Prairie View A&M Panthers at UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Nov 7, 5:30 PM ETUTRGV Fieldhouse · at UT Rio Grande

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Prairie View and UT Rio Grande
PV	This season	RGV
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 RGV 79–70 · win probability RGV 79%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 148.5

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: RGV has more of the edges

PV 2, RGV 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

RGVBig

Three-pointers

PV hits 32.9% and allows 35.0%; RGV hits 36.8% and allows 30.4%. Threes are 30.6% and 43.7% of their shots

RGVBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: PV 47.4 and allows 50.9; RGV 54.8 and allows 47.8

PVBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: PV 15.8%, RGV 18.5%. Forced: PV 19.0%, RGV 16.2%

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: PV plays 72.7 a game (20th fastest), RGV 67.3 (268th). Faster games mean more points

PVBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: PV 41.6, RGV 28.9. Allowed: PV 42.6, RGV 39.0

RGVSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: PV 26.7%, RGV 28.2%. Defensive: PV 64.6%, RGV 67.9%

RGVSmall

RGV offense vs PV defense

Offense 297th of 366 against a defense 359th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

PV has played the 331st-hardest schedule, RGV the 274th. A record against a soft schedule means less

RGVSmall

Home court

RGV at home. This season: RGV 0-0 at home, PV 0-0 away

RGVSmall

PV offense vs RGV defense

Offense 310th of 366 against a defense 265th, on the model’s ratings

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: PV 6%, RGV 9%. Transfers in: PV 5, RGV 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	RGV -9.2	—
Total	—	148.5	—
Projected score	—	PV 69.7 · RGV 78.8

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	RGV -5.3	—
1H total	69.5	—
1H projected score	PV 32.1 · RGV 37.4	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
PV WWWWL	23-10	70%	11-5	—
RGV WLWWW	18-13	58%	5-8	—

Venue/role: PV away; RGV home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
PV UUUUO	13-20	39%	15-18
RGV UUUOO	13-18	42%	17-14

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
PV	8-2 80%	9-1 90%	2-8 20%
RGV	7-3 70%	7-3 70%	5-5 50%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Prairie View

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 10	@ SMU	L69–110LO
Nov 13	@ VAN	No recent meeting
Nov 16	@ OSU	No recent meeting

UT Rio Grande

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 10	vs TXST	No recent meeting
Nov 14	@ UTA	L50–58LU
Nov 21	@ APSU	W63–50WU

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Prairie View

33 games played

Straight up

15-18

45% wins

Against the spread

23-10

70% covers · avg +2.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-20

39% overs · avg −2 pts vs the total

Straight up

15-1845%

L L L L W L L L L L W W W L L L L W L L L W W L W W W W W W W W L

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

23-1070%

L W W W L W L W W W W L W L L L L W W L W W W W W W W W W W W W L

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

13-2039%

O U U U O U O O O U O U U U U O U O O O O U U O U U U U U U U U O

1 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@WICH	L 62-105	+20.5	L −22.5	156.5	O 167
Nov 12	@OKST	L 67-94	+30.5	W +3.5	168.5	U 161
Nov 17	@MIZ	L 73-91	+35.5	W +17.5	166.5	U 164
Nov 22	vsUTM	L 68-69	+10.5	W +9.5	155.5	U 137
Nov 23	vsUNF	W 85-82	-3.5	L −0.5	160.5	O 167
Nov 30	@UNT	L 69-72	+16.5	W +13.5	141.5	U 141
Dec 13	@SDAK	L 85-97	+6.5	L −5.5	168.5	O 182
Dec 22	@LSU	L 90-104	+29.5	W +15.5	161.5	O 194
Dec 29	@TA&M	L 82-111	+29.5	W +0.5	177.5	O 193
Jan 3	@GRAM	L 72-76	+7.5	W +3.5	155.5	U 148
Jan 5	@SOU	W 89-85	+7.5	W +11.5	160.5	O 174
Jan 10	vsMVSU	W 70-69	-18.5	L −17.5	152.5	U 139
Jan 12	vsUAPB	W 73-61	-3.5	W +8.5	164.5	U 134
Jan 17	@JKST	L 78-82	+1.5	L −2.5	160.5	U 160
Jan 19	@ALCN	L 75-76	-2.5	L −3.5	152.5	U 151
Jan 24	vsALST	L 80-95	+1.5	L −13.5	158.5	O 175
Jan 27	vsAAMU	L 60-80	-2.5	L −22.5	152.5	U 140
Jan 31	vsTXSO	W 85-78	+1.5	W +8.5	157.5	O 163
Feb 7	@BCU	L 76-82	+10.5	W +4.5	157.5	O 158
Feb 9	@FAMU	L 96-100	+3.5	L −0.5	149.5	O 196
Feb 14	vsSOU	L 82-87	+5.5	W +0.5	159.5	O 169
Feb 16	vsGRAM	W 68-63	+1.5	W +6.5	151.5	U 131
Feb 19	@MVSU	W 72-62	-8.5	W +1.5	153.5	U 134
Feb 21	@UAPB	L 82-84	+3.5	W +1.5	159.5	O 166
Feb 26	vsJKST	W 85-76	-3.5	W +5.5	161.5	U 161
Feb 28	vsALCN	W 72-51	-4.5	W +16.5	150.5	U 123
Mar 5	@TXSO	W 70-59	+1.5	W +12.5	154.5	U 129
Mar 10	vsALCN	W 65-56	-6.5	W +2.5	142.5	U 121
Mar 11	vsBCU	W 71-67	+5.5	W +9.5	147.5	U 138
Mar 13	vsAAMU	W 74-55	+1.5	W +20.5	140.5	U 129
Mar 14	vsSOU	W 72-66	+3.5	W +9.5	145.5	U 138
Mar 18	vsLEH	W 67-55	+3.5	W +15.5	140.5	U 122
Mar 20	vsFLA	L 55-114	+35.5	L −23.5	154.5	O 169

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

WICH

L 62-105

−22.5

OKST

L 67-94

+3.5

MIZ

L 73-91

+17.5

UTM

L 68-69

+9.5

UNF

W 85-82

−0.5

UNT

L 69-72

+13.5

SDAK

L 85-97

−5.5

LSU

L 90-104

+15.5

TA&M

L 82-111

+0.5

GRAM

L 72-76

+3.5

SOU

W 89-85

+11.5

MVSU

W 70-69

−17.5

UAPB

W 73-61

+8.5

JKST

L 78-82

−2.5

ALCN

L 75-76

−3.5

ALST

L 80-95

−13.5

AAMU

L 60-80

−22.5

TXSO

W 85-78

+8.5

BCU

L 76-82

+4.5

FAMU

L 96-100

−0.5

SOU

L 82-87

+0.5

GRAM

W 68-63

+6.5

MVSU

W 72-62

+1.5

UAPB

L 82-84

+1.5

JKST

W 85-76

+5.5

ALCN

W 72-51

+16.5

TXSO

W 70-59

+12.5

ALCN

W 65-56

+2.5

BCU

W 71-67

+9.5

AAMU

W 74-55

+20.5

SOU

W 72-66

+9.5

LEH

W 67-55

+15.5

FLA

L 55-114

−23.5

covered 23didn’t cover 10avg +2.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

WICH

L 62-105

+10.5

OKST

L 67-94

−7.5

MIZ

L 73-91

−2.5

UTM

L 68-69

−18.5

UNF

W 85-82

+6.5

UNT

L 69-72

−0.5

SDAK

L 85-97

+13.5

LSU

L 90-104

+32.5

TA&M

L 82-111

+15.5

GRAM

L 72-76

−7.5

SOU

W 89-85

+13.5

MVSU

W 70-69

−13.5

UAPB

W 73-61

−30.5

JKST

L 78-82

−0.5

ALCN

L 75-76

−1.5

ALST

L 80-95

+16.5

AAMU

L 60-80

−12.5

TXSO

W 85-78

+5.5

BCU

L 76-82

+0.5

FAMU

L 96-100

+46.5

SOU

L 82-87

+9.5

GRAM

W 68-63

−20.5

MVSU

W 72-62

−19.5

UAPB

L 82-84

+6.5

JKST

W 85-76

−0.5

ALCN

W 72-51

−27.5

TXSO

W 70-59

−25.5

ALCN

W 65-56

−21.5

BCU

W 71-67

−9.5

AAMU

W 74-55

−11.5

SOU

W 72-66

−7.5

LEH

W 67-55

−18.5

FLA

L 55-114

+14.5

over 13under 20avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin

UT Rio Grande

31 games played

Straight up

17-14

55% wins

Against the spread

18-13

58% covers · avg +4.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-18

42% overs · avg −1.5 pts vs the total

Straight up

17-1455%

L W L L L L W L W L L L W L L W W W W W W W W L W W L W W W L

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

18-1358%

W W L L W L W L W L L L W L L W L W W W W W W L L W W L W W W

3 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

13-1842%

O O U U U U U U O O U U O O U O U U U O U O O U U O U U U O O

2 straight overs2 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@BAY	L 81-96	+24.5	W +9.5	154.5	O 177
Nov 8	@SUU	W 95-72	-1.5	W +21.5	160.5	O 167
Nov 11	@BOIS	L 65-85	+16.5	L −3.5	161.5	U 150
Nov 22	@MOST	L 67-74	+3.5	L −3.5	149.5	U 141
Nov 24	@ILL	L 73-87	+33.5	W +19.5	164.5	U 160
Dec 3	@SFA	L 60-73	+6.5	L −6.5	143.5	U 133
Dec 7	vsAPSU	W 63-50	-2.5	W +10.5	151.5	U 113
Dec 11	vsUTA	L 50-58	-4.5	L −12.5	145.5	U 108
Dec 16	@LAM	W 83-72	+3.5	W +14.5	139.5	O 155
Dec 29	vsNOLA	L 69-85	-6.5	L −22.5	152.5	O 154
Dec 31	vsNICH	L 69-71	-3.5	L −5.5	145.5	U 140
Jan 3	vsAMCC	L 59-63	-2.5	L −6.5	137.5	U 122
Jan 5	vsUIW	W 80-67	-1.5	W +11.5	146.5	O 147
Jan 10	@ETAM	L 69-77	-3.5	L −11.5	145.5	O 146
Jan 12	@NWST	L 63-64	-2.5	L −3.5	143.5	U 127
Jan 17	vsMCN	W 79-76	+9.5	W +12.5	146.5	O 155
Jan 19	vsSELA	W 68-65	-5.5	L −2.5	135.5	U 133
Jan 24	@HCU	W 68-51	-2.5	W +14.5	140.5	U 119
Jan 26	@AMCC	W 64-55	+2.5	W +11.5	135.5	U 119
Jan 31	@UIW	W 106-93	-1.5	W +11.5	140.5	O 199
Feb 2	vsHCU	W 74-57	-9.5	W +7.5	141.5	U 131
Feb 7	@NOLA	W 95-76	-1.5	W +17.5	151.5	O 171
Feb 9	@NICH	W 92-72	-3.5	W +16.5	147.5	O 164
Feb 14	vsSFA	L 57-66	+1.5	L −7.5	144.5	U 123
Feb 16	vsLAM	W 70-65	-6.5	L −1.5	141.5	U 135
Feb 21	@SELA	W 96-75	-4.5	W +16.5	138.5	O 171
Feb 23	@MCN	L 68-75	+11.5	W +4.5	146.5	U 143
Feb 28	vsETAM	W 63-55	-10.5	L −2.5	146.5	U 118
Mar 2	vsNWST	W 74-62	-9.5	W +2.5	139.5	U 136
Mar 9	vsNICH	W 86-68	-5.5	W +12.5	143.5	O 154
Mar 10	vsMCN	L 80-84	+8.5	W +4.5	140.5	O 164

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

BAY

L 81-96

+9.5

SUU

W 95-72

+21.5

BOIS

L 65-85

−3.5

MOST

L 67-74

−3.5

ILL

L 73-87

+19.5

SFA

L 60-73

−6.5

APSU

W 63-50

+10.5

UTA

L 50-58

−12.5

LAM

W 83-72

+14.5

NOLA

L 69-85

−22.5

NICH

L 69-71

−5.5

AMCC

L 59-63

−6.5

UIW

W 80-67

+11.5

ETAM

L 69-77

−11.5

NWST

L 63-64

−3.5

MCN

W 79-76

+12.5

SELA

W 68-65

−2.5

HCU

W 68-51

+14.5

AMCC

W 64-55

+11.5

UIW

W 106-93

+11.5

HCU

W 74-57

+7.5

NOLA

W 95-76

+17.5

NICH

W 92-72

+16.5

SFA

L 57-66

−7.5

LAM

W 70-65

−1.5

SELA

W 96-75

+16.5

MCN

L 68-75

+4.5

ETAM

W 63-55

−2.5

NWST

W 74-62

+2.5

NICH

W 86-68

+12.5

MCN

L 80-84

+4.5

covered 18didn’t cover 13avg +4.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

BAY

L 81-96

+22.5

SUU

W 95-72

+6.5

BOIS

L 65-85

−11.5

MOST

L 67-74

−8.5

ILL

L 73-87

−4.5

SFA

L 60-73

−10.5

APSU

W 63-50

−38.5

UTA

L 50-58

−37.5

LAM

W 83-72

+15.5

NOLA

L 69-85

+1.5

NICH

L 69-71

−5.5

AMCC

L 59-63

−15.5

UIW

W 80-67

+0.5

ETAM

L 69-77

+0.5

NWST

L 63-64

−16.5

MCN

W 79-76

+8.5

SELA

W 68-65

−2.5

HCU

W 68-51

−21.5

AMCC

W 64-55

−16.5

UIW

W 106-93

+58.5

HCU

W 74-57

−10.5

NOLA

W 95-76

+19.5

NICH

W 92-72

+16.5

SFA

L 57-66

−21.5

LAM

W 70-65

−6.5

SELA

W 96-75

+32.5

MCN

L 68-75

−3.5

ETAM

W 63-55

−28.5

NWST

W 74-62

−3.5

NICH

W 86-68

+10.5

MCN

L 80-84

+23.5

over 13under 18avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

UT Rio Grande has the better starters

Position by position: Prairie View 1, UT Rio Grande 2, even 2

Prairie ViewBetterUT Rio Grande

G D. Williams TR7.8 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.3 ast Score 14

RGVSmall

G D. Pryor TR2.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast Score 41

G M. Eley TR13 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.7 ast Score 98

PVBig

G A. Wright2.8 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.8 ast Score 2

G S. Tidor TR4.1 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.3 ast Score 21

RGVBig

G J. Posey TR4.8 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.2 ast Score 75

G E. Mitchell2.4 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.4 ast Score 7

No call

G B. Knight TR2.4 pts · 0.5 reb · 0.3 ast Not ranked

F J. Wharton TR1.8 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.1 ast Not ranked

No call

G L. Ramirez0 pts · 1 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

Prairie ViewBetterUT Rio Grande

PV offense310th of 366 · -9.7

Even

RGV defense265th of 366 · -6.8

PV defense359th of 366 · -10.4

RGVSmall

RGV offense297th of 366 · -9.2

Backcourt-2.4 · 4 players

PVSmall

Backcourt-4.0 · 5 players

Frontcourt-0.5 · 1 player

No call

FrontcourtNo numbers yet

Bench+0.0 · 1 player

No call

BenchNo numbers yet

Score, worst to bestPV betterRGV betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Prairie View

Guards

D. Williams26 min · TRM. Eley19 min · TRS. Tidor12 min · TRE. Mitchell12 minJ. LeeNewM. BellNew

Forwards

J. Wharton7 min · TRJ. Fazande1 min · TRE. PageNewD. BynumNewB. AjieroNew

UT Rio Grande

Guards

D. Pryor18 min · TRA. Wright15 minJ. Posey12 min · TRB. Knight8 min · TRL. Ramirez2 minJ. BlairNew

Forwards

T. WrightNewJ. HillNewB. CrawfordNewK. CorbittNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

PV74.8 #170

RGV73.7 #210

Points per possession

PV1.03 #286

RGV1.10 #137

Pace (possessions)

PV72.7 #20

RGV67.3 #268

Shooting

Effective FG%

PV47.4 #330

RGV54.8 #44

3-point %

PV32.9 #237

RGV36.8 #35

3-point attempt rate

PV30.6 #348

RGV43.7 #95

Free throw rate

PV41.6 #35

RGV28.9 #332

Possessions

Turnover rate

PV15.8 #122

RGV18.5 #296

Offensive rebound rate

PV26.7 #305

RGV28.2 #257

Assists per game

PV10.8 #341

RGV15.7 #58

Defense

Points allowed

PV78.9 #295

RGV70.6 #67

Points allowed per possession

PV1.08 #182

RGV1.05 #86

Opponent effective FG%

PV50.9 #149

RGV47.8 #38

Opponent 3-point %

PV35.0 #247

RGV30.4 #16

Turnovers forced

PV19.0 #49

RGV16.2 #210

Defensive rebound rate

PV64.6 #344

RGV67.9 #266

Steals per game

PV7.0 #127

RGV5.9 #243

Blocks per game

PV4.9 #19

RGV2.8 #266

PV		RGV
Scoring
74.8 #170	Points per game	73.7 #210
1.03 #286	Points per possession	1.10 #137
72.7 #20	Pace (possessions)	67.3 #268
Shooting
47.4 #330	Effective FG%	54.8 #44
32.9 #237	3-point %	36.8 #35
30.6 #348	3-point attempt rate	43.7 #95
41.6 #35	Free throw rate	28.9 #332
Possessions
15.8 #122	Turnover rate	18.5 #296
26.7 #305	Offensive rebound rate	28.2 #257
10.8 #341	Assists per game	15.7 #58
Defense
78.9 #295	Points allowed	70.6 #67
1.08 #182	Points allowed per possession	1.05 #86
50.9 #149	Opponent effective FG%	47.8 #38
35.0 #247	Opponent 3-point %	30.4 #16
19.0 #49	Turnovers forced	16.2 #210
64.6 #344	Defensive rebound rate	67.9 #266
7.0 #127	Steals per game	5.9 #243
4.9 #19	Blocks per game	2.8 #266

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Prairie View

15-18 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Florida55–114
Wvs Lehigh67–55
Wvs Southern72–66
Wvs Alabama A&M74–55
Wvs Bethune71–67

A week or more of rest.

UT Rio Grande

17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 15-9 in conference · Southland Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs McNeese80–84
Wvs Nicholls86–68
Wvs N'Western St74–62
Wvs East Texas A&M63–55
L@ McNeese68–75

A week or more of rest.

Prairie View A&M Panthers at UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros

What could decide it: RGV has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Prairie View

UT Rio Grande

UT Rio Grande has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Prairie View

UT Rio Grande