University Credit Union Center · at UC Davis
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UCD | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UCD 78–68 · win probability UCD 79%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.1
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: UCD has more of the edges
UIW 1, UCD 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UIW plays 65.4 a game (335th fastest), UCD 71.8 (39th). Faster games mean more points
UIW offense vs UCD defense
Offense 291st of 366 against a defense 171st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UIW has played the 285th-hardest schedule, UCD the 189th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: UIW 50.2 and allows 54.5; UCD 51.8 and allows 51.7
Free throws
Free throw rate: UIW 34.0, UCD 40.5. Allowed: UIW 41.6, UCD 39.1
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UIW 17%, UCD 57%. Transfers in: UIW 5, UCD 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
UCD offense vs UIW defense
Offense 208th of 366 against a defense 280th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UIW 17.1%, UCD 17.9%. Forced: UIW 15.8%, UCD 19.8%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UIW 32.1%, UCD 25.2%. Defensive: UIW 68.0%, UCD 69.5%
Home court
UCD at home. This season: UCD 0-0 at home, UIW 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
UIW hits 36.1% and allows 34.4%; UCD hits 34.4% and allows 33.8%. Threes are 39.1% and 43.5% of their shots
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 | — | UCD -9.4 | — |
| Total | — | 146.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | UIW 68.3 · UCD 77.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCD -5.5 | — |
| 1H total | 68.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | UIW 31.4 · UCD 36.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Incarnate Word
28 games played
Straight up
9-19
32% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-14
50% overs · avg +1.4 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 | @ | L 64-98 | +10.5 | L −23.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 61-69 | +28.5 | W +20.5 | 157.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 87-81 | -9.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-91 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 71-67 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 67-74 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 8 | @ | L 83-84 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 65-69 | +19.5 | W +15.5 | 143.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 90-66 | -6.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 79-70 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 73-56 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 67-80 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 51-63 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 46-56 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 76-74 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 58-80 | -6.5 | L −28.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 71-79 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 75-81 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 93-106 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 71-69 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 64-81 | +16.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 62-74 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 83-91 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 16 | vs | L 64-78 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 154.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 82-73 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 49-54 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 103 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 72-60 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 68-76 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
−23.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
+20.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
−3.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+1.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
+14.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−8.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
−2.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
+15.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+17.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+2.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
+10.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
−11.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−10.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−2.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
−6.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−28.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
−9.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
−7.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
−11.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
+6.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−10.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
−10.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−16.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+12.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−3.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
+10.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
−0.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
+14.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
−27.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
+22.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+10.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
−7.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−4.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
+18.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
−9.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+15.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+13.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
−12.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
+0.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−26.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−38.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
+8.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−4.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
+13.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
+15.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
+58.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
−0.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−1.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
+25.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−12.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+9.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−35.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
−6.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
+1.5
over 14under 14avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
UC Davis
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
17-13
57% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-13
57% overs · avg +1.3 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 5 | vs | W 80-68 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 63-67 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 77-73 | -4.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 75-71 | +12.5 | W +16.5 | 143.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 79-95 | +14.5 | L −1.5 | 152.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 77-56 | -9.5 | W +11.5 | 136.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 4 | @ | L 69-75 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 62-104 | +13.5 | L −28.5 | 146.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 78-79 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 93-83 | +5.5 | W +15.5 | 143.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 89-80 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 79-81 | -9.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 93-86 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 78-84 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 168.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 74-69 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 166.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 75-72 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 74-80 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 74-66 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 78-94 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 80-72 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 85-75 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 67-58 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 169.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 51-68 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 71-54 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 92-93 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 78-73 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 73-77 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 76-70 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 69-79 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 79-73 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 70-82 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
vs
NDSU
W 80-68
+10.5
9
@
PORT
L 63-67
−2.5
14
vs
SAC
W 77-73
−0.5
18
@
NEV
W 75-71
+16.5
21
@
COLO
L 79-95
−1.5
24
vs
UL
W 77-56
+11.5
13
@
ORE
L 62-104
−28.5
17
vs
SEA
L 78-79
+1.5
21
@
IDST
W 93-83
+15.5
1
vs
CSUN
W 89-80
+5.5
3
vs
CSUB
L 79-81
−11.5
8
@
UCSB
W 93-86
+11.5
10
@
CP
L 78-84
−7.5
15
vs
CSUF
W 74-69
+1.5
17
vs
UCI
W 75-72
+6.5
22
vs
UCSD
L 74-80
−4.5
24
vs
UCR
W 74-66
−1.5
29
@
CSUN
L 78-94
−12.5
31
@
CSUB
W 80-72
+2.5
5
vs
UCSB
W 85-75
+13.5
7
vs
CP
W 67-58
+3.5
12
@
UCSD
L 51-68
−11.5
14
vs
LBSU
W 71-54
+12.5
19
@
CSUF
L 92-93
+0.5
21
@
UCR
W 78-73
+2.5
26
vs
HAW
L 73-77
−2.5
5
@
LBSU
W 76-70
+4.5
7
@
UCI
L 69-79
−2.5
11
vs
UCSB
W 79-73
+10.5
12
vs
CSUF
L 70-82
−10.5
covered 17didn’t cover 13avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
vs
NDSU
W 80-68
+5.5
9
@
PORT
L 63-67
−21.5
14
vs
SAC
W 77-73
−1.5
18
@
NEV
W 75-71
+2.5
21
@
COLO
L 79-95
+21.5
24
vs
UL
W 77-56
−3.5
13
@
ORE
L 62-104
+19.5
17
vs
SEA
L 78-79
+13.5
21
@
IDST
W 93-83
+32.5
1
vs
CSUN
W 89-80
+6.5
3
vs
CSUB
L 79-81
+8.5
8
@
UCSB
W 93-86
+31.5
10
@
CP
L 78-84
−6.5
15
vs
CSUF
W 74-69
−23.5
17
vs
UCI
W 75-72
−1.5
22
vs
UCSD
L 74-80
+1.5
24
vs
UCR
W 74-66
−9.5
29
@
CSUN
L 78-94
+8.5
31
@
CSUB
W 80-72
−0.5
5
vs
UCSB
W 85-75
+12.5
7
vs
CP
W 67-58
−44.5
12
@
UCSD
L 51-68
−31.5
14
vs
LBSU
W 71-54
−24.5
19
@
CSUF
L 92-93
+28.5
21
@
UCR
W 78-73
+1.5
26
vs
HAW
L 73-77
+3.5
5
@
LBSU
W 76-70
−3.5
7
@
UCI
L 69-79
+3.5
11
vs
UCSB
W 79-73
+12.5
12
vs
CSUF
L 70-82
−3.5
over 17under 13avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UC Davis has the better starters
Position by position: Incarnate Word 0, UC Davis 1, even 4
Incarnate WordBetterUC Davis
G I. Habib14.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 36
=Even
G C. Sevilla13.2 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 45
G M. Conner TR7.8 pts · 3.4 reb · 6.2 ast
Score 19
→UCDSmall
G B. Fagbemi6.8 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.3 ast
Score 53
G B. McCreesh TR7.4 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 40
=Even
F I. Chappell8.4 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 26
F D. Goodwin TR4.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F V. Abosi TR4.8 pts · 4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 43
F G. Erheriene TR0.8 pts · 0.7 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F O. Suljanovic5.3 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 12
Incarnate WordBetterUC Davis
UIW offense291st of 366 · -9.0
→UCDSmall
UCD defense171st of 366 · -3.9
UIW defense280th of 366 · -7.0
→UCDSmall
UCD offense208th of 366 · -6.3
Backcourt-5.7 · 3 players
→UCDBig
Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 2 players
←UIWSmall
Frontcourt-3.5 · 3 players
Bench-0.1 · 2 players
←UIWSmall
Bench-2.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUIW betterUCD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
I. Habib33 minM. Conner30 min · TRB. McCreesh28 min · TRD. Barbee2 minJ. ThomasNewD. CasonNew
Forwards
D. Goodwin14 min · TRG. Erheriene5 min · TRK. Spencer2 min · TRD. EmetuNewK. IoaneNewT. CollinsNew
Centers
C. PareNew
Guards
C. Sevilla32 minB. Fagbemi26 minJ. Stokes14 minC. Rawlins4 minC. Massamba4 min · TRY. Esso-EssisNew
Forwards
I. Chappell24 minV. Abosi17 min · TRO. Suljanovic14 minJ. Margrave10 min · TRN. NobleNewJ. DabrowskiNew
Centers
A. Szymczyk7 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.4 #275 | Points per game | 76.1 #139 |
| 1.07 #206 | Points per possession | 1.06 #234 |
| 65.4 #335 | Pace (possessions) | 71.8 #39 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.2 #228 | Effective FG% | 51.8 #157 |
| 36.1 #54 | 3-point % | 34.4 #149 |
| 39.1 #190 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.5 #102 |
| 34.0 #210 | Free throw rate | 40.5 #53 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #206 | Turnover rate | 17.9 #267 |
| 32.1 #120 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.2 #334 |
| 10.8 #342 | Assists per game | 15.1 #83 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.0 #189 | Points allowed | 76.0 #217 |
| 1.15 #331 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #104 |
| 54.5 #314 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.7 #197 |
| 34.4 #214 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.8 #172 |
| 15.8 #233 | Turnovers forced | 19.8 #29 |
| 68.0 #260 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.5 #182 |
| 5.1 #329 | Steals per game | 7.5 #81 |
| 2.4 #310 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #276 |
Incarnate Word
9-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SF Austin68–76
- Wvs Lamar72–60
- L@ N'Western St49–54
- W@ East Texas A&M82–73
- Lvs LSU N Orleans64–78
A week or more of rest.
UC Davis
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-10 in conference · Mountain West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Fullerton70–82
- Wvs Santa Barbara79–73
- L@ UC Irvine69–79
- W@ Long Beach St76–70
- Lvs Hawai'i73–77
A week or more of rest.