F&M Bank Arena · at Austin Peay
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | APSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 APSU 77–71 · win probability APSU 69%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.2
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: APSU has more of the edges
RGV 2, APSU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: RGV 28.9, APSU 37.6. Allowed: RGV 39.0, APSU 32.8
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RGV 18.5%, APSU 15.4%. Forced: RGV 16.2%, APSU 17.9%
Shooting
Effective FG%: RGV 54.8 and allows 47.8; APSU 53.0 and allows 52.2
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RGV 28.2%, APSU 29.7%. Defensive: RGV 67.9%, APSU 71.1%
Three-pointers
RGV hits 36.8% and allows 30.4%; APSU hits 35.3% and allows 33.2%. Threes are 43.7% and 38.0% of their shots
APSU offense vs RGV defense
Offense 174th of 366 against a defense 265th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: RGV plays 67.3 a game (268th fastest), APSU 70.1 (114th). Faster games mean more points
RGV offense vs APSU defense
Offense 297th of 366 against a defense 240th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
APSU at home. This season: APSU 0-0 at home, RGV 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
RGV has played the 274th-hardest schedule, APSU the 318th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RGV 9%, APSU 30%. Transfers in: RGV 3, APSU 2. 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 | — | APSU -5.7 | — |
| Total | — | 148.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | RGV 71.3 · APSU 77 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | APSU -3.3 | — |
| 1H total | 69.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | RGV 33 · APSU 36.3 | — |
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% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
RGV 1–0 APSURGV leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · RGV 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2025-26 | APSU 50 @ RGV 63 | RGV -2.5 | RGV W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UT Rio Grande
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
18-13
58% covers · avg +4.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-18
42% 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 | @ | L 81-96 | +24.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 95-72 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 65-85 | +16.5 | L −3.5 | 161.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 67-74 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 73-87 | +33.5 | W +19.5 | 164.5 | U 160 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 60-73 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 63-50 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 11 | vs | L 50-58 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | U 108 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 83-72 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 69-85 | -6.5 | L −22.5 | 152.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 69-71 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 59-63 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 80-67 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 69-77 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 63-64 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 79-76 | +9.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 68-65 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 68-51 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 26 | @ | W 64-55 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 135.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 106-93 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 74-57 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 95-76 | -1.5 | W +17.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 92-72 | -3.5 | W +16.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 57-66 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 70-65 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 96-75 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 138.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 68-75 | +11.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 63-55 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 74-62 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 86-68 | -5.5 | W +12.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 80-84 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 140.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
BAY
L 81-96
+9.5
8
@
SUU
W 95-72
+21.5
11
@
BOIS
L 65-85
−3.5
22
@
MOST
L 67-74
−3.5
24
@
ILL
L 73-87
+19.5
3
@
SFA
L 60-73
−6.5
7
vs
APSU
W 63-50
+10.5
11
vs
UTA
L 50-58
−12.5
16
@
LAM
W 83-72
+14.5
29
vs
NOLA
L 69-85
−22.5
31
vs
NICH
L 69-71
−5.5
3
vs
AMCC
L 59-63
−6.5
5
vs
UIW
W 80-67
+11.5
10
@
ETAM
L 69-77
−11.5
12
@
NWST
L 63-64
−3.5
17
vs
MCN
W 79-76
+12.5
19
vs
SELA
W 68-65
−2.5
24
@
HCU
W 68-51
+14.5
26
@
AMCC
W 64-55
+11.5
31
@
UIW
W 106-93
+11.5
2
vs
HCU
W 74-57
+7.5
7
@
NOLA
W 95-76
+17.5
9
@
NICH
W 92-72
+16.5
14
vs
SFA
L 57-66
−7.5
16
vs
LAM
W 70-65
−1.5
21
@
SELA
W 96-75
+16.5
23
@
MCN
L 68-75
+4.5
28
vs
ETAM
W 63-55
−2.5
2
vs
NWST
W 74-62
+2.5
9
vs
NICH
W 86-68
+12.5
10
vs
MCN
L 80-84
+4.5
covered 18didn’t cover 13avg +4.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
BAY
L 81-96
+22.5
8
@
SUU
W 95-72
+6.5
11
@
BOIS
L 65-85
−11.5
22
@
MOST
L 67-74
−8.5
24
@
ILL
L 73-87
−4.5
3
@
SFA
L 60-73
−10.5
7
vs
APSU
W 63-50
−38.5
11
vs
UTA
L 50-58
−37.5
16
@
LAM
W 83-72
+15.5
29
vs
NOLA
L 69-85
+1.5
31
vs
NICH
L 69-71
−5.5
3
vs
AMCC
L 59-63
−15.5
5
vs
UIW
W 80-67
+0.5
10
@
ETAM
L 69-77
+0.5
12
@
NWST
L 63-64
−16.5
17
vs
MCN
W 79-76
+8.5
19
vs
SELA
W 68-65
−2.5
24
@
HCU
W 68-51
−21.5
26
@
AMCC
W 64-55
−16.5
31
@
UIW
W 106-93
+58.5
2
vs
HCU
W 74-57
−10.5
7
@
NOLA
W 95-76
+19.5
9
@
NICH
W 92-72
+16.5
14
vs
SFA
L 57-66
−21.5
16
vs
LAM
W 70-65
−6.5
21
@
SELA
W 96-75
+32.5
23
@
MCN
L 68-75
−3.5
28
vs
ETAM
W 63-55
−28.5
2
vs
NWST
W 74-62
−3.5
9
vs
NICH
W 86-68
+10.5
10
vs
MCN
L 80-84
+23.5
over 13under 18avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Austin Peay
29 games played
Straight up
20-9
69% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg +2.1 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 | @ | W 74-54 | -1.5 | W +18.5 | 136.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 65-79 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 69-63 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 65-72 | +20.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 75-84 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 77-59 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 84-96 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 180 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 50-63 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | U 113 |
| Dec 12 | vs | W 76-75 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 102-83 | -15.5 | W +3.5 | 162.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 71-68 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 82-71 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 81-69 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 74-72 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 78-82 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 83-62 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 155.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 73-65 | -16.5 | L −8.5 | 148.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 90-82 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 151.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 81-78 | -7.5 | L −4.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 87-76 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 91-62 | -12.5 | W +16.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 95-87 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 161.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 90-70 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 77-76 | -11.5 | L −10.5 | 166.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 65-61 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 88-93 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 97-111 | -5.5 | L −19.5 | 153.5 | O 208 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 69-60 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 83-90 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
AF
W 74-54
+18.5
11
@
WYO
L 65-79
−8.5
15
@
UNCG
W 69-63
+7.5
18
@
MISS
L 65-72
+13.5
21
@
TLSA
L 75-84
−0.5
25
vs
NIU
W 77-59
+11.5
3
@
KENT
L 84-96
−3.5
7
@
RGV
L 50-63
−10.5
12
vs
ETSU
W 76-75
+4.5
1
vs
UNF
W 102-83
+3.5
3
vs
JAX
W 71-68
−7.5
8
@
FGCU
W 82-71
+14.5
10
@
STET
W 81-69
+2.5
15
vs
EKU
W 74-72
−5.5
17
@
LIP
L 78-82
−1.5
22
vs
FGCU
W 83-62
+14.5
23
vs
STET
W 73-65
−8.5
28
@
EKU
W 90-82
+5.5
31
@
WGA
W 81-78
−4.5
4
vs
LIP
W 87-76
+6.5
7
vs
UNA
W 91-62
+16.5
11
@
QUC
W 95-87
+10.5
14
vs
BELL
W 90-70
+10.5
19
@
UNF
W 77-76
−10.5
21
@
JAX
W 65-61
−2.5
25
vs
CARK
L 88-93
−9.5
28
@
BELL
L 97-111
−19.5
6
vs
STET
W 69-60
−2.5
7
vs
QUC
L 83-90
−9.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
AF
W 74-54
−8.5
11
@
WYO
L 65-79
−9.5
15
@
UNCG
W 69-63
−13.5
18
@
MISS
L 65-72
−8.5
21
@
TLSA
L 75-84
+10.5
25
vs
NIU
W 77-59
−11.5
3
@
KENT
L 84-96
+26.5
7
@
RGV
L 50-63
−38.5
12
vs
ETSU
W 76-75
+7.5
1
vs
UNF
W 102-83
+22.5
3
vs
JAX
W 71-68
−1.5
8
@
FGCU
W 82-71
−0.5
10
@
STET
W 81-69
−0.5
15
vs
EKU
W 74-72
−7.5
17
@
LIP
L 78-82
+4.5
22
vs
FGCU
W 83-62
−10.5
23
vs
STET
W 73-65
−10.5
28
@
EKU
W 90-82
+20.5
31
@
WGA
W 81-78
+8.5
4
vs
LIP
W 87-76
+6.5
7
vs
UNA
W 91-62
+7.5
11
@
QUC
W 95-87
+20.5
14
vs
BELL
W 90-70
+6.5
19
@
UNF
W 77-76
−13.5
21
@
JAX
W 65-61
−16.5
25
vs
CARK
L 88-93
+28.5
28
@
BELL
L 97-111
+54.5
6
vs
STET
W 69-60
−24.5
7
vs
QUC
L 83-90
+11.5
over 14under 15avg +2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Austin Peay has the better starters
Position by position: UT Rio Grande 1, Austin Peay 2, even 2
UT Rio GrandeBetterAustin Peay
G D. Pryor TR2.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 41
→APSUSmall
G Z. Collins13.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 60
G A. Wright2.8 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 2
→APSUBig
G C. Love TR7.2 pts · 2.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 44
G J. Posey TR4.8 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 75
←RGVBig
G S. Hugie TR4.4 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 32
G B. Knight TR2.4 pts · 0.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Ryans NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
G L. Ramirez0 pts · 1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F R. Marshall16.3 pts · 7 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 92
UT Rio GrandeBetterAustin Peay
RGV offense297th of 366 · -9.2
→APSUSmall
APSU defense240th of 366 · -6.3
RGV defense265th of 366 · -6.8
→APSUSmall
APSU offense174th of 366 · -5.4
Backcourt-4.0 · 5 players
→APSUSmall
Backcourt-1.7 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+3.8 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestRGV betterAPSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Pryor18 min · TRA. Wright15 minJ. Posey12 min · TRB. Knight8 min · TRL. Ramirez2 minJ. BlairNew
Forwards
T. WrightNewJ. HillNewB. CrawfordNewK. CorbittNew
Guards
Z. Collins30 minC. Love25 min · TRS. Hugie12 min · TRC. RyansNewP. SingletonNewT. ToddNew
Forwards
R. Marshall30 minD. BoldenNewA. DavisNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.7 #210 | Points per game | 79.0 #79 |
| 1.10 #137 | Points per possession | 1.13 #91 |
| 67.3 #268 | Pace (possessions) | 70.1 #114 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.8 #44 | Effective FG% | 53.0 #105 |
| 36.8 #35 | 3-point % | 35.3 #99 |
| 43.7 #95 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.0 #215 |
| 28.9 #332 | Free throw rate | 37.6 #110 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.5 #296 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #94 |
| 28.2 #257 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.7 #214 |
| 15.7 #58 | Assists per game | 15.3 #76 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.6 #67 | Points allowed | 74.6 #179 |
| 1.05 #86 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #119 |
| 47.8 #38 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.2 #227 |
| 30.4 #16 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.2 #137 |
| 16.2 #210 | Turnovers forced | 17.9 #103 |
| 67.9 #266 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.1 #100 |
| 5.9 #243 | Steals per game | 8.4 #22 |
| 2.8 #266 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #329 |
UT Rio Grande
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 15-9 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs McNeese80–84
- Wvs Nicholls86–68
- Wvs N'Western St74–62
- Wvs East Texas A&M63–55
- L@ McNeese68–75
A week or more of rest.
Austin Peay
20-9 in 2025-26 overall · 16-4 in conference · United Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Queens University Royals83–90
- Wvs Stetson69–60
- L@ Bellarmine97–111
- Lvs C Arkansas88–93
- W@ Jacksonville65–61
A week or more of rest.