Resorts World Event Center · Neutral site
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 77–71 · win probability UCD 70%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.1
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
OMA 1, UCD 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
OMA has played the 287th-hardest schedule, UCD the 189th. A record against a soft schedule means less
UCD offense vs OMA defense
Offense 208th of 366 against a defense 306th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: OMA 16.1%, UCD 17.9%. Forced: OMA 14.1%, UCD 19.8%
OMA offense vs UCD defense
Offense 247th of 366 against a defense 171st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: OMA plays 68.9 a game (184th fastest), UCD 71.8 (39th). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: OMA 23%, UCD 57%. Transfers in: OMA 4, UCD 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: OMA 25.5%, UCD 25.2%. Defensive: OMA 71.3%, UCD 69.5%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: OMA 52.2 and allows 52.7; UCD 51.8 and allows 51.7
Even
Three-pointers
OMA hits 34.0% and allows 32.9%; UCD hits 34.4% and allows 33.8%. Threes are 40.9% and 43.5% of their shots
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: OMA 34.5, UCD 40.5. Allowed: OMA 33.6, UCD 39.1
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 -6.0 | — |
| Total | — | 148.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | OMA 71 · UCD 77 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCD -3.4 | — |
| 1H total | 69.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | OMA 32.9 · UCD 36.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 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
Omaha
29 games played
Straight up
12-17
41% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% 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 | vs | L 77-85 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 71-73 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 74-97 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 90-85 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 73-99 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 77-88 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 61-74 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 70-75 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 60-55 | +12.5 | W +17.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 85-82 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 57-80 | +21.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 69-84 | +9.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 66-73 | -8.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 90-79 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 76-78 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 73-62 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 64-68 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 77-60 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 80-71 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 84-82 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 73-76 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 84-92 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 98-94 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | O 192 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-76 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 80-71 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 72-89 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 53-68 | +11.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 76-62 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 50-74 | +8.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | U 124 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MUR
L 77-85
−2.5
6
@
ACU
L 71-73
+2.5
9
@
CSU
L 74-97
−8.5
15
vs
SUU
W 90-85
−3.5
21
@
LSU
L 73-99
−5.5
25
vs
JMU
L 77-88
−9.5
26
@
FIU
L 61-74
−8.5
3
vs
UNCO
L 70-75
−1.5
6
@
PRST
W 60-55
+17.5
20
@
LAM
W 85-82
+8.5
28
@
ORE
L 57-80
−1.5
1
@
SDST
L 69-84
−5.5
3
vs
KC
L 66-73
−15.5
8
vs
UND
W 90-79
+5.5
10
vs
NDSU
L 76-78
+3.5
17
@
ORU
W 73-62
+12.5
21
vs
SDAK
L 64-68
−10.5
24
@
KC
W 77-60
+12.5
28
vs
SDST
W 80-71
+10.5
31
@
DEN
W 84-82
+3.5
5
@
UND
L 73-76
−1.5
7
@
NDSU
L 84-92
+1.5
12
vs
STMN
W 98-94
+8.5
15
vs
DEN
W 83-76
+4.5
18
vs
ORU
W 80-71
+2.5
25
@
SDAK
L 72-89
−15.5
28
@
STMN
L 53-68
−3.5
6
vs
SDAK
W 76-62
+12.5
7
vs
NDSU
L 50-74
−15.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MUR
L 77-85
+8.5
6
@
ACU
L 71-73
−6.5
9
@
CSU
L 74-97
+17.5
15
vs
SUU
W 90-85
+21.5
21
@
LSU
L 73-99
+8.5
25
vs
JMU
L 77-88
+12.5
26
@
FIU
L 61-74
−22.5
3
vs
UNCO
L 70-75
−12.5
6
@
PRST
W 60-55
−29.5
20
@
LAM
W 85-82
+25.5
28
@
ORE
L 57-80
−14.5
1
@
SDST
L 69-84
+0.5
3
vs
KC
L 66-73
−9.5
8
vs
UND
W 90-79
+22.5
10
vs
NDSU
L 76-78
+6.5
17
@
ORU
W 73-62
−14.5
21
vs
SDAK
L 64-68
−28.5
24
@
KC
W 77-60
−11.5
28
vs
SDST
W 80-71
+0.5
31
@
DEN
W 84-82
+7.5
5
@
UND
L 73-76
−1.5
7
@
NDSU
L 84-92
+29.5
12
vs
STMN
W 98-94
+35.5
15
vs
DEN
W 83-76
−1.5
18
vs
ORU
W 80-71
−0.5
25
@
SDAK
L 72-89
+8.5
28
@
STMN
L 53-68
−37.5
6
vs
SDAK
W 76-62
−12.5
7
vs
NDSU
L 50-74
−22.5
over 14under 15avg −0.7 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.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Omaha 1, UC Davis 1, even 3
OmahaBetterUC Davis
G G. Stubblefield9.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 64
←OMASmall
G C. Sevilla13.2 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 45
G C. Crosby TR2.5 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 24
→UCDSmall
G B. Fagbemi6.8 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.3 ast
Score 53
G A. Skradis0.4 pts · 0.3 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F I. Chappell8.4 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 26
F C. Dockery TR7.3 pts · 5.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 41
=Even
F V. Abosi TR4.8 pts · 4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 43
F B. Scholl3.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 26
=Even
F O. Suljanovic5.3 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 12
OmahaBetterUC Davis
OMA offense247th of 366 · -7.5
→UCDSmall
UCD defense171st of 366 · -3.9
OMA defense306th of 366 · -7.8
→UCDSmall
UCD offense208th of 366 · -6.3
Backcourt-0.7 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
←OMASmall
Frontcourt-3.5 · 3 players
Bench-0.0 · 2 players
←OMASmall
Bench-2.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestOMA betterUCD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
G. Stubblefield29 minC. Crosby9 min · TRA. Skradis2 minD. Thompson1 min · TRB. OrgilboldNewC. CurtisNew
Forwards
C. Dockery22 min · TRB. Scholl14 minJ. Bolis2 min · TRD. PleasantNewE. SheatsNewG. BakerNew
Centers
I. OndekaneNewH. BukingaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #202 | Points per game | 76.1 #139 |
| 1.07 #201 | Points per possession | 1.06 #234 |
| 68.9 #184 | Pace (possessions) | 71.8 #39 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.2 #139 | Effective FG% | 51.8 #157 |
| 34.0 #169 | 3-point % | 34.4 #149 |
| 40.9 #150 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.5 #102 |
| 34.5 #196 | Free throw rate | 40.5 #53 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.1 #146 | Turnover rate | 17.9 #267 |
| 25.5 #331 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.2 #334 |
| 12.1 #276 | Assists per game | 15.1 #83 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.7 #259 | Points allowed | 76.0 #217 |
| 1.13 #278 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #104 |
| 52.7 #258 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.7 #197 |
| 32.9 #114 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.8 #172 |
| 14.1 #333 | Turnovers forced | 19.8 #29 |
| 71.3 #90 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.5 #182 |
| 5.7 #277 | Steals per game | 7.5 #81 |
| 3.0 #234 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #276 |
Omaha
12-17 in 2025-26 overall · 9-9 in conference · Summit League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs N Dakota St50–74
- Wvs South Dakota76–62
- L@ St Thomas53–68
- L@ South Dakota72–89
- Wvs Oral Roberts80–71
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.