Burns Arena · at Utah Tech · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UTU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UTU 79–73 · win probability UTU 69%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.4
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: UTU has more of the edges
WEB 3, UTU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WEB 31.8%, UTU 28.1%. Defensive: WEB 72.3%, UTU 65.5%
Shooting
Effective FG%: WEB 51.7 and allows 54.5; UTU 53.3 and allows 50.9
Context
Schedule so far
WEB has played the 316th-hardest schedule, UTU the 210th. A record against a soft schedule means less
UTU offense vs WEB defense
Offense 251st of 366 against a defense 336th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
WEB hits 34.5% and allows 33.5%; UTU hits 35.0% and allows 30.7%. Threes are 32.8% and 38.2% of their shots
Free throws
Free throw rate: WEB 39.1, UTU 30.6. Allowed: WEB 36.4, UTU 33.0
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WEB 15.7%, UTU 17.8%. Forced: WEB 16.3%, UTU 16.8%
Home court
UTU at home. This season: UTU 0-0 at home, WEB 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WEB 9%, UTU 24%. Transfers in: WEB 2, UTU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: WEB plays 70.7 a game (85th fastest), UTU 69.9 (124th). Faster games mean more points
Even
WEB offense vs UTU defense
Offense 280th of 366 against a defense 295th, 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 | — | UTU -5.5 | — |
| Total | — | 152.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | WEB 73.4 · UTU 79 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UTU -3.2 | — |
| 1H total | 71.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | WEB 34 · UTU 37.2 | — |
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% | 6-4 60% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
WEB 2–2 UTUSeries tied · 4 games since 2021-22 · WEB 1-3 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2025-26 | UTU 82 @ WEB 80 | WEB -5.5 | UTU W |
| Dec 13, 2024-25 | WEB 73 @ UTU 71 | UTU +3.5 | UTU W |
| Dec 3, 2022-23 | UTU 77 @ WEB 65 | WEB -3.5 | UTU W |
| Nov 27, 2021-22 | WEB 87 @ UTU 70 | UTU +11.5 | WEB W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Weber St
30 games played
Straight up
14-16
47% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +3.8 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 89-92 | +15.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 73-83 | +22.5 | W +12.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 70-79 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 91-85 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 73-74 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 82-61 | -10.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 92-66 | -7.5 | W +18.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 65-88 | +7.5 | L −15.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 10 | @ | W 64-60 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 74-90 | +15.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 80-82 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 90-95 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 95-82 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 78-65 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 76-71 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 162.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 91-80 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 67-75 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 65-81 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 88-91 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 81-79 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 90-104 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 74-88 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 72-53 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 83-72 | +5.5 | W +16.5 | 153.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-84 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 82-79 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 92-72 | -2.5 | W +17.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 83-73 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 60-84 | +4.5 | L −19.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 79-84 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
UTAH
L 89-92
+12.5
12
@
USU
L 73-83
+12.5
15
@
UCI
L 70-79
+2.5
19
vs
CAM
W 91-85
+4.5
22
vs
UTA
L 73-74
−3.5
29
vs
KC
W 82-61
+10.5
3
vs
ORU
W 92-66
+18.5
7
@
STMN
L 65-88
−15.5
10
@
KC
W 64-60
−3.5
17
@
UVU
L 74-90
−0.5
20
vs
UTU
L 80-82
−7.5
1
vs
PRST
L 90-95
−3.5
3
vs
SAC
W 95-82
+6.5
8
@
NAU
W 78-65
+10.5
10
@
UNCO
W 76-71
+11.5
15
vs
EWU
W 91-80
+7.5
17
vs
IDHO
L 67-75
−6.5
22
@
MONT
L 65-81
−11.5
24
@
MTST
L 88-91
+3.5
31
vs
IDST
W 81-79
−0.5
2
@
SAC
L 90-104
−12.5
5
vs
UNCO
L 74-88
−12.5
7
vs
NAU
W 72-53
+11.5
12
@
IDHO
W 83-72
+16.5
14
@
EWU
L 66-84
−14.5
19
vs
MTST
W 82-79
+1.5
21
vs
MONT
W 92-72
+17.5
28
@
IDST
W 83-73
+12.5
2
@
PRST
L 60-84
−19.5
9
vs
EWU
L 79-84
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
UTAH
L 89-92
+32.5
12
@
USU
L 73-83
−0.5
15
@
UCI
L 70-79
−2.5
19
vs
CAM
W 91-85
+16.5
22
vs
UTA
L 73-74
−2.5
29
vs
KC
W 82-61
−12.5
3
vs
ORU
W 92-66
+0.5
7
@
STMN
L 65-88
−1.5
10
@
KC
W 64-60
−26.5
17
@
UVU
L 74-90
+15.5
20
vs
UTU
L 80-82
+9.5
1
vs
PRST
L 90-95
+36.5
3
vs
SAC
W 95-82
+8.5
8
@
NAU
W 78-65
−6.5
10
@
UNCO
W 76-71
−15.5
15
vs
EWU
W 91-80
+12.5
17
vs
IDHO
L 67-75
−16.5
22
@
MONT
L 65-81
−11.5
24
@
MTST
L 88-91
+31.5
31
vs
IDST
W 81-79
+8.5
2
@
SAC
L 90-104
+31.5
5
vs
UNCO
L 74-88
−0.5
7
vs
NAU
W 72-53
−25.5
12
@
IDHO
W 83-72
+1.5
14
@
EWU
L 66-84
−4.5
19
vs
MTST
W 82-79
+12.5
21
vs
MONT
W 92-72
+11.5
28
@
IDST
W 83-73
+3.5
2
@
PRST
L 60-84
−0.5
9
vs
EWU
L 79-84
+8.5
over 16under 14avg +3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Utah Tech
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-14
55% overs · avg +4.2 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 | @ | W 81-79 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 67-93 | +33.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 66-81 | +12.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 12 | vs | L 75-79 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 81-75 | -26.5 | L −20.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 62-68 | +16.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 63-68 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 77-69 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 80-90 | +20.5 | W +10.5 | 144.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 82-80 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 69-92 | +19.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 80-66 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 79-64 | +5.5 | W +20.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 72-84 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 76-92 | +13.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 52-56 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 75-71 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 64-73 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 102-91 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 76-70 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 65-59 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 87-84 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 81-77 | +9.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 70-65 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 50-63 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 80-72 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 85-81 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-81 | -1.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 101-104 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 205 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-74 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 72-86 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SDAK
W 81-79
+3.5
7
@
ARIZ
L 67-93
+7.5
9
@
ASU
L 66-81
−2.5
12
vs
MAN
L 75-79
−6.5
14
vs
MVSU
W 81-75
−20.5
15
@
HAW
L 62-68
+10.5
25
vs
PRST
L 63-68
−3.5
29
vs
UCR
W 77-69
+2.5
3
@
SCU
L 80-90
+10.5
20
@
WEB
W 82-80
+7.5
22
@
CREI
L 69-92
−3.5
29
vs
SUU
W 80-66
+6.5
1
@
ACU
W 79-64
+20.5
8
@
CBU
L 72-84
−4.5
10
@
UVU
L 76-92
−2.5
15
vs
UTA
L 52-56
−5.5
17
vs
TAR
W 75-71
+0.5
21
@
CBU
L 64-73
−0.5
24
vs
SUU
W 102-91
+4.5
29
@
ACU
W 76-70
+9.5
31
@
TAR
W 65-59
+7.5
5
vs
UTA
W 87-84
+1.5
12
vs
UVU
W 81-77
+13.5
14
vs
CBU
W 70-65
+7.5
19
@
UTA
L 50-63
−8.5
21
@
TAR
W 80-72
+9.5
26
vs
ACU
W 85-81
+1.5
28
@
SUU
L 67-81
−15.5
7
vs
UVU
L 101-104
+5.5
12
vs
ACU
W 80-74
+4.5
13
vs
CBU
L 72-86
−5.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SDAK
W 81-79
−4.5
7
@
ARIZ
L 67-93
−2.5
9
@
ASU
L 66-81
−5.5
12
vs
MAN
L 75-79
−4.5
14
vs
MVSU
W 81-75
+10.5
15
@
HAW
L 62-68
−19.5
25
vs
PRST
L 63-68
−15.5
29
vs
UCR
W 77-69
+0.5
3
@
SCU
L 80-90
+25.5
20
@
WEB
W 82-80
+9.5
22
@
CREI
L 69-92
+13.5
29
vs
SUU
W 80-66
−2.5
1
@
ACU
W 79-64
+3.5
8
@
CBU
L 72-84
+11.5
10
@
UVU
L 76-92
+18.5
15
vs
UTA
L 52-56
−33.5
17
vs
TAR
W 75-71
−4.5
21
@
CBU
L 64-73
−6.5
24
vs
SUU
W 102-91
+43.5
29
@
ACU
W 76-70
+0.5
31
@
TAR
W 65-59
−25.5
5
vs
UTA
W 87-84
+31.5
12
vs
UVU
W 81-77
+9.5
14
vs
CBU
W 70-65
−8.5
19
@
UTA
L 50-63
−27.5
21
@
TAR
W 80-72
+11.5
26
vs
ACU
W 85-81
+26.5
28
@
SUU
L 67-81
−8.5
7
vs
UVU
L 101-104
+57.5
12
vs
ACU
W 80-74
+11.5
13
vs
CBU
L 72-86
+13.5
over 17under 14avg +4.2 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: Weber St 0, Utah Tech 0, even 5
Weber StBetterUtah Tech
G A. Grayson3.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 6
=Even
G R. Sunderland TR4.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 4
F B. Felder TR2.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G A. Dupre TR3 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 1
F D. Thompson NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Brown TR3 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 6
C A. Ekwe TR2.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F E. Potter17.1 pts · 7.9 reb · 2 ast
Score 94
C D. Cutler1.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F S. Ariyibi2.4 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 11
Weber StBetterUtah Tech
WEB offense280th of 366 · -8.6
=Even
UTU defense295th of 366 · -7.4
WEB defense336th of 366 · -8.9
→UTUSmall
UTU offense251st of 366 · -7.6
Backcourt-1.7 · 1 player
←WEBBig
Backcourt-8.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 4 players
→UTUBig
Frontcourt+3.6 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.3 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestWEB betterUTU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Grayson12 minA. JacksonNewA. PowellNewM. AbittanNewS. Marius JonesNewH. HansenNew
Forwards
B. Felder6 min · TRD. ThompsonNewD. WarlickNewC. BurgessNew
Centers
A. Ekwe10 min · TRD. Cutler6 min
Guards
R. Sunderland27 min · TRA. Dupre16 min · TRM. Brown14 min · TRB. Harker3 minP. Vandermyde1 minP. RagkosNew
Forwards
E. Potter32 minS. Ariyibi10 minD. Grant2 minJ. ClarkNew
Centers
K. LemkeNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.8 #82 | Points per game | 74.7 #171 |
| 1.11 #112 | Points per possession | 1.08 #193 |
| 70.7 #85 | Pace (possessions) | 69.9 #124 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.7 #163 | Effective FG% | 53.3 #90 |
| 34.5 #143 | 3-point % | 35.0 #113 |
| 32.8 #320 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.2 #207 |
| 39.1 #76 | Free throw rate | 30.6 #290 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.7 #115 | Turnover rate | 17.8 #256 |
| 31.8 #132 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #261 |
| 12.6 #241 | Assists per game | 14.4 #121 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.1 #300 | Points allowed | 77.0 #243 |
| 1.12 #269 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #211 |
| 54.5 #316 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #151 |
| 33.5 #160 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.7 #29 |
| 16.3 #204 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #166 |
| 72.3 #56 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.5 #326 |
| 6.9 #133 | Steals per game | 6.9 #135 |
| 1.5 #360 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #216 |
Weber St
14-16 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs E Washington79–84
- L@ Portland St60–84
- W@ Idaho St83–73
- Wvs Montana92–72
- Wvs Montana St82–79
A week or more of rest.
Utah Tech
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs CA Baptist72–86
- Wvs Abilene Chrstn80–74
- Lvs Utah Valley101–104
- L@ Southern Utah67–81
- Wvs Abilene Chrstn85–81
A week or more of rest.