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 93–61 · win probability MIZ 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 153.3
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
UAPB 1, MIZ 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MIZ offense vs UAPB defense
Offense 52nd of 366 against a defense 365th, on the model’s ratings
UAPB offense vs MIZ defense
Offense 337th of 366 against a defense 49th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UAPB has played the 300th-hardest schedule, MIZ the 45th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UAPB 27.9%, MIZ 34.9%. Defensive: UAPB 65.8%, MIZ 68.3%
Shooting
Effective FG%: UAPB 50.0 and allows 52.6; MIZ 55.0 and allows 51.5
Free throws
Free throw rate: UAPB 38.4, MIZ 42.1. Allowed: UAPB 43.6, MIZ 35.5
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UAPB plays 71.5 a game (53rd fastest), MIZ 68.8 (191st). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
UAPB hits 33.6% and allows 33.2%; MIZ hits 35.0% and allows 36.8%. Threes are 37.1% and 36.4% of their shots
Home court
MIZ at home. This season: MIZ 0-0 at home, UAPB 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UAPB 8%, MIZ 33%. Transfers in: UAPB 3, MIZ 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UAPB 18.7%, MIZ 17.7%. Forced: UAPB 16.4%, MIZ 16.6%
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 -32.2 | — |
| Total | — | 153.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | UAPB 60.5 · MIZ 92.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MIZ -19.0 | — |
| 1H total | 71.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | UAPB 26.3 · MIZ 45.3 | — |
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% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UAPB 0–2 MIZMIZ leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · MIZ has won the last 2 meetings · UAPB 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2024-25 | UAPB 63 @ MIZ 112 | MIZ -34.5 | MIZ W |
| Nov 6, 2023-24 | UAPB 79 @ MIZ 101 | MIZ -27.5 | UAPB W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
AR-Pine Bluff
30 games played
Straight up
11-19
37% wins
Against the spread
13-17
43% covers · avg +1.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg −0.2 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 3 | @ | L 50-94 | +34.5 | L −9.5 | 160.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 74-83 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 72-94 | +19.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 69-95 | +36.5 | W +10.5 | 168.5 | U 164 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 75-104 | +41.5 | W +12.5 | 172.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 60-106 | +35.5 | L −10.5 | 168.5 | U 166 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 70-98 | +20.5 | L −7.5 | 164.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 84-111 | +21.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 63-62 | +16.5 | W +17.5 | 163.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 72-76 | +23.5 | W +19.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 84-117 | +25.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 201 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 95-83 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 90-79 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 74-66 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 61-73 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 67-71 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 82-87 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 75-74 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 78-70 | -10.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 67-64 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-77 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 84-63 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 155.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 61-79 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 70-82 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 64-83 | -1.5 | L −20.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 84-82 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 69-70 | -14.5 | L −15.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 78-81 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 83-48 | -1.5 | W +33.5 | 145.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 81-84 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | O 165 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
WASH
L 50-94
−9.5
6
@
PORT
L 74-83
+3.5
8
@
LMU
L 72-94
−2.5
11
@
OU
L 69-95
+10.5
15
@
VAN
L 75-104
+12.5
18
@
SMU
L 60-106
−10.5
20
@
MRSH
L 70-98
−7.5
23
@
M-OH
L 84-111
−5.5
3
@
UIC
W 63-62
+17.5
6
@
DEP
L 72-76
+19.5
10
@
TLSA
L 84-117
−7.5
3
vs
AAMU
W 95-83
+13.5
5
vs
ALST
W 90-79
+12.5
10
@
TXSO
W 74-66
+9.5
12
@
PV
L 61-73
−8.5
17
vs
FAMU
L 67-71
−6.5
19
vs
BCU
L 82-87
−2.5
24
@
SOU
W 75-74
+10.5
31
@
MVSU
W 78-70
−2.5
4
@
GRAM
W 67-64
+9.5
7
vs
ALCN
W 84-77
−0.5
9
vs
JKST
W 84-63
+13.5
14
@
ALST
L 61-79
−14.5
16
@
AAMU
L 70-82
−8.5
19
vs
TXSO
L 64-83
−20.5
21
vs
PV
W 84-82
−1.5
28
vs
MVSU
L 69-70
−15.5
3
@
JKST
L 78-81
−4.5
5
@
ALCN
W 83-48
+33.5
12
vs
SOU
L 81-84
+1.5
covered 13didn’t cover 17avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
WASH
L 50-94
−16.5
6
@
PORT
L 74-83
−7.5
8
@
LMU
L 72-94
+8.5
11
@
OU
L 69-95
−4.5
15
@
VAN
L 75-104
+6.5
18
@
SMU
L 60-106
−2.5
20
@
MRSH
L 70-98
+3.5
23
@
M-OH
L 84-111
+34.5
3
@
UIC
W 63-62
−38.5
6
@
DEP
L 72-76
−8.5
10
@
TLSA
L 84-117
+45.5
3
vs
AAMU
W 95-83
+28.5
5
vs
ALST
W 90-79
+9.5
10
@
TXSO
W 74-66
−22.5
12
@
PV
L 61-73
−30.5
17
vs
FAMU
L 67-71
−11.5
19
vs
BCU
L 82-87
+13.5
24
@
SOU
W 75-74
−5.5
31
@
MVSU
W 78-70
+4.5
4
@
GRAM
W 67-64
−14.5
7
vs
ALCN
W 84-77
+15.5
9
vs
JKST
W 84-63
−8.5
14
@
ALST
L 61-79
−9.5
16
@
AAMU
L 70-82
+7.5
19
vs
TXSO
L 64-83
−5.5
21
vs
PV
W 84-82
+6.5
28
vs
MVSU
L 69-70
−8.5
3
@
JKST
L 78-81
+5.5
5
@
ALCN
W 83-48
−14.5
12
vs
SOU
L 81-84
+13.5
over 14under 16avg −0.2 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: AR-Pine Bluff 0, Missouri 1, even 4
AR-Pine BluffBetterMissouri
G J. Tatum TR7.7 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 25
→MIZSmall
G J. Crawford TR14.4 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 44
G J. Hayes4.9 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Stansberry TR14.6 pts · 4 reb · 2 ast
Score 69
G D. Giddens TR3 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G K. Davis TR8.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 48
G H. Pickett0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G T. Pierce10.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 80
F C. Smith TR0.6 pts · 1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F B. Tiller TR7.9 pts · 6.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 68
AR-Pine BluffBetterMissouri
UAPB offense337th of 366 · -11.1
→MIZBig
MIZ defense49th of 366 · +2.0
UAPB defense365th of 366 · -12.7
→MIZBig
MIZ offense52nd of 366 · +3.3
Backcourt-5.1 · 4 players
→MIZBig
Backcourt-0.0 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.7 · 1 player
→MIZSmall
Frontcourt+0.8 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+2.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUAPB betterMIZ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Tatum27 min · TRJ. Hayes15 minD. Giddens9 min · TRH. Pickett1 minD. CapriottiNewE. HernandezNew
Forwards
C. Smith7 min · TRC. WilliamsonNewM. WilliamsNewJ. NyakundiNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.0 #195 | Points per game | 79.2 #78 |
| 1.04 #277 | Points per possession | 1.15 #65 |
| 71.5 #53 | Pace (possessions) | 68.8 #191 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.0 #233 | Effective FG% | 55.0 #36 |
| 33.6 #190 | 3-point % | 35.0 #112 |
| 37.1 #227 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.4 #240 |
| 38.4 #91 | Free throw rate | 42.1 #28 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.7 #310 | Turnover rate | 17.7 #255 |
| 27.9 #271 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.9 #48 |
| 14.1 #136 | Assists per game | 14.2 #132 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.9 #340 | Points allowed | 75.5 #204 |
| 1.14 #309 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #224 |
| 52.6 #249 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.5 #183 |
| 33.2 #136 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.8 #341 |
| 16.4 #192 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #182 |
| 65.8 #321 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #238 |
| 6.8 #142 | Steals per game | 6.6 #162 |
| 2.9 #244 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #140 |
AR-Pine Bluff
11-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Southern81–84
- W@ Alcorn St83–48
- L@ Jackson St78–81
- Lvs Miss Valley St69–70
- Wvs Prairie View84–82
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.