Rice Owls vs UIC Flames basketball preview & prediction
Tue, Nov 24 · 1:30 PM ET · The Reef, Jacksonville, FL (neutral site)
Jacksonville ClassicNeutral siteNon-conferenceThe Reef, Jacksonville, FL
Rice
1-2 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #264
vs
UIC
3-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #103
Tue, Nov 24 · 1:30 PM ET
Our projected score shows once the market opens.
No line posted yet.
Our play
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Rice is the faster team (71.8, #142 of 365) and UIC the slower (67.2, #287). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.9
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
71.0#154
Rice
69.4#264
UIC
How this game plays
points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchupFrom the four factors
UIC has the ball+8.9
Rice has the ball−8.0
UIC has the ball
✓Wins second chancesOR% 38.7% #60 · RICE allows 45.5% #344+5.0
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 12.7% #36 · RICE forces 18.8% #140 · ~11 turnovers+2.4
✓Shoots it welleFG% 52.9% #138 · RICE allows 50.0% #163+1.4
✓Gets to the lineFTR 41.2% #126 · RICE allows 34.9% #165 · FT 71.4% #151+0.1
Rice has the ball
✗Coughs it upTO% 18.8% #208 · UIC forces 26.8% #20 · ~17 turnovers−5.0
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 44.1% #280 · UIC allows 48.6% #143−4.4
✓Wins second chancesOR% 34.9% #111 · UIC allows 36.5% #271+2.0
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 32.8% #224 · UIC allows 24.1% #39 · FT 73.8% #120−0.6
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shootRiceoffense vsUICdefense
Share of shots by zone
Rice shoots
31.7
18.3
8.7
41.3
UIC allows
29.9
4.6
12.6
52.9
D-I average
37.8
8.0
12.4
41.8
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.5%#229 | 53.8%#121 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 26.3%#249 | 50.0%#243 | 38.2% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.3%#174 | 18.2%#55 | 34.7% |
| Three | 30.0%#221 | 33.9%#206 | 32.5% |
UICoffense vsRicedefense
Share of shots by zone
UIC shoots
43.4
10.1
9.1
37.4
Rice allows
31.8
19.1
10.0
39.1
D-I average
37.8
8.0
12.4
41.8
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.8%#212 | 54.3%#130 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 30.0%#228 | 33.3%#125 | 38.2% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.3%#174 | 45.5%#265 | 34.7% |
| Three | 34.8%#129 | 36.2%#264 | 32.5% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul lineRice
−3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#237 of 365
Off reb %
34.9%
#111
Def reb %
54.5%
#344
Turnover %
18.8%
#208
Forced TO %
18.8%
#140
FT rate
32.8%
#224
FT allowed
34.9%
#165
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding−4.6
Ball security−0.4
Forcing turnovers+0.5
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+0.8
UIC
+15.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#14 of 365
Off reb %
38.7%
#60
Def reb %
63.5%
#271
Turnover %
12.7%
#36
Forced TO %
26.8%
#20
FT rate
41.2%
#126
FT allowed
24.1%
#39
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.4
Defensive rebounding−1.6
Ball security+4.0
Forcing turnovers+6.2
Foul shots drawn+1.0
Foul shots allowed+3.6
UIC has more extra scoring chances per game: +15.5 (#14 of 365) to Rice’s −3.8 (#237).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Who has been playing, and who has notRice2026-27 numbers · last game: Stanford, Nov 9
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | Min/40, last 8 | Last 3 vs before | Status | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | G | Fr | 6'2" | 3-3 | 25.0 | 28 | — | Started last | 13.0 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 50.0% | 25.0% | 2.7 | 75.0% | 29.7% | |
| 8 | F | Jr | 6'6" | 3-3 | 22.3 | 28 | — | Started last | 7.0 | 5.3 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 32.6% | 16.7% | 2.0 | 75.0% | 23.9% | |
| 0 | G | Sr | 6'1" | 3-0 | 20.0 | 19 | — | Bench | 8.3 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 65.6% | 42.9% | 2.3 | 66.7% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | G | Sr | 6'7" | 3-3 | 20.0 | 18 | — | Started last | 13.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 47.1% | 23.5% | 5.7 | 77.8% | 37.1% | |
| 14 | G | Jr | 6'4" | 3-3 | 19.3 | 22 | — | Started last | 9.7 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 2.0 | 54.3% | 43.8% | 5.3 | 66.7% | 29.2% | |
| 24 | F | Sr | 6'9" | 3-3 | 19.3 | 19 | — | Started last | 8.7 | 6.7 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 21.9% | |
| 3 | F | Fr | 6'9" | 3-0 | 14.0 | 12 | — | Bench | 3.7 | 4.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 44.4% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 17.3% | |
| 6 | F | Fr | 6'7" | 3-0 | 13.0 | 7 | — | Bench | 3.0 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 25.0% | 1.3 | 80.0% | 12.2% | |
| 23 | G | Fr | 6'6" | 3-0 | 13.0 | 11 | — | Bench | 8.3 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 57.9% | 42.9% | 4.7 | 100.0% | 31.1% | |
| 7 | G | So | 6'4" | 3-0 | 12.7 | 10 | — | Bench | 3.3 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 28.1% | 25.0% | 4.0 | 50.0% | 23.2% | |
| 4 | G | Jr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 12.7 | 9 | — | Bench | 2.3 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 31.8% | 14.3% | 2.3 | — | 15.1% | |
| 25 | F | So | 6'10" | 2-0 | 7.0 | — | — | Active | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.6% | |
| 21 | F | So | 6'9" | 1-0 | 9.0 | — | — | Missed last | 0.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 13.3% | |
| 10 | G | Sr | 6'1" | 1-0 | 2.0 | — | — | Missed last | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 24.2% | |
| 30 | G | So | 6'1" | 1-0 | 1.0 | — | — | Missed last | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 1.0 | — | 48.5% |
Competitive minutes leave out garbage time (provisional rule: a second-half lead of 25+ inside 15:00, 20+ inside 10:00, 15+ inside 5:00 or 10+ inside 2:00, held to the end) and are shown per 40 minutes. Status says only whether a player appeared; the reason is not published.
Trends
Results against the closing spread and total, last ten gamesRice
Against the spread
Season
1-1
Home
0-1
Road
1-0
Last 10
1-1
avg cover −2.0
Covered the last game
Over / under
Season
1-1
Home
0-1
Road
1-0
Last 10
1-1
avg vs total +8.0
Over in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9 | Stanford | A | L 73–91 | +18.5 | W+0.5 | 145.5 | O164 | 96.4 | 120.2 | 75.7 |
| Nov 5 | East Texas A&M | H | L 71–72 | −3.5 | L−4.5 | 145.5 | U143 | 104.5 | 106.0 | 68.0 |
| Nov 2 | Dallas Christian Crusaders | H | W 100–55 | — | — | — | — | 120.4 | 66.2 | 83.1 |
| Mar 8 | UTSA | H | W 80–71 | −12.0 | L−3.0 | 150.0 | O151 | 116.3 | 103.2 | 68.8 |
| Mar 4 | North Texas | A | L 58–62 | +6.5 | W+2.5 | 138.0 | U120 | 95.0 | 101.6 | 61.0 |
| Mar 1 | Temple | A | W 80–74 | +7.0 | W+13.0 | 142.5 | O154 | 122.7 | 113.5 | 65.2 |
| Feb 25 | South Florida | H | L 56–75 | +11.0 | L−8.0 | 157.0 | U131 | 80.5 | 107.8 | 69.6 |
| Feb 22 | Tulane | A | L 75–81 | +5.0 | L−1.0 | 147.5 | O156 | 109.3 | 118.1 | 68.6 |
| Feb 14 | East Carolina | H | L 75–85 | −4.5 | L−14.5 | 145.5 | O160 | 112.8 | 127.9 | 66.5 |
| Feb 11 | FAU | H | W 81–73 | +3.5 | W+11.5 | 151.5 | O154 | 116.2 | 104.8 | 69.7 |
UIC
Against the spread
Season
1-1
Home
1-1
Road
0-0
Last 10
1-1
avg cover +1.0
Missed the spread in the last game
Over / under
Season
1-1
Home
1-1
Road
0-0
Last 10
1-1
avg vs total −0.5
Over in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9 | UNC Greensboro | H | W 82–72 | −20.5 | L−10.5 | 148.0 | O154 | 127.7 | 112.1 | 64.2 |
| Nov 6 | Robert Morris | H | W 79–56 | −10.5 | W+12.5 | 142.0 | U135 | 112.7 | 79.9 | 70.1 |
| Nov 2 | St. Francis (IL) Fighting Saints | H | W 96–47 | — | — | — | — | 142.3 | 69.7 | 67.5 |
| Mar 18 | California | A | L 73–91 | +6.5 | L−11.5 | 151.0 | O164 | 102.6 | 127.9 | 71.2 |
| Mar 8 | Northern Iowa | N | L 69–84 | +3.0 | L−12.0 | 124.5 | O153 | 116.5 | 141.8 | 59.2 |
| Mar 7 | Drake | N | W 72–51 | −4.5 | W+16.5 | 143.5 | U123 | 115.9 | 82.1 | 62.1 |
| Mar 6 | Murray St | N | W 92–79 | −1.0 | W+12.0 | 149.5 | O171 | 116.6 | 100.1 | 78.9 |
| Mar 1 | Indiana St | A | L 63–79 | −4.0 | L−20.0 | 144.0 | U142 | 93.3 | 117.0 | 67.5 |
| Feb 24 | Bradley | H | W 93–86 2OT | −2.0 | W+5.0 | 142.0 | O179 | 118.8 | 109.8 | 78.3 |
| Feb 21 | Valparaiso | H | L 67–71 | −7.0 | L−11.0 | 138.5 | U138 | 104.3 | 110.6 | 64.2 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Team comparison
national rank toned left for away, right for homeRiceUIC
Efficiency
104.4
108.4
110.6
102.4
71.0
69.4
2.0
-6.4
Shooting
44.1%
52.9%
43.6%
53.4%
30.0%
34.8%
73.8%
71.4%
32.8%
41.2%
Ball control & glass
18.8%
12.7%
18.8%
26.8%
34.9%
38.7%
45.5%
36.5%
12.5%
4.5%
6.4%
8.2%
Style
39.1%
38.7%
40.3%
44.7%
6.9%
11.8%
44.9%
65.5%
47.0%
37.3%
Roster
2.55
2.83
6'5.3"
6'4.2"
24.5%
44.5%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputRice
Returning minutes: 36.0%Returning production: 26.0%
Lost
- Jalen Smith 32.6 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Trae Broadnax 30.6 mpg, 15.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nick Anderson 29.2 mpg, 15.5 ppg · transferred to San Diego St
- Stephen Giwa 15.5 mpg, 3.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Andrew Akuchie 13.8 mpg, 3.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jordan Williams 4.4 mpg, 0.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Carmelo Adkins from SC Upstate · 29.9 mpg, 13.5 ppg last season
- Jarne Elouna Eyenga from Charlotte · 13.0 mpg, 2.5 ppg last season
- Jacob Dar from Seton Hall · 9.4 mpg, 3.0 ppg last season
- Jaxson Thompson no D1 minutes last season
- Zalan Flasar no D1 minutes last season
- Kaiden Myers no D1 minutes last season
Returns 36% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
UIC
Returning minutes: 58.6%Returning production: 58.3%
Lost
- Abdul Momoh 23.3 mpg, 7.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sam Silverstein 21.3 mpg, 2.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Elijah Crawford 17.0 mpg, 9.3 ppg · transferred to Villanova
- Josiah Hammons 14.2 mpg, 6.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Ante Beljan 5.5 mpg, 2.6 ppg · transferred to UNC Greensboro
- Tai Walters-Whitaker 2.2 mpg, 0.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Benny Gealer from Stanford · 29.5 mpg, 10.9 ppg last season
- Nicolas Ortiz new to D1 · 25.5 mpg, 11.5 ppg last season
- Asa Thomas from Furman · 21.9 mpg, 9.5 ppg last season
- Lucas Scroggins from Saint Peter's · 16.2 mpg, 5.4 ppg last season
- Gabe Cupps from Ohio State · 11.9 mpg, 1.6 ppg last season
- Nano Barrantes no D1 minutes last season
Returns 59% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5.
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
More games on Tue, Nov 24
- Wright St vs St Bonaventure · 10:00 AM ET
- Ohio vs New Mexico St · 11:00 AM ET
- SE Louisiana vs N Colorado · 12:30 PM ET
- Belmont vs Akron · 12:30 PM ET
- Southern Utah at FIU · 1:00 PM ET
- Lindenwood vs New Haven · 1:00 PM ET
- Oklahoma vs Pitt · 1:30 PM ET
- Oregon St vs San Francisco · 2:00 PM ET
- Tennessee vs Maryland · 3:00 PM ET
- Miami vs TCU · 3:00 PM ET
- North Dakota vs Detroit Mercy · 3:00 PM ET
- App State vs Yale · 3:00 PM ET
- Long Beach St vs Arkansas St · 3:30 PM ET
- Air Force vs Army · 4:00 PM ET
- Tulsa vs Illinois St · 4:30 PM ET
- Creighton vs Michigan · 5:30 PM ET
- San Diego St vs Iowa State · 5:30 PM ET
- Wyoming vs Kent State · 5:30 PM ET
- DePaul vs Purdue · 6:00 PM ET
- E Michigan vs Kennesaw St · 6:00 PM ET
- Queens at Wofford · 6:00 PM ET
- Mercer at FAU · 6:00 PM ET
- S Indiana at VMI · 6:00 PM ET
- Sacred Heart at Rutgers · 6:00 PM ET
- Elon at Furman · 6:30 PM ET
- Robert Morris vs Lamar · 6:30 PM ET
- Milwaukee at Florida · 7:00 PM ET
- Gardner-Webb at Bowling Green · 7:00 PM ET
- Binghamton at Lehigh · 7:00 PM ET
- Charleston So at James Madison · 7:00 PM ET
- Nevada vs Santa Clara · 7:00 PM ET
- Jacksonville at Indiana · 7:00 PM ET
- Vanderbilt at Ohio State · 7:00 PM ET
- Stetson at South Florida · 7:00 PM ET
- Samford at Georgia Tech · 7:00 PM ET
- Boston U at Harvard · 7:00 PM ET
- Vermont at Siena · 7:00 PM ET
- UMBC at Iowa · 7:00 PM ET
- Campbell at Coastal · 7:00 PM ET
- New Hampshire at Seton Hall · 7:00 PM ET
- Mount St Marys at Morgan St · 7:00 PM ET
- Delaware St at Chattanooga · 7:00 PM ET
- Rider at Loyola MD · 7:00 PM ET
- Coppin St at Villanova · 7:00 PM ET
- Bryant at Marist · 7:00 PM ET
- Tarleton St at Weber St · 7:00 PM ET
- Hampton at Old Dominion · 7:00 PM ET
- West Georgia at Tennessee Tech · 7:30 PM ET
- Hou Christian at UL Monroe · 7:30 PM ET
- High Point vs Duquesne · 7:30 PM ET
- Alcorn St at Louisiana Tech · 7:30 PM ET
- Purdue FW at SE Missouri · 7:30 PM ET
- C Michigan at Notre Dame · 8:00 PM ET
- Texas Tech vs Louisville · 8:00 PM ET
- Lipscomb at Auburn · 8:00 PM ET
- Green Bay at Kansas City · 8:00 PM ET
- Drexel at Penn · 8:00 PM ET
- Bucknell at Cornell · 8:00 PM ET
- Alabama A&M at North Alabama · 8:00 PM ET
- Oral Roberts at UT Arlington · 8:00 PM ET
- Florida A&M at South Alabama · 8:00 PM ET
- Charleston vs UTEP · 8:30 PM ET
- UNC Asheville at Florida St · 9:00 PM ET
- Evansville at Missouri · 9:00 PM ET
- Idaho St at Boise St · 9:00 PM ET
- UNC Greensboro at Santa Barbara · 9:00 PM ET
- Sam Houston at Washington St · 9:00 PM ET
- Grand Canyon vs Saint Louis · 9:30 PM ET
- Baylor vs Alabama · 10:00 PM ET
- Oregon vs St John's · 10:30 PM ET
- Stanford vs Colorado · 11:59 PM ET
- Gonzaga vs Kansas St · 12:30 AM ET
- Bellarmine vs GA Southern · TBD
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — the market spread and total (the median across books when no market line is up). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, from our line: the same view our bets are made from.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.