United Center · Neutral site
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 76–72 · win probability ILL 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.9
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: ILL has more of the edges
CONN 1, ILL 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: CONN 29.9, ILL 33.2. Allowed: CONN 40.7, ILL 19.7
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CONN 16.4%, ILL 13.1%. Forced: CONN 17.8%, ILL 11.6%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CONN 35.7%, ILL 39.2%. Defensive: CONN 71.2%, ILL 73.3%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CONN 51%, ILL 63%. Transfers in: CONN 7, ILL 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
CONN offense vs ILL defense
Offense 25th of 366 against a defense 8th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CONN has played the 4th-hardest schedule, ILL the 18th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Three-pointers
CONN hits 34.4% and allows 30.1%; ILL hits 34.5% and allows 31.3%. Threes are 40.9% and 49.7% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: CONN plays 66.1 a game (307th fastest), ILL 66.5 (292nd). Faster games mean more points
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: CONN 54.3 and allows 45.7; ILL 54.7 and allows 47.3
Even
ILL offense vs CONN defense
Offense 3rd of 366 against a defense 2nd, on the model’s ratings
Market vs model
The model’s numbers beside the market’s
MarketModelModel edge
Spread
Market—
ModelILL -3.9
Model edge—
Total
Market—
Model147.9
Model edge—
Projected score
CONN 72 · ILL 75.9
Win probability
ILL 63%
1st half
Spread
ILL -2.2
Total
69.2
Projected score
CONN 33.5 · ILL 35.7
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.
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | |
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CONN 3–0 ILLCONN leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · CONN has won the last 3 meetings · CONN 3-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2025-26 | ILL 62 vs CONN 71 | CONN +1.5 | CONN W |
| Nov 28, 2025-26 | ILL 61 vs CONN 74 | CONN -4.5 | CONN W |
| Mar 30, 2023-24 | ILL 52 vs CONN 77 | CONN -8.5 | CONN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UConn
40 games played
Straight up
34-6
85% wins
Against the spread
17-23
43% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-21
48% overs · avg −1.6 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-2343%
5 straight covers4 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 79-55 | -42.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 110-47 | -36.5 | W +26.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 89-62 | -32.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 86-84 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 156.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 19 | vs | L 67-71 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 72-49 | -36.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 74-61 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 61-56 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 117 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 83-59 | -36.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 77-73 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 12 | vs | W 71-63 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 79-60 | -15.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 72-54 | -12.5 | W +5.5 | 133.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 90-67 | -11.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 73-57 | -17.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 103-98 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 201 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 72-60 | -19.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 69-64 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 132.5 | O 133 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 64-62 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-67 | -11.5 | L −3.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 87-81 | -15.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 85-58 | -6.5 | W +20.5 | 142.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 92-60 | -16.5 | W +15.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 6 | @ | L 72-81 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 143.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 80-70 | -11.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-75 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 84-91 | -15.5 | L −22.5 | 143.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 73-63 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 72-40 | -5.5 | W +26.5 | 145.5 | U 112 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 71-67 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 130.5 | O 138 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 62-68 | -9.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 93-68 | -17.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 67-51 | -14.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 14 | @ | L 52-72 | -2.5 | L −22.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 82-71 | -20.5 | L −9.5 | 133.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 73-57 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 27 | vs | W 67-63 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 29 | vs | W 73-72 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | O 145 |
| Apr 4 | vs | W 71-62 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
| Apr 6 | vs | L 63-69 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | U 132 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NHVN
W 79-55
−18.5
7
vs
UML
W 110-47
+26.5
10
vs
COLU
W 89-62
−5.5
15
vs
BYU
W 86-84
−4.5
19
vs
ARIZ
L 67-71
−8.5
23
vs
BRY
W 72-49
−13.5
28
vs
ILL
W 74-61
+8.5
2
@
KU
W 61-56
+1.5
5
vs
ETAM
W 83-59
−12.5
9
vs
FLA
W 77-73
−0.5
12
vs
TEX
W 71-63
−3.5
16
vs
BTLR
W 79-60
+3.5
21
@
DEP
W 72-54
+5.5
31
@
XAV
W 90-67
+11.5
4
vs
MARQ
W 73-57
−1.5
7
@
PROV
W 103-98
−4.5
10
vs
DEP
W 72-60
−7.5
13
@
HALL
W 69-64
−1.5
17
@
GTWN
W 64-62
−9.5
24
vs
VILL
W 75-67
−3.5
27
vs
PROV
W 87-81
−9.5
31
@
CREI
W 85-58
+20.5
3
vs
XAV
W 92-60
+15.5
6
@
SJU
L 72-81
−10.5
11
@
BTLR
W 80-70
−1.5
14
vs
GTWN
W 79-75
−12.5
18
vs
CREI
L 84-91
−22.5
21
@
VILL
W 73-63
+6.5
25
vs
SJU
W 72-40
+26.5
28
vs
HALL
W 71-67
−8.5
7
@
MARQ
L 62-68
−15.5
12
vs
XAV
W 93-68
+7.5
13
vs
GTWN
W 67-51
+1.5
14
@
SJU
L 52-72
−22.5
20
vs
FUR
W 82-71
−9.5
22
vs
UCLA
W 73-57
+10.5
27
vs
MSU
W 67-63
+1.5
29
vs
DUKE
W 73-72
+5.5
4
vs
ILL
W 71-62
+10.5
6
vs
MICH
L 63-69
+0.5
covered 17didn’t cover 23avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NHVN
W 79-55
−11.5
7
vs
UML
W 110-47
+5.5
10
vs
COLU
W 89-62
−4.5
15
vs
BYU
W 86-84
+13.5
19
vs
ARIZ
L 67-71
−18.5
23
vs
BRY
W 72-49
−26.5
28
vs
ILL
W 74-61
−15.5
2
@
KU
W 61-56
−24.5
5
vs
ETAM
W 83-59
+0.5
9
vs
FLA
W 77-73
+4.5
12
vs
TEX
W 71-63
−11.5
16
vs
BTLR
W 79-60
−5.5
21
@
DEP
W 72-54
−7.5
31
@
XAV
W 90-67
+12.5
4
vs
MARQ
W 73-57
−14.5
7
@
PROV
W 103-98
+48.5
10
vs
DEP
W 72-60
−5.5
13
@
HALL
W 69-64
+0.5
17
@
GTWN
W 64-62
−15.5
24
vs
VILL
W 75-67
+4.5
27
vs
PROV
W 87-81
+15.5
31
@
CREI
W 85-58
+0.5
3
vs
XAV
W 92-60
+4.5
6
@
SJU
L 72-81
+9.5
11
@
BTLR
W 80-70
+6.5
14
vs
GTWN
W 79-75
+15.5
18
vs
CREI
L 84-91
+31.5
21
@
VILL
W 73-63
−5.5
25
vs
SJU
W 72-40
−33.5
28
vs
HALL
W 71-67
+7.5
7
@
MARQ
L 62-68
−13.5
12
vs
XAV
W 93-68
+10.5
13
vs
GTWN
W 67-51
−20.5
14
@
SJU
L 52-72
−15.5
20
vs
FUR
W 82-71
+19.5
22
vs
UCLA
W 73-57
−5.5
27
vs
MSU
W 67-63
−6.5
29
vs
DUKE
W 73-72
+9.5
4
vs
ILL
W 71-62
−6.5
6
vs
MICH
L 63-69
−14.5
over 19under 21avg −1.6 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.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: UConn 1, Illinois 1, even 3
UConnBetterIllinois
G N. Machowski TR17.8 pts · 5.9 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 80
=Even
G S. Vaaks TR15.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 86
G S. Demary10.1 pts · 4.5 reb · 5.9 ast
Score 98
=Even
G A. Stojakovic13.5 pts · 4.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 95
G S. Ball12.8 pts · 3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 87
=Even
F D. Mirkovic13.3 pts · 8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 94
G B. Mullins12 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 88
←CONNSmall
F J. Davis5.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 58
G J. Nash TR5.2 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 26
→ILLBig
C T. Ivisic10.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 79
UConnBetterIllinois
CONN offense25th of 366 · +7.1
=Even
ILL defense8th of 366 · +8.4
CONN defense2nd of 366 · +11.5
=Even
ILL offense3rd of 366 · +11.7
Backcourt+8.5 · 5 players
←CONNSmall
Backcourt+5.7 · 2 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+6.7 · 3 players
Bench+3.4 · 5 players
=Even
Bench+2.9 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestCONN betterILL betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. Machowski35 min · TRS. Demary28 minS. Ball28 minB. Mullins28 minJ. Nash26 min · TRJ. CountyNew
Forwards
N. Khamenia20 min · TRI. Shaw18 min · TRJ. Ross18 minJ. RossNewC. LandrewNewE. AmosovNew
Centers
N. Hines18 min · TRO. Giltay15 min · TRE. Dzafic2 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.6 #129 | Points per game | 83.2 #24 |
| 1.16 #52 | Points per possession | 1.25 #1 |
| 66.1 #307 | Pace (possessions) | 66.5 #292 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.3 #59 | Effective FG% | 54.7 #46 |
| 34.4 #150 | 3-point % | 34.5 #142 |
| 40.9 #149 | 3-point attempt rate | 49.7 #15 |
| 29.9 #313 | Free throw rate | 33.2 #232 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.4 #163 | Turnover rate | 13.1 #9 |
| 35.7 #30 | Offensive rebound rate | 39.2 #3 |
| 18.1 #9 | Assists per game | 14.2 #133 |
| Defense | ||
| 65.2 #6 | Points allowed | 68.8 #45 |
| 0.99 #17 | Points allowed per possession | 1.03 #61 |
| 45.7 #7 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.3 #26 |
| 30.1 #8 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.3 #38 |
| 17.8 #107 | Turnovers forced | 11.6 #365 |
| 71.2 #99 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.3 #28 |
| 6.8 #143 | Steals per game | 3.7 #365 |
| 5.0 #15 | Blocks per game | 4.6 #28 |
UConn
34-6 in 2025-26 overall · 19-4 in conference · Big East Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan63–69
- Wvs Illinois71–62
- Wvs Duke73–72
- Wvs Michigan St67–63
- Wvs UCLA73–57
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.