First National Bank Arena · at Arkansas St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ARST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ARST 78–74 · win probability ARST 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.8
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: ARST has more of the edges
RICE 2, ARST 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RICE 35.3%, ARST 38.2%. Defensive: RICE 65.4%, ARST 73.0%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: RICE plays 67.9 a game (236th fastest), ARST 73.4 (16th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
RICE has played the 116th-hardest schedule, ARST the 221st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: RICE 33.9, ARST 39.1. Allowed: RICE 40.4, ARST 37.0
Shooting
Effective FG%: RICE 48.5 and allows 51.0; ARST 51.7 and allows 50.3
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RICE 17.9%, ARST 19.8%. Forced: RICE 15.7%, ARST 14.9%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RICE 44%, ARST 6%. Transfers in: RICE 3, ARST 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
ARST at home. This season: ARST 0-0 at home, RICE 0-0 away
Even
RICE offense vs ARST defense
Offense 210th of 366 against a defense 252nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
ARST offense vs RICE defense
Offense 122nd of 366 against a defense 163rd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
RICE hits 34.3% and allows 34.0%; ARST hits 32.9% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 44.1% and 44.9% of their shots
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 | — | ARST -3.9 | — |
| Total | — | 151.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | RICE 74 · ARST 77.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ARST -2.2 | — |
| 1H total | 71.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | RICE 34.4 · ARST 36.6 | — |
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% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
RICE 2–0 ARSTRICE leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · RICE has won the last 2 meetings · RICE 2-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13, 2025-26 | ARST 76 @ RICE 77 | RICE +2.5 | RICE W |
| Nov 30, 2024-25 | ARST 67 vs RICE 75 | RICE +8.5 | RICE 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
Arkansas St
30 games played
Straight up
18-12
60% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg −0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg +2.6 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 | @ | W 89-85 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 65-90 | -1.5 | L −26.5 | 155.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 86-85 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 72-85 | +20.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 69-100 | +14.5 | L −16.5 | 172.5 | U 169 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 74-63 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 155.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 85-80 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 83-63 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 90-78 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 76-77 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 89-70 | -4.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 93-86 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 74-78 | -10.5 | L −14.5 | 158.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 86-74 | -4.5 | W +7.5 | 160.5 | U 160 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 83-82 | -11.5 | L −10.5 | 156.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 87-91 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 154.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 74-99 | +3.5 | L −21.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 85-68 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 172.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 81-82 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 71-75 | -9.5 | L −13.5 | 159.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 61-70 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 165.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 70-66 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 91-54 | -2.5 | W +34.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 103-70 | -20.5 | W +12.5 | 162.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 88-92 | -8.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 79-62 | -8.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 102-94 | -15.5 | L −7.5 | 165.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 89-84 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 158.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 81-58 | -13.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 77-80 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 165.5 | U 157 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
OHIO
W 89-85
+7.5
7
@
SFA
L 65-90
−26.5
11
@
MOST
W 86-85
+2.5
19
@
SMC
L 72-85
+7.5
21
@
SMU
L 69-100
−16.5
24
vs
JXST
W 74-63
+6.5
28
vs
NDSU
W 85-80
+1.5
2
vs
UTA
W 83-63
+14.5
6
@
LR
W 90-78
+2.5
13
@
RICE
L 76-77
−3.5
17
@
TXST
W 89-70
+14.5
20
@
USM
W 93-86
+5.5
3
vs
JMU
L 74-78
−14.5
7
vs
TROY
W 86-74
+7.5
10
vs
TXST
W 83-82
−10.5
15
@
USA
L 87-91
−8.5
17
@
TROY
L 74-99
−21.5
22
@
GASO
W 85-68
+15.5
24
@
GAST
L 81-82
−5.5
28
vs
ODU
L 71-75
−13.5
31
vs
MRSH
L 61-70
−12.5
4
@
CCU
W 70-66
−0.5
7
vs
BGSU
W 91-54
+34.5
11
vs
ULM
W 103-70
+12.5
14
vs
USA
L 88-92
−12.5
19
@
UL
W 79-62
+8.5
21
@
ULM
W 102-94
−7.5
24
vs
USM
W 89-84
−4.5
27
vs
UL
W 81-58
+9.5
5
vs
GASO
L 77-80
−10.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
OHIO
W 89-85
+14.5
7
@
SFA
L 65-90
−0.5
11
@
MOST
W 86-85
+18.5
19
@
SMC
L 72-85
+7.5
21
@
SMU
L 69-100
−3.5
24
vs
JXST
W 74-63
−18.5
28
vs
NDSU
W 85-80
+4.5
2
vs
UTA
W 83-63
−5.5
6
@
LR
W 90-78
+20.5
13
@
RICE
L 76-77
−2.5
17
@
TXST
W 89-70
+7.5
20
@
USM
W 93-86
+23.5
3
vs
JMU
L 74-78
−6.5
7
vs
TROY
W 86-74
−0.5
10
vs
TXST
W 83-82
+8.5
15
@
USA
L 87-91
+23.5
17
@
TROY
L 74-99
+7.5
22
@
GASO
W 85-68
−19.5
24
@
GAST
L 81-82
+5.5
28
vs
ODU
L 71-75
−13.5
31
vs
MRSH
L 61-70
−34.5
4
@
CCU
W 70-66
−15.5
7
vs
BGSU
W 91-54
−9.5
11
vs
ULM
W 103-70
+10.5
14
vs
USA
L 88-92
+30.5
19
@
UL
W 79-62
−3.5
21
@
ULM
W 102-94
+30.5
24
vs
USM
W 89-84
+14.5
27
vs
UL
W 81-58
−7.5
5
vs
GASO
L 77-80
−8.5
over 15under 15avg +2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Arkansas St has the better starters
Position by position: Rice 0, Arkansas St 3, even 2
RiceBetterArkansas St
G C. Adkins TR13.1 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 50
→ARSTSmall
G J. Pyke TR12.3 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 83
G C. Carroll6.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 2 ast
Score 19
→ARSTSmall
G L. Taylor TR8 pts · 2.7 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 45
G D. Hobbs4.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G R. Blue Smith4.8 pts · 1.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 33
F J. Elouna Eyenga TR3.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 7
→ARSTSmall
F A. Doumbia TR3.1 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 36
F E. Eguagie5.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
=No call
F D. Muon NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
RiceBetterArkansas St
RICE offense210th of 366 · -6.4
=Even
ARST defense252nd of 366 · -6.6
RICE defense163rd of 366 · -3.6
=Even
ARST offense122nd of 366 · -3.2
Backcourt-4.8 · 3 players
→ARSTBig
Backcourt-0.1 · 3 players
Frontcourt-3.4 · 2 players
→ARSTSmall
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
Bench-1.4 · 4 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestRICE betterARST 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
J. Pyke26 min · TRL. Taylor25 min · TRR. Blue Smith13 minC. WatsonNewT. FergusonNewC. GeathersNew
Forwards
A. Doumbia14 min · TRD. MuonNewG. BennettNewA. MaigaNewR. OmedNewM. SyNew
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 | 81.8 #33 |
| 1.06 #229 | Points per possession | 1.11 #117 |
| 67.9 #236 | Pace (possessions) | 73.4 #16 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.5 #303 | Effective FG% | 51.7 #164 |
| 34.3 #153 | 3-point % | 32.9 #240 |
| 44.1 #86 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.9 #70 |
| 33.9 #214 | Free throw rate | 39.1 #78 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.9 #265 | Turnover rate | 19.8 #344 |
| 35.3 #38 | Offensive rebound rate | 38.2 #6 |
| 11.3 #320 | Assists per game | 15.3 #77 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.8 #235 | Points allowed | 78.0 #268 |
| 1.13 #294 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #121 |
| 51.0 #160 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.3 #117 |
| 34.0 #184 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #115 |
| 15.7 #236 | Turnovers forced | 14.9 #298 |
| 65.4 #329 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.0 #36 |
| 6.5 #185 | Steals per game | 7.2 #110 |
| 3.9 #91 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #268 |
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.
Arkansas St
18-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs GA Southern77–80
- Wvs Louisiana81–58
- Wvs Southern Miss89–84
- W@ UL Monroe102–94
- W@ Louisiana79–62
A week or more of rest.