Reynolds Center · at Tulsa
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TLSA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TLSA 90–70 · win probability TLSA 96%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 159.6
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: TLSA has more of the edges
IUIN 1, TLSA 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: IUIN 21.7, TLSA 41.4. Allowed: IUIN 46.6, TLSA 32.0
TLSA offense vs IUIN defense
Offense 99th of 366 against a defense 364th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
IUIN hits 32.4% and allows 38.5%; TLSA hits 38.5% and allows 32.4%. Threes are 42.1% and 46.7% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: IUIN 28.7%, TLSA 32.8%. Defensive: IUIN 64.5%, TLSA 71.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: IUIN 52.2 and allows 58.2; TLSA 55.4 and allows 49.5
Context
Schedule so far
IUIN has played the 284th-hardest schedule, TLSA the 111th. A record against a soft schedule means less
IUIN offense vs TLSA defense
Offense 249th of 366 against a defense 133rd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: IUIN 15.8%, TLSA 15.6%. Forced: IUIN 19.2%, TLSA 15.4%
Context
Tempo
About 73 possessions: IUIN plays 75.3 a game (4th fastest), TLSA 70.1 (115th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
TLSA at home. This season: TLSA 0-0 at home, IUIN 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: IUIN 14%, TLSA 18%. Transfers in: IUIN 3, TLSA 7. 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 | — | TLSA -19.8 | — |
| Total | — | 159.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | IUIN 69.9 · TLSA 89.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TLSA -11.6 | — |
| 1H total | 74.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | IUIN 31.5 · TLSA 43.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | |
| 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
IU Indy
30 games played
Straight up
5-25
17% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −2.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-17
43% overs · avg −0.7 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 102-118 | +33.5 | W +17.5 | 172.5 | O 220 |
| Nov 6 | vs | L 90-94 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 185.5 | U 184 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 80-112 | +20.5 | L −11.5 | 192.5 | U 192 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 90-83 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 186.5 | U 173 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 91-103 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 188.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 80-101 | -2.5 | L −23.5 | 181.5 | U 181 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 85-98 | +3.5 | L −9.5 | 175.5 | O 183 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 85-80 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 181.5 | U 165 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 78-92 | +3.5 | L −10.5 | 180.5 | U 170 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 55-78 | +6.5 | L −16.5 | 171.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 11 | vs | L 75-85 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 165.5 | U 160 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 78-91 | +23.5 | W +10.5 | 169.5 | U 169 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 86-99 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 172.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 72-81 | +13.5 | W +4.5 | 176.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 77-81 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 9 | @ | L 59-75 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 156.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 11 | @ | L 83-95 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 165.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 96-93 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 189 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 77-80 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 169.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 103-85 | +14.5 | W +32.5 | 176.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 58-74 | +8.5 | L −7.5 | 162.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 76-85 | +10.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-74 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 169.5 | U 156 |
| Feb 10 | vs | L 88-92 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 81-84 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 78-83 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 73-85 | +11.5 | L −0.5 | 160.5 | U 158 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 74-86 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 169.5 | U 160 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 81-87 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 163.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 93-101 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 169.5 | O 194 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
OSU
L 102-118
+17.5
6
vs
LIU
L 90-94
−8.5
8
@
BTLR
L 80-112
−11.5
14
@
EMU
W 90-83
+11.5
18
@
CHSO
L 91-103
−13.5
21
vs
ALST
L 80-101
−23.5
23
@
AF
L 85-98
−9.5
29
vs
MORE
W 85-80
+1.5
3
@
DETM
L 78-92
−10.5
6
vs
YSU
L 55-78
−16.5
11
vs
GB
L 75-85
−13.5
22
@
GCU
L 78-91
+10.5
29
@
CLE
L 86-99
−11.5
1
@
NKU
L 72-81
+4.5
4
vs
WRST
L 77-81
+4.5
9
@
GB
L 59-75
−9.5
11
@
MILW
L 83-95
−3.5
15
vs
RMU
W 96-93
+8.5
17
vs
DETM
L 77-80
−4.5
21
@
OAK
W 103-85
+32.5
28
@
RMU
L 58-74
−7.5
30
@
YSU
L 76-85
+1.5
7
vs
CLE
W 82-74
+5.5
10
vs
MILW
L 88-92
−1.5
12
vs
NKU
L 81-84
+2.5
15
@
PFW
L 78-83
+2.5
19
@
WRST
L 73-85
−0.5
25
vs
OAK
L 74-86
−6.5
28
vs
PFW
L 81-87
−4.5
2
@
CLE
L 93-101
−10.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
OSU
L 102-118
+47.5
6
vs
LIU
L 90-94
−1.5
8
@
BTLR
L 80-112
−0.5
14
@
EMU
W 90-83
−13.5
18
@
CHSO
L 91-103
+5.5
21
vs
ALST
L 80-101
−0.5
23
@
AF
L 85-98
+7.5
29
vs
MORE
W 85-80
−16.5
3
@
DETM
L 78-92
−10.5
6
vs
YSU
L 55-78
−38.5
11
vs
GB
L 75-85
−5.5
22
@
GCU
L 78-91
−0.5
29
@
CLE
L 86-99
+12.5
1
@
NKU
L 72-81
−23.5
4
vs
WRST
L 77-81
−4.5
9
@
GB
L 59-75
−22.5
11
@
MILW
L 83-95
+12.5
15
vs
RMU
W 96-93
+28.5
17
vs
DETM
L 77-80
−12.5
21
@
OAK
W 103-85
+11.5
28
@
RMU
L 58-74
−30.5
30
@
YSU
L 76-85
+7.5
7
vs
CLE
W 82-74
−13.5
10
vs
MILW
L 88-92
+21.5
12
vs
NKU
L 81-84
+0.5
15
@
PFW
L 78-83
+1.5
19
@
WRST
L 73-85
−2.5
25
vs
OAK
L 74-86
−9.5
28
vs
PFW
L 81-87
+4.5
2
@
CLE
L 93-101
+24.5
over 13under 17avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Tulsa
36 games played
Straight up
28-8
78% wins
Against the spread
19-17
53% covers · avg +4.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
24-12
67% overs · avg +4.7 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 7 | vs | W 82-65 | +3.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 12 | @ | W 88-87 | -5.5 | L −4.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 83-84 | +12.5 | W +11.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 84-75 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 81-51 | -5.5 | W +24.5 | 149.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 63-60 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 98-74 | -7.5 | W +16.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 117-84 | -25.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 201 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 83-70 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 19 | @ | W 82-81 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 90-85 | -16.5 | L −11.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 97-48 | -12.5 | W +36.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 67-72 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 78-93 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 163.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 86-74 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 99-77 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 83-66 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 153.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 87-81 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 82-66 | -8.5 | W +7.5 | 141.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 93-83 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 78-76 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 8 | @ | L 74-80 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 170.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 63-68 | -10.5 | L −15.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 77-81 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 79-74 | -12.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 100-74 | -21.5 | W +4.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 90-56 | -5.5 | W +28.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 93-66 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 156.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-76 | -11.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 90-84 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 174 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 68-81 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 17 | vs | W 89-84 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 22 | vs | W 77-66 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 24 | vs | W 83-79 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Apr 2 | vs | W 74-69 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 161.5 | U 143 |
| Apr 5 | vs | L 86-92 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 178 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
URI
W 82-65
+20.5
12
@
ORU
W 88-87
−4.5
17
@
KSU
L 83-84
+11.5
21
vs
APSU
W 84-75
+0.5
25
vs
SJSU
W 81-51
+24.5
26
vs
UNI
W 63-60
+5.5
6
vs
MOST
W 98-74
+16.5
10
vs
UAPB
W 117-84
+7.5
13
vs
NMSU
W 83-70
+8.5
19
@
WKU
W 82-81
−1.5
22
vs
DEN
W 90-85
−11.5
31
vs
RICE
W 97-48
+36.5
4
@
UNT
L 67-72
−7.5
10
vs
USF
L 78-93
−16.5
14
@
CLT
W 86-74
+8.5
18
@
UAB
W 99-77
+23.5
21
vs
MEM
W 83-66
+10.5
24
@
RICE
W 87-81
−2.5
28
vs
UNT
W 82-66
+7.5
1
vs
WICH
W 93-83
+4.5
4
@
FAU
W 78-76
−1.5
8
@
USF
L 74-80
−1.5
11
vs
UAB
L 63-68
−15.5
14
@
WICH
L 77-81
−2.5
18
vs
CLT
W 79-74
−7.5
22
vs
UTSA
W 100-74
+4.5
25
@
TULN
W 90-56
+28.5
5
@
ECU
W 93-66
+18.5
8
vs
TEM
W 78-76
−9.5
13
vs
UNT
W 90-84
−1.5
14
vs
WICH
L 68-81
−14.5
17
vs
SFA
W 89-84
−0.5
22
vs
UNLV
W 77-66
+6.5
24
vs
WICH
W 83-79
−0.5
2
vs
UNM
W 74-69
+7.5
5
vs
AUB
L 86-92
−0.5
covered 19didn’t cover 17avg +4.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
URI
W 82-65
−6.5
12
@
ORU
W 88-87
+14.5
17
@
KSU
L 83-84
+6.5
21
vs
APSU
W 84-75
+10.5
25
vs
SJSU
W 81-51
−17.5
26
vs
UNI
W 63-60
−14.5
6
vs
MOST
W 98-74
+29.5
10
vs
UAPB
W 117-84
+45.5
13
vs
NMSU
W 83-70
+6.5
19
@
WKU
W 82-81
+4.5
22
vs
DEN
W 90-85
+14.5
31
vs
RICE
W 97-48
−7.5
4
@
UNT
L 67-72
+0.5
10
vs
USF
L 78-93
+7.5
14
@
CLT
W 86-74
+13.5
18
@
UAB
W 99-77
+16.5
21
vs
MEM
W 83-66
−4.5
24
@
RICE
W 87-81
+15.5
28
vs
UNT
W 82-66
+6.5
1
vs
WICH
W 93-83
+21.5
4
@
FAU
W 78-76
−8.5
8
@
USF
L 74-80
−16.5
11
vs
UAB
L 63-68
−30.5
14
@
WICH
L 77-81
+5.5
18
vs
CLT
W 79-74
+1.5
22
vs
UTSA
W 100-74
+14.5
25
@
TULN
W 90-56
−10.5
5
@
ECU
W 93-66
+2.5
8
vs
TEM
W 78-76
+4.5
13
vs
UNT
W 90-84
+32.5
14
vs
WICH
L 68-81
−3.5
17
vs
SFA
W 89-84
+23.5
22
vs
UNLV
W 77-66
−18.5
24
vs
WICH
W 83-79
+7.5
2
vs
UNM
W 74-69
−18.5
5
vs
AUB
L 86-92
+19.5
over 24under 12avg +4.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Tulsa has the better starters
Position by position: IU Indy 1, Tulsa 3, even 1
IU IndyBetterTulsa
G B. Smith TR8.2 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 18
→TLSASmall
G K. Williams TR14.2 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 46
G G. Etchison TR9 pts · 1.3 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 93
←IUINSmall
G J. Johnson TR15 pts · 3.5 reb · 2 ast
Score 69
G J. Clarke TR3.3 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 34
→TLSASmall
G B. Moss TR9.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 54
F K. Tinsley7.7 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 17
=Even
F M. Emory TR11.3 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 27
F R. Hagy2.1 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 2
→TLSASmall
F C. Loofe TR7.1 pts · 6.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 26
IU IndyBetterTulsa
IUIN offense249th of 366 · -7.5
→TLSASmall
TLSA defense133rd of 366 · -2.5
IUIN defense364th of 366 · -12.3
→TLSABig
TLSA offense99th of 366 · -0.8
Backcourt-1.6 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-0.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt-3.2 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-3.8 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+1.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestIUIN betterTLSA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Smith24 min · TRG. Etchison14 min · TRJ. Clarke13 min · TRM. Pastorcic-StraunNewP. HeissNewT. DrexlerNew
Forwards
K. Tinsley18 minR. Hagy11 minP. IdiaruNewA. ArnettNewM. StackhouseNew
Guards
K. Williams36 min · TRJ. Johnson33 min · TRB. Moss27 min · TRM. Williams21 min · TRM. Rigsby19 minJ. Lawal13 min
Forwards
M. Emory37 min · TRC. Loofe26 min · TRK. Banks16 min · TRD. DesireNewA. DimitrijevicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80.9 #49 | Points per game | 83.9 #20 |
| 1.07 #200 | Points per possession | 1.20 #16 |
| 75.3 #4 | Pace (possessions) | 70.1 #115 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.2 #136 | Effective FG% | 55.4 #29 |
| 32.4 #258 | 3-point % | 38.5 #10 |
| 42.1 #134 | 3-point attempt rate | 46.7 #37 |
| 21.7 #365 | Free throw rate | 41.4 #39 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.8 #127 | Turnover rate | 15.6 #109 |
| 28.7 #243 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.8 #95 |
| 18.9 #3 | Assists per game | 15.1 #79 |
| Defense | ||
| 89.2 #364 | Points allowed | 74.4 #172 |
| 1.19 #353 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #111 |
| 58.2 #362 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.5 #82 |
| 38.5 #361 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.4 #85 |
| 19.2 #41 | Turnovers forced | 15.4 #260 |
| 64.5 #348 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.0 #108 |
| 8.0 #39 | Steals per game | 6.6 #170 |
| 2.9 #243 | Blocks per game | 2.5 #306 |
IU Indy
5-25 in 2025-26 overall · 3-18 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Cleveland St93–101
- Lvs Purdue FW81–87
- Lvs Oakland74–86
- L@ Wright St73–85
- L@ Purdue FW78–83
A week or more of rest.
Tulsa
28-8 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Auburn86–92
- Wvs New Mexico74–69
- Wvs Wichita St83–79
- Wvs UNLV77–66
- Wvs SF Austin89–84
A week or more of rest.