Titan Gym · at Fullerton · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CSUF | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CSUF 78–74 · win probability CSUF 62%
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: CSUF has more of the edges
LBSU 1, CSUF 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: LBSU 30.7, CSUF 37.8. Allowed: LBSU 42.3, CSUF 35.3
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LBSU 18.0%, CSUF 15.3%. Forced: LBSU 17.5%, CSUF 19.4%
LBSU offense vs CSUF defense
Offense 285th of 366 against a defense 344th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LBSU 8%, CSUF 39%. Transfers in: LBSU 5, CSUF 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Three-pointers
LBSU hits 32.7% and allows 34.4%; CSUF hits 34.2% and allows 34.0%. Threes are 34.8% and 43.1% of their shots
Home court
CSUF at home. This season: CSUF 0-0 at home, LBSU 0-0 away
Even
CSUF offense vs LBSU defense
Offense 272nd of 366 against a defense 300th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LBSU 26.2%, CSUF 24.6%. Defensive: LBSU 72.2%, CSUF 71.7%
Context
Tempo
About 74 possessions: LBSU plays 71.7 a game (46th fastest), CSUF 75.5 (3rd). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
LBSU has played the 152nd-hardest schedule, CSUF the 164th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LBSU 50.6 and allows 53.7; CSUF 51.4 and allows 54.3
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 | — | CSUF -3.5 | — |
| Total | — | 152.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | LBSU 74.4 · CSUF 78 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CSUF -2.0 | — |
| 1H total | 71.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | LBSU 34.6 · CSUF 36.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Last 5 of 10 since 2021-22
LBSU 5–5 CSUFSeries tied · 10 games since 2021-22 · CSUF has won the last 3 meetings · LBSU 6-4 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2025-26 | CSUF 86 @ LBSU 82 | LBSU -2.5 | CSUF W |
| Jan 22, 2025-26 | LBSU 61 @ CSUF 71 | CSUF -3.5 | CSUF W |
| Jan 18, 2024-25 | CSUF 83 @ LBSU 67 | LBSU -5.5 | CSUF W |
| Dec 5, 2024-25 | LBSU 73 @ CSUF 56 | CSUF -6.5 | LBSU W |
| Feb 29, 2023-24 | CSUF 76 @ LBSU 71 | LBSU -8 | CSUF W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Long Beach St
30 games played
Straight up
8-22
27% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg +0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-10
67% overs · avg +4.6 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 45-77 | +25.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 62-82 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 66-69 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 80-82 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 72-78 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 73-93 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-72 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 4 | @ | L 77-84 | +13.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 74-80 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 83-89 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 81-78 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 60-91 | +37.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 74-66 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 64-74 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 81-75 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 88-73 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 87-80 | +7.5 | W +14.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 61-71 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 71-74 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-71 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 82-89 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 74-77 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 82-86 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 54-71 | +4.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 58-69 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 76-78 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 92-102 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 88-87 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 70-76 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 84-75 | +14.5 | W +23.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
SDSU
L 45-77
−6.5
8
@
FRES
L 62-82
−13.5
12
@
PAC
L 66-69
+9.5
16
vs
ILST
L 80-82
+6.5
21
vs
MTST
L 72-78
−2.5
26
@
PORT
L 73-93
−14.5
30
vs
USD
W 76-72
+6.5
4
@
UCSB
L 77-84
+6.5
6
vs
UCSD
L 74-80
+2.5
9
@
SJSU
L 83-89
+1.5
18
vs
PEPP
W 81-78
−1.5
21
@
ISU
L 60-91
+6.5
3
vs
CP
W 74-66
+5.5
8
@
UCI
L 64-74
+0.5
10
vs
CSUB
W 81-75
−0.5
15
vs
UCR
W 88-73
+9.5
17
@
CSUN
W 87-80
+14.5
22
@
CSUF
L 61-71
−6.5
24
vs
UCSB
L 71-74
+1.5
29
@
UCR
L 61-71
−11.5
31
vs
HAW
L 82-89
+1.5
5
@
UCSD
L 74-77
+7.5
12
vs
CSUF
L 82-86
−6.5
14
@
UCD
L 54-71
−12.5
19
vs
UCI
L 58-69
−5.5
21
vs
CSUN
L 76-78
+0.5
26
@
CP
L 92-102
−4.5
28
@
CSUB
W 88-87
−2.5
5
vs
UCD
L 70-76
−4.5
7
@
HAW
W 84-75
+23.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
SDSU
L 45-77
−13.5
8
@
FRES
L 62-82
+1.5
12
@
PAC
L 66-69
−6.5
16
vs
ILST
L 80-82
+20.5
21
vs
MTST
L 72-78
+9.5
26
@
PORT
L 73-93
+17.5
30
vs
USD
W 76-72
+0.5
4
@
UCSB
L 77-84
+19.5
6
vs
UCSD
L 74-80
+8.5
9
@
SJSU
L 83-89
+30.5
18
vs
PEPP
W 81-78
+17.5
21
@
ISU
L 60-91
+1.5
3
vs
CP
W 74-66
−22.5
8
@
UCI
L 64-74
−4.5
10
vs
CSUB
W 81-75
+13.5
15
vs
UCR
W 88-73
+19.5
17
@
CSUN
W 87-80
+8.5
22
@
CSUF
L 61-71
−28.5
24
vs
UCSB
L 71-74
+0.5
29
@
UCR
L 61-71
−12.5
31
vs
HAW
L 82-89
+26.5
5
@
UCSD
L 74-77
+6.5
12
vs
CSUF
L 82-86
+11.5
14
@
UCD
L 54-71
−24.5
19
vs
UCI
L 58-69
−17.5
21
vs
CSUN
L 76-78
−3.5
26
@
CP
L 92-102
+31.5
28
@
CSUB
W 88-87
+22.5
5
vs
UCD
L 70-76
−3.5
7
@
HAW
W 84-75
+8.5
over 20under 10avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Fullerton
32 games played
Straight up
16-16
50% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-18
42% 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 8 | @ | L 82-92 | +15.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 65-93 | +22.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 73-85 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 85-103 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 164.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 88-80 | +11.5 | W +19.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 93-97 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 164.5 | O 190 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 83-69 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 4 | vs | L 91-94 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 177.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 59-69 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 105-86 | +3.5 | W +22.5 | 165.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 89-94 | +19.5 | W +14.5 | 176.5 | O 183 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 63-110 | +21.5 | L −25.5 | 170.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 95-84 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 64-86 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 160.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 88-71 | +13.5 | W +30.5 | 166.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 86-79 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 173.5 | U 165 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 69-74 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 166.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 72-81 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 71-61 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 93-78 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 69-83 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-72 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-66 | -9.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 86-82 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-86 | +7.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 93-92 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 88-80 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 85-87 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 75-71 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 90-77 | +5.5 | W +18.5 | 170.5 | U 167 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 82-70 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 63-78 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 157.5 | U 141 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
WYO
L 82-92
+5.5
10
@
CAL
L 65-93
−5.5
15
vs
PAC
L 73-85
−5.5
21
@
PORT
L 85-103
−11.5
22
vs
STMN
W 88-80
+19.5
23
vs
UNCO
L 93-97
+4.5
29
vs
PEPP
W 83-69
+12.5
4
vs
CP
L 91-94
−4.5
13
@
DEN
W 105-86
+22.5
21
@
OKST
L 89-94
+14.5
28
@
SMU
L 63-110
−25.5
1
vs
UCSB
W 95-84
+14.5
3
vs
UCI
L 64-86
−18.5
8
@
UCSD
W 88-71
+30.5
10
vs
CSUN
W 86-79
+5.5
15
@
UCD
L 69-74
−1.5
17
@
UCR
L 72-81
−12.5
22
vs
LBSU
W 71-61
+6.5
24
@
CP
W 93-78
+13.5
31
@
UCSB
L 69-83
−5.5
5
vs
UCR
W 78-72
+0.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 82-66
+6.5
12
@
LBSU
W 86-82
+6.5
14
@
UCI
L 65-86
−13.5
19
vs
UCD
W 93-92
−0.5
21
@
CSUB
W 88-80
+2.5
28
vs
HAW
L 85-87
+1.5
5
vs
UCSD
W 75-71
+6.5
7
@
CSUN
W 90-77
+18.5
12
vs
UCD
W 82-70
+10.5
13
vs
HAW
L 63-78
−9.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
WYO
L 82-92
+19.5
10
@
CAL
L 65-93
−4.5
15
vs
PAC
L 73-85
−1.5
21
@
PORT
L 85-103
+23.5
22
vs
STMN
W 88-80
+5.5
23
vs
UNCO
L 93-97
+25.5
29
vs
PEPP
W 83-69
−9.5
4
vs
CP
L 91-94
+7.5
13
@
DEN
W 105-86
+25.5
21
@
OKST
L 89-94
+6.5
28
@
SMU
L 63-110
+2.5
1
vs
UCSB
W 95-84
+23.5
3
vs
UCI
L 64-86
−10.5
8
@
UCSD
W 88-71
−7.5
10
vs
CSUN
W 86-79
−8.5
15
@
UCD
L 69-74
−23.5
17
@
UCR
L 72-81
−4.5
22
vs
LBSU
W 71-61
−28.5
24
@
CP
W 93-78
−2.5
31
@
UCSB
L 69-83
−1.5
5
vs
UCR
W 78-72
−6.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 82-66
−9.5
12
@
LBSU
W 86-82
+11.5
14
@
UCI
L 65-86
−3.5
19
vs
UCD
W 93-92
+28.5
21
@
CSUB
W 88-80
+7.5
28
vs
HAW
L 85-87
+13.5
5
vs
UCSD
W 75-71
−10.5
7
@
CSUN
W 90-77
−3.5
12
vs
UCD
W 82-70
−3.5
13
vs
HAW
L 63-78
−16.5
over 13under 18avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Long Beach St has the better starters
Position by position: Long Beach St 2, Fullerton 0, even 3
Long Beach StBetterFullerton
G J. Payne TR6.9 pts · 3.7 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 40
=Even
G C. Williams9.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 39
G Y. Sissoko TR2.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 32
←LBSUSmall
G B. Nunn5 pts · 2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
G C. Jones3.1 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. White2.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 0
F G. Brcic TR4.3 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 39
=No call
G T. Jenkins TR0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
C N. Amenhauser TR5.1 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 57
←LBSUBig
F K. De Luna4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 7
Long Beach StBetterFullerton
LBSU offense285th of 366 · -8.8
←LBSUSmall
CSUF defense344th of 366 · -9.2
LBSU defense300th of 366 · -7.7
=Even
CSUF offense272nd of 366 · -8.3
Backcourt-2.0 · 3 players
←LBSUBig
Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.3 · 2 players
←LBSUSmall
Frontcourt-2.1 · 1 player
Bench-1.9 · 2 players
→CSUFSmall
Bench-0.1 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestLBSU betterCSUF betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Payne22 min · TRY. Sissoko11 min · TRC. Jones10 minJ. TenganNewJ. GrayNewM. AdamsNew
Forwards
G. Brcic17 min · TRK. Smith8 min · TRJ. Chaikovsky6 minB. WrightNewH. LauNewM. VanlaninghamNew
Centers
N. Amenhauser12 min · TR
Guards
C. Williams27 minB. Nunn19 minD. White13 minT. Jenkins3 min · TRM. Quinlan2 minD. McConnellNew
Forwards
K. De Luna18 minR. ReynoldsNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.2 #219 | Points per game | 80.3 #60 |
| 1.02 #303 | Points per possession | 1.07 #208 |
| 71.7 #46 | Pace (possessions) | 75.5 #3 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.6 #207 | Effective FG% | 51.4 #180 |
| 32.7 #245 | 3-point % | 34.2 #162 |
| 34.8 #280 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.1 #108 |
| 30.7 #287 | Free throw rate | 37.8 #107 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.0 #271 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #82 |
| 26.2 #315 | Offensive rebound rate | 24.6 #345 |
| 12.3 #264 | Assists per game | 15.0 #85 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.0 #297 | Points allowed | 82.2 #342 |
| 1.10 #220 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #181 |
| 53.7 #290 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.3 #307 |
| 34.4 #212 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.0 #185 |
| 17.5 #119 | Turnovers forced | 19.4 #34 |
| 72.2 #60 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.7 #80 |
| 6.5 #173 | Steals per game | 7.9 #45 |
| 2.9 #250 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #258 |
Long Beach St
8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- W@ Hawai'i84–75
- Lvs UC Davis70–76
- W@ Bakersfield88–87
- L@ Cal Poly92–102
- Lvs CSU Northridge76–78
A week or more of rest.
Fullerton
16-16 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Hawai'i63–78
- Wvs UC Davis82–70
- W@ CSU Northridge90–77
- Wvs UC San Diego75–71
- Lvs Hawai'i85–87
A week or more of rest.