PythiaBasketballBETA
NCAA
Illinois (Chi.) will host Chicago State on 18 November 2026 in the NCAA, and the Pythia model names Illinois (Chi.) the clear favourite, rating them 98% to win because of a perfect 3-0 record, an average of 85.7 points scored and only 58.3 points allowed per game, and a league position of 32; Chicago State sits at 233 with a 2-2 record, 68.2 points scored and 76.8 points allowed. Illinois (Chi.) has won all three of its games, all at home, with recent victories over NC Greensboro 82-72, Robert Morris 79-56, and St. Francis (ILL) 96-47, while Chicago State's road record is 2-1, with wins over California Baptist 81-62 and Incarnate Word 66-54 but a loss to South Carolina St 67-82. In their two previous meetings Illinois (Chi.) has won both, most recently 67-63 on 15 November 2025. Pythia projects a score of 86-61, a total of 146.7 points, and gives Illinois (Chi.) a 98% chance to win and a 2% chance for Chicago State; the model also estimates a 1% probability of overtime. The game will be a decisive showcase of Illinois (Chi.)'s offensive dominance against Chicago State's struggling defense, with the last encounter already hinting at the outcome.
| Split | Scored | Allowed | Total | Margin | Win % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season (3) | 85.7 | 58.3 | 144.0 | +27.3 | 100% |
| Season at home (3) | 85.7 | 58.3 | 144.0 | +27.3 | 100% |
| Season away | no games | ||||
| Last 10 (10) | 79.7 | 67.1 | 146.8 | +12.6 | 70% |
| Last 5 (5) | 79.6 | 62.0 | 141.6 | +17.6 | 80% |
| Last 30 games by opponent strength | |||||
| vs Stronger (1) | 66.0 | 80.0 | 146.0 | -14.0 | 0% |
| vs Similar (14) | 74.5 | 71.1 | 145.6 | +3.4 | 57% |
| vs Weaker ◀ (14) | 75.1 | 65.4 | 140.6 | +9.7 | 64% |
| Split | Scored | Allowed | Total | Margin | Win % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season (4) | 68.2 | 76.8 | 145.0 | -8.5 | 50% |
| Season at home (1) | 67.0 | 82.0 | 149.0 | -15.0 | 0% |
| Season away (3) | 68.7 | 75.0 | 143.7 | -6.3 | 67% |
| Last 10 (10) | 65.7 | 73.1 | 138.8 | -7.4 | 30% |
| Last 5 (5) | 69.6 | 77.2 | 146.8 | -7.6 | 40% |
| Last 30 games by opponent strength | |||||
| vs Stronger ◀ (24) | 64.0 | 75.3 | 139.4 | -11.3 | 17% |
| vs Similar (3) | 74.7 | 77.0 | 151.7 | -2.3 | 67% |
| vs Weaker (3) | 77.3 | 59.3 | 136.7 | +18.0 | 100% |
| 1st half | Scored | Allowed | Total | Margin | Won the half | Over main line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Last 30 (30) | 35.2 | 30.7 | 66.0 | +4.5 | 67% | - |
| Last 30 at home (17) | 35.2 | 29.8 | 65.0 | +5.5 | 71% | - |
| Last 30 away (13) | 35.2 | 32.0 | 67.2 | +3.2 | 62% | - |
| Last 10 (10) | 37.6 | 31.9 | 69.5 | +5.7 | 60% | - |
| Last 5 (5) | 37.8 | 34.0 | 71.8 | +3.8 | 60% | - |
| Last 30 games by opponent strength | ||||||
| vs Stronger (1) | 32.0 | 35.0 | 67.0 | -3.0 | 0% | - |
| vs Similar (14) | 34.6 | 31.6 | 66.2 | +2.9 | 64% | - |
| vs Weaker ◀ (14) | 35.0 | 29.5 | 64.5 | +5.5 | 71% | - |
| 1st half | Scored | Allowed | Total | Margin | Won the half | Over main line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Last 30 (30) | 31.1 | 35.5 | 66.6 | -4.3 | 40% | - |
| Last 30 at home (11) | 34.0 | 32.7 | 66.7 | +1.3 | 64% | - |
| Last 30 away (19) | 29.5 | 37.1 | 66.5 | -7.6 | 26% | - |
| Last 10 (10) | 30.7 | 36.6 | 67.3 | -5.9 | 30% | - |
| Last 5 (5) | 33.8 | 39.4 | 73.2 | -5.6 | 40% | - |
| Last 30 games by opponent strength | ||||||
| vs Stronger ◀ (24) | 29.6 | 36.4 | 66.0 | -6.8 | 29% | - |
| vs Similar (3) | 34.3 | 36.0 | 70.3 | -1.7 | 67% | - |
| vs Weaker (3) | 40.0 | 27.3 | 67.3 | +12.7 | 100% | - |
Yesterday's results in full, today's games and market moves worth watching. One post a day, no signup.
| Date | Game | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 15/11/25 | Chicago State v Illinois (Chi.) | 63-67 |
| 21/03/13 | Illinois (Chi.) v Chicago State | 80-69 |
| Date | H/A | Opponent | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/11/26 | H | NC Greensboro | 82-72 |
| 07/11/26 | H | Robert Morris | 79-56 |
| 02/11/26 | H | St. Francis (ILL) | 96-47 |
| 08/03/26 | H | Northern Iowa | 69-84 |
| 07/03/26 | H | Drake | 72-51 |
| 06/03/26 | A | Murray State | 92-79 |
| 01/03/26 | A | Indiana State | 63-79 |
| 25/02/26 | H | Bradley | 93-86 OT |
| 21/02/26 | H | Valparaiso | 67-71 |
| 19/02/26 | A | Evansville | 84-46 |
| Date | H/A | Opponent | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/26 | A | California Baptist | 81-62 |
| 10/11/26 | H | South Carolina St | 67-82 |
| 06/11/26 | A | Incarnate Word | 66-54 |
| 03/11/26 | A | Texas | 59-109 |
| 05/03/26 | A | LIU Sharks | 75-79 |
| 28/02/26 | A | Wagner | 61-80 |
| 27/02/26 | A | LIU Sharks | 56-73 |
| 21/02/26 | H | Central Connecticut State | 70-51 |
| 20/02/26 | H | Fairleigh Dickinson | 59-60 |
| 14/02/26 | A | Le Moyne | 63-81 |
| Form | Last 5 | Win % |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | WWW | 100% |
| Home | WWW | 100% |
| Away | - | - |
| Stats | Overall | Home | Away |
|---|---|---|---|
| Games | 3 | 3 | - |
| Win % | 100% | 100% | - |
| Points / game | 85.7 | 85.7 | - |
| Allowed / game | 58.3 | 58.3 | - |
| Point differential | +27.3 | +27.3 | - |
| Avg total | 144.0 | 144.0 | - |
| Over main line | - | - | - |
| Win by 10+ | 100% | 100% | - |
| Close games (≤5 pts) won | - | - | - |
| Overtime % | 0% | 0% | - |
| Form | Last 5 | Win % |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | LWLW | 50% |
| Home | L | 0% |
| Away | LWW | 67% |
| Stats | Overall | Home | Away |
|---|---|---|---|
| Games | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Win % | 50% | 0% | 67% |
| Points / game | 68.2 | 67.0 | 68.7 |
| Allowed / game | 76.8 | 82.0 | 75.0 |
| Point differential | -8.5 | -15.0 | -6.3 |
| Avg total | 145.0 | 149.0 | 143.7 |
| Over main line | - | - | - |
| Win by 10+ | 50% | 0% | 67% |
| Close games (≤5 pts) won | - | - | - |
| Overtime % | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| # | Team | GP | W | L | Win % | PF/g | PA/g | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Drake | 2 | 2 | 0 | 100% | 88.0 | 58.0 | +30.0 |
| 2 |  Murray State | 3 | 3 | 0 | 100% | 93.7 | 64.0 | +29.7 |
| 3 | Illinois (Chi.) | 3 | 3 | 0 | 100% | 85.7 | 58.3 | +27.3 |
| 4 |  Southern Illinois | 3 | 2 | 1 | 67% | 85.0 | 70.0 | +15.0 |
| 5 |  Belmont | 3 | 2 | 1 | 67% | 74.0 | 62.3 | +11.7 |
| 6 |  Northern Iowa | 3 | 2 | 1 | 67% | 92.7 | 81.3 | +11.3 |
| 7 |  Valparaiso | 3 | 2 | 1 | 67% | 77.3 | 73.0 | +4.3 |
| 8 |  Evansville | 3 | 2 | 1 | 67% | 75.3 | 73.0 | +2.3 |
| 9 |  Bradley | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50% | 59.5 | 55.0 | +4.5 |
| 10 |  Illinois State | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% | 81.3 | 73.7 | +7.7 |
| 11 |  Indiana State | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% | 70.7 | 75.3 | -4.7 |
| # | Team | GP | W | L | Win % | PF/g | PA/g | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicago State | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50% | 68.2 | 76.8 | -8.5 |
| 2 |  Central Connecticut State | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50% | 65.5 | 79.0 | -13.5 |
| 3 |  Fairleigh Dickinson | 4 | 2 | 2 | 50% | 70.8 | 87.8 | -17.0 |
| 4 |  Le Moyne | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% | 76.0 | 76.0 | +0.0 |
| 5 |  Stonehill | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% | 67.3 | 71.3 | -4.0 |
| 6 |  New Haven Chargers | 3 | 1 | 2 | 33% | 58.3 | 70.0 | -11.7 |
| 7 |  Wagner | 4 | 1 | 3 | 25% | 66.2 | 73.2 | -7.0 |
| 8 |  Mercyhurst Lakers | 4 | 1 | 3 | 25% | 61.2 | 70.8 | -9.5 |
| 9 |  LIU Sharks | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0% | 61.5 | 73.8 | -12.2 |
| 10 |  St. Francis (ILL) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0% | 47.0 | 96.0 | -49.0 |
We use cookies to keep the site working, to remember your settings, to understand which predictions people read, and to improve what we show you. For more information, see our Cookie Policy.
Cookies required to use the site and the features you have asked for. They provide the pages, predictions and account functions you requested. These are essential for the operation of our website.
Cookies that remember the preferences and settings from your last visit, so the site behaves the way you left it. They do not tell us who you are and they are not used to build a profile of you.
Cookies used to collect information about your usage of the site. These are used to produce aggregated statistics about visits to our pages. We use these statistics internally to test and improve the site and to give you a better experience. Without them our ability to provide a smoother experience may be degraded.
Cookies used to deliver adverts relevant to you based on your interests. This can include limiting the number of times you see an advert as well as helping us measure the effectiveness of an advert. Without these cookies you will still see adverts, but they will not be adjusted to your interests.
