Jack Stephens Center · at Little Rock
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | LR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 72–72 · win probability SIU 51%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.4
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: SIU has more of the edges
SIU 4, LR 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
SIU has played the 139th-hardest schedule, LR the 347th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SIU 30.9%, LR 31.5%. Defensive: SIU 72.7%, LR 63.4%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: SIU plays 70.6 a game (91st fastest), LR 67.6 (248th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: SIU 49.1 and allows 49.0; LR 49.4 and allows 51.8
LR offense vs SIU defense
Offense 238th of 366 against a defense 181st, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: SIU 31.3, LR 27.7. Allowed: SIU 31.4, LR 33.1
Home court
LR at home. This season: LR 0-0 at home, SIU 0-0 away
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SIU 17.1%, LR 18.4%. Forced: SIU 18.5%, LR 18.6%
Even
Three-pointers
SIU hits 27.8% and allows 30.4%; LR hits 35.3% and allows 34.4%. Threes are 29.2% and 31.0% of their shots
Even
SIU offense vs LR defense
Offense 227th of 366 against a defense 208th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SIU 22%, LR 12%. Transfers in: SIU 0, LR 8. 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 | — | SIU -0.2 | — |
| Total | — | 144.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | SIU 72.3 · LR 72.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SIU -0.2 | — |
| 1H total | 67.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | SIU 33.9 · LR 33.7 | — |
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% | 3-7 30% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 15 | vs MILW | L72–92LO |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
SIU 2–1 LRSIU leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · SIU has won the last 2 meetings · SIU 1-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29, 2025-26 | LR 65 @ SIU 74 | SIU -13.5 | LR W |
| Nov 7, 2022-23 | LR 63 @ SIU 94 | SIU -15 | SIU W |
| Nov 9, 2021-22 | SIU 66 @ LR 69 | LR +6.5 | LR W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Little Rock
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −1.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg +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 10 | @ | L 72-92 | +3.5 | L −16.5 | 156.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 49-89 | +21.5 | L −18.5 | 155.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 68-62 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 68-89 | +13.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 56-65 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 131.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 65-74 | +13.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 47-85 | +3.5 | L −34.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 78-90 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 58-90 | +27.5 | L −4.5 | 132.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 64-78 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 18 | @ | W 77-62 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 77-58 | -1.5 | W +17.5 | 144.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 79-84 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 73-70 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 131.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 82-74 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 133.5 | O 137 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 86-79 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 65-70 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 63-70 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 77-87 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 141.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 52-55 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 74-79 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 61-71 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 132.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-58 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 72-78 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 134.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 67-65 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 65-70 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 70-76 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 138.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 89-70 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 62-72 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
10
@
MILW
L 72-92
−16.5
12
@
MARQ
L 49-89
−18.5
15
@
BALL
W 68-62
+8.5
18
@
MUR
L 68-89
−7.5
21
@
TXST
L 56-65
−3.5
29
@
SIU
L 65-74
+4.5
3
@
CARK
L 47-85
−34.5
6
vs
ARST
L 78-90
−2.5
9
@
WVU
L 58-90
−4.5
16
@
MORE
L 64-78
−11.5
18
@
USI
W 77-62
+12.5
1
vs
TNTC
W 77-58
+17.5
3
vs
TNST
L 79-84
−3.5
8
@
SIUE
W 73-70
+6.5
10
@
LIN
W 82-74
+14.5
15
vs
EIU
W 74-63
+4.5
17
vs
WIU
W 86-79
−3.5
22
@
SEMO
L 65-70
+0.5
29
@
TNST
L 63-70
−2.5
31
@
TNTC
L 77-87
−11.5
3
@
UTM
L 52-55
+3.5
5
vs
LIN
L 74-79
−3.5
7
vs
SIUE
L 61-71
−11.5
12
@
WIU
W 77-58
+11.5
14
@
EIU
L 72-78
−8.5
19
vs
UTM
W 67-65
+4.5
21
vs
SEMO
L 65-70
−3.5
26
vs
MORE
L 70-76
−8.5
28
vs
USI
W 89-70
+13.5
4
vs
LIN
L 62-72
−4.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
10
@
MILW
L 72-92
+7.5
12
@
MARQ
L 49-89
−17.5
15
@
BALL
W 68-62
−16.5
18
@
MUR
L 68-89
+3.5
21
@
TXST
L 56-65
−10.5
29
@
SIU
L 65-74
−2.5
3
@
CARK
L 47-85
−6.5
6
vs
ARST
L 78-90
+20.5
9
@
WVU
L 58-90
+15.5
16
@
MORE
L 64-78
+5.5
18
@
USI
W 77-62
−1.5
1
vs
TNTC
W 77-58
−9.5
3
vs
TNST
L 79-84
+18.5
8
@
SIUE
W 73-70
+11.5
10
@
LIN
W 82-74
+6.5
15
vs
EIU
W 74-63
+3.5
17
vs
WIU
W 86-79
+29.5
22
@
SEMO
L 65-70
−10.5
29
@
TNST
L 63-70
−17.5
31
@
TNTC
L 77-87
+22.5
3
@
UTM
L 52-55
−32.5
5
vs
LIN
L 74-79
+3.5
7
vs
SIUE
L 61-71
−0.5
12
@
WIU
W 77-58
−6.5
14
@
EIU
L 72-78
+15.5
19
vs
UTM
W 67-65
−4.5
21
vs
SEMO
L 65-70
−8.5
26
vs
MORE
L 70-76
+7.5
28
vs
USI
W 89-70
+19.5
4
vs
LIN
L 62-72
−14.5
over 15under 15avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Little Rock has the better starters
Position by position: S Illinois 0, Little Rock 1, even 4
S IllinoisBetterLittle Rock
G J. Haynes7.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 71
=Even
G A. Clark TR15.3 pts · 3.4 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 62
G C. Hawkins1.1 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. King TR14 pts · 3 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 46
F M. Pikaar1.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 19
→LRSmall
G T. Walters TR8.3 pts · 5.4 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 37
F D. Hill NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F B. Hubbard TR16.1 pts · 4.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 80
C J. Webber1.2 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F T. Burgess7.4 pts · 3 reb · 1.2 ast
Not ranked
S IllinoisBetterLittle Rock
SIU offense227th of 366 · -7.0
=Even
LR defense208th of 366 · -5.2
SIU defense181st of 366 · -4.1
←SIUSmall
LR offense238th of 366 · -7.3
Backcourt+0.1 · 2 players
←SIUSmall
Backcourt-2.3 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 3 players
→LRSmall
Frontcourt+0.9 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-2.3 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestSIU betterLR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Haynes21 minC. Hawkins5 minB. McClureNewJ. FugateNewL. WalshNewJ. JacksonNew
Forwards
M. Pikaar11 minD. HillNewD. PauliukonisNewP. RanieriNewT. LaurNew
Centers
J. Webber7 min
Guards
A. Clark33 min · TRJ. King32 min · TRT. Walters28 min · TRA. Economou6 min · TRT. LaceyNewJ. LynNew
Forwards
B. Hubbard29 min · TRT. Burgess24 minP. Amadou Kante14 min · TRA. Bamisile14 min · TRJ. Felt13 min · TRR. OselkaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.7 #229 | Points per game | 68.9 #300 |
| 1.03 #285 | Points per possession | 1.02 #306 |
| 70.6 #91 | Pace (possessions) | 67.6 #248 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.1 #286 | Effective FG% | 49.4 #273 |
| 27.8 #363 | 3-point % | 35.3 #96 |
| 29.2 #355 | 3-point attempt rate | 31.0 #339 |
| 31.3 #275 | Free throw rate | 27.7 #345 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #207 | Turnover rate | 18.4 #292 |
| 30.9 #167 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.5 #143 |
| 13.3 #188 | Assists per game | 13.4 #183 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.5 #62 | Points allowed | 74.2 #160 |
| 1.00 #25 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #217 |
| 49.0 #70 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.8 #199 |
| 30.4 #17 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.4 #211 |
| 18.5 #74 | Turnovers forced | 18.6 #71 |
| 72.7 #44 | Defensive rebound rate | 63.4 #357 |
| 8.0 #38 | Steals per game | 7.5 #77 |
| 3.4 #157 | Blocks per game | 4.4 #45 |
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.
Little Rock
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 9-12 in conference · United Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Lindenwood Lions62–72
- Wvs Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles89–70
- Lvs Morehead St70–76
- Lvs SE Missouri65–70
- Wvs UT Martin67–65
A week or more of rest.