Hyland Arena · at Lindenwood Lions
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LIN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 LIN 80–71 · win probability LIN 79%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.3
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: LIN has more of the edges
NIU 1, LIN 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
NIU has played the 167th-hardest schedule, LIN the 357th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: NIU 47.6 and allows 55.6; LIN 48.0 and allows 49.1
Three-pointers
NIU hits 30.9% and allows 36.3%; LIN hits 29.4% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 45.0% and 30.7% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NIU 21.7%, LIN 18.7%. Forced: NIU 16.3%, LIN 18.4%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: NIU plays 69.0 a game (181st fastest), LIN 73.0 (18th). Faster games mean more points
LIN offense vs NIU defense
Offense 250th of 366 against a defense 327th, on the model’s ratings
NIU offense vs LIN defense
Offense 327th of 366 against a defense 261st, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NIU 30%, LIN 0%. Transfers in: NIU 6, LIN 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
LIN at home. This season: LIN 0-0 at home, NIU 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: NIU 38.3, LIN 38.6. Allowed: NIU 38.3, LIN 37.4
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NIU 30.3%, LIN 33.3%. Defensive: NIU 70.0%, LIN 68.3%
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 | — | LIN -9.3 | — |
| Total | — | 150.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | NIU 70.5 · LIN 79.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | LIN -5.4 | — |
| 1H total | 70.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | NIU 32.4 · LIN 37.9 | — |
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% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 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.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
NIU 0–1 LINLIN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · NIU 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2025-26 | LIN 99 @ NIU 64 | NIU -3.5 | LIN W |
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
Lindenwood Lions
30 games played
Straight up
15-15
50% wins
Against the spread
13-17
43% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-13
57% overs · avg −0.7 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 4 | @ | L 60-98 | +29.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 66-109 | +24.5 | L −18.5 | 165.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 83-77 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 65-74 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 53-73 | +32.5 | W +12.5 | 155.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 80-67 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 99-64 | +3.5 | W +38.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 82-74 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 92-76 | -12.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 65-70 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 77-64 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 83-80 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 62-66 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 74-82 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 88-76 | +6.5 | W +18.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 55-69 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 89-68 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 86-96 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 73-60 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-78 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 72-78 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 79-74 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 75-74 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 61-73 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 80-89 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 57-72 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 67-71 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 91-69 | -11.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 72-62 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 66-68 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
TTU
L 60-98
−8.5
10
@
SLU
L 66-109
−18.5
14
vs
CHSO
W 83-77
+3.5
16
@
AAMU
L 65-74
−5.5
20
@
IU
L 53-73
+12.5
24
vs
KC
W 80-67
+8.5
2
@
NIU
W 99-64
+38.5
6
@
EIU
W 82-74
−0.5
18
vs
WIU
W 92-76
+3.5
23
@
MOST
L 65-70
−1.5
1
vs
MORE
W 77-64
+6.5
3
vs
USI
W 83-80
−6.5
6
@
SIUE
L 62-66
−2.5
10
vs
LR
L 74-82
−14.5
15
@
SEMO
W 88-76
+18.5
17
@
UTM
L 55-69
−11.5
22
vs
TNTC
W 89-68
+12.5
24
vs
TNST
L 86-96
−14.5
29
@
USI
W 73-60
+8.5
31
@
MORE
W 79-78
−0.5
3
vs
SIUE
L 72-78
−10.5
5
@
LR
W 79-74
+3.5
12
vs
UTM
W 75-74
−0.5
14
vs
SEMO
L 61-73
−13.5
19
@
TNST
L 80-89
−5.5
21
@
TNTC
L 57-72
−16.5
26
vs
EIU
L 67-71
−11.5
28
@
WIU
W 91-69
+10.5
4
vs
LR
W 72-62
+4.5
5
vs
SEMO
L 66-68
+1.5
covered 13didn’t cover 17avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
TTU
L 60-98
+11.5
10
@
SLU
L 66-109
+9.5
14
vs
CHSO
W 83-77
+4.5
16
@
AAMU
L 65-74
−10.5
20
@
IU
L 53-73
−29.5
24
vs
KC
W 80-67
−5.5
2
@
NIU
W 99-64
+15.5
6
@
EIU
W 82-74
+10.5
18
vs
WIU
W 92-76
+21.5
23
@
MOST
L 65-70
−10.5
1
vs
MORE
W 77-64
−6.5
3
vs
USI
W 83-80
+15.5
6
@
SIUE
L 62-66
−14.5
10
vs
LR
L 74-82
+6.5
15
@
SEMO
W 88-76
+9.5
17
@
UTM
L 55-69
−23.5
22
vs
TNTC
W 89-68
+5.5
24
vs
TNST
L 86-96
+21.5
29
@
USI
W 73-60
−17.5
31
@
MORE
W 79-78
+8.5
3
vs
SIUE
L 72-78
+9.5
5
@
LR
W 79-74
+3.5
12
vs
UTM
W 75-74
+3.5
14
vs
SEMO
L 61-73
−20.5
19
@
TNST
L 80-89
+9.5
21
@
TNTC
L 57-72
−22.5
26
vs
EIU
L 67-71
−6.5
28
@
WIU
W 91-69
+10.5
4
vs
LR
W 72-62
−14.5
5
vs
SEMO
L 66-68
−14.5
over 17under 13avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
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 | 74.4 #183 |
| 0.96 #354 | Points per possession | 1.02 #307 |
| 69.0 #181 | Pace (possessions) | 73.0 #18 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.6 #324 | Effective FG% | 48.0 #313 |
| 30.9 #323 | 3-point % | 29.4 #347 |
| 45.0 #66 | 3-point attempt rate | 30.7 #346 |
| 38.3 #95 | Free throw rate | 38.6 #88 |
| Possessions | ||
| 21.7 #360 | Turnover rate | 18.7 #307 |
| 30.3 #187 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.3 #83 |
| 11.6 #308 | Assists per game | 13.0 #212 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.9 #291 | Points allowed | 75.0 #190 |
| 1.15 #323 | Points allowed per possession | 1.03 #52 |
| 55.6 #342 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.1 #72 |
| 36.3 #315 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.4 #84 |
| 16.3 #199 | Turnovers forced | 18.4 #78 |
| 70.0 #161 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #244 |
| 5.6 #288 | Steals per game | 8.4 #24 |
| 1.9 #352 | Blocks per game | 4.4 #46 |
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
A week or more of rest.
Lindenwood Lions
15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 12-10 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SE Missouri66–68
- Wvs Little Rock72–62
- W@ W Illinois91–69
- Lvs E Illinois67–71
- L@ Tennessee Tech57–72
A week or more of rest.