America First Events Center · at Southern Utah · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SUU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SUU 80–75 · win probability SUU 66%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.4
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: WEB has more of the edges
WEB 4, SUU 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WEB 31.8%, SUU 28.8%. Defensive: WEB 72.3%, SUU 66.4%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WEB 15.7%, SUU 20.3%. Forced: WEB 16.3%, SUU 14.8%
Three-pointers
WEB hits 34.5% and allows 33.5%; SUU hits 33.0% and allows 38.0%. Threes are 32.8% and 35.5% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
WEB has played the 316th-hardest schedule, SUU the 187th. A record against a soft schedule means less
SUU offense vs WEB defense
Offense 211th of 366 against a defense 336th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
SUU at home. This season: SUU 0-0 at home, WEB 0-0 away
WEB offense vs SUU defense
Offense 280th of 366 against a defense 329th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WEB 9%, SUU 27%. Transfers in: WEB 2, SUU 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: WEB plays 70.7 a game (85th fastest), SUU 71.2 (62nd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: WEB 39.1, SUU 33.1. Allowed: WEB 36.4, SUU 29.8
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WEB 51.7 and allows 54.5; SUU 50.8 and allows 53.3
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 | — | SUU -4.8 | — |
| Total | — | 155.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | WEB 75.3 · SUU 80.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SUU -2.8 | — |
| 1H total | 72.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | WEB 34.9 · SUU 37.7 | — |
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% | |
| 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
WEB 1–1 SUUSeries tied · 2 games since 2021-22 · WEB 1-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2021-22 | SUU 80 @ WEB 70 | WEB -5.5 | SUU W |
| Jan 24, 2021-22 | WEB 92 @ SUU 84 | SUU -2.5 | 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
Southern Utah
29 games played
Straight up
7-22
24% wins
Against the spread
15-14
52% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-12
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 4 | @ | L 64-81 | +17.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 72-95 | +1.5 | L −21.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 85-90 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 50-122 | +35.5 | L −36.5 | 160.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 74-98 | +12.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 28 | @ | L 54-61 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 70-68 | -1.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 70-81 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 69-105 | +25.5 | L −10.5 | 153.5 | O 174 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 57-65 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 66-80 | +7.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 77-86 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 72-89 | +18.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 55-58 | +14.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 106-105 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | O 211 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 74-52 | +3.5 | W +25.5 | 149.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 84-70 | +12.5 | W +26.5 | 160.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 91-102 | +6.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-80 | +9.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-76 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 59-62 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 66-83 | +5.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-73 | +8.5 | W +13.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 74-78 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 83-87 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 81-67 | +1.5 | W +15.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 88-92 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 180 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 75-82 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 63-69 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
ASU
L 64-81
+0.5
8
vs
RGV
L 72-95
−21.5
15
@
OMA
L 85-90
+3.5
17
@
GONZ
L 50-122
−36.5
19
@
WSU
L 74-98
−11.5
28
@
RMU
L 54-61
+1.5
29
vs
STET
W 70-68
+0.5
6
@
ORST
L 70-81
−0.5
13
@
WASH
L 69-105
−10.5
18
@
NAU
L 57-65
−2.5
29
@
UTU
L 66-80
−6.5
3
vs
UTA
L 77-86
−3.5
8
@
UVU
L 72-89
+1.5
10
@
CBU
L 55-58
+11.5
15
vs
TAR
W 106-105
+4.5
17
vs
ACU
W 74-52
+25.5
21
vs
UVU
W 84-70
+26.5
24
@
UTU
L 91-102
−4.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-80
−9.5
31
@
ACU
W 79-76
+9.5
7
vs
TAR
L 59-62
−1.5
12
vs
CBU
L 66-83
−11.5
14
@
UTA
W 78-73
+13.5
19
@
TAR
L 74-78
+0.5
21
@
ACU
L 83-87
+4.5
28
vs
UTU
W 81-67
+15.5
5
vs
UVU
L 88-92
+5.5
7
vs
CBU
L 75-82
−0.5
12
vs
UTA
L 63-69
−1.5
covered 15didn’t cover 14avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
ASU
L 64-81
−6.5
8
vs
RGV
L 72-95
+6.5
15
@
OMA
L 85-90
+21.5
17
@
GONZ
L 50-122
+11.5
19
@
WSU
L 74-98
+14.5
28
@
RMU
L 54-61
−37.5
29
vs
STET
W 70-68
−10.5
6
@
ORST
L 70-81
+4.5
13
@
WASH
L 69-105
+20.5
18
@
NAU
L 57-65
−28.5
29
@
UTU
L 66-80
−2.5
3
vs
UTA
L 77-86
+24.5
8
@
UVU
L 72-89
+6.5
10
@
CBU
L 55-58
−37.5
15
vs
TAR
W 106-105
+60.5
17
vs
ACU
W 74-52
−23.5
21
vs
UVU
W 84-70
−6.5
24
@
UTU
L 91-102
+43.5
29
@
UTA
L 61-80
−3.5
31
@
ACU
W 79-76
+4.5
7
vs
TAR
L 59-62
−28.5
12
vs
CBU
L 66-83
+1.5
14
@
UTA
W 78-73
+7.5
19
@
TAR
L 74-78
+7.5
21
@
ACU
L 83-87
+26.5
28
vs
UTU
W 81-67
−8.5
5
vs
UVU
L 88-92
+29.5
7
vs
CBU
L 75-82
+8.5
12
vs
UTA
L 63-69
−9.5
over 17under 12avg +3.3 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: Weber St 0, Southern Utah 0, even 5
Weber StBetterSouthern Utah
G A. Grayson3.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 6
=No call
G B. Johnson0 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Not ranked
F B. Felder TR2.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G Z. Kidd0.3 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
F D. Thompson NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Feroah14 pts · 6.9 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 87
C A. Ekwe TR2.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Nicholls TR10.8 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 95
C D. Cutler1.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F C. Barclay4.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 8
Weber StBetterSouthern Utah
WEB offense280th of 366 · -8.6
=Even
SUU defense329th of 366 · -8.6
WEB defense336th of 366 · -8.9
→SUUSmall
SUU offense211th of 366 · -6.4
Backcourt-1.7 · 1 player
→SUUSmall
Backcourt-0.4 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 4 players
→SUUBig
Frontcourt+3.8 · 3 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestWEB betterSUU 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
B. Johnson4 minZ. Kidd3 minD. SandersNewA. BrelandNewJ. BrownNewC. DegraffenriedNew
Forwards
J. Feroah31 minJ. Nicholls18 min · TRC. Barclay16 minJ. RiakNewJ. NichollsNewD. SmithNew
Centers
M. ProtsenkoNew
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 | 72.3 #235 |
| 1.11 #112 | Points per possession | 1.01 #310 |
| 70.7 #85 | Pace (possessions) | 71.2 #62 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.7 #163 | Effective FG% | 50.8 #200 |
| 34.5 #143 | 3-point % | 33.0 #231 |
| 32.8 #320 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.5 #261 |
| 39.1 #76 | Free throw rate | 33.1 #235 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.7 #115 | Turnover rate | 20.3 #352 |
| 31.8 #132 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.8 #239 |
| 12.6 #241 | Assists per game | 12.9 #223 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.1 #300 | Points allowed | 81.3 #335 |
| 1.12 #269 | Points allowed per possession | 1.14 #308 |
| 54.5 #316 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.3 #276 |
| 33.5 #160 | Opponent 3-point % | 38.0 #358 |
| 16.3 #204 | Turnovers forced | 14.8 #302 |
| 72.3 #56 | Defensive rebound rate | 66.4 #309 |
| 6.9 #133 | Steals per game | 5.2 #317 |
| 1.5 #360 | Blocks per game | 4.1 #60 |
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.
Southern Utah
7-22 in 2025-26 overall · 6-13 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UT Arlington63–69
- Lvs CA Baptist75–82
- Lvs Utah Valley88–92
- Wvs Utah Tech81–67
- L@ Abilene Chrstn83–87
A week or more of rest.