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 75–73 · win probability UCD 58%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.0
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: UCD has more of the edges
PORT 0, UCD 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
PORT hits 29.9% and allows 36.1%; UCD hits 34.4% and allows 33.8%. Threes are 35.4% and 43.5% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PORT 19.6%, UCD 17.9%. Forced: PORT 17.0%, UCD 19.8%
Context
Schedule so far
PORT has played the 124th-hardest schedule, UCD the 189th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
UCD at home. This season: UCD 0-0 at home, PORT 0-0 away
Shooting
Effective FG%: PORT 51.2 and allows 52.7; UCD 51.8 and allows 51.7
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: PORT plays 70.2 a game (106th fastest), UCD 71.8 (39th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PORT 41%, UCD 57%. Transfers in: PORT 4, UCD 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PORT 28.1%, UCD 25.2%. Defensive: PORT 67.5%, UCD 69.5%
Even
PORT offense vs UCD defense
Offense 156th of 366 against a defense 171st, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: PORT 34.4, UCD 40.5. Allowed: PORT 32.6, UCD 39.1
Even
UCD offense vs PORT defense
Offense 208th of 366 against a defense 202nd, on the model’s ratings
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 -2.3 | — |
| Total | — | 148.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | PORT 72.9 · UCD 75.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCD -1.2 | — |
| 1H total | 69.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | PORT 34 · UCD 35.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
PORT 2–0 UCDPORT leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · PORT has won the last 2 meetings · PORT 2-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2025-26 | UCD 63 @ PORT 67 | PORT -1.5 | PORT W |
| Dec 22, 2021-22 | PORT 65 @ UCD 60 | UCD -8.5 | PORT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Portland
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −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 6 | vs | W 83-74 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 67-63 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 56-93 | +11.5 | L −25.5 | 160.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 103-85 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 164.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-86 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 66-76 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 93-73 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 72-94 | +19.5 | L −2.5 | 156.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 88-78 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 69-94 | +19.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 61-79 | +9.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 62-67 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 152.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 85-92 | +13.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 57-78 | +18.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 68-73 | +11.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 90-89 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 82-76 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 63-67 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 71-58 | +8.5 | W +21.5 | 148.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 69-75 | +14.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 51-74 | +8.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-104 | +8.5 | L −21.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 87-80 | +22.5 | W +29.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 54-53 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 58-71 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 87-95 | -7.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 59-71 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 48-89 | +26.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 87-74 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 77-68 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 74-68 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 65-82 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
vs
UAPB
W 83-74
−3.5
9
vs
UCD
W 67-63
+2.5
15
@
WYO
L 56-93
−25.5
21
vs
CSUF
W 103-85
+11.5
22
vs
UNCO
L 80-86
−2.5
23
vs
STMN
L 66-76
−4.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 93-73
+14.5
1
@
STAN
L 72-94
−2.5
14
vs
KENT
W 88-78
+17.5
17
@
ORE
L 69-94
−5.5
22
@
UCSB
L 61-79
−8.5
28
vs
WSU
L 62-67
−1.5
30
vs
SCU
L 85-92
+6.5
2
@
SMC
L 57-78
−2.5
4
@
SF
L 68-73
+6.5
8
vs
PAC
W 90-89
+4.5
10
vs
ORST
W 82-76
+3.5
14
@
PEPP
L 63-67
−5.5
17
@
LMU
W 71-58
+21.5
24
vs
SMC
L 69-75
+8.5
28
@
PAC
L 51-74
−14.5
31
@
WSU
L 74-104
−21.5
4
vs
GONZ
W 87-80
+29.5
7
vs
SEA
W 54-53
+4.5
11
@
USD
L 58-71
−11.5
18
vs
PEPP
L 87-95
−15.5
21
@
SEA
L 59-71
−4.5
25
@
GONZ
L 48-89
−14.5
28
vs
USD
W 87-74
+10.5
5
vs
PEPP
W 77-68
+5.5
6
vs
WSU
W 74-68
+11.5
7
vs
SF
L 65-82
−10.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
vs
UAPB
W 83-74
−7.5
9
vs
UCD
W 67-63
−21.5
15
@
WYO
L 56-93
−11.5
21
vs
CSUF
W 103-85
+23.5
22
vs
UNCO
L 80-86
+8.5
23
vs
STMN
L 66-76
−13.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 93-73
+17.5
1
@
STAN
L 72-94
+9.5
14
vs
KENT
W 88-78
+5.5
17
@
ORE
L 69-94
+8.5
22
@
UCSB
L 61-79
−7.5
28
vs
WSU
L 62-67
−23.5
30
vs
SCU
L 85-92
+19.5
2
@
SMC
L 57-78
−11.5
4
@
SF
L 68-73
−6.5
8
vs
PAC
W 90-89
+34.5
10
vs
ORST
W 82-76
+12.5
14
@
PEPP
L 63-67
−17.5
17
@
LMU
W 71-58
−19.5
24
vs
SMC
L 69-75
−0.5
28
@
PAC
L 51-74
−17.5
31
@
WSU
L 74-104
+25.5
4
vs
GONZ
W 87-80
+14.5
7
vs
SEA
W 54-53
−36.5
11
@
USD
L 58-71
−21.5
18
vs
PEPP
L 87-95
+31.5
21
@
SEA
L 59-71
−10.5
25
@
GONZ
L 48-89
−13.5
28
vs
USD
W 87-74
+12.5
5
vs
PEPP
W 77-68
−9.5
6
vs
WSU
W 74-68
−7.5
7
vs
SF
L 65-82
+0.5
over 14under 18avg −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.
Portland has the better starters
Position by position: Portland 2, UC Davis 1, even 2
PortlandBetterUC Davis
G J. Olvera TR13.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 51
=Even
G C. Sevilla13.2 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 45
G K. Isaac TR5 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 10
→UCDBig
G B. Fagbemi6.8 pts · 3.3 reb · 4.3 ast
Score 53
G D. Censori-Hercules3.2 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 22
=Even
F I. Chappell8.4 pts · 4.6 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 26
F J. O'Donnell9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 60
←PORTSmall
F V. Abosi TR4.8 pts · 4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 43
F T. George11.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 93
←PORTBig
F O. Suljanovic5.3 pts · 2.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 12
PortlandBetterUC Davis
PORT offense156th of 366 · -4.7
=Even
UCD defense171st of 366 · -3.9
PORT defense202nd of 366 · -5.0
=Even
UCD offense208th of 366 · -6.3
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
→UCDBig
Backcourt-1.5 · 2 players
Frontcourt+2.9 · 2 players
←PORTBig
Frontcourt-3.5 · 3 players
Bench-0.2 · 3 players
←PORTSmall
Bench-2.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestPORT betterUCD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Olvera29 min · TRK. Isaac24 min · TRD. Censori-Hercules21 minR. Parker19 minH. Adam15 min · TRR. NanceNew
Forwards
J. O'Donnell23 minT. George20 minV. Perkovic7 min · TRO. SukurNewH. SewellNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.1 #238 | Points per game | 76.1 #139 |
| 1.02 #299 | Points per possession | 1.06 #234 |
| 70.2 #106 | Pace (possessions) | 71.8 #39 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.2 #188 | Effective FG% | 51.8 #157 |
| 29.9 #344 | 3-point % | 34.4 #149 |
| 35.4 #263 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.5 #102 |
| 34.4 #197 | Free throw rate | 40.5 #53 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.6 #342 | Turnover rate | 17.9 #267 |
| 28.1 #266 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.2 #334 |
| 15.9 #51 | Assists per game | 15.1 #83 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.1 #271 | Points allowed | 76.0 #217 |
| 1.11 #258 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #104 |
| 52.7 #255 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.7 #197 |
| 36.1 #308 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.8 #172 |
| 17.0 #148 | Turnovers forced | 19.8 #29 |
| 67.5 #281 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.5 #182 |
| 5.8 #251 | Steals per game | 7.5 #81 |
| 2.9 #246 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #276 |
Portland
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs San Francisco65–82
- Wvs Washington St74–68
- Wvs Pepperdine77–68
- Wvs San Diego87–74
- L@ Gonzaga48–89
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.