LJVM Coliseum · at Wake Forest
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WAKE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WAKE 87–69 · win probability WAKE 94%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.1
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: WAKE has more of the edges
SUU 0, WAKE 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
WAKE offense vs SUU defense
Offense 80th of 366 against a defense 329th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SUU 20.3%, WAKE 15.5%. Forced: SUU 14.8%, WAKE 17.7%
Three-pointers
SUU hits 33.0% and allows 38.0%; WAKE hits 34.1% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 35.5% and 43.6% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
SUU has played the 186th-hardest schedule, WAKE the 64th. A record against a soft schedule means less
SUU offense vs WAKE defense
Offense 211th of 366 against a defense 96th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: SUU 50.8 and allows 53.3; WAKE 52.7 and allows 51.8
Home court
WAKE at home. This season: WAKE 0-0 at home, SUU 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: SUU 33.1, WAKE 35.2. Allowed: SUU 29.8, WAKE 35.7
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SUU 27%, WAKE 9%. Transfers in: SUU 1, WAKE 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SUU 28.8%, WAKE 30.1%. Defensive: SUU 66.4%, WAKE 67.0%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: SUU plays 71.2 a game (62nd fastest), WAKE 70.2 (112th). Faster games mean more points
Market
Open → current
Spread
Open—
no open
Now—
Opening line not available
Total
Open—
no open
Now—
Moneyline
—
Pre-game lines only (ESPN, DraftKings first). After tip-off the line shown is the closing line.
Model vs market
| Market | Model | Model edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spread | — | WAKE -17.9 | — |
| Total | — | 155.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | SUU 68.6 · WAKE 86.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WAKE -10.5 | — |
| 1H total | 72.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | SUU 31 · WAKE 41.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Southern Utah
29 games played
Straight up
7-22
24% wins
Against the spread
15-14
52% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-12
59% overs · avg +3.3 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
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 | @ | L 64-81 | +17.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 72-95 | +1.5 | L −21.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 85-90 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 50-122 | +35.5 | L −36.5 | 160.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 74-98 | +12.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 54-61 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 70-68 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 70-81 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 69-105 | +25.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | O 174 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 57-65 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 66-80 | +7.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 77-86 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 72-89 | +18.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 55-58 | +14.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 106-105 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | O 211 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 74-52 | +3.5 | W +25.5 | 149.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 84-70 | +12.5 | W +26.5 | 160.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 91-102 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-80 | +9.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-76 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 59-62 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 66-83 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-73 | +8.5 | W +13.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 74-78 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 83-87 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 81-67 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 88-92 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 180 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 75-82 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 63-69 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
ASU
L 64-81
+0.5
8
vs
RGV
L 72-95
−21.5
15
@
OMA
L 85-90
+3.5
17
@
GONZ
L 50-122
−36.5
19
@
WSU
L 74-98
−11.5
28
@
RMU
L 54-61
+1.5
29
vs
STET
W 70-68
+0.5
6
@
ORST
L 70-81
−0.5
13
@
WASH
L 69-105
−10.5
18
@
NAU
L 57-65
−2.5
29
@
UTU
L 66-80
−6.5
3
vs
UTA
L 77-86
−3.5
8
@
UVU
L 72-89
+1.5
10
@
CBU
L 55-58
+11.5
15
vs
TAR
W 106-105
+4.5
17
vs
ACU
W 74-52
+25.5
21
vs
UVU
W 84-70
+26.5
24
@
UTU
L 91-102
−4.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-80
−9.5
31
@
ACU
W 79-76
+9.5
7
vs
TAR
L 59-62
−1.5
12
vs
CBU
L 66-83
−11.5
14
@
UTA
W 78-73
+13.5
19
@
TAR
L 74-78
+0.5
21
@
ACU
L 83-87
+4.5
28
vs
UTU
W 81-67
+15.5
5
vs
UVU
L 88-92
+5.5
7
vs
CBU
L 75-82
−0.5
12
vs
UTA
L 63-69
−1.5
covered 15didn’t cover 14avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
ASU
L 64-81
−6.5
8
vs
RGV
L 72-95
+6.5
15
@
OMA
L 85-90
+21.5
17
@
GONZ
L 50-122
+11.5
19
@
WSU
L 74-98
+14.5
28
@
RMU
L 54-61
−37.5
29
vs
STET
W 70-68
−10.5
6
@
ORST
L 70-81
+4.5
13
@
WASH
L 69-105
+20.5
18
@
NAU
L 57-65
−28.5
29
@
UTU
L 66-80
−2.5
3
vs
UTA
L 77-86
+24.5
8
@
UVU
L 72-89
+6.5
10
@
CBU
L 55-58
−37.5
15
vs
TAR
W 106-105
+60.5
17
vs
ACU
W 74-52
−23.5
21
vs
UVU
W 84-70
−6.5
24
@
UTU
L 91-102
+43.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-80
−3.5
31
@
ACU
W 79-76
+4.5
7
vs
TAR
L 59-62
−28.5
12
vs
CBU
L 66-83
+1.5
14
@
UTA
W 78-73
+7.5
19
@
TAR
L 74-78
+7.5
21
@
ACU
L 83-87
+26.5
28
vs
UTU
W 81-67
−8.5
5
vs
UVU
L 88-92
+29.5
7
vs
CBU
L 75-82
+8.5
12
vs
UTA
L 63-69
−9.5
over 17under 12avg +3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Wake Forest
35 games played
Straight up
18-17
51% wins
Against the spread
16-19
46% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-15
57% overs · avg +0.6 pts vs the total
Game by game: lines, results and totals
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 3 | vs | W 88-74 | -19.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 81-65 | -22.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 84-85 | +15.5 | W +14.5 | 168.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 109-75 | -30.5 | W +3.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 83-84 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 69-68 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 99-51 | -17.5 | W +30.5 | 159.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-73 | -17.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 68-86 | -4.5 | L −22.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 75-66 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 143.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 111-73 | -18.5 | W +19.5 | 165.5 | O 184 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 71-68 | -24.5 | L −21.5 | 163.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 67-98 | +5.5 | L −25.5 | 164.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 57-70 | +10.5 | L −2.5 | 159.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 81-78 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 77-81 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 84-87 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 154.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 69-68 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 79-91 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 69-90 | +19.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 76-80 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 78-96 | +5.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 80-88 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 83-67 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 68-63 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 85-77 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 63-82 | +3.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 67-68 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-83 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 70-75 | +14.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 80-73 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 95-89 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 62-71 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 18 | vs | W 82-72 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 75-78 | -8.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
AMER
W 88-74
−5.5
7
vs
MORE
W 81-65
−6.5
11
vs
MICH
L 84-85
+14.5
16
vs
UML
W 109-75
+3.5
20
vs
TTU
L 83-84
+8.5
21
vs
MEM
W 69-68
−1.5
25
vs
CAM
W 99-51
+30.5
28
vs
NE
W 86-73
−4.5
2
vs
OU
L 68-86
−22.5
6
vs
WVU
W 75-66
+11.5
14
vs
QUC
W 111-73
+19.5
17
vs
LONG
W 71-68
−21.5
21
vs
VAN
L 67-98
−25.5
31
@
NCSU
L 57-70
−2.5
3
vs
VT
W 81-78
−2.5
7
vs
MIA
L 77-81
−5.5
10
@
UNC
L 84-87
+7.5
17
@
FSU
W 69-68
−0.5
20
vs
SMU
L 79-91
−13.5
24
@
DUKE
L 69-90
−1.5
27
@
PITT
L 76-80
−2.5
31
vs
NCSU
L 78-96
−12.5
7
vs
LOU
L 80-88
+1.5
11
@
GT
W 83-67
+12.5
14
vs
STAN
W 68-63
+0.5
18
vs
CLEM
W 85-77
+12.5
21
@
VT
L 63-82
−15.5
25
@
BC
L 67-68
−4.5
28
vs
SYR
W 88-83
+1.5
3
@
UVA
L 70-75
+9.5
7
vs
CAL
W 80-73
+1.5
10
vs
VT
W 95-89
+4.5
11
vs
CLEM
L 62-71
−3.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 82-72
+0.5
22
vs
ILST
L 75-78
−11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 19avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
AMER
W 88-74
+22.5
7
vs
MORE
W 81-65
−6.5
11
vs
MICH
L 84-85
+0.5
16
vs
UML
W 109-75
+18.5
20
vs
TTU
L 83-84
+6.5
21
vs
MEM
W 69-68
−23.5
25
vs
CAM
W 99-51
−9.5
28
vs
NE
W 86-73
+4.5
2
vs
OU
L 68-86
−5.5
6
vs
WVU
W 75-66
−2.5
14
vs
QUC
W 111-73
+18.5
17
vs
LONG
W 71-68
−24.5
21
vs
VAN
L 67-98
+0.5
31
@
NCSU
L 57-70
−32.5
3
vs
VT
W 81-78
+5.5
7
vs
MIA
L 77-81
+0.5
10
@
UNC
L 84-87
+16.5
17
@
FSU
W 69-68
−31.5
20
vs
SMU
L 79-91
+12.5
24
@
DUKE
L 69-90
+5.5
27
@
PITT
L 76-80
+5.5
31
vs
NCSU
L 78-96
+17.5
7
vs
LOU
L 80-88
+5.5
11
@
GT
W 83-67
−8.5
14
vs
STAN
W 68-63
−19.5
18
vs
CLEM
W 85-77
+21.5
21
@
VT
L 63-82
−5.5
25
@
BC
L 67-68
−10.5
28
vs
SYR
W 88-83
+18.5
3
@
UVA
L 70-75
−5.5
7
vs
CAL
W 80-73
−1.5
10
vs
VT
W 95-89
+33.5
11
vs
CLEM
L 62-71
−10.5
18
vs
NAVY
W 82-72
+5.5
22
vs
ILST
L 75-78
+0.5
over 20under 15avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Southern Utah has the better starters
Position by position: Southern Utah 2, Wake Forest 1, even 2
Southern UtahBetterWake Forest
G B. Johnson0 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G K. Kennedy TR18.4 pts · 4.6 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 91
G Z. Kidd0.3 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Ray TR11.2 pts · 2.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 56
F J. Feroah14 pts · 6.9 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 87
←SUUBig
G J. McDowell TR3.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 40
F J. Nicholls TR10.8 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 95
←SUUBig
F R. Nyeri TR8.4 pts · 6.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 34
F C. Barclay4.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 8
→WAKEBig
F X. Pintelon TR5.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 47
Southern UtahBetterWake Forest
SUU offense211th of 366 · -6.4
→WAKESmall
WAKE defense96th of 366 · -0.5
SUU defense329th of 366 · -8.6
→WAKEBig
WAKE offense80th of 366 · +0.5
Backcourt-0.4 · 2 players
→WAKESmall
Backcourt+2.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt+3.8 · 3 players
←SUUBig
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSUU betterWAKE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Johnson4 minZ. Kidd3 minD. SandersNewA. BrelandNewJ. BrownNewC. DegraffenriedNew
Forwards
J. Feroah31 minJ. Nicholls18 min · TRC. Barclay16 minJ. RiakNewJ. NichollsNewD. SmithNew
Centers
M. ProtsenkoNew
Guards
K. Kennedy37 min · TRJ. Ray29 min · TRJ. McDowell17 min · TRI. Carr13 minA. Beard2 minW. Underwood2 min
Forwards
R. Nyeri26 min · TRX. Pintelon18 min · TRV. Ricchiuti2 minJ. AbsonNewV. ChaudhriNewG. PlacideNew
Centers
A. Dorn9 min · TR
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Matchup stats
2025-26 · rank among 365 teams
Scoring
Points per game
Points per possession
Pace (possessions)
Shooting
Effective FG%
3-point %
3-point attempt rate
Free throw rate
Possessions
Turnover rate
Offensive rebound rate
Assists per game
Defense
Points allowed
Points allowed per possession
Opponent effective FG%
Opponent 3-point %
Turnovers forced
Defensive rebound rate
Steals per game
Blocks per game
| Scoring | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.3 #235 | Points per game | 78.8 #83 |
| 1.01 #310 | Points per possession | 1.12 #94 |
| 71.2 #62 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #112 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.8 #200 | Effective FG% | 52.7 #117 |
| 33.0 #231 | 3-point % | 34.1 #166 |
| 35.5 #261 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.6 #99 |
| 33.1 #235 | Free throw rate | 35.2 #170 |
| Possessions | ||
| 20.3 #352 | Turnover rate | 15.5 #107 |
| 28.8 #239 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.1 #196 |
| 12.9 #223 | Assists per game | 14.4 #123 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.3 #335 | Points allowed | 76.9 #239 |
| 1.14 #308 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #214 |
| 53.3 #276 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.8 #202 |
| 38.0 #358 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #117 |
| 14.8 #302 | Turnovers forced | 17.7 #114 |
| 66.4 #309 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.0 #298 |
| 5.2 #317 | Steals per game | 7.7 #59 |
| 4.1 #60 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #136 |
Southern Utah
7-22 in 2025-26 overall · 6-13 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UT Arlington63–69
- Lvs CA Baptist75–82
- Lvs Utah Valley88–92
- Wvs Utah Tech81–67
- L@ Abilene Chrstn83–87
A week or more of rest.
Wake Forest
18-17 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Illinois St75–78
- Wvs Navy82–72
- Lvs Clemson62–71
- Wvs Virginia Tech95–89
- Wvs California80–73
A week or more of rest.