Bartow Arena · at UAB
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UAB | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UAB 83–69 · win probability UAB 90%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.0
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: UAB has more of the edges
NICH 0, UAB 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NICH 28.1%, UAB 32.5%. Defensive: NICH 66.3%, UAB 72.3%
UAB offense vs NICH defense
Offense 82nd of 366 against a defense 282nd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
NICH has played the 277th-hardest schedule, UAB the 129th. A record against a soft schedule means less
NICH offense vs UAB defense
Offense 283rd of 366 against a defense 141st, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: NICH 34.5, UAB 36.4. Allowed: NICH 37.9, UAB 28.6
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: NICH plays 68.3 a game (210th fastest), UAB 71.2 (61st). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: NICH 50.6 and allows 54.4; UAB 48.4 and allows 50.0
Home court
UAB at home. This season: UAB 0-0 at home, NICH 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NICH 20%, UAB 10%. Transfers in: NICH 6, UAB 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NICH 17.4%, UAB 12.6%. Forced: NICH 20.5%, UAB 16.1%
Even
Three-pointers
NICH hits 33.3% and allows 34.6%; UAB hits 27.8% and allows 32.6%. Threes are 43.9% and 30.5% of their shots
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 | — | UAB -14.7 | — |
| Total | — | 152.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | NICH 68.6 · UAB 83.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UAB -8.6 | — |
| 1H total | 71.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | NICH 31.2 · UAB 39.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Nicholls
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% 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 4 | @ | L 51-77 | +31.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 57-65 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 63-68 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 79-99 | +14.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 81-95 | +23.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 72-82 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 76-96 | +18.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 74-67 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 79-64 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 82-95 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 76-71 | +5.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 71-69 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 80-58 | -6.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 74-72 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-77 | -3.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 68-94 | +15.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 80-90 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 62-79 | +4.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 61-67 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 62-80 | -4.5 | L −22.5 | 157.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 72-68 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 61-58 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 76-83 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 72-92 | +3.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 91-83 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 68-72 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 78-81 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 23 | @ | W 53-52 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 68-60 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 65-75 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 61-47 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | U 108 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 68-86 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
UK
L 51-77
+5.5
7
@
EIU
L 57-65
−10.5
12
@
VAL
L 63-68
−2.5
15
@
MUR
L 79-99
−5.5
22
@
OKST
L 81-95
+9.5
28
@
TULN
L 72-82
−1.5
2
@
CREI
L 76-96
−1.5
6
vs
UIW
W 74-67
+8.5
17
vs
HCU
W 79-64
+11.5
21
@
PAC
L 82-95
−4.5
29
@
AMCC
W 76-71
+10.5
31
@
RGV
W 71-69
+5.5
3
vs
ETAM
W 80-58
+15.5
5
vs
NWST
W 74-72
−6.5
10
@
NOLA
W 90-77
+9.5
12
@
MCN
L 68-94
−10.5
17
vs
LAM
L 80-90
−13.5
19
vs
SFA
L 62-79
−12.5
24
@
SELA
L 61-67
−3.5
27
vs
NOLA
L 62-80
−22.5
31
@
ETAM
W 72-68
+5.5
2
@
NWST
W 61-58
+1.5
7
vs
AMCC
L 76-83
−8.5
9
vs
RGV
L 72-92
−16.5
14
@
UIW
W 91-83
+10.5
16
@
HCU
L 68-72
−2.5
21
@
SFA
L 78-81
+9.5
23
@
LAM
W 53-52
+4.5
28
vs
SELA
W 68-60
+3.5
2
vs
MCN
L 65-75
−0.5
8
vs
NWST
W 61-47
+12.5
9
vs
RGV
L 68-86
−12.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
UK
L 51-77
−29.5
7
@
EIU
L 57-65
−13.5
12
@
VAL
L 63-68
−13.5
15
@
MUR
L 79-99
+20.5
22
@
OKST
L 81-95
+20.5
28
@
TULN
L 72-82
+5.5
2
@
CREI
L 76-96
+28.5
6
vs
UIW
W 74-67
−4.5
17
vs
HCU
W 79-64
+5.5
21
@
PAC
L 82-95
+37.5
29
@
AMCC
W 76-71
+9.5
31
@
RGV
W 71-69
−5.5
3
vs
ETAM
W 80-58
−8.5
5
vs
NWST
W 74-72
+1.5
10
@
NOLA
W 90-77
+12.5
12
@
MCN
L 68-94
+15.5
17
vs
LAM
L 80-90
+30.5
19
vs
SFA
L 62-79
−3.5
24
@
SELA
L 61-67
−13.5
27
vs
NOLA
L 62-80
−15.5
31
@
ETAM
W 72-68
−6.5
2
@
NWST
W 61-58
−28.5
7
vs
AMCC
L 76-83
+21.5
9
vs
RGV
L 72-92
+16.5
14
@
UIW
W 91-83
+25.5
16
@
HCU
L 68-72
+3.5
21
@
SFA
L 78-81
+11.5
23
@
LAM
W 53-52
−38.5
28
vs
SELA
W 68-60
−11.5
2
vs
MCN
L 65-75
−5.5
8
vs
NWST
W 61-47
−30.5
9
vs
RGV
L 68-86
+10.5
over 17under 15avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
UAB
31 games played
Straight up
19-12
61% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% 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 106-55 | -34.5 | W +16.5 | 145.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 70-94 | +19.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 74-77 | -19.5 | L −22.5 | 164.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 91-74 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 168.5 | U 165 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 80-72 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 81-73 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 75-59 | -8.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 61-76 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 5 | @ | W 74-69 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 85-86 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 101-77 | -18.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 72-47 | -13.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 70-75 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 109-106 | +8.5 | W +11.5 | 163.5 | O 215 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 71-76 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 162.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 87-85 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 82-69 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 77-99 | -1.5 | L −23.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 69-82 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 168.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 83-73 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 72-68 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 80-90 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 8 | vs | W 71-65 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 68-63 | +10.5 | W +15.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 54-55 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | U 109 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 76-71 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 22 | @ | W 78-67 | +5.5 | W +16.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 58-62 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 80-74 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 90-83 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 78-83 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MVSU
W 106-55
+16.5
7
@
NCSU
L 70-94
−4.5
11
vs
ALST
L 74-77
−22.5
14
vs
HPU
W 91-74
+18.5
21
vs
USA
W 80-72
+0.5
24
vs
SIU
W 81-73
+5.5
25
vs
UTEP
W 75-59
+7.5
1
@
MTSU
L 61-76
−16.5
5
@
DRKE
W 74-69
+6.5
14
vs
TROY
L 85-86
−7.5
17
vs
CLE
W 101-77
+5.5
21
vs
UNCA
W 72-47
+11.5
31
vs
WICH
L 70-75
−8.5
4
@
USF
W 109-106
+11.5
7
vs
FAU
L 71-76
−8.5
11
@
ECU
W 87-85
−5.5
14
@
TULN
W 82-69
+11.5
18
vs
TLSA
L 77-99
−23.5
22
vs
USF
L 69-82
−10.5
28
@
UTSA
W 83-73
−2.5
31
@
UNT
W 72-68
+5.5
5
vs
MEM
L 80-90
−11.5
8
vs
RICE
W 71-65
−2.5
11
@
TLSA
W 68-63
+15.5
15
vs
TULN
L 54-55
−7.5
18
@
TEM
W 76-71
+6.5
22
@
MEM
W 78-67
+16.5
1
vs
UNT
L 58-62
−8.5
4
@
CLT
W 80-74
+3.5
8
vs
ECU
W 90-83
−3.5
13
vs
CLT
L 78-83
−10.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MVSU
W 106-55
+15.5
7
@
NCSU
L 70-94
+1.5
11
vs
ALST
L 74-77
−13.5
14
vs
HPU
W 91-74
−3.5
21
vs
USA
W 80-72
+2.5
24
vs
SIU
W 81-73
−7.5
25
vs
UTEP
W 75-59
−12.5
1
@
MTSU
L 61-76
−16.5
5
@
DRKE
W 74-69
−5.5
14
vs
TROY
L 85-86
+15.5
17
vs
CLE
W 101-77
+21.5
21
vs
UNCA
W 72-47
−32.5
31
vs
WICH
L 70-75
−4.5
4
@
USF
W 109-106
+51.5
7
vs
FAU
L 71-76
−15.5
11
@
ECU
W 87-85
+21.5
14
@
TULN
W 82-69
−2.5
18
vs
TLSA
L 77-99
+16.5
22
vs
USF
L 69-82
−17.5
28
@
UTSA
W 83-73
+0.5
31
@
UNT
W 72-68
−1.5
5
vs
MEM
L 80-90
+14.5
8
vs
RICE
W 71-65
−17.5
11
@
TLSA
W 68-63
−30.5
15
vs
TULN
L 54-55
−43.5
18
@
TEM
W 76-71
+3.5
22
@
MEM
W 78-67
−7.5
1
vs
UNT
L 58-62
−22.5
4
@
CLT
W 80-74
+7.5
8
vs
ECU
W 90-83
+21.5
13
vs
CLT
L 78-83
+13.5
over 14under 17avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UAB has the better starters
Position by position: Nicholls 1, UAB 2, even 2
NichollsBetterUAB
G D. Cockrill TR11.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 75
←NICHSmall
G J. Fernandez TR16.6 pts · 4.6 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 56
G C. Winborne7.9 pts · 1.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 29
→UABSmall
G J. Elyzee TR11.1 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 61
G S. Sharp4.1 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 19
→UABBig
G D. Jones TR16.4 pts · 4 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 91
F A. Dent TR6 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G E. Duval TR15.6 pts · 4 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 74
F J. Sileu TR0.3 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G T. Caldwell TR9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 56
NichollsBetterUAB
NICH offense283rd of 366 · -8.7
→UABBig
UAB defense141st of 366 · -3.1
NICH defense282nd of 366 · -7.0
→UABBig
UAB offense82nd of 366 · +0.4
Backcourt-2.5 · 3 players
→UABBig
Backcourt+2.8 · 5 players
Frontcourt-0.7 · 2 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-0.3 · 4 players
←NICHSmall
Bench-1.4 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestNICH betterUAB betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Cockrill24 min · TRC. Winborne23 minS. Sharp17 minH. Carter4 min · TRC. Simpson3 min · TRJ. Matthews2 min
Forwards
A. Dent13 min · TRJ. Sileu7 min · TRA. Arop2 min · TRM. MboupNewJ. TaylorNew
Guards
J. Fernandez37 min · TRJ. Elyzee30 min · TRD. Jones29 min · TRE. Duval27 min · TRT. Caldwell20 min · TRS. London20 min
Forwards
A. Alston8 min · TRA. Sandlin-ElNew
Centers
M. MboleNewK. 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.0 #266 | Points per game | 78.2 #92 |
| 1.04 #275 | Points per possession | 1.10 #141 |
| 68.3 #210 | Pace (possessions) | 71.2 #61 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.6 #205 | Effective FG% | 48.4 #305 |
| 33.3 #215 | 3-point % | 27.8 #364 |
| 43.9 #90 | 3-point attempt rate | 30.5 #350 |
| 34.5 #195 | Free throw rate | 36.4 #141 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #232 | Turnover rate | 12.6 #2 |
| 28.1 #263 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.5 #104 |
| 12.9 #219 | Assists per game | 14.2 #135 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.7 #209 | Points allowed | 74.3 #168 |
| 1.11 #243 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #79 |
| 54.4 #311 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.0 #98 |
| 34.6 #224 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.6 #95 |
| 20.5 #15 | Turnovers forced | 16.1 #217 |
| 66.3 #314 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.3 #53 |
| 8.7 #15 | Steals per game | 7.5 #74 |
| 2.8 #270 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #139 |
Nicholls
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 13-11 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UT Rio Grande68–86
- Wvs N'Western St61–47
- Lvs McNeese65–75
- Wvs SE Louisiana68–60
- W@ Lamar53–52
A week or more of rest.
UAB
19-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Charlotte78–83
- Wvs East Carolina90–83
- W@ Charlotte80–74
- Lvs North Texas58–62
- W@ Memphis78–67
A week or more of rest.