Baxter Arena · at Omaha
LineNo line yet
Total—
 LIN | This season | OMA |
|---|---|---|
| 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 OMA 76–75 · win probability OMA 53%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.5
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: LIN has more of the edges
LIN 3, OMA 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: LIN plays 73.0 a game (18th fastest), OMA 68.9 (184th). Faster games mean more points
OMASmallThree-pointers
LIN hits 29.4% and allows 32.4%; OMA hits 34.0% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 30.7% and 40.9% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
LIN has played the 357th-hardest schedule, OMA the 287th. A record against a soft schedule means less
LINSmallLIN offense vs OMA defense
Offense 250th of 366 against a defense 306th, on the model’s ratings
OMASmallHome court
OMA at home. This season: OMA 0-0 at home, LIN 0-0 away
LINSmallTurnovers
Turnover rate: LIN 18.7%, OMA 16.1%. Forced: LIN 18.4%, OMA 14.1%
LINSmallRebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LIN 33.3%, OMA 25.5%. Defensive: LIN 68.3%, OMA 71.3%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LIN 0%, OMA 23%. Transfers in: LIN 0, OMA 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
OMA offense vs LIN defense
Offense 247th of 366 against a defense 261st, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LIN 48.0 and allows 49.1; OMA 52.2 and allows 52.7
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: LIN 38.6, OMA 34.5. Allowed: LIN 37.4, OMA 33.6
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 | — | OMA -0.9 | — |
| Total | — | 150.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | LIN 74.8 · OMA 75.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | OMA -0.4 | — |
| 1H total | 70.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | LIN 35 · OMA 35.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LIN | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
| OMA | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LIN 1–0 OMALIN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · LIN 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2023-24 | LIN 72 vs OMA 70 | OMA -9.5 | LIN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Lindenwood Lions
30 games played
Straight up
15-15
50% wins
Against the spread
13-17
43% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-13
57% overs · avg −0.7 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 | @ TTU | L 60-98 | +29.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 10 | @ SLU | L 66-109 | +24.5 | L −18.5 | 165.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 14 | vs CHSO | W 83-77 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 16 | @ AAMU | L 65-74 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 20 | @ IU | L 53-73 | +32.5 | W +12.5 | 155.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 24 | vs KC | W 80-67 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 2 | @ NIU | W 99-64 | +3.5 | W +38.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 6 | @ EIU | W 82-74 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 18 | vs WIU | W 92-76 | -12.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 23 | @ MOST | L 65-70 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 1 | vs MORE | W 77-64 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 3 | vs USI | W 83-80 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 6 | @ SIUE | L 62-66 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 10 | vs LR | L 74-82 | -6.5 | L −14.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 15 | @ SEMO | W 88-76 | +6.5 | W +18.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 17 | @ UTM | L 55-69 | +2.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 22 | vs TNTC | W 89-68 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 24 | vs TNST | L 86-96 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 29 | @USI | W 73-60 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 31 | @MORE | W 79-78 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 3 | vsSIUE | L 72-78 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 5 | @LR | W 79-74 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 12 | vsUTM | W 75-74 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 14 | vsSEMO | L 61-73 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 19 | @TNST | L 80-89 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 21 | @TNTC | L 57-72 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 26 | vsEIU | L 67-71 | -7.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 28 | @WIU | W 91-69 | -11.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Mar 4 | vsLR | W 72-62 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 5 | vsSEMO | L 66-68 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@TTU
TTUL 60-98
−8.5
10
@SLU
SLUL 66-109
−18.5
14
vsCHSO
CHSOW 83-77
+3.5
16
@AAMU
AAMUL 65-74
−5.5
20
@IU
IUL 53-73
+12.5
24
vsKC
KCW 80-67
+8.5
2
@NIU
NIUW 99-64
+38.5
6
@EIU
EIUW 82-74
−0.5
18
vsWIU
WIUW 92-76
+3.5
23
@MOST
MOSTL 65-70
−1.5
1
vsMORE
MOREW 77-64
+6.5
3
vsUSI
USIW 83-80
−6.5
6
@SIUE
SIUEL 62-66
−2.5
10
vsLR
LRL 74-82
−14.5
15
@SEMO
SEMOW 88-76
+18.5
17
@UTM
UTML 55-69
−11.5
22
vsTNTC
TNTCW 89-68
+12.5
24
vsTNST
TNSTL 86-96
−14.5
29
@USI
USIW 73-60
+8.5
31
@MORE
MOREW 79-78
−0.5
3
vsSIUE
SIUEL 72-78
−10.5
5
@LR
LRW 79-74
+3.5
12
vsUTM
UTMW 75-74
−0.5
14
vsSEMO
SEMOL 61-73
−13.5
19
@TNST
TNSTL 80-89
−5.5
21
@TNTC
TNTCL 57-72
−16.5
26
vsEIU
EIUL 67-71
−11.5
28
@WIU
WIUW 91-69
+10.5
4
vsLR
LRW 72-62
+4.5
5
vsSEMO
SEMOL 66-68
+1.5
covered 13didn’t cover 17avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@TTU
TTUL 60-98
+11.5
10
@SLU
SLUL 66-109
+9.5
14
vsCHSO
CHSOW 83-77
+4.5
16
@AAMU
AAMUL 65-74
−10.5
20
@IU
IUL 53-73
−29.5
24
vsKC
KCW 80-67
−5.5
2
@NIU
NIUW 99-64
+15.5
6
@EIU
EIUW 82-74
+10.5
18
vsWIU
WIUW 92-76
+21.5
23
@MOST
MOSTL 65-70
−10.5
1
vsMORE
MOREW 77-64
−6.5
3
vsUSI
USIW 83-80
+15.5
6
@SIUE
SIUEL 62-66
−14.5
10
vsLR
LRL 74-82
+6.5
15
@SEMO
SEMOW 88-76
+9.5
17
@UTM
UTML 55-69
−23.5
22
vsTNTC
TNTCW 89-68
+5.5
24
vsTNST
TNSTL 86-96
+21.5
29
@USI
USIW 73-60
−17.5
31
@MORE
MOREW 79-78
+8.5
3
vsSIUE
SIUEL 72-78
+9.5
5
@LR
LRW 79-74
+3.5
12
vsUTM
UTMW 75-74
+3.5
14
vsSEMO
SEMOL 61-73
−20.5
19
@TNST
TNSTL 80-89
+9.5
21
@TNTC
TNTCL 57-72
−22.5
26
vsEIU
EIUL 67-71
−6.5
28
@WIU
WIUW 91-69
+10.5
4
vsLR
LRW 72-62
−14.5
5
vsSEMO
SEMOL 66-68
−14.5
over 17under 13avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Omaha
29 games played
Straight up
12-17
41% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg −0.7 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 MUR | L 77-85 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 6 | @ ACU | L 71-73 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 9 | @ CSU | L 74-97 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 15 | vs SUU | W 90-85 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 21 | @ LSU | L 73-99 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 25 | vs JMU | L 77-88 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 26 | @ FIU | L 61-74 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 3 | vs UNCO | L 70-75 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 6 | @ PRST | W 60-55 | +12.5 | W +17.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 20 | @ LAM | W 85-82 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 28 | @ ORE | L 57-80 | +21.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 1 | @ SDST | L 69-84 | +9.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 3 | vsKC | L 66-73 | -8.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 8 | vs UND | W 90-79 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs NDSU | L 76-78 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 17 | @ ORU | W 73-62 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 21 | vs SDAK | L 64-68 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | @KC | W 77-60 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 28 | vsSDST | W 80-71 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 31 | @ DEN | W 84-82 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 5 | @UND | L 73-76 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | @NDSU | L 84-92 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 12 | vs STMN | W 98-94 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | O 192 |
| Feb 15 | vsDEN | W 83-76 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Feb 18 | vsORU | W 80-71 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 25 | @SDAK | L 72-89 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 28 | @STMN | L 53-68 | +11.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 6 | vsSDAK | W 76-62 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 7 | vsNDSU | L 50-74 | +8.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | U 124 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vsMUR
MURL 77-85
−2.5
6
@ACU
ACUL 71-73
+2.5
9
@CSU
CSUL 74-97
−8.5
15
vsSUU
SUUW 90-85
−3.5
21
@LSU
LSUL 73-99
−5.5
25
vsJMU
JMUL 77-88
−9.5
26
@FIU
FIUL 61-74
−8.5
3
vsUNCO
UNCOL 70-75
−1.5
6
@PRST
PRSTW 60-55
+17.5
20
@LAM
LAMW 85-82
+8.5
28
@ORE
OREL 57-80
−1.5
1
@SDST
SDSTL 69-84
−5.5
3
vsKC
KCL 66-73
−15.5
8
vsUND
UNDW 90-79
+5.5
10
vsNDSU
NDSUL 76-78
+3.5
17
@ORU
ORUW 73-62
+12.5
21
vsSDAK
SDAKL 64-68
−10.5
24
@KC
KCW 77-60
+12.5
28
vsSDST
SDSTW 80-71
+10.5
31
@DEN
DENW 84-82
+3.5
5
@UND
UNDL 73-76
−1.5
7
@NDSU
NDSUL 84-92
+1.5
12
vsSTMN
STMNW 98-94
+8.5
15
vsDEN
DENW 83-76
+4.5
18
vsORU
ORUW 80-71
+2.5
25
@SDAK
SDAKL 72-89
−15.5
28
@STMN
STMNL 53-68
−3.5
6
vsSDAK
SDAKW 76-62
+12.5
7
vsNDSU
NDSUL 50-74
−15.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vsMUR
MURL 77-85
+8.5
6
@ACU
ACUL 71-73
−6.5
9
@CSU
CSUL 74-97
+17.5
15
vsSUU
SUUW 90-85
+21.5
21
@LSU
LSUL 73-99
+8.5
25
vsJMU
JMUL 77-88
+12.5
26
@FIU
FIUL 61-74
−22.5
3
vsUNCO
UNCOL 70-75
−12.5
6
@PRST
PRSTW 60-55
−29.5
20
@LAM
LAMW 85-82
+25.5
28
@ORE
OREL 57-80
−14.5
1
@SDST
SDSTL 69-84
+0.5
3
vsKC
KCL 66-73
−9.5
8
vsUND
UNDW 90-79
+22.5
10
vsNDSU
NDSUL 76-78
+6.5
17
@ORU
ORUW 73-62
−14.5
21
vsSDAK
SDAKL 64-68
−28.5
24
@KC
KCW 77-60
−11.5
28
vsSDST
SDSTW 80-71
+0.5
31
@DEN
DENW 84-82
+7.5
5
@UND
UNDL 73-76
−1.5
7
@NDSU
NDSUL 84-92
+29.5
12
vsSTMN
STMNW 98-94
+35.5
15
vsDEN
DENW 83-76
−1.5
18
vsORU
ORUW 80-71
−0.5
25
@SDAK
SDAKL 72-89
+8.5
28
@STMN
STMNL 53-68
−37.5
6
vsSDAK
SDAKW 76-62
−12.5
7
vsNDSU
NDSUL 50-74
−22.5
over 14under 15avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Matchup stats
2025-26 · rank among 365 teams
Scoring
Points per game
LIN74.4 #183OMA73.9 #202Points per possession
LIN1.02 #307OMA1.07 #201Pace (possessions)
LIN73.0 #18OMA68.9 #184Shooting
Effective FG%
LIN48.0 #313OMA52.2 #1393-point %
LIN29.4 #347OMA34.0 #1693-point attempt rate
LIN30.7 #346OMA40.9 #150Free throw rate
LIN38.6 #88OMA34.5 #196Possessions
Turnover rate
LIN18.7 #307OMA16.1 #146Offensive rebound rate
LIN33.3 #83OMA25.5 #331Assists per game
LIN13.0 #212OMA12.1 #276Defense
Points allowed
LIN75.0 #190OMA77.7 #259Points allowed per possession
LIN1.03 #52OMA1.13 #278Opponent effective FG%
LIN49.1 #72OMA52.7 #258Opponent 3-point %
LIN32.4 #84OMA32.9 #114Turnovers forced
LIN18.4 #78OMA14.1 #333Defensive rebound rate
LIN68.3 #244OMA71.3 #90Steals per game
LIN8.4 #24OMA5.7 #277Blocks per game
LIN4.4 #46OMA3.0 #234| LIN | OMA | |
|---|---|---|
| Scoring | ||
| 74.4 #183 | Points per game | 73.9 #202 |
| 1.02 #307 | Points per possession | 1.07 #201 |
| 73.0 #18 | Pace (possessions) | 68.9 #184 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.0 #313 | Effective FG% | 52.2 #139 |
| 29.4 #347 | 3-point % | 34.0 #169 |
| 30.7 #346 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.9 #150 |
| 38.6 #88 | Free throw rate | 34.5 #196 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.7 #307 | Turnover rate | 16.1 #146 |
| 33.3 #83 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.5 #331 |
| 13.0 #212 | Assists per game | 12.1 #276 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.0 #190 | Points allowed | 77.7 #259 |
| 1.03 #52 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #278 |
| 49.1 #72 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.7 #258 |
| 32.4 #84 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #114 |
| 18.4 #78 | Turnovers forced | 14.1 #333 |
| 68.3 #244 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.3 #90 |
| 8.4 #24 | Steals per game | 5.7 #277 |
| 4.4 #46 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #234 |
Lindenwood Lions
15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 12-10 in conference · Ohio Valley Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SE Missouri66–68
- Wvs Little Rock72–62
- W@ W Illinois91–69
- Lvs E Illinois67–71
- L@ Tennessee Tech57–72
A week or more of rest.
Omaha
12-17 in 2025-26 overall · 9-9 in conference · Summit League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs N Dakota St50–74
- Wvs South Dakota76–62
- L@ St Thomas53–68
- L@ South Dakota72–89
- Wvs Oral Roberts80–71
A week or more of rest.