CU Events Center · at Colorado
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | COLO | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 COLO 91–76 · win probability COLO 90%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 167.0
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: COLO has more of the edges
CP 1, COLO 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
COLO offense vs CP defense
Offense 54th of 366 against a defense 343rd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CP 19.8%, COLO 14.7%. Forced: CP 16.3%, COLO 15.2%
Context
Schedule so far
CP has played the 170th-hardest schedule, COLO the 58th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CP 100%, COLO 40%. Transfers in: CP 0, COLO 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Shooting
Effective FG%: CP 51.5 and allows 53.8; COLO 52.9 and allows 52.6
Home court
COLO at home. This season: COLO 0-0 at home, CP 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 74 possessions: CP plays 76.4 a game (1st fastest), COLO 71.0 (76th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CP 30.0%, COLO 29.0%. Defensive: CP 70.4%, COLO 70.4%
Even
Three-pointers
CP hits 33.0% and allows 34.7%; COLO hits 35.1% and allows 36.3%. Threes are 52.6% and 35.2% of their shots
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CP 34.9, COLO 36.6. Allowed: CP 34.1, COLO 36.6
Even
CP offense vs COLO defense
Offense 91st of 366 against a defense 80th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | COLO -14.7 | — |
| Total | — | 167.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | CP 76.1 · COLO 90.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | COLO -8.6 | — |
| 1H total | 77.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | CP 34.7 · COLO 43.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Cal Poly
31 games played
Straight up
12-19
39% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% overs · avg +0.7 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 | @ | L 64-94 | +24.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 73-71 | +10.5 | W +12.5 | 164.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 79-93 | +18.5 | W +4.5 | 165.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 82-90 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 20 | @ | W 92-85 | +14.5 | W +21.5 | 167.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 87-93 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 68-84 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 170.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 4 | @ | W 94-91 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 177.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 84-88 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 80-83 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 87-108 | +24.5 | W +3.5 | 161.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 80-83 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 67-65 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 174.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 66-74 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 90-95 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 175.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 84-78 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 168.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 66-86 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 67-107 | +8.5 | L −31.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 78-93 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 104-79 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 161.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 94-87 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 162.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 96-97 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 177.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 58-67 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 169.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 79-73 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 89-79 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 86-75 | +11.5 | W +22.5 | 160.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 102-92 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 64-80 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 85-107 | +9.5 | L −12.5 | 160.5 | O 192 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 108-76 | -8.5 | W +23.5 | 174.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 69-72 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | U 141 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
USC
L 64-94
−5.5
8
@
SEA
W 73-71
+12.5
12
@
CSU
L 79-93
+4.5
14
@
MONT
L 82-90
−0.5
20
@
UTAH
W 92-85
+21.5
24
@
NAU
L 87-93
−7.5
25
vs
SEMO
L 68-84
−14.5
4
@
CSUF
W 94-91
+4.5
6
vs
UCR
L 84-88
−9.5
16
vs
MTST
L 80-83
−0.5
19
@
UCLA
L 87-108
+3.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-83
−1.5
1
vs
UCSD
W 67-65
+10.5
3
@
LBSU
L 66-74
−5.5
8
@
CSUN
L 90-95
+1.5
10
vs
UCD
W 84-78
+7.5
15
vs
HAW
L 66-86
−14.5
22
@
UCSB
L 67-107
−31.5
24
vs
CSUF
L 78-93
−13.5
29
@
CSUB
W 104-79
+23.5
31
@
UCR
W 94-87
+8.5
5
vs
CSUN
L 96-97
+1.5
7
@
UCD
L 58-67
−3.5
12
vs
UCI
W 79-73
+11.5
14
vs
UCSB
W 89-79
+13.5
19
@
HAW
W 86-75
+22.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 102-92
+4.5
28
@
UCSD
L 64-80
−8.5
5
@
UCI
L 85-107
−12.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 108-76
+23.5
11
vs
UCSD
L 69-72
+1.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
USC
L 64-94
−5.5
8
@
SEA
W 73-71
−20.5
12
@
CSU
L 79-93
+6.5
14
@
MONT
L 82-90
+3.5
20
@
UTAH
W 92-85
+9.5
24
@
NAU
L 87-93
+15.5
25
vs
SEMO
L 68-84
−18.5
4
@
CSUF
W 94-91
+7.5
6
vs
UCR
L 84-88
+9.5
16
vs
MTST
L 80-83
+3.5
19
@
UCLA
L 87-108
+33.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-83
−4.5
1
vs
UCSD
W 67-65
−42.5
3
@
LBSU
L 66-74
−22.5
8
@
CSUN
L 90-95
+9.5
10
vs
UCD
W 84-78
−6.5
15
vs
HAW
L 66-86
−8.5
22
@
UCSB
L 67-107
+14.5
24
vs
CSUF
L 78-93
−2.5
29
@
CSUB
W 104-79
+21.5
31
@
UCR
W 94-87
+18.5
5
vs
CSUN
L 96-97
+15.5
7
@
UCD
L 58-67
−44.5
12
vs
UCI
W 79-73
−9.5
14
vs
UCSB
W 89-79
+8.5
19
@
HAW
W 86-75
+0.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 102-92
+31.5
28
@
UCSD
L 64-80
−20.5
5
@
UCI
L 85-107
+31.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 108-76
+9.5
11
vs
UCSD
L 69-72
−21.5
over 18under 13avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Colorado
33 games played
Straight up
17-16
52% wins
Against the spread
17-16
52% covers · avg −0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-16
52% overs · avg +5 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 84-78 | -11.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 102-97 | -16.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 97-88 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 163.5 | O 185 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 94-66 | -22.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 160 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 95-79 | -14.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 79-69 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 81-68 | +2.5 | W +15.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 78-70 | -13.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 86-91 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 88-64 | -22.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 84-73 | -16.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 68-77 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 81-86 | -15.5 | L −20.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 95-89 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 156.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 85-73 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 71-73 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 161.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 68-77 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 61-72 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 69-75 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 155.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 86-95 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 159.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 67-97 | +17.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 87-61 | +1.5 | W +27.5 | 153.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 67-86 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 78-70 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 44-78 | +13.5 | L −20.5 | 155.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 86-90 | +15.5 | W +11.5 | 161.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 83-69 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 79-70 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 163.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 62-102 | +20.5 | L −19.5 | 139.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 92-78 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 79-89 | +13.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 83-92 | -1.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | O 175 |
| Apr 1 | vs | L 86-90 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | O 176 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MTST
W 84-78
−5.5
8
vs
EWU
W 102-97
−11.5
14
vs
PROV
W 97-88
+7.5
17
vs
ALST
W 94-66
+5.5
21
vs
UCD
W 95-79
+1.5
27
vs
SF
W 79-69
+11.5
28
vs
WASH
W 81-68
+15.5
1
vs
CBU
W 78-70
−5.5
6
@
CSU
L 86-91
−3.5
13
vs
UTSA
W 88-64
+1.5
17
vs
PRST
W 84-73
−5.5
20
vs
STAN
L 68-77
−11.5
28
vs
UNCO
L 81-86
−20.5
3
@
ASU
W 95-89
+7.5
7
vs
UTAH
W 85-73
+2.5
10
vs
TTU
L 71-73
+3.5
14
@
CIN
L 68-77
−0.5
17
@
WVU
L 61-72
−4.5
20
vs
KU
L 69-75
−1.5
24
vs
UCF
L 86-95
−12.5
29
@
ISU
L 67-97
−12.5
1
vs
TCU
W 87-61
+27.5
4
@
BAY
L 67-86
−11.5
7
vs
ASU
W 78-70
+4.5
11
@
TTU
L 44-78
−20.5
14
@
BYU
L 86-90
+11.5
21
vs
OKST
W 83-69
+10.5
25
vs
KSU
W 79-70
+3.5
28
@
HOU
L 62-102
−19.5
3
@
UTAH
W 92-78
+12.5
7
vs
ARIZ
L 79-89
+3.5
10
vs
OKST
L 83-92
−10.5
1
vs
OU
L 86-90
+5.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MTST
W 84-78
+13.5
8
vs
EWU
W 102-97
+46.5
14
vs
PROV
W 97-88
+21.5
17
vs
ALST
W 94-66
+3.5
21
vs
UCD
W 95-79
+21.5
27
vs
SF
W 79-69
−2.5
28
vs
WASH
W 81-68
−2.5
1
vs
CBU
W 78-70
−2.5
6
@
CSU
L 86-91
+27.5
13
vs
UTSA
W 88-64
−2.5
17
vs
PRST
W 84-73
+6.5
20
vs
STAN
L 68-77
−9.5
28
vs
UNCO
L 81-86
+8.5
3
@
ASU
W 95-89
+27.5
7
vs
UTAH
W 85-73
−4.5
10
vs
TTU
L 71-73
−17.5
14
@
CIN
L 68-77
−0.5
17
@
WVU
L 61-72
−8.5
20
vs
KU
L 69-75
−11.5
24
vs
UCF
L 86-95
+21.5
29
@
ISU
L 67-97
+11.5
1
vs
TCU
W 87-61
−5.5
4
@
BAY
L 67-86
−2.5
7
vs
ASU
W 78-70
−10.5
11
@
TTU
L 44-78
−33.5
14
@
BYU
L 86-90
+14.5
21
vs
OKST
W 83-69
−10.5
25
vs
KSU
W 79-70
−14.5
28
@
HOU
L 62-102
+24.5
3
@
UTAH
W 92-78
+21.5
7
vs
ARIZ
L 79-89
+11.5
10
vs
OKST
L 83-92
+10.5
1
vs
OU
L 86-90
+13.5
over 17under 16avg +5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Colorado has the better starters
Position by position: Cal Poly 0, Colorado 3, even 2
Cal PolyBetterColorado
G H. Mousa20.3 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 96
=Even
G B. Hargress14.7 pts · 2.2 reb · 4.5 ast
Score 93
G C. Ward14.3 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 58
→COLOBig
F J. Neely TR17.7 pts · 11.4 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 96
G G. Vasilic7.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 21
→COLOSmall
F I. Niagu TR4.2 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 42
G J. Davis5.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 15
=No call
F D. Gomez TR5 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
G K. Elliott5.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 33
→COLOSmall
C N. Feddersen TR9 pts · 5 reb · 1 ast
Score 59
Cal PolyBetterColorado
CP offense91st of 366 · -0.2
=Even
COLO defense80th of 366 · +0.3
CP defense343rd of 366 · -9.2
→COLOBig
COLO offense54th of 366 · +3.2
Backcourt-1.4 · 5 players
→COLOBig
Backcourt+3.6 · 1 player
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+5.3 · 4 players
Bench-4.1 · 5 players
→COLOSmall
Bench-2.7 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestCP betterCOLO betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
H. Mousa32 minC. Ward30 minG. Vasilic23 minJ. Davis21 minK. Elliott18 minJ. Esso Essis17 min
Forwards
A. Goode16 minT. Plumtree13 minA. Assran13 minA. Price6 minB. FreemanNew
Guards
B. Hargress33 minJ. Sanders18 minJ. Holland18 minI. Inman10 minA. JonesNewR. PortelaNew
Forwards
J. Neely33 min · TRI. Niagu21 min · TRD. Gomez20 min · TRN. Randall1 minG. MalualNewC. HillNew
Centers
N. Feddersen21 min · TRE. JacobsenNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.3 #42 | Points per game | 80.2 #63 |
| 1.06 #222 | Points per possession | 1.13 #80 |
| 76.4 #1 | Pace (possessions) | 71.0 #76 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.5 #170 | Effective FG% | 52.9 #108 |
| 33.0 #228 | 3-point % | 35.1 #104 |
| 52.6 #5 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.2 #267 |
| 34.9 #182 | Free throw rate | 36.6 #139 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.8 #345 | Turnover rate | 14.7 #46 |
| 30.0 #202 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.0 #235 |
| 13.3 #194 | Assists per game | 15.4 #67 |
| Defense | ||
| 85.3 #360 | Points allowed | 79.8 #313 |
| 1.12 #274 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #272 |
| 53.8 #292 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.6 #243 |
| 34.7 #231 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.3 #319 |
| 16.3 #203 | Turnovers forced | 15.2 #267 |
| 70.4 #141 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.4 #144 |
| 6.4 #188 | Steals per game | 6.3 #196 |
| 2.2 #337 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #170 |
Cal Poly
12-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-11 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UC San Diego69–72
- Wvs Bakersfield108–76
- L@ UC Irvine85–107
- L@ UC San Diego64–80
- Wvs Long Beach St102–92
A week or more of rest.
Colorado
17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Oklahoma86–90
- Lvs Oklahoma St83–92
- Lvs Arizona79–89
- W@ Utah92–78
- L@ Houston62–102
A week or more of rest.