover 15avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
JKST
W 113-55
+10.5
7
vs
FGCU
W 113-70
+22.5
11
vs
TTU
W 81-77
−10.5
14
vs
COLG
W 84-65
−15.5
19
vs
ALA
L 86-90
−4.5
22
vs
LIU
W 98-58
−4.5
24
vs
RGV
W 87-73
−4.5
28
vs
CONN
L 61-74
−15.5
6
vs
TENN
W 75-62
−12.5
9
@
OSU
W 88-80
+5.5
13
vs
NEB
L 80-83
+6.5
22
vs
MIZ
W 91-48
−14.5
29
vs
SOU
W 90-55
−18.5
3
@
PSU
W 73-65
−18.5
8
vs
RUTG
W 81-55
−13.5
11
@
IOWA
W 75-69
+1.5
14
@
NU
W 79-68
−4.5
17
vs
MINN
W 77-67
+1.5
21
vs
MD
W 89-70
+6.5
24
@
PUR
W 88-82
+17.5
29
vs
WASH
W 75-66
−12.5
1
@
NEB
W 78-69
−7.5
4
vs
NU
W 84-44
−21.5
7
@
MSU
L 82-85
+24.5
10
vs
WIS
L 90-92
+28.5
15
vs
IU
W 71-51
−31.5
18
@
USC
W 101-65
+14.5
21
@
UCLA
L 94-95
+42.5
27
vs
MICH
L 70-84
−5.5
3
vs
ORE
W 80-54
−13.5
8
@
MD
W 78-72
+4.5
13
vs
WIS
L 88-91
+20.5
19
vs
PENN
W 105-70
+24.5
21
vs
VCU
W 76-55
−20.5
26
vs
HOU
W 65-55
−21.5
28
vs
IOWA
W 71-59
−8.5
4
vs
CONN
L 62-71
−6.5
over 15under 22avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Texas Tech
34 games played
Straight up
23-11
68% wins
Against the spread
17-17
50% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-19
44% overs · avg −1.7 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 4 | vs | W 98-60 | -29.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 98-77 | -31.5 | L −10.5 | 156.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 77-81 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 80-63 | -27.5 | L −10.5 | 165.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 84-83 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 56-86 | +3.5 | L −26.5 | 153.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 82-50 | -29.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-72 | -19.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 82-58 | -5.5 | W +18.5 | 154.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 86-93 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 101-90 | -25.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-81 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 87-57 | -17.5 | W +12.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 102-80 | -12.5 | W +9.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 65-69 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 73-71 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 161.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 88-74 | -17.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 84-71 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 92-73 | -1.5 | W +17.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 90-86 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 80-88 | -5.5 | L −13.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 61-64 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 78-44 | -13.5 | W +20.5 | 155.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-75 | +8.5 | W +11.5 | 156.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 67-72 | -7.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 100-72 | -12.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 80-68 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 82-73 | +10.5 | W +19.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 65-73 | -8.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-82 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 53-75 | +7.5 | L −14.5 | 143.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 91-71 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 65-90 | +1.5 | L −23.5 | 164.5 | U 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
LIN
W 98-60
+8.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 98-77
−10.5
11
@
ILL
L 77-81
−0.5
14
vs
MILW
W 80-63
−10.5
20
vs
WAKE
W 84-83
−8.5
21
vs
PUR
L 56-86
−26.5
26
vs
NOLA
W 82-50
+2.5
30
vs
WYO
W 76-72
−15.5
7
vs
LSU
W 82-58
+18.5
13
vs
ARK
L 86-93
−9.5
16
vs
UNCO
W 101-90
−14.5
20
vs
DUKE
W 82-81
+10.5
28
vs
WIN
W 87-57
+12.5
3
vs
OKST
W 102-80
+9.5
6
@
HOU
L 65-69
+3.5
10
@
COLO
W 73-71
−3.5
14
vs
UTAH
W 88-74
−3.5
17
vs
BYU
W 84-71
+10.5
20
@
BAY
W 92-73
+17.5
24
vs
HOU
W 90-86
+5.5
31
@
UCF
L 80-88
−13.5
2
vs
KU
L 61-64
−6.5
8
@
WVU
W 70-63
+2.5
11
vs
COLO
W 78-44
+20.5
14
@
ARIZ
W 78-75
+11.5
17
@
ASU
L 67-72
−12.5
21
vs
KSU
W 100-72
+15.5
24
vs
CIN
W 80-68
+5.5
28
@
ISU
W 82-73
+19.5
3
vs
TCU
L 65-73
−16.5
7
@
BYU
L 76-82
−3.5
12
vs
ISU
L 53-75
−14.5
20
vs
AKR
W 91-71
+13.5
22
vs
ALA
L 65-90
−23.5
covered 17didn’t cover 17avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
LIN
W 98-60
+11.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 98-77
+18.5
11
@
ILL
L 77-81
−10.5
14
vs
MILW
W 80-63
−22.5
20
vs
WAKE
W 84-83
+6.5
21
vs
PUR
L 56-86
−11.5
26
vs
NOLA
W 82-50
−25.5
30
vs
WYO
W 76-72
−4.5
7
vs
LSU
W 82-58
−14.5
13
vs
ARK
L 86-93
+23.5
16
vs
UNCO
W 101-90
+38.5
20
vs
DUKE
W 82-81
+10.5
28
vs
WIN
W 87-57
−19.5
3
vs
OKST
W 102-80
+14.5
6
@
HOU
L 65-69
−8.5
10
@
COLO
W 73-71
−17.5
14
vs
UTAH
W 88-74
+2.5
17
vs
BYU
W 84-71
−10.5
20
@
BAY
W 92-73
+10.5
24
vs
HOU
W 90-86
+34.5
31
@
UCF
L 80-88
+8.5
2
vs
KU
L 61-64
−30.5
8
@
WVU
W 70-63
−6.5
11
vs
COLO
W 78-44
−33.5
14
@
ARIZ
W 78-75
−3.5
17
@
ASU
L 67-72
−17.5
21
vs
KSU
W 100-72
+13.5
24
vs
CIN
W 80-68
+4.5
28
@
ISU
W 82-73
+9.5
3
vs
TCU
L 65-73
−9.5
7
@
BYU
L 76-82
−1.5
12
vs
ISU
L 53-75
−15.5
20
vs
AKR
W 91-71
+7.5
22
vs
ALA
L 65-90
−9.5
over 15under 19avg −1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Texas Tech has the better starters
Position by position: Illinois 0, Texas Tech 1, even 4
IllinoisBetterTexas Tech
G S. Vaaks TR15.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 86
=Even
G C. Davis TR20.1 pts · 3.5 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 91
G A. Stojakovic13.5 pts · 4.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 95
=Even
G D. Atwell13.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 88
F D. Mirkovic13.3 pts · 8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 94
=Even
G D. Gibbs-Lawhorn TR20.7 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 95
F J. Davis5.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 58
→TTUBig
F J. Toppin21.8 pts · 10.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 100
C T. Ivisic10.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 79
=Even
F D. Williams TR14 pts · 4.6 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 76
IllinoisBetterTexas Tech
ILL offense3rd of 366 · +11.7
=Even
TTU defense12th of 366 · +6.6
ILL defense8th of 366 · +8.4
=Even
TTU offense12th of 366 · +9.9
Backcourt+5.7 · 2 players
→TTUBig
Backcourt+10.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt+6.7 · 3 players
→TTUBig
Frontcourt+10.8 · 2 players
Bench+2.9 · 3 players
→TTUBig
Bench+7.2 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestILL betterTTU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
S. Vaaks32 min · TRA. Stojakovic26 minB. Fagbemi4 minQ. McCoyNewQ. ColemanNewL. WilliamsNew
Forwards
D. Mirkovic30 minJ. Davis20 minZ. Ivisic17 minL. DavisNewZ. ZensNew
Centers
T. Ivisic25 minJ. Jakstys5 min
Guards
C. Davis39 min · TRD. Atwell35 minD. Gibbs-Lawhorn35 min · TRD. Dennis24 min · TRD. SpearNewA. BarrettNew
Forwards
J. Toppin35 minD. Williams30 min · TRJ. Stillwell28 min · TRJ. Moseley14 minM. Akuentok6 minL. HooverNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 83.2 #24 | Points per game | 80.3 #62 |
| 1.25 #1 | Points per possession | 1.18 #35 |
| 66.5 #292 | Pace (possessions) | 68.2 #222 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.7 #46 | Effective FG% | 56.1 #21 |
| 34.5 #142 | 3-point % | 39.1 #4 |
| 49.7 #15 | 3-point attempt rate | 47.6 #29 |
| 33.2 #232 | Free throw rate | 27.7 #347 |
| Possessions | ||
| 13.1 #9 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #123 |
| 39.2 #3 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.3 #82 |
| 14.2 #133 | Assists per game | 15.7 #59 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.8 #45 | Points allowed | 73.1 #134 |
| 1.03 #61 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #138 |
| 47.3 #26 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.7 #86 |
| 31.3 #38 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #67 |
| 11.6 #365 | Turnovers forced | 14.8 #305 |
| 73.3 #28 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.4 #186 |
| 3.7 #365 | Steals per game | 6.0 #239 |
| 4.6 #28 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #103 |
Illinois
28-9 in 2025-26 overall · 15-6 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UConn62–71
- Wvs Iowa71–59
- Wvs Houston65–55
- Wvs VCU76–55
- Wvs Penn105–70
A week or more of rest.
Texas Tech
23-11 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Alabama65–90
- Wvs Akron91–71
- Lvs Iowa State53–75
- L@ BYU76–82
- Lvs TCU65–73
A week or more of rest.