Who will win Lipscomb vs Purdue?
The model gives Purdue a 96% chance to beat Lipscomb, with a projected score of Purdue 86, Lipscomb 67.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 90–100% have been right 95.4% of the time in 11,767 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 8.8 points. After the final, the result is pinned to this strip. As of 2:23 AM ET on November 13, 2026. Updated three times a day until tip-off.
Players to watch
| Player | Pts | Reb | Ast | Last games | Chance of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Purdue | |||||
| JacobsenC · 30 min | 18.3 | 7.2 | 1.5 | 20+ 40% | |
| CoxG · 32 min | 11.2 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 10+ 56% | |
| West JrG · 24 min | 10.8 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 10+ 54% | |
| HarrisG · 22 min | 7.4 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 5+ 68% | |
 Lipscomb | |||||
| SimpkinsG · 31 min | 14.2 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 15+ 44% | |
| MartinF · 24 min | 12.5 | 5.9 | 1.0 | 10+ 65% | |
| SargiunasF · 28 min | 10.7 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 10+ 53% | |
| EsmeraldoG · 32 min | 8.9 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 10+ 40% | |
Bars: points in the player's latest games this season. Blue line: tonight's projection. Every regular's line
The game without one player
Without Daniel Jacobsen: Lipscomb 10%Purdue 90%
The white mark is the call with him: Purdue 96%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | Purdue without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purdue | ||||
| Daniel Jacobsen | 4.5 | 90% | −6 | 69–83 |
| C.J. Cox | 3.8 | 91% | −5 | 69–84 |
| Gicarri Harris | 2.8 | 93% | −3 | 68–84 |
| Jack Benter | 2.4 | 93% | −3 | 68–84 |
| Lipscomb | ||||
| Takai Simpkins | 1.5 | 97% | +1 | 66–86 |
| Mateo Esmeraldo | 1.3 | 97% | +1 | 66–86 |
| Devyn Martin | 0.5 | 96% | 0 | 66–86 |
Change is in Purdue's win chance, in points. Scores read Lipscomb, then Purdue. A player's value is what the team is better by with him than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
Lipscomb 2-2LLWW
- Nov 10W 88-75vs BelmontCovered +3.5 · Over 157.5
- Nov 7W 78-77vs SIUEDidn't cover −8.5 · Over 144.5
- Nov 3L 54-76at Iowa
- Nov 2L 79-86at SE Missouri
- Last 4
- 2–2, scoring 74.8 and allowing 78.5
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–1
- Totals, this season
- 2 over, 0 under
Purdue 1-2LLW
- Nov 9W 76-59vs Illinois StCovered −15.5 · Under 143.5
- Nov 6L 80-83vs ValparaisoDidn't cover −19.5 · Over 143.5
- Nov 2L 72-78vs Gonzaga
- Last 3
- 1–2, scoring 76.0 and allowing 73.3
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–1
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 1 under
The spread and the total are the lines logged with each prediction. Form is what happened; the ratings above already count recent games more.
Offense against defense
| Lipscomb | Purdue | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 105.3 155th | 118.1 22nd |
| Points allowed per 100 | 108.1 173rd | 101.0 71st |
| Possessions a game | 71.9 73rd | 68.3 357th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 50.7% 168th | 50.3% 201st |
| Opponents' shooting | 51.0% 220th | 51.1% 233rd |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 18.3% 206th | 17.6% 132nd |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 28.6% 333rd | 30.2% 271st |
| Free throws per shot | 0.27 111th | 0.28 85th |
The widest gap: Purdue's offense (22nd) against Lipscomb's defense (173rd), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Lipscomb 31, Purdue 41
- First-half margin
- Purdue by 10.4
- First-half points, both teams
- 71.5
- Projected second half
- Lipscomb 36, Purdue 45
- Second-half points, both teams
- 80.8
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Lipscomb, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 4 · 39.2 scored, 36.2 allowed
- Purdue, first halves so far
- Led 2 of 3 · 33.7 scored, 28.0 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 11,516 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 67.2% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.1 points on average. This season: 366 of 476 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
Lipscomb
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mateo EsmeraldoG | 32 | 8.9 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 1.3 |
| 10+ pts 40% · 4+ reb 42% · 4+ ast 58% | |||||
| Takai SimpkinsG | 31 | 14.2 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| 15+ pts 44% · 3+ reb 54% · 2+ ast 43% | |||||
| Titas SargiunasF | 28 | 10.7 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 |
| 10+ pts 53% · 3+ reb 49% · 2+ ast 55% | |||||
| Devyn MartinF | 24 | 12.5 | 5.9 | 1.0 | 0.3 |
| 10+ pts 65% · 6+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 26% | |||||
| Hugo TidareG | 19 | 5.3 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 49% · 2+ reb 46% · 1+ threes 49% | |||||
| Kennedy OkparaF | 18 | 7.8 | 3.1 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| 10+ pts 32% · 3+ reb 56% · 1+ threes 43% | |||||
| Truman ByrneF | 16 | 2.9 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 24% · 4+ reb 45% · 1+ threes 49% | |||||
| Josh ScottF | 14 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 22% · 3+ reb 42% · 1+ threes 23% | |||||
Purdue
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.J. CoxG | 32 | 11.2 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 1.4 |
| 10+ pts 56% · 5+ reb 43% · 3+ ast 42% | |||||
| Daniel JacobsenC | 30 | 18.3 | 7.2 | 1.5 | 0.3 |
| 20+ pts 40% · 7+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 44% | |||||
| Caden PierceF | 28 | 6.8 | 6.3 | 2.5 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 63% · 6+ reb 56% · 1+ threes 50% | |||||
| Antione West JrG | 24 | 10.8 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 1.5 |
| 10+ pts 54% · 3+ reb 41% · 2+ threes 42% | |||||
| Gicarri HarrisG | 22 | 7.4 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 68% · 3+ reb 46% · 1+ threes 53% | |||||
| Jack BenterG | 21 | 7.2 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
| 5+ pts 66% · 4+ reb 42% · 2+ ast 38% | |||||
| Omer MayerG | 20 | 6.0 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 1.1 |
| 5+ pts 56% · 2+ reb 49% · 3+ ast 46% | |||||
| Luke ErtelG | 14 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 36% · 2+ reb 55% · 1+ threes 47% | |||||
Our own projections from each player's minutes and production, this opponent and the game's pace: not a sportsbook's lines. Under each name, the round numbers the player is about as likely as not to reach. How they have done
Win probability
Game chat
Loading the chat…