Leavey Center · at Santa Clara
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SCU 86–73 · win probability SCU 87%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 158.7
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: SCU has more of the edges
SAC 1, SCU 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: SAC 47.0 and allows 55.0; SCU 54.5 and allows 52.0
Free throws
Free throw rate: SAC 41.2, SCU 25.5. Allowed: SAC 36.2, SCU 38.2
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SAC 25.2%, SCU 36.4%. Defensive: SAC 66.6%, SCU 67.9%
SCU offense vs SAC defense
Offense 93rd of 366 against a defense 262nd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
SAC has played the 248th-hardest schedule, SCU the 86th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
SAC hits 31.9% and allows 35.1%; SCU hits 34.9% and allows 33.1%. Threes are 35.6% and 45.0% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: SAC plays 72.6 a game (24th fastest), SCU 69.7 (135th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
SCU at home. This season: SCU 0-0 at home, SAC 0-0 away
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SAC 14.1%, SCU 15.3%. Forced: SAC 17.1%, SCU 20.1%
Even
SAC offense vs SCU defense
Offense 146th of 366 against a defense 137th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SAC 42%, SCU 42%. Transfers in: SAC 6, SCU 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 | — | SCU -12.8 | — |
| Total | — | 158.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | SAC 73 · SCU 85.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SCU -7.5 | — |
| 1H total | 74.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | SAC 33.3 · SCU 40.8 | — |
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% | |
| 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
SAC 0–1 SCUSCU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · SAC 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2022-23 | SAC 65 @ SCU 72 | SCU -12.5 | SAC W |
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
Santa Clara
34 games played
Straight up
25-9
74% wins
Against the spread
18-16
53% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-15
56% overs · avg +4 pts vs the total
Against the spread
18-1653%
2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered
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 7 | vs | W 79-67 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 10 | @ | W 87-68 | +3.5 | W +22.5 | 155.5 | U 155 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 98-83 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 64-55 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 80-43 | -19.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 70-71 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 86-75 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 90-80 | -20.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 71-98 | +1.5 | L −25.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 79-82 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 63-60 | -12.5 | L −9.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 78-80 | -15.5 | L −17.5 | 151.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 28 | @ | W 102-64 | -7.5 | W +30.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 92-85 | -13.5 | L −6.5 | 157.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 82-63 | -20.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 98-70 | -17.5 | W +10.5 | 161.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 77-89 | +17.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 103-72 | -11.5 | W +19.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 85-69 | -12.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 62-54 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | U 116 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 85-73 | -13.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 88-73 | -9.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 104-73 | -8.5 | W +22.5 | 153.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 71-56 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 96-92 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 160.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 84-72 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 86-94 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 94-73 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 67-86 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 93-72 | -15.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 76-68 | -9.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 76-71 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 68-79 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 84-89 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
MCN
W 79-67
+5.5
10
@
XAV
W 87-68
+22.5
15
vs
NEV
W 98-83
+8.5
18
vs
IDST
W 64-55
−5.5
21
vs
UL
W 80-43
+17.5
27
vs
SLU
L 70-71
+0.5
28
vs
MINN
W 86-75
+5.5
3
vs
UTU
W 90-80
−10.5
6
@
UNM
L 71-98
−25.5
13
vs
ASU
L 79-82
−4.5
17
vs
UNT
W 63-60
−9.5
20
vs
LUC
L 78-80
−17.5
28
@
ORST
W 102-64
+30.5
30
@
PORT
W 92-85
−6.5
2
vs
PEPP
W 82-63
−1.5
4
vs
USD
W 98-70
+10.5
8
@
GONZ
L 77-89
+5.5
10
vs
LMU
W 103-72
+19.5
14
vs
PAC
W 85-69
+3.5
17
vs
SMC
W 62-54
+6.5
24
@
USD
W 85-73
−1.5
28
vs
SF
W 88-73
+5.5
31
@
LMU
W 104-73
+22.5
4
@
PAC
W 71-56
+8.5
7
@
WSU
W 96-92
−4.5
11
vs
SEA
W 84-72
−0.5
14
vs
GONZ
L 86-94
−3.5
21
@
SF
W 94-73
+14.5
25
@
SMC
L 67-86
−13.5
28
vs
ORST
W 93-72
+5.5
8
vs
PAC
W 76-68
−1.5
9
vs
SMC
W 76-71
+9.5
10
vs
GONZ
L 68-79
−2.5
20
vs
UK
L 84-89
−1.5
covered 18didn’t cover 16avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
MCN
W 79-67
−5.5
10
@
XAV
W 87-68
−0.5
15
vs
NEV
W 98-83
+36.5
18
vs
IDST
W 64-55
−22.5
21
vs
UL
W 80-43
−17.5
27
vs
SLU
L 70-71
−17.5
28
vs
MINN
W 86-75
+22.5
3
vs
UTU
W 90-80
+25.5
6
@
UNM
L 71-98
+15.5
13
vs
ASU
L 79-82
+6.5
17
vs
UNT
W 63-60
−16.5
20
vs
LUC
L 78-80
+6.5
28
@
ORST
W 102-64
+15.5
30
@
PORT
W 92-85
+19.5
2
vs
PEPP
W 82-63
−5.5
4
vs
USD
W 98-70
+6.5
8
@
GONZ
L 77-89
+2.5
10
vs
LMU
W 103-72
+21.5
14
vs
PAC
W 85-69
−0.5
17
vs
SMC
W 62-54
−36.5
24
@
USD
W 85-73
−4.5
28
vs
SF
W 88-73
+10.5
31
@
LMU
W 104-73
+23.5
4
@
PAC
W 71-56
−24.5
7
@
WSU
W 96-92
+27.5
11
vs
SEA
W 84-72
+8.5
14
vs
GONZ
L 86-94
+21.5
21
@
SF
W 94-73
+8.5
25
@
SMC
L 67-86
−0.5
28
vs
ORST
W 93-72
+11.5
8
vs
PAC
W 76-68
−4.5
9
vs
SMC
W 76-71
−3.5
10
vs
GONZ
L 68-79
−10.5
20
vs
UK
L 84-89
+15.5
over 19under 15avg +4 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 2, Santa Clara 1, even 2
Sacramento StBetterSanta Clara
G M. Williams18.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 56
=Even
G J. Ensminger6.4 pts · 5.5 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 53
G L. Hughes TR17.9 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 77
←SACBig
G D. Castillo TR10.3 pts · 1.9 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 41
G M. Wilson TR12.5 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 76
←SACSmall
G S. Gavalyugov9 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 61
G A. Madi7.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 44
=Even
G T. Darlan5.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 35
F O. Grady TR9.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 21
→SCUBig
G F. Zugic TR5.2 pts · 2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 56
Sacramento StBetterSanta Clara
SAC offense146th of 366 · -4.4
=Even
SCU defense137th of 366 · -2.8
SAC defense262nd of 366 · -6.8
→SCUBig
SCU offense93rd of 366 · -0.4
Backcourt+0.9 · 4 players
←SACBig
Backcourt-2.9 · 5 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 1 player
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-3.4 · 5 players
→SCUBig
Bench-0.2 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestSAC betterSCU 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
J. Ensminger29 minD. Castillo28 min · TRS. Gavalyugov20 minT. Darlan18 minF. Zugic16 min · TRK. Cochran12 min
Forwards
C. TadjoNewN. BadibangaNew
Centers
F. Chukwudebelu6 minS. Gueye4 min · TRA. EnsorNew
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 | 82.9 #30 |
| 1.05 #258 | Points per possession | 1.18 #37 |
| 72.6 #24 | Pace (possessions) | 69.7 #135 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.0 #337 | Effective FG% | 54.5 #53 |
| 31.9 #284 | 3-point % | 34.9 #125 |
| 35.6 #257 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.0 #67 |
| 41.2 #41 | Free throw rate | 25.5 #363 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.1 #26 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #86 |
| 25.2 #336 | Offensive rebound rate | 36.4 #20 |
| 12.1 #275 | Assists per game | 16.6 #33 |
| Defense | ||
| 83.6 #352 | Points allowed | 73.5 #141 |
| 1.15 #327 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #117 |
| 55.0 #331 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.0 #213 |
| 35.1 #257 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.1 #127 |
| 17.1 #140 | Turnovers forced | 20.1 #20 |
| 66.6 #306 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.9 #262 |
| 7.5 #76 | Steals per game | 8.7 #14 |
| 2.7 #280 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #125 |
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.
Santa Clara
25-9 in 2025-26 overall · 17-4 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Kentucky84–89
- Lvs Gonzaga68–79
- Wvs Saint Mary's76–71
- Wvs Pacific76–68
- Wvs Oregon St93–72
A week or more of rest.