UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena · at Milwaukee
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MILW | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 79–71 · win probability UIC 77%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.9
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: UIC has more of the edges
UIC 5, MILW 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
UIC offense vs MILW defense
Offense 117th of 366 against a defense 297th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: UIC 49.8 and allows 50.5; MILW 49.9 and allows 55.5
Free throws
Free throw rate: UIC 36.2, MILW 32.1. Allowed: UIC 33.9, MILW 35.9
Three-pointers
UIC hits 31.6% and allows 33.4%; MILW hits 32.3% and allows 36.5%. Threes are 32.8% and 38.1% of their shots
MILW offense vs UIC defense
Offense 180th of 366 against a defense 106th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
MILW at home. This season: MILW 0-0 at home, UIC 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UIC 60%, MILW 40%. Transfers in: UIC 4, MILW 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UIC 36.3%, MILW 33.0%. Defensive: UIC 68.0%, MILW 70.8%
Context
Schedule so far
UIC has played the 161st-hardest schedule, MILW the 191st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UIC plays 68.1 a game (227th fastest), MILW 69.1 (174th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UIC 17.6%, MILW 15.3%. Forced: UIC 19.7%, MILW 15.8%
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 | — | UIC -8.3 | — |
| Total | — | 149.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | UIC 79.1 · MILW 70.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UIC -5.1 | — |
| 1H total | 70.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | UIC 37.6 · MILW 32.5 | — |
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% | 5-5 50% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UIC 3–0 MILWUIC leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · UIC has won the last 3 meetings · UIC 3-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2021-22 | UIC 80 @ MILW 69 | MILW +2.5 | UIC W |
| Feb 26, 2021-22 | MILW 58 @ UIC 71 | UIC -6 | UIC W |
| Jan 13, 2021-22 | UIC 81 @ MILW 77 | MILW -2.5 | UIC W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Milwaukee
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
11-20
35% covers · avg −3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg −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 3 | vs | W 90-86 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 76-86 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 92-72 | -3.5 | W +16.5 | 156.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 70-101 | +24.5 | L −6.5 | 165.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 63-80 | +27.5 | W +10.5 | 165.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 58-75 | +10.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 81-105 | +12.5 | L −11.5 | 166.5 | O 186 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 74-72 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 68-70 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 159.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 88-87 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 81-71 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 160.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 77-55 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 60-80 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 70-76 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 76-79 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 9 | vs | L 67-85 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 95-83 | -8.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 60-73 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 166.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 18 | @ | L 82-100 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 76-88 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 65-64 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 30 | vs | L 69-76 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 88-90 | -9.5 | L −11.5 | 160.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 63-76 | -6.5 | L −19.5 | 155.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 62-67 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 92-88 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 75-72 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 20 | @ | L 86-91 | -1.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 70-81 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 78-65 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 63-84 | +1.5 | L −19.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
HAMP
W 90-86
−1.5
8
@
WOF
L 76-86
−13.5
10
vs
LR
W 92-72
+16.5
12
@
IU
L 70-101
−6.5
14
@
TTU
L 63-80
+10.5
22
@
WICH
L 58-75
−6.5
29
@
AKR
L 81-105
−11.5
6
vs
RMU
W 74-72
−2.5
14
vs
INST
L 68-70
−4.5
19
vs
SDST
W 88-87
+2.5
21
@
CLE
W 81-71
+3.5
29
vs
PFW
W 77-55
+18.5
30
@
WIS
L 60-80
−0.5
1
@
WRST
L 70-76
−2.5
5
@
GB
L 76-79
−6.5
9
vs
NKU
L 67-85
−19.5
11
vs
IUIN
W 95-83
+3.5
15
vs
OAK
L 60-73
−10.5
18
@
PFW
L 82-100
−14.5
22
@
RMU
L 76-88
−7.5
24
@
YSU
W 65-64
+7.5
30
vs
WRST
L 69-76
−4.5
1
vs
CLE
L 88-90
−11.5
4
vs
DETM
L 63-76
−19.5
7
@
NKU
L 62-67
+1.5
10
@
IUIN
W 92-88
+1.5
15
vs
GB
W 75-72
+0.5
20
@
DETM
L 86-91
−6.5
22
@
OAK
L 70-81
−5.5
25
vs
YSU
W 78-65
+14.5
4
@
DETM
L 63-84
−19.5
covered 11didn’t cover 20avg −3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
HAMP
W 90-86
+29.5
8
@
WOF
L 76-86
+11.5
10
vs
LR
W 92-72
+7.5
12
@
IU
L 70-101
+5.5
14
@
TTU
L 63-80
−22.5
22
@
WICH
L 58-75
−25.5
29
@
AKR
L 81-105
+19.5
6
vs
RMU
W 74-72
−7.5
14
vs
INST
L 68-70
−21.5
19
vs
SDST
W 88-87
+23.5
21
@
CLE
W 81-71
−8.5
29
vs
PFW
W 77-55
−24.5
30
@
WIS
L 60-80
−17.5
1
@
WRST
L 70-76
−1.5
5
@
GB
L 76-79
+10.5
9
vs
NKU
L 67-85
−5.5
11
vs
IUIN
W 95-83
+12.5
15
vs
OAK
L 60-73
−33.5
18
@
PFW
L 82-100
+33.5
22
@
RMU
L 76-88
+11.5
24
@
YSU
W 65-64
−22.5
30
vs
WRST
L 69-76
−6.5
1
vs
CLE
L 88-90
+17.5
4
vs
DETM
L 63-76
−16.5
7
@
NKU
L 62-67
−27.5
10
@
IUIN
W 92-88
+21.5
15
vs
GB
W 75-72
+1.5
20
@
DETM
L 86-91
+23.5
22
@
OAK
L 70-81
−8.5
25
vs
YSU
W 78-65
−4.5
4
@
DETM
L 63-84
−4.5
over 14under 17avg −1 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: UIC 1, Milwaukee 0, even 4
UICBetterMilwaukee
G B. Gealer TR10.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 79
←UICBig
G I. Dorceus5.3 pts · 1.5 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 14
G A. Johnson11 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 55
=Even
G T. Norman TR2.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 55
G A. Thomas TR11.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 69
=Even
F D. Jovanovich12.3 pts · 6.1 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 78
G M. Lowery7.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
=Even
F C. Jackson9.7 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 67
G R. Washington8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 77
=No call
F S. Murchison0.7 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
UICBetterMilwaukee
UIC offense117th of 366 · -2.6
←UICBig
MILW defense297th of 366 · -7.6
UIC defense106th of 366 · -1.0
←UICSmall
MILW offense180th of 366 · -5.5
Backcourt+2.1 · 5 players
←UICBig
Backcourt-2.5 · 2 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+1.9 · 3 players
Bench+0.5 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-0.2 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestUIC betterMILW betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
I. Dorceus22 minT. Norman8 min · TRJ. Hansen1 min · TRJ. LovelaceNewD. OmwenoNewA. WomackNew
Forwards
D. Jovanovich31 minC. Jackson23 minS. Murchison5 minA. Amadou3 min · TRN. MalosaNewB. AkoroNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #196 | Points per game | 74.7 #173 |
| 1.09 #171 | Points per possession | 1.09 #172 |
| 68.1 #227 | Pace (possessions) | 69.1 #174 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.8 #245 | Effective FG% | 49.9 #242 |
| 31.6 #300 | 3-point % | 32.3 #266 |
| 32.8 #319 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.1 #212 |
| 36.2 #145 | Free throw rate | 32.1 #256 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.6 #247 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #85 |
| 36.3 #22 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.0 #88 |
| 14.1 #143 | Assists per game | 12.9 #220 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.2 #81 | Points allowed | 79.9 #317 |
| 1.05 #83 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #328 |
| 50.5 #125 | Opponent effective FG% | 55.5 #340 |
| 33.4 #147 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.5 #329 |
| 19.7 #30 | Turnovers forced | 15.8 #232 |
| 68.0 #255 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.8 #121 |
| 7.6 #70 | Steals per game | 6.5 #176 |
| 3.6 #126 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #230 |
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.
Milwaukee
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Detroit Mercy63–84
- Wvs Youngstown St78–65
- L@ Oakland70–81
- L@ Detroit Mercy86–91
- Wvs Green Bay75–72
A week or more of rest.