Bud Walton Arena · at Arkansas
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ARK | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ARK 96–69 · win probability ARK 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 164.5
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: ARK has more of the edges
OAK 1, ARK 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
ARK offense vs OAK defense
Offense 6th of 366 against a defense 266th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
OAK has played the 150th-hardest schedule, ARK the 8th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
OAK hits 34.7% and allows 34.3%; ARK hits 38.2% and allows 31.8%. Threes are 34.0% and 33.0% of their shots
OAK offense vs ARK defense
Offense 159th of 366 against a defense 47th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: OAK 52.7 and allows 54.7; ARK 56.4 and allows 51.8
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: OAK 31.3%, ARK 32.0%. Defensive: OAK 65.6%, ARK 69.1%
Free throws
Free throw rate: OAK 38.1, ARK 35.9. Allowed: OAK 24.6, ARK 31.2
Home court
ARK at home. This season: ARK 0-0 at home, OAK 0-0 away
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: OAK 14.7%, ARK 12.2%. Forced: OAK 15.1%, ARK 15.5%
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: OAK plays 71.1 a game (67th fastest), ARK 73.8 (12th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: OAK 20%, ARK 19%. Transfers in: OAK 5, ARK 2. 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 | — | ARK -27.2 | — |
| Total | — | 164.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | OAK 68.7 · ARK 95.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ARK -16.0 | — |
| 1H total | 76.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | OAK 30.4 · ARK 46.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% | 8-2 80% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 13 | vs UTA | No recent meeting |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
OAK 0–1 ARKARK leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · OAK 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 30, 2024-25 | OAK 62 @ ARK 92 | ARK -16.5 | ARK W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Oakland
31 games played
Straight up
15-16
48% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-12
61% overs · avg +4.1 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 | @ | L 78-121 | +24.5 | L −18.5 | 156.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 77-87 | +31.5 | W +21.5 | 158.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 45-78 | +30.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 83-87 | +13.5 | W +9.5 | 163.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 91-97 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 83-68 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 95-87 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 162.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 101-92 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | O 193 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 98-97 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 166.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 63-75 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 82-77 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 163.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 70-79 | +19.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 73-88 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 85-83 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 96-73 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 161.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 97-74 | -15.5 | W +7.5 | 169.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 84-94 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 161.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 73-60 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 88-63 | -4.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 85-103 | -14.5 | L −32.5 | 176.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 95-87 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 74-65 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 76-65 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 78-91 | -7.5 | L −20.5 | 170.5 | U 169 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 82-86 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 69-93 | +1.5 | L −22.5 | 156.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 20 | vs | L 68-73 | -6.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 81-70 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 86-74 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 169.5 | U 160 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 89-95 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 84-85 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MICH
L 78-121
−18.5
7
@
PUR
L 77-87
+21.5
12
@
HOU
L 45-78
−2.5
17
@
UCF
L 83-87
+9.5
21
@
EMU
L 91-97
−7.5
24
vs
LAM
W 83-68
+11.5
25
@
MONT
W 95-87
+12.5
3
vs
PFW
W 101-92
+4.5
6
vs
TOL
W 98-97
−3.5
13
@
UNI
L 63-75
−3.5
17
@
NKU
W 82-77
+8.5
20
vs
MSU
L 70-79
+10.5
29
@
WRST
L 73-88
−11.5
1
@
YSU
W 85-83
+3.5
4
vs
RMU
W 96-73
+21.5
9
vs
CLE
W 97-74
+7.5
11
vs
WRST
L 84-94
−14.5
15
@
MILW
W 73-60
+10.5
18
@
GB
W 88-63
+20.5
21
vs
IUIN
L 85-103
−32.5
24
@
DETM
W 95-87
+1.5
28
@
PFW
W 74-65
+7.5
1
vs
NKU
W 76-65
+7.5
4
@
CLE
L 78-91
−20.5
12
vs
YSU
L 82-86
−7.5
15
@
RMU
L 69-93
−22.5
20
vs
GB
L 68-73
−11.5
22
vs
MILW
W 81-70
+5.5
25
@
IUIN
W 86-74
+6.5
28
vs
DETM
L 89-95
−14.5
4
vs
NKU
L 84-85
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MICH
L 78-121
+42.5
7
@
PUR
L 77-87
+5.5
12
@
HOU
L 45-78
−15.5
17
@
UCF
L 83-87
+6.5
21
@
EMU
L 91-97
+34.5
24
vs
LAM
W 83-68
+2.5
25
@
MONT
W 95-87
+19.5
3
vs
PFW
W 101-92
+30.5
6
vs
TOL
W 98-97
+28.5
13
@
UNI
L 63-75
−11.5
17
@
NKU
W 82-77
−4.5
20
vs
MSU
L 70-79
−6.5
29
@
WRST
L 73-88
+1.5
1
@
YSU
W 85-83
+10.5
4
vs
RMU
W 96-73
+7.5
9
vs
CLE
W 97-74
+1.5
11
vs
WRST
L 84-94
+16.5
15
@
MILW
W 73-60
−33.5
18
@
GB
W 88-63
−2.5
21
vs
IUIN
L 85-103
+11.5
24
@
DETM
W 95-87
+14.5
28
@
PFW
W 74-65
−23.5
1
vs
NKU
W 76-65
−25.5
4
@
CLE
L 78-91
−1.5
12
vs
YSU
L 82-86
+12.5
15
@
RMU
L 69-93
+5.5
20
vs
GB
L 68-73
−12.5
22
vs
MILW
W 81-70
−8.5
25
@
IUIN
W 86-74
−9.5
28
vs
DETM
L 89-95
+23.5
4
vs
NKU
L 84-85
+7.5
over 19under 12avg +4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Arkansas
37 games played
Straight up
28-9
76% wins
Against the spread
23-14
62% covers · avg +1.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-15
59% overs · avg +8.1 pts vs the total
Against the spread
23-1462%
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 109-77 | -26.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 186 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 66-69 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 93-56 | -35.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 79-75 | -24.5 | L −20.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 84-83 | -23.5 | L −22.5 | 168.5 | U 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 115-61 | -29.5 | W +24.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 71-80 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 89-80 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 82-58 | -19.5 | W +4.5 | 161.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 93-86 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 108-80 | -23.5 | W +4.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 85-94 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 103-74 | -23.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 86-75 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 94-87 | -3.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 73-95 | +2.5 | L −19.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 108-74 | -12.5 | W +21.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 76-90 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 181.5 | U 166 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 93-68 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 173.5 | U 161 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-81 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 27 | @ | W 83-79 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 167.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 77-85 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 88-68 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 163.5 | U 156 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 91-62 | -4.5 | W +24.5 | 159.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 88-75 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 165.5 | U 163 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 115-117 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 181.5 | O 232 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 94-86 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 159.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 99-84 | -7.5 | W +7.5 | 170.5 | O 183 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 77-111 | +9.5 | L −24.5 | 169.5 | O 188 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 105-85 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 163.5 | O 190 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 88-84 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 82-79 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 166.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 93-90 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 183 |
| Mar 15 | vs | W 86-75 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 165.5 | U 161 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 97-78 | -14.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 21 | vs | W 94-88 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 171.5 | O 182 |
| Mar 26 | vs | L 88-109 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 166.5 | O 197 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SOU
W 109-77
+5.5
8
@
MSU
L 66-69
−0.5
11
vs
CARK
W 93-56
+1.5
14
vs
SAM
W 79-75
−20.5
18
vs
WIN
W 84-83
−22.5
21
vs
JKST
W 115-61
+24.5
27
vs
DUKE
L 71-80
+3.5
3
vs
LOU
W 89-80
+10.5
6
vs
FRES
W 82-58
+4.5
13
vs
TTU
W 93-86
+9.5
16
vs
QUC
W 108-80
+4.5
20
vs
HOU
L 85-94
−3.5
29
vs
JMU
W 103-74
+5.5
3
vs
TENN
W 86-75
+12.5
7
@
MISS
W 94-87
+3.5
10
@
AUB
L 73-95
−19.5
14
vs
SC
W 108-74
+21.5
17
@
UGA
L 76-90
−11.5
20
vs
VAN
W 93-68
+23.5
24
vs
LSU
W 85-81
−6.5
27
@
OU
W 83-79
+0.5
31
vs
UK
L 77-85
−14.5
7
@
MSST
W 88-68
+14.5
10
@
LSU
W 91-62
+24.5
14
vs
AUB
W 88-75
+5.5
18
@
ALA
L 115-117
+1.5
21
vs
MIZ
W 94-86
−1.5
25
vs
TA&M
W 99-84
+7.5
28
@
FLA
L 77-111
−24.5
4
vs
TEX
W 105-85
+13.5
7
@
MIZ
W 88-84
+6.5
13
vs
OU
W 82-79
−3.5
14
vs
MISS
W 93-90
−5.5
15
vs
VAN
W 86-75
+13.5
19
vs
HAW
W 97-78
+4.5
21
vs
HPU
W 94-88
−6.5
26
vs
ARIZ
L 88-109
−12.5
covered 23didn’t cover 14avg +1.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SOU
W 109-77
+35.5
8
@
MSU
L 66-69
−20.5
11
vs
CARK
W 93-56
−9.5
14
vs
SAM
W 79-75
−4.5
18
vs
WIN
W 84-83
−1.5
21
vs
JKST
W 115-61
+16.5
27
vs
DUKE
L 71-80
−8.5
3
vs
LOU
W 89-80
+2.5
6
vs
FRES
W 82-58
−21.5
13
vs
TTU
W 93-86
+23.5
16
vs
QUC
W 108-80
+18.5
20
vs
HOU
L 85-94
+32.5
29
vs
JMU
W 103-74
+17.5
3
vs
TENN
W 86-75
+2.5
7
@
MISS
W 94-87
+27.5
10
@
AUB
L 73-95
−1.5
14
vs
SC
W 108-74
+26.5
17
@
UGA
L 76-90
−15.5
20
vs
VAN
W 93-68
−12.5
24
vs
LSU
W 85-81
+2.5
27
@
OU
W 83-79
−5.5
31
vs
UK
L 77-85
+2.5
7
@
MSST
W 88-68
−7.5
10
@
LSU
W 91-62
−6.5
14
vs
AUB
W 88-75
−2.5
18
@
ALA
L 115-117
+50.5
21
vs
MIZ
W 94-86
+20.5
25
vs
TA&M
W 99-84
+12.5
28
@
FLA
L 77-111
+18.5
4
vs
TEX
W 105-85
+26.5
7
@
MIZ
W 88-84
+8.5
13
vs
OU
W 82-79
−5.5
14
vs
MISS
W 93-90
+23.5
15
vs
VAN
W 86-75
−4.5
19
vs
HAW
W 97-78
+16.5
21
vs
HPU
W 94-88
+10.5
26
vs
ARIZ
L 88-109
+30.5
over 22under 15avg +8.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Arkansas has the better starters
Position by position: Oakland 0, Arkansas 2, even 3
OaklandBetterArkansas
G N. Mashhour9 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 22
→ARKBig
G B. Richmond11.2 pts · 4.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 85
G B. Swartz TR7.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 41
→ARKBig
G J. Wilkinson TR17.4 pts · 2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 98
F B. El Shakery TR11.2 pts · 8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 59
=No call
G A. Brown0.1 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
F C. Fields TR9.1 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 79
=Even
F C. Bowser TR13.7 pts · 5.8 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 91
F J. Hill TR7 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 16
=No call
F I. Sealy2.9 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
OaklandBetterArkansas
OAK offense159th of 366 · -4.8
→ARKSmall
ARK defense47th of 366 · +2.2
OAK defense266th of 366 · -6.8
→ARKBig
ARK offense6th of 366 · +10.8
Backcourt-3.2 · 2 players
→ARKBig
Backcourt+5.9 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.2 · 3 players
→ARKBig
Frontcourt+3.7 · 2 players
Bench-1.7 · 2 players
→ARKSmall
Bench-0.0 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestOAK betterARK betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. Mashhour28 minB. Swartz21 min · TRW. Marshall12 minR. Taylor11 min · TRW. KassiNewH. MashhourNew
Forwards
B. El Shakery27 min · TRC. Fields18 min · TRJ. Hill17 min · TRN. AhnerNewC. ThompsonNewI. TheodileNew
Guards
B. Richmond28 minJ. Wilkinson26 min · TRA. Brown2 minA. Kelley2 minJ. SmithNewD. ThompsonNew
Forwards
C. Bowser30 min · TRI. Sealy7 minP. SemedoNewM. MakerNewJ. AndrewsNewM. MuurinenNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.6 #37 | Points per game | 90.2 #2 |
| 1.14 #66 | Points per possession | 1.23 #3 |
| 71.1 #67 | Pace (possessions) | 73.8 #12 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.7 #114 | Effective FG% | 56.4 #16 |
| 34.7 #131 | 3-point % | 38.2 #16 |
| 34.0 #294 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.0 #315 |
| 38.1 #100 | Free throw rate | 35.9 #155 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.7 #47 | Turnover rate | 12.2 #1 |
| 31.3 #152 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.0 #121 |
| 15.7 #60 | Assists per game | 17.2 #20 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.8 #344 | Points allowed | 81.0 #333 |
| 1.17 #340 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #213 |
| 54.7 #322 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.8 #201 |
| 34.3 #206 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.8 #54 |
| 15.1 #275 | Turnovers forced | 15.5 #246 |
| 65.6 #324 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.1 #197 |
| 7.2 #106 | Steals per game | 7.3 #96 |
| 3.7 #110 | Blocks per game | 5.2 #12 |
Oakland
15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs N Kentucky84–85
- Lvs Detroit Mercy89–95
- W@ IU Indy86–74
- Wvs Milwaukee81–70
- Lvs Green Bay68–73
A week or more of rest.
Arkansas
28-9 in 2025-26 overall · 16-5 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona88–109
- Wvs High Point94–88
- Wvs Hawai'i97–78
- Wvs Vanderbilt86–75
- Wvs Ole Miss93–90
A week or more of rest.