J. Lawrence Walkup Skydome · at N Arizona · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | NAU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MTST 75–67 · win probability MTST 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 142.5
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: MTST has more of the edges
MTST 6, NAU 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
NAU offense vs MTST defense
Offense 329th of 366 against a defense 155th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MTST 27.0%, NAU 23.3%. Defensive: MTST 71.8%, NAU 66.6%
Shooting
Effective FG%: MTST 53.6 and allows 51.6; NAU 51.7 and allows 56.9
MTST offense vs NAU defense
Offense 190th of 366 against a defense 292nd, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
MTST hits 36.1% and allows 34.3%; NAU hits 35.6% and allows 38.7%. Threes are 44.6% and 36.6% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MTST 89%, NAU 40%. Transfers in: MTST 2, NAU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
NAU at home. This season: NAU 0-0 at home, MTST 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: MTST plays 67.9 a game (233rd fastest), NAU 65.5 (330th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: MTST 30.2, NAU 31.8. Allowed: MTST 29.6, NAU 32.7
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MTST 14.8%, NAU 16.0%. Forced: MTST 15.6%, NAU 16.6%
Context
Schedule so far
MTST has played the 278th-hardest schedule, NAU the 275th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | MTST -7.6 | — |
| Total | — | 142.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | MTST 75.1 · NAU 67.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MTST -4.7 | — |
| 1H total | 66.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | MTST 35.7 · NAU 31 | — |
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% | 5-5 50% | |
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 11 | @ SDSU | No recent meeting |
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 11 since 2021-22
MTST 9–2 NAUMTST leads · 11 games since 2021-22 · MTST has won the last 2 meetings · MTST 4-7 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2, 2025-26 | MTST 76 @ NAU 65 | NAU +5.5 | MTST W |
| Jan 3, 2025-26 | NAU 68 @ MTST 77 | MTST -10.5 | NAU W |
| Feb 6, 2024-25 | MTST 64 @ NAU 69 | NAU -0.5 | NAU W |
| Jan 11, 2024-25 | NAU 53 @ MTST 58 | MTST -6.5 | NAU W |
| Feb 10, 2023-24 | MTST 71 @ NAU 76 | NAU +2.5 | NAU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Montana St
29 games played
Straight up
15-14
52% wins
Against the spread
17-12
59% covers · avg +1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-13
55% overs · avg +1.4 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 78-84 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 9 | vs | L 73-75 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 68-77 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 58-62 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 78-72 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 81-84 | +17.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 82-74 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 68-72 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 57-67 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 83-80 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 89-75 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 77-68 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 68-64 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 89-92 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 76-67 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 73-68 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 74-62 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 91-88 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 80-83 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 54-63 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 73-66 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 71-72 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 82-71 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 79-82 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 76-91 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 144.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 84-69 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 76-65 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 74-78 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
COLO
L 78-84
+5.5
9
vs
DEN
L 73-75
−9.5
12
@
STAN
L 68-77
+5.5
15
@
BOIS
L 58-62
+12.5
21
@
LBSU
W 78-72
+2.5
29
@
USU
L 81-84
+14.5
3
vs
STMN
W 82-74
+5.5
6
@
ORU
L 68-72
−10.5
13
@
ORST
L 57-67
−8.5
16
@
CP
W 83-80
+0.5
1
vs
UNCO
W 89-75
+11.5
3
vs
NAU
W 77-68
−1.5
8
@
EWU
W 68-64
+1.5
10
@
IDHO
L 89-92
−1.5
17
vs
MONT
W 76-67
+3.5
19
@
UNCO
W 73-68
+7.5
22
vs
IDST
W 74-62
+6.5
24
vs
WEB
W 91-88
−3.5
29
@
SAC
L 80-83
−7.5
31
@
PRST
L 54-63
−4.5
5
vs
IDHO
W 73-66
+4.5
7
vs
EWU
L 71-72
−6.5
14
@
MONT
W 82-71
+13.5
19
@
WEB
L 79-82
−1.5
21
@
IDST
L 76-91
−16.5
26
vs
PRST
W 84-69
+12.5
28
vs
SAC
W 82-61
+14.5
2
@
NAU
W 76-65
+5.5
8
vs
IDHO
L 74-78
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 12avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
COLO
L 78-84
+13.5
9
vs
DEN
L 73-75
+1.5
12
@
STAN
L 68-77
−3.5
15
@
BOIS
L 58-62
−27.5
21
@
LBSU
W 78-72
+9.5
29
@
USU
L 81-84
+16.5
3
vs
STMN
W 82-74
+8.5
6
@
ORU
L 68-72
−10.5
13
@
ORST
L 57-67
−16.5
16
@
CP
W 83-80
+3.5
1
vs
UNCO
W 89-75
+9.5
3
vs
NAU
W 77-68
+1.5
8
@
EWU
W 68-64
−24.5
10
@
IDHO
L 89-92
+36.5
17
vs
MONT
W 76-67
−7.5
19
@
UNCO
W 73-68
−12.5
22
vs
IDST
W 74-62
−8.5
24
vs
WEB
W 91-88
+31.5
29
@
SAC
L 80-83
+9.5
31
@
PRST
L 54-63
−21.5
5
vs
IDHO
W 73-66
−8.5
7
vs
EWU
L 71-72
−5.5
14
@
MONT
W 82-71
+7.5
19
@
WEB
L 79-82
+12.5
21
@
IDST
L 76-91
+22.5
26
vs
PRST
W 84-69
+12.5
28
vs
SAC
W 82-61
−15.5
2
@
NAU
W 76-65
−1.5
8
vs
IDHO
L 74-78
+8.5
over 16under 13avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
N Arizona
29 games played
Straight up
7-22
24% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg −2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-18
38% overs · avg −2.3 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 | vs | L 71-77 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 49-84 | +35.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 93-87 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 79-72 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 62-75 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 68-69 | +12.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 48-73 | +16.5 | L −8.5 | 154.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 69-78 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 65-57 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 66-90 | +6.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 64-78 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 68-77 | +10.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 65-78 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 149.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 79-81 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 69-83 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 52-63 | +11.5 | W +0.5 | 140.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 72-98 | +3.5 | L −22.5 | 146.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 81-77 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 92-86 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 62-79 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 79-73 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 53-72 | +7.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 68-77 | +6.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-74 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 77-78 | +13.5 | W +12.5 | 151.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 58-78 | +10.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 57-88 | +9.5 | L −21.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 65-76 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 65-73 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
DRKE
L 71-77
+2.5
11
@
ARIZ
L 49-84
+0.5
24
vs
CP
W 93-87
+7.5
26
vs
SEMO
W 79-72
+4.5
3
vs
SDST
L 62-75
−10.5
6
@
NDSU
L 68-69
+11.5
9
@
ASU
L 48-73
−8.5
13
@
USD
L 69-78
−4.5
18
vs
SUU
W 65-57
+2.5
21
@
UIW
L 66-90
−17.5
1
@
MONT
L 64-78
−8.5
3
@
MTST
L 68-77
+1.5
8
vs
WEB
L 65-78
−10.5
10
vs
IDST
L 79-81
+2.5
15
@
SAC
L 69-83
−12.5
17
@
PRST
L 52-63
+0.5
19
vs
MONT
L 72-98
−22.5
24
vs
UNCO
W 81-77
+10.5
29
vs
EWU
W 92-86
+8.5
31
vs
IDHO
L 62-79
−11.5
5
@
IDST
W 79-73
+14.5
7
@
WEB
L 53-72
−11.5
12
vs
PRST
L 68-77
−2.5
14
vs
SAC
W 79-74
+2.5
21
@
UNCO
L 77-78
+12.5
26
@
IDHO
L 58-78
−9.5
28
@
EWU
L 57-88
−21.5
2
vs
MTST
L 65-76
−5.5
7
vs
IDST
L 65-73
−3.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
DRKE
L 71-77
+3.5
11
@
ARIZ
L 49-84
−30.5
24
vs
CP
W 93-87
+15.5
26
vs
SEMO
W 79-72
−2.5
3
vs
SDST
L 62-75
−11.5
6
@
NDSU
L 68-69
−10.5
9
@
ASU
L 48-73
−33.5
13
@
USD
L 69-78
−2.5
18
vs
SUU
W 65-57
−28.5
21
@
UIW
L 66-90
+15.5
1
@
MONT
L 64-78
−7.5
3
@
MTST
L 68-77
+1.5
8
vs
WEB
L 65-78
−6.5
10
vs
IDST
L 79-81
+20.5
15
@
SAC
L 69-83
−1.5
17
@
PRST
L 52-63
−25.5
19
vs
MONT
L 72-98
+23.5
24
vs
UNCO
W 81-77
+7.5
29
vs
EWU
W 92-86
+32.5
31
vs
IDHO
L 62-79
−5.5
5
@
IDST
W 79-73
+10.5
7
@
WEB
L 53-72
−25.5
12
vs
PRST
L 68-77
+8.5
14
vs
SAC
W 79-74
−1.5
21
@
UNCO
L 77-78
+3.5
26
@
IDHO
L 58-78
−9.5
28
@
EWU
L 57-88
−1.5
2
vs
MTST
L 65-76
−1.5
7
vs
IDST
L 65-73
−4.5
over 11under 18avg −2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Montana St has the better starters
Position by position: Montana St 3, N Arizona 0, even 2
Montana StBetterN Arizona
G J. Miller15.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 82
←MTSTBig
G R. Abelman10.9 pts · 4.9 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 42
G C. Holden8.3 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Komin8 pts · 2.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 50
G J. Davis9.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 59
←MTSTBig
G B. Peterson4.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 7
G S. Amunrud7.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 53
=No call
G M. Majerle TR0.7 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
F C. King12.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 41
←MTSTBig
F D. Anderson TR1.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 6
Montana StBetterN Arizona
MTST offense190th of 366 · -5.8
←MTSTSmall
NAU defense292nd of 366 · -7.4
MTST defense155th of 366 · -3.4
←MTSTBig
NAU offense329th of 366 · -10.7
Backcourt-0.8 · 4 players
←MTSTBig
Backcourt-5.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.9 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-0.8 · 1 player
Bench-4.0 · 5 players
→NAUBig
Bench+0.1 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestMTST betterNAU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Miller36 minC. Holden28 minJ. Davis25 minS. Amunrud21 minH. Keene11 minD. Slater7 min · TR
Forwards
C. King29 minJ. Steppe15 minW. Mbatch11 minL. Praytor4 min · TRC. Rutherfurd1 minJ. StewardNew
Guards
R. Abelman33 minC. Komin27 minB. Peterson20 minM. Majerle5 min · TRC. Bennett3 min · TRJ. Amundsen1 min
Forwards
D. Anderson7 min · TRL. WieskampNewT. GreenNewL. ToukamNewZ. TannerNew
Centers
N. KeutchaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.7 #151 | Points per game | 68.1 #311 |
| 1.12 #107 | Points per possession | 1.04 #271 |
| 67.9 #233 | Pace (possessions) | 65.5 #330 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.6 #80 | Effective FG% | 51.7 #161 |
| 36.1 #52 | 3-point % | 35.6 #79 |
| 44.6 #76 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.6 #236 |
| 30.2 #303 | Free throw rate | 31.8 #260 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.8 #53 | Turnover rate | 16.0 #140 |
| 27.0 #292 | Offensive rebound rate | 23.3 #348 |
| 10.6 #347 | Assists per game | 12.5 #251 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.5 #144 | Points allowed | 77.6 #257 |
| 1.08 #158 | Points allowed per possession | 1.18 #351 |
| 51.6 #193 | Opponent effective FG% | 56.9 #355 |
| 34.3 #198 | Opponent 3-point % | 38.7 #362 |
| 15.6 #242 | Turnovers forced | 16.6 #181 |
| 71.8 #75 | Defensive rebound rate | 66.6 #305 |
| 6.5 #171 | Steals per game | 6.3 #194 |
| 2.8 #263 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #287 |
Montana St
15-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho74–78
- W@ N Arizona76–65
- Wvs Sacramento St82–61
- Wvs Portland St84–69
- L@ Idaho St76–91
A week or more of rest.
N Arizona
7-22 in 2025-26 overall · 4-15 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho St65–73
- Lvs Montana St65–76
- L@ E Washington57–88
- L@ Idaho58–78
- L@ N Colorado77–78
A week or more of rest.