UCCU Center · at Utah Valley · Conference game
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UVU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UVU 81–73 · win probability UVU 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.2
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: UVU has more of the edges
SAC 2, UVU 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: SAC 47.0 and allows 55.0; UVU 55.0 and allows 49.4
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SAC 25.2%, UVU 34.8%. Defensive: SAC 66.6%, UVU 68.7%
UVU offense vs SAC defense
Offense 161st of 366 against a defense 262nd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SAC 14.1%, UVU 20.1%. Forced: SAC 17.1%, UVU 21.3%
Free throws
Free throw rate: SAC 41.2, UVU 38.2. Allowed: SAC 36.2, UVU 39.1
Three-pointers
SAC hits 31.9% and allows 35.1%; UVU hits 34.0% and allows 35.2%. Threes are 35.6% and 32.9% of their shots
Home court
UVU at home. This season: UVU 0-0 at home, SAC 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: SAC plays 72.6 a game (24th fastest), UVU 70.2 (104th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
SAC has played the 248th-hardest schedule, UVU the 254th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
SAC offense vs UVU defense
Offense 146th of 366 against a defense 152nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SAC 42%, UVU 44%. Transfers in: SAC 6, UVU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | UVU -7.6 | — |
| Total | — | 154.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | SAC 73.3 · UVU 80.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UVU -4.4 | — |
| 1H total | 72.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | SAC 33.9 · UVU 38.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 7-3 70% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Sacramento St
28 games played
Straight up
7-21
25% wins
Against the spread
12-16
43% covers · avg 0 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +1.6 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 11 | vs | L 87-92 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 161.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 73-77 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 64-62 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 48-79 | +27.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 67-91 | +21.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 54-68 | +10.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 88-110 | +29.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | O 198 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 67-74 | +14.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 88-100 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 84-97 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 82-95 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 168.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 69-96 | +9.5 | L −17.5 | 160.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 83-69 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 93-89 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 163.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 76-86 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 161.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 67-75 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 83-80 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 86-79 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 104-90 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 73-74 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 79-95 | +11.5 | L −4.5 | 164.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 74-79 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 94-102 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 80-86 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 73-81 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 61-82 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 83-65 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 160.5 | U 148 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 45-68 | +6.5 | L −16.5 | 158.5 | U 113 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
11
vs
UCSB
L 87-92
+2.5
14
@
UCD
L 73-77
+0.5
16
vs
PRES
W 64-62
−4.5
18
@
UCLA
L 48-79
−3.5
21
@
CAL
L 67-91
−2.5
29
@
PAC
L 54-68
−3.5
2
@
BAY
L 88-110
+7.5
20
@
CBU
L 67-74
+7.5
22
@
CSUN
L 88-100
−3.5
1
@
IDST
L 84-97
−4.5
3
@
WEB
L 82-95
−6.5
10
@
PRST
L 69-96
−17.5
15
vs
NAU
W 83-69
+12.5
17
vs
UNCO
W 93-89
+10.5
22
@
IDHO
L 76-86
+0.5
24
@
EWU
L 67-75
−2.5
29
vs
MTST
W 83-80
+7.5
31
vs
MONT
W 86-79
+10.5
2
vs
WEB
W 104-90
+12.5
7
vs
PRST
L 73-74
+2.5
12
@
UNCO
L 79-95
−4.5
14
@
NAU
L 74-79
−2.5
19
vs
EWU
L 94-102
−5.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-86
−1.5
26
@
MONT
L 73-81
−0.5
28
@
MTST
L 61-82
−14.5
2
vs
IDST
W 83-65
+19.5
7
vs
IDHO
L 45-68
−16.5
covered 12didn’t cover 16avg 0 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
11
vs
UCSB
L 87-92
+17.5
14
@
UCD
L 73-77
−1.5
16
vs
PRES
W 64-62
−24.5
18
@
UCLA
L 48-79
−19.5
21
@
CAL
L 67-91
+3.5
29
@
PAC
L 54-68
−24.5
2
@
BAY
L 88-110
+39.5
20
@
CBU
L 67-74
−17.5
22
@
CSUN
L 88-100
+23.5
1
@
IDST
L 84-97
+27.5
3
@
WEB
L 82-95
+8.5
10
@
PRST
L 69-96
+4.5
15
vs
NAU
W 83-69
−1.5
17
vs
UNCO
W 93-89
+18.5
22
@
IDHO
L 76-86
+0.5
24
@
EWU
L 67-75
−21.5
29
vs
MTST
W 83-80
+9.5
31
vs
MONT
W 86-79
+9.5
2
vs
WEB
W 104-90
+31.5
7
vs
PRST
L 73-74
−3.5
12
@
UNCO
L 79-95
+9.5
14
@
NAU
L 74-79
−1.5
19
vs
EWU
L 94-102
+35.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-86
+2.5
26
@
MONT
L 73-81
−7.5
28
@
MTST
L 61-82
−15.5
2
vs
IDST
W 83-65
−12.5
7
vs
IDHO
L 45-68
−45.5
over 15under 13avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Utah Valley
31 games played
Straight up
22-9
71% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-14
55% overs · avg +1.7 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 8 | @ | L 77-101 | +12.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 74-75 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 79-72 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 75-52 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 151.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 89-45 | -7.5 | W +36.5 | 148.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 66-77 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 82-71 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 73-69 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 68-53 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 90-74 | -15.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 73-66 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 91-85 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 68-85 | -7.5 | L −24.5 | 139.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 89-72 | -18.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 92-76 | -13.5 | W +2.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 86-74 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 70-84 | -12.5 | L −26.5 | 160.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 71-78 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 83-55 | -6.5 | W +21.5 | 154.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 68-55 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 81-60 | -12.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 77-81 | -9.5 | L −13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 65-46 | -8.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 66-54 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 120 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 79-72 | -17.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-67 | -14.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 92-88 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 180 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 104-101 | -8.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 205 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 67-65 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 136.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 61-63 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 18 | vs | L 78-79 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
BOIS
L 77-101
−11.5
15
@
FRES
L 74-75
−5.5
19
vs
UCI
W 79-72
+4.5
25
vs
SDST
W 75-52
+21.5
26
vs
SAM
W 89-45
+36.5
3
@
SDSU
L 66-77
−2.5
6
@
BGSU
W 82-71
+9.5
10
vs
IDST
W 73-69
−5.5
13
vs
UCSB
W 68-53
+9.5
17
vs
WEB
W 90-74
+0.5
29
vs
CBU
W 73-66
−0.5
1
@
TAR
W 91-85
+0.5
3
@
ACU
L 68-85
−24.5
8
vs
SUU
W 89-72
−1.5
10
vs
UTU
W 92-76
+2.5
17
vs
UTA
W 86-74
+0.5
21
@
SUU
L 70-84
−26.5
24
@
CBU
L 71-78
−5.5
29
@
TAR
W 83-55
+21.5
5
vs
ACU
W 68-55
−1.5
7
vs
UTA
W 81-60
+8.5
12
@
UTU
L 77-81
−13.5
19
vs
CBU
W 65-46
+10.5
21
@
UTA
W 66-54
+5.5
26
vs
TAR
W 79-72
−10.5
28
vs
ACU
W 74-67
−7.5
5
@
SUU
W 92-88
−5.5
7
@
UTU
W 104-101
−5.5
13
vs
UTA
W 67-65
−6.5
14
vs
CBU
L 61-63
−4.5
18
vs
GW
L 78-79
−2.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
BOIS
L 77-101
+26.5
15
@
FRES
L 74-75
−7.5
19
vs
UCI
W 79-72
+1.5
25
vs
SDST
W 75-52
−24.5
26
vs
SAM
W 89-45
−14.5
3
@
SDSU
L 66-77
−1.5
6
@
BGSU
W 82-71
+8.5
10
vs
IDST
W 73-69
+0.5
13
vs
UCSB
W 68-53
−25.5
17
vs
WEB
W 90-74
+15.5
29
vs
CBU
W 73-66
−9.5
1
@
TAR
W 91-85
+31.5
3
@
ACU
L 68-85
+13.5
8
vs
SUU
W 89-72
+6.5
10
vs
UTU
W 92-76
+18.5
17
vs
UTA
W 86-74
+16.5
21
@
SUU
L 70-84
−6.5
24
@
CBU
L 71-78
+1.5
29
@
TAR
W 83-55
−16.5
5
vs
ACU
W 68-55
−22.5
7
vs
UTA
W 81-60
−0.5
12
@
UTU
L 77-81
+9.5
19
vs
CBU
W 65-46
−31.5
21
@
UTA
W 66-54
−17.5
26
vs
TAR
W 79-72
+9.5
28
vs
ACU
W 74-67
+0.5
5
@
SUU
W 92-88
+29.5
7
@
UTU
W 104-101
+57.5
13
vs
UTA
W 67-65
−4.5
14
vs
CBU
L 61-63
−15.5
18
vs
GW
L 78-79
+4.5
over 17under 14avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Sacramento St has the better starters
Position by position: Sacramento St 3, Utah Valley 2, even 0
Sacramento StBetterUtah Valley
G M. Williams18.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 56
←SACSmall
G T. Davis TR7.2 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 35
G L. Hughes TR17.9 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 77
←SACBig
G B. Housley4.9 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 5
G M. Wilson TR12.5 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 76
←SACBig
G S. Weatherspoon4.9 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 20
G A. Madi7.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 44
→UVUBig
F I. Davis10.7 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 83
F O. Grady TR9.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 21
→UVUBig
F I. Hawkins7 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 94
Sacramento StBetterUtah Valley
SAC offense146th of 366 · -4.4
=Even
UVU defense152nd of 366 · -3.3
SAC defense262nd of 366 · -6.8
→UVUSmall
UVU offense161st of 366 · -4.8
Backcourt+0.9 · 4 players
←SACBig
Backcourt-6.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 1 player
→UVUBig
Frontcourt+3.3 · 2 players
Bench-3.4 · 5 players
→UVUSmall
Bench-0.6 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestSAC betterUVU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
M. Williams36 minL. Hughes32 min · TRM. Wilson27 min · TRA. Madi24 minT. Glover14 minR. Robinson11 min
Forwards
O. Grady31 min · TRR. Tutic23 min · TRS. Ciani10 min · TRM. HuntNewG. AsimakopoulosNew
Centers
J. Das Chagas7 min · TR
Guards
T. Davis27 min · TRB. Housley26 minS. Weatherspoon16 minD. Nelson8 min · TRJ. Barnes5 min · TRM. BabraitisNew
Forwards
I. Davis19 minI. Hawkins14 minT. Weaver8 minT. Medaris5 minO. MowafakNewD. DengNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.9 #144 | Points per game | 77.7 #101 |
| 1.05 #258 | Points per possession | 1.11 #126 |
| 72.6 #24 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #104 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.0 #337 | Effective FG% | 55.0 #38 |
| 31.9 #284 | 3-point % | 34.0 #170 |
| 35.6 #257 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.9 #317 |
| 41.2 #41 | Free throw rate | 38.2 #98 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.1 #26 | Turnover rate | 20.1 #349 |
| 25.2 #336 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.8 #51 |
| 12.1 #275 | Assists per game | 17.5 #14 |
| Defense | ||
| 83.6 #352 | Points allowed | 70.8 #72 |
| 1.15 #327 | Points allowed per possession | 1.01 #32 |
| 55.0 #331 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.4 #78 |
| 35.1 #257 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.2 #260 |
| 17.1 #140 | Turnovers forced | 21.3 #7 |
| 66.6 #306 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.7 #221 |
| 7.5 #76 | Steals per game | 9.3 #6 |
| 2.7 #280 | Blocks per game | 5.1 #14 |
Sacramento St
7-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-13 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho45–68
- Wvs Idaho St83–65
- L@ Montana St61–82
- L@ Montana73–81
- Lvs Idaho80–86
A week or more of rest.
Utah Valley
22-9 in 2025-26 overall · 15-5 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs G Washington78–79
- Lvs CA Baptist61–63
- Wvs UT Arlington67–65
- W@ Utah Tech104–101
- W@ Southern Utah92–88
A week or more of rest.