Tudor Fieldhouse · at Rice
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | RICE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RICE 76–69 · win probability RICE 73%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.5
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: RICE has more of the edges
NICH 1, RICE 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
NICH has played the 277th-hardest schedule, RICE the 116th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NICH 17.4%, RICE 17.9%. Forced: NICH 20.5%, RICE 15.7%
NICH offense vs RICE defense
Offense 283rd of 366 against a defense 163rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NICH 28.1%, RICE 35.3%. Defensive: NICH 66.3%, RICE 65.4%
RICE offense vs NICH defense
Offense 210th of 366 against a defense 282nd, on the model’s ratings
Home court
RICE at home. This season: RICE 0-0 at home, NICH 0-0 away
Three-pointers
NICH hits 33.3% and allows 34.6%; RICE hits 34.3% and allows 34.0%. Threes are 43.9% and 44.1% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NICH 20%, RICE 44%. Transfers in: NICH 6, RICE 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: NICH 34.5, RICE 33.9. Allowed: NICH 37.9, RICE 40.4
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: NICH 50.6 and allows 54.4; RICE 48.5 and allows 51.0
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: NICH plays 68.3 a game (210th fastest), RICE 67.9 (236th). 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 | — | RICE -7.0 | — |
| Total | — | 145.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | NICH 69.3 · RICE 76.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | RICE -4.0 | — |
| 1H total | 68.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | NICH 32 · RICE 36 | — |
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% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Nicholls
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +1.5 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 51-77 | +31.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 57-65 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 63-68 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 79-99 | +14.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 81-95 | +23.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 72-82 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 76-96 | +18.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 74-67 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 79-64 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 82-95 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 76-71 | +5.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 71-69 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 80-58 | -6.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 74-72 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-77 | -3.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 68-94 | +15.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 80-90 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 62-79 | +4.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 61-67 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 62-80 | -4.5 | L −22.5 | 157.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 72-68 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 61-58 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 76-83 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 72-92 | +3.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 91-83 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 68-72 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 78-81 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 23 | @ | W 53-52 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 68-60 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 65-75 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 61-47 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | U 108 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 68-86 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | O 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
UK
L 51-77
+5.5
7
@
EIU
L 57-65
−10.5
12
@
VAL
L 63-68
−2.5
15
@
MUR
L 79-99
−5.5
22
@
OKST
L 81-95
+9.5
28
@
TULN
L 72-82
−1.5
2
@
CREI
L 76-96
−1.5
6
vs
UIW
W 74-67
+8.5
17
vs
HCU
W 79-64
+11.5
21
@
PAC
L 82-95
−4.5
29
@
AMCC
W 76-71
+10.5
31
@
RGV
W 71-69
+5.5
3
vs
ETAM
W 80-58
+15.5
5
vs
NWST
W 74-72
−6.5
10
@
NOLA
W 90-77
+9.5
12
@
MCN
L 68-94
−10.5
17
vs
LAM
L 80-90
−13.5
19
vs
SFA
L 62-79
−12.5
24
@
SELA
L 61-67
−3.5
27
vs
NOLA
L 62-80
−22.5
31
@
ETAM
W 72-68
+5.5
2
@
NWST
W 61-58
+1.5
7
vs
AMCC
L 76-83
−8.5
9
vs
RGV
L 72-92
−16.5
14
@
UIW
W 91-83
+10.5
16
@
HCU
L 68-72
−2.5
21
@
SFA
L 78-81
+9.5
23
@
LAM
W 53-52
+4.5
28
vs
SELA
W 68-60
+3.5
2
vs
MCN
L 65-75
−0.5
8
vs
NWST
W 61-47
+12.5
9
vs
RGV
L 68-86
−12.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
UK
L 51-77
−29.5
7
@
EIU
L 57-65
−13.5
12
@
VAL
L 63-68
−13.5
15
@
MUR
L 79-99
+20.5
22
@
OKST
L 81-95
+20.5
28
@
TULN
L 72-82
+5.5
2
@
CREI
L 76-96
+28.5
6
vs
UIW
W 74-67
−4.5
17
vs
HCU
W 79-64
+5.5
21
@
PAC
L 82-95
+37.5
29
@
AMCC
W 76-71
+9.5
31
@
RGV
W 71-69
−5.5
3
vs
ETAM
W 80-58
−8.5
5
vs
NWST
W 74-72
+1.5
10
@
NOLA
W 90-77
+12.5
12
@
MCN
L 68-94
+15.5
17
vs
LAM
L 80-90
+30.5
19
vs
SFA
L 62-79
−3.5
24
@
SELA
L 61-67
−13.5
27
vs
NOLA
L 62-80
−15.5
31
@
ETAM
W 72-68
−6.5
2
@
NWST
W 61-58
−28.5
7
vs
AMCC
L 76-83
+21.5
9
vs
RGV
L 72-92
+16.5
14
@
UIW
W 91-83
+25.5
16
@
HCU
L 68-72
+3.5
21
@
SFA
L 78-81
+11.5
23
@
LAM
W 53-52
−38.5
28
vs
SELA
W 68-60
−11.5
2
vs
MCN
L 65-75
−5.5
8
vs
NWST
W 61-47
−30.5
9
vs
RGV
L 68-86
+10.5
over 17under 15avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Nicholls has the better starters
Position by position: Nicholls 1, Rice 0, even 4
NichollsBetterRice
G D. Cockrill TR11.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 75
←NICHSmall
G C. Adkins TR13.1 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 50
G C. Winborne7.9 pts · 1.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 29
=Even
G C. Carroll6.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 2 ast
Score 19
G S. Sharp4.1 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 19
=No call
G D. Hobbs4.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 2 ast
Not ranked
F A. Dent TR6 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Elouna Eyenga TR3.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 7
F J. Sileu TR0.3 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F E. Eguagie5.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
NichollsBetterRice
NICH offense283rd of 366 · -8.7
→RICESmall
RICE defense163rd of 366 · -3.6
NICH defense282nd of 366 · -7.0
→RICESmall
RICE offense210th of 366 · -6.4
Backcourt-2.5 · 3 players
←NICHSmall
Backcourt-4.8 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.7 · 2 players
←NICHSmall
Frontcourt-3.4 · 2 players
Bench-0.3 · 4 players
←NICHSmall
Bench-1.4 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestNICH betterRICE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Cockrill24 min · TRC. Winborne23 minS. Sharp17 minH. Carter4 min · TRC. Simpson3 min · TRJ. Matthews2 min
Forwards
A. Dent13 min · TRJ. Sileu7 min · TRA. Arop2 min · TRM. MboupNewJ. TaylorNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.0 #266 | Points per game | 72.0 #240 |
| 1.04 #275 | Points per possession | 1.06 #229 |
| 68.3 #210 | Pace (possessions) | 67.9 #236 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.6 #205 | Effective FG% | 48.5 #303 |
| 33.3 #215 | 3-point % | 34.3 #153 |
| 43.9 #90 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.1 #86 |
| 34.5 #195 | Free throw rate | 33.9 #214 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #232 | Turnover rate | 17.9 #265 |
| 28.1 #263 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.3 #38 |
| 12.9 #219 | Assists per game | 11.3 #320 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.7 #209 | Points allowed | 76.8 #235 |
| 1.11 #243 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #294 |
| 54.4 #311 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #160 |
| 34.6 #224 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.0 #184 |
| 20.5 #15 | Turnovers forced | 15.7 #236 |
| 66.3 #314 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.4 #329 |
| 8.7 #15 | Steals per game | 6.5 #185 |
| 2.8 #270 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #91 |
Nicholls
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 13-11 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UT Rio Grande68–86
- Wvs N'Western St61–47
- Lvs McNeese65–75
- Wvs SE Louisiana68–60
- W@ Lamar53–52
A week or more of rest.
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.