Trojan Arena · at Troy
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TROY | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 78–76 · win probability UAB 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 153.1
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 3, TROY 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
UAB hits 27.8% and allows 32.6%; TROY hits 33.0% and allows 31.6%. Threes are 30.5% and 45.9% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UAB 12.6%, TROY 17.3%. Forced: UAB 16.1%, TROY 16.7%
UAB offense vs TROY defense
Offense 82nd of 366 against a defense 162nd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UAB 32.5%, TROY 34.5%. Defensive: UAB 72.3%, TROY 68.3%
Shooting
Effective FG%: UAB 48.4 and allows 50.0; TROY 51.5 and allows 50.2
Home court
TROY at home. This season: TROY 0-0 at home, UAB 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UAB plays 71.2 a game (61st fastest), TROY 69.6 (141st). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
UAB has played the 129th-hardest schedule, TROY the 166th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: UAB 36.4, TROY 36.2. Allowed: UAB 28.6, TROY 31.4
Even
TROY offense vs UAB defense
Offense 143rd of 366 against a defense 141st, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UAB 10%, TROY 11%. Transfers in: UAB 6, TROY 6. 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 | — | UAB -1.9 | — |
| Total | — | 153.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | UAB 77.5 · TROY 75.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UAB -1.2 | — |
| 1H total | 71.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | UAB 36.4 · TROY 35.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UAB 0–1 TROYTROY leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UAB 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2025-26 | TROY 86 @ UAB 85 | UAB -6.5 | TROY W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Troy
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
18-14
56% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg +2.9 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 | @ | W 103-97 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 200 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 64-61 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 63-74 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 108-107 | +14.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 215 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 106-107 | +18.5 | W +17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-75 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-64 | -21.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 1 | vs | L 89-93 | -17.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 86-85 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 100-80 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 59-49 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 74-86 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 160.5 | U 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-70 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 91-65 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 99-74 | -3.5 | W +21.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 83-77 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 83-78 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 64-73 | -9.5 | L −18.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 44-66 | -7.5 | L −29.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-69 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 62-74 | -5.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-69 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 77-76 | -17.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 54-65 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 78-59 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 134.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-65 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-70 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 77-61 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 47-76 | +13.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+9.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
+5.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−6.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
−13.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+15.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+17.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−9.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−11.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
−21.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+7.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
+2.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+11.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
+0.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−7.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+10.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+17.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+21.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+0.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+0.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−18.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−29.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
+4.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
+12.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−17.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−9.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−16.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−13.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+7.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−3.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+2.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
+10.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−15.5
covered 18didn’t cover 14avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+57.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
−27.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−3.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
+21.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+77.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+53.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−16.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−13.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
+31.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+15.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
−22.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+34.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
−40.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−0.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+23.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+10.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+7.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+7.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+1.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−10.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−27.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
−7.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
−9.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−4.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−10.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−0.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−23.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+2.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−8.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+5.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
−14.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−16.5
over 14under 18avg +2.9 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: UAB 4, Troy 1, even 0
UABBetterTroy
G J. Fernandez TR16.6 pts · 4.6 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 56
←UABBig
G R. Davis TR9.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 14
G J. Elyzee TR11.1 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 61
→TROYSmall
G D. Oday TR18.9 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 95
G D. Jones TR16.4 pts · 4 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 91
←UABSmall
G J. Hutchinson TR12.1 pts · 3.4 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 76
G E. Duval TR15.6 pts · 4 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 74
←UABSmall
F C. Diggs TR10.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
G T. Caldwell TR9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 56
←UABSmall
F K. Kiel3.6 pts · 3.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 23
UABBetterTroy
UAB offense82nd of 366 · +0.4
←UABSmall
TROY defense162nd of 366 · -3.6
UAB defense141st of 366 · -3.1
=Even
TROY offense143rd of 366 · -4.3
Backcourt+2.8 · 5 players
←UABSmall
Backcourt+1.4 · 3 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
Bench-1.4 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-2.0 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUAB betterTROY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
R. Davis31 min · TRD. Oday30 min · TRJ. Hutchinson29 min · TRH. Awata2 minJ. KontuniemiNewR. ValakouNew
Forwards
C. Diggs23 min · TRK. Kiel16 minM. Ikegwuruka13 min · TRS. Walters9 min · TRE. Griffin5 min
Centers
A. PachecoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.2 #92 | Points per game | 77.3 #110 |
| 1.10 #141 | Points per possession | 1.11 #113 |
| 71.2 #61 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #141 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.4 #305 | Effective FG% | 51.5 #171 |
| 27.8 #364 | 3-point % | 33.0 #229 |
| 30.5 #350 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.9 #47 |
| 36.4 #141 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #147 |
| Possessions | ||
| 12.6 #2 | Turnover rate | 17.3 #226 |
| 32.5 #104 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.5 #59 |
| 14.2 #135 | Assists per game | 15.0 #86 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.3 #168 | Points allowed | 74.5 #178 |
| 1.04 #79 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #128 |
| 50.0 #98 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.2 #111 |
| 32.6 #95 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.6 #47 |
| 16.1 #217 | Turnovers forced | 16.7 #173 |
| 72.3 #53 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #243 |
| 7.5 #74 | Steals per game | 7.2 #107 |
| 3.5 #139 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #169 |
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.
Troy
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Nebraska47–76
- Wvs GA Southern77–61
- Wvs Southern Miss78–70
- Wvs UL Monroe80–65
- Wvs Louisiana78–59
A week or more of rest.