William R. Johnson Coliseum · at SF Austin
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SFA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SFA 74–69 · win probability SFA 66%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.4
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: SFA has more of the edges
RICE 1, SFA 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
RICE has played the 116th-hardest schedule, SFA the 338th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RICE 17.9%, SFA 14.2%. Forced: RICE 15.7%, SFA 17.7%
Shooting
Effective FG%: RICE 48.5 and allows 51.0; SFA 51.7 and allows 47.7
Three-pointers
RICE hits 34.3% and allows 34.0%; SFA hits 35.8% and allows 30.3%. Threes are 44.1% and 39.8% of their shots
SFA offense vs RICE defense
Offense 252nd of 366 against a defense 163rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RICE 35.3%, SFA 33.8%. Defensive: RICE 65.4%, SFA 70.5%
Free throws
Free throw rate: RICE 33.9, SFA 30.1. Allowed: RICE 40.4, SFA 31.1
RICE offense vs SFA defense
Offense 210th of 366 against a defense 156th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
SFA at home. This season: SFA 0-0 at home, RICE 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RICE 44%, SFA 26%. Transfers in: RICE 3, SFA 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: RICE plays 67.9 a game (236th fastest), SFA 66.4 (298th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | SFA -4.8 | — |
| Total | — | 142.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | RICE 68.8 · SFA 73.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SFA -2.7 | — |
| 1H total | 66.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | RICE 32 · SFA 34.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
RICE 0–1 SFASFA leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · RICE 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2025-26 | SFA 81 @ RICE 69 | RICE -2.5 | SFA W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Rice
29 games played
Straight up
11-18
38% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-12
59% overs · avg +2.4 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 | @ | L 63-67 | +15.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 69-81 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 71-64 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 66-91 | +26.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 74-90 | -4.5 | L −20.5 | 146.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 84-89 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 63-78 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 81-62 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 77-72 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 77-76 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 62-84 | -1.5 | L −23.5 | 140.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 48-97 | +12.5 | L −36.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 70-76 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 66-64 | +13.5 | W +15.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 73-74 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 89-73 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 65-69 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 81-87 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 83-77 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 70-80 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 86-83 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 8 | @ | L 65-71 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 81-73 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 75-85 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 75-81 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 56-75 | +11.5 | L −7.5 | 157.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 80-74 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 58-62 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 80-71 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
ORE
L 63-67
+11.5
11
vs
SFA
L 69-81
−14.5
14
vs
ETAM
W 71-64
−3.5
17
@
TENN
L 66-91
+1.5
20
vs
TAR
L 74-90
−20.5
24
vs
KENN
L 84-89
−0.5
25
@
FGCU
L 63-78
−9.5
26
vs
ORU
W 81-62
+13.5
3
vs
TXST
W 77-72
+1.5
13
vs
ARST
W 77-76
+3.5
20
@
PEPP
L 62-84
−23.5
31
@
TLSA
L 48-97
−36.5
3
vs
MEM
L 70-76
+1.5
7
@
WICH
W 66-64
+15.5
11
vs
CLT
L 73-74
+0.5
14
@
UTSA
W 89-73
+9.5
21
vs
TEM
L 65-69
−5.5
24
vs
TLSA
L 81-87
+2.5
28
@
ECU
W 83-77
+8.5
30
@
CLT
L 70-80
−5.5
4
vs
UNT
W 86-83
+4.5
8
@
UAB
L 65-71
+2.5
11
vs
FAU
W 81-73
+11.5
14
vs
ECU
L 75-85
−14.5
22
@
TULN
L 75-81
−1.5
25
vs
USF
L 56-75
−7.5
1
@
TEM
W 80-74
+12.5
4
@
UNT
L 58-62
+2.5
8
vs
UTSA
W 80-71
−2.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
ORE
L 63-67
−15.5
11
vs
SFA
L 69-81
+0.5
14
vs
ETAM
W 71-64
−11.5
17
@
TENN
L 66-91
+13.5
20
vs
TAR
L 74-90
+17.5
24
vs
KENN
L 84-89
+13.5
25
@
FGCU
L 63-78
−8.5
26
vs
ORU
W 81-62
−7.5
3
vs
TXST
W 77-72
+15.5
13
vs
ARST
W 77-76
−2.5
20
@
PEPP
L 62-84
+5.5
31
@
TLSA
L 48-97
−7.5
3
vs
MEM
L 70-76
+1.5
7
@
WICH
W 66-64
−15.5
11
vs
CLT
L 73-74
+9.5
14
@
UTSA
W 89-73
+17.5
21
vs
TEM
L 65-69
−8.5
24
vs
TLSA
L 81-87
+15.5
28
@
ECU
W 83-77
+19.5
30
@
CLT
L 70-80
+8.5
4
vs
UNT
W 86-83
+34.5
8
@
UAB
L 65-71
−17.5
11
vs
FAU
W 81-73
+2.5
14
vs
ECU
L 75-85
+13.5
22
@
TULN
L 75-81
+8.5
25
vs
USF
L 56-75
−26.5
1
@
TEM
W 80-74
+11.5
4
@
UNT
L 58-62
−17.5
8
vs
UTSA
W 80-71
−0.5
over 17under 12avg +2.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
SF Austin
32 games played
Straight up
26-6
81% wins
Against the spread
23-9
72% covers · avg +2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −0.9 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 90-65 | +1.5 | W +26.5 | 155.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 81-69 | +2.5 | W +14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 76-66 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 78-80 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 63-60 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 61-66 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 73-60 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 96-76 | -19.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 69-60 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 75-48 | -4.5 | W +22.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 74-64 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 73-63 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 64-66 | +10.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 85-67 | -12.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 56-46 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-79 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 79-62 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 88-81 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 69-67 | -14.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 85-58 | -9.5 | W +17.5 | 135.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 67-60 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-74 | -8.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 74-70 | -16.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 66-57 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 16 | @ | W 78-68 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 81-78 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 73-77 | -11.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 77-56 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 76-68 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 60-58 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 135.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 59-76 | +3.5 | L −13.5 | 134.5 | O 135 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 84-89 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
ARST
W 90-65
+26.5
11
@
RICE
W 81-69
+14.5
14
vs
ACU
W 76-66
+3.5
18
@
FRES
L 78-80
−4.5
21
@
PEPP
W 63-60
+1.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-66
−3.5
3
vs
RGV
W 73-60
+6.5
7
vs
ULM
W 96-76
+0.5
17
vs
AMCC
W 69-60
+2.5
29
@
ETAM
W 75-48
+22.5
31
@
NWST
W 74-64
+1.5
3
@
SELA
W 73-63
+6.5
5
@
MCN
L 64-66
+8.5
10
vs
HCU
W 85-67
+5.5
12
vs
UIW
W 56-46
+2.5
17
@
NOLA
W 84-79
−1.5
19
@
NICH
W 79-62
+12.5
24
@
LAM
W 88-81
+2.5
27
vs
NWST
W 69-67
−12.5
31
vs
SELA
W 85-58
+17.5
2
vs
MCN
W 67-60
+9.5
7
vs
LAM
W 84-74
+1.5
9
vs
ETAM
W 74-70
−12.5
14
@
RGV
W 66-57
+7.5
16
@
AMCC
W 78-68
+4.5
21
vs
NICH
W 81-78
−9.5
23
vs
NOLA
L 73-77
−15.5
28
@
HCU
W 77-56
+12.5
2
@
UIW
W 76-68
+0.5
10
vs
AMCC
W 60-58
−4.5
11
vs
MCN
L 59-76
−13.5
17
@
TLSA
L 84-89
+0.5
covered 23didn’t cover 9avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
ARST
W 90-65
−0.5
11
@
RICE
W 81-69
+0.5
14
vs
ACU
W 76-66
−0.5
18
@
FRES
L 78-80
+11.5
21
@
PEPP
W 63-60
−25.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-66
−11.5
3
vs
RGV
W 73-60
−10.5
7
vs
ULM
W 96-76
+29.5
17
vs
AMCC
W 69-60
−10.5
29
@
ETAM
W 75-48
−23.5
31
@
NWST
W 74-64
−0.5
3
@
SELA
W 73-63
−1.5
5
@
MCN
L 64-66
−14.5
10
vs
HCU
W 85-67
+14.5
12
vs
UIW
W 56-46
−38.5
17
@
NOLA
W 84-79
+15.5
19
@
NICH
W 79-62
−3.5
24
@
LAM
W 88-81
+32.5
27
vs
NWST
W 69-67
−5.5
31
vs
SELA
W 85-58
+7.5
2
vs
MCN
W 67-60
−14.5
7
vs
LAM
W 84-74
+19.5
9
vs
ETAM
W 74-70
+0.5
14
@
RGV
W 66-57
−21.5
16
@
AMCC
W 78-68
+10.5
21
vs
NICH
W 81-78
+11.5
23
vs
NOLA
L 73-77
−3.5
28
@
HCU
W 77-56
−5.5
2
@
UIW
W 76-68
+1.5
10
vs
AMCC
W 60-58
−17.5
11
vs
MCN
L 59-76
+0.5
17
@
TLSA
L 84-89
+23.5
over 14under 18avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
SF Austin has the better starters
Position by position: Rice 0, SF Austin 3, even 2
RiceBetterSF Austin
G C. Adkins TR13.1 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 50
=Even
G M. Russell TR15 pts · 3.9 reb · 2 ast
Score 36
G C. Carroll6.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 2 ast
Score 19
→SFABig
G N. Chotikavanic9.6 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 60
G D. Hobbs4.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F E. Daniel TR3.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 41
F J. Elouna Eyenga TR3.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 7
→SFABig
F G. Alisas4.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 52
F E. Eguagie5.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
→SFASmall
F A. Reed TR2.7 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Score 42
RiceBetterSF Austin
RICE offense210th of 366 · -6.4
→SFASmall
SFA defense156th of 366 · -3.4
RICE defense163rd of 366 · -3.6
←RICESmall
SFA offense252nd of 366 · -7.6
Backcourt-4.8 · 3 players
→SFASmall
Backcourt-1.9 · 2 players
Frontcourt-3.4 · 2 players
→SFASmall
Frontcourt-0.8 · 3 players
Bench-1.4 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-1.9 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestRICE betterSFA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Adkins31 min · TRC. Carroll24 minD. Hobbs18 minJ. Dar10 min · TRB. Howell10 minC. Andrews-HeitzNew
Forwards
J. Elouna Eyenga18 min · TRE. Eguagie17 minJ. Oladokun17 minE. Cochran2 minA. LeethNewZ. FlasarNew
Guards
M. Russell36 min · TRN. Chotikavanic23 minC. Green7 minM. Scurry7 minA. Simmons4 min · TRB. Melvin3 min
Forwards
E. Daniel14 min · TRG. Alisas14 minA. Reed11 min · TRK. Pearson8 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.0 #240 | Points per game | 74.9 #166 |
| 1.06 #229 | Points per possession | 1.13 #88 |
| 67.9 #236 | Pace (possessions) | 66.4 #298 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.5 #303 | Effective FG% | 51.7 #160 |
| 34.3 #153 | 3-point % | 35.8 #71 |
| 44.1 #86 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.8 #176 |
| 33.9 #214 | Free throw rate | 30.1 #306 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.9 #265 | Turnover rate | 14.2 #29 |
| 35.3 #38 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.8 #74 |
| 11.3 #320 | Assists per game | 13.1 #209 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.8 #235 | Points allowed | 66.7 #20 |
| 1.13 #294 | Points allowed per possession | 1.00 #29 |
| 51.0 #160 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.7 #35 |
| 34.0 #184 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.3 #11 |
| 15.7 #236 | Turnovers forced | 17.7 #116 |
| 65.4 #329 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.5 #131 |
| 6.5 #185 | Steals per game | 6.9 #136 |
| 3.9 #91 | Blocks per game | 3.7 #118 |
Rice
11-18 in 2025-26 overall · 7-11 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Wvs UTSA80–71
- L@ North Texas58–62
- W@ Temple80–74
- Lvs South Florida56–75
- L@ Tulane75–81
A week or more of rest.
SF Austin
26-6 in 2025-26 overall · 21-3 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Tulsa84–89
- Lvs McNeese59–76
- Wvs Texas A&M-CC60–58
- W@ Incarnate Word76–68
- W@ Hou Christian77–56
A week or more of rest.