Kia Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FLA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FLA 95–66 · win probability FLA 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 160.8
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: FLA has more of the edges
GT 1, FLA 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: GT 29.9%, FLA 43.4%. Defensive: GT 69.3%, FLA 75.2%
Shooting
Effective FG%: GT 50.0 and allows 49.9; FLA 54.1 and allows 46.1
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: GT 16%, FLA 85%. Transfers in: GT 5, FLA 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
FLA offense vs GT defense
Offense 1st of 366 against a defense 123rd, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: GT 33.3, FLA 39.0. Allowed: GT 34.2, FLA 34.0
Three-pointers
GT hits 35.1% and allows 33.1%; FLA hits 31.2% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 33.1% and 37.0% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
GT has played the 78th-hardest schedule, FLA the 9th. A record against a soft schedule means less
GT offense vs FLA defense
Offense 71st of 366 against a defense 4th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: GT 18.6%, FLA 16.4%. Forced: GT 15.6%, FLA 15.2%
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: GT plays 71.9 a game (38th fastest), FLA 72.0 (34th). 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 | — | FLA -28.4 | — |
| Total | — | 160.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | GT 66.2 · FLA 94.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FLA -16.8 | — |
| 1H total | 75.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | GT 29.2 · FLA 45.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-10 0% | 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | |
| 8-2 80% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Georgia Tech
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −2.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% 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 56-52 | -28.5 | L −24.5 | 139.5 | U 108 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 74-45 | -15.5 | W +13.5 | 138.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 70-60 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 133.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 87-92 | +15.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 68-66 | -10.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 82-66 | -18.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 61-75 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 74-84 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 137.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 73-85 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 79-67 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 87-76 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 95-81 | -16.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 89-65 | -19.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 79-85 | +27.5 | W +21.5 | 153.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 65-53 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 72-82 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 81-91 | +15.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 66-89 | +1.5 | L −21.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 78-74 | +17.5 | W +21.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 63-77 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 65-71 | +9.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 75-91 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 85-90 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 72-95 | +9.5 | L −13.5 | 151.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 67-83 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 74-89 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 68-94 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 70-87 | +23.5 | W +6.5 | 167.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 71-80 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 65-76 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 154.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-79 | +15.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UMES
W 56-52
−24.5
7
vs
BRY
W 74-45
+13.5
10
vs
SELA
W 70-60
−4.5
14
@
UGA
L 87-92
+10.5
18
vs
GASO
W 68-66
−8.5
23
vs
WGA
W 82-66
−2.5
28
vs
DEP
L 61-75
−12.5
29
vs
DRKE
L 74-84
−14.5
3
vs
MSST
L 73-85
−10.5
6
vs
MONM
W 79-67
+1.5
16
vs
MRST
W 87-76
+4.5
20
vs
LAF
W 95-81
−2.5
28
vs
FAMU
W 89-65
+4.5
31
@
DUKE
L 79-85
+21.5
3
vs
BC
W 65-53
+5.5
6
vs
SYR
L 72-82
−7.5
10
@
MIA
L 81-91
+5.5
14
vs
PITT
L 66-89
−21.5
17
@
NCSU
W 78-74
+21.5
24
vs
CLEM
L 63-77
−5.5
27
@
VT
L 65-71
+3.5
31
vs
UNC
L 75-91
−6.5
4
@
CAL
L 85-90
+2.5
7
@
STAN
L 72-95
−13.5
11
vs
WAKE
L 67-83
−12.5
14
@
ND
L 74-89
−9.5
18
vs
UVA
L 68-94
−12.5
21
@
LOU
L 70-87
+6.5
28
vs
FSU
L 71-80
−3.5
4
vs
CAL
L 65-76
−8.5
7
@
CLEM
L 76-79
+12.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UMES
W 56-52
−31.5
7
vs
BRY
W 74-45
−19.5
10
vs
SELA
W 70-60
−3.5
14
@
UGA
L 87-92
+23.5
18
vs
GASO
W 68-66
−30.5
23
vs
WGA
W 82-66
+3.5
28
vs
DEP
L 61-75
−11.5
29
vs
DRKE
L 74-84
+20.5
3
vs
MSST
L 73-85
+7.5
6
vs
MONM
W 79-67
+1.5
16
vs
MRST
W 87-76
+21.5
20
vs
LAF
W 95-81
+28.5
28
vs
FAMU
W 89-65
+7.5
31
@
DUKE
L 79-85
+10.5
3
vs
BC
W 65-53
−27.5
6
vs
SYR
L 72-82
+7.5
10
@
MIA
L 81-91
+15.5
14
vs
PITT
L 66-89
+9.5
17
@
NCSU
W 78-74
−2.5
24
vs
CLEM
L 63-77
−2.5
27
@
VT
L 65-71
−19.5
31
vs
UNC
L 75-91
+5.5
4
@
CAL
L 85-90
+22.5
7
@
STAN
L 72-95
+15.5
11
vs
WAKE
L 67-83
−8.5
14
@
ND
L 74-89
+12.5
18
vs
UVA
L 68-94
+11.5
21
@
LOU
L 70-87
−10.5
28
vs
FSU
L 71-80
−7.5
4
vs
CAL
L 65-76
−13.5
7
@
CLEM
L 76-79
+9.5
over 18under 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Florida
35 games played
Straight up
27-8
77% wins
Against the spread
19-16
54% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-20
43% overs · avg −2 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 | L 87-93 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 104-64 | -43.5 | L −3.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 78-76 | -17.5 | L −15.5 | 180.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 82-68 | -10.5 | W +3.5 | 171.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 80-45 | -36.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 80-84 | -11.5 | L −15.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 90-78 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 66-67 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 73-77 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 80-70 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 102-61 | -44.5 | L −3.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 90-60 | -27.5 | W +2.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 94-72 | -35.5 | L −13.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 74-76 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 92-77 | -9.5 | W +5.5 | 172.5 | U 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 91-67 | -4.5 | W +19.5 | 151.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 96-79 | -7.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 98-94 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 164.5 | O 192 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 79-61 | -15.5 | W +2.5 | 158.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 67-76 | -11.5 | L −20.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 95-48 | -13.5 | W +33.5 | 151.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 100-77 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 176.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 86-67 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 167.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 86-66 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 164.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 92-83 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 76-62 | -23.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 94-75 | -13.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 84-71 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 111-77 | -9.5 | W +24.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 108-74 | -20.5 | W +13.5 | 161.5 | O 182 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 84-77 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 71-63 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 74-91 | -7.5 | L −24.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 114-55 | -35.5 | W +23.5 | 154.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 72-73 | -10.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
ARIZ
L 87-93
−9.5
6
vs
UNF
W 104-64
−3.5
11
vs
FSU
W 78-76
−15.5
16
vs
MIA
W 82-68
+3.5
21
vs
MRMK
W 80-45
−1.5
27
vs
TCU
L 80-84
−15.5
28
vs
PROV
W 90-78
−0.5
2
@
DUKE
L 66-67
+8.5
9
vs
CONN
L 73-77
+0.5
13
vs
GW
W 80-70
−4.5
17
vs
SFPA
W 102-61
−3.5
21
vs
COLG
W 90-60
+2.5
29
vs
DART
W 94-72
−13.5
3
@
MIZ
L 74-76
−9.5
6
vs
UGA
W 92-77
+5.5
10
vs
TENN
W 91-67
+19.5
13
@
OU
W 96-79
+9.5
17
@
VAN
W 98-94
+2.5
20
vs
LSU
W 79-61
+2.5
24
vs
AUB
L 67-76
−20.5
28
@
SC
W 95-48
+33.5
1
vs
ALA
W 100-77
+13.5
7
@
TA&M
W 86-67
+13.5
11
@
UGA
W 86-66
+11.5
14
vs
UK
W 92-83
−3.5
17
vs
SC
W 76-62
−9.5
21
@
MISS
W 94-75
+5.5
25
@
TEX
W 84-71
+6.5
28
vs
ARK
W 111-77
+24.5
3
vs
MSST
W 108-74
+13.5
7
@
UK
W 84-77
+1.5
13
vs
UK
W 71-63
−2.5
14
vs
VAN
L 74-91
−24.5
20
vs
PV
W 114-55
+23.5
22
vs
IOWA
L 72-73
−11.5
covered 19didn’t cover 16avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
ARIZ
L 87-93
+15.5
6
vs
UNF
W 104-64
−1.5
11
vs
FSU
W 78-76
−26.5
16
vs
MIA
W 82-68
−21.5
21
vs
MRMK
W 80-45
−33.5
27
vs
TCU
L 80-84
+8.5
28
vs
PROV
W 90-78
−1.5
2
@
DUKE
L 66-67
−24.5
9
vs
CONN
L 73-77
+4.5
13
vs
GW
W 80-70
−12.5
17
vs
SFPA
W 102-61
+6.5
21
vs
COLG
W 90-60
−6.5
29
vs
DART
W 94-72
+5.5
3
@
MIZ
L 74-76
−4.5
6
vs
UGA
W 92-77
−3.5
10
vs
TENN
W 91-67
+6.5
13
@
OU
W 96-79
+17.5
17
@
VAN
W 98-94
+27.5
20
vs
LSU
W 79-61
−18.5
24
vs
AUB
L 67-76
−16.5
28
@
SC
W 95-48
−8.5
1
vs
ALA
W 100-77
+0.5
7
@
TA&M
W 86-67
−14.5
11
@
UGA
W 86-66
−12.5
14
vs
UK
W 92-83
+20.5
17
vs
SC
W 76-62
−18.5
21
@
MISS
W 94-75
+16.5
25
@
TEX
W 84-71
−2.5
28
vs
ARK
W 111-77
+18.5
3
vs
MSST
W 108-74
+20.5
7
@
UK
W 84-77
−1.5
13
vs
UK
W 71-63
−27.5
14
vs
VAN
L 74-91
+3.5
20
vs
PV
W 114-55
+14.5
22
vs
IOWA
L 72-73
−0.5
over 15under 20avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Florida has the better starters
Position by position: Georgia Tech 0, Florida 2, even 3
Georgia TechBetterFlorida
G N. Whitlock TR20.4 pts · 3.3 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 87
=Even
G D. Aberdeen TR13.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 90
G C. Garland TR20.4 pts · 3.2 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 98
=Even
G B. Fland11.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 89
G K. Craft7.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 43
→FLABig
F T. Haugh17.1 pts · 6.1 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 97
F V. Valdes TR14.9 pts · 4 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 74
→FLASmall
F A. Condon15.1 pts · 7.5 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 98
F J. Fields TR4.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C R. Chinyelu10.9 pts · 11.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 97
Georgia TechBetterFlorida
GT offense71st of 366 · +1.7
→FLASmall
FLA defense4th of 366 · +10.4
GT defense123rd of 366 · -2.1
→FLASmall
FLA offense1st of 366 · +17.0
Backcourt+7.4 · 3 players
←GTSmall
Backcourt+5.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt+2.6 · 2 players
→FLABig
Frontcourt+17.1 · 3 players
Bench-1.0 · 2 players
→FLABig
Bench+3.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestGT betterFLA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. Whitlock35 min · TRC. Garland35 min · TRK. Craft21 minC. Muldrew14 min · TRK. BaileyNewK. AllenNew
Forwards
V. Valdes30 min · TRJ. Fields14 min · TRT. JordanNewM. DiopNewI. KurucsNew
Centers
C. Kirouac12 minJ. McVeyNew
Guards
D. Aberdeen31 min · TRB. Fland30 minU. Klavzar21 minI. Brown13 minC. Ingram6 minA. Lloyd5 min
Forwards
T. Haugh33 minA. Condon31 minD. PetrovicNewA. ButajevasNew
Centers
R. Chinyelu25 minV. Mikic3 minJ. LayNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.8 #208 | Points per game | 87.1 #5 |
| 1.03 #292 | Points per possession | 1.21 #7 |
| 71.9 #38 | Pace (possessions) | 72.0 #34 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.0 #234 | Effective FG% | 54.1 #63 |
| 35.1 #109 | 3-point % | 31.2 #315 |
| 33.1 #313 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.0 #230 |
| 33.3 #229 | Free throw rate | 39.0 #80 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.6 #306 | Turnover rate | 16.4 #162 |
| 29.9 #203 | Offensive rebound rate | 43.4 #2 |
| 15.8 #55 | Assists per game | 17.0 #26 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.4 #247 | Points allowed | 71.5 #93 |
| 1.08 #148 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #19 |
| 49.9 #94 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.1 #10 |
| 33.1 #134 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #66 |
| 15.6 #244 | Turnovers forced | 15.2 #269 |
| 69.3 #189 | Defensive rebound rate | 75.2 #7 |
| 6.1 #229 | Steals per game | 6.6 #158 |
| 3.9 #80 | Blocks per game | 5.0 #16 |
Georgia Tech
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 2-16 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Clemson76–79
- Lvs California65–76
- Lvs Florida St71–80
- L@ Louisville70–87
- Lvs Virginia68–94
A week or more of rest.
Florida
27-8 in 2025-26 overall · 17-3 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Iowa72–73
- Wvs Prairie View114–55
- Lvs Vanderbilt74–91
- Wvs Kentucky71–63
- W@ Kentucky84–77
A week or more of rest.