The Super Pit · at North Texas
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UNT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UNT 76–65 · win probability UNT 84%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 140.9
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: UNT has more of the edges
USA 3, UNT 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
USA offense vs UNT defense
Offense 242nd of 366 against a defense 66th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: USA 38.5, UNT 39.6. Allowed: USA 25.4, UNT 45.1
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USA 25.0%, UNT 33.5%. Defensive: USA 68.6%, UNT 67.6%
Context
Schedule so far
USA has played the 223rd-hardest schedule, UNT the 121st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: USA 52.6 and allows 50.1; UNT 46.0 and allows 48.5
Three-pointers
USA hits 34.5% and allows 33.1%; UNT hits 28.7% and allows 30.9%. Threes are 36.5% and 32.4% of their shots
Home court
UNT at home. This season: UNT 0-0 at home, USA 0-0 away
UNT offense vs USA defense
Offense 165th of 366 against a defense 212th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USA 21%, UNT 45%. Transfers in: USA 0, UNT 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USA 13.1%, UNT 16.8%. Forced: USA 18.0%, UNT 21.3%
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: USA plays 67.1 a game (277th fastest), UNT 67.6 (245th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | UNT -11.3 | — |
| Total | — | 140.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | USA 64.8 · UNT 76.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UNT -6.6 | — |
| 1H total | 66.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | USA 29.7 · UNT 36.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
USA 0–1 UNTUNT leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · USA 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2025-26 | UNT 58 @ USA 57 | USA -1.5 | UNT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
South Alabama
31 games played
Straight up
19-12
61% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% 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 3 | @ | W 76-74 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 76-70 | -18.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 66-64 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 72-62 | -18.5 | L −8.5 | 133.5 | O 134 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 71-65 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 135.5 | O 136 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 72-80 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 82-58 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 77-75 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 65-91 | +7.5 | L −18.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 57-58 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 96-92 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 65-67 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 63-58 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 127.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 49-59 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 87-71 | -2.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 91-87 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 154.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 56-59 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 129.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 90-83 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 53-48 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | U 101 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 69-67 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 57-65 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 81-69 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 84-78 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 135.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 92-88 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 80-84 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 82-90 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 65-54 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 89-54 | -14.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 55-68 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 67-78 | +18.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
TOL
W 76-74
+4.5
6
vs
ALCN
W 76-70
−12.5
13
vs
CMU
W 66-64
−3.5
15
vs
COPP
W 72-62
−8.5
19
@
JXST
W 71-65
+8.5
21
@
UAB
L 72-80
−0.5
30
@
UTSA
W 82-58
+22.5
2
vs
NMSU
W 77-75
+4.5
5
@
ETSU
L 65-91
−18.5
14
vs
UNT
L 57-58
−2.5
17
@
ULM
W 96-92
−5.5
20
@
TXST
L 65-67
+1.5
31
@
UL
W 63-58
+1.5
3
@
TROY
L 49-59
−0.5
10
vs
GASO
W 87-71
+13.5
15
vs
ARST
W 91-87
+8.5
17
vs
UL
L 56-59
−12.5
22
@
JMU
W 90-83
+11.5
29
vs
CCU
W 53-48
+1.5
31
vs
GAST
W 69-67
−3.5
4
@
APP
L 57-65
−2.5
7
vs
BUF
W 81-69
+8.5
12
@
USM
W 84-78
+7.5
14
@
ARST
W 92-88
+12.5
16
@
MRSH
L 80-84
+2.5
19
vs
TXST
L 82-90
−11.5
21
vs
TROY
W 65-54
+13.5
25
vs
ULM
W 89-54
+20.5
27
vs
USM
L 55-68
−17.5
6
vs
GASO
L 85-94
−13.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-78
+7.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
TOL
W 76-74
−0.5
6
vs
ALCN
W 76-70
+4.5
13
vs
CMU
W 66-64
−12.5
15
vs
COPP
W 72-62
+0.5
19
@
JXST
W 71-65
+0.5
21
@
UAB
L 72-80
+2.5
30
@
UTSA
W 82-58
−1.5
2
vs
NMSU
W 77-75
+16.5
5
@
ETSU
L 65-91
+12.5
14
vs
UNT
L 57-58
−20.5
17
@
ULM
W 96-92
+39.5
20
@
TXST
L 65-67
−4.5
31
@
UL
W 63-58
−6.5
3
@
TROY
L 49-59
−40.5
10
vs
GASO
W 87-71
+9.5
15
vs
ARST
W 91-87
+23.5
17
vs
UL
L 56-59
−14.5
22
@
JMU
W 90-83
+34.5
29
vs
CCU
W 53-48
−38.5
31
vs
GAST
W 69-67
−4.5
4
@
APP
L 57-65
−9.5
7
vs
BUF
W 81-69
+4.5
12
@
USM
W 84-78
+26.5
14
@
ARST
W 92-88
+30.5
16
@
MRSH
L 80-84
+13.5
19
vs
TXST
L 82-90
+34.5
21
vs
TROY
W 65-54
−23.5
25
vs
ULM
W 89-54
−10.5
27
vs
USM
L 55-68
−18.5
6
vs
GASO
L 85-94
+29.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-78
−6.5
over 16under 15avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
North Texas
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% 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 6 | vs | W 80-53 | -11.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 64-62 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 64-66 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 49-80 | +14.5 | L −16.5 | 128.5 | O 129 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 74-56 | -16.5 | W +1.5 | 134.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 79-71 | -12.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 72-69 | -16.5 | L −13.5 | 141.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 77-75 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 127.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 55-65 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 58-57 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 60-63 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 48-57 | +9.5 | W +0.5 | 137.5 | U 105 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 72-67 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 70-74 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 67-78 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 71-63 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 81-62 | -15.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 59-63 | -10.5 | L −14.5 | 134.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 66-82 | +8.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 68-72 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 83-86 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 134.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 81-58 | -10.5 | W +12.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 76-69 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 138.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 65-62 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 71-77 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 137.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 73-72 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 79-80 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 62-58 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 62-58 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 74-70 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 144 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 84-90 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 174 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
vs
NWST
W 80-53
+15.5
9
vs
LUC
W 64-62
+3.5
12
@
ORST
L 64-66
+1.5
14
@
SMC
L 49-80
−16.5
20
vs
CARK
W 74-56
+1.5
25
vs
EWU
W 79-71
−4.5
30
vs
PV
W 72-69
−13.5
2
vs
HCU
W 77-75
−9.5
7
vs
TCU
L 55-65
−0.5
14
@
USA
W 58-57
+2.5
17
vs
SCU
L 60-63
+9.5
31
@
MEM
L 48-57
+0.5
4
vs
TLSA
W 72-67
+7.5
7
vs
USF
L 70-74
+0.5
11
@
WICH
L 67-78
−2.5
18
@
TULN
W 71-63
+9.5
21
vs
UTSA
W 81-62
+3.5
23
vs
ECU
L 59-63
−14.5
28
@
TLSA
L 66-82
−7.5
31
vs
UAB
L 68-72
−5.5
4
@
RICE
L 83-86
−4.5
7
@
UTSA
W 81-58
+12.5
12
vs
MEM
W 76-69
+9.5
15
@
TEM
W 65-62
+5.5
19
vs
TULN
L 71-77
−12.5
22
vs
FAU
W 73-72
−1.5
25
@
CLT
L 79-80
−3.5
1
@
UAB
W 62-58
+8.5
4
vs
RICE
W 62-58
−2.5
12
vs
FAU
W 74-70
+2.5
13
vs
TLSA
L 84-90
+1.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
vs
NWST
W 80-53
−4.5
9
vs
LUC
W 64-62
−12.5
12
@
ORST
L 64-66
−4.5
14
@
SMC
L 49-80
+0.5
20
vs
CARK
W 74-56
−4.5
25
vs
EWU
W 79-71
+8.5
30
vs
PV
W 72-69
−0.5
2
vs
HCU
W 77-75
+24.5
7
vs
TCU
L 55-65
−15.5
14
@
USA
W 58-57
−20.5
17
vs
SCU
L 60-63
−16.5
31
@
MEM
L 48-57
−32.5
4
vs
TLSA
W 72-67
+0.5
7
vs
USF
L 70-74
−3.5
11
@
WICH
L 67-78
+9.5
18
@
TULN
W 71-63
−3.5
21
vs
UTSA
W 81-62
+4.5
23
vs
ECU
L 59-63
−12.5
28
@
TLSA
L 66-82
+6.5
31
vs
UAB
L 68-72
−1.5
4
@
RICE
L 83-86
+34.5
7
@
UTSA
W 81-58
−2.5
12
vs
MEM
W 76-69
+6.5
15
@
TEM
W 65-62
−8.5
19
vs
TULN
L 71-77
+10.5
22
vs
FAU
W 73-72
+4.5
25
@
CLT
L 79-80
+25.5
1
@
UAB
W 62-58
−22.5
4
vs
RICE
W 62-58
−17.5
12
vs
FAU
W 74-70
+7.5
13
vs
TLSA
L 84-90
+32.5
over 14under 17avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
South Alabama has the better starters
Position by position: South Alabama 1, North Texas 0, even 4
South AlabamaBetterNorth Texas
G A. Goldstein NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Stevenson17.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2 ast
Score 94
G A. Lewis NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Chavis TR10.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 53
G J. Langsy NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Franklin6.1 pts · 4.3 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 47
F P. Law13.1 pts · 5.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
=Even
G A. Amkou TR5.5 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 74
F S. Williams6 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 84
←USASmall
F R. Robinson7.9 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 65
South AlabamaBetterNorth Texas
USA offense242nd of 366 · -7.3
→UNTBig
UNT defense66th of 366 · +1.0
USA defense212th of 366 · -5.4
=Even
UNT offense165th of 366 · -5.0
BackcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Backcourt+2.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt+3.5 · 2 players
←USABig
Frontcourt+0.5 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.7 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestUSA betterUNT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. GoldsteinNewA. LewisNewJ. LangsyNewS. ShoptawNewD. WilliamsNewD. RomanNew
Forwards
P. Law26 minS. Williams15 minL. KunzewitschNewO. KenneyNewR. WilliamsNewD. HueittNew
Guards
J. Stevenson33 minC. Chavis27 min · TRC. Franklin25 minA. Amkou12 min · TRE. Horton9 minB. BarnesNew
Forwards
R. Robinson23 minM. Holmes6 min · TRO. NdourNewT. CrumbleNewF. KalajzicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.2 #218 | Points per game | 69.1 #298 |
| 1.10 #139 | Points per possession | 1.02 #302 |
| 67.1 #277 | Pace (possessions) | 67.6 #245 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.6 #120 | Effective FG% | 46.0 #349 |
| 34.5 #146 | 3-point % | 28.7 #358 |
| 36.5 #237 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.4 #325 |
| 38.5 #89 | Free throw rate | 39.6 #63 |
| Possessions | ||
| 13.1 #8 | Turnover rate | 16.8 #182 |
| 25.0 #341 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.5 #76 |
| 11.9 #287 | Assists per game | 12.1 #282 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.3 #85 | Points allowed | 68.2 #35 |
| 1.06 #100 | Points allowed per possession | 1.01 #33 |
| 50.1 #105 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.5 #47 |
| 33.1 #133 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.9 #32 |
| 18.0 #96 | Turnovers forced | 21.3 #6 |
| 68.6 #222 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.6 #278 |
| 7.9 #46 | Steals per game | 8.9 #11 |
| 2.2 #330 | Blocks per game | 4.3 #51 |
South Alabama
19-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Auburn67–78
- Lvs GA Southern85–94
- Lvs Southern Miss55–68
- Wvs UL Monroe89–54
- Wvs Troy65–54
A week or more of rest.
North Texas
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Tulsa84–90
- Wvs FAU74–70
- Wvs Rice62–58
- W@ UAB62–58
- L@ Charlotte79–80
A week or more of rest.