The Reef · Neutral site
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 77–68 · win probability UIC 78%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.1
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
RICE 1, UIC 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: RICE 33.9, UIC 36.2. Allowed: RICE 40.4, UIC 33.9
Turnovers
Turnover rate: RICE 17.9%, UIC 17.6%. Forced: RICE 15.7%, UIC 19.7%
RICE offense vs UIC defense
Offense 210th of 366 against a defense 106th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
RICE hits 34.3% and allows 34.0%; UIC hits 31.6% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 44.1% and 32.8% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: RICE 48.5 and allows 51.0; UIC 49.8 and allows 50.5
UIC offense vs RICE defense
Offense 117th of 366 against a defense 163rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: RICE 35.3%, UIC 36.3%. Defensive: RICE 65.4%, UIC 68.0%
Context
Schedule so far
RICE has played the 116th-hardest schedule, UIC the 161st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: RICE 44%, UIC 60%. Transfers in: RICE 3, UIC 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: RICE plays 67.9 a game (236th fastest), UIC 68.1 (227th). Faster games mean more points
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 -9.0 | — |
| Total | — | 145.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | RICE 68 · UIC 77 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UIC -5.2 | — |
| 1H total | 67.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | RICE 31.3 · UIC 36.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Rice
29 games played
Straight up
11-18
38% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg −1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-12
59% overs · avg +2.4 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 | @ | L 63-67 | +15.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 69-81 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 71-64 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 66-91 | +26.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 74-90 | -4.5 | L −20.5 | 146.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 84-89 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 159.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 63-78 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 81-62 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 77-72 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 133.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 77-76 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 62-84 | -1.5 | L −23.5 | 140.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 48-97 | +12.5 | L −36.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 70-76 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 66-64 | +13.5 | W +15.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 73-74 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 137.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 89-73 | -6.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 65-69 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 81-87 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 83-77 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 30 | @ | L 70-80 | +4.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 86-83 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 8 | @ | L 65-71 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 81-73 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 75-85 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 146.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 75-81 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 56-75 | +11.5 | L −7.5 | 157.5 | U 131 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 80-74 | +6.5 | W +12.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 58-62 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 80-71 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
ORE
L 63-67
+11.5
11
vs
SFA
L 69-81
−14.5
14
vs
ETAM
W 71-64
−3.5
17
@
TENN
L 66-91
+1.5
20
vs
TAR
L 74-90
−20.5
24
vs
KENN
L 84-89
−0.5
25
@
FGCU
L 63-78
−9.5
26
vs
ORU
W 81-62
+13.5
3
vs
TXST
W 77-72
+1.5
13
vs
ARST
W 77-76
+3.5
20
@
PEPP
L 62-84
−23.5
31
@
TLSA
L 48-97
−36.5
3
vs
MEM
L 70-76
+1.5
7
@
WICH
W 66-64
+15.5
11
vs
CLT
L 73-74
+0.5
14
@
UTSA
W 89-73
+9.5
21
vs
TEM
L 65-69
−5.5
24
vs
TLSA
L 81-87
+2.5
28
@
ECU
W 83-77
+8.5
30
@
CLT
L 70-80
−5.5
4
vs
UNT
W 86-83
+4.5
8
@
UAB
L 65-71
+2.5
11
vs
FAU
W 81-73
+11.5
14
vs
ECU
L 75-85
−14.5
22
@
TULN
L 75-81
−1.5
25
vs
USF
L 56-75
−7.5
1
@
TEM
W 80-74
+12.5
4
@
UNT
L 58-62
+2.5
8
vs
UTSA
W 80-71
−2.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
ORE
L 63-67
−15.5
11
vs
SFA
L 69-81
+0.5
14
vs
ETAM
W 71-64
−11.5
17
@
TENN
L 66-91
+13.5
20
vs
TAR
L 74-90
+17.5
24
vs
KENN
L 84-89
+13.5
25
@
FGCU
L 63-78
−8.5
26
vs
ORU
W 81-62
−7.5
3
vs
TXST
W 77-72
+15.5
13
vs
ARST
W 77-76
−2.5
20
@
PEPP
L 62-84
+5.5
31
@
TLSA
L 48-97
−7.5
3
vs
MEM
L 70-76
+1.5
7
@
WICH
W 66-64
−15.5
11
vs
CLT
L 73-74
+9.5
14
@
UTSA
W 89-73
+17.5
21
vs
TEM
L 65-69
−8.5
24
vs
TLSA
L 81-87
+15.5
28
@
ECU
W 83-77
+19.5
30
@
CLT
L 70-80
+8.5
4
vs
UNT
W 86-83
+34.5
8
@
UAB
L 65-71
−17.5
11
vs
FAU
W 81-73
+2.5
14
vs
ECU
L 75-85
+13.5
22
@
TULN
L 75-81
+8.5
25
vs
USF
L 56-75
−26.5
1
@
TEM
W 80-74
+11.5
4
@
UNT
L 58-62
−17.5
8
vs
UTSA
W 80-71
−0.5
over 17under 12avg +2.4 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: Rice 0, UIC 4, even 1
RiceBetterUIC
G C. Adkins TR13.1 pts · 5 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 50
→UICSmall
G B. Gealer TR10.9 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 79
G C. Carroll6.5 pts · 2.5 reb · 2 ast
Score 19
→UICBig
G A. Johnson11 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 55
G D. Hobbs4.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G A. Thomas TR11.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 69
F J. Elouna Eyenga TR3.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 7
→UICBig
G M. Lowery7.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 2 ast
Score 59
F E. Eguagie5.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 24
→UICBig
G R. Washington8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 77
RiceBetterUIC
RICE offense210th of 366 · -6.4
→UICSmall
UIC defense106th of 366 · -1.0
RICE defense163rd of 366 · -3.6
=Even
UIC offense117th of 366 · -2.6
Backcourt-4.8 · 3 players
→UICBig
Backcourt+2.1 · 5 players
Frontcourt-3.4 · 2 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-1.4 · 4 players
→UICSmall
Bench+0.5 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestRICE betterUIC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Adkins31 min · TRC. Carroll24 minD. Hobbs18 minJ. Dar10 min · TRB. Howell10 minC. Andrews-HeitzNew
Forwards
J. Elouna Eyenga18 min · TRE. Eguagie17 minJ. Oladokun17 minE. Cochran2 minA. LeethNewZ. FlasarNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.0 #240 | Points per game | 73.9 #196 |
| 1.06 #229 | Points per possession | 1.09 #171 |
| 67.9 #236 | Pace (possessions) | 68.1 #227 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.5 #303 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #245 |
| 34.3 #153 | 3-point % | 31.6 #300 |
| 44.1 #86 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.8 #319 |
| 33.9 #214 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #145 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.9 #265 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #247 |
| 35.3 #38 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.3 #22 |
| 11.3 #320 | Assists per game | 14.1 #143 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.8 #235 | Points allowed | 71.2 #81 |
| 1.13 #294 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #83 |
| 51.0 #160 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #125 |
| 34.0 #184 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #147 |
| 15.7 #236 | Turnovers forced | 19.7 #30 |
| 65.4 #329 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.0 #255 |
| 6.5 #185 | Steals per game | 7.6 #70 |
| 3.9 #91 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #126 |
Rice
11-18 in 2025-26 overall · 7-11 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Wvs UTSA80–71
- L@ North Texas58–62
- W@ Temple80–74
- Lvs South Florida56–75
- L@ Tulane75–81
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.