Viking Pavilion · at Portland St · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PRST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PRST 76–74 · win probability PRST 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.2
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: PRST has more of the edges
EWU 2, PRST 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
EWU has played the 213th-hardest schedule, PRST the 322nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: EWU 17.6%, PRST 16.9%. Forced: EWU 16.3%, PRST 18.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: EWU 53.7 and allows 54.9; PRST 50.5 and allows 48.8
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: EWU 31.3%, PRST 30.0%. Defensive: EWU 69.2%, PRST 73.6%
EWU offense vs PRST defense
Offense 189th of 366 against a defense 244th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
PRST at home. This season: PRST 0-0 at home, EWU 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: EWU 30%, PRST 6%. Transfers in: EWU 1, PRST 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
PRST offense vs EWU defense
Offense 284th of 366 against a defense 322nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: EWU 36.1, PRST 37.1. Allowed: EWU 37.3, PRST 42.8
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: EWU plays 69.5 a game (149th fastest), PRST 69.6 (140th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
EWU hits 35.9% and allows 35.2%; PRST hits 32.6% and allows 32.3%. Threes are 34.7% and 34.4% 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 | — | PRST -1.7 | — |
| Total | — | 150.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | EWU 74.2 · PRST 75.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PRST -0.9 | — |
| 1H total | 70.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | EWU 34.7 · PRST 35.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 10 since 2021-22
EWU 8–2 PRSTEWU leads · 10 games since 2021-22 · EWU 8-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 21, 2025-26 | EWU 67 @ PRST 55 | PRST -6.5 | EWU W |
| Jan 22, 2025-26 | PRST 65 @ EWU 61 | EWU +2.5 | PRST W |
| Feb 8, 2024-25 | PRST 67 @ EWU 72 | EWU +2.5 | EWU W |
| Jan 9, 2024-25 | EWU 59 @ PRST 64 | PRST -2.5 | PRST W |
| Feb 5, 2023-24 | EWU 90 @ PRST 77 | PRST +4.5 | EWU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
E Washington
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-13
59% overs · avg +3.3 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 74-80 | +29.5 | W +23.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 5 | @ | L 62-70 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 97-102 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 67-94 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 65-92 | -4.5 | L −31.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 71-79 | +12.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 89-93 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 90-66 | -9.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 12 | vs | L 83-88 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 63-78 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 77-101 | +10.5 | L −13.5 | 160.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 81-109 | +34.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 81-84 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 64-68 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 66-65 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 80-91 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-66 | +6.5 | W +24.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 61-65 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-67 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 86-92 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-74 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 82-74 | +5.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 72-71 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 88-75 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 84-66 | -3.5 | W +14.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 102-94 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 67-55 | +6.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 82-72 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-57 | -9.5 | W +21.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 81-85 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 84-79 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 68-81 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UCLA
L 74-80
+23.5
5
@
LMU
L 62-70
+1.5
8
@
COLO
L 97-102
+11.5
12
@
SEA
L 67-94
−18.5
23
@
CARK
L 65-92
−31.5
25
@
UNT
L 71-79
+4.5
3
@
DEN
L 89-93
−2.5
6
vs
KC
W 90-66
+14.5
12
vs
CBU
L 83-88
−1.5
17
vs
WSU
L 63-78
−8.5
20
@
UTAH
L 77-101
−13.5
22
@
BYU
L 81-109
+6.5
3
@
IDHO
L 81-84
+3.5
8
vs
MTST
L 64-68
−1.5
10
vs
MONT
W 66-65
−0.5
15
@
WEB
L 80-91
−7.5
17
@
IDST
W 84-66
+24.5
22
vs
PRST
L 61-65
−1.5
24
vs
SAC
W 75-67
+2.5
29
@
NAU
L 86-92
−8.5
31
@
UNCO
L 71-74
+3.5
5
@
MONT
W 82-74
+13.5
7
@
MTST
W 72-71
+6.5
12
vs
IDST
W 88-75
+10.5
14
vs
WEB
W 84-66
+14.5
19
@
SAC
W 102-94
+5.5
21
@
PRST
W 67-55
+18.5
26
vs
UNCO
W 82-72
+11.5
28
vs
NAU
W 88-57
+21.5
2
vs
IDHO
L 81-85
−7.5
9
vs
WEB
W 84-79
+1.5
10
vs
IDHO
L 68-81
−11.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UCLA
L 74-80
+4.5
5
@
LMU
L 62-70
−21.5
8
@
COLO
L 97-102
+46.5
12
@
SEA
L 67-94
+12.5
23
@
CARK
L 65-92
+2.5
25
@
UNT
L 71-79
+8.5
3
@
DEN
L 89-93
+26.5
6
vs
KC
W 90-66
+4.5
12
vs
CBU
L 83-88
+17.5
17
vs
WSU
L 63-78
−12.5
20
@
UTAH
L 77-101
+17.5
22
@
BYU
L 81-109
+21.5
3
@
IDHO
L 81-84
+6.5
8
vs
MTST
L 64-68
−24.5
10
vs
MONT
W 66-65
−30.5
15
@
WEB
L 80-91
+12.5
17
@
IDST
W 84-66
−2.5
22
vs
PRST
L 61-65
−24.5
24
vs
SAC
W 75-67
−21.5
29
@
NAU
L 86-92
+32.5
31
@
UNCO
L 71-74
−11.5
5
@
MONT
W 82-74
+4.5
7
@
MTST
W 72-71
−5.5
12
vs
IDST
W 88-75
+15.5
14
vs
WEB
W 84-66
−4.5
19
@
SAC
W 102-94
+35.5
21
@
PRST
W 67-55
−24.5
26
vs
UNCO
W 82-72
−3.5
28
vs
NAU
W 88-57
−1.5
2
vs
IDHO
L 81-85
+14.5
9
vs
WEB
W 84-79
+8.5
10
vs
IDHO
L 68-81
+0.5
over 19under 13avg +3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Portland St
28 games played
Straight up
17-11
61% wins
Against the spread
19-9
68% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-16
43% overs · avg −0.9 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 4 | @ | L 79-89 | +11.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 70-80 | +13.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 93-80 | -8.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 68-63 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 77-71 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 55-60 | -12.5 | L −17.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 73-84 | +16.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 61-63 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 95-90 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 93-87 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 96-69 | -9.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 76-73 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 63-52 | -11.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 65-61 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 69-66 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 60-64 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 63-54 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 88-65 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 136.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 74-73 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-68 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-77 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 77-67 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 55-67 | -6.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 69-84 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 68-74 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 84-60 | -4.5 | W +19.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 85-78 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 72-75 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
STAN
L 79-89
+1.5
12
@
SF
L 70-80
+3.5
17
vs
CSUB
W 93-80
+4.5
25
@
UTU
W 68-63
+3.5
3
@
SDAK
W 77-71
+3.5
6
vs
OMA
L 55-60
−17.5
17
@
COLO
L 73-84
+5.5
20
@
TULN
L 61-63
+0.5
1
@
WEB
W 95-90
+3.5
3
@
IDST
W 93-87
+9.5
10
vs
SAC
W 96-69
+17.5
15
vs
UNCO
W 76-73
+0.5
17
vs
NAU
W 63-52
−0.5
22
@
EWU
W 65-61
+1.5
24
@
IDHO
W 69-66
+4.5
29
vs
MONT
L 60-64
−8.5
31
vs
MTST
W 63-54
+4.5
2
vs
IDST
W 88-65
+15.5
7
@
SAC
W 74-73
−2.5
12
@
NAU
W 77-68
+2.5
14
@
UNCO
L 65-77
−8.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 77-67
+6.5
21
vs
EWU
L 55-67
−18.5
26
@
MTST
L 69-84
−12.5
28
@
MONT
L 68-74
−4.5
2
vs
WEB
W 84-60
+19.5
8
vs
IDST
W 85-78
+1.5
10
vs
MONT
L 72-75
−6.5
covered 19didn’t cover 9avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
STAN
L 79-89
+23.5
12
@
SF
L 70-80
−4.5
17
vs
CSUB
W 93-80
+31.5
25
@
UTU
W 68-63
−15.5
3
@
SDAK
W 77-71
−10.5
6
vs
OMA
L 55-60
−29.5
17
@
COLO
L 73-84
+6.5
20
@
TULN
L 61-63
−21.5
1
@
WEB
W 95-90
+36.5
3
@
IDST
W 93-87
+37.5
10
vs
SAC
W 96-69
+4.5
15
vs
UNCO
W 76-73
−6.5
17
vs
NAU
W 63-52
−25.5
22
@
EWU
W 65-61
−24.5
24
@
IDHO
W 69-66
−10.5
29
vs
MONT
L 60-64
−19.5
31
vs
MTST
W 63-54
−21.5
2
vs
IDST
W 88-65
+16.5
7
@
SAC
W 74-73
−3.5
12
@
NAU
W 77-68
+8.5
14
@
UNCO
L 65-77
−7.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 77-67
−1.5
21
vs
EWU
L 55-67
−24.5
26
@
MTST
L 69-84
+12.5
28
@
MONT
L 68-74
+0.5
2
vs
WEB
W 84-60
−0.5
8
vs
IDST
W 85-78
+21.5
10
vs
MONT
L 72-75
+1.5
over 12under 16avg −0.9 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: E Washington 1, Portland St 1, even 3
E WashingtonBetterPortland St
G J. Griffith TR11.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 75
←EWUBig
G E. Skytt TR3.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 26
G C. Scherer2.1 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 14
→PRSTSmall
G K. Johnson TR1.8 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 39
F A. Hamilton13.6 pts · 5.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 83
=No call
G C. Ness0.6 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
F E. Marquardt5.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 31
=No call
F B. Barron0.7 pts · 1.1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
F S. Ngoyi0.5 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C K. Ibekwe TR3.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 34
E WashingtonBetterPortland St
EWU offense189th of 366 · -5.8
←EWUSmall
PRST defense244th of 366 · -6.4
EWU defense322nd of 366 · -8.3
=Even
PRST offense284th of 366 · -8.8
Backcourt-0.2 · 2 players
←EWUSmall
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt+0.6 · 3 players
←EWUSmall
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.3 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestEWU betterPRST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Griffith23 min · TRC. Scherer8 minM. Monson3 minA. CookNewT. JacksonNewI. HomeliusNew
Forwards
A. Hamilton28 minE. Marquardt16 minS. Ngoyi4 minJ. MillerNewA. HamiltonNewA. GballouNew
Centers
Z. TrezvantNew
Guards
E. Skytt12 min · TRK. Johnson10 min · TRC. Ness4 minN. PollardNewT. FrankNewD. JohnsonNew
Forwards
B. Barron4 minC. Chukwu3 minL. Kearney3 min · TRJ. RandolphNewA. PusateriNewF. CoratoNew
Centers
K. Ibekwe9 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.7 #102 | Points per game | 73.9 #199 |
| 1.11 #120 | Points per possession | 1.06 #220 |
| 69.5 #149 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #140 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.7 #75 | Effective FG% | 50.5 #211 |
| 35.9 #62 | 3-point % | 32.6 #250 |
| 34.7 #282 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.4 #287 |
| 36.1 #148 | Free throw rate | 37.1 #126 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.6 #241 | Turnover rate | 16.9 #200 |
| 31.3 #153 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.0 #199 |
| 13.5 #181 | Assists per game | 13.4 #186 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.2 #304 | Points allowed | 71.2 #80 |
| 1.15 #320 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #45 |
| 54.9 #326 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.8 #56 |
| 35.2 #261 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.3 #77 |
| 16.3 #200 | Turnovers forced | 18.0 #94 |
| 69.2 #194 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.6 #23 |
| 5.9 #249 | Steals per game | 7.2 #104 |
| 3.4 #161 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #108 |
E Washington
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho68–81
- Wvs Weber St84–79
- Lvs Idaho81–85
- Wvs N Arizona88–57
- Wvs N Colorado82–72
A week or more of rest.
Portland St
17-11 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Montana72–75
- Wvs Idaho St85–78
- Wvs Weber St84–60
- L@ Montana68–74
- L@ Montana St69–84
A week or more of rest.