Credit Union 1 Arena · at UIC
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UIC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UIC 84–59 · win probability UIC 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.9
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: UIC has more of the edges
CHST 1, UIC 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CHST offense vs UIC defense
Offense 361st of 366 against a defense 106th, on the model’s ratings
UIC offense vs CHST defense
Offense 117th of 366 against a defense 339th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: CHST 45.3 and allows 56.7; UIC 49.8 and allows 50.5
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CHST 28.3%, UIC 36.3%. Defensive: CHST 65.0%, UIC 68.0%
Free throws
Free throw rate: CHST 30.0, UIC 36.2. Allowed: CHST 38.0, UIC 33.9
Context
Schedule so far
CHST has played the 259th-hardest schedule, UIC the 161st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CHST 8%, UIC 60%. Transfers in: CHST 6, UIC 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CHST 15.7%, UIC 17.6%. Forced: CHST 20.1%, UIC 19.7%
Three-pointers
CHST hits 32.1% and allows 35.6%; UIC hits 31.6% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 30.9% and 32.8% of their shots
Home court
UIC at home. This season: UIC 0-0 at home, CHST 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: CHST plays 66.0 a game (314th fastest), UIC 68.1 (227th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | UIC -24.8 | — |
| Total | — | 142.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | CHST 59.1 · UIC 83.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UIC -14.6 | — |
| 1H total | 66.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | CHST 26.1 · UIC 40.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | |
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CHST 0–1 UICUIC leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CHST 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2025-26 | UIC 67 @ CHST 63 | CHST +9.5 | CHST W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Chicago St
31 games played
Straight up
6-25
19% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg +0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-16
48% 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 3 | @ | L 62-92 | +24.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 86-108 | +30.5 | W +8.5 | 155.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 66-98 | +26.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 63-67 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 54-66 | +27.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 54-93 | +31.5 | L −7.5 | 142.5 | O 147 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 77-90 | +12.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 64-87 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 53-95 | +20.5 | L −21.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 84-75 | +15.5 | W +24.5 | 140.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 55-76 | +21.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 58-78 | +38.5 | W +18.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 2 | vs | L 72-79 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 55-74 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 63-70 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 82-85 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 135.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 57-72 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 56-62 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 129.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 60-81 | +3.5 | L −17.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 25 | @ | L 59-61 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 131.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 78-74 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 129.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 67-78 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 63-57 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 127.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 80-75 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 68-55 | +2.5 | W +15.5 | 131.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-81 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 59-60 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 131.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 70-51 | +3.5 | W +22.5 | 138.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 56-73 | +11.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 61-80 | +4.5 | L −14.5 | 134.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 75-79 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | O 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
DEP
L 62-92
−5.5
6
@
SLU
L 86-108
+8.5
11
@
BTLR
L 66-98
−5.5
15
vs
UIC
L 63-67
+5.5
18
@
MINN
L 54-66
+15.5
20
@
IOWA
L 54-93
−7.5
25
@
PFW
L 77-90
−0.5
28
@
YSU
L 64-87
−8.5
6
@
ILST
L 53-95
−21.5
14
@
LUC
W 84-75
+24.5
16
@
BGSU
L 55-76
+0.5
20
@
IU
L 58-78
+18.5
2
vs
WAG
L 72-79
−5.5
4
vs
LIU
L 55-74
−11.5
8
@
FDU
L 63-70
−2.5
10
@
STO
L 82-85
+1.5
17
vs
LEM
L 57-72
−8.5
19
vs
NHVN
L 56-62
−7.5
23
@
SFPA
L 60-81
−17.5
25
@
MERC
L 59-61
+7.5
31
vs
MERC
W 78-74
+6.5
5
@
CCSU
L 67-78
−2.5
7
@
NHVN
W 63-57
+11.5
9
vs
SFPA
W 80-75
+1.5
12
vs
STO
W 68-55
+15.5
14
@
LEM
L 63-81
−11.5
19
vs
FDU
L 59-60
+0.5
21
vs
CCSU
W 70-51
+22.5
26
@
LIU
L 56-73
−5.5
28
@
WAG
L 61-80
−14.5
4
@
LIU
L 75-79
+6.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg +0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
DEP
L 62-92
+10.5
6
@
SLU
L 86-108
+38.5
11
@
BTLR
L 66-98
+5.5
15
vs
UIC
L 63-67
−26.5
18
@
MINN
L 54-66
−24.5
20
@
IOWA
L 54-93
+4.5
25
@
PFW
L 77-90
+17.5
28
@
YSU
L 64-87
+4.5
6
@
ILST
L 53-95
+3.5
14
@
LUC
W 84-75
+18.5
16
@
BGSU
L 55-76
−17.5
20
@
IU
L 58-78
−16.5
2
vs
WAG
L 72-79
+4.5
4
vs
LIU
L 55-74
−22.5
8
@
FDU
L 63-70
−10.5
10
@
STO
L 82-85
+31.5
17
vs
LEM
L 57-72
−17.5
19
vs
NHVN
L 56-62
−11.5
23
@
SFPA
L 60-81
−2.5
25
@
MERC
L 59-61
−11.5
31
vs
MERC
W 78-74
+22.5
5
@
CCSU
L 67-78
+6.5
7
@
NHVN
W 63-57
−7.5
9
vs
SFPA
W 80-75
+10.5
12
vs
STO
W 68-55
−8.5
14
@
LEM
L 63-81
−0.5
19
vs
FDU
L 59-60
−12.5
21
vs
CCSU
W 70-51
−17.5
26
@
LIU
L 56-73
−12.5
28
@
WAG
L 61-80
+6.5
4
@
LIU
L 75-79
+16.5
over 15under 16avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
UIC
33 games played
Straight up
17-16
52% wins
Against the spread
18-15
55% covers · avg +3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg −0.7 pts vs the total
Against the spread
18-1555%
2 straight misses ATS2 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 91-71 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 73-76 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 67-63 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 80-90 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 84-73 | -11.5 | L −0.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 74-88 | -1.5 | L −15.5 | 151.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 62-63 | -16.5 | L −17.5 | 163.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 66-80 | +12.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 84-87 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 54-60 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 133.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 76-88 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 77-81 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 59-66 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 70-57 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 63-59 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 69-61 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 128.5 | O 130 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 74-67 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 76-49 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 85-70 | +7.5 | W +22.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 76-74 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-66 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 74-81 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 6 | vs | L 62-68 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 80-70 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-56 | +1.5 | W +28.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 84-46 | -8.5 | W +29.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 67-71 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 93-86 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 63-79 | -3.5 | L −19.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 92-79 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 72-51 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 69-84 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 125.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 73-91 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
DETM
W 91-71
+10.5
7
@
ORST
L 73-76
+3.5
15
@
CHST
W 67-63
−5.5
20
vs
HPU
L 80-90
+0.5
22
vs
USI
W 84-73
−0.5
26
@
RMU
L 74-88
−15.5
3
vs
UAPB
L 62-63
−17.5
7
@
YALE
L 66-80
−1.5
13
@
BEL
L 84-87
+9.5
17
vs
UNI
L 54-60
−0.5
21
@
CLT
L 76-88
−10.5
1
vs
MUR
L 77-81
+1.5
4
@
VAL
L 59-66
−4.5
7
vs
SIU
W 70-57
+14.5
10
@
ILST
W 63-59
+14.5
13
@
UNI
W 69-61
+14.5
17
vs
DRKE
W 74-67
+1.5
20
vs
EVAN
W 76-49
+18.5
24
@
BRAD
W 85-70
+22.5
27
vs
INST
W 76-74
−3.5
31
@
SIU
W 68-66
+5.5
3
@
MUR
L 74-81
−0.5
6
vs
BEL
L 62-68
−4.5
12
@
DRKE
W 80-70
+8.5
15
vs
ILST
W 83-56
+28.5
18
@
EVAN
W 84-46
+29.5
21
vs
VAL
L 67-71
−11.5
24
vs
BRAD
W 93-86
+5.5
1
@
INST
L 63-79
−19.5
6
vs
MUR
W 92-79
+11.5
7
vs
DRKE
W 72-51
+16.5
8
vs
UNI
L 69-84
−12.5
18
@
CAL
L 73-91
−11.5
covered 18didn’t cover 15avg +3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
DETM
W 91-71
+19.5
7
@
ORST
L 73-76
+2.5
15
@
CHST
W 67-63
−26.5
20
vs
HPU
L 80-90
+11.5
22
vs
USI
W 84-73
+3.5
26
@
RMU
L 74-88
+10.5
3
vs
UAPB
L 62-63
−38.5
7
@
YALE
L 66-80
−2.5
13
@
BEL
L 84-87
+16.5
17
vs
UNI
L 54-60
−19.5
21
@
CLT
L 76-88
+26.5
1
vs
MUR
L 77-81
−1.5
4
@
VAL
L 59-66
−19.5
7
vs
SIU
W 70-57
−19.5
10
@
ILST
W 63-59
−19.5
13
@
UNI
W 69-61
+1.5
17
vs
DRKE
W 74-67
+1.5
20
vs
EVAN
W 76-49
−14.5
24
@
BRAD
W 85-70
+10.5
27
vs
INST
W 76-74
+2.5
31
@
SIU
W 68-66
−8.5
3
@
MUR
L 74-81
−2.5
6
vs
BEL
L 62-68
−21.5
12
@
DRKE
W 80-70
+3.5
15
vs
ILST
W 83-56
−1.5
18
@
EVAN
W 84-46
−10.5
21
vs
VAL
L 67-71
−0.5
24
vs
BRAD
W 93-86
+37.5
1
@
INST
L 63-79
−2.5
6
vs
MUR
W 92-79
+20.5
7
vs
DRKE
W 72-51
−21.5
8
vs
UNI
L 69-84
+27.5
18
@
CAL
L 73-91
+13.5
over 16under 17avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UIC has the better starters
Position by position: Chicago St 0, UIC 5, even 0
Chicago StBetterUIC
G M. Price TR6.4 pts · 1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 3
→UICBig
G B. Gealer TR10.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 79
G A. Carraway TR4.9 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 3
→UICBig
G A. Johnson11 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 55
G M. Olafioye TR3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 2
→UICBig
G A. Thomas TR11.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 69
F B. Akanmu TR5.9 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 14
→UICBig
G M. Lowery7.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
F D. Loury TR4.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 1
→UICBig
G R. Washington8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 77
Chicago StBetterUIC
CHST offense361st of 366 · -14.2
→UICBig
UIC defense106th of 366 · -1.0
CHST defense339th of 366 · -9.0
→UICBig
UIC offense117th of 366 · -2.6
Backcourt-7.9 · 3 players
→UICBig
Backcourt+2.1 · 5 players
Frontcourt-4.6 · 2 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-2.7 · 2 players
→UICBig
Bench+0.5 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestCHST betterUIC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Price18 min · TRA. Carraway16 min · TRM. Olafioye16 min · TRM. Robinson15 minJ. Pazon11 min · TRW. Lovings-WattsNew
Forwards
B. Akanmu21 min · TRD. Loury17 min · TRK. FomanNewL. Stephane DjiyaNewF. SheriffNewL. HodgesNew
Centers
B. KalonjiNew
Guards
B. Gealer30 min · TRA. Johnson29 minA. Thomas28 min · TRM. Lowery26 minR. Washington23 minA. Henderson21 min
Forwards
J. Nathaniel20 minL. Scroggins17 min · TRN. BarrantesNewD. HudsonNewD. ShawNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 65.2 #348 | Points per game | 73.9 #196 |
| 0.99 #337 | Points per possession | 1.09 #171 |
| 66.0 #314 | Pace (possessions) | 68.1 #227 |
| Shooting | ||
| 45.3 #358 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #245 |
| 32.1 #275 | 3-point % | 31.6 #300 |
| 30.9 #341 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.8 #319 |
| 30.0 #311 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #145 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.7 #114 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #247 |
| 28.3 #255 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.3 #22 |
| 11.7 #305 | Assists per game | 14.1 #143 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.5 #231 | Points allowed | 71.2 #81 |
| 1.16 #332 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #83 |
| 56.7 #354 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #125 |
| 35.6 #290 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #147 |
| 20.1 #21 | Turnovers forced | 19.7 #30 |
| 65.0 #339 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #255 |
| 8.2 #33 | Steals per game | 7.6 #70 |
| 1.3 #365 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #126 |
Chicago St
6-25 in 2025-26 overall · 5-14 in conference · Northeast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Long Island75–79
- L@ Wagner61–80
- L@ Long Island56–73
- Wvs C Connecticut70–51
- Lvs FDU59–60
A week or more of rest.
UIC
17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 14-9 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ California73–91
- Lvs Northern Iowa69–84
- Wvs Drake72–51
- Wvs Murray St92–79
- L@ Indiana St63–79
A week or more of rest.