Redhawk Center · at Seattle U
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SEA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SEA 76–64 · win probability SEA 86%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 139.4
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: SEA has more of the edges
PRST 1, SEA 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
PRST has played the 322nd-hardest schedule, SEA the 114th. A record against a soft schedule means less
PRST offense vs SEA defense
Offense 284th of 366 against a defense 76th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PRST 30.0%, SEA 23.7%. Defensive: PRST 73.6%, SEA 68.2%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PRST 6%, SEA 50%. Transfers in: PRST 4, SEA 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Free throws
Free throw rate: PRST 37.1, SEA 34.2. Allowed: PRST 42.8, SEA 33.0
SEA offense vs PRST defense
Offense 183rd of 366 against a defense 244th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PRST 16.9%, SEA 16.7%. Forced: PRST 18.0%, SEA 21.2%
Home court
SEA at home. This season: SEA 0-0 at home, PRST 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
PRST hits 32.6% and allows 32.3%; SEA hits 33.7% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 34.4% and 39.4% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: PRST plays 69.6 a game (140th fastest), SEA 69.1 (175th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: PRST 50.5 and allows 48.8; SEA 49.8 and allows 48.4
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 | — | SEA -12.4 | — |
| Total | — | 139.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | PRST 63.5 · SEA 75.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SEA -7.3 | — |
| 1H total | 65.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | PRST 29 · SEA 36.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
PRST 0–2 SEASEA leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · SEA has won the last 2 meetings · PRST 0-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2024-25 | PRST 74 @ SEA 91 | SEA -8.5 | SEA W |
| Nov 13, 2022-23 | PRST 71 @ SEA 83 | SEA -8.5 | SEA W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Portland St
28 games played
Straight up
17-11
61% wins
Against the spread
19-9
68% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-16
43% overs · avg −0.9 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 79-89 | +11.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 70-80 | +13.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 93-80 | -8.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 68-63 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 77-71 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 55-60 | -12.5 | L −17.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 73-84 | +16.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 61-63 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 95-90 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 93-87 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 96-69 | -9.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 76-73 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 63-52 | -11.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 65-61 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 69-66 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 60-64 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 63-54 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 88-65 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 136.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 74-73 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-68 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-77 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 77-67 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 55-67 | -6.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 69-84 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 68-74 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 84-60 | -4.5 | W +19.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 85-78 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 72-75 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
STAN
L 79-89
+1.5
12
@
SF
L 70-80
+3.5
17
vs
CSUB
W 93-80
+4.5
25
@
UTU
W 68-63
+3.5
3
@
SDAK
W 77-71
+3.5
6
vs
OMA
L 55-60
−17.5
17
@
COLO
L 73-84
+5.5
20
@
TULN
L 61-63
+0.5
1
@
WEB
W 95-90
+3.5
3
@
IDST
W 93-87
+9.5
10
vs
SAC
W 96-69
+17.5
15
vs
UNCO
W 76-73
+0.5
17
vs
NAU
W 63-52
−0.5
22
@
EWU
W 65-61
+1.5
24
@
IDHO
W 69-66
+4.5
29
vs
MONT
L 60-64
−8.5
31
vs
MTST
W 63-54
+4.5
2
vs
IDST
W 88-65
+15.5
7
@
SAC
W 74-73
−2.5
12
@
NAU
W 77-68
+2.5
14
@
UNCO
L 65-77
−8.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 77-67
+6.5
21
vs
EWU
L 55-67
−18.5
26
@
MTST
L 69-84
−12.5
28
@
MONT
L 68-74
−4.5
2
vs
WEB
W 84-60
+19.5
8
vs
IDST
W 85-78
+1.5
10
vs
MONT
L 72-75
−6.5
covered 19didn’t cover 9avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
STAN
L 79-89
+23.5
12
@
SF
L 70-80
−4.5
17
vs
CSUB
W 93-80
+31.5
25
@
UTU
W 68-63
−15.5
3
@
SDAK
W 77-71
−10.5
6
vs
OMA
L 55-60
−29.5
17
@
COLO
L 73-84
+6.5
20
@
TULN
L 61-63
−21.5
1
@
WEB
W 95-90
+36.5
3
@
IDST
W 93-87
+37.5
10
vs
SAC
W 96-69
+4.5
15
vs
UNCO
W 76-73
−6.5
17
vs
NAU
W 63-52
−25.5
22
@
EWU
W 65-61
−24.5
24
@
IDHO
W 69-66
−10.5
29
vs
MONT
L 60-64
−19.5
31
vs
MTST
W 63-54
−21.5
2
vs
IDST
W 88-65
+16.5
7
@
SAC
W 74-73
−3.5
12
@
NAU
W 77-68
+8.5
14
@
UNCO
L 65-77
−7.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 77-67
−1.5
21
vs
EWU
L 55-67
−24.5
26
@
MTST
L 69-84
+12.5
28
@
MONT
L 68-74
+0.5
2
vs
WEB
W 84-60
−0.5
8
vs
IDST
W 85-78
+21.5
10
vs
MONT
L 72-75
+1.5
over 12under 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Seattle U
33 games played
Straight up
19-14
58% wins
Against the spread
15-18
45% covers · avg +0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-20
39% overs · avg −5 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 | W 84-73 | -13.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 71-73 | -10.5 | L −12.5 | 164.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 94-67 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 83-74 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 77-69 | +10.5 | W +18.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 66-52 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 136.5 | U 118 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 71-74 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 75-68 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 136.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 79-78 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 70-66 | +7.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 22 | @ | W 71-68 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 59-67 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 69-55 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 72-80 | +24.5 | W +16.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 76-93 | +11.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 55-68 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 75-64 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 50-71 | +9.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 69-59 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 54-56 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 58-70 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 83-81 | -12.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 53-54 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 72-84 | +12.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 60-50 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 136.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 70-72 | +9.5 | W +7.5 | 133.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 71-59 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 87-80 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 71-66 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 136.5 | O 137 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 58-56 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 139.5 | U 114 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 58-61 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 129.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 17 | vs | W 67-52 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | U 119 |
| Mar 22 | @ | L 85-91 | +14.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 176 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
DEN
W 84-73
−2.5
8
vs
CP
L 71-73
−12.5
12
vs
EWU
W 94-67
+18.5
15
vs
IDST
W 83-74
−2.5
21
@
STAN
W 77-69
+18.5
28
vs
TXST
W 66-52
+6.5
29
vs
UCSB
L 71-74
−5.5
7
vs
UTEP
W 75-68
−5.5
17
@
UCD
W 79-78
−1.5
19
vs
WASH
W 70-66
+11.5
22
@
UTSA
W 71-68
−7.5
28
vs
SF
L 59-67
−10.5
30
vs
WSU
W 69-55
+7.5
2
@
GONZ
L 72-80
+16.5
4
@
SMC
L 76-93
−5.5
8
@
ORST
L 55-68
−17.5
15
vs
USD
W 75-64
+1.5
17
vs
GONZ
L 50-71
−11.5
21
vs
LMU
W 69-59
+5.5
24
@
PAC
L 54-56
−0.5
28
@
WSU
L 58-70
−10.5
4
vs
PEPP
W 83-81
−10.5
7
@
PORT
L 53-54
−4.5
11
@
SCU
L 72-84
+0.5
15
vs
ORST
W 60-50
+3.5
18
vs
SMC
L 70-72
+7.5
21
vs
PORT
W 71-59
+4.5
25
@
PEPP
W 87-80
−0.5
28
@
LMU
W 71-66
+6.5
6
vs
USD
W 58-56
−6.5
7
vs
PAC
L 58-61
−1.5
17
vs
STMN
W 67-52
+12.5
22
@
AUB
L 85-91
+8.5
covered 15didn’t cover 18avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
DEN
W 84-73
+20.5
8
vs
CP
L 71-73
−20.5
12
vs
EWU
W 94-67
+12.5
15
vs
IDST
W 83-74
+18.5
21
@
STAN
W 77-69
−6.5
28
vs
TXST
W 66-52
−18.5
29
vs
UCSB
L 71-74
+2.5
7
vs
UTEP
W 75-68
+6.5
17
@
UCD
W 79-78
+13.5
19
vs
WASH
W 70-66
−15.5
22
@
UTSA
W 71-68
−9.5
28
vs
SF
L 59-67
−20.5
30
vs
WSU
W 69-55
−20.5
2
@
GONZ
L 72-80
−3.5
4
@
SMC
L 76-93
+29.5
8
@
ORST
L 55-68
−16.5
15
vs
USD
W 75-64
−8.5
17
vs
GONZ
L 50-71
−29.5
21
vs
LMU
W 69-59
−13.5
24
@
PAC
L 54-56
−27.5
28
@
WSU
L 58-70
−14.5
4
vs
PEPP
W 83-81
+24.5
7
@
PORT
L 53-54
−36.5
11
@
SCU
L 72-84
+8.5
15
vs
ORST
W 60-50
−26.5
18
vs
SMC
L 70-72
+8.5
21
vs
PORT
W 71-59
−10.5
25
@
PEPP
W 87-80
+21.5
28
@
LMU
W 71-66
+0.5
6
vs
USD
W 58-56
−25.5
7
vs
PAC
L 58-61
−10.5
17
vs
STMN
W 67-52
−26.5
22
@
AUB
L 85-91
+30.5
over 13under 20avg −5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Seattle U has the better starters
Position by position: Portland St 0, Seattle U 2, even 3
Portland StBetterSeattle U
G E. Skytt TR3.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 26
→SEABig
G T. Boston TR14.5 pts · 3.6 reb · 3.7 ast
Score 76
G K. Johnson TR1.8 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 39
=Even
G M. Arington4.9 pts · 3.2 reb · 4 ast
Score 41
G C. Ness0.6 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Yeo12.3 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 45
F B. Barron0.7 pts · 1.1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F W. Heimbrodt12.7 pts · 5.4 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 72
C K. Ibekwe TR3.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 34
→SEASmall
F T. Thrastarson TR9.1 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 54
Portland StBetterSeattle U
PRST offense284th of 366 · -8.8
→SEABig
SEA defense76th of 366 · +0.6
PRST defense244th of 366 · -6.4
→SEASmall
SEA offense183rd of 366 · -5.7
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
→SEASmall
Backcourt-0.2 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
→SEASmall
Frontcourt+0.6 · 3 players
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
=Even
Bench+0.1 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestPRST betterSEA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
E. Skytt12 min · TRK. Johnson10 min · TRC. Ness4 minN. PollardNewT. FrankNewD. JohnsonNew
Forwards
B. Barron4 minC. Chukwu3 minL. Kearney3 min · TRJ. RandolphNewA. PusateriNewF. CoratoNew
Centers
K. Ibekwe9 min · TR
Guards
T. Boston33 min · TRM. Arington31 minK. HansenNewM. WilliamsNewJ. WhiteNewJ. HarshmanNew
Forwards
J. Yeo32 minW. Heimbrodt32 minT. Thrastarson23 min · TRY. Kawashima3 minR. Adams2 min
Centers
H. Dzellat8 min · TRL. CoulibalyNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #199 | Points per game | 70.1 #283 |
| 1.06 #220 | Points per possession | 1.01 #312 |
| 69.6 #140 | Pace (possessions) | 69.1 #175 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.5 #211 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #249 |
| 32.6 #250 | 3-point % | 33.7 #186 |
| 34.4 #287 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.4 #185 |
| 37.1 #126 | Free throw rate | 34.2 #201 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.9 #200 | Turnover rate | 16.7 #178 |
| 30.0 #199 | Offensive rebound rate | 23.7 #347 |
| 13.4 #186 | Assists per game | 13.2 #201 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.2 #80 | Points allowed | 68.2 #34 |
| 1.02 #45 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #20 |
| 48.8 #56 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.4 #46 |
| 32.3 #77 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #69 |
| 18.0 #94 | Turnovers forced | 21.2 #9 |
| 73.6 #23 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.2 #249 |
| 7.2 #104 | Steals per game | 7.8 #52 |
| 3.8 #108 | Blocks per game | 4.9 #20 |
Portland St
17-11 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Montana72–75
- Wvs Idaho St85–78
- Wvs Weber St84–60
- L@ Montana68–74
- L@ Montana St69–84
A week or more of rest.
Seattle U
19-14 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Auburn85–91
- Wvs St Thomas67–52
- Lvs Pacific58–61
- Wvs San Diego58–56
- W@ LMU71–66
A week or more of rest.