Allen Arena · at Lipscomb
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LIP | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LIP 73–68 · win probability LIP 66%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 141.0
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: LIP has more of the edges
SIUE 1, LIP 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: SIUE plays 66.1 a game (306th fastest), LIP 70.8 (83rd). Faster games mean more points
SIUE offense vs LIP defense
Offense 328th of 366 against a defense 226th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
SIUE has played the 365th-hardest schedule, LIP the 268th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SIUE 17.9%, LIP 16.0%. Forced: SIUE 17.1%, LIP 17.7%
Three-pointers
SIUE hits 35.0% and allows 30.2%; LIP hits 35.7% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 36.2% and 47.9% of their shots
Home court
LIP at home. This season: LIP 0-0 at home, SIUE 0-0 away
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: SIUE 49.5 and allows 45.6; LIP 54.1 and allows 53.2
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SIUE 30.1%, LIP 25.8%. Defensive: SIUE 68.4%, LIP 69.8%
Even
LIP offense vs SIUE defense
Offense 191st of 366 against a defense 161st, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: SIUE 30.6, LIP 26.0. Allowed: SIUE 34.3, LIP 29.0
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SIUE 52%, LIP 44%. Transfers in: SIUE 2, LIP 2. 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 | — | LIP -4.8 | — |
| Total | — | 141.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | SIUE 68.1 · LIP 72.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LIP -2.7 | — |
| 1H total | 66.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | SIUE 31.7 · LIP 34.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
SIUE
29 games played
Straight up
16-13
55% wins
Against the spread
15-14
52% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-18
38% overs · avg −4.5 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 7 | @ | W 77-60 | +6.5 | W +23.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 10 | vs | L 55-64 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 61-59 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 69-94 | +25.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 63-77 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 130.5 | O 140 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 83-68 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 72-63 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 73-83 | -5.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 72-76 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 134.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 22 | @ | W 66-61 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 59-55 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 136.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 72-73 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 131.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 6 | vs | W 66-62 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 70-73 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 59-65 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 131.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 68-55 | +9.5 | W +22.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 74-66 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 62-58 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 65-67 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 130.5 | O 132 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 58-46 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 130.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 78-72 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 71-61 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 132.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 74-56 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 137.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 76-81 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 129.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 52-62 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 134.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 53-80 | +2.5 | L −24.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 67-47 | -13.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 77-50 | -5.5 | W +21.5 | 129.5 | U 127 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 71-77 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 128.5 | O 148 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
UTSA
W 77-60
+23.5
10
vs
INST
L 55-64
−11.5
14
@
DRKE
W 61-59
+9.5
17
@
WIS
L 69-94
+0.5
21
@
AF
L 63-77
−16.5
23
vs
ALST
W 83-68
+13.5
2
@
UNF
W 72-63
+1.5
6
vs
WMU
L 73-83
−15.5
18
@
EIU
L 72-76
−10.5
22
@
WIU
W 66-61
−1.5
1
vs
USI
W 59-55
−6.5
3
vs
MORE
L 72-73
−5.5
6
vs
LIN
W 66-62
+2.5
8
vs
LR
L 70-73
−6.5
15
@
UTM
L 59-65
+1.5
17
@
SEMO
W 68-55
+22.5
22
vs
TNST
W 74-66
+6.5
24
vs
TNTC
W 62-58
−3.5
29
@
MORE
L 65-67
−0.5
31
@
USI
W 58-46
+10.5
3
@
LIN
W 78-72
+10.5
7
@
LR
W 71-61
+11.5
12
vs
SEMO
W 74-56
+19.5
14
vs
UTM
L 76-81
−3.5
19
@
TNTC
L 52-62
−11.5
21
@
TNST
L 53-80
−24.5
26
vs
WIU
W 67-47
+6.5
28
vs
EIU
W 77-50
+21.5
4
vs
EIU
L 71-77
−9.5
covered 15didn’t cover 14avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
UTSA
W 77-60
−16.5
10
vs
INST
L 55-64
−40.5
14
@
DRKE
W 61-59
−22.5
17
@
WIS
L 69-94
+16.5
21
@
AF
L 63-77
+9.5
23
vs
ALST
W 83-68
+8.5
2
@
UNF
W 72-63
−18.5
6
vs
WMU
L 73-83
+16.5
18
@
EIU
L 72-76
+13.5
22
@
WIU
W 66-61
−11.5
1
vs
USI
W 59-55
−22.5
3
vs
MORE
L 72-73
+13.5
6
vs
LIN
W 66-62
−14.5
8
vs
LR
L 70-73
+11.5
15
@
UTM
L 59-65
−7.5
17
@
SEMO
W 68-55
−16.5
22
vs
TNST
W 74-66
−2.5
24
vs
TNTC
W 62-58
−15.5
29
@
MORE
L 65-67
+1.5
31
@
USI
W 58-46
−26.5
3
@
LIN
W 78-72
+9.5
7
@
LR
W 71-61
−0.5
12
vs
SEMO
W 74-56
−7.5
14
vs
UTM
L 76-81
+27.5
19
@
TNTC
L 52-62
−20.5
21
@
TNST
L 53-80
−10.5
26
vs
WIU
W 67-47
−21.5
28
vs
EIU
W 77-50
−2.5
4
vs
EIU
L 71-77
+19.5
over 11under 18avg −4.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Lipscomb
30 games played
Straight up
17-13
57% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg −0.5 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 | @ | L 61-105 | +26.5 | L −17.5 | 154.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 77-92 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 64-69 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 68-75 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 83-62 | -5.5 | W +15.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 90-67 | +7.5 | W +30.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 29 | @ | W 88-77 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 153.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 83-80 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 92-58 | -11.5 | W +22.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 73-97 | +32.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 62-89 | +13.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 76-57 | -12.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 82-74 | -18.5 | L −10.5 | 172.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 83-91 | -11.5 | L −19.5 | 150.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 84-77 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 81-71 | -11.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 82-78 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 79-74 | -15.5 | L −10.5 | 157.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 23 | vs | W 86-71 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 65-70 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 100-94 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 76-87 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 156.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 78-86 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 75-61 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 160.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 81-87 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 165.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 75-72 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 73-51 | -12.5 | W +9.5 | 149.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 78-84 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 80-77 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | U 157 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 53-77 | -3.5 | L −27.5 | 150.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
VAN
L 61-105
−17.5
9
@
MER
L 77-92
−11.5
11
@
UNCA
L 64-69
+1.5
19
@
BEL
L 68-75
+5.5
22
vs
WCU
W 83-62
+15.5
26
@
MRSH
W 90-67
+30.5
29
@
SEMO
W 88-77
+14.5
3
vs
TNTC
W 83-80
−7.5
7
vs
AAMU
W 92-58
+22.5
16
@
DUKE
L 73-97
+8.5
29
@
CIN
L 62-89
−13.5
1
vs
JAX
W 76-57
+6.5
3
vs
UNF
W 82-74
−10.5
8
@
STET
L 83-91
−19.5
10
@
FGCU
W 84-77
+9.5
15
vs
BELL
W 81-71
−1.5
17
vs
APSU
W 82-78
+1.5
22
vs
STET
W 79-74
−10.5
23
vs
FGCU
W 86-71
+9.5
29
@
JAX
L 65-70
−8.5
31
@
UNF
W 100-94
−4.5
4
@
APSU
L 76-87
−6.5
7
vs
CARK
L 78-86
−11.5
11
vs
EKU
W 75-61
+7.5
14
@
QUC
L 81-87
−2.5
18
@
BELL
W 75-72
−0.5
21
vs
UNA
W 73-51
+9.5
25
@
WGA
L 78-84
−11.5
28
@
EKU
W 80-77
+1.5
6
vs
FGCU
L 53-77
−27.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
VAN
L 61-105
+11.5
9
@
MER
L 77-92
+11.5
11
@
UNCA
L 64-69
−25.5
19
@
BEL
L 68-75
−15.5
22
vs
WCU
W 83-62
−6.5
26
@
MRSH
W 90-67
−0.5
29
@
SEMO
W 88-77
+11.5
3
vs
TNTC
W 83-80
+10.5
7
vs
AAMU
W 92-58
+3.5
16
@
DUKE
L 73-97
+18.5
29
@
CIN
L 62-89
+0.5
1
vs
JAX
W 76-57
−14.5
3
vs
UNF
W 82-74
−16.5
8
@
STET
L 83-91
+23.5
10
@
FGCU
W 84-77
+3.5
15
vs
BELL
W 81-71
−2.5
17
vs
APSU
W 82-78
+4.5
22
vs
STET
W 79-74
−4.5
23
vs
FGCU
W 86-71
+3.5
29
@
JAX
L 65-70
−7.5
31
@
UNF
W 100-94
+28.5
4
@
APSU
L 76-87
+6.5
7
vs
CARK
L 78-86
+8.5
11
vs
EKU
W 75-61
−24.5
14
@
QUC
L 81-87
+2.5
18
@
BELL
W 75-72
−7.5
21
vs
UNA
W 73-51
−25.5
25
@
WGA
L 78-84
+8.5
28
@
EKU
W 80-77
−0.5
6
vs
FGCU
L 53-77
−20.5
over 16under 14avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Lipscomb has the better starters
Position by position: SIUE 1, Lipscomb 3, even 1
SIUEBetterLipscomb
G G. Cobb TR9.8 pts · 2.6 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 40
→LIPBig
G T. Simpkins TR12.5 pts · 2.9 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 79
G T. King10.1 pts · 2.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 66
→LIPSmall
G M. Esmeraldo9.8 pts · 3.9 reb · 6.9 ast
Score 81
G J. Pickett4.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 7
→LIPSmall
F T. Sargiunas9.9 pts · 2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 28
F G. Liberis7 pts · 4.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 9
=Even
F O. Ashkenazi2.7 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 3
F D. Baker7.7 pts · 4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 40
←SIUEBig
F T. Byrne TR3.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 4
SIUEBetterLipscomb
SIUE offense328th of 366 · -10.6
→LIPSmall
LIP defense226th of 366 · -6.0
SIUE defense161st of 366 · -3.6
=Even
LIP offense191st of 366 · -5.9
Backcourt-3.6 · 3 players
→LIPBig
Backcourt+3.0 · 2 players
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
←SIUEBig
Frontcourt-6.7 · 3 players
Bench-1.5 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestSIUE betterLIP betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
G. Cobb29 min · TRT. King22 minJ. Pickett20 minC. Efono9 minH. Alexander7 minD. McCaskillNew
Forwards
G. Liberis24 minD. Baker21 minI. Baganc2 minD. WilsonNewB. SohaibNewB. MillerNew
Centers
J. Martin1 min · TR
Guards
T. Simpkins32 min · TRM. Esmeraldo31 minZ. WellsNewV. VisnjicNewH. TidareNewK. QuinnNew
Forwards
T. Sargiunas24 minO. Ashkenazi20 minT. Byrne16 min · TRK. Okpara13 minL. JackNewD. MartinNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.7 #321 | Points per game | 77.6 #104 |
| 1.02 #304 | Points per possession | 1.10 #142 |
| 66.1 #306 | Pace (possessions) | 70.8 #83 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #266 | Effective FG% | 54.1 #67 |
| 35.0 #123 | 3-point % | 35.7 #75 |
| 36.2 #246 | 3-point attempt rate | 47.9 #24 |
| 30.6 #294 | Free throw rate | 26.0 #357 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.9 #266 | Turnover rate | 16.0 #142 |
| 30.1 #195 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.8 #327 |
| 12.4 #255 | Assists per game | 17.2 #19 |
| Defense | ||
| 65.9 #13 | Points allowed | 77.0 #242 |
| 1.00 #26 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #187 |
| 45.6 #6 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.2 #273 |
| 30.2 #10 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #207 |
| 17.1 #143 | Turnovers forced | 17.7 #113 |
| 68.4 #235 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.8 #171 |
| 6.9 #138 | Steals per game | 6.8 #141 |
| 4.0 #70 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #291 |
SIUE
16-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs E Illinois71–77
- Wvs E Illinois77–50
- Wvs W Illinois67–47
- L@ Tennessee St53–80
- L@ Tennessee Tech52–62
A week or more of rest.
Lipscomb
17-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Atlantic Sun Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs FGCU53–77
- W@ E Kentucky80–77
- L@ West Georgia78–84
- Wvs North Alabama73–51
- W@ Bellarmine75–72
A week or more of rest.