Mizzou Arena · at Missouri
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MIZ | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MIZ 85–63 · win probability MIZ 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.2
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: MIZ has more of the edges
EVAN 0, MIZ 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
EVAN offense vs MIZ defense
Offense 277th of 366 against a defense 49th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: EVAN 49.3 and allows 55.1; MIZ 55.0 and allows 51.5
MIZ offense vs EVAN defense
Offense 52nd of 366 against a defense 220th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: EVAN 22.0%, MIZ 34.9%. Defensive: EVAN 69.8%, MIZ 68.3%
Free throws
Free throw rate: EVAN 29.8, MIZ 42.1. Allowed: EVAN 31.4, MIZ 35.5
Three-pointers
EVAN hits 32.3% and allows 37.6%; MIZ hits 35.0% and allows 36.8%. Threes are 43.1% and 36.4% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
EVAN has played the 127th-hardest schedule, MIZ the 45th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: EVAN 19.1%, MIZ 17.7%. Forced: EVAN 15.4%, MIZ 16.6%
Home court
MIZ at home. This season: MIZ 0-0 at home, EVAN 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: EVAN plays 67.9 a game (232nd fastest), MIZ 68.8 (191st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: EVAN 35%, MIZ 33%. Transfers in: EVAN 2, MIZ 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 | — | MIZ -22.3 | — |
| Total | — | 148.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | EVAN 62.9 · MIZ 85.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MIZ -13.1 | — |
| 1H total | 69.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | EVAN 28.1 · MIZ 41.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Evansville
30 games played
Straight up
5-25
17% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −3.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg +2.2 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 51-82 | +33.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 12 | vs | L 72-77 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 18 | vs | L 76-84 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 138.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 73-69 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 59-97 | +11.5 | L −26.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 59-78 | +4.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 64-52 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 136.5 | U 116 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 79-80 | +11.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 58-82 | +14.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 78-83 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 65-66 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 68-76 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 47-73 | +12.5 | L −13.5 | 144.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 48-62 | +4.5 | L −9.5 | 131.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 69-79 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 72-69 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 90-94 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 49-76 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 78-82 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 55-71 | +11.5 | L −4.5 | 128.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 63-84 | +1.5 | L −19.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 6 | @ | L 63-70 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 88-80 | +10.5 | W +18.5 | 137.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 60-86 | +12.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 46-84 | +8.5 | L −29.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-88 | +15.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 64-98 | +18.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 80-79 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 67-81 | +9.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 59-68 | +13.5 | W +4.5 | 127.5 | U 127 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
PUR
L 51-82
+2.5
12
vs
MTSU
L 72-77
−7.5
18
vs
UTA
L 76-84
−10.5
21
vs
ORST
W 73-69
+10.5
23
vs
AKR
L 59-97
−26.5
24
vs
COFC
L 59-78
−14.5
3
vs
BALL
W 64-52
+5.5
6
@
WKU
L 79-80
+10.5
13
@
ND
L 58-82
−9.5
16
vs
BEL
L 78-83
+3.5
21
vs
DRKE
L 65-66
−3.5
29
@
BRAD
L 68-76
+3.5
1
@
ILST
L 47-73
−13.5
4
vs
UNI
L 48-62
−9.5
7
vs
MUR
L 69-79
−1.5
10
@
INST
W 72-69
+10.5
13
vs
BRAD
L 90-94
+3.5
20
@
UIC
L 49-76
−18.5
28
@
DRKE
L 78-82
+4.5
31
@
UNI
L 55-71
−4.5
3
vs
INST
L 63-84
−19.5
6
@
VAL
L 63-70
+1.5
9
vs
ILST
W 88-80
+18.5
12
@
SIU
L 60-86
−13.5
18
vs
UIC
L 46-84
−29.5
21
@
MUR
L 75-88
+2.5
25
@
BEL
L 64-98
−15.5
28
vs
VAL
W 80-79
+6.5
1
vs
SIU
L 67-81
−4.5
5
vs
UNI
L 59-68
+4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
PUR
L 51-82
−17.5
12
vs
MTSU
L 72-77
+8.5
18
vs
UTA
L 76-84
+21.5
21
vs
ORST
W 73-69
+5.5
23
vs
AKR
L 59-97
−0.5
24
vs
COFC
L 59-78
−4.5
3
vs
BALL
W 64-52
−20.5
6
@
WKU
L 79-80
+11.5
13
@
ND
L 58-82
+3.5
16
vs
BEL
L 78-83
+13.5
21
vs
DRKE
L 65-66
−10.5
29
@
BRAD
L 68-76
−0.5
1
@
ILST
L 47-73
−24.5
4
vs
UNI
L 48-62
−21.5
7
vs
MUR
L 69-79
−5.5
10
@
INST
W 72-69
−4.5
13
vs
BRAD
L 90-94
+41.5
20
@
UIC
L 49-76
−14.5
28
@
DRKE
L 78-82
+16.5
31
@
UNI
L 55-71
−2.5
3
vs
INST
L 63-84
+1.5
6
@
VAL
L 63-70
−3.5
9
vs
ILST
W 88-80
+30.5
12
@
SIU
L 60-86
+3.5
18
vs
UIC
L 46-84
−10.5
21
@
MUR
L 75-88
+9.5
25
@
BEL
L 64-98
+9.5
28
vs
VAL
W 80-79
+21.5
1
vs
SIU
L 67-81
+8.5
5
vs
UNI
L 59-68
−0.5
over 15under 15avg +2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Missouri
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
14-19
42% covers · avg −2.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg −0.3 pts vs the total
Against the spread
14-1942%
4 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered
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 88-67 | -20.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 89-84 | -25.5 | L −20.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 106-68 | -23.5 | W +14.5 | 161.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 83-60 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 91-73 | -35.5 | L −17.5 | 166.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 102-68 | -24.5 | W +9.5 | 171.5 | U 170 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 98-66 | -34.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-59 | -31.5 | L −4.5 | 170.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 71-76 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 60-80 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 11 | vs | W 85-77 | -26.5 | L −18.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 82-60 | -20.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 22 | vs | L 48-91 | +8.5 | L −34.5 | 153.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 76-74 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 73-68 | +12.5 | W +17.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 69-76 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 84-74 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 70-78 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 72-74 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 163.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 88-87 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 64-90 | +10.5 | L −15.5 | 167.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 84-79 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 78-59 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 86-85 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 68-85 | -2.5 | L −19.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 81-80 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 86-94 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 73-69 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 88-64 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 64-80 | -1.5 | L −17.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 84-88 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 72-78 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 66-80 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
HOW
W 88-67
+0.5
7
vs
SEMO
W 89-84
−20.5
9
vs
VMI
W 106-68
+14.5
12
vs
MINN
W 83-60
+15.5
17
vs
PV
W 91-73
−17.5
20
vs
SDAK
W 102-68
+9.5
25
vs
SCST
W 98-66
−2.5
28
vs
CLE
W 86-59
−4.5
2
@
ND
L 71-76
−6.5
7
vs
KU
L 60-80
−14.5
11
vs
ALST
W 85-77
−18.5
14
vs
BCU
W 82-60
+1.5
22
vs
ILL
L 48-91
−34.5
3
vs
FLA
W 76-74
+9.5
7
@
UK
W 73-68
+17.5
10
@
MISS
L 69-76
−5.5
14
vs
AUB
W 84-74
+11.5
17
@
LSU
L 70-78
−6.5
20
vs
UGA
L 72-74
−3.5
24
vs
OU
W 88-87
−3.5
27
@
ALA
L 64-90
−15.5
31
vs
MSST
W 84-79
−1.5
7
@
SC
W 78-59
+15.5
11
@
TA&M
W 86-85
+8.5
14
vs
TEX
L 68-85
−19.5
18
vs
VAN
W 81-80
+4.5
21
@
ARK
L 86-94
+1.5
24
vs
TENN
W 73-69
+7.5
28
@
MSST
W 88-64
+22.5
3
@
OU
L 64-80
−17.5
7
vs
ARK
L 84-88
−6.5
12
vs
UK
L 72-78
−3.5
20
vs
MIA
L 66-80
−12.5
covered 14didn’t cover 19avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
HOW
W 88-67
−3.5
7
vs
SEMO
W 89-84
+15.5
9
vs
VMI
W 106-68
+12.5
12
vs
MINN
W 83-60
−15.5
17
vs
PV
W 91-73
−2.5
20
vs
SDAK
W 102-68
−1.5
25
vs
SCST
W 98-66
+3.5
28
vs
CLE
W 86-59
−25.5
2
@
ND
L 71-76
+0.5
7
vs
KU
L 60-80
−10.5
11
vs
ALST
W 85-77
+6.5
14
vs
BCU
W 82-60
−4.5
22
vs
ILL
L 48-91
−14.5
3
vs
FLA
W 76-74
−4.5
7
@
UK
W 73-68
−9.5
10
@
MISS
L 69-76
+1.5
14
vs
AUB
W 84-74
+4.5
17
@
LSU
L 70-78
−0.5
20
vs
UGA
L 72-74
−17.5
24
vs
OU
W 88-87
+23.5
27
@
ALA
L 64-90
−13.5
31
vs
MSST
W 84-79
+16.5
7
@
SC
W 78-59
−10.5
11
@
TA&M
W 86-85
+10.5
14
vs
TEX
L 68-85
+2.5
18
vs
VAN
W 81-80
+6.5
21
@
ARK
L 86-94
+20.5
24
vs
TENN
W 73-69
−1.5
28
@
MSST
W 88-64
−2.5
3
@
OU
L 64-80
−9.5
7
vs
ARK
L 84-88
+8.5
12
vs
UK
L 72-78
+1.5
20
vs
MIA
L 66-80
+1.5
over 16under 17avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Missouri has the better starters
Position by position: Evansville 1, Missouri 2, even 2
EvansvilleBetterMissouri
G B. Quinet8.6 pts · 2 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 31
=Even
G J. Crawford TR14.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 44
G M. Langenfeld TR2.6 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Stansberry TR14.6 pts · 4 reb · 2 ast
Score 69
F A. Casey13.9 pts · 6 reb · 2 ast
Score 86
←EVANBig
G K. Davis TR8.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 48
F G. Winther TR7.9 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 51
→MIZSmall
G T. Pierce10.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 80
F J. Dyson-Merwe2.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 8
→MIZBig
F B. Tiller TR7.9 pts · 6.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 68
EvansvilleBetterMissouri
EVAN offense277th of 366 · -8.5
→MIZBig
MIZ defense49th of 366 · +2.0
EVAN defense220th of 366 · -5.7
→MIZBig
MIZ offense52nd of 366 · +3.3
Backcourt-2.2 · 2 players
→MIZSmall
Backcourt-0.0 · 4 players
Frontcourt+0.8 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt+0.8 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+2.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestEVAN betterMIZ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Quinet27 minM. Langenfeld7 min · TRM. RiekNewL. EllspermannNewA. GutmanNewR. MasumyanNew
Forwards
A. Casey30 minG. Winther22 min · TRJ. Dyson-Merwe13 minD. NejezchlebNewY. PinasNewJ. GenschawNew
Guards
J. Crawford32 min · TRC. Stansberry30 min · TRK. Davis30 min · TRT. Pierce28 minJ. Jones26 min · TRA. Boateng12 min
Forwards
B. Tiller26 min · TRJ. Carey18 min · TRL. Northweather12 minN. Randall6 minT. BryantNew
Centers
T. Burns9 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 65.8 #347 | Points per game | 79.2 #78 |
| 0.97 #344 | Points per possession | 1.15 #65 |
| 67.9 #232 | Pace (possessions) | 68.8 #191 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.3 #280 | Effective FG% | 55.0 #36 |
| 32.3 #268 | 3-point % | 35.0 #112 |
| 43.1 #109 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.4 #240 |
| 29.8 #315 | Free throw rate | 42.1 #28 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.1 #324 | Turnover rate | 17.7 #255 |
| 22.0 #355 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.9 #48 |
| 12.6 #245 | Assists per game | 14.2 #132 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.3 #275 | Points allowed | 75.5 #204 |
| 1.15 #329 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #224 |
| 55.1 #332 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.5 #183 |
| 37.6 #351 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.8 #341 |
| 15.4 #258 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #182 |
| 69.8 #170 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #238 |
| 5.0 #335 | Steals per game | 6.6 #162 |
| 3.3 #171 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #140 |
Evansville
5-25 in 2025-26 overall · 3-18 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Northern Iowa59–68
- Lvs S Illinois67–81
- Wvs Valparaiso80–79
- L@ Belmont64–98
- L@ Murray St75–88
A week or more of rest.
Missouri
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Miami66–80
- Lvs Kentucky72–78
- Lvs Arkansas84–88
- L@ Oklahoma64–80
- W@ Mississippi St88–64
A week or more of rest.