Global Credit Union Arena · at Grand Canyon
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | GCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GCU 87–75 · win probability GCU 87%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 162.2
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: GCU has more of the edges
CP 1, GCU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
GCU offense vs CP defense
Offense 83rd of 366 against a defense 343rd, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: CP 51.5 and allows 53.8; GCU 51.7 and allows 47.4
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CP 30.0%, GCU 31.3%. Defensive: CP 70.4%, GCU 74.7%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CP 100%, GCU 51%. Transfers in: CP 0, GCU 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CP 19.8%, GCU 17.6%. Forced: CP 16.3%, GCU 17.4%
Context
Tempo
About 73 possessions: CP plays 76.4 a game (1st fastest), GCU 69.3 (166th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
CP has played the 170th-hardest schedule, GCU the 107th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
CP hits 33.0% and allows 34.7%; GCU hits 31.8% and allows 31.9%. Threes are 52.6% and 38.9% of their shots
Home court
GCU at home. This season: GCU 0-0 at home, CP 0-0 away
Even
CP offense vs GCU defense
Offense 91st of 366 against a defense 78th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CP 34.9, GCU 39.5. Allowed: CP 34.1, GCU 39.0
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 | — | GCU -12.6 | — |
| Total | — | 162.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | CP 74.8 · GCU 87.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | GCU -7.4 | — |
| 1H total | 75.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | CP 34.2 · GCU 41.6 | — |
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% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
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
Grand Canyon
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
17-15
53% covers · avg +0.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-19
41% overs · avg −3.4 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 90-71 | -14.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 7 | vs | L 81-90 | -15.5 | L −24.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 88-59 | -22.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 64-78 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 167.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 85-72 | -18.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 68-58 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 46-59 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | U 105 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 67-45 | -24.5 | L −2.5 | 141.5 | U 112 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 78-84 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 82-61 | -17.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 82-70 | +2.5 | W +14.5 | 147.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 91-78 | -23.5 | L −10.5 | 169.5 | U 169 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 60-70 | -6.5 | L −16.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 75-58 | +8.5 | W +25.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 76-58 | -16.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 64-87 | +6.5 | L −16.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 84-74 | +5.5 | W +15.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 70-69 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 68-57 | -4.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 60-66 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 30 | vs | W 86-69 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 141.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 81-57 | -26.5 | L −2.5 | 137.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 78-80 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 64-70 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 94-79 | -11.5 | W +3.5 | 139.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 17 | @ | W 73-63 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 139.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 65-70 | -7.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 80-67 | -7.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 69-74 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 3 | @ | W 86-60 | -19.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 146 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 85-60 | -12.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 80-84 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | O 164 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
PFW
W 90-71
+4.5
7
vs
YSU
L 81-90
−24.5
10
vs
NIU
W 88-59
+6.5
15
@
SLU
L 64-78
−5.5
21
vs
NWST
W 85-72
−5.5
25
vs
UTAH
W 68-58
+4.5
26
vs
IOWA
L 46-59
−4.5
2
vs
STET
W 67-45
−2.5
6
vs
OKST
L 78-84
−4.5
13
vs
CCU
W 82-61
+3.5
20
@
WYO
W 82-70
+14.5
22
vs
IUIN
W 91-78
−10.5
3
vs
CSU
L 60-70
−16.5
7
@
BOIS
W 75-58
+25.5
10
vs
SJSU
W 76-58
+1.5
13
@
UNM
L 64-87
−16.5
17
vs
USU
W 84-74
+15.5
21
vs
SDSU
W 70-69
+2.5
24
@
FRES
W 68-57
+6.5
27
@
NEV
L 60-66
−2.5
30
vs
BOIS
W 86-69
+15.5
3
vs
AF
W 81-57
−2.5
7
@
UNLV
L 78-80
−4.5
11
vs
UNM
L 64-70
−7.5
14
@
SJSU
W 94-79
+3.5
17
@
SDSU
W 73-63
+17.5
21
vs
WYO
L 65-70
−12.5
25
vs
UNLV
W 80-67
+5.5
28
@
USU
L 69-74
+4.5
3
@
AF
W 86-60
+6.5
7
vs
FRES
W 85-60
+12.5
12
vs
NEV
L 80-84
−7.5
covered 17didn’t cover 15avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
PFW
W 90-71
+5.5
7
vs
YSU
L 81-90
+18.5
10
vs
NIU
W 88-59
−16.5
15
@
SLU
L 64-78
−25.5
21
vs
NWST
W 85-72
+9.5
25
vs
UTAH
W 68-58
−27.5
26
vs
IOWA
L 46-59
−38.5
2
vs
STET
W 67-45
−29.5
6
vs
OKST
L 78-84
+6.5
13
vs
CCU
W 82-61
−0.5
20
@
WYO
W 82-70
+4.5
22
vs
IUIN
W 91-78
−0.5
3
vs
CSU
L 60-70
−13.5
7
@
BOIS
W 75-58
−7.5
10
vs
SJSU
W 76-58
−7.5
13
@
UNM
L 64-87
+4.5
17
vs
USU
W 84-74
+7.5
21
vs
SDSU
W 70-69
−6.5
24
@
FRES
W 68-57
−20.5
27
@
NEV
L 60-66
−17.5
30
vs
BOIS
W 86-69
+13.5
3
vs
AF
W 81-57
+0.5
7
@
UNLV
L 78-80
+9.5
11
vs
UNM
L 64-70
−14.5
14
@
SJSU
W 94-79
+33.5
17
@
SDSU
W 73-63
−3.5
21
vs
WYO
L 65-70
−9.5
25
vs
UNLV
W 80-67
−3.5
28
@
USU
L 69-74
−4.5
3
@
AF
W 86-60
+2.5
7
vs
FRES
W 85-60
−4.5
12
vs
NEV
L 80-84
+26.5
over 13under 19avg −3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Grand Canyon has the better starters
Position by position: Cal Poly 1, Grand Canyon 3, even 1
Cal PolyBetterGrand Canyon
G H. Mousa20.3 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 96
←CPBig
G J. Zimmerman TR15.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 32
G C. Ward14.3 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 58
=Even
G M. Tucker TR13 pts · 2.1 reb · 3 ast
Score 56
G G. Vasilic7.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 21
→GCUBig
G J. Henley17.7 pts · 5.7 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 97
G J. Davis5.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 15
→GCUBig
G M. Williams14 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 89
G K. Elliott5.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 33
→GCUBig
F B. Barkley TR14.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 89
Cal PolyBetterGrand Canyon
CP offense91st of 366 · -0.2
=Even
GCU defense78th of 366 · +0.5
CP defense343rd of 366 · -9.2
→GCUBig
GCU offense83rd of 366 · +0.4
Backcourt-1.4 · 5 players
→GCUBig
Backcourt+4.6 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+3.0 · 1 player
Bench-4.1 · 5 players
→GCUBig
Bench+2.6 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCP betterGCU 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
J. Zimmerman33 min · TRM. Tucker32 min · TRJ. Henley32 minM. Williams27 minT. Holloman26 min · TRD. Skillings25 min · TR
Forwards
B. Barkley29 min · TRT. Behrend22 min · TRA. Dickerson22 min · TRO. Biliew20 min · TRJ. SawyerNewJ. WhortonNew
Centers
E. Demirel23 min
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 | 75.6 #153 |
| 1.06 #222 | Points per possession | 1.09 #158 |
| 76.4 #1 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #166 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.5 #170 | Effective FG% | 51.7 #162 |
| 33.0 #228 | 3-point % | 31.8 #286 |
| 52.6 #5 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.9 #192 |
| 34.9 #182 | Free throw rate | 39.5 #67 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.8 #345 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #245 |
| 30.0 #202 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.3 #150 |
| 13.3 #194 | Assists per game | 12.8 #230 |
| Defense | ||
| 85.3 #360 | Points allowed | 68.7 #42 |
| 1.12 #274 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #22 |
| 53.8 #292 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.4 #28 |
| 34.7 #231 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.9 #60 |
| 16.3 #203 | Turnovers forced | 17.4 #129 |
| 70.4 #141 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.7 #12 |
| 6.4 #188 | Steals per game | 6.6 #165 |
| 2.2 #337 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #123 |
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.
Grand Canyon
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 13-8 in conference · Mountain West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Nevada80–84
- Wvs Fresno St85–60
- W@ Air Force86–60
- L@ Utah State69–74
- Wvs UNLV80–67
A week or more of rest.