Rupp Arena · at Kentucky
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UK | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LOU 80–79 · win probability LOU 53%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 159.0
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
LOU 1, UK 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Home court
UK at home. This season: UK 0-0 at home, LOU 0-0 away
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LOU 32.8%, UK 33.2%. Defensive: LOU 72.5%, UK 70.0%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LOU 56.5 and allows 48.7; UK 53.4 and allows 48.9
Even
Three-pointers
LOU hits 36.0% and allows 32.3%; UK hits 34.2% and allows 31.8%. Threes are 52.9% and 39.7% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
LOU has played the 44th-hardest schedule, UK the 5th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LOU 12%, UK 26%. Transfers in: LOU 8, UK 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: LOU plays 71.0 a game (77th fastest), UK 69.9 (123rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
LOU offense vs UK defense
Offense 15th of 366 against a defense 32nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: LOU 33.1, UK 37.4. Allowed: LOU 33.0, UK 36.4
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LOU 16.8%, UK 15.4%. Forced: LOU 16.7%, UK 15.5%
Even
UK offense vs LOU defense
Offense 13th of 366 against a defense 16th, 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 | — | LOU -0.8 | — |
| Total | — | 159.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | LOU 79.9 · UK 79.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LOU -0.6 | — |
| 1H total | 74.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | LOU 37.4 · UK 36.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LOU 1–3 UKUK leads · 4 games since 2021-22 · LOU 2-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2025-26 | UK 88 @ LOU 96 | LOU -5.5 | LOU W |
| Dec 14, 2024-25 | LOU 85 @ UK 93 | UK -9.5 | LOU W |
| Dec 21, 2023-24 | UK 95 @ LOU 76 | LOU +13.5 | UK W |
| Dec 31, 2022-23 | LOU 63 @ UK 86 | UK -22.5 | UK W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Louisville
35 games played
Straight up
24-11
69% wins
Against the spread
16-19
46% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-21
40% overs · avg −3.8 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 104-45 | -35.5 | W +23.5 | 159.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 106-70 | -38.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 96-88 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 173.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 106-81 | -31.5 | L −6.5 | 174.5 | O 187 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 74-64 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 163.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 87-46 | -33.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 104-47 | -44.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 80-89 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 166.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 87-78 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 99-73 | -16.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 62-83 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 94-54 | -30.5 | W +9.5 | 166.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 90-70 | -7.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 76-80 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 73-84 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 75-62 | -21.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 70-79 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 100-59 | -7.5 | W +33.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-71 | -14.5 | L −0.5 | 160.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 26 | @ | L 52-83 | +8.5 | L −22.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 88-74 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 163.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 76-65 | -19.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 88-80 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 118-77 | -6.5 | W +34.5 | 161.5 | O 195 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 82-71 | -7.5 | W +3.5 | 162.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 85-95 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 168.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 87-70 | -23.5 | L −6.5 | 167.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 74-77 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 162.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 75-80 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 77-62 | -14.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 92-89 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 62-58 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 73-78 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 83-79 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 160.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 69-77 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SCST
W 104-45
+23.5
6
vs
JKST
W 106-70
−2.5
11
vs
UK
W 96-88
+2.5
15
vs
OHIO
W 106-81
−6.5
21
vs
CIN
W 74-64
+1.5
24
vs
EMU
W 87-46
+7.5
26
vs
NJIT
W 104-47
+12.5
3
@
ARK
L 80-89
−10.5
6
vs
IU
W 87-78
+5.5
13
vs
MEM
W 99-73
+9.5
16
@
TENN
L 62-83
−16.5
20
vs
MONT
W 94-54
+9.5
30
@
CAL
W 90-70
+12.5
2
@
STAN
L 76-80
−11.5
6
vs
DUKE
L 73-84
−9.5
10
vs
BC
W 75-62
−8.5
13
vs
UVA
L 70-79
−13.5
17
@
PITT
W 100-59
+33.5
24
vs
VT
W 85-71
−0.5
26
@
DUKE
L 52-83
−22.5
31
vs
SMU
W 88-74
+4.5
4
vs
ND
W 76-65
−8.5
7
@
WAKE
W 88-80
−1.5
9
vs
NCSU
W 118-77
+34.5
14
vs
BAY
W 82-71
+3.5
17
@
SMU
L 85-95
−14.5
21
vs
GT
W 87-70
−6.5
23
@
UNC
L 74-77
−6.5
28
@
CLEM
L 75-80
−7.5
3
vs
SYR
W 77-62
+0.5
7
@
MIA
W 92-89
+4.5
11
vs
SMU
W 62-58
−3.5
12
vs
MIA
L 73-78
−6.5
19
vs
USF
W 83-79
+0.5
21
vs
MSU
L 69-77
−2.5
covered 16didn’t cover 19avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SCST
W 104-45
−10.5
6
vs
JKST
W 106-70
+10.5
11
vs
UK
W 96-88
+10.5
15
vs
OHIO
W 106-81
+12.5
21
vs
CIN
W 74-64
−25.5
24
vs
EMU
W 87-46
−29.5
26
vs
NJIT
W 104-47
−7.5
3
@
ARK
L 80-89
+2.5
6
vs
IU
W 87-78
+2.5
13
vs
MEM
W 99-73
+9.5
16
@
TENN
L 62-83
−11.5
20
vs
MONT
W 94-54
−18.5
30
@
CAL
W 90-70
+0.5
2
@
STAN
L 76-80
−1.5
6
vs
DUKE
L 73-84
−4.5
10
vs
BC
W 75-62
−13.5
13
vs
UVA
L 70-79
−5.5
17
@
PITT
W 100-59
+6.5
24
vs
VT
W 85-71
−4.5
26
@
DUKE
L 52-83
−22.5
31
vs
SMU
W 88-74
−1.5
4
vs
ND
W 76-65
−14.5
7
@
WAKE
W 88-80
+5.5
9
vs
NCSU
W 118-77
+33.5
14
vs
BAY
W 82-71
−9.5
17
@
SMU
L 85-95
+11.5
21
vs
GT
W 87-70
−10.5
23
@
UNC
L 74-77
−11.5
28
@
CLEM
L 75-80
+8.5
3
vs
SYR
W 77-62
−20.5
7
@
MIA
W 92-89
+25.5
11
vs
SMU
W 62-58
−44.5
12
vs
MIA
L 73-78
−2.5
19
vs
USF
W 83-79
+1.5
21
vs
MSU
L 69-77
−5.5
over 14under 21avg −3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Kentucky
36 games played
Straight up
22-14
61% wins
Against the spread
18-18
50% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-18
50% overs · avg −0.6 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 77-51 | -31.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 107-59 | -32.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 88-96 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 173.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 99-53 | -35.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 66-83 | -3.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 88-46 | -35.5 | W +6.5 | 159.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 104-54 | -37.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 64-67 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 163.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 5 | vs | L 59-94 | +5.5 | L −29.5 | 159.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 103-67 | -42.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 72-60 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 78-66 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 23 | vs | W 99-85 | -34.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 74-89 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 173.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 68-73 | -12.5 | L −17.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 92-68 | -10.5 | W +13.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 75-74 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-78 | +6.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 85-80 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 72-63 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 55-80 | +5.5 | L −19.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 85-77 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 94-78 | -8.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 74-71 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 83-92 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 78-86 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 161.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 74-75 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 72-63 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 91-77 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 85-96 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 162.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 77-84 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 87-82 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 78-72 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 63-71 | +10.5 | W +2.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 89-84 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 63-82 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
NICH
W 77-51
−5.5
7
vs
VAL
W 107-59
+15.5
11
@
LOU
L 88-96
−2.5
14
vs
EIU
W 99-53
+10.5
18
vs
MSU
L 66-83
−20.5
21
vs
L-MD
W 88-46
+6.5
26
vs
TNTC
W 104-54
+12.5
2
vs
UNC
L 64-67
−10.5
5
vs
GONZ
L 59-94
−29.5
9
vs
NCCU
W 103-67
−6.5
13
vs
IU
W 72-60
+8.5
20
vs
SJU
W 78-66
+10.5
23
vs
BELL
W 99-85
−20.5
3
@
ALA
L 74-89
−9.5
7
vs
MIZ
L 68-73
−17.5
10
vs
MSST
W 92-68
+13.5
14
@
LSU
W 75-74
−2.5
17
@
TENN
W 80-78
+8.5
21
vs
TEX
W 85-80
−2.5
24
vs
MISS
W 72-63
−2.5
27
@
VAN
L 55-80
−19.5
31
@
ARK
W 85-77
+14.5
4
vs
OU
W 94-78
+7.5
7
vs
TENN
W 74-71
+1.5
14
@
FLA
L 83-92
+3.5
17
vs
UGA
L 78-86
−14.5
21
@
AUB
L 74-75
+2.5
24
@
SC
W 72-63
+1.5
28
vs
VAN
W 91-77
+12.5
3
@
TA&M
L 85-96
−9.5
7
vs
FLA
L 77-84
−1.5
11
vs
LSU
W 87-82
−3.5
12
vs
MIZ
W 78-72
+3.5
13
vs
FLA
L 63-71
+2.5
20
vs
SCU
W 89-84
+1.5
22
vs
ISU
L 63-82
−13.5
covered 18didn’t cover 18avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
NICH
W 77-51
−29.5
7
vs
VAL
W 107-59
+8.5
11
@
LOU
L 88-96
+10.5
14
vs
EIU
W 99-53
+4.5
18
vs
MSU
L 66-83
−3.5
21
vs
L-MD
W 88-46
−25.5
26
vs
TNTC
W 104-54
+0.5
2
vs
UNC
L 64-67
−32.5
5
vs
GONZ
L 59-94
−6.5
9
vs
NCCU
W 103-67
+21.5
13
vs
IU
W 72-60
−24.5
20
vs
SJU
W 78-66
−10.5
23
vs
BELL
W 99-85
+31.5
3
@
ALA
L 74-89
−10.5
7
vs
MIZ
L 68-73
−9.5
10
vs
MSST
W 92-68
+7.5
14
@
LSU
W 75-74
−2.5
17
@
TENN
W 80-78
+12.5
21
vs
TEX
W 85-80
+12.5
24
vs
MISS
W 72-63
−10.5
27
@
VAN
L 55-80
−20.5
31
@
ARK
W 85-77
+2.5
4
vs
OU
W 94-78
+19.5
7
vs
TENN
W 74-71
−2.5
14
@
FLA
L 83-92
+20.5
17
vs
UGA
L 78-86
+2.5
21
@
AUB
L 74-75
−4.5
24
@
SC
W 72-63
−16.5
28
vs
VAN
W 91-77
+10.5
3
@
TA&M
L 85-96
+18.5
7
vs
FLA
L 77-84
−1.5
11
vs
LSU
W 87-82
+17.5
12
vs
MIZ
W 78-72
+1.5
13
vs
FLA
L 63-71
−27.5
20
vs
SCU
W 89-84
+15.5
22
vs
ISU
L 63-82
−1.5
over 18under 18avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Louisville has the better starters
Position by position: Louisville 1, Kentucky 0, even 4
LouisvilleBetterKentucky
G J. Shelstad TR15.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 92
=Even
G A. Wilkins TR18.2 pts · 2 reb · 4.7 ast
Score 81
G S. Trimble TR14 pts · 3.8 reb · 3 ast
Score 90
=Even
G Z. Diallo TR15.7 pts · 3.9 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 96
G D. Montgomery TR13.4 pts · 4 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 92
←LOUBig
G J. Morton TR7.8 pts · 1.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 48
F F. Bidunga TR13.3 pts · 9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 99
=Even
F M. Momcilovic TR16.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 97
F L. Wells TR15.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 85
=Even
F J. McBride TR15.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 87
LouisvilleBetterKentucky
LOU offense15th of 366 · +9.3
=Even
UK defense32nd of 366 · +3.5
LOU defense16th of 366 · +6.2
=Even
UK offense13th of 366 · +9.5
Backcourt+9.1 · 3 players
←LOUBig
Backcourt+4.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt+9.2 · 2 players
←LOUSmall
Frontcourt+8.1 · 2 players
Bench+4.1 · 5 players
→UKSmall
Bench+5.1 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestLOU betterUK betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Shelstad35 min · TRS. Trimble33 min · TRD. Montgomery31 min · TRA. Wooley23 minK. Knox22 min · TRW. Hanke1 min
Forwards
F. Bidunga32 min · TRL. Wells31 min · TRA. Folgueiras21 min · TRB. ZhangNew
Centers
G. Dynes12 min · TRO. EkezieNew
Guards
A. Wilkins30 min · TRZ. Diallo30 min · TRJ. Morton25 min · TRK. Williams19 minM. WilliamsNewZ. HawthorneNew
Forwards
M. Momcilovic30 min · TRJ. McBride27 min · TRT. Noah11 minR. PotterNewO. N'DiayeNewB. HawthorneNew
Centers
F. Kepnang23 min · TRM. Moreno23 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 84.2 #18 | Points per game | 80.5 #55 |
| 1.18 #29 | Points per possession | 1.15 #57 |
| 71.0 #77 | Pace (possessions) | 69.9 #123 |
| Shooting | ||
| 56.5 #14 | Effective FG% | 53.4 #87 |
| 36.0 #58 | 3-point % | 34.2 #158 |
| 52.9 #4 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.7 #180 |
| 33.1 #236 | Free throw rate | 37.4 #119 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #184 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #98 |
| 32.8 #93 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.2 #84 |
| 17.1 #23 | Assists per game | 15.9 #50 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.5 #119 | Points allowed | 74.3 #167 |
| 1.02 #49 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #115 |
| 48.7 #54 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #63 |
| 32.3 #76 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.8 #55 |
| 16.7 #172 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #248 |
| 72.5 #50 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.0 #158 |
| 6.8 #148 | Steals per game | 7.0 #123 |
| 3.3 #179 | Blocks per game | 4.6 #33 |
Louisville
24-11 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Michigan St69–77
- Wvs South Florida83–79
- Lvs Miami73–78
- Wvs SMU62–58
- W@ Miami92–89
A week or more of rest.
Kentucky
22-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Iowa State63–82
- Wvs Santa Clara89–84
- Lvs Florida63–71
- Wvs Missouri78–72
- Wvs LSU87–82
A week or more of rest.