Avron B. Fogelman Arena in the Devlin Fieldhouse · at Tulane
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TULN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 URI 74–73 · win probability URI 54%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.5
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: TULN has more of the edges
URI 2, TULN 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: URI 31.0%, TULN 22.8%. Defensive: URI 68.2%, TULN 64.2%
Free throws
Free throw rate: URI 38.4, TULN 43.5. Allowed: URI 42.6, TULN 38.1
URI offense vs TULN defense
Offense 123rd of 366 against a defense 180th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
TULN at home. This season: TULN 0-0 at home, URI 0-0 away
Turnovers
Turnover rate: URI 19.1%, TULN 15.4%. Forced: URI 21.2%, TULN 17.1%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: URI plays 66.5 a game (293rd fastest), TULN 68.5 (205th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: URI 50.1 and allows 50.4; TULN 49.4 and allows 50.7
Even
TULN offense vs URI defense
Offense 114th of 366 against a defense 86th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
URI hits 31.1% and allows 34.7%; TULN hits 32.0% and allows 34.5%. Threes are 43.5% and 45.0% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: URI 46%, TULN 40%. Transfers in: URI 3, TULN 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
URI has played the 117th-hardest schedule, TULN the 115th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | URI -1.1 | — |
| Total | — | 146.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | URI 73.8 · TULN 72.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | URI -0.8 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | URI 34.6 · TULN 33.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
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
URI 0–1 TULNTULN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · URI 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2022-23 | TULN 78 vs URI 75 | URI +9.5 | URI W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Rhode Island
32 games played
Straight up
16-16
50% wins
Against the spread
13-19
41% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −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 3 | vs | W 93-62 | -18.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 65-82 | -3.5 | L −20.5 | 153.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 80-57 | -16.5 | W +6.5 | 151.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 80-61 | -15.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 86-77 | +8.5 | W +17.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 55-62 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 140.5 | U 117 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 80-65 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 90-75 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 66-56 | -13.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 71-90 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 64-66 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 62-45 | -21.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 107 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 85-77 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 57-61 | -9.5 | L −13.5 | 145.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 50-61 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 111 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 72-79 | -11.5 | L −18.5 | 135.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 70-45 | +2.5 | W +27.5 | 134.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 75-84 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 69-68 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 74-65 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 81-76 | +9.5 | W +14.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 61-76 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-77 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 10 | @ | L 70-75 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 66-70 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 134.5 | O 136 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 81-76 | +9.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 46-59 | -3.5 | L −16.5 | 135.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 76-94 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 144.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 55-61 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 64-52 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 49-61 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | U 110 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 61-67 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
STET
W 93-62
+12.5
7
vs
TLSA
L 65-82
−20.5
11
vs
STO
W 80-57
+6.5
14
vs
UALB
W 80-61
+3.5
18
@
YALE
W 86-77
+17.5
24
vs
TOW
L 55-62
−9.5
25
vs
UVM
W 80-65
+10.5
26
vs
TEM
W 90-75
+11.5
2
vs
BRWN
W 66-56
−3.5
6
@
PROV
L 71-90
−11.5
9
vs
MCN
L 64-66
−0.5
16
vs
CAN
W 62-45
−4.5
22
vs
NE
W 85-77
−2.5
31
vs
LUC
L 57-61
−13.5
3
@
GMU
L 50-61
−4.5
7
vs
LAS
L 72-79
−18.5
10
@
DAV
W 70-45
+27.5
14
vs
VCU
L 75-84
−5.5
21
@
RICH
W 69-68
+4.5
24
vs
GMU
W 74-65
+10.5
27
@
DAY
W 81-76
+14.5
1
@
DUQ
L 61-76
−12.5
7
vs
RICH
W 82-77
−0.5
10
@
GW
L 70-75
+0.5
14
vs
FOR
L 66-70
−8.5
17
vs
SLU
W 81-76
+14.5
21
@
LAS
L 46-59
−16.5
26
@
SBU
L 76-94
−15.5
28
vs
JOES
L 55-61
−8.5
4
vs
DUQ
W 64-52
+9.5
7
@
FOR
L 49-61
−10.5
12
vs
DUQ
L 61-67
−4.5
covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
STET
W 93-62
+2.5
7
vs
TLSA
L 65-82
−6.5
11
vs
STO
W 80-57
−14.5
14
vs
UALB
W 80-61
−9.5
18
@
YALE
W 86-77
+9.5
24
vs
TOW
L 55-62
−23.5
25
vs
UVM
W 80-65
+0.5
26
vs
TEM
W 90-75
+15.5
2
vs
BRWN
W 66-56
−16.5
6
@
PROV
L 71-90
+1.5
9
vs
MCN
L 64-66
−16.5
16
vs
CAN
W 62-45
−31.5
22
vs
NE
W 85-77
+17.5
31
vs
LUC
L 57-61
−27.5
3
@
GMU
L 50-61
−28.5
7
vs
LAS
L 72-79
+15.5
10
@
DAV
W 70-45
−19.5
14
vs
VCU
L 75-84
+11.5
21
@
RICH
W 69-68
−7.5
24
vs
GMU
W 74-65
+3.5
27
@
DAY
W 81-76
+18.5
1
@
DUQ
L 61-76
−9.5
7
vs
RICH
W 82-77
+16.5
10
@
GW
L 70-75
−6.5
14
vs
FOR
L 66-70
+1.5
17
vs
SLU
W 81-76
+5.5
21
@
LAS
L 46-59
−30.5
26
@
SBU
L 76-94
+25.5
28
vs
JOES
L 55-61
−25.5
4
vs
DUQ
W 64-52
−27.5
7
@
FOR
L 49-61
−26.5
12
vs
DUQ
L 61-67
−10.5
over 14under 18avg −6 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Rhode Island has the better starters
Position by position: Rhode Island 2, Tulane 1, even 2
Rhode IslandBetterTulane
G D. Williamson TR14.7 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 63
=Even
G K. Lewis TR18.8 pts · 4.6 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 65
G J. Hinton12.6 pts · 3 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 51
→TULNSmall
G T. Nadeau TR13.5 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 73
G J. Fontenet TR6.8 pts · 5 reb · 1.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F T. Ringgold9.6 pts · 4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 57
G J. Tripp12 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 90
←URIBig
F C. Schwieger10.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 32
F M. Deniusas TR12.6 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 70
←URISmall
F J. Chappelle TR6.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 37
Rhode IslandBetterTulane
URI offense123rd of 366 · -3.2
←URISmall
TULN defense180th of 366 · -4.1
URI defense86th of 366 · -0.0
=Even
TULN offense114th of 366 · -2.4
Backcourt-0.7 · 4 players
→TULNSmall
Backcourt+1.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.9 · 1 player
←URIBig
Frontcourt-2.2 · 3 players
Bench-0.5 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-1.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestURI betterTULN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Williamson37 min · TRJ. Hinton32 minJ. Fontenet28 min · TRJ. Tripp25 minJ. Harper12 minB. Loer4 min
Forwards
M. Deniusas27 min · TRM. Sow20 minJ. PerryNewN. RaupelisNewT. MartinNewD. MabilonNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 69.9 #288 | Points per game | 72.0 #239 |
| 1.05 #255 | Points per possession | 1.05 #245 |
| 66.5 #293 | Pace (possessions) | 68.5 #205 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.1 #231 | Effective FG% | 49.4 #275 |
| 31.1 #318 | 3-point % | 32.0 #279 |
| 43.5 #103 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.0 #68 |
| 38.4 #92 | Free throw rate | 43.5 #14 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.1 #326 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #99 |
| 31.0 #163 | Offensive rebound rate | 22.8 #352 |
| 11.3 #321 | Assists per game | 12.6 #244 |
| Defense | ||
| 68.2 #33 | Points allowed | 75.7 #208 |
| 1.03 #53 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #229 |
| 50.4 #124 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.7 #140 |
| 34.7 #232 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.5 #216 |
| 21.2 #10 | Turnovers forced | 17.1 #139 |
| 68.2 #248 | Defensive rebound rate | 64.2 #352 |
| 8.4 #20 | Steals per game | 7.5 #85 |
| 3.7 #117 | Blocks per game | 4.5 #38 |
Rhode Island
16-16 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Duquesne61–67
- L@ Fordham49–61
- Wvs Duquesne64–52
- Lvs Saint Joseph's55–61
- L@ St Bonaventure76–94
A week or more of rest.
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.