Acrisure Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | FOR | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FOR 76–70 · win probability FOR 70%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.3
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: FOR has more of the edges
USD 1, FOR 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USD 28.1%, FOR 34.1%. Defensive: USD 65.5%, FOR 73.2%
Three-pointers
USD hits 34.6% and allows 32.7%; FOR hits 28.9% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 43.7% and 38.3% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: USD 25.8, FOR 26.4. Allowed: USD 38.8, FOR 30.3
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: USD plays 69.6 a game (139th fastest), FOR 64.8 (349th). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USD 7%, FOR 63%. Transfers in: USD 7, FOR 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
FOR offense vs USD defense
Offense 119th of 366 against a defense 189th, on the model’s ratings
USD offense vs FOR defense
Offense 127th of 366 against a defense 71st, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: USD 51.2 and allows 54.7; FOR 48.6 and allows 49.9
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USD 17.6%, FOR 17.2%. Forced: USD 18.8%, FOR 17.2%
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Context
Schedule so far
USD has played the 130th-hardest schedule, FOR the 136th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | FOR -6.0 | — |
| Total | — | 145.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | USD 69.7 · FOR 75.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | FOR -3.4 | — |
| 1H total | 68.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | USD 32.3 · FOR 35.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
San Diego
31 games played
Straight up
10-21
32% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-18
42% overs · avg +0.5 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 7 | vs | L 68-71 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 78-74 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 78-68 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 71-85 | -7.5 | L −21.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 61-76 | +7.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 72-76 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 69-86 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 81-94 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 78-69 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 19 | @ | W 82-80 | +12.5 | W +14.5 | 156.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 56-86 | +18.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 66-54 | +2.5 | W +14.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 93-99 | +29.5 | W +23.5 | 160.5 | O 192 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 64-74 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 70-98 | +17.5 | L −10.5 | 161.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 83-63 | -4.5 | W +15.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 70-77 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 64-75 | +9.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 96-92 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 73-85 | +13.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 92-88 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 76-78 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 60-87 | +20.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 63-83 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 71-58 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 79-92 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 65-77 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 82-92 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 74-87 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 66-62 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 56-58 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | U 114 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
IDST
L 68-71
−7.5
12
vs
IDHO
W 78-74
+5.5
18
vs
GRAM
W 78-68
+3.5
21
vs
UCR
L 71-85
−21.5
25
vs
CBU
L 61-76
−7.5
30
@
LBSU
L 72-76
−6.5
5
@
SJSU
L 69-86
−10.5
9
vs
USC
L 81-94
+1.5
13
vs
NAU
W 78-69
+4.5
19
@
UCSD
W 82-80
+14.5
22
@
WASH
L 56-86
−11.5
28
vs
PAC
W 66-54
+14.5
30
vs
GONZ
L 93-99
+23.5
2
@
SF
L 64-74
+2.5
4
@
SCU
L 70-98
−10.5
8
vs
PEPP
W 83-63
+15.5
10
@
PAC
L 70-77
+1.5
15
@
SEA
L 64-75
−1.5
21
vs
WSU
W 96-92
+5.5
24
vs
SCU
L 73-85
+1.5
28
@
PEPP
W 92-88
+1.5
31
vs
ORST
L 76-78
−5.5
4
@
SMC
L 60-87
−6.5
7
@
LMU
L 63-83
−13.5
11
vs
PORT
W 71-58
+11.5
15
vs
SF
L 79-92
−7.5
21
vs
LMU
L 65-77
−9.5
25
@
ORST
L 82-92
−3.5
28
@
PORT
L 74-87
−10.5
5
vs
LMU
W 66-62
+9.5
6
vs
SEA
L 56-58
+6.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
IDST
L 68-71
−13.5
12
vs
IDHO
W 78-74
−3.5
18
vs
GRAM
W 78-68
−3.5
21
vs
UCR
L 71-85
+3.5
25
vs
CBU
L 61-76
−9.5
30
@
LBSU
L 72-76
+0.5
5
@
SJSU
L 69-86
+10.5
9
vs
USC
L 81-94
+16.5
13
vs
NAU
W 78-69
−2.5
19
@
UCSD
W 82-80
+5.5
22
@
WASH
L 56-86
−17.5
28
vs
PAC
W 66-54
−30.5
30
vs
GONZ
L 93-99
+31.5
2
@
SF
L 64-74
−14.5
4
@
SCU
L 70-98
+6.5
8
vs
PEPP
W 83-63
−3.5
10
@
PAC
L 70-77
−0.5
15
@
SEA
L 64-75
−8.5
21
vs
WSU
W 96-92
+35.5
24
vs
SCU
L 73-85
−4.5
28
@
PEPP
W 92-88
+28.5
31
vs
ORST
L 76-78
+3.5
4
@
SMC
L 60-87
−1.5
7
@
LMU
L 63-83
−5.5
11
vs
PORT
W 71-58
−21.5
15
vs
SF
L 79-92
+22.5
21
vs
LMU
L 65-77
−7.5
25
@
ORST
L 82-92
+29.5
28
@
PORT
L 74-87
+12.5
5
vs
LMU
W 66-62
−17.5
6
vs
SEA
L 56-58
−25.5
over 13under 18avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Fordham
29 games played
Straight up
14-15
48% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
7-22
24% overs · avg −7.3 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 | vs | L 61-72 | -14.5 | L −25.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 63-61 | -12.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 71-76 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 69-53 | -4.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 88-68 | -10.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 62-72 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 69-70 | -10.5 | L −11.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 75-54 | -11.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 82-53 | -8.5 | W +20.5 | 147.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 65-47 | -13.5 | W +4.5 | 127.5 | U 112 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 56-63 | +16.5 | W +9.5 | 139.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 4 | vs | L 75-83 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 58-67 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 134.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 81-77 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 142.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 56-78 | +17.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 63-74 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 63-68 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 64-58 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 136.5 | U 122 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-65 | +11.5 | W +25.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 3 | vs | L 59-63 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 67-70 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 68-64 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 135.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 70-66 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 134.5 | O 136 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 62-59 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 135.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 63-59 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 63-82 | +12.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 84-87 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 131.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 61-49 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | U 110 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 62-66 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
NJIT
L 61-72
−25.5
11
vs
WAG
W 63-61
−10.5
14
@
IONA
L 71-76
+0.5
20
vs
LIU
W 69-53
+11.5
29
vs
UALB
W 88-68
+9.5
30
vs
COLG
L 62-72
−8.5
6
vs
HC
L 69-70
−11.5
10
vs
FDU
W 75-54
+9.5
13
vs
MAN
W 82-53
+20.5
22
vs
NHVN
W 65-47
+4.5
31
@
DAY
L 56-63
+9.5
4
vs
RICH
L 75-83
−5.5
7
vs
GMU
L 58-67
−3.5
10
@
SBU
W 81-77
+12.5
14
@
SLU
L 56-78
−4.5
17
vs
DUQ
L 63-74
−9.5
21
@
DAV
L 63-68
−0.5
28
vs
LAS
W 64-58
+0.5
31
@
GW
W 79-65
+25.5
3
vs
VCU
L 59-63
+3.5
7
vs
SBU
L 67-70
−1.5
10
@
JOES
W 68-64
+7.5
14
@
URI
W 70-66
+8.5
18
vs
LUC
W 62-59
−5.5
21
vs
DAV
W 63-59
+5.5
28
@
VCU
L 63-82
−6.5
4
@
LAS
L 84-87
−6.5
7
vs
URI
W 61-49
+10.5
12
vs
GW
L 62-66
+3.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
NJIT
L 61-72
−14.5
11
vs
WAG
W 63-61
−15.5
14
@
IONA
L 71-76
−10.5
20
vs
LIU
W 69-53
−23.5
29
vs
UALB
W 88-68
+12.5
30
vs
COLG
L 62-72
−8.5
6
vs
HC
L 69-70
+0.5
10
vs
FDU
W 75-54
−12.5
13
vs
MAN
W 82-53
−12.5
22
vs
NHVN
W 65-47
−15.5
31
@
DAY
L 56-63
−20.5
4
vs
RICH
L 75-83
+15.5
7
vs
GMU
L 58-67
−9.5
10
@
SBU
W 81-77
+15.5
14
@
SLU
L 56-78
−20.5
17
vs
DUQ
L 63-74
−8.5
21
@
DAV
L 63-68
−4.5
28
vs
LAS
W 64-58
−14.5
31
@
GW
W 79-65
−6.5
3
vs
VCU
L 59-63
−24.5
7
vs
SBU
L 67-70
−4.5
10
@
JOES
W 68-64
−3.5
14
@
URI
W 70-66
+1.5
18
vs
LUC
W 62-59
−14.5
21
vs
DAV
W 63-59
−9.5
28
@
VCU
L 63-82
+0.5
4
@
LAS
L 84-87
+39.5
7
vs
URI
W 61-49
−26.5
12
vs
GW
L 62-66
−16.5
over 7under 22avg −7.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
San Diego has the better starters
Position by position: San Diego 2, Fordham 1, even 2
San DiegoBetterFordham
G M. Worthy TR16.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 3 ast
Score 72
=Even
G A. Lindsey TR17.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.9 ast
Score 79
G D. Hill TR14.2 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 92
←USDSmall
G L. Patrick TR15 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 68
G D. Stromer TR6.4 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 29
→FORBig
F R. Schulte10.4 pts · 9.2 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 82
F T. McMorris TR7.5 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 47
←USDSmall
F A. Jacobs7.2 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 27
F A. Munoz TR12.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 56
=Even
C J. Whitbourn8.4 pts · 8.4 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 63
San DiegoBetterFordham
USD offense127th of 366 · -3.5
→FORSmall
FOR defense71st of 366 · +0.8
USD defense189th of 366 · -4.4
→FORSmall
FOR offense119th of 366 · -2.7
Backcourt+2.0 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt+2.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.4 · 2 players
→FORSmall
Frontcourt+1.3 · 3 players
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
=Even
Bench+0.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUSD betterFOR betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Worthy35 min · TRD. Hill27 min · TRD. Stromer23 min · TRC. Versher2 minN. Del Bosque1 minB. RomanNew
Forwards
T. McMorris26 min · TRA. Munoz25 min · TRJ. Roberto Tanchyn19 min · TRS. Konneh13 min · TRA. Aviles11 minJ. HillNew
Guards
A. Lindsey38 min · TRL. Patrick29 min · TRK. Odih5 min · TRJ. Laboy4 min · TRA. Crotty1 minM. Miller1 min
Forwards
R. Schulte31 minA. Jacobs29 minA. Bodija19 minR. Akhuar19 minF. Siaca BeyNew
Centers
J. Whitbourn24 minO. EssamNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.8 #228 | Points per game | 67.5 #323 |
| 1.05 #251 | Points per possession | 1.04 #262 |
| 69.6 #139 | Pace (possessions) | 64.8 #349 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.2 #185 | Effective FG% | 48.6 #300 |
| 34.6 #141 | 3-point % | 28.9 #356 |
| 43.7 #96 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.3 #205 |
| 25.8 #358 | Free throw rate | 26.4 #354 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.6 #242 | Turnover rate | 17.2 #219 |
| 28.1 #262 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.1 #64 |
| 15.4 #68 | Assists per game | 13.2 #200 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.8 #290 | Points allowed | 66.3 #17 |
| 1.13 #286 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #47 |
| 54.7 #320 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.9 #95 |
| 32.7 #100 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #149 |
| 18.8 #55 | Turnovers forced | 17.2 #138 |
| 65.5 #328 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.2 #29 |
| 7.7 #65 | Steals per game | 7.0 #126 |
| 2.6 #294 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #335 |
San Diego
10-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Seattle U56–58
- Wvs LMU66–62
- L@ Portland74–87
- L@ Oregon St82–92
- Lvs LMU65–77
A week or more of rest.
Fordham
14-15 in 2025-26 overall · 8-11 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs G Washington62–66
- Wvs Rhode Island61–49
- L@ La Salle84–87
- L@ VCU63–82
- Wvs Davidson63–59
A week or more of rest.