Lindenwood at UIC
Women's · Thursday, November 19, 2026, 8:00 PM ET at Credit Union 1 Arena. Lindenwood our rank 236 · 1-3; UIC our rank 150 · 3-1.
Who will win Lindenwood vs UIC?
The model gives UIC a 84% chance to beat Lindenwood, with a projected score of UIC 66, Lindenwood 54.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 80–90% have been right 85.0% of the time in 7,719 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 9.5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UIC | |||||
| ColemanF · 26 min | 15.6 | 5.9 | 2.4 | 15+ 53% | |
| ClaytonG · 29 min | 10.8 | 2.6 | 5.1 | 10+ 54% | |
| FosterG · 27 min | 9.6 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 10+ 45% | |
| KhedrG · 22 min | 8.1 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 10+ 34% | |
| Lindenwood | |||||
| McNeceG · 26 min | 8.1 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 10+ 34% | |
| DykstraG · 30 min | 7.1 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 5+ 66% | |
| RuckerG · 27 min | 5.3 | 4.3 | 1.3 | 5+ 49% | |
| MantzioriG · 23 min | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 5+ 47% | |
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 Julia Coleman: Lindenwood 21%UIC 79%
The white mark is the call with her: UIC 84%.
| Player | Points a game she adds | UIC without her | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UIC | ||||
| Julia Coleman | 2.2 | 79% | −5 | 55–65 |
| Evyn Carrier | 1.2 | 82% | −2 | 55–66 |
| Lyla Kahrimanovic | 0.8 | 83% | −1 | 55–66 |
| Nevaeh Foster | 0.7 | 83% | −1 | 54–66 |
Change is in UIC's win chance, in points. Scores read Lindenwood, then UIC. A player's value is what the team is better by with her than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
Lindenwood 1-3LLWL
- Nov 10L 35-71at Louisville
- Nov 7W 62-49vs Evansville
- Nov 4L 52-66at Denver
- Nov 2L 46-63at Colorado St
- Last 4
- 1–3, scoring 48.8 and allowing 62.2
UIC 3-1LWWW
- Nov 11W 87-50vs Chicago St
- Nov 8W 76-71vs Northwestern
- Nov 5W 71-58at Robert Morris
- Nov 2L 34-81at Ohio State
- Last 4
- 3–1, scoring 67.0 and allowing 65.0
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
| Lindenwood | UIC | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 80.9 306th | 94.1 126th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 92.5 140th | 94.7 186th |
| Possessions a game | 69.8 345th | 70.4 321st |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 42.5% 326th | 44.4% 252nd |
| Opponents' shooting | 45.1% 154th | 43.0% 43rd |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 23.6% 190th | 23.5% 183rd |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 30.8% 289th | 36.8% 35th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.19 307th | 0.21 210th |
The widest gap: UIC's defense (186th) against Lindenwood's offense (306th), of 363 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Lindenwood 25, UIC 32
- First-half margin
- UIC by 7.0
- First-half points, both teams
- 57.1
- Projected second half
- Lindenwood 29, UIC 34
- Second-half points, both teams
- 63.3
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Lindenwood, first halves so far
- Led 1 of 4 · 24.2 scored, 33.8 allowed
- UIC, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 4 · 34.5 scored, 32.2 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 10,911 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 73.0% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.0 points on average. This season: 404 of 492 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
Lindenwood
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cadence DykstraG | 30 | 7.1 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 66% · 4+ reb 44% · 3+ ast 46% | |||||
| Brenna RuckerG | 27 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 1.3 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 49% · 4+ reb 58% · 1+ threes 52% | |||||
| Violet McNeceG | 26 | 8.1 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
| 10+ pts 34% · 3+ reb 53% · 2+ threes 54% | |||||
| Konstantina MantzioriG | 23 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 47% · 2+ reb 53% · 1+ threes 42% | |||||
| Saniah TylerG | 20 | 4.9 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| 5+ pts 45% · 2+ reb 44% · 1+ threes 62% | |||||
| Anna McCarnF | 19 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 26% · 4+ reb 43% | |||||
| Jarius PowersC | 17 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 31% · 4+ reb 44% | |||||
| Jazlyn PowellF | 16 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 30% · 3+ reb 43% · 1+ threes 33% | |||||
UIC
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tutu ClaytonG | 29 | 10.8 | 2.6 | 5.1 | 1.1 |
| 10+ pts 54% · 3+ reb 46% · 5+ ast 56% | |||||
| Miyah BrownG | 29 | 7.5 | 5.1 | 1.2 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 69% · 5+ reb 54% · 1+ threes 40% | |||||
| Nevaeh FosterG | 27 | 9.6 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 1.9 |
| 10+ pts 45% · 3+ reb 57% · 2+ threes 50% | |||||
| Julia ColemanF | 26 | 15.6 | 5.9 | 2.4 | 0.1 |
| 15+ pts 53% · 6+ reb 51% · 3+ ast 43% | |||||
| Salma KhedrG | 22 | 8.1 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 0.4 |
| 10+ pts 34% · 3+ reb 58% · 1+ threes 35% | |||||
| Evyn CarrierC | 18 | 6.0 | 6.7 | 1.4 | 0.1 |
| 5+ pts 57% · 7+ reb 48% · 2+ ast 38% | |||||
| Magdalena WinterC | 18 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 38% · 4+ reb 51% · 2+ ast 16% | |||||
| Aileen Becerril LanderosG | 13 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 27% · 2+ reb 43% · 1+ threes 46% | |||||
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…