The Thunderdome · at Santa Barbara · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UCSB | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UCSB 83–78 · win probability UCSB 66%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 160.7
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: UCSB has more of the edges
CP 2, UCSB 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
UCSB offense vs CP defense
Offense 150th of 366 against a defense 343rd, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
CP hits 33.0% and allows 34.7%; UCSB hits 37.4% and allows 33.9%. Threes are 52.6% and 44.1% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: CP plays 76.4 a game (1st fastest), UCSB 68.2 (218th). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CP 100%, UCSB 53%. Transfers in: CP 0, UCSB 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Shooting
Effective FG%: CP 51.5 and allows 53.8; UCSB 54.7 and allows 52.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CP 30.0%, UCSB 31.0%. Defensive: CP 70.4%, UCSB 74.5%
Free throws
Free throw rate: CP 34.9, UCSB 36.8. Allowed: CP 34.1, UCSB 42.4
Home court
UCSB at home. This season: UCSB 0-0 at home, CP 0-0 away
Even
CP offense vs UCSB defense
Offense 91st of 366 against a defense 129th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CP has played the 170th-hardest schedule, UCSB the 203rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CP 19.8%, UCSB 18.8%. Forced: CP 16.3%, UCSB 16.8%
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 | — | UCSB -4.8 | — |
| Total | — | 160.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | CP 78 · UCSB 82.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCSB -2.7 | — |
| 1H total | 75.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | CP 36.2 · UCSB 38.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 10 since 2021-22
CP 1–9 UCSBUCSB leads · 10 games since 2021-22 · CP 7-3 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2025-26 | UCSB 79 @ CP 89 | CP +3.5 | CP W |
| Jan 22, 2025-26 | CP 67 @ UCSB 107 | UCSB -8.5 | UCSB W |
| Feb 27, 2024-25 | CP 77 @ UCSB 96 | UCSB -6.5 | UCSB W |
| Jan 11, 2024-25 | UCSB 75 @ CP 72 | CP +4.5 | CP W |
| Feb 29, 2023-24 | CP 75 @ UCSB 83 | UCSB -13.5 | CP W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Cal Poly
31 games played
Straight up
12-19
39% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% overs · avg +0.7 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 64-94 | +24.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 73-71 | +10.5 | W +12.5 | 164.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 79-93 | +18.5 | W +4.5 | 165.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 82-90 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 20 | @ | W 92-85 | +14.5 | W +21.5 | 167.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 87-93 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 68-84 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 170.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 4 | @ | W 94-91 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 177.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 84-88 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 80-83 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 87-108 | +24.5 | W +3.5 | 161.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 80-83 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 67-65 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 174.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 66-74 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 90-95 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 175.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 84-78 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 168.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 66-86 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 67-107 | +8.5 | L −31.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 78-93 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 104-79 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 161.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 94-87 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 162.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 96-97 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 177.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 58-67 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 169.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 79-73 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 89-79 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 86-75 | +11.5 | W +22.5 | 160.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 102-92 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 64-80 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 85-107 | +9.5 | L −12.5 | 160.5 | O 192 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 108-76 | -8.5 | W +23.5 | 174.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 69-72 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | U 141 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
USC
L 64-94
−5.5
8
@
SEA
W 73-71
+12.5
12
@
CSU
L 79-93
+4.5
14
@
MONT
L 82-90
−0.5
20
@
UTAH
W 92-85
+21.5
24
@
NAU
L 87-93
−7.5
25
vs
SEMO
L 68-84
−14.5
4
@
CSUF
W 94-91
+4.5
6
vs
UCR
L 84-88
−9.5
16
vs
MTST
L 80-83
−0.5
19
@
UCLA
L 87-108
+3.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-83
−1.5
1
vs
UCSD
W 67-65
+10.5
3
@
LBSU
L 66-74
−5.5
8
@
CSUN
L 90-95
+1.5
10
vs
UCD
W 84-78
+7.5
15
vs
HAW
L 66-86
−14.5
22
@
UCSB
L 67-107
−31.5
24
vs
CSUF
L 78-93
−13.5
29
@
CSUB
W 104-79
+23.5
31
@
UCR
W 94-87
+8.5
5
vs
CSUN
L 96-97
+1.5
7
@
UCD
L 58-67
−3.5
12
vs
UCI
W 79-73
+11.5
14
vs
UCSB
W 89-79
+13.5
19
@
HAW
W 86-75
+22.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 102-92
+4.5
28
@
UCSD
L 64-80
−8.5
5
@
UCI
L 85-107
−12.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 108-76
+23.5
11
vs
UCSD
L 69-72
+1.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
USC
L 64-94
−5.5
8
@
SEA
W 73-71
−20.5
12
@
CSU
L 79-93
+6.5
14
@
MONT
L 82-90
+3.5
20
@
UTAH
W 92-85
+9.5
24
@
NAU
L 87-93
+15.5
25
vs
SEMO
L 68-84
−18.5
4
@
CSUF
W 94-91
+7.5
6
vs
UCR
L 84-88
+9.5
16
vs
MTST
L 80-83
+3.5
19
@
UCLA
L 87-108
+33.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-83
−4.5
1
vs
UCSD
W 67-65
−42.5
3
@
LBSU
L 66-74
−22.5
8
@
CSUN
L 90-95
+9.5
10
vs
UCD
W 84-78
−6.5
15
vs
HAW
L 66-86
−8.5
22
@
UCSB
L 67-107
+14.5
24
vs
CSUF
L 78-93
−2.5
29
@
CSUB
W 104-79
+21.5
31
@
UCR
W 94-87
+18.5
5
vs
CSUN
L 96-97
+15.5
7
@
UCD
L 58-67
−44.5
12
vs
UCI
W 79-73
−9.5
14
vs
UCSB
W 89-79
+8.5
19
@
HAW
W 86-75
+0.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 102-92
+31.5
28
@
UCSD
L 64-80
−20.5
5
@
UCI
L 85-107
+31.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 108-76
+9.5
11
vs
UCSD
L 69-72
−21.5
over 18under 13avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Santa Barbara
30 games played
Straight up
16-14
53% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +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 8 | vs | W 85-74 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 92-87 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 17 | vs | L 74-78 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 64-77 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 72-70 | -10.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 74-71 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 4 | vs | W 84-77 | -13.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 109-84 | -12.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 193 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 53-68 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-67 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 79-61 | -9.5 | W +8.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 84-95 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 65-74 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 156.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 86-93 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 75-69 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 77-62 | +2.5 | W +17.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 107-67 | -8.5 | W +31.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 74-71 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 62-48 | +4.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 83-69 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 75-85 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-79 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 76-68 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 79-89 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 83-85 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-78 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 70-59 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-64 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 138.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 63-64 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 127 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 73-79 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
vs
SJSU
W 85-74
+1.5
11
@
SAC
W 92-87
−2.5
17
vs
LMU
L 74-78
−7.5
22
@
NEV
L 64-77
−7.5
28
vs
LEH
W 72-70
−8.5
29
vs
SEA
W 74-71
+5.5
4
vs
LBSU
W 84-77
−6.5
6
vs
CSUB
W 109-84
+12.5
13
vs
UVU
L 53-68
−9.5
17
@
GB
L 64-67
−10.5
22
vs
PORT
W 79-61
+8.5
1
@
CSUF
L 84-95
−14.5
3
@
CSUN
L 65-74
−6.5
8
vs
UCD
L 86-93
−11.5
15
@
CSUB
W 75-69
−1.5
17
vs
HAW
W 77-62
+17.5
22
vs
CP
W 107-67
+31.5
24
@
LBSU
W 74-71
−1.5
29
@
UCSD
W 62-48
+18.5
31
vs
CSUF
W 83-69
+5.5
5
@
UCD
L 75-85
−13.5
7
vs
UCI
W 84-79
+2.5
12
@
UCR
W 76-68
+1.5
14
@
CP
L 79-89
−13.5
19
vs
CSUN
L 83-85
−7.5
21
@
HAW
L 75-78
+2.5
26
vs
UCR
W 70-59
+0.5
28
@
UCI
L 60-64
−0.5
7
vs
UCSD
L 63-64
−3.5
11
vs
UCD
L 73-79
−10.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
vs
SJSU
W 85-74
+12.5
11
@
SAC
W 92-87
+17.5
17
vs
LMU
L 74-78
+6.5
22
@
NEV
L 64-77
−6.5
28
vs
LEH
W 72-70
−4.5
29
vs
SEA
W 74-71
+2.5
4
vs
LBSU
W 84-77
+19.5
6
vs
CSUB
W 109-84
+47.5
13
vs
UVU
L 53-68
−25.5
17
@
GB
L 64-67
−9.5
22
vs
PORT
W 79-61
−7.5
1
@
CSUF
L 84-95
+23.5
3
@
CSUN
L 65-74
−17.5
8
vs
UCD
L 86-93
+31.5
15
@
CSUB
W 75-69
−0.5
17
vs
HAW
W 77-62
−4.5
22
vs
CP
W 107-67
+14.5
24
@
LBSU
W 74-71
+0.5
29
@
UCSD
W 62-48
−35.5
31
vs
CSUF
W 83-69
−1.5
5
@
UCD
L 75-85
+12.5
7
vs
UCI
W 84-79
+21.5
12
@
UCR
W 76-68
−1.5
14
@
CP
L 79-89
+8.5
19
vs
CSUN
L 83-85
+11.5
21
@
HAW
L 75-78
+7.5
26
vs
UCR
W 70-59
−16.5
28
@
UCI
L 60-64
−14.5
7
vs
UCSD
L 63-64
−14.5
11
vs
UCD
L 73-79
+12.5
over 16under 14avg +3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Santa Barbara has the better starters
Position by position: Cal Poly 1, Santa Barbara 3, even 1
Cal PolyBetterSanta Barbara
G H. Mousa20.3 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 96
←CPBig
G V. Vartiainen TR12.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 52
G C. Ward14.3 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 58
→UCSBSmall
G M. Little12.7 pts · 5.6 reb · 4.8 ast
Score 91
G G. Vasilic7.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 21
→UCSBBig
G C. Shaw11.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 62
G J. Davis5.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 15
→UCSBSmall
G R. Smith TR6.6 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 43
G K. Elliott5.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 33
=Even
C E. Dibami TR9.5 pts · 7.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 45
Cal PolyBetterSanta Barbara
CP offense91st of 366 · -0.2
=Even
UCSB defense129th of 366 · -2.3
CP defense343rd of 366 · -9.2
→UCSBBig
UCSB offense150th of 366 · -4.5
Backcourt-1.4 · 5 players
→UCSBSmall
Backcourt+1.4 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-0.1 · 1 player
Bench-4.1 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-3.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCP betterUCSB betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
H. Mousa32 minC. Ward30 minG. Vasilic23 minJ. Davis21 minK. Elliott18 minJ. Esso Essis17 min
Forwards
A. Goode16 minT. Plumtree13 minA. Assran13 minA. Price6 minB. FreemanNew
Guards
V. Vartiainen31 min · TRM. Little30 minC. Shaw29 minR. Smith28 min · TRM. McGhee21 minL. Zuffelato4 min
Forwards
A. Chol24 min · TRM. Simcoe9 minD. Duru7 min · TRK. Keat Tong6 minK. Haughy2 minJ. Simcoe2 min
Centers
E. Dibami29 min · TRM. John WuolNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.3 #42 | Points per game | 76.7 #127 |
| 1.06 #222 | Points per possession | 1.13 #87 |
| 76.4 #1 | Pace (possessions) | 68.2 #218 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.5 #170 | Effective FG% | 54.7 #47 |
| 33.0 #228 | 3-point % | 37.4 #23 |
| 52.6 #5 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.1 #87 |
| 34.9 #182 | Free throw rate | 36.8 #134 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.8 #345 | Turnover rate | 18.8 #312 |
| 30.0 #202 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.0 #165 |
| 13.3 #194 | Assists per game | 14.1 #140 |
| Defense | ||
| 85.3 #360 | Points allowed | 73.7 #148 |
| 1.12 #274 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #156 |
| 53.8 #292 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.6 #244 |
| 34.7 #231 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.9 #177 |
| 16.3 #203 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #170 |
| 70.4 #141 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.5 #14 |
| 6.4 #188 | Steals per game | 6.2 #216 |
| 2.2 #337 | Blocks per game | 2.3 #322 |
Cal Poly
12-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-11 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UC San Diego69–72
- Wvs Bakersfield108–76
- L@ UC Irvine85–107
- L@ UC San Diego64–80
- Wvs Long Beach St102–92
A week or more of rest.
Santa Barbara
16-14 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UC Davis73–79
- Lvs UC San Diego63–64
- L@ UC Irvine60–64
- Wvs UC Riverside70–59
- L@ Hawai'i75–78
A week or more of rest.