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 82–61 · win probability GCU 97%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.0
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: GCU has more of the edges
NWST 0, GCU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
NWST offense vs GCU defense
Offense 340th of 366 against a defense 78th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: NWST 26.1%, GCU 31.3%. Defensive: NWST 67.4%, GCU 74.7%
Shooting
Effective FG%: NWST 48.6 and allows 53.0; GCU 51.7 and allows 47.4
Context
Schedule so far
NWST has played the 292nd-hardest schedule, GCU the 107th. A record against a soft schedule means less
GCU offense vs NWST defense
Offense 83rd of 366 against a defense 236th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: NWST plays 65.4 a game (334th fastest), GCU 69.3 (166th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
NWST hits 33.2% and allows 35.5%; GCU hits 31.8% and allows 31.9%. Threes are 33.9% and 38.9% of their shots
Home court
GCU at home. This season: GCU 0-0 at home, NWST 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: NWST 28%, GCU 51%. Transfers in: NWST 2, GCU 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: NWST 40.1, GCU 39.5. Allowed: NWST 36.3, GCU 39.0
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: NWST 18.3%, GCU 17.6%. Forced: NWST 16.9%, GCU 17.4%
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 -21.9 | — |
| Total | — | 143.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | NWST 60.5 · GCU 82.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | GCU -12.9 | — |
| 1H total | 66.9 | — |
| 1H projected score | NWST 27 · GCU 39.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
NWST 0–1 GCUGCU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · NWST 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2025-26 | NWST 72 @ GCU 85 | GCU -18.5 | NWST W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
N'Western St
30 games played
Straight up
8-22
27% wins
Against the spread
17-13
57% covers · avg +0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg −2.3 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 3 | @ | L 68-98 | +21.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 53-80 | +11.5 | L −15.5 | 137.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 83-87 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 64-84 | +16.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 72-85 | +18.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 73-75 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 54-92 | +19.5 | L −18.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 76-68 | +7.5 | W +15.5 | 133.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 70-79 | +19.5 | W +10.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 61-76 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 64-74 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 74-68 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 72-74 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 79-78 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 64-63 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 74-76 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 80-82 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 139.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 67-69 | +14.5 | W +12.5 | 141.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 64-75 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 58-61 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 68-74 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 48-52 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | U 100 |
| Feb 9 | @ | W 70-68 | +6.5 | W +8.5 | 135.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 69-66 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 131.5 | O 135 |
| Feb 16 | vs | L 64-75 | +14.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 71-53 | -2.5 | W +15.5 | 134.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 23 | vs | W 54-49 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 103 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 59-71 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 134.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 62-74 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | U 136 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 47-61 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | U 108 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
TA&M
L 68-98
−8.5
6
@
UNT
L 53-80
−15.5
11
@
UNA
L 83-87
+2.5
18
@
SF
L 64-84
−3.5
21
@
GCU
L 72-85
+5.5
29
vs
SOU
L 73-75
+1.5
5
@
MCN
L 54-92
−18.5
7
@
SELA
W 76-68
+15.5
13
@
CAL
L 70-79
+10.5
29
vs
LAM
L 61-76
−11.5
31
vs
SFA
L 64-74
−1.5
3
vs
NOLA
W 74-68
+7.5
5
@
NICH
L 72-74
+6.5
10
vs
AMCC
W 79-78
+6.5
12
vs
RGV
W 64-63
+3.5
17
@
UIW
L 74-76
+6.5
19
@
HCU
L 80-82
+0.5
27
@
SFA
L 67-69
+12.5
31
@
NOLA
L 64-75
−6.5
2
vs
NICH
L 58-61
−1.5
4
vs
ETAM
L 68-74
−9.5
7
@
ETAM
L 48-52
−2.5
9
@
LAM
W 70-68
+8.5
14
vs
SELA
W 69-66
+1.5
16
vs
MCN
L 64-75
+3.5
21
vs
HCU
W 71-53
+15.5
23
vs
UIW
W 54-49
+3.5
28
@
AMCC
L 59-71
−6.5
2
@
RGV
L 62-74
−2.5
8
vs
NICH
L 47-61
−12.5
covered 17didn’t cover 13avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
TA&M
L 68-98
+12.5
6
@
UNT
L 53-80
−4.5
11
@
UNA
L 83-87
+27.5
18
@
SF
L 64-84
+4.5
21
@
GCU
L 72-85
+9.5
29
vs
SOU
L 73-75
+3.5
5
@
MCN
L 54-92
+6.5
7
@
SELA
W 76-68
+10.5
13
@
CAL
L 70-79
+3.5
29
vs
LAM
L 61-76
−1.5
31
vs
SFA
L 64-74
−0.5
3
vs
NOLA
W 74-68
−7.5
5
@
NICH
L 72-74
+1.5
10
vs
AMCC
W 79-78
+18.5
12
vs
RGV
W 64-63
−16.5
17
@
UIW
L 74-76
+8.5
19
@
HCU
L 80-82
+22.5
27
@
SFA
L 67-69
−5.5
31
@
NOLA
L 64-75
−14.5
2
vs
NICH
L 58-61
−28.5
4
vs
ETAM
L 68-74
−1.5
7
@
ETAM
L 48-52
−40.5
9
@
LAM
W 70-68
+2.5
14
vs
SELA
W 69-66
+3.5
16
vs
MCN
L 64-75
+0.5
21
vs
HCU
W 71-53
−10.5
23
vs
UIW
W 54-49
−35.5
28
@
AMCC
L 59-71
−4.5
2
@
RGV
L 62-74
−3.5
8
vs
NICH
L 47-61
−30.5
over 15under 15avg −2.3 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: N'Western St 1, Grand Canyon 4, even 0
N'Western StBetterGrand Canyon
G I. Miles10.7 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 57
←NWSTSmall
G J. Zimmerman TR15.2 pts · 2.3 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 32
G C. Larry2.6 pts · 1.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 1
→GCUBig
G M. Tucker TR13 pts · 2.1 reb · 3 ast
Score 56
F D. Thomas TR5.1 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 20
→GCUBig
G J. Henley17.7 pts · 5.7 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 97
F A. Osojnik TR5.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 22
→GCUBig
G M. Williams14 pts · 2.7 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 89
F K. Turner3.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 34
→GCUBig
F B. Barkley TR14.7 pts · 5.9 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 89
N'Western StBetterGrand Canyon
NWST offense340th of 366 · -11.5
→GCUBig
GCU defense78th of 366 · +0.5
NWST defense236th of 366 · -6.2
→GCUBig
GCU offense83rd of 366 · +0.4
Backcourt-3.7 · 2 players
→GCUBig
Backcourt+4.6 · 4 players
Frontcourt-3.2 · 3 players
→GCUBig
Frontcourt+3.0 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+2.6 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestNWST betterGCU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
I. Miles25 minC. Larry18 minK. SimpsonNewD. BrownNewA. AlmuttarNewB. RemoNew
Forwards
D. Thomas18 min · TRA. Osojnik16 min · TRK. Turner13 minN. OjukwuNewC. KellyNewJ. NesbittNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.1 #346 | Points per game | 75.6 #153 |
| 1.01 #315 | Points per possession | 1.09 #158 |
| 65.4 #334 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #166 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.6 #301 | Effective FG% | 51.7 #162 |
| 33.2 #218 | 3-point % | 31.8 #286 |
| 33.9 #298 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.9 #192 |
| 40.1 #58 | Free throw rate | 39.5 #67 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.3 #286 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #245 |
| 26.1 #321 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.3 #150 |
| 11.3 #322 | Assists per game | 12.8 #230 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.9 #129 | Points allowed | 68.7 #42 |
| 1.12 #262 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #22 |
| 53.0 #270 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.4 #28 |
| 35.5 #278 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.9 #60 |
| 16.9 #160 | Turnovers forced | 17.4 #129 |
| 67.4 #286 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.7 #12 |
| 6.2 #215 | Steals per game | 6.6 #165 |
| 2.3 #321 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #123 |
N'Western St
8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 8-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Nicholls47–61
- L@ UT Rio Grande62–74
- L@ Texas A&M-CC59–71
- Wvs Incarnate Word54–49
- Wvs Hou Christian71–53
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.