Reynolds Center · at Tulsa
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TLSA | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 0-0 |
| 0-1 | ATS | 0-0 |
| 1-0 | O/U | 0-0 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects TLSA 87–66 · win probability TLSA 96%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.7
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: TLSA has more of the edges
NIU 0, TLSA 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: NIU 47.6 and allows 55.6; TLSA 55.4 and allows 49.5
Three-pointers
NIU hits 30.9% and allows 36.3%; TLSA hits 38.5% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 45.0% and 46.7% of their shots
TLSA offense vs NIU defense
Offense 99th of 366 against a defense 327th, on the model’s ratings
NIU offense vs TLSA defense
Offense 327th of 366 against a defense 133rd, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: NIU 38.3, TLSA 41.4. Allowed: NIU 38.3, TLSA 32.0
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NIU 21.7%, TLSA 15.6%. Forced: NIU 16.3%, TLSA 15.4%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NIU 30.3%, TLSA 32.8%. Defensive: NIU 70.0%, TLSA 71.0%
Context
Schedule so far
NIU has played the 167th-hardest schedule, TLSA the 111th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
TLSA at home. This season: TLSA 0-0 at home, NIU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: NIU plays 69.0 a game (181st fastest), TLSA 70.1 (115th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NIU 30%, TLSA 18%. Transfers in: NIU 6, TLSA 7. 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 | — | TLSA -20.4 | — |
| Total | — | 152.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | NIU 66.1 · TLSA 86.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TLSA -12.0 | — |
| 1H total | 71.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | NIU 29.7 · TLSA 41.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 2-8 20% | |
| 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
N Illinois
28 games played
Straight up
7-21
25% wins
Against the spread
13-15
46% covers · avg −3.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
8-20
29% overs · avg −4.8 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 102-82 | -7.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 72-97 | +28.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 59-88 | +22.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 57-70 | +19.5 | W +6.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 76-59 | +13.5 | W +30.5 | 148.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 59-77 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 64-99 | -3.5 | L −38.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 55-84 | +18.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 79-85 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 74-73 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 67-81 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 73-77 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 61-75 | +7.5 | L −6.5 | 161.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 59-77 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 70-68 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 157.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 77-80 | +11.5 | W +8.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 53-58 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | U 111 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 85-65 | -1.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 61-85 | +16.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 75-74 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 52-68 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 46-88 | +4.5 | L −37.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 72-70 | +9.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 66-74 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 69-79 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 43-79 | -1.5 | L −37.5 | 133.5 | U 122 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 76-102 | +10.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | O 178 |
| Mar 6 | @ | L 55-94 | +23.5 | L −15.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
ULM
W 102-82
+12.5
7
@
WIS
L 72-97
+3.5
10
@
GCU
L 59-88
−6.5
18
@
UNI
L 57-70
+6.5
21
@
LUC
W 76-59
+30.5
25
@
APSU
L 59-77
−11.5
2
vs
LIN
L 64-99
−38.5
6
@
BRAD
L 55-84
−10.5
13
@
ELON
L 79-85
+5.5
20
vs
CMU
W 74-73
−1.5
31
vs
BUF
L 67-81
−7.5
3
@
KENT
L 73-77
+12.5
6
vs
TOL
L 61-75
−6.5
13
@
EMU
L 59-77
−10.5
17
vs
MASS
W 70-68
+10.5
20
@
OHIO
L 77-80
+8.5
24
@
BALL
L 53-58
+0.5
27
vs
WMU
W 85-65
+18.5
31
@
M-OH
L 61-85
−7.5
7
@
GAST
W 75-74
+5.5
11
vs
BGSU
L 52-68
−8.5
14
@
CMU
L 46-88
−37.5
17
@
BUF
W 72-70
+11.5
21
vs
OHIO
L 66-74
−1.5
24
@
TOL
L 69-79
+2.5
28
vs
BALL
L 43-79
−37.5
3
vs
KENT
L 76-102
−15.5
6
@
AKR
L 55-94
−15.5
covered 13didn’t cover 15avg −3.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
ULM
W 102-82
+36.5
7
@
WIS
L 72-97
+11.5
10
@
GCU
L 59-88
−16.5
18
@
UNI
L 57-70
−19.5
21
@
LUC
W 76-59
−13.5
25
@
APSU
L 59-77
−11.5
2
vs
LIN
L 64-99
+15.5
6
@
BRAD
L 55-84
−7.5
13
@
ELON
L 79-85
+7.5
20
vs
CMU
W 74-73
−2.5
31
vs
BUF
L 67-81
−4.5
3
@
KENT
L 73-77
−7.5
6
vs
TOL
L 61-75
−25.5
13
@
EMU
L 59-77
−5.5
17
vs
MASS
W 70-68
−19.5
20
@
OHIO
L 77-80
+2.5
24
@
BALL
L 53-58
−30.5
27
vs
WMU
W 85-65
+3.5
31
@
M-OH
L 61-85
−12.5
7
@
GAST
W 75-74
+5.5
11
vs
BGSU
L 52-68
−24.5
14
@
CMU
L 46-88
−12.5
17
@
BUF
W 72-70
−3.5
21
vs
OHIO
L 66-74
−8.5
24
@
TOL
L 69-79
−2.5
28
vs
BALL
L 43-79
−11.5
3
vs
KENT
L 76-102
+29.5
6
@
AKR
L 55-94
−6.5
over 8under 20avg −4.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Tulsa
36 games played
Straight up
28-8
78% wins
Against the spread
19-17
53% covers · avg +4.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
24-12
67% overs · avg +4.7 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 | vs | W 82-65 | +3.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 12 | @ | W 88-87 | -5.5 | L −4.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 83-84 | +12.5 | W +11.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 84-75 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 81-51 | -5.5 | W +24.5 | 149.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 63-60 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 98-74 | -7.5 | W +16.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 117-84 | -25.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 201 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 83-70 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 19 | @ | W 82-81 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 90-85 | -16.5 | L −11.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 97-48 | -12.5 | W +36.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 67-72 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 78-93 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 163.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 86-74 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 99-77 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 83-66 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 87-81 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 82-66 | -8.5 | W +7.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 93-83 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 78-76 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 8 | @ | L 74-80 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 170.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 63-68 | -10.5 | L −15.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 77-81 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 79-74 | -12.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 100-74 | -21.5 | W +4.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 90-56 | -5.5 | W +28.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 93-66 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 156.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-76 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 90-84 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 174 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 68-81 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 17 | vs | W 89-84 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 77-66 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 24 | vs | W 83-79 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Apr 2 | vs | W 74-69 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Apr 5 | vs | L 86-92 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 178 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
URI
W 82-65
+20.5
12
@
ORU
W 88-87
−4.5
17
@
KSU
L 83-84
+11.5
21
vs
APSU
W 84-75
+0.5
25
vs
SJSU
W 81-51
+24.5
26
vs
UNI
W 63-60
+5.5
6
vs
MOST
W 98-74
+16.5
10
vs
UAPB
W 117-84
+7.5
13
vs
NMSU
W 83-70
+8.5
19
@
WKU
W 82-81
−1.5
22
vs
DEN
W 90-85
−11.5
31
vs
RICE
W 97-48
+36.5
4
@
UNT
L 67-72
−7.5
10
vs
USF
L 78-93
−16.5
14
@
CLT
W 86-74
+8.5
18
@
UAB
W 99-77
+23.5
21
vs
MEM
W 83-66
+10.5
24
@
RICE
W 87-81
−2.5
28
vs
UNT
W 82-66
+7.5
1
vs
WICH
W 93-83
+4.5
4
@
FAU
W 78-76
−1.5
8
@
USF
L 74-80
−1.5
11
vs
UAB
L 63-68
−15.5
14
@
WICH
L 77-81
−2.5
18
vs
CLT
W 79-74
−7.5
22
vs
UTSA
W 100-74
+4.5
25
@
TULN
W 90-56
+28.5
5
@
ECU
W 93-66
+18.5
8
vs
TEM
W 78-76
−9.5
13
vs
UNT
W 90-84
−1.5
14
vs
WICH
L 68-81
−14.5
17
vs
SFA
W 89-84
−0.5
22
vs
UNLV
W 77-66
+6.5
24
vs
WICH
W 83-79
−0.5
2
vs
UNM
W 74-69
+7.5
5
vs
AUB
L 86-92
−0.5
covered 19didn’t cover 17avg +4.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
URI
W 82-65
−6.5
12
@
ORU
W 88-87
+14.5
17
@
KSU
L 83-84
+6.5
21
vs
APSU
W 84-75
+10.5
25
vs
SJSU
W 81-51
−17.5
26
vs
UNI
W 63-60
−14.5
6
vs
MOST
W 98-74
+29.5
10
vs
UAPB
W 117-84
+45.5
13
vs
NMSU
W 83-70
+6.5
19
@
WKU
W 82-81
+4.5
22
vs
DEN
W 90-85
+14.5
31
vs
RICE
W 97-48
−7.5
4
@
UNT
L 67-72
+0.5
10
vs
USF
L 78-93
+7.5
14
@
CLT
W 86-74
+13.5
18
@
UAB
W 99-77
+16.5
21
vs
MEM
W 83-66
−4.5
24
@
RICE
W 87-81
+15.5
28
vs
UNT
W 82-66
+6.5
1
vs
WICH
W 93-83
+21.5
4
@
FAU
W 78-76
−8.5
8
@
USF
L 74-80
−16.5
11
vs
UAB
L 63-68
−30.5
14
@
WICH
L 77-81
+5.5
18
vs
CLT
W 79-74
+1.5
22
vs
UTSA
W 100-74
+14.5
25
@
TULN
W 90-56
−10.5
5
@
ECU
W 93-66
+2.5
8
vs
TEM
W 78-76
+4.5
13
vs
UNT
W 90-84
+32.5
14
vs
WICH
L 68-81
−3.5
17
vs
SFA
W 89-84
+23.5
22
vs
UNLV
W 77-66
−18.5
24
vs
WICH
W 83-79
+7.5
2
vs
UNM
W 74-69
−18.5
5
vs
AUB
L 86-92
+19.5
over 24under 12avg +4.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Tulsa has the better starters
Position by position: N Illinois 0, Tulsa 3, even 2
N IllinoisBetterTulsa
G M. Weisbrod TR11 pts · 2 reb · 8 ast
Score 27
→TLSASmall
G K. Williams TR14.2 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 46
G T. Polite15 pts · 5 reb · 1 ast
Score 45
→TLSASmall
G J. Johnson TR15 pts · 3.5 reb · 2 ast
Score 69
G U. Buntyn TR12.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 52
=Even
G B. Moss TR9.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 54
G D. Douglas TR12 pts · 4 reb · 0 ast
Score 9
→TLSASmall
F M. Emory TR11.3 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 27
F T. Samuels7 pts · 8.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 33
=Even
F C. Loofe TR7.1 pts · 6.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 26
N IllinoisBetterTulsa
NIU offense327th of 366 · -10.6
→TLSABig
TLSA defense133rd of 366 · -2.5
NIU defense327th of 366 · -8.5
→TLSABig
TLSA offense99th of 366 · -0.8
Backcourt-5.2 · 4 players
→TLSABig
Backcourt-0.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.4 · 1 player
←NIUSmall
Frontcourt-3.8 · 2 players
Bench-3.5 · 3 players
→TLSABig
Bench+1.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestNIU betterTLSA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Weisbrod31 min · TRT. Polite31 minU. Buntyn31 min · TRD. Douglas30 min · TRN. Carter-SmithNewC. HardrickNew
Forwards
T. Samuels30 minM. Ivanauskas20 min · TRJ. Daugherty10 min · TRA. McBirney-Griffin10 min · TRB. GrossNew
Guards
K. Williams36 min · TRJ. Johnson33 min · TRB. Moss27 min · TRM. Williams21 min · TRM. Rigsby19 minJ. Lawal13 min
Forwards
M. Emory37 min · TRC. Loofe26 min · TRK. Banks16 min · TRD. DesireNewA. DimitrijevicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.3 #341 | Points per game | 83.9 #20 |
| 0.96 #354 | Points per possession | 1.20 #16 |
| 69.0 #181 | Pace (possessions) | 70.1 #115 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.6 #324 | Effective FG% | 55.4 #29 |
| 30.9 #323 | 3-point % | 38.5 #10 |
| 45.0 #66 | 3-point attempt rate | 46.7 #37 |
| 38.3 #95 | Free throw rate | 41.4 #39 |
| Possessions | ||
| 21.7 #360 | Turnover rate | 15.6 #109 |
| 30.3 #187 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.8 #95 |
| 11.6 #308 | Assists per game | 15.1 #79 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.9 #291 | Points allowed | 74.4 #172 |
| 1.15 #323 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #111 |
| 55.6 #342 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.5 #82 |
| 36.3 #315 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.4 #85 |
| 16.3 #199 | Turnovers forced | 15.4 #260 |
| 70.0 #161 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.0 #108 |
| 5.6 #288 | Steals per game | 6.6 #170 |
| 1.9 #352 | Blocks per game | 2.5 #306 |
N Illinois
7-21 in 2025-26 overall · 4-14 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Akron55–94
- Lvs Kent State76–102
- Lvs Ball State43–79
- L@ Toledo69–79
- Lvs Ohio66–74
3 days since their last game.
Tulsa
28-8 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Auburn86–92
- Wvs New Mexico74–69
- Wvs Wichita St83–79
- Wvs UNLV77–66
- Wvs SF Austin89–84
A week or more of rest.