Oral Roberts Golden Eagles at UT Arlington Mavericks: Model Line and Edge

Tue, Nov 24, 8:00 PM ETCollege Park Center · at UT Arlington

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Oral Roberts and UT Arlington
ORU	This season	UTA
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 UTA 75–69 · win probability UTA 69%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 144.2

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: UTA has more of the edges

ORU 1, UTA 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

UTABig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: ORU 28.4%, UTA 34.9%. Defensive: ORU 68.2%, UTA 69.9%

UTABig

Three-pointers

ORU hits 32.0% and allows 37.4%; UTA hits 29.1% and allows 26.9%. Threes are 45.6% and 30.7% of their shots

UTASmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: ORU 49.6 and allows 53.6; UTA 47.2 and allows 47.5

ORUSmall

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: ORU 54%, UTA 7%. Transfers in: ORU 2, UTA 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

UTASmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: ORU 18.4%, UTA 20.7%. Forced: ORU 14.7%, UTA 18.0%

UTASmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: ORU 34.8, UTA 42.5. Allowed: ORU 39.1, UTA 40.9

UTASmall

ORU offense vs UTA defense

Offense 279th of 366 against a defense 211th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 69 possessions: ORU plays 69.7 a game (134th fastest), UTA 67.3 (265th). Faster games mean more points

UTASmall

Home court

UTA at home. This season: UTA 0-0 at home, ORU 0-0 away

Even

UTA offense vs ORU defense

Offense 289th of 366 against a defense 326th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

ORU has played the 246th-hardest schedule, UTA the 268th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	UTA -5.7	—
Total	—	144.2	—
Projected score	—	ORU 69.3 · UTA 74.9

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	UTA -3.2	—
1H total	67.5	—
1H projected score	ORU 32.1 · UTA 35.4	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
ORU WWWWW	14-16	47%	6-8	—
UTA LWWWW	17-13	57%	7-4	—

Venue/role: ORU away; UTA home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
ORU UOOUU	13-17	43%	7-23
UTA UUUUU	7-23	23%	16-14

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
ORU	5-5 50%	6-4 60%	5-5 50%
UTA	4-6 40%	5-5 50%	1-9 10%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Oral Roberts

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 27	vs MOST	L62–63WU
Dec 1	@ CREI	No recent meeting
Dec 5	vs ARK	No recent meeting

UT Arlington

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 1	@ CSU	No recent meeting
Dec 9	@ SFA	W66–61WU
Dec 13	@ ARK	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

ORU 1–2 UTAUTA leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · UTA has won the last 2 meetings · ORU 1-2 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 22, 2025-26	UTA 69 @ ORU 57	ORU +3.5	UTA W
Nov 6, 2023-24	ORU 71 @ UTA 75	UTA -1.5	UTA W
Dec 16, 2021-22	UTA 62 @ ORU 71	ORU -6.5	ORU W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Oral Roberts

30 games played

Straight up

7-23

23% wins

Against the spread

14-16

47% covers · avg −1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-17

43% overs · avg −1.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

7-2323%

L L L L L W L L W L L L L L L L L L L L L L W L L W W W W L

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

14-1647%

L W L W W W L L W W W L L W L L L L L L L L W L L W W W W W

5 straight covers4 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

13-1743%

O O U U O O U O U U U U U O O O U U U U O O U O U U O O U U

2 straight unders2 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@OKST	L 71-95	+20.5	L −3.5	165.5	O 166
Nov 12	vsTLSA	L 87-88	+5.5	W +4.5	160.5	O 175
Nov 15	vsBEL	L 60-83	+7.5	L −15.5	171.5	U 143
Nov 20	@OU	L 71-95	+24.5	W +0.5	166.5	U 166
Nov 24	@FGCU	L 88-93	+11.5	W +6.5	153.5	O 181
Nov 25	vsKENN	W 91-83	+8.5	W +16.5	166.5	O 174
Nov 26	vsRICE	L 62-81	+5.5	L −13.5	150.5	U 143
Dec 3	@WEB	L 66-92	+7.5	L −18.5	157.5	O 158
Dec 6	vsMTST	W 72-68	+6.5	W +10.5	150.5	U 140
Dec 16	@MOST	L 62-63	+4.5	W +3.5	146.5	U 125
Dec 18	@TCU	L 53-72	+23.5	W +4.5	147.5	U 125
Dec 22	vsUTA	L 57-69	+3.5	L −8.5	136.5	U 126
Jan 1	@UND	L 61-72	+1.5	L −9.5	148.5	U 133
Jan 3	@NDSU	L 77-79	+13.5	W +11.5	146.5	O 156
Jan 10	vsSTMN	L 71-82	+8.5	L −2.5	152.5	O 153
Jan 14	@DEN	L 87-98	+6.5	L −4.5	156.5	O 185
Jan 17	vsOMA	L 62-73	-1.5	L −12.5	149.5	U 135
Jan 22	vsUND	L 62-79	-1.5	L −18.5	149.5	U 141
Jan 24	vsNDSU	L 58-86	+10.5	L −17.5	151.5	U 144
Jan 29	@SDAK	L 69-77	+3.5	L −4.5	154.5	U 146
Jan 31	@SDST	L 72-95	+13.5	L −9.5	150.5	O 167
Feb 7	@STMN	L 75-92	+15.5	L −1.5	151.5	O 167
Feb 12	vsKC	W 69-60	-6.5	W +2.5	150.5	U 129
Feb 14	vsSDST	L 69-87	+5.5	L −12.5	147.5	O 156
Feb 18	@OMA	L 71-80	+6.5	L −2.5	151.5	U 151
Feb 21	vsSDAK	W 67-62	-1.5	W +3.5	151.5	U 129
Feb 26	vsDEN	W 102-80	+2.5	W +24.5	156.5	O 182
Feb 28	@KC	W 94-70	-3.5	W +20.5	149.5	O 164
Mar 4	vsKC	W 84-62	-8.5	W +13.5	149.5	U 146
Mar 5	vsNDSU	L 65-76	+12.5	W +1.5	147.5	U 141

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

OKST

L 71-95

−3.5

TLSA

L 87-88

+4.5

BEL

L 60-83

−15.5

L 71-95

+0.5

FGCU

L 88-93

+6.5

KENN

W 91-83

+16.5

RICE

L 62-81

−13.5

WEB

L 66-92

−18.5

MTST

W 72-68

+10.5

MOST

L 62-63

+3.5

TCU

L 53-72

+4.5

UTA

L 57-69

−8.5

UND

L 61-72

−9.5

NDSU

L 77-79

+11.5

STMN

L 71-82

−2.5

DEN

L 87-98

−4.5

OMA

L 62-73

−12.5

UND

L 62-79

−18.5

NDSU

L 58-86

−17.5

SDAK

L 69-77

−4.5

SDST

L 72-95

−9.5

STMN

L 75-92

−1.5

W 69-60

+2.5

SDST

L 69-87

−12.5

OMA

L 71-80

−2.5

SDAK

W 67-62

+3.5

DEN

W 102-80

+24.5

W 94-70

+20.5

W 84-62

+13.5

NDSU

L 65-76

+1.5

covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

OKST

L 71-95

+0.5

TLSA

L 87-88

+14.5

BEL

L 60-83

−28.5

L 71-95

−0.5

FGCU

L 88-93

+27.5

KENN

W 91-83

+7.5

RICE

L 62-81

−7.5

WEB

L 66-92

+0.5

MTST

W 72-68

−10.5

MOST

L 62-63

−21.5

TCU

L 53-72

−22.5

UTA

L 57-69

−10.5

UND

L 61-72

−15.5

NDSU

L 77-79

+9.5

STMN

L 71-82

+0.5

DEN

L 87-98

+28.5

OMA

L 62-73

−14.5

UND

L 62-79

−8.5

NDSU

L 58-86

−7.5

SDAK

L 69-77

−8.5

SDST

L 72-95

+16.5

STMN

L 75-92

+15.5

W 69-60

−21.5

SDST

L 69-87

+8.5

OMA

L 71-80

−0.5

SDAK

W 67-62

−22.5

DEN

W 102-80

+25.5

W 94-70

+14.5

W 84-62

−3.5

NDSU

L 65-76

−6.5

over 13under 17avg −1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

UT Arlington

30 games played

Straight up

16-14

53% wins

Against the spread

17-13

57% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line

Over / Under

7-23

23% overs · avg −4.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1453%

L W W L W W L W L W L W W W W L W W L L L L L W L L W W W L

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

17-1357%

L W W L W W L W L W L W W W W L W W L L L L L W L L W W W W

4 straight covers4 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

7-2323%

U U O U U U U U U U U U O O U O U U O O U U O U U U U U U U

7 straight unders0 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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 8	@UNM	L 56-74	+13.5	L −4.5	145.5	U 130
Nov 15	vsMOST	W 67-49	-3.5	W +14.5	143.5	U 116
Nov 18	@EVAN	W 84-76	+2.5	W +10.5	138.5	O 160
Nov 21	vsCAM	L 67-71	+1.5	L −2.5	151.5	U 138
Nov 22	@WEB	W 74-73	+2.5	W +3.5	149.5	U 147
Nov 29	vsSFA	W 66-61	-1.5	W +3.5	138.5	U 127
Dec 2	@ARST	L 63-83	+5.5	L −14.5	151.5	U 146
Dec 11	@RGV	W 58-50	+4.5	W +12.5	145.5	U 108
Dec 17	@STAN	L 60-76	+10.5	L −5.5	139.5	U 136
Dec 22	@ORU	W 69-57	-3.5	W +8.5	136.5	U 126
Dec 29	vsTAR	L 63-69	-2.5	L −8.5	136.5	U 132
Jan 1	vsCBU	W 63-51	+2.5	W +14.5	134.5	U 114
Jan 3	@SUU	W 86-77	-5.5	W +3.5	138.5	O 163
Jan 10	vsACU	W 82-72	-3.5	W +6.5	134.5	O 154
Jan 15	@UTU	W 56-52	+1.5	W +5.5	141.5	U 108
Jan 17	@UVU	L 74-86	+11.5	L −0.5	143.5	O 160
Jan 21	vsTAR	W 71-64	-3.5	W +3.5	142.5	U 135
Jan 29	vsSUU	W 80-61	-9.5	W +9.5	144.5	U 141
Jan 31	vsCBU	L 77-87	+1.5	L −8.5	134.5	O 164
Feb 5	@UTU	L 84-87	+1.5	L −1.5	139.5	O 171
Feb 7	@UVU	L 60-81	+12.5	L −8.5	141.5	U 141
Feb 12	@ACU	L 63-67	+1.5	L −2.5	134.5	U 130
Feb 14	vsSUU	L 73-78	-8.5	L −13.5	143.5	O 151
Feb 19	vsUTU	W 63-50	-4.5	W +8.5	140.5	U 113
Feb 21	vsUVU	L 54-66	+6.5	L −5.5	137.5	U 120
Feb 26	@CBU	L 56-68	+6.5	L −5.5	134.5	U 124
Mar 5	@TAR	W 65-60	+1.5	W +6.5	136.5	U 125
Mar 7	@ACU	W 64-57	+1.5	W +8.5	131.5	U 121
Mar 12	vsSUU	W 69-63	-4.5	W +1.5	141.5	U 132
Mar 13	vsUVU	L 65-67	+8.5	W +6.5	136.5	U 132

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UNM

L 56-74

−4.5

MOST

W 67-49

+14.5

EVAN

W 84-76

+10.5

CAM

L 67-71

−2.5

WEB

W 74-73

+3.5

SFA

W 66-61

+3.5

ARST

L 63-83

−14.5

RGV

W 58-50

+12.5

STAN

L 60-76

−5.5

ORU

W 69-57

+8.5

TAR

L 63-69

−8.5

CBU

W 63-51

+14.5

SUU

W 86-77

+3.5

ACU

W 82-72

+6.5

UTU

W 56-52

+5.5

UVU

L 74-86

−0.5

TAR

W 71-64

+3.5

SUU

W 80-61

+9.5

CBU

L 77-87

−8.5

UTU

L 84-87

−1.5

UVU

L 60-81

−8.5

ACU

L 63-67

−2.5

SUU

L 73-78

−13.5

UTU

W 63-50

+8.5

UVU

L 54-66

−5.5

CBU

L 56-68

−5.5

TAR

W 65-60

+6.5

ACU

W 64-57

+8.5

SUU

W 69-63

+1.5

UVU

L 65-67

+6.5

covered 17didn’t cover 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UNM

L 56-74

−15.5

MOST

W 67-49

−27.5

EVAN

W 84-76

+21.5

CAM

L 67-71

−13.5

WEB

W 74-73

−2.5

SFA

W 66-61

−11.5

ARST

L 63-83

−5.5

RGV

W 58-50

−37.5

STAN

L 60-76

−3.5

ORU

W 69-57

−10.5

TAR

L 63-69

−4.5

CBU

W 63-51

−20.5

SUU

W 86-77

+24.5

ACU

W 82-72

+19.5

UTU

W 56-52

−33.5

UVU

L 74-86

+16.5

TAR

W 71-64

−7.5

SUU

W 80-61

−3.5

CBU

L 77-87

+29.5

UTU

L 84-87

+31.5

UVU

L 60-81

−0.5

ACU

L 63-67

−4.5

SUU

L 73-78

+7.5

UTU

W 63-50

−27.5

UVU

L 54-66

−17.5

CBU

L 56-68

−10.5

TAR

W 65-60

−11.5

ACU

W 64-57

−10.5

SUU

W 69-63

−9.5

UVU

L 65-67

−4.5

over 7under 23avg −4.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

UT Arlington has the better starters

Position by position: Oral Roberts 0, UT Arlington 1, even 4

Oral RobertsBetterUT Arlington

G C. Dow12.9 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.7 ast Score 50

No call

G M. Panoam TR0.9 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.7 ast Not ranked

G C. Furnish3.7 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.5 ast Score 10

UTABig

F T. McDaniels TR12 pts · 6.1 reb · 1 ast Score 68

G C. Martin2.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.6 ast Score 8

Even

F M. Goodman3.2 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.1 ast Score 11

G M. Kilups3.9 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.7 ast Score 9

No call

F B. McGlothin TR0 pts · 0.5 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

F L. Gray7.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.3 ast Score 57

No call

F N. Bundalo TR0.5 pts · 0.5 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

Oral RobertsBetterUT Arlington

ORU offense279th of 366 · -8.5

UTASmall

UTA defense211th of 366 · -5.4

ORU defense326th of 366 · -8.4

Even

UTA offense289th of 366 · -8.9

Backcourt-7.9 · 4 players

UTABig

Backcourt-0.3 · 1 player

Frontcourt0.0 · 1 player

Even

Frontcourt-0.8 · 4 players

Bench-1.5 · 2 players

UTASmall

Bench+0.0 · 1 player

Score, worst to bestORU betterUTA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Oral Roberts

Guards

C. Dow33 minC. Furnish21 minC. Martin20 minM. Kilups18 minC. Haffner13 min · TRA. Robinson9 min · TR

Forwards

L. Gray17 minT. ZorbasNewM. PavlovicNewM. GavazovNewA. BlancoNew

UT Arlington

Guards

M. Panoam6 min · TRN. Shelby3 min · TRJ. SmithNewT. HankinsNewK. MikalauskasNewJ. ParkerNew

Forwards

T. McDaniels27 min · TRM. Goodman13 minB. McGlothin5 min · TRN. Bundalo3 min · TRT. SimicNewS. HadnotNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

ORU71.8 #250

UTA67.7 #320

Points per possession

ORU1.03 #291

UTA1.01 #319

Pace (possessions)

ORU69.7 #134

UTA67.3 #265

Shooting

Effective FG%

ORU49.6 #256

UTA47.2 #332

3-point %

ORU32.0 #282

UTA29.1 #352

3-point attempt rate

ORU45.6 #56

UTA30.7 #345

Free throw rate

ORU34.8 #187

UTA42.5 #24

Possessions

Turnover rate

ORU18.4 #293

UTA20.7 #354

Offensive rebound rate

ORU28.4 #249

UTA34.9 #50

Assists per game

ORU11.5 #312

UTA10.7 #345

Defense

Points allowed

ORU79.7 #312

UTA67.8 #29

Points allowed per possession

ORU1.15 #319

UTA1.01 #30

Opponent effective FG%

ORU53.6 #289

UTA47.5 #29

Opponent 3-point %

ORU37.4 #348

UTA26.9 #1

Turnovers forced

ORU14.7 #310

UTA18.0 #93

Defensive rebound rate

ORU68.2 #247

UTA69.9 #166

Steals per game

ORU5.7 #268

UTA7.3 #97

Blocks per game

ORU3.4 #154

UTA3.5 #148

ORU		UTA
Scoring
71.8 #250	Points per game	67.7 #320
1.03 #291	Points per possession	1.01 #319
69.7 #134	Pace (possessions)	67.3 #265
Shooting
49.6 #256	Effective FG%	47.2 #332
32.0 #282	3-point %	29.1 #352
45.6 #56	3-point attempt rate	30.7 #345
34.8 #187	Free throw rate	42.5 #24
Possessions
18.4 #293	Turnover rate	20.7 #354
28.4 #249	Offensive rebound rate	34.9 #50
11.5 #312	Assists per game	10.7 #345
Defense
79.7 #312	Points allowed	67.8 #29
1.15 #319	Points allowed per possession	1.01 #30
53.6 #289	Opponent effective FG%	47.5 #29
37.4 #348	Opponent 3-point %	26.9 #1
14.7 #310	Turnovers forced	18.0 #93
68.2 #247	Defensive rebound rate	69.9 #166
5.7 #268	Steals per game	7.3 #97
3.4 #154	Blocks per game	3.5 #148

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Oral Roberts

7-23 in 2025-26 overall · 5-13 in conference · Summit League

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs N Dakota St65–76
Wvs Kansas City84–62
W@ Kansas City94–70
Wvs Denver102–80
Wvs South Dakota67–62

A week or more of rest.

UT Arlington

16-14 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · United Athletic Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Utah Valley65–67
Wvs Southern Utah69–63
W@ Abilene Chrstn64–57
W@ Tarleton St65–60
L@ CA Baptist56–68

A week or more of rest.

Oral Roberts Golden Eagles at UT Arlington Mavericks

What could decide it: UTA has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Oral Roberts

UT Arlington

UT Arlington has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Oral Roberts

UT Arlington