James A. Rhodes Arena · at Akron
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | AKR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 AKR 81–74 · win probability AKR 72%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.3
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: AKR has more of the edges
TULN 2, AKR 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: TULN 22.8%, AKR 33.4%. Defensive: TULN 64.2%, AKR 70.1%
Shooting
Effective FG%: TULN 49.4 and allows 50.7; AKR 58.1 and allows 51.2
Three-pointers
TULN hits 32.0% and allows 34.5%; AKR hits 38.2% and allows 35.5%. Threes are 45.0% and 44.8% of their shots
AKR offense vs TULN defense
Offense 101st of 366 against a defense 180th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: TULN plays 68.5 a game (205th fastest), AKR 71.1 (70th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: TULN 43.5, AKR 29.2. Allowed: TULN 38.1, AKR 30.4
TULN offense vs AKR defense
Offense 114th of 366 against a defense 168th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
AKR at home. This season: AKR 0-0 at home, TULN 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
TULN has played the 115th-hardest schedule, AKR the 159th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: TULN 15.4%, AKR 15.5%. Forced: TULN 17.1%, AKR 18.3%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: TULN 40%, AKR 28%. Transfers in: TULN 4, AKR 5. 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 | — | AKR -6.7 | — |
| Total | — | 155.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | TULN 74.3 · AKR 81 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | AKR -3.8 | — |
| 1H total | 72.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | TULN 34.4 · AKR 38.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | |
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
TULN 0–1 AKRAKR leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · TULN 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2025-26 | AKR 88 @ TULN 71 | TULN +6.5 | AKR W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Tulane
32 games played
Straight up
17-15
53% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-19
41% overs · avg −1.3 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 85-72 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 79-71 | -12.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 66-62 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 63-85 | -11.5 | L −33.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 75-96 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 93-90 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 82-72 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 65-63 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 71-88 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 162.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 67-93 | +5.5 | L −20.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 61-53 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 63-61 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 79-70 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 69-66 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 158.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 85-52 | -7.5 | W +25.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 69-82 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 63-71 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 74-79 | +10.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 70-73 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 83-97 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 78-76 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 8 | vs | L 61-75 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 148.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 77-66 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 55-54 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | U 109 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 77-71 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 137.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 81-75 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 56-90 | +5.5 | L −28.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 62-90 | +15.5 | L −12.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 60-89 | +4.5 | L −24.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 95-96 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 191 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 81-69 | +4.5 | W +16.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 60-74 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SAM
W 85-72
+5.5
8
vs
TXST
W 79-71
−4.5
11
@
UL
W 66-62
−1.5
14
vs
NOLA
L 63-85
−33.5
21
vs
USU
L 75-96
−12.5
23
vs
BC
W 93-90
+5.5
28
vs
NICH
W 82-72
+1.5
2
vs
GRAM
W 65-63
−9.5
6
vs
AKR
L 71-88
−10.5
13
vs
UCSD
L 67-93
−20.5
17
vs
LT
W 61-53
+3.5
20
vs
PRST
W 63-61
−0.5
31
@
ECU
W 79-70
+7.5
4
vs
FAU
W 69-66
+6.5
10
@
UTSA
W 85-52
+25.5
14
vs
UAB
L 69-82
−11.5
18
vs
UNT
L 63-71
−9.5
21
@
FAU
L 74-79
+5.5
23
@
CLT
L 70-73
−0.5
28
vs
USF
L 83-97
−5.5
1
@
MEM
W 78-76
+10.5
8
vs
WICH
L 61-75
−8.5
11
vs
TEM
W 77-66
+9.5
15
@
UAB
W 55-54
+7.5
19
@
UNT
W 77-71
+12.5
22
vs
RICE
W 81-75
+1.5
25
vs
TLSA
L 56-90
−28.5
1
@
USF
L 62-90
−12.5
5
@
TEM
L 60-89
−24.5
8
vs
MEM
L 95-96
+1.5
11
vs
MEM
W 81-69
+16.5
12
vs
CLT
L 60-74
−12.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SAM
W 85-72
+2.5
8
vs
TXST
W 79-71
+3.5
11
@
UL
W 66-62
−7.5
14
vs
NOLA
L 63-85
−5.5
21
vs
USU
L 75-96
+19.5
23
vs
BC
W 93-90
+42.5
28
vs
NICH
W 82-72
+5.5
2
vs
GRAM
W 65-63
−20.5
6
vs
AKR
L 71-88
−3.5
13
vs
UCSD
L 67-93
+10.5
17
vs
LT
W 61-53
−26.5
20
vs
PRST
W 63-61
−21.5
31
@
ECU
W 79-70
+3.5
4
vs
FAU
W 69-66
−23.5
10
@
UTSA
W 85-52
−10.5
14
vs
UAB
L 69-82
−2.5
18
vs
UNT
L 63-71
−3.5
21
@
FAU
L 74-79
−2.5
23
@
CLT
L 70-73
−0.5
28
vs
USF
L 83-97
+21.5
1
@
MEM
W 78-76
+2.5
8
vs
WICH
L 61-75
−12.5
11
vs
TEM
W 77-66
−1.5
15
@
UAB
W 55-54
−43.5
19
@
UNT
W 77-71
+10.5
22
vs
RICE
W 81-75
+8.5
25
vs
TLSA
L 56-90
−10.5
1
@
USF
L 62-90
−3.5
5
@
TEM
L 60-89
+4.5
8
vs
MEM
L 95-96
+36.5
11
vs
MEM
W 81-69
−1.5
12
vs
CLT
L 60-74
−10.5
over 13under 19avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Akron
33 games played
Straight up
27-6
82% wins
Against the spread
17-16
52% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-18
45% overs · avg +0.2 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-1652%
2 straight misses ATS1 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 85-71 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 104-69 | -13.5 | W +21.5 | 156.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 79-97 | +18.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 96-75 | -11.5 | W +9.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 97-59 | -11.5 | W +26.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 94-97 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 156.5 | O 191 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 105-81 | -12.5 | W +11.5 | 166.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 97-77 | -23.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | O 174 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 88-71 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 100-115 | -4.5 | L −19.5 | 168.5 | O 215 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 93-72 | -15.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 73-76 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 177.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 82-69 | -23.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 77-67 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 87-77 | -20.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 104-89 | -21.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 82-63 | -8.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 86-65 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 167.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 91-81 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 168.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 69-52 | -10.5 | W +6.5 | 166.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 66-64 | -12.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 69-79 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 99-92 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 191 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 90-73 | -14.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 20 | @ | W 78-65 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 99-85 | -15.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Feb 27 | @ | W 92-70 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 166.5 | U 162 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 77-64 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 94-55 | -23.5 | W +15.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 73-70 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 75-68 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 79-76 | -7.5 | L −4.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 71-91 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
JMU
W 85-71
+5.5
8
vs
PRIN
W 104-69
+21.5
16
@
PUR
L 79-97
+0.5
21
vs
IONA
W 96-75
+9.5
23
vs
EVAN
W 97-59
+26.5
24
vs
YALE
L 94-97
−4.5
29
vs
MILW
W 105-81
+11.5
3
vs
BUCK
W 97-77
−3.5
6
@
TULN
W 88-71
+10.5
13
vs
MUR
L 100-115
−19.5
19
vs
EMU
W 93-72
+5.5
3
@
M-OH
L 73-76
−7.5
6
vs
CMU
W 82-69
−10.5
9
@
BGSU
W 77-67
+5.5
13
vs
BALL
W 87-77
−10.5
17
vs
WMU
W 104-89
−6.5
20
@
BUF
W 82-63
+10.5
23
@
OHIO
W 86-65
+14.5
27
vs
TOL
W 91-81
−2.5
30
vs
KENT
W 69-52
+6.5
3
@
EMU
W 66-64
−10.5
7
@
TROY
L 69-79
−12.5
13
vs
MASS
W 99-92
−5.5
17
@
WMU
W 90-73
+2.5
20
@
BALL
W 78-65
−0.5
24
vs
BUF
W 99-85
−1.5
27
@
KENT
W 92-70
+18.5
3
@
CMU
W 77-64
+1.5
6
vs
NIU
W 94-55
+15.5
12
vs
BUF
W 73-70
−9.5
13
vs
KENT
W 75-68
+0.5
14
vs
TOL
W 79-76
−4.5
20
vs
TTU
L 71-91
−13.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
JMU
W 85-71
+2.5
8
vs
PRIN
W 104-69
+16.5
16
@
PUR
L 79-97
+12.5
21
vs
IONA
W 96-75
−2.5
23
vs
EVAN
W 97-59
−0.5
24
vs
YALE
L 94-97
+34.5
29
vs
MILW
W 105-81
+19.5
3
vs
BUCK
W 97-77
+16.5
6
@
TULN
W 88-71
−3.5
13
vs
MUR
L 100-115
+46.5
19
vs
EMU
W 93-72
+9.5
3
@
M-OH
L 73-76
−28.5
6
vs
CMU
W 82-69
−13.5
9
@
BGSU
W 77-67
−19.5
13
vs
BALL
W 87-77
+11.5
17
vs
WMU
W 104-89
+29.5
20
@
BUF
W 82-63
−21.5
23
@
OHIO
W 86-65
−16.5
27
vs
TOL
W 91-81
+3.5
30
vs
KENT
W 69-52
−45.5
3
@
EMU
W 66-64
−23.5
7
@
TROY
L 69-79
−9.5
13
vs
MASS
W 99-92
+27.5
17
@
WMU
W 90-73
+2.5
20
@
BALL
W 78-65
−4.5
24
vs
BUF
W 99-85
+23.5
27
@
KENT
W 92-70
−4.5
3
@
CMU
W 77-64
−17.5
6
vs
NIU
W 94-55
−6.5
12
vs
BUF
W 73-70
−15.5
13
vs
KENT
W 75-68
−20.5
14
vs
TOL
W 79-76
−2.5
20
vs
TTU
L 71-91
+7.5
over 15under 18avg +0.2 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: Tulane 1, Akron 1, even 3
TulaneBetterAkron
G K. Lewis TR18.8 pts · 4.6 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 65
=Even
G T. Staveskie TR17.3 pts · 3.6 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 74
G T. Nadeau TR13.5 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 73
=Even
G T. Pence TR9.5 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 86
F T. Ringgold9.6 pts · 4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 57
=Even
F E. Mahaffey9.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 69
F C. Schwieger10.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 32
←TULNSmall
F M. Burton TR5.5 pts · 5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 14
F J. Chappelle TR6.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 37
→AKRSmall
F B. Hammer TR4.1 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 55
TulaneBetterAkron
TULN offense114th of 366 · -2.4
←TULNSmall
AKR defense168th of 366 · -3.7
TULN defense180th of 366 · -4.1
→AKRSmall
AKR offense101st of 366 · -1.1
Backcourt+1.1 · 2 players
→AKRSmall
Backcourt+2.7 · 2 players
Frontcourt-2.2 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.4 · 3 players
Bench-1.1 · 5 players
←TULNSmall
Bench-2.6 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestTULN betterAKR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Lewis36 min · TRT. Nadeau27 min · TRK. Greene15 minJ. Moore12 minR. Moore2 minR. BlountNew
Forwards
T. Ringgold25 minC. Schwieger25 minJ. Chappelle24 min · TRJ. Dumont2 min · TRL. Cronin2 min
Centers
D. SalaneNew
Guards
T. Staveskie36 min · TRT. Pence24 min · TRC. HeadNewT. PerkinsNewJ. HendersonNewE. WilsonNew
Forwards
E. Mahaffey29 minM. Burton25 min · TRB. Hammer14 min · TRZ. Halligan12 minC. White9 min · TRM. Musiime-Kamali9 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.0 #239 | Points per game | 86.4 #8 |
| 1.05 #245 | Points per possession | 1.22 #6 |
| 68.5 #205 | Pace (possessions) | 71.1 #70 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.4 #275 | Effective FG% | 58.1 #9 |
| 32.0 #279 | 3-point % | 38.2 #15 |
| 45.0 #68 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.8 #74 |
| 43.5 #14 | Free throw rate | 29.2 #327 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.4 #99 | Turnover rate | 15.5 #104 |
| 22.8 #352 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.4 #78 |
| 12.6 #244 | Assists per game | 17.7 #12 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.7 #208 | Points allowed | 75.0 #188 |
| 1.11 #229 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #98 |
| 50.7 #140 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.2 #173 |
| 34.5 #216 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.5 #284 |
| 17.1 #139 | Turnovers forced | 18.3 #86 |
| 64.2 #352 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.1 #156 |
| 7.5 #85 | Steals per game | 7.2 #108 |
| 4.5 #38 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #240 |
Tulane
17-15 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Charlotte60–74
- Wvs Memphis81–69
- Lvs Memphis95–96
- L@ Temple60–89
- L@ South Florida62–90
A week or more of rest.
Akron
27-6 in 2025-26 overall · 20-1 in conference · Mid-American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Texas Tech71–91
- Wvs Toledo79–76
- Wvs Kent State75–68
- Wvs Buffalo73–70
- Wvs N Illinois94–55
A week or more of rest.