Credit Union 1 Arena · at UIC
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UIC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UIC 83–66 · win probability UIC 94%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.0
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: UIC has more of the edges
UNCG 1, UIC 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
UIC offense vs UNCG defense
Offense 117th of 366 against a defense 299th, on the model’s ratings
UNCG offense vs UIC defense
Offense 260th of 366 against a defense 106th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UNCG 5%, UIC 60%. Transfers in: UNCG 6, UIC 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
UNCG has played the 256th-hardest schedule, UIC the 161st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: UNCG 42.0, UIC 36.2. Allowed: UNCG 30.6, UIC 33.9
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UNCG 15.0%, UIC 17.6%. Forced: UNCG 13.6%, UIC 19.7%
Shooting
Effective FG%: UNCG 52.0 and allows 56.2; UIC 49.8 and allows 50.5
Home court
UIC at home. This season: UIC 0-0 at home, UNCG 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UNCG 28.1%, UIC 36.3%. Defensive: UNCG 71.0%, UIC 68.0%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UNCG plays 69.3 a game (157th fastest), UIC 68.1 (227th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
UNCG hits 35.6% and allows 38.0%; UIC hits 31.6% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 40.2% and 32.8% of their shots
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 | — | UIC -17.3 | — |
| Total | — | 149.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | UNCG 65.8 · UIC 83.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UIC -10.2 | — |
| 1H total | 69.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | UNCG 29.7 · UIC 39.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | |
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UNCG 1–0 UICUNCG leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UNCG 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2023-24 | UIC 57 vs UNCG 58 | UNCG -2.5 | UIC W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UNC Greensboro
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
13-19
41% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-10
69% overs · avg +8.1 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 4 | @ | L 64-93 | +18.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 90-92 | -4.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 64-110 | +30.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 63-69 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 94-101 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | O 195 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 68-62 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 60-73 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 71-82 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 77-82 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 82-78 | +7.5 | W +11.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 65-71 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 77-72 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 89-82 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 85-97 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 60-86 | +11.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 69-66 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 92-102 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 194 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 85-78 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 66-89 | +4.5 | L −18.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 77-95 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 66-71 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 81-78 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 67-64 | +10.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 92-71 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 99-89 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 154.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 77-91 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 75-87 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 85-80 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 78-87 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 84-70 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 75-72 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 75-81 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
KSU
L 64-93
−10.5
8
vs
ELON
L 90-92
−6.5
12
@
NCSU
L 64-110
−15.5
15
vs
APSU
L 63-69
−7.5
20
@
QUC
L 94-101
+0.5
23
vs
YSU
W 68-62
+11.5
25
vs
DEL
L 60-73
−14.5
26
vs
M-OH
L 71-82
−0.5
2
vs
UNCA
L 77-82
−0.5
6
@
ECU
W 82-78
+11.5
16
vs
NCAT
L 65-71
−12.5
1
vs
UTC
W 77-72
+7.5
3
vs
SAM
W 89-82
+9.5
7
@
WOF
L 85-97
−4.5
10
@
ETSU
L 60-86
−14.5
15
vs
CIT
W 69-66
−6.5
17
vs
MER
L 92-102
−4.5
21
@
VMI
W 85-78
+4.5
23
vs
FUR
L 66-89
−18.5
29
@
MER
L 77-95
−7.5
31
@
CIT
L 66-71
−7.5
4
vs
WCU
W 81-78
+4.5
8
@
FUR
W 67-64
+13.5
11
vs
VMI
W 92-71
+12.5
14
vs
WOF
W 99-89
+12.5
18
@
WCU
L 77-91
−8.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 75-87
−5.5
26
@
UTC
W 85-80
+9.5
28
@
SAM
L 78-87
−0.5
6
vs
VMI
W 84-70
+6.5
7
vs
WOF
W 75-72
+7.5
8
vs
FUR
L 75-81
−0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
KSU
L 64-93
+8.5
8
vs
ELON
L 90-92
+39.5
12
@
NCSU
L 64-110
+20.5
15
vs
APSU
L 63-69
−13.5
20
@
QUC
L 94-101
+44.5
23
vs
YSU
W 68-62
−22.5
25
vs
DEL
L 60-73
−9.5
26
vs
M-OH
L 71-82
+2.5
2
vs
UNCA
L 77-82
+15.5
6
@
ECU
W 82-78
+20.5
16
vs
NCAT
L 65-71
−11.5
1
vs
UTC
W 77-72
+1.5
3
vs
SAM
W 89-82
+19.5
7
@
WOF
L 85-97
+28.5
10
@
ETSU
L 60-86
−2.5
15
vs
CIT
W 69-66
−13.5
17
vs
MER
L 92-102
+38.5
21
@
VMI
W 85-78
+11.5
23
vs
FUR
L 66-89
+4.5
29
@
MER
L 77-95
+13.5
31
@
CIT
L 66-71
−10.5
4
vs
WCU
W 81-78
+3.5
8
@
FUR
W 67-64
−18.5
11
vs
VMI
W 92-71
+12.5
14
vs
WOF
W 99-89
+33.5
18
@
WCU
L 77-91
+12.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 75-87
+13.5
26
@
UTC
W 85-80
+7.5
28
@
SAM
L 78-87
+8.5
6
vs
VMI
W 84-70
−0.5
7
vs
WOF
W 75-72
−8.5
8
vs
FUR
L 75-81
+8.5
over 22under 10avg +8.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
UIC
33 games played
Straight up
17-16
52% wins
Against the spread
18-15
55% covers · avg +3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg −0.7 pts vs the total
Against the spread
18-1555%
2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered
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 | vs | W 91-71 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 73-76 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 67-63 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 80-90 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 84-73 | -11.5 | L −0.5 | 153.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 74-88 | -1.5 | L −15.5 | 151.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 62-63 | -16.5 | L −17.5 | 163.5 | U 125 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 66-80 | +12.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 84-87 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 54-60 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 133.5 | U 114 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 76-88 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 77-81 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 59-66 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 70-57 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 63-59 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 13 | @ | W 69-61 | +6.5 | W +14.5 | 128.5 | O 130 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 74-67 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 141 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 76-49 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 139.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 85-70 | +7.5 | W +22.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 76-74 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 68-66 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 74-81 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 155 |
| Feb 6 | vs | L 62-68 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 80-70 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-56 | +1.5 | W +28.5 | 140.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 84-46 | -8.5 | W +29.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 67-71 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 93-86 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 1 | @ | L 63-79 | -3.5 | L −19.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 92-79 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 72-51 | -4.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 69-84 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 125.5 | O 153 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 73-91 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
DETM
W 91-71
+10.5
7
@
ORST
L 73-76
+3.5
15
@
CHST
W 67-63
−5.5
20
vs
HPU
L 80-90
+0.5
22
vs
USI
W 84-73
−0.5
26
@
RMU
L 74-88
−15.5
3
vs
UAPB
L 62-63
−17.5
7
@
YALE
L 66-80
−1.5
13
@
BEL
L 84-87
+9.5
17
vs
UNI
L 54-60
−0.5
21
@
CLT
L 76-88
−10.5
1
vs
MUR
L 77-81
+1.5
4
@
VAL
L 59-66
−4.5
7
vs
SIU
W 70-57
+14.5
10
@
ILST
W 63-59
+14.5
13
@
UNI
W 69-61
+14.5
17
vs
DRKE
W 74-67
+1.5
20
vs
EVAN
W 76-49
+18.5
24
@
BRAD
W 85-70
+22.5
27
vs
INST
W 76-74
−3.5
31
@
SIU
W 68-66
+5.5
3
@
MUR
L 74-81
−0.5
6
vs
BEL
L 62-68
−4.5
12
@
DRKE
W 80-70
+8.5
15
vs
ILST
W 83-56
+28.5
18
@
EVAN
W 84-46
+29.5
21
vs
VAL
L 67-71
−11.5
24
vs
BRAD
W 93-86
+5.5
1
@
INST
L 63-79
−19.5
6
vs
MUR
W 92-79
+11.5
7
vs
DRKE
W 72-51
+16.5
8
vs
UNI
L 69-84
−12.5
18
@
CAL
L 73-91
−11.5
covered 18didn’t cover 15avg +3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
DETM
W 91-71
+19.5
7
@
ORST
L 73-76
+2.5
15
@
CHST
W 67-63
−26.5
20
vs
HPU
L 80-90
+11.5
22
vs
USI
W 84-73
+3.5
26
@
RMU
L 74-88
+10.5
3
vs
UAPB
L 62-63
−38.5
7
@
YALE
L 66-80
−2.5
13
@
BEL
L 84-87
+16.5
17
vs
UNI
L 54-60
−19.5
21
@
CLT
L 76-88
+26.5
1
vs
MUR
L 77-81
−1.5
4
@
VAL
L 59-66
−19.5
7
vs
SIU
W 70-57
−19.5
10
@
ILST
W 63-59
−19.5
13
@
UNI
W 69-61
+1.5
17
vs
DRKE
W 74-67
+1.5
20
vs
EVAN
W 76-49
−14.5
24
@
BRAD
W 85-70
+10.5
27
vs
INST
W 76-74
+2.5
31
@
SIU
W 68-66
−8.5
3
@
MUR
L 74-81
−2.5
6
vs
BEL
L 62-68
−21.5
12
@
DRKE
W 80-70
+3.5
15
vs
ILST
W 83-56
−1.5
18
@
EVAN
W 84-46
−10.5
21
vs
VAL
L 67-71
−0.5
24
vs
BRAD
W 93-86
+37.5
1
@
INST
L 63-79
−2.5
6
vs
MUR
W 92-79
+20.5
7
vs
DRKE
W 72-51
−21.5
8
vs
UNI
L 69-84
+27.5
18
@
CAL
L 73-91
+13.5
over 16under 17avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UIC has the better starters
Position by position: UNC Greensboro 0, UIC 3, even 2
UNC GreensboroBetterUIC
G B. Stacker TR11.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 47
→UICSmall
G B. Gealer TR10.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 79
G C. Grant TR2.2 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 9
→UICBig
G A. Johnson11 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 55
F Z. Fitch TR6.1 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 31
→UICBig
G A. Thomas TR11.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 69
F V. Collins TR1 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Lowery7.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
F A. Beljan TR2.2 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G R. Washington8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 77
UNC GreensboroBetterUIC
UNCG offense260th of 366 · -8.0
→UICBig
UIC defense106th of 366 · -1.0
UNCG defense299th of 366 · -7.7
→UICBig
UIC offense117th of 366 · -2.6
Backcourt-2.1 · 2 players
→UICBig
Backcourt+2.1 · 5 players
Frontcourt-1.9 · 3 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-0.5 · 3 players
→UICSmall
Bench+0.5 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUNCG betterUIC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Stacker29 min · TRC. Grant11 min · TRC. Bailey6 minR. Greer6 min · TRB. MishakNewJ. ManiNew
Forwards
Z. Fitch23 min · TRV. Collins7 min · TRA. Beljan7 min · TRC. Bynum4 minC. LaFrentzNew
Guards
B. Gealer30 min · TRA. Johnson29 minA. Thomas28 min · TRM. Lowery26 minR. Washington23 minA. Henderson21 min
Forwards
J. Nathaniel20 minL. Scroggins17 min · TRN. BarrantesNewD. HudsonNewD. ShawNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.6 #128 | Points per game | 73.9 #196 |
| 1.11 #125 | Points per possession | 1.09 #171 |
| 69.3 #157 | Pace (possessions) | 68.1 #227 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.0 #146 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #245 |
| 35.6 #80 | 3-point % | 31.6 #300 |
| 40.2 #165 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.8 #319 |
| 42.0 #31 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #145 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.0 #63 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #247 |
| 28.1 #259 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.3 #22 |
| 12.1 #283 | Assists per game | 14.1 #143 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.9 #341 | Points allowed | 71.2 #81 |
| 1.18 #347 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #83 |
| 56.2 #347 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #125 |
| 38.0 #357 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #147 |
| 13.6 #343 | Turnovers forced | 19.7 #30 |
| 71.0 #104 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #255 |
| 5.5 #301 | Steals per game | 7.6 #70 |
| 1.9 #350 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #126 |
UNC Greensboro
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Furman75–81
- Wvs Wofford75–72
- Wvs VMI84–70
- L@ Samford78–87
- W@ Chattanooga85–80
A week or more of rest.
UIC
17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 14-9 in conference · Missouri Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ California73–91
- Lvs Northern Iowa69–84
- Wvs Drake72–51
- Wvs Murray St92–79
- L@ Indiana St63–79
A week or more of rest.