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 PAC 73–71 · win probability PAC 55%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.9
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
PAC 3, UCD 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PAC 35.3%, UCD 25.2%. Defensive: PAC 75.0%, UCD 69.5%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PAC 20.1%, UCD 17.9%. Forced: PAC 15.1%, UCD 19.8%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: PAC plays 66.1 a game (312th fastest), UCD 71.8 (39th). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PAC 8%, UCD 57%. Transfers in: PAC 9, UCD 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Free throws
Free throw rate: PAC 30.5, UCD 40.5. Allowed: PAC 36.3, UCD 39.1
Context
Schedule so far
PAC has played the 122nd-hardest schedule, UCD the 189th. A record against a soft schedule means less
UCD offense vs PAC defense
Offense 208th of 366 against a defense 147th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: PAC 52.2 and allows 50.0; UCD 51.8 and allows 51.7
Even
PAC offense vs UCD defense
Offense 195th of 366 against a defense 171st, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
PAC hits 35.8% and allows 34.7%; UCD hits 34.4% and allows 33.8%. Threes are 35.4% and 43.5% of their shots
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | PAC -1.4 | — |
| Total | — | 143.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | PAC 72.6 · UCD 71.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PAC -0.9 | — |
| 1H total | 67.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | PAC 34.1 · UCD 33.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
PAC 1–3 UCDUCD leads · 4 games since 2021-22 · PAC 1-3 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2023-24 | UCD 82 @ PAC 61 | PAC +8.5 | UCD W |
| Dec 1, 2022-23 | PAC 74 @ UCD 72 | UCD -5.5 | PAC W |
| Dec 19, 2021-22 | UCD 77 @ PAC 67 | PAC -3.5 | UCD W |
| Dec 1, 2021-22 | PAC 57 @ UCD 63 | UCD -3 | UCD W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Pacific
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-20
35% overs · avg −2.1 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 8 | @ | L 77-78 | +13.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 69-66 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 85-73 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 59-82 | +7.5 | L −15.5 | 154.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 86-58 | -4.5 | W +23.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 68-53 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 135.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 68-54 | -10.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 80-65 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 134.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 61-67 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 57-93 | +23.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 95-82 | -8.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 54-66 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 71-80 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 84-53 | -4.5 | W +26.5 | 137.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 74-69 | -11.5 | L −6.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 89-90 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 77-70 | -8.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 69-85 | +12.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 81-64 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 56-54 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 74-51 | -8.5 | W +14.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 82-87 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 138.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 56-71 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 92-59 | -7.5 | W +25.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 65-59 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 141.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 61-72 | +7.5 | L −3.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 70-87 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 62-71 | +22.5 | W +13.5 | 144.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 61-72 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 61-58 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 129.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 68-76 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
NEV
L 77-78
+12.5
12
vs
LBSU
W 69-66
−9.5
15
@
CSUF
W 85-73
+5.5
20
@
FAU
L 59-82
−15.5
24
vs
STBK
W 86-58
+23.5
25
vs
JAX
W 68-53
+12.5
29
vs
SAC
W 68-54
+3.5
3
@
AF
W 80-65
+9.5
6
@
CAL
L 61-67
+1.5
16
@
BYU
L 57-93
−12.5
21
vs
NICH
W 95-82
+4.5
28
@
USD
L 54-66
−14.5
30
@
LMU
L 71-80
−5.5
2
vs
ORST
W 84-53
+26.5
4
vs
PEPP
W 74-69
−6.5
8
@
PORT
L 89-90
−4.5
10
vs
USD
W 77-70
−1.5
14
@
SCU
L 69-85
−3.5
17
@
ORST
W 81-64
+18.5
24
vs
SEA
W 56-54
+0.5
28
vs
PORT
W 74-51
+14.5
31
@
SF
L 82-87
−0.5
4
vs
SCU
L 56-71
−8.5
7
@
PEPP
W 92-59
+25.5
11
vs
LMU
W 65-59
+0.5
14
vs
SMC
L 61-72
−3.5
18
@
WSU
L 70-87
−14.5
21
@
GONZ
L 62-71
+13.5
28
vs
SF
L 61-72
−14.5
7
vs
SEA
W 61-58
+1.5
8
vs
SCU
L 68-76
+1.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
NEV
L 77-78
+15.5
12
vs
LBSU
W 69-66
−6.5
15
@
CSUF
W 85-73
−1.5
20
@
FAU
L 59-82
−13.5
24
vs
STBK
W 86-58
−1.5
25
vs
JAX
W 68-53
−14.5
29
vs
SAC
W 68-54
−24.5
3
@
AF
W 80-65
+10.5
6
@
CAL
L 61-67
−16.5
16
@
BYU
L 57-93
+0.5
21
vs
NICH
W 95-82
+37.5
28
@
USD
L 54-66
−30.5
30
@
LMU
L 71-80
+11.5
2
vs
ORST
W 84-53
−0.5
4
vs
PEPP
W 74-69
+4.5
8
@
PORT
L 89-90
+34.5
10
vs
USD
W 77-70
−0.5
14
@
SCU
L 69-85
−0.5
17
@
ORST
W 81-64
+5.5
24
vs
SEA
W 56-54
−27.5
28
vs
PORT
W 74-51
−17.5
31
@
SF
L 82-87
+30.5
4
vs
SCU
L 56-71
−24.5
7
@
PEPP
W 92-59
+8.5
11
vs
LMU
W 65-59
−17.5
14
vs
SMC
L 61-72
−2.5
18
@
WSU
L 70-87
+12.5
21
@
GONZ
L 62-71
−11.5
28
vs
SF
L 61-72
−9.5
7
vs
SEA
W 61-58
−10.5
8
vs
SCU
L 68-76
−4.5
over 11under 20avg −2.1 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: Pacific 2, UC Davis 2, even 1
PacificBetterUC Davis
G J. Winston TR15.5 pts · 3 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 74
←PACSmall
G C. Sevilla13.2 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 45
G C. Amundsen TR9.4 pts · 2 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 34
→UCDSmall
G B. Fagbemi6.8 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.3 ast
Score 53
G C. Jones TR3.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 17
=Even
F I. Chappell8.4 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 26
F G. Ripp TR3.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 10
→UCDSmall
F V. Abosi TR4.8 pts · 4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 43
F J. Pitt4.4 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 57
←PACBig
F O. Suljanovic5.3 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 12
PacificBetterUC Davis
PAC offense195th of 366 · -6.1
=Even
UCD defense171st of 366 · -3.9
PAC defense147th of 366 · -3.2
←PACSmall
UCD offense208th of 366 · -6.3
Backcourt-2.4 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players
←PACSmall
Frontcourt-3.5 · 3 players
Bench-1.2 · 5 players
←PACSmall
Bench-2.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestPAC betterUCD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Winston36 min · TRC. Amundsen30 min · TRC. Jones17 min · TRA. Nyorha10 min · TRD. Harris6 min · TRN. BuduNew
Forwards
G. Ripp17 min · TRJ. Pitt17 minJ. Thompson11 min · TRV. OsazeeNewJ. CarotNew
Centers
J. McFarland3 min · TRI. Matlekovic2 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.3 #262 | Points per game | 76.1 #139 |
| 1.08 #176 | Points per possession | 1.06 #234 |
| 66.1 #312 | Pace (possessions) | 71.8 #39 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.2 #140 | Effective FG% | 51.8 #157 |
| 35.8 #65 | 3-point % | 34.4 #149 |
| 35.4 #266 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.5 #102 |
| 30.5 #297 | Free throw rate | 40.5 #53 |
| Possessions | ||
| 20.1 #350 | Turnover rate | 17.9 #267 |
| 35.3 #42 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.2 #334 |
| 14.9 #93 | Assists per game | 15.1 #83 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.8 #60 | Points allowed | 76.0 #217 |
| 1.05 #93 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #104 |
| 50.0 #101 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.7 #197 |
| 34.7 #233 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.8 #172 |
| 15.1 #281 | Turnovers forced | 19.8 #29 |
| 75.0 #8 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.5 #182 |
| 5.4 #309 | Steals per game | 7.5 #81 |
| 2.2 #332 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #276 |
Pacific
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Santa Clara68–76
- Wvs Seattle U61–58
- Lvs San Francisco61–72
- L@ Gonzaga62–71
- L@ Washington St70–87
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.