Groniger Arena · at E Illinois
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | EIU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 EIU 75–71 · win probability EIU 65%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.3
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: EIU has more of the edges
UAPB 0, EIU 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UAPB plays 71.5 a game (53rd fastest), EIU 67.0 (280th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UAPB 18.7%, EIU 18.6%. Forced: UAPB 16.4%, EIU 19.3%
Home court
EIU at home. This season: EIU 0-0 at home, UAPB 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UAPB 8%, EIU 22%. Transfers in: UAPB 3, EIU 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
UAPB has played the 300th-hardest schedule, EIU the 314th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: UAPB 38.4, EIU 33.5. Allowed: UAPB 43.6, EIU 35.3
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: UAPB 50.0 and allows 52.6; EIU 45.7 and allows 50.8
Even
Three-pointers
UAPB hits 33.6% and allows 33.2%; EIU hits 31.7% and allows 31.7%. Threes are 37.1% and 29.9% of their shots
Even
UAPB offense vs EIU defense
Offense 337th of 366 against a defense 332nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
EIU offense vs UAPB defense
Offense 360th of 366 against a defense 365th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UAPB 27.9%, EIU 28.2%. Defensive: UAPB 65.8%, EIU 64.8%
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 | — | EIU -4.4 | — |
| Total | — | 146.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | UAPB 70.9 · EIU 75.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | EIU -2.5 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | UAPB 33 · EIU 35.5 | — |
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% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
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
E Illinois
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
17-13
57% covers · avg +0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg −1.6 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 4 | @ | L 63-66 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 65-57 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 58-78 | +23.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 53-99 | +35.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 60-81 | +5.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 62-109 | +40.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 74-82 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 10 | vs | L 59-68 | +6.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 53-78 | +43.5 | W +18.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 76-72 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 134.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 59-68 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 61-65 | +10.5 | W +6.5 | 133.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 71-61 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 140.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 74-70 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 57-55 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 132.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 63-74 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 133.5 | O 137 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 59-51 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 135.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 68-73 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 68-76 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 129.5 | O 144 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 59-77 | +4.5 | L −13.5 | 138.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 68-77 | +9.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 60-54 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Feb 10 | @ | L 70-79 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 133.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 78-72 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 134.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 70-73 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 68-70 | -4.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 71-67 | +7.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 50-77 | +5.5 | L −21.5 | 129.5 | U 127 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 77-71 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 128.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 63-66 | +7.5 | W +4.5 | 126.5 | O 129 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
VAL
L 63-66
+2.5
7
vs
NICH
W 65-57
+10.5
11
@
ND
L 58-78
+3.5
14
@
UK
L 53-99
−10.5
25
@
CARK
L 60-81
−15.5
28
@
PUR
L 62-109
−6.5
6
vs
LIN
L 74-82
+0.5
10
vs
EKU
L 59-68
−2.5
14
@
ISU
L 53-78
+18.5
18
vs
SIUE
W 76-72
+10.5
1
@
SEMO
L 59-68
+3.5
3
@
UTM
L 61-65
+6.5
8
vs
TNTC
W 71-61
+11.5
10
vs
TNST
W 74-70
+7.5
13
vs
WIU
W 57-55
−4.5
15
@
LR
L 63-74
−4.5
22
@
USI
W 59-51
+10.5
24
@
MORE
L 68-73
−0.5
29
vs
UTM
L 68-76
−4.5
31
vs
SEMO
L 59-77
−13.5
5
@
TNST
L 68-77
+0.5
7
@
TNTC
W 60-54
+10.5
10
@
WIU
L 70-79
−13.5
14
vs
LR
W 78-72
+8.5
19
vs
MORE
L 70-73
−1.5
21
vs
USI
L 68-70
−6.5
26
@
LIN
W 71-67
+11.5
28
@
SIUE
L 50-77
−21.5
4
vs
SIUE
W 77-71
+9.5
5
vs
UTM
L 63-66
+4.5
covered 17didn’t cover 13avg +0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
VAL
L 63-66
−15.5
7
vs
NICH
W 65-57
−13.5
11
@
ND
L 58-78
−7.5
14
@
UK
L 53-99
+4.5
25
@
CARK
L 60-81
+1.5
28
@
PUR
L 62-109
+29.5
6
vs
LIN
L 74-82
+10.5
10
vs
EKU
L 59-68
−22.5
14
@
ISU
L 53-78
−13.5
18
vs
SIUE
W 76-72
+13.5
1
@
SEMO
L 59-68
−19.5
3
@
UTM
L 61-65
−7.5
8
vs
TNTC
W 71-61
−8.5
10
vs
TNST
W 74-70
−0.5
13
vs
WIU
W 57-55
−20.5
15
@
LR
L 63-74
+3.5
22
@
USI
W 59-51
−25.5
24
@
MORE
L 68-73
+6.5
29
vs
UTM
L 68-76
+14.5
31
vs
SEMO
L 59-77
−2.5
5
@
TNST
L 68-77
−0.5
7
@
TNTC
W 60-54
−26.5
10
@
WIU
L 70-79
+15.5
14
vs
LR
W 78-72
+15.5
19
vs
MORE
L 70-73
+5.5
21
vs
USI
L 68-70
+2.5
26
@
LIN
W 71-67
−6.5
28
@
SIUE
L 50-77
−2.5
4
vs
SIUE
W 77-71
+19.5
5
vs
UTM
L 63-66
+2.5
over 14under 16avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: AR-Pine Bluff 0, E Illinois 0, even 5
AR-Pine BluffBetterE Illinois
G J. Tatum TR7.7 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 25
=No call
G J. Elder8 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
G J. Hayes4.9 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Blackwell4.4 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 7
G D. Giddens TR3 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F A. Austin2 pts · 0.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 1
G H. Pickett0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Burton NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F C. Smith TR0.6 pts · 1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C T. Vogel NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
AR-Pine BluffBetterE Illinois
UAPB offense337th of 366 · -11.1
=Even
EIU defense332nd of 366 · -8.7
UAPB defense365th of 366 · -12.7
=Even
EIU offense360th of 366 · -14.1
Backcourt-5.1 · 4 players
→EIUSmall
Backcourt-2.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.7 · 1 player
←UAPBSmall
Frontcourt-1.8 · 3 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestUAPB betterEIU 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. Elder17 minM. Blackwell16 minD. DavenportNewJ. MillerNewJ. CallowayNewS. SimsNew
Forwards
A. Austin10 minD. BurtonNewG. WelchNewD. NtambweNewE. HillsmanNew
Centers
T. VogelNew
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 | 64.6 #351 |
| 1.04 #277 | Points per possession | 0.96 #350 |
| 71.5 #53 | Pace (possessions) | 67.0 #280 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.0 #233 | Effective FG% | 45.7 #353 |
| 33.6 #190 | 3-point % | 31.7 #292 |
| 37.1 #227 | 3-point attempt rate | 29.9 #352 |
| 38.4 #91 | Free throw rate | 33.5 #224 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.7 #310 | Turnover rate | 18.6 #301 |
| 27.9 #271 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.2 #256 |
| 14.1 #136 | Assists per game | 11.1 #336 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.9 #340 | Points allowed | 72.2 #111 |
| 1.14 #309 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #152 |
| 52.6 #249 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.8 #146 |
| 33.2 #136 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.7 #50 |
| 16.4 #192 | Turnovers forced | 19.3 #37 |
| 65.8 #321 | Defensive rebound rate | 64.8 #343 |
| 6.8 #142 | Steals per game | 7.5 #78 |
| 2.9 #244 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #251 |
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.
E Illinois
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 9-13 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UT Martin63–66
- Wvs SIUE77–71
- L@ SIUE50–77
- W@ Lindenwood Lions71–67
- Lvs Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles68–70
A week or more of rest.