Banterra Center · at S Illinois
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SIU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SIU 77–68 · win probability SIU 79%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.3
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: SIU has more of the edges
SEMO 0, SIU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
SEMO has played the 351st-hardest schedule, SIU the 139th. A record against a soft schedule means less
SEMO offense vs SIU defense
Offense 312th of 366 against a defense 181st, on the model’s ratings
SIU offense vs SEMO defense
Offense 227th of 366 against a defense 284th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
SIU at home. This season: SIU 0-0 at home, SEMO 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SEMO 29.6%, SIU 30.9%. Defensive: SEMO 71.8%, SIU 72.7%
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: SEMO 38.8, SIU 31.3. Allowed: SEMO 48.0, SIU 31.4
Even
Three-pointers
SEMO hits 30.9% and allows 33.1%; SIU hits 27.8% and allows 30.4%. Threes are 36.0% and 29.2% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: SEMO 49.8 and allows 48.8; SIU 49.1 and allows 49.0
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: SEMO plays 70.2 a game (109th fastest), SIU 70.6 (91st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SEMO 26%, SIU 22%. Transfers in: SEMO 1, SIU 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SEMO 16.8%, SIU 17.1%. Forced: SEMO 18.1%, SIU 18.5%
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 | — | SIU -9.4 | — |
| Total | — | 144.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | SEMO 67.5 · SIU 76.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SIU -5.4 | — |
| 1H total | 67.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | SEMO 31 · SIU 36.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
SEMO 0–2 SIUSIU leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · SIU has won the last 2 meetings · SEMO 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2022-23 | SIU 70 @ SEMO 68 | SEMO +7.5 | SEMO W |
| Dec 15, 2021-22 | SEMO 55 @ SIU 80 | SIU -12.5 | SIU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
SE Missouri
30 games played
Straight up
17-13
57% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-17
43% overs · avg −2.2 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 67-92 | +19.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 84-89 | +25.5 | W +20.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 72-84 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 70-99 | +23.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 84-68 | -1.5 | W +14.5 | 170.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 72-79 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 77-88 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 153.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 74-70 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 74-85 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 91-82 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 68-59 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 73-50 | -13.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 84-76 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 69-71 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 76-88 | -6.5 | L −18.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 55-68 | -9.5 | L −22.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 66-50 | -2.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 70-65 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 78-74 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 77-59 | -4.5 | W +13.5 | 138.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 82-70 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 90-65 | -11.5 | W +13.5 | 141.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 56-74 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 137.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 73-61 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 56-53 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | U 109 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 70-65 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 71-79 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 89-73 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 68-66 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 61-66 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | U 127 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SLU
L 67-92
−5.5
7
@
MIZ
L 84-89
+20.5
15
vs
STMN
L 72-84
−9.5
18
@
IOWA
L 70-99
−5.5
25
vs
CP
W 84-68
+14.5
26
@
NAU
L 72-79
−4.5
29
vs
LIP
L 77-88
−14.5
6
@
UTC
W 74-70
+7.5
18
@
TNTC
L 74-85
−13.5
20
@
TNST
W 91-82
+7.5
1
vs
EIU
W 68-59
−3.5
3
vs
WIU
W 73-50
+9.5
8
@
USI
W 84-76
+0.5
10
@
MORE
L 69-71
−7.5
15
vs
LIN
L 76-88
−18.5
17
vs
SIUE
L 55-68
−22.5
20
vs
UTM
W 66-50
+13.5
22
vs
LR
W 70-65
−0.5
29
@
WIU
W 78-74
−6.5
31
@
EIU
W 77-59
+13.5
5
vs
MORE
W 82-70
+4.5
7
vs
USI
W 90-65
+13.5
12
@
SIUE
L 56-74
−19.5
14
@
LIN
W 73-61
+13.5
17
@
UTM
W 56-53
+5.5
21
@
LR
W 70-65
+3.5
26
vs
TNST
L 71-79
−10.5
28
vs
TNTC
W 89-73
+8.5
5
vs
LIN
W 68-66
−1.5
6
vs
MORE
L 61-66
−8.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SLU
L 67-92
+5.5
7
@
MIZ
L 84-89
+15.5
15
vs
STMN
L 72-84
+3.5
18
@
IOWA
L 70-99
+21.5
25
vs
CP
W 84-68
−18.5
26
@
NAU
L 72-79
−2.5
29
vs
LIP
L 77-88
+11.5
6
@
UTC
W 74-70
−5.5
18
@
TNTC
L 74-85
+3.5
20
@
TNST
W 91-82
+21.5
1
vs
EIU
W 68-59
−19.5
3
vs
WIU
W 73-50
−24.5
8
@
USI
W 84-76
+13.5
10
@
MORE
L 69-71
−4.5
15
vs
LIN
L 76-88
+9.5
17
vs
SIUE
L 55-68
−16.5
20
vs
UTM
W 66-50
−24.5
22
vs
LR
W 70-65
−10.5
29
@
WIU
W 78-74
+9.5
31
@
EIU
W 77-59
−2.5
5
vs
MORE
W 82-70
+7.5
7
vs
USI
W 90-65
+13.5
12
@
SIUE
L 56-74
−7.5
14
@
LIN
W 73-61
−20.5
17
@
UTM
W 56-53
−29.5
21
@
LR
W 70-65
−8.5
26
vs
TNST
L 71-79
−1.5
28
vs
TNTC
W 89-73
+20.5
5
vs
LIN
W 68-66
−14.5
6
vs
MORE
L 61-66
−12.5
over 13under 17avg −2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
S Illinois
31 games played
Straight up
15-16
48% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
9-22
29% overs · avg −5.3 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 101-78 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 81-86 | +11.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 85-92 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 79-59 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 73-81 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 58-74 | +10.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 74-65 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 86-84 | +9.5 | W +11.5 | 162.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 83-54 | -8.5 | W +20.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 84-93 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 68-75 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 69-73 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 81-84 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | U 165 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 75-70 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 68-67 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 57-70 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 73-76 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 68-73 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 63-69 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 65-50 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 130.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 66-68 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 3 | @ | W 54-50 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | U 104 |
| Feb 6 | vs | L 81-91 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 80-65 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 86-60 | -12.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 60-70 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 66-61 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 59-57 | +6.5 | W +8.5 | 134.5 | U 116 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 66-55 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 81-67 | -9.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 63-67 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
KC
W 101-78
+10.5
12
@
NEV
L 81-86
+6.5
17
@
NDSU
L 85-92
−5.5
23
vs
DEL
W 79-59
+11.5
24
vs
UAB
L 73-81
−5.5
26
@
MEM
L 58-74
−5.5
29
vs
LR
W 74-65
−4.5
3
@
HPU
W 86-84
+11.5
10
vs
UTM
W 83-54
+20.5
13
@
RICH
L 84-93
−5.5
18
vs
ILST
L 68-75
−8.5
21
@
BRAD
L 69-73
+2.5
29
@
MUR
L 81-84
+3.5
1
vs
VAL
W 75-70
−2.5
4
@
BEL
W 68-67
+7.5
7
@
UIC
L 57-70
−14.5
14
vs
DRKE
L 73-76
−8.5
17
vs
BEL
L 68-73
−1.5
21
@
VAL
L 63-69
−4.5
28
vs
UNI
W 65-50
+16.5
31
vs
UIC
L 66-68
−5.5
3
@
ILST
W 54-50
+12.5
6
vs
MUR
L 81-91
−8.5
9
@
INST
W 80-65
+13.5
12
vs
EVAN
W 86-60
+13.5
15
vs
BRAD
L 60-70
−12.5
18
@
DRKE
W 66-61
+3.5
21
@
UNI
W 59-57
+8.5
25
vs
INST
W 66-55
+2.5
1
@
EVAN
W 81-67
+4.5
5
vs
DRKE
L 63-67
−9.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
KC
W 101-78
+37.5
12
@
NEV
L 81-86
+14.5
17
@
NDSU
L 85-92
+23.5
23
vs
DEL
W 79-59
−15.5
24
vs
UAB
L 73-81
−7.5
26
@
MEM
L 58-74
−24.5
29
vs
LR
W 74-65
−2.5
3
@
HPU
W 86-84
+7.5
10
vs
UTM
W 83-54
−9.5
13
@
RICH
L 84-93
+23.5
18
vs
ILST
L 68-75
−10.5
21
@
BRAD
L 69-73
−10.5
29
@
MUR
L 81-84
−0.5
1
vs
VAL
W 75-70
−0.5
4
@
BEL
W 68-67
−23.5
7
@
UIC
L 57-70
−19.5
14
vs
DRKE
L 73-76
+4.5
17
vs
BEL
L 68-73
−10.5
21
@
VAL
L 63-69
−10.5
28
vs
UNI
W 65-50
−15.5
31
vs
UIC
L 66-68
−8.5
3
@
ILST
W 54-50
−36.5
6
vs
MUR
L 81-91
+14.5
9
@
INST
W 80-65
−1.5
12
vs
EVAN
W 86-60
+3.5
15
vs
BRAD
L 60-70
−16.5
18
@
DRKE
W 66-61
−22.5
21
@
UNI
W 59-57
−18.5
25
vs
INST
W 66-55
−26.5
1
@
EVAN
W 81-67
+8.5
5
vs
DRKE
L 63-67
−10.5
over 9under 22avg −5.3 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: SE Missouri 0, S Illinois 0, even 5
SE MissouriBetterS Illinois
G M. Bell8.6 pts · 5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 69
=Even
G J. Haynes7.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 71
G L. Blocker4.8 pts · 3.6 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 33
=No call
G C. Hawkins1.1 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
G P. Farmer1.6 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 11
=Even
F M. Pikaar1.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 19
F D. Sutton TR3.8 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 63
=No call
F D. Hill NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F T. Sadler0.2 pts · 0.1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C J. Webber1.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
SE MissouriBetterS Illinois
SEMO offense312th of 366 · -10.0
→SIUBig
SIU defense181st of 366 · -4.1
SEMO defense284th of 366 · -7.1
→SIUSmall
SIU offense227th of 366 · -7.0
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
→SIUSmall
Backcourt+0.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.0 · 2 players
←SEMOSmall
Frontcourt-1.0 · 3 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestSEMO betterSIU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Bell22 minL. Blocker18 minP. Farmer9 minK. PruettNewF. WilliamsNewM. EavesNew
Forwards
D. Sutton13 min · TRT. Sadler3 minC. JewellNewD. CooperNewA. PerryNew
Guards
J. Haynes21 minC. Hawkins5 minB. McClureNewJ. FugateNewL. WalshNewJ. JacksonNew
Forwards
M. Pikaar11 minD. HillNewD. PauliukonisNewP. RanieriNewT. LaurNew
Centers
J. Webber7 min
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.2 #217 | Points per game | 72.7 #229 |
| 1.04 #267 | Points per possession | 1.03 #285 |
| 70.2 #109 | Pace (possessions) | 70.6 #91 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.8 #244 | Effective FG% | 49.1 #286 |
| 30.9 #324 | 3-point % | 27.8 #363 |
| 36.0 #250 | 3-point attempt rate | 29.2 #355 |
| 38.8 #84 | Free throw rate | 31.3 #275 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.8 #192 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #207 |
| 29.6 #218 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.9 #167 |
| 11.7 #306 | Assists per game | 13.3 #188 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.3 #112 | Points allowed | 70.5 #62 |
| 1.03 #58 | Points allowed per possession | 1.00 #25 |
| 48.8 #57 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.0 #70 |
| 33.1 #130 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.4 #17 |
| 18.1 #91 | Turnovers forced | 18.5 #74 |
| 71.8 #76 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.7 #44 |
| 6.4 #190 | Steals per game | 8.0 #38 |
| 3.6 #121 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #157 |
SE Missouri
17-13 in 2025-26 overall · 15-7 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Morehead St61–66
- Wvs Lindenwood Lions68–66
- Wvs Tennessee Tech89–73
- Lvs Tennessee St71–79
- W@ Little Rock70–65
A week or more of rest.
S Illinois
15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 10-11 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Drake63–67
- W@ Evansville81–67
- Wvs Indiana St66–55
- W@ Northern Iowa59–57
- W@ Drake66–61
A week or more of rest.