Mackey Arena · at Purdue
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PUR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PUR 87–62 · win probability PUR 98%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.0
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: PUR has more of the edges
LIP 0, PUR 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
LIP has played the 267th-hardest schedule, PUR the 6th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LIP 25.8%, PUR 36.4%. Defensive: LIP 69.8%, PUR 72.9%
PUR offense vs LIP defense
Offense 38th of 366 against a defense 226th, on the model’s ratings
LIP offense vs PUR defense
Offense 191st of 366 against a defense 18th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: LIP plays 70.8 a game (83rd fastest), PUR 65.4 (333rd). Faster games mean more points
Home court
PUR at home. This season: PUR 0-0 at home, LIP 0-0 away
Shooting
Effective FG%: LIP 54.1 and allows 53.2; PUR 57.6 and allows 52.4
Even
Three-pointers
LIP hits 35.7% and allows 34.3%; PUR hits 38.3% and allows 34.1%. Threes are 47.9% and 40.2% of their shots
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: LIP 26.0, PUR 28.6. Allowed: LIP 29.0, PUR 25.5
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LIP 16.0%, PUR 13.7%. Forced: LIP 17.7%, PUR 15.3%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LIP 44%, PUR 43%. Transfers in: LIP 2, PUR 0. 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 | — | PUR -24.8 | — |
| Total | — | 149.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | LIP 62.1 · PUR 86.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PUR -14.6 | — |
| 1H total | 69.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | LIP 27.5 · PUR 42.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | |
| 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Purdue
39 games played
Straight up
30-9
77% wins
Against the spread
17-22
44% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-19
51% overs · avg +1.4 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-2244%
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 4 | vs | W 82-51 | -33.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 87-77 | -31.5 | L −21.5 | 158.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 13 | @ | W 87-80 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 172.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 97-79 | -18.5 | L −0.5 | 163.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 80-71 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 86-56 | -3.5 | W +26.5 | 153.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 109-62 | -40.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 81-65 | -13.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 58-81 | -4.5 | L −27.5 | 154.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 85-57 | -19.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 79-59 | -16.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 88-60 | -7.5 | W +20.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 101-60 | -24.5 | W +16.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 89-73 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 81-73 | -16.5 | L −8.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 93-85 | -22.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 79-72 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-64 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 67-69 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 82-88 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 67-72 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 1 | @ | W 93-63 | -15.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 68-64 | -19.5 | L −15.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 80-77 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-57 | -2.5 | W +18.5 | 142.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 80-91 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 20 | vs | W 93-64 | -11.5 | W +17.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 74-76 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 74-82 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 70-66 | -12.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 93-97 | -9.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | O 190 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 81-68 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 74-58 | -4.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 73-66 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 15 | vs | W 80-72 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 104-71 | -25.5 | W +7.5 | 159.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 79-69 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 26 | vs | W 79-77 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 28 | vs | L 64-79 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
EVAN
W 82-51
−2.5
7
vs
OAK
W 87-77
−21.5
13
@
ALA
W 87-80
+10.5
16
vs
AKR
W 97-79
−0.5
20
vs
MEM
W 80-71
−5.5
21
vs
TTU
W 86-56
+26.5
28
vs
EIU
W 109-62
+6.5
2
@
RUTG
W 81-65
+2.5
6
vs
ISU
L 58-81
−27.5
10
vs
MINN
W 85-57
+8.5
13
vs
MARQ
W 79-59
+3.5
20
vs
AUB
W 88-60
+20.5
29
vs
KENT
W 101-60
+16.5
3
@
WIS
W 89-73
+10.5
7
vs
WASH
W 81-73
−8.5
10
vs
PSU
W 93-85
−14.5
14
vs
IOWA
W 79-72
−3.5
17
@
USC
W 69-64
−4.5
20
@
UCLA
L 67-69
−7.5
24
vs
ILL
L 82-88
−11.5
27
@
IU
L 67-72
−9.5
1
@
MD
W 93-63
+14.5
7
vs
ORE
W 68-64
−15.5
10
@
NEB
W 80-77
+5.5
14
@
IOWA
W 78-57
+18.5
17
vs
MICH
L 80-91
−8.5
20
vs
IU
W 93-64
+17.5
26
vs
MSU
L 74-76
−7.5
1
@
OSU
L 74-82
−14.5
4
@
NU
W 70-66
−8.5
7
vs
WIS
L 93-97
−13.5
12
vs
NU
W 81-68
−0.5
13
vs
NEB
W 74-58
+11.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 73-66
−0.5
15
vs
MICH
W 80-72
+12.5
20
vs
QUC
W 104-71
+7.5
22
vs
MIA
W 79-69
+1.5
26
vs
TEX
W 79-77
−6.5
28
vs
ARIZ
L 64-79
−9.5
covered 17didn’t cover 22avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
EVAN
W 82-51
−17.5
7
vs
OAK
W 87-77
+5.5
13
@
ALA
W 87-80
−5.5
16
vs
AKR
W 97-79
+12.5
20
vs
MEM
W 80-71
−5.5
21
vs
TTU
W 86-56
−11.5
28
vs
EIU
W 109-62
+29.5
2
@
RUTG
W 81-65
−0.5
6
vs
ISU
L 58-81
−15.5
10
vs
MINN
W 85-57
−1.5
13
vs
MARQ
W 79-59
−16.5
20
vs
AUB
W 88-60
−4.5
29
vs
KENT
W 101-60
+5.5
3
@
WIS
W 89-73
+8.5
7
vs
WASH
W 81-73
−0.5
10
vs
PSU
W 93-85
+25.5
14
vs
IOWA
W 79-72
+5.5
17
@
USC
W 69-64
−22.5
20
@
UCLA
L 67-69
−11.5
24
vs
ILL
L 82-88
+17.5
27
@
IU
L 67-72
−11.5
1
@
MD
W 93-63
+7.5
7
vs
ORE
W 68-64
−12.5
10
@
NEB
W 80-77
+10.5
14
@
IOWA
W 78-57
−7.5
17
vs
MICH
L 80-91
+14.5
20
vs
IU
W 93-64
+6.5
26
vs
MSU
L 74-76
+6.5
1
@
OSU
L 74-82
+6.5
4
@
NU
W 70-66
−9.5
7
vs
WIS
L 93-97
+35.5
12
vs
NU
W 81-68
+9.5
13
vs
NEB
W 74-58
−13.5
14
vs
UCLA
W 73-66
−4.5
15
vs
MICH
W 80-72
+2.5
20
vs
QUC
W 104-71
+15.5
22
vs
MIA
W 79-69
+1.5
26
vs
TEX
W 79-77
+9.5
28
vs
ARIZ
L 64-79
−9.5
over 20under 19avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Purdue has the better starters
Position by position: Lipscomb 0, Purdue 3, even 2
LipscombBetterPurdue
G T. Simpkins TR12.5 pts · 2.9 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 79
=Even
G C. Cox8.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 82
G M. Esmeraldo9.8 pts · 3.9 reb · 6.9 ast
Score 81
=Even
G G. Harris4.6 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 75
F T. Sargiunas9.9 pts · 2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 28
→PURBig
G J. Benter4.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 75
F O. Ashkenazi2.7 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 3
→PURBig
G O. Mayer5.5 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 64
F T. Byrne TR3.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 4
→PURBig
C D. Jacobsen5.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 88
LipscombBetterPurdue
LIP offense191st of 366 · -5.9
→PURBig
PUR defense18th of 366 · +6.0
LIP defense226th of 366 · -6.0
→PURBig
PUR offense38th of 366 · +5.0
Backcourt+3.0 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt+2.4 · 4 players
Frontcourt-6.7 · 3 players
→PURBig
Frontcourt+1.8 · 1 player
Bench-1.1 · 1 player
→PURSmall
Bench-0.0 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestLIP betterPUR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Simpkins32 min · TRM. Esmeraldo31 minZ. WellsNewV. VisnjicNewH. TidareNewK. QuinnNew
Forwards
T. Sargiunas24 minO. Ashkenazi20 minT. Byrne16 min · TRK. Okpara13 minL. JackNewD. MartinNew
Guards
C. Cox24 minG. Harris16 minJ. Benter15 minO. Mayer14 minJ. Rayl2 minJ. Lusk2 min
Forwards
S. KingNewC. PierceNewE. ShahrvinNewR. BurgessNewR. KnightNew
Centers
D. Jacobsen13 minS. HuanNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.6 #104 | Points per game | 81.6 #35 |
| 1.10 #142 | Points per possession | 1.25 #2 |
| 70.8 #83 | Pace (possessions) | 65.4 #333 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.1 #67 | Effective FG% | 57.6 #10 |
| 35.7 #75 | 3-point % | 38.3 #11 |
| 47.9 #24 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.2 #164 |
| 26.0 #357 | Free throw rate | 28.6 #336 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.0 #142 | Turnover rate | 13.7 #16 |
| 25.8 #327 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.4 #19 |
| 17.2 #19 | Assists per game | 19.6 #2 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.0 #242 | Points allowed | 70.5 #65 |
| 1.09 #187 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #162 |
| 53.2 #273 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #232 |
| 34.3 #207 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.1 #192 |
| 17.7 #113 | Turnovers forced | 15.3 #263 |
| 69.8 #171 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.9 #39 |
| 6.8 #141 | Steals per game | 5.5 #297 |
| 2.6 #291 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #257 |
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.
Purdue
30-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-7 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona64–79
- Wvs Texas79–77
- Wvs Miami79–69
- Wvs Queens University Royals104–71
- Wvs Michigan80–72
A week or more of rest.