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 BEL 79–75 · win probability BEL 62%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 153.4
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: BEL has more of the edges
BEL 3, LIP 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: BEL 61.0 and allows 49.9; LIP 54.1 and allows 53.2
Context
Schedule so far
BEL has played the 146th-hardest schedule, LIP the 267th. A record against a soft schedule means less
BEL offense vs LIP defense
Offense 118th of 366 against a defense 226th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: BEL 18.0%, LIP 16.0%. Forced: BEL 17.4%, LIP 17.7%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: BEL 28.8%, LIP 25.8%. Defensive: BEL 70.8%, LIP 69.8%
Home court
LIP at home. This season: LIP 0-0 at home, BEL 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
BEL hits 41.0% and allows 34.2%; LIP hits 35.7% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 45.7% and 47.9% of their shots
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: BEL 32.5, LIP 26.0. Allowed: BEL 30.7, LIP 29.0
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: BEL plays 70.5 a game (94th fastest), LIP 70.8 (83rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: BEL 41%, LIP 44%. Transfers in: BEL 4, LIP 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
LIP offense vs BEL defense
Offense 191st of 366 against a defense 192nd, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | BEL -3.5 | — |
| Total | — | 153.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | BEL 78.5 · LIP 74.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | BEL -2.2 | — |
| 1H total | 71.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | BEL 37 · LIP 34.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | |
| 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
BEL 4–1 LIPBEL leads · 5 games since 2021-22 · BEL has won the last 3 meetings · BEL 2-3 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2025-26 | LIP 68 @ BEL 75 | BEL -12.5 | LIP W |
| Nov 12, 2024-25 | BEL 80 @ LIP 79 | LIP -5.5 | BEL W |
| Dec 6, 2023-24 | LIP 71 @ BEL 72 | BEL -3.5 | LIP W |
| Nov 14, 2022-23 | BEL 75 @ LIP 77 | LIP +2.5 | LIP W |
| Dec 2, 2021-22 | LIP 65 @ BEL 94 | BEL -15 | BEL W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Belmont
31 games played
Straight up
25-6
81% wins
Against the spread
18-13
58% covers · avg +2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-12
61% overs · avg +4.1 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 79-63 | -15.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 87-79 | -13.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 83-60 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 171.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 75-68 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 94-57 | -21.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 87-72 | -4.5 | W +10.5 | 163.5 | U 159 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 96-73 | -2.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 76-84 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 156.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 83-62 | -3.5 | W +17.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 87-84 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 83-78 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 19 | @ | W 84-58 | +1.5 | W +27.5 | 150.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 80-81 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 88-78 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 153.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 67-68 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 78-65 | +2.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 78-76 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 78-74 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 73-68 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 80-69 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 78-77 | -5.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 103-86 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 163.5 | O 189 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 103-90 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 6 | @ | W 68-62 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 84-95 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 91-86 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 87-70 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 166.5 | U 157 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 87-70 | -12.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 98-64 | -18.5 | W +15.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 74-81 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 79-100 | -12.5 | L −33.5 | 152.5 | O 179 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
AF
W 79-63
+0.5
8
vs
TNST
W 87-79
−5.5
15
@
ORU
W 83-60
+15.5
19
vs
LIP
W 75-68
−5.5
24
vs
SFPA
W 94-57
+15.5
26
vs
TOL
W 87-72
+10.5
30
@
COFC
W 96-73
+20.5
3
vs
RICH
L 76-84
−14.5
7
@
MTSU
W 83-62
+17.5
13
vs
UIC
W 87-84
−9.5
16
@
EVAN
W 83-78
−3.5
19
@
UCI
W 84-58
+27.5
29
@
INST
L 80-81
−8.5
1
vs
BRAD
W 88-78
+6.5
4
vs
SIU
L 67-68
−7.5
7
@
UNI
W 78-65
+15.5
10
@
DRKE
W 78-76
−2.5
13
vs
VAL
W 78-74
−7.5
17
@
SIU
W 73-68
+1.5
24
vs
ILST
W 80-69
+5.5
28
@
VAL
W 78-77
−4.5
31
vs
MUR
W 103-86
+13.5
3
vs
DRKE
W 103-90
+3.5
6
@
UIC
W 68-62
+4.5
9
@
BRAD
L 84-95
−12.5
12
vs
UNI
W 91-86
+0.5
15
@
MUR
W 87-70
+15.5
21
vs
INST
W 87-70
+4.5
25
vs
EVAN
W 98-64
+15.5
1
@
ILST
L 74-81
−8.5
6
vs
DRKE
L 79-100
−33.5
covered 18didn’t cover 13avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
AF
W 79-63
−2.5
8
vs
TNST
W 87-79
+7.5
15
@
ORU
W 83-60
−28.5
19
vs
LIP
W 75-68
−15.5
24
vs
SFPA
W 94-57
−6.5
26
vs
TOL
W 87-72
−4.5
30
@
COFC
W 96-73
+16.5
3
vs
RICH
L 76-84
+3.5
7
@
MTSU
W 83-62
−8.5
13
vs
UIC
W 87-84
+16.5
16
@
EVAN
W 83-78
+13.5
19
@
UCI
W 84-58
−8.5
29
@
INST
L 80-81
+1.5
1
vs
BRAD
W 88-78
+12.5
4
vs
SIU
L 67-68
−23.5
7
@
UNI
W 78-65
+5.5
10
@
DRKE
W 78-76
+5.5
13
vs
VAL
W 78-74
+5.5
17
@
SIU
W 73-68
−10.5
24
vs
ILST
W 80-69
−1.5
28
@
VAL
W 78-77
+9.5
31
vs
MUR
W 103-86
+25.5
3
vs
DRKE
W 103-90
+38.5
6
@
UIC
W 68-62
−21.5
9
@
BRAD
L 84-95
+26.5
12
vs
UNI
W 91-86
+38.5
15
@
MUR
W 87-70
−9.5
21
vs
INST
W 87-70
+0.5
25
vs
EVAN
W 98-64
+9.5
1
@
ILST
L 74-81
+4.5
6
vs
DRKE
L 79-100
+26.5
over 19under 12avg +4.1 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.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Belmont 2, Lipscomb 2, even 1
BelmontBetterLipscomb
G J. Jenkins8.8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 42
→LIPBig
G T. Simpkins TR12.5 pts · 2.9 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 79
G J. Smiley8.5 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 81
=Even
G M. Esmeraldo9.8 pts · 3.9 reb · 6.9 ast
Score 81
G I. West2.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 7
→LIPSmall
F T. Sargiunas9.9 pts · 2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 28
F K. Fish TR7.2 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 47
←BELBig
F O. Ashkenazi2.7 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 3
F E. Dillon7.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 76
←BELBig
F T. Byrne TR3.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 4
BelmontBetterLipscomb
BEL offense118th of 366 · -2.7
←BELSmall
LIP defense226th of 366 · -6.0
BEL defense192nd of 366 · -4.5
=Even
LIP offense191st of 366 · -5.9
Backcourt-2.4 · 3 players
→LIPBig
Backcourt+3.0 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.5 · 2 players
←BELBig
Frontcourt-6.7 · 3 players
Bench-0.6 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestBEL betterLIP betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Jenkins24 minJ. Smiley17 minI. West17 minM. Zobrist5 min · TRC. Haynes5 minA. Ristic3 min · TR
Forwards
K. Fish19 min · TRE. Dillon16 minG. Lemke2 minC. KnowlesNewC. GersmehlNew
Centers
V. Neugebauer8 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 83.5 #23 | Points per game | 77.6 #104 |
| 1.18 #33 | Points per possession | 1.10 #142 |
| 70.5 #94 | Pace (possessions) | 70.8 #83 |
| Shooting | ||
| 61.0 #1 | Effective FG% | 54.1 #67 |
| 41.0 #1 | 3-point % | 35.7 #75 |
| 45.7 #51 | 3-point attempt rate | 47.9 #24 |
| 32.5 #248 | Free throw rate | 26.0 #357 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.0 #272 | Turnover rate | 16.0 #142 |
| 28.8 #241 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.8 #327 |
| 18.5 #6 | Assists per game | 17.2 #19 |
| Defense | ||
| 74.1 #158 | Points allowed | 77.0 #242 |
| 1.05 #95 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #187 |
| 49.9 #93 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.2 #273 |
| 34.2 #197 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #207 |
| 17.4 #126 | Turnovers forced | 17.7 #113 |
| 70.8 #118 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.8 #171 |
| 6.0 #241 | Steals per game | 6.8 #141 |
| 3.5 #151 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #291 |
Belmont
25-6 in 2025-26 overall · 16-5 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Drake79–100
- L@ Illinois St74–81
- Wvs Evansville98–64
- Wvs Indiana St87–70
- W@ Murray St87–70
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.