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 78–66 · win probability SEA 84%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.1
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
UTSA 0, SEA 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UTSA 17.4%, SEA 16.7%. Forced: UTSA 14.7%, SEA 21.2%
Three-pointers
UTSA hits 29.2% and allows 35.1%; SEA hits 33.7% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 41.3% and 39.4% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: UTSA 44.8 and allows 53.3; SEA 49.8 and allows 48.4
UTSA offense vs SEA defense
Offense 155th of 366 against a defense 76th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UTSA 15%, SEA 50%. Transfers in: UTSA 9, SEA 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Free throws
Free throw rate: UTSA 29.5, SEA 34.2. Allowed: UTSA 33.3, SEA 33.0
SEA offense vs UTSA defense
Offense 183rd of 366 against a defense 238th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
SEA at home. This season: SEA 0-0 at home, UTSA 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UTSA 30.2%, SEA 23.7%. Defensive: UTSA 61.3%, SEA 68.2%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UTSA plays 69.6 a game (142nd fastest), SEA 69.1 (175th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
UTSA has played the 104th-hardest schedule, SEA the 114th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 -11.3 | — |
| Total | — | 144.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | UTSA 66.4 · SEA 77.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SEA -6.6 | — |
| 1H total | 67.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | UTSA 30.4 · SEA 37 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UTSA 0–1 SEASEA leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UTSA 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2025-26 | SEA 71 @ UTSA 68 | UTSA +10.5 | UTSA W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UTSA
28 games played
Straight up
3-25
11% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −3.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-15
46% overs · avg −1.2 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 7 | vs | L 60-77 | -6.5 | L −23.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 69-80 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 84-79 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 50-61 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 77-64 | +3.5 | W +16.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 58-82 | +1.5 | L −22.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 55-97 | +33.5 | L −8.5 | 171.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 64-88 | +22.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 70-97 | +25.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 22 | vs | L 68-71 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 70-110 | +16.5 | L −23.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 57-76 | +10.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 58-74 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 52-85 | +7.5 | L −25.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 73-89 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 18 | @ | L 69-95 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 62-81 | +15.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 64-70 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 73-83 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 88-109 | +23.5 | W +2.5 | 164.5 | O 197 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 58-81 | +10.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 72-88 | +10.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 88-79 | +13.5 | W +22.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 52-60 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | U 112 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 74-100 | +21.5 | L −4.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 81-82 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 67-84 | +15.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 71-80 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
SIUE
L 60-77
−23.5
12
@
TXST
L 69-80
−8.5
15
@
DEN
W 84-79
+9.5
24
vs
ACU
L 50-61
−8.5
25
vs
GASO
W 77-64
+16.5
30
vs
USA
L 58-82
−22.5
7
@
ALA
L 55-97
−8.5
13
@
COLO
L 64-88
−1.5
17
@
USC
L 70-97
−1.5
22
vs
SEA
L 68-71
+7.5
31
@
FAU
L 70-110
−23.5
3
@
TEM
L 57-76
−8.5
7
vs
CLT
L 58-74
−9.5
10
vs
TULN
L 52-85
−25.5
14
vs
RICE
L 73-89
−9.5
18
@
MEM
L 69-95
−5.5
21
@
UNT
L 62-81
−3.5
24
vs
TEM
L 64-70
+4.5
28
vs
UAB
L 73-83
+2.5
4
@
USF
L 88-109
+2.5
7
vs
UNT
L 58-81
−12.5
11
@
ECU
L 72-88
−5.5
15
@
CLT
W 88-79
+22.5
18
vs
FAU
L 52-60
+3.5
22
@
TLSA
L 74-100
−4.5
25
vs
ECU
L 81-82
+3.5
1
vs
WICH
L 67-84
−1.5
8
@
RICE
L 71-80
+2.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −3.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
SIUE
L 60-77
−16.5
12
@
TXST
L 69-80
+1.5
15
@
DEN
W 84-79
+14.5
24
vs
ACU
L 50-61
−33.5
25
vs
GASO
W 77-64
−19.5
30
vs
USA
L 58-82
−1.5
7
@
ALA
L 55-97
−19.5
13
@
COLO
L 64-88
−2.5
17
@
USC
L 70-97
+9.5
22
vs
SEA
L 68-71
−9.5
31
@
FAU
L 70-110
+21.5
3
@
TEM
L 57-76
−16.5
7
vs
CLT
L 58-74
−13.5
10
vs
TULN
L 52-85
−10.5
14
vs
RICE
L 73-89
+17.5
18
@
MEM
L 69-95
+16.5
21
@
UNT
L 62-81
+4.5
24
vs
TEM
L 64-70
−11.5
28
vs
UAB
L 73-83
+0.5
4
@
USF
L 88-109
+32.5
7
vs
UNT
L 58-81
−2.5
11
@
ECU
L 72-88
+9.5
15
@
CLT
W 88-79
+18.5
18
vs
FAU
L 52-60
−45.5
22
@
TLSA
L 74-100
+14.5
25
vs
ECU
L 81-82
+9.5
1
vs
WICH
L 67-84
−0.5
8
@
RICE
L 71-80
−0.5
over 13under 15avg −1.2 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: UTSA 1, Seattle U 2, even 2
UTSABetterSeattle U
G D. Hayes8.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 16
→SEABig
G T. Boston TR14.5 pts · 3.6 reb · 3.7 ast
Score 76
G J. Kelly TR8.3 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 44
=Even
G M. Arington4.9 pts · 3.2 reb · 4 ast
Score 41
G D. Williams TR10 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 72
←UTSASmall
F J. Yeo12.3 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 45
G P. Turner TR7 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 31
→SEABig
F W. Heimbrodt12.7 pts · 5.4 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 72
G I. Coleman TR6.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 50
=Even
F T. Thrastarson TR9.1 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 54
UTSABetterSeattle U
UTSA offense155th of 366 · -4.7
→SEASmall
SEA defense76th of 366 · +0.6
UTSA defense238th of 366 · -6.2
→SEASmall
SEA offense183rd of 366 · -5.7
Backcourt-5.4 · 5 players
→SEABig
Backcourt-0.2 · 2 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+0.6 · 3 players
Bench-3.5 · 5 players
→SEABig
Bench+0.1 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestUTSA betterSEA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Hayes31 minJ. Kelly27 min · TRD. Williams22 min · TRP. Turner20 min · TRI. Coleman19 min · TRS. Eberwein19 min · TR
Forwards
A. Smith5 min · TRC. OkpukparaNewM. BroxtonNewJ. PetersonNewK. TaylorNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.3 #329 | Points per game | 70.1 #283 |
| 0.96 #348 | Points per possession | 1.01 #312 |
| 69.6 #142 | Pace (possessions) | 69.1 #175 |
| Shooting | ||
| 44.8 #360 | Effective FG% | 49.8 #249 |
| 29.2 #351 | 3-point % | 33.7 #186 |
| 41.3 #143 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.4 #185 |
| 29.5 #320 | Free throw rate | 34.2 #201 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #231 | Turnover rate | 16.7 #178 |
| 30.2 #191 | Offensive rebound rate | 23.7 #347 |
| 10.1 #357 | Assists per game | 13.2 #201 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.9 #345 | Points allowed | 68.2 #34 |
| 1.20 #356 | Points allowed per possession | 0.99 #20 |
| 53.3 #277 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.4 #46 |
| 35.1 #251 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #69 |
| 14.7 #309 | Turnovers forced | 21.2 #9 |
| 61.3 #363 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.2 #249 |
| 6.3 #203 | Steals per game | 7.8 #52 |
| 4.3 #52 | Blocks per game | 4.9 #20 |
UTSA
3-25 in 2025-26 overall · 1-17 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Rice71–80
- Lvs Wichita St67–84
- Lvs East Carolina81–82
- L@ Tulsa74–100
- Lvs FAU52–60
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.