Rupp Arena · at Kentucky
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UK | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UK 96–61 · win probability UK 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.4
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: UK has more of the edges
MAN 1, UK 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
UK offense vs MAN defense
Offense 13th of 366 against a defense 346th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
MAN has played the 336th-hardest schedule, UK the 5th. A record against a soft schedule means less
MAN offense vs UK defense
Offense 301st of 366 against a defense 32nd, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: MAN 47.9 and allows 53.9; UK 53.4 and allows 48.9
Three-pointers
MAN hits 32.0% and allows 36.6%; UK hits 34.2% and allows 31.8%. Threes are 37.1% and 39.7% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MAN 28.6%, UK 33.2%. Defensive: MAN 63.0%, UK 70.0%
Free throws
Free throw rate: MAN 34.0, UK 37.4. Allowed: MAN 25.7, UK 36.4
Home court
UK at home. This season: UK 0-0 at home, MAN 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: MAN plays 69.0 a game (182nd fastest), UK 69.9 (123rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MAN 15.6%, UK 15.4%. Forced: MAN 16.6%, UK 15.5%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MAN 10%, UK 26%. Transfers in: MAN 5, UK 6. 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 | — | UK -35.4 | — |
| Total | — | 156.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | MAN 60.5 · UK 95.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UK -20.9 | — |
| 1H total | 73.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | MAN 26.1 · UK 47 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Manhattan
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
11-20
35% covers · avg −3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-18
42% overs · avg +2.3 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 9 | @ | L 83-114 | +28.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 79-75 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 56-86 | +15.5 | L −14.5 | 156.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 80-73 | -20.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 68-109 | +23.5 | L −17.5 | 162.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 101-103 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 204 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 78-81 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 70-66 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 68-80 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 53-82 | +8.5 | L −20.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 18 | vs | L 68-75 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 87-81 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 138.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 74-71 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 80-79 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 159.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 66-73 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 64-70 | -7.5 | L −13.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 79-70 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 62-98 | +6.5 | L −29.5 | 158.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 59-74 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 92-98 | +13.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 57-66 | +7.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 95-90 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 65-72 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 75-80 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 80-68 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 161.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 13 | @ | W 76-69 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 69-65 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 20 | vs | L 70-84 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 27 | @ | L 65-75 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 65-69 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 60-71 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
9
@
USC
L 83-114
−2.5
12
vs
UTU
W 79-75
+6.5
14
@
HAW
L 56-86
−14.5
15
vs
MVSU
W 80-73
−13.5
21
@
TA&M
L 68-109
−17.5
26
vs
WAG
L 101-103
−4.5
29
@
ARMY
L 78-81
−4.5
5
vs
FAIR
W 70-66
+5.5
7
@
MRST
L 68-80
−4.5
13
@
FOR
L 53-82
−20.5
18
vs
FUR
L 68-75
+3.5
21
vs
PRES
W 87-81
+8.5
29
@
RID
W 74-71
+0.5
2
vs
QUIN
W 80-79
+8.5
4
@
MRMK
L 66-73
−0.5
9
vs
CAN
L 64-70
−13.5
11
vs
NIA
W 79-70
+3.5
14
@
FAIR
L 62-98
−29.5
17
vs
SIE
L 59-74
−8.5
19
@
QUIN
L 92-98
+7.5
24
@
IONA
L 57-66
−1.5
30
vs
RID
W 95-90
−0.5
1
@
MSM
L 65-72
−0.5
5
vs
SPU
L 75-80
−0.5
7
vs
SHU
W 80-68
+13.5
13
@
NIA
W 76-69
+4.5
15
@
CAN
W 69-65
+2.5
20
vs
MRST
L 70-84
−8.5
27
@
SPU
L 65-75
−2.5
1
vs
IONA
L 65-69
−1.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 60-71
−7.5
covered 11didn’t cover 20avg −3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
9
@
USC
L 83-114
+41.5
12
vs
UTU
W 79-75
−4.5
14
@
HAW
L 56-86
−14.5
15
vs
MVSU
W 80-73
−1.5
21
@
TA&M
L 68-109
+14.5
26
vs
WAG
L 101-103
+59.5
29
@
ARMY
L 78-81
+6.5
5
vs
FAIR
W 70-66
−19.5
7
@
MRST
L 68-80
+7.5
13
@
FOR
L 53-82
−12.5
18
vs
FUR
L 68-75
−11.5
21
vs
PRES
W 87-81
+29.5
29
@
RID
W 74-71
−2.5
2
vs
QUIN
W 80-79
−0.5
4
@
MRMK
L 66-73
−9.5
9
vs
CAN
L 64-70
−11.5
11
vs
NIA
W 79-70
+8.5
14
@
FAIR
L 62-98
+1.5
17
vs
SIE
L 59-74
−11.5
19
@
QUIN
L 92-98
+36.5
24
@
IONA
L 57-66
−30.5
30
vs
RID
W 95-90
+39.5
1
@
MSM
L 65-72
−10.5
5
vs
SPU
L 75-80
+10.5
7
vs
SHU
W 80-68
−13.5
13
@
NIA
W 76-69
+8.5
15
@
CAN
W 69-65
−8.5
20
vs
MRST
L 70-84
+11.5
27
@
SPU
L 65-75
−5.5
1
vs
IONA
L 65-69
−17.5
5
vs
FAIR
L 60-71
−17.5
over 13under 18avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Kentucky
36 games played
Straight up
22-14
61% wins
Against the spread
18-18
50% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-18
50% overs · avg −0.6 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 4 | vs | W 77-51 | -31.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 107-59 | -32.5 | W +15.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 88-96 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 173.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 99-53 | -35.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 66-83 | -3.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 88-46 | -35.5 | W +6.5 | 159.5 | U 134 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 104-54 | -37.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 64-67 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 163.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 5 | vs | L 59-94 | +5.5 | L −29.5 | 159.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 103-67 | -42.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 72-60 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 78-66 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | U 144 |
| Dec 23 | vs | W 99-85 | -34.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 74-89 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 173.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 68-73 | -12.5 | L −17.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 92-68 | -10.5 | W +13.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 75-74 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 80-78 | +6.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 85-80 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 72-63 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 55-80 | +5.5 | L −19.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 85-77 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 94-78 | -8.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 74-71 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 83-92 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 78-86 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 161.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 74-75 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 72-63 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 91-77 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 85-96 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 162.5 | O 181 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 77-84 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 87-82 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 78-72 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 63-71 | +10.5 | W +2.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 89-84 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 63-82 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
NICH
W 77-51
−5.5
7
vs
VAL
W 107-59
+15.5
11
@
LOU
L 88-96
−2.5
14
vs
EIU
W 99-53
+10.5
18
vs
MSU
L 66-83
−20.5
21
vs
L-MD
W 88-46
+6.5
26
vs
TNTC
W 104-54
+12.5
2
vs
UNC
L 64-67
−10.5
5
vs
GONZ
L 59-94
−29.5
9
vs
NCCU
W 103-67
−6.5
13
vs
IU
W 72-60
+8.5
20
vs
SJU
W 78-66
+10.5
23
vs
BELL
W 99-85
−20.5
3
@
ALA
L 74-89
−9.5
7
vs
MIZ
L 68-73
−17.5
10
vs
MSST
W 92-68
+13.5
14
@
LSU
W 75-74
−2.5
17
@
TENN
W 80-78
+8.5
21
vs
TEX
W 85-80
−2.5
24
vs
MISS
W 72-63
−2.5
27
@
VAN
L 55-80
−19.5
31
@
ARK
W 85-77
+14.5
4
vs
OU
W 94-78
+7.5
7
vs
TENN
W 74-71
+1.5
14
@
FLA
L 83-92
+3.5
17
vs
UGA
L 78-86
−14.5
21
@
AUB
L 74-75
+2.5
24
@
SC
W 72-63
+1.5
28
vs
VAN
W 91-77
+12.5
3
@
TA&M
L 85-96
−9.5
7
vs
FLA
L 77-84
−1.5
11
vs
LSU
W 87-82
−3.5
12
vs
MIZ
W 78-72
+3.5
13
vs
FLA
L 63-71
+2.5
20
vs
SCU
W 89-84
+1.5
22
vs
ISU
L 63-82
−13.5
covered 18didn’t cover 18avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
NICH
W 77-51
−29.5
7
vs
VAL
W 107-59
+8.5
11
@
LOU
L 88-96
+10.5
14
vs
EIU
W 99-53
+4.5
18
vs
MSU
L 66-83
−3.5
21
vs
L-MD
W 88-46
−25.5
26
vs
TNTC
W 104-54
+0.5
2
vs
UNC
L 64-67
−32.5
5
vs
GONZ
L 59-94
−6.5
9
vs
NCCU
W 103-67
+21.5
13
vs
IU
W 72-60
−24.5
20
vs
SJU
W 78-66
−10.5
23
vs
BELL
W 99-85
+31.5
3
@
ALA
L 74-89
−10.5
7
vs
MIZ
L 68-73
−9.5
10
vs
MSST
W 92-68
+7.5
14
@
LSU
W 75-74
−2.5
17
@
TENN
W 80-78
+12.5
21
vs
TEX
W 85-80
+12.5
24
vs
MISS
W 72-63
−10.5
27
@
VAN
L 55-80
−20.5
31
@
ARK
W 85-77
+2.5
4
vs
OU
W 94-78
+19.5
7
vs
TENN
W 74-71
−2.5
14
@
FLA
L 83-92
+20.5
17
vs
UGA
L 78-86
+2.5
21
@
AUB
L 74-75
−4.5
24
@
SC
W 72-63
−16.5
28
vs
VAN
W 91-77
+10.5
3
@
TA&M
L 85-96
+18.5
7
vs
FLA
L 77-84
−1.5
11
vs
LSU
W 87-82
+17.5
12
vs
MIZ
W 78-72
+1.5
13
vs
FLA
L 63-71
−27.5
20
vs
SCU
W 89-84
+15.5
22
vs
ISU
L 63-82
−1.5
over 18under 18avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Kentucky has the better starters
Position by position: Manhattan 0, Kentucky 3, even 2
ManhattanBetterKentucky
G B. Tweedy TR9 pts · 3 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 29
→UKBig
G A. Wilkins TR18.2 pts · 2 reb · 4.7 ast
Score 81
G J. Sabino TR7.1 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 53
→UKBig
G Z. Diallo TR15.7 pts · 3.9 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 96
G Q. Elliott3.6 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 17
→UKSmall
G J. Morton TR7.8 pts · 1.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 48
G J. Delaney0.4 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F M. Momcilovic TR16.9 pts · 3.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 97
F O. Stankovic TR1.7 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. McBride TR15.4 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 87
ManhattanBetterKentucky
MAN offense301st of 366 · -9.4
→UKBig
UK defense32nd of 366 · +3.5
MAN defense346th of 366 · -9.3
→UKBig
UK offense13th of 366 · +9.5
Backcourt-4.3 · 4 players
→UKBig
Backcourt+4.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player
→UKBig
Frontcourt+8.1 · 2 players
Bench-0.5 · 3 players
→UKBig
Bench+5.1 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestMAN betterUK betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Tweedy30 min · TRJ. Sabino21 min · TRQ. Elliott12 minJ. Delaney5 minA. Miguel4 minB. PearceNew
Forwards
O. Stankovic6 min · TRK. Kearney4 min · TRL. McChesney3 min · TRI. JohnsonNewD. EricNewN. ManojlovicNew
Guards
A. Wilkins30 min · TRZ. Diallo30 min · TRJ. Morton25 min · TRK. Williams19 minM. WilliamsNewZ. HawthorneNew
Forwards
M. Momcilovic30 min · TRJ. McBride27 min · TRT. Noah11 minR. PotterNewO. N'DiayeNewB. HawthorneNew
Centers
F. Kepnang23 min · TRM. Moreno23 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.4 #232 | Points per game | 80.5 #55 |
| 1.05 #247 | Points per possession | 1.15 #57 |
| 69.0 #182 | Pace (possessions) | 69.9 #123 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.9 #315 | Effective FG% | 53.4 #87 |
| 32.0 #280 | 3-point % | 34.2 #158 |
| 37.1 #228 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.7 #180 |
| 34.0 #208 | Free throw rate | 37.4 #119 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.6 #112 | Turnover rate | 15.4 #98 |
| 28.6 #247 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.2 #84 |
| 12.3 #268 | Assists per game | 15.9 #50 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.6 #309 | Points allowed | 74.3 #167 |
| 1.15 #330 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #115 |
| 53.9 #297 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.9 #63 |
| 36.6 #332 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.8 #55 |
| 16.6 #175 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #248 |
| 63.0 #358 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.0 #158 |
| 7.8 #54 | Steals per game | 7.0 #123 |
| 2.3 #325 | Blocks per game | 4.6 #33 |
Manhattan
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · Metro Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Fairfield60–71
- Lvs Iona65–69
- L@ Saint Peter's65–75
- Lvs Marist70–84
- W@ Canisius69–65
A week or more of rest.
Kentucky
22-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Iowa State63–82
- Wvs Santa Clara89–84
- Lvs Florida63–71
- Wvs Missouri78–72
- Wvs LSU87–82
A week or more of rest.