State Farm Center · at Illinois
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ILL | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 97–61 · win probability ILL 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 158.5
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 has more of the edges
WIN 1, ILL 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
ILL offense vs WIN defense
Offense 3rd of 366 against a defense 298th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
WIN has played the 206th-hardest schedule, ILL the 18th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: WIN 49.7 and allows 51.5; ILL 54.7 and allows 47.3
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: WIN plays 72.0 a game (35th fastest), ILL 66.5 (292nd). Faster games mean more points
WIN offense vs ILL defense
Offense 135th of 366 against a defense 8th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WIN 13%, ILL 63%. Transfers in: WIN 5, ILL 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Three-pointers
WIN hits 33.2% and allows 32.9%; ILL hits 34.5% and allows 31.3%. Threes are 44.1% and 49.7% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WIN 14.7%, ILL 13.1%. Forced: WIN 16.6%, ILL 11.6%
Home court
ILL at home. This season: ILL 0-0 at home, WIN 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WIN 34.1%, ILL 39.2%. Defensive: WIN 72.3%, ILL 73.3%
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: WIN 44.0, ILL 33.2. Allowed: WIN 39.0, ILL 19.7
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 -36.1 | — |
| Total | — | 158.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | WIN 61.2 · ILL 97.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ILL -21.4 | — |
| 1H total | 74.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | WIN 26.3 · ILL 47.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Winthrop
31 games played
Straight up
20-11
65% wins
Against the spread
12-19
39% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% overs · avg +0.2 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 3 | vs | W 81-74 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 163.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 90-96 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 186 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 66-72 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 105-69 | -2.5 | W +33.5 | 162.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 83-84 | +23.5 | W +22.5 | 168.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 80-62 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 73-80 | +14.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 101-79 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 94-92 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 84-88 | -16.5 | L −20.5 | 153.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 88-90 | -12.5 | L −14.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 57-87 | +17.5 | L −12.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 70-82 | -7.5 | L −19.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 88-77 | -23.5 | L −12.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 81-77 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 166.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 71-50 | -5.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 92-75 | +2.5 | W +19.5 | 162.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-67 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 76-75 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 165.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 82-72 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 84-71 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 80-78 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-74 | -10.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 103-85 | -20.5 | L −2.5 | 156.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 68-64 | -13.5 | L −9.5 | 158.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 87-89 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 84-86 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-70 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 86-81 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 164.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 73-71 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 76-91 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
QUC
W 81-74
+3.5
7
@
GMU
L 90-96
+3.5
11
@
CCU
L 66-72
−8.5
15
vs
MER
W 105-69
+33.5
18
@
ARK
L 83-84
+22.5
23
@
JKST
W 80-62
+7.5
25
@
NEB
L 73-80
+7.5
29
vs
SCST
W 101-79
+1.5
2
@
LIU
W 94-92
−3.5
6
vs
CCU
L 84-88
−20.5
18
@
UND
L 88-90
−14.5
28
@
TTU
L 57-87
−12.5
31
@
LONG
L 70-82
−19.5
3
vs
GWEB
W 88-77
−12.5
7
vs
CHSO
W 81-77
−4.5
10
@
UPST
W 71-50
+15.5
14
vs
HPU
W 92-75
+19.5
17
@
UNCA
W 69-67
−3.5
21
vs
RAD
W 76-75
−8.5
24
@
PRES
W 82-72
+4.5
31
vs
UNCA
W 84-71
+3.5
4
@
RAD
W 80-78
−2.5
7
vs
LONG
W 79-74
−5.5
12
@
GWEB
W 103-85
−2.5
19
vs
UPST
W 68-64
−9.5
21
@
HPU
L 87-89
+7.5
26
@
CHSO
L 84-86
−10.5
28
vs
PRES
W 74-70
−3.5
6
vs
CHSO
W 86-81
−1.5
7
vs
PRES
W 73-71
−5.5
8
vs
HPU
L 76-91
−8.5
covered 12didn’t cover 19avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
QUC
W 81-74
−8.5
7
@
GMU
L 90-96
+39.5
11
@
CCU
L 66-72
−27.5
15
vs
MER
W 105-69
+11.5
18
@
ARK
L 83-84
−1.5
23
@
JKST
W 80-62
−21.5
25
@
NEB
L 73-80
−13.5
29
vs
SCST
W 101-79
+22.5
2
@
LIU
W 94-92
+32.5
6
vs
CCU
L 84-88
+18.5
18
@
UND
L 88-90
+20.5
28
@
TTU
L 57-87
−19.5
31
@
LONG
L 70-82
−9.5
3
vs
GWEB
W 88-77
+0.5
7
vs
CHSO
W 81-77
−8.5
10
@
UPST
W 71-50
−36.5
14
vs
HPU
W 92-75
+4.5
17
@
UNCA
W 69-67
−16.5
21
vs
RAD
W 76-75
−14.5
24
@
PRES
W 82-72
+7.5
31
vs
UNCA
W 84-71
+7.5
4
@
RAD
W 80-78
−3.5
7
vs
LONG
W 79-74
−0.5
12
@
GWEB
W 103-85
+31.5
19
vs
UPST
W 68-64
−26.5
21
@
HPU
L 87-89
+9.5
26
@
CHSO
L 84-86
+5.5
28
vs
PRES
W 74-70
−6.5
6
vs
CHSO
W 86-81
+2.5
7
vs
PRES
W 73-71
−1.5
8
vs
HPU
L 76-91
+9.5
over 15under 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Illinois has the better starters
Position by position: Winthrop 0, Illinois 5, even 0
WinthropBetterIllinois
G M. Davis TR9.5 pts · 2.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 12
→ILLBig
G S. Vaaks TR15.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 86
G S. Sims TR9.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 30
→ILLBig
G A. Stojakovic13.5 pts · 4.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 95
G A. Smith TR7.6 pts · 2 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 60
→ILLSmall
F D. Mirkovic13.3 pts · 8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 94
G S. Hendawy5.2 pts · 4 reb · 1 ast
Score 30
→ILLSmall
F J. Davis5.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 58
F G. Natsvlishvili TR7.7 pts · 4.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 43
→ILLBig
C T. Ivisic10.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 79
WinthropBetterIllinois
WIN offense135th of 366 · -3.9
→ILLBig
ILL defense8th of 366 · +8.4
WIN defense298th of 366 · -7.6
→ILLBig
ILL offense3rd of 366 · +11.7
Backcourt-5.8 · 4 players
→ILLBig
Backcourt+5.7 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
→ILLBig
Frontcourt+6.7 · 3 players
Bench-1.7 · 4 players
→ILLBig
Bench+2.9 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestWIN betterILL betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Davis26 min · TRS. Sims25 min · TRA. Smith18 min · TRS. Hendawy16 minK. Fisher11 min · TRH. Harrison2 min
Forwards
G. Natsvlishvili20 min · TRT. Hamilton7 minT. HarrisNewJ. CwikNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.5 #40 | Points per game | 83.2 #24 |
| 1.13 #79 | Points per possession | 1.25 #1 |
| 72.0 #35 | Pace (possessions) | 66.5 #292 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.7 #250 | Effective FG% | 54.7 #46 |
| 33.2 #217 | 3-point % | 34.5 #142 |
| 44.1 #88 | 3-point attempt rate | 49.7 #15 |
| 44.0 #10 | Free throw rate | 33.2 #232 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.7 #52 | Turnover rate | 13.1 #9 |
| 34.1 #63 | Offensive rebound rate | 39.2 #3 |
| 13.6 #177 | Assists per game | 14.2 #133 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.7 #261 | Points allowed | 68.8 #45 |
| 1.08 #154 | Points allowed per possession | 1.03 #61 |
| 51.5 #182 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.3 #26 |
| 32.9 #113 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.3 #38 |
| 16.6 #174 | Turnovers forced | 11.6 #365 |
| 72.3 #55 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.3 #28 |
| 6.6 #161 | Steals per game | 3.7 #365 |
| 2.7 #281 | Blocks per game | 4.6 #28 |
Winthrop
20-11 in 2025-26 overall · 15-4 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs High Point76–91
- Wvs Presbyterian73–71
- Wvs Charleston So86–81
- Wvs Presbyterian74–70
- L@ Charleston So84–86
A week or more of rest.
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.