Western Hall · at W Illinois
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WIU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 HCU 74–64 · win probability HCU 80%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 138.2
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: HCU has more of the edges
HCU 4, WIU 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
WIU offense vs HCU defense
Offense 365th of 366 against a defense 203rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HCU 29.9%, WIU 27.0%. Defensive: HCU 67.5%, WIU 65.2%
Shooting
Effective FG%: HCU 49.7 and allows 54.2; WIU 44.5 and allows 54.2
Context
Tempo
About 66 possessions: HCU plays 64.7 a game (352nd fastest), WIU 67.6 (246th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HCU 18.9%, WIU 17.5%. Forced: HCU 17.6%, WIU 14.9%
Home court
WIU at home. This season: WIU 0-0 at home, HCU 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
HCU hits 31.7% and allows 35.0%; WIU hits 30.9% and allows 35.6%. Threes are 36.5% and 33.3% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
HCU has played the 332nd-hardest schedule, WIU the 361st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: HCU 36.0, WIU 37.7. Allowed: HCU 30.7, WIU 34.8
Even
HCU offense vs WIU defense
Offense 342nd of 366 against a defense 362nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HCU 25%, WIU 21%. Transfers in: HCU 5, WIU 0. 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 | — | HCU -9.7 | — |
| Total | — | 138.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | HCU 73.9 · WIU 64.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HCU -5.9 | — |
| 1H total | 64.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | HCU 35.3 · WIU 29.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% | |
| 1-9 10% | 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Hou Christian
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg −0.1 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 8 | @ | L 60-78 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 72-61 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 69-74 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 72-65 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 62-80 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 75-77 | +11.5 | W +9.5 | 127.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 85-76 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 71-74 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 132.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 15 | vs | L 68-78 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-79 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 61-89 | +35.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 56-73 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 5 | vs | L 65-81 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 132.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 67-85 | +12.5 | L −5.5 | 137.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 56-64 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 81-70 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 82-80 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 51-68 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 81-75 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-73 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 57-74 | +9.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 47-55 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | U 102 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 69-73 | +21.5 | W +17.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 61-60 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 72-68 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 53-71 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 134.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 23 | @ | W 69-68 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 56-77 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 75-53 | +2.5 | W +24.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 60-73 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
UCSD
L 60-78
−10.5
13
vs
ULM
W 72-61
+2.5
25
@
BELL
L 69-74
−7.5
26
@
CIT
W 72-65
+5.5
29
@
GASO
L 62-80
−10.5
2
@
UNT
L 75-77
+9.5
6
@
NOLA
W 85-76
+13.5
13
vs
SELA
L 71-74
−5.5
15
vs
MCN
L 68-78
+4.5
17
@
NICH
L 64-79
−11.5
29
@
ISU
L 61-89
+7.5
3
@
UIW
L 56-73
−10.5
5
vs
AMCC
L 65-81
−12.5
10
@
SFA
L 67-85
−5.5
12
@
LAM
L 56-64
+0.5
17
vs
ETAM
W 81-70
+8.5
19
vs
NWST
W 82-80
−0.5
24
vs
RGV
L 51-68
−14.5
27
vs
UIW
W 81-75
+7.5
31
@
AMCC
L 71-73
+5.5
2
@
RGV
L 57-74
−7.5
7
@
SELA
L 47-55
−3.5
9
@
MCN
L 69-73
+17.5
14
vs
NOLA
W 61-60
−0.5
16
vs
NICH
W 72-68
+2.5
21
@
NWST
L 53-71
−15.5
23
@
ETAM
W 69-68
+3.5
28
vs
SFA
L 56-77
−12.5
2
vs
LAM
W 75-53
+24.5
8
vs
NOLA
L 60-73
−7.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
UCSD
L 60-78
−3.5
13
vs
ULM
W 72-61
−10.5
25
@
BELL
L 69-74
−1.5
26
@
CIT
W 72-65
−0.5
29
@
GASO
L 62-80
−6.5
2
@
UNT
L 75-77
+24.5
6
@
NOLA
W 85-76
+20.5
13
vs
SELA
L 71-74
+12.5
15
vs
MCN
L 68-78
+8.5
17
@
NICH
L 64-79
+5.5
29
@
ISU
L 61-89
+4.5
3
@
UIW
L 56-73
−12.5
5
vs
AMCC
L 65-81
+13.5
10
@
SFA
L 67-85
+14.5
12
@
LAM
L 56-64
−14.5
17
vs
ETAM
W 81-70
+11.5
19
vs
NWST
W 82-80
+22.5
24
vs
RGV
L 51-68
−21.5
27
vs
UIW
W 81-75
+15.5
31
@
AMCC
L 71-73
+8.5
2
@
RGV
L 57-74
−10.5
7
@
SELA
L 47-55
−31.5
9
@
MCN
L 69-73
+4.5
14
vs
NOLA
W 61-60
−27.5
16
vs
NICH
W 72-68
+3.5
21
@
NWST
L 53-71
−10.5
23
@
ETAM
W 69-68
−1.5
28
vs
SFA
L 56-77
−5.5
2
vs
LAM
W 75-53
−4.5
8
vs
NOLA
L 60-73
−10.5
over 14under 16avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
W Illinois
28 games played
Straight up
2-26
7% wins
Against the spread
11-17
39% covers · avg −5.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-15
46% overs · avg −0.1 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 75-80 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 58-77 | +30.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 58-74 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 59-69 | +15.5 | W +5.5 | 140.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 64-84 | +3.5 | L −16.5 | 138.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 69-78 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 57-108 | +17.5 | L −33.5 | 138.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 69-66 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 76-92 | +12.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 22 | vs | L 61-66 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 60-67 | +13.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 50-73 | +13.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 68-90 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 54-59 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 55-57 | +6.5 | W +4.5 | 132.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 79-86 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 135.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 66-71 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 23 | @ | L 64-96 | +6.5 | L −25.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 74-78 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 44-84 | +10.5 | L −29.5 | 137.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 72-97 | +9.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 56-83 | +15.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 79-70 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 133.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 58-77 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 70-77 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 59-81 | +8.5 | L −13.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 47-67 | +13.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 69-91 | +11.5 | L −10.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
RAD
L 75-80
+11.5
7
@
IOWA
L 58-77
+11.5
11
@
CSUB
L 58-74
−8.5
14
@
CBU
L 59-69
+5.5
21
vs
CCU
L 64-84
−16.5
23
vs
UND
L 69-78
−6.5
2
@
DRKE
L 57-108
−33.5
13
@
UND
W 69-66
+10.5
18
@
LIN
L 76-92
−3.5
22
vs
SIUE
L 61-66
+1.5
1
@
UTM
L 60-67
+6.5
3
@
SEMO
L 50-73
−9.5
8
vs
TNST
L 68-90
−15.5
10
vs
TNTC
L 54-59
−1.5
13
@
EIU
L 55-57
+4.5
17
@
LR
L 79-86
+3.5
22
@
MORE
L 66-71
+3.5
23
@
USI
L 64-96
−25.5
29
vs
SEMO
L 74-78
+6.5
31
vs
UTM
L 44-84
−29.5
5
@
TNTC
L 72-97
−15.5
7
@
TNST
L 56-83
−11.5
10
vs
EIU
W 79-70
+13.5
12
vs
LR
L 58-77
−11.5
19
vs
USI
L 70-77
−3.5
21
vs
MORE
L 59-81
−13.5
26
@
SIUE
L 47-67
−6.5
28
vs
LIN
L 69-91
−10.5
covered 11didn’t cover 17avg −5.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
RAD
L 75-80
+3.5
7
@
IOWA
L 58-77
−10.5
11
@
CSUB
L 58-74
−9.5
14
@
CBU
L 59-69
−12.5
21
vs
CCU
L 64-84
+9.5
23
vs
UND
L 69-78
+0.5
2
@
DRKE
L 57-108
+26.5
13
@
UND
W 69-66
−10.5
18
@
LIN
L 76-92
+21.5
22
vs
SIUE
L 61-66
−11.5
1
@
UTM
L 60-67
−13.5
3
@
SEMO
L 50-73
−24.5
8
vs
TNST
L 68-90
+12.5
10
vs
TNTC
L 54-59
−30.5
13
@
EIU
L 55-57
−20.5
17
@
LR
L 79-86
+29.5
22
@
MORE
L 66-71
−1.5
23
@
USI
L 64-96
+23.5
29
vs
SEMO
L 74-78
+9.5
31
vs
UTM
L 44-84
−9.5
5
@
TNTC
L 72-97
+25.5
7
@
TNST
L 56-83
−12.5
10
vs
EIU
W 79-70
+15.5
12
vs
LR
L 58-77
−6.5
19
vs
USI
L 70-77
+6.5
21
vs
MORE
L 59-81
−3.5
26
@
SIUE
L 47-67
−21.5
28
vs
LIN
L 69-91
+10.5
over 13under 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Hou Christian has the better starters
Position by position: Hou Christian 2, W Illinois 0, even 3
Hou ChristianBetterW Illinois
G C. Mubiru TR6.7 pts · 4 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 37
←HCUSmall
G M. Kvamme5 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 9
G D. Samuels8.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 46
←HCUSmall
F D. Stephens5.5 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 13
G E. Pippa-White TR4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 5
=No call
F J. Riley NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F S. Simmons TR6.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 33
=No call
F I. Davis NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F M. Mara5.4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
=No call
F D. Traylor NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
Hou ChristianBetterW Illinois
HCU offense342nd of 366 · -11.7
=Even
WIU defense362nd of 366 · -11.6
HCU defense203rd of 366 · -5.0
←HCUBig
WIU offense365th of 366 · -15.6
Backcourt-4.6 · 3 players
→WIUSmall
Backcourt-3.1 · 1 player
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.7 · 4 players
Bench-3.9 · 3 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestHCU betterWIU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Mubiru27 min · TRD. Samuels23 minE. Pippa-White18 min · TRB. Alvarez15 min · TRK. Clark7 minM. AlexanderNew
Forwards
S. Simmons26 min · TRM. Mara20 minA. Miller15 min · TRI. SackoNewK. KeinysNewJ. PapeNew
Guards
M. Kvamme26 minD. FlowersNewH. VaughnNewA. KonateNewJ. CainNewT. MooreNew
Forwards
D. Stephens17 minJ. RileyNewI. DavisNewD. TraylorNewM. BiembongoNewS. HigginsNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.3 #342 | Points per game | 63.2 #357 |
| 1.03 #297 | Points per possession | 0.94 #359 |
| 64.7 #352 | Pace (possessions) | 67.6 #246 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.7 #252 | Effective FG% | 44.5 #361 |
| 31.7 #291 | 3-point % | 30.9 #322 |
| 36.5 #239 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.3 #311 |
| 36.0 #151 | Free throw rate | 37.7 #108 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.9 #317 | Turnover rate | 17.5 #239 |
| 29.9 #205 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.0 #293 |
| 13.7 #164 | Assists per game | 8.1 #365 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.4 #113 | Points allowed | 78.5 #281 |
| 1.12 #268 | Points allowed per possession | 1.16 #334 |
| 54.2 #304 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.2 #303 |
| 35.0 #248 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.6 #288 |
| 17.6 #117 | Turnovers forced | 14.9 #300 |
| 67.5 #279 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.2 #334 |
| 6.3 #200 | Steals per game | 5.1 #331 |
| 3.7 #111 | Blocks per game | 2.0 #346 |
Hou Christian
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs LSU N Orleans60–73
- Wvs Lamar75–53
- Lvs SF Austin56–77
- W@ East Texas A&M69–68
- L@ N'Western St53–71
A week or more of rest.
W Illinois
2-26 in 2025-26 overall · 1-19 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Lindenwood Lions69–91
- L@ SIUE47–67
- Lvs Morehead St59–81
- Lvs Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles70–77
- Lvs Little Rock58–77
A week or more of rest.