Air Force Falcons at Pacific Tigers: Model Line and Edge

Sat, Nov 14, 12:00 AM ETAlex G. Spanos Center · at Pacific

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Air Force and Pacific
AF	This season	PAC
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 PAC 74–66 · win probability PAC 76%

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: PAC has more of the edges

AF 3, PAC 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

PACBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: AF 21.4%, PAC 35.3%. Defensive: AF 68.7%, PAC 75.0%

PACBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: AF 48.9 and allows 56.4; PAC 52.2 and allows 50.0

PACBig

Three-pointers

AF hits 30.6% and allows 37.6%; PAC hits 35.8% and allows 34.7%. Threes are 41.8% and 35.4% of their shots

AFBig

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: AF 100%, PAC 8%. Transfers in: AF 0, PAC 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

PACBig

AF offense vs PAC defense

Offense 290th of 366 against a defense 147th, on the model’s ratings

AFSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: AF 35.1, PAC 30.5. Allowed: AF 36.6, PAC 36.3

PACSmall

Home court

PAC at home. This season: PAC 0-0 at home, AF 0-0 away

AFSmall

PAC offense vs AF defense

Offense 195th of 366 against a defense 149th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: AF plays 67.4 a game (259th fastest), PAC 66.1 (312th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: AF 21.9%, PAC 20.1%. Forced: AF 15.1%, PAC 15.1%

Context

Schedule so far

AF has played the 119th-hardest schedule, PAC the 122nd. A record against a soft schedule means less

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	PAC -8.0	—
Total	—	139.4	—
Projected score	—	AF 65.7 · PAC 73.7

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	PAC -4.6	—
1H total	65.3	—
1H projected score	AF 30.3 · PAC 34.9	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
AF WWLWL	10-22	31%	5-7	—
PAC LWLWW	17-14	55%	6-6	—

Venue/role: AF away; PAC home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
AF OUOUU	18-14	56%	3-29
PAC OUUUU	11-20	35%	16-15

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
AF	0-10 0%	3-7 30%	7-3 70%
PAC	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	3-7 30%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Air Force

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 21	@ UTSA	No recent meeting
Nov 24	vs ARMY	W76–58WO
Nov 28	vs BRWN	No recent meeting

Pacific

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 21	vs BRAD	No recent meeting
Nov 25	vs JXST	No recent meeting
Nov 26	vs OMA	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

AF 0–1 PACPAC leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · AF 0-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 3, 2025-26	PAC 80 @ AF 65	AF +5.5	PAC W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Air Force

32 games played

Straight up

3-29

9% wins

Against the spread

10-22

31% covers · avg −4.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

18-14

56% overs · avg 0 pts vs the total

Straight up

3-299%

L L L L W W W L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

25 straight losses0 of last 4 won

Against the spread

10-2231%

L L W L L W W L L L W W W L L L L L L L L W L L L L L W W L W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

18-1456%

U U O U U O O U U O U O U U O O O O U O U O O O O O O O U O U U

2 straight unders1 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@BEL	L 63-79	+15.5	L −0.5	144.5	U 142
Nov 8	vsAPSU	L 54-74	+1.5	L −18.5	136.5	U 128
Nov 11	vsLIU	L 72-76	+5.5	W +1.5	137.5	O 148
Nov 15	vsM-OH	L 61-76	+10.5	L −4.5	143.5	U 137
Nov 19	vsALST	W 66-64	-2.5	L −0.5	138.5	U 130
Nov 21	vsSIUE	W 77-63	+2.5	W +16.5	130.5	O 140
Nov 23	vsIUIN	W 98-85	-3.5	W +9.5	175.5	O 183
Nov 26	vsUNCO	L 53-71	+4.5	L −13.5	146.5	U 124
Nov 29	vsSDAK	L 63-80	+3.5	L −13.5	147.5	U 143
Dec 3	vsPAC	L 65-80	+5.5	L −9.5	134.5	O 145
Dec 7	@NAVY	L 56-61	+9.5	W +4.5	133.5	U 117
Dec 17	@SDSU	L 58-81	+24.5	W +1.5	135.5	O 139
Dec 30	vsWYO	L 56-68	+14.5	W +2.5	146.5	U 124
Jan 3	@UNLV	L 39-67	+14.5	L −13.5	142.5	U 106
Jan 6	vsUSU	L 62-99	+22.5	L −14.5	139.5	O 161
Jan 10	vsUNM	L 49-91	+16.5	L −25.5	138.5	O 140
Jan 13	@SJSU	L 62-70	+5.5	L −2.5	128.5	O 132
Jan 17	vsNEV	L 66-81	+14.5	L −0.5	134.5	O 147
Jan 20	@CSU	L 52-81	+19.5	L −9.5	133.5	U 133
Jan 24	@BOIS	L 54-96	+23.5	L −18.5	137.5	O 150
Jan 31	vsFRES	L 62-79	+9.5	L −7.5	141.5	U 141
Feb 3	@GCU	L 57-81	+26.5	W +2.5	137.5	O 138
Feb 7	vsSDSU	L 54-88	+22.5	L −11.5	139.5	O 142
Feb 10	vsCSU	L 74-91	+16.5	L −0.5	137.5	O 165
Feb 14	@FRES	L 63-93	+14.5	L −15.5	142.5	O 156
Feb 17	@UNM	L 61-98	+28.5	L −8.5	148.5	O 159
Feb 21	vsUNLV	L 66-91	+16.5	L −8.5	153.5	O 157
Feb 24	vsSJSU	L 80-86	+6.5	W +0.5	145.5	O 166
Feb 28	@WYO	L 62-66	+20.5	W +16.5	145.5	U 128
Mar 3	vsGCU	L 60-86	+19.5	L −6.5	143.5	O 146
Mar 7	@NEV	L 59-74	+24.5	W +9.5	144.5	U 133
Mar 11	vsNEV	L 45-80	+19.5	L −15.5	140.5	U 125

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

BEL

L 63-79

−0.5

APSU

L 54-74

−18.5

LIU

L 72-76

+1.5

M-OH

L 61-76

−4.5

ALST

W 66-64

−0.5

SIUE

W 77-63

+16.5

IUIN

W 98-85

+9.5

UNCO

L 53-71

−13.5

SDAK

L 63-80

−13.5

PAC

L 65-80

−9.5

NAVY

L 56-61

+4.5

SDSU

L 58-81

+1.5

WYO

L 56-68

+2.5

UNLV

L 39-67

−13.5

USU

L 62-99

−14.5

UNM

L 49-91

−25.5

SJSU

L 62-70

−2.5

NEV

L 66-81

−0.5

CSU

L 52-81

−9.5

BOIS

L 54-96

−18.5

FRES

L 62-79

−7.5

GCU

L 57-81

+2.5

SDSU

L 54-88

−11.5

CSU

L 74-91

−0.5

FRES

L 63-93

−15.5

UNM

L 61-98

−8.5

UNLV

L 66-91

−8.5

SJSU

L 80-86

+0.5

WYO

L 62-66

+16.5

GCU

L 60-86

−6.5

NEV

L 59-74

+9.5

NEV

L 45-80

−15.5

covered 10didn’t cover 22avg −4.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

BEL

L 63-79

−2.5

APSU

L 54-74

−8.5

LIU

L 72-76

+10.5

M-OH

L 61-76

−6.5

ALST

W 66-64

−8.5

SIUE

W 77-63

+9.5

IUIN

W 98-85

+7.5

UNCO

L 53-71

−22.5

SDAK

L 63-80

−4.5

PAC

L 65-80

+10.5

NAVY

L 56-61

−16.5

SDSU

L 58-81

+3.5

WYO

L 56-68

−22.5

UNLV

L 39-67

−36.5

USU

L 62-99

+21.5

UNM

L 49-91

+1.5

SJSU

L 62-70

+3.5

NEV

L 66-81

+12.5

CSU

L 52-81

−0.5

BOIS

L 54-96

+12.5

FRES

L 62-79

−0.5

GCU

L 57-81

+0.5

SDSU

L 54-88

+2.5

CSU

L 74-91

+27.5

FRES

L 63-93

+13.5

UNM

L 61-98

+10.5

UNLV

L 66-91

+3.5

SJSU

L 80-86

+20.5

WYO

L 62-66

−17.5

GCU

L 60-86

+2.5

NEV

L 59-74

−11.5

NEV

L 45-80

−15.5

over 18under 14avg 0 ptslonger = bigger margin

Pacific

31 games played

Straight up

16-15

52% wins

Against the spread

17-14

55% covers · avg +2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

11-20

35% overs · avg −2.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1552%

L W W L W W W W L L W L L W W L W L W W W L L W W L L L L W L

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

17-1455%

W L W L W W W W W L W L L W L L L L W W W L L W W L L W L W W

2 straight covers3 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

11-2035%

O U U U U U U O U O O U O U O O U U O U U O U O U U O U U U U

4 straight unders0 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@NEV	L 77-78	+13.5	W +12.5	139.5	O 155
Nov 12	vsLBSU	W 69-66	-12.5	L −9.5	141.5	U 135
Nov 15	@CSUF	W 85-73	-6.5	W +5.5	159.5	U 158
Nov 20	@FAU	L 59-82	+7.5	L −15.5	154.5	U 141
Nov 24	vsSTBK	W 86-58	-4.5	W +23.5	145.5	U 144
Nov 25	vsJAX	W 68-53	-2.5	W +12.5	135.5	U 121
Nov 29	vsSAC	W 68-54	-10.5	W +3.5	146.5	U 122
Dec 3	@AF	W 80-65	-5.5	W +9.5	134.5	O 145
Dec 6	@CAL	L 61-67	+7.5	W +1.5	144.5	U 128
Dec 16	@BYU	L 57-93	+23.5	L −12.5	149.5	O 150
Dec 21	vsNICH	W 95-82	-8.5	W +4.5	139.5	O 177
Dec 28	@USD	L 54-66	-2.5	L −14.5	150.5	U 120
Dec 30	@LMU	L 71-80	+3.5	L −5.5	139.5	O 151
Jan 2	vsORST	W 84-53	-4.5	W +26.5	137.5	U 137
Jan 4	vsPEPP	W 74-69	-11.5	L −6.5	138.5	O 143
Jan 8	@PORT	L 89-90	-3.5	L −4.5	144.5	O 179
Jan 10	vsUSD	W 77-70	-8.5	L −1.5	147.5	U 147
Jan 14	@SCU	L 69-85	+12.5	L −3.5	154.5	U 154
Jan 17	@ORST	W 81-64	+1.5	W +18.5	139.5	O 145
Jan 24	vsSEA	W 56-54	-1.5	W +0.5	137.5	U 110
Jan 28	vsPORT	W 74-51	-8.5	W +14.5	142.5	U 125
Jan 31	@SF	L 82-87	+4.5	L −0.5	138.5	O 169
Feb 4	vsSCU	L 56-71	+6.5	L −8.5	151.5	U 127
Feb 7	@PEPP	W 92-59	-7.5	W +25.5	142.5	O 151
Feb 11	vsLMU	W 65-59	-5.5	W +0.5	141.5	U 124
Feb 14	vsSMC	L 61-72	+7.5	L −3.5	135.5	U 133
Feb 18	@WSU	L 70-87	+2.5	L −14.5	144.5	O 157
Feb 21	@GONZ	L 62-71	+22.5	W +13.5	144.5	U 133
Feb 28	vsSF	L 61-72	-3.5	L −14.5	142.5	U 133
Mar 7	vsSEA	W 61-58	-1.5	W +1.5	129.5	U 119
Mar 8	vsSCU	L 68-76	+9.5	W +1.5	148.5	U 144

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

NEV

L 77-78

+12.5

LBSU

W 69-66

−9.5

CSUF

W 85-73

+5.5

FAU

L 59-82

−15.5

STBK

W 86-58

+23.5

JAX

W 68-53

+12.5

SAC

W 68-54

+3.5

W 80-65

+9.5

CAL

L 61-67

+1.5

BYU

L 57-93

−12.5

NICH

W 95-82

+4.5

USD

L 54-66

−14.5

LMU

L 71-80

−5.5

ORST

W 84-53

+26.5

PEPP

W 74-69

−6.5

PORT

L 89-90

−4.5

USD

W 77-70

−1.5

SCU

L 69-85

−3.5

ORST

W 81-64

+18.5

SEA

W 56-54

+0.5

PORT

W 74-51

+14.5

L 82-87

−0.5

SCU

L 56-71

−8.5

PEPP

W 92-59

+25.5

LMU

W 65-59

+0.5

SMC

L 61-72

−3.5

WSU

L 70-87

−14.5

GONZ

L 62-71

+13.5

L 61-72

−14.5

SEA

W 61-58

+1.5

SCU

L 68-76

+1.5

covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

NEV

L 77-78

+15.5

LBSU

W 69-66

−6.5

CSUF

W 85-73

−1.5

FAU

L 59-82

−13.5

STBK

W 86-58

−1.5

JAX

W 68-53

−14.5

SAC

W 68-54

−24.5

W 80-65

+10.5

CAL

L 61-67

−16.5

BYU

L 57-93

+0.5

NICH

W 95-82

+37.5

USD

L 54-66

−30.5

LMU

L 71-80

+11.5

ORST

W 84-53

−0.5

PEPP

W 74-69

+4.5

PORT

L 89-90

+34.5

USD

W 77-70

−0.5

SCU

L 69-85

−0.5

ORST

W 81-64

+5.5

SEA

W 56-54

−27.5

PORT

W 74-51

−17.5

L 82-87

+30.5

SCU

L 56-71

−24.5

PEPP

W 92-59

+8.5

LMU

W 65-59

−17.5

SMC

L 61-72

−2.5

WSU

L 70-87

+12.5

GONZ

L 62-71

−11.5

L 61-72

−9.5

SEA

W 61-58

−10.5

SCU

L 68-76

−4.5

over 11under 20avg −2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Air Force has the better starters

Position by position: Air Force 2, Pacific 1, even 2

Air ForceBetterPacific

G K. Sanders12.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 3.8 ast Score 77

Even

G J. Winston TR15.5 pts · 3 reb · 3.8 ast Score 74

G E. Greenberg6.6 pts · 2.3 reb · 1 ast Score 18

PACSmall

G C. Amundsen TR9.4 pts · 2 reb · 3.8 ast Score 34

F L. Hobin11.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.6 ast Score 26

Even

G C. Jones TR3.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.3 ast Score 17

F E. Robinson7.8 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.6 ast Score 39

AFSmall

F G. Ripp TR3.9 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.4 ast Score 10

F C. Walker10.4 pts · 5 reb · 0.8 ast Score 82

AFSmall

F J. Pitt4.4 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 57

Air ForceBetterPacific

AF offense290th of 366 · -8.9

PACBig

PAC defense147th of 366 · -3.2

AF defense149th of 366 · -3.3

Even

PAC offense195th of 366 · -6.1

Backcourt-1.6 · 2 players

Even

Backcourt-2.4 · 3 players

Frontcourt-1.3 · 3 players

Even

Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players

Bench-7.9 · 5 players

PACBig

Bench-1.2 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestAF betterPAC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Air Force

Guards

K. Sanders30 minE. Greenberg27 minA. Patterson14 minJ. Hinds12 minE. Taite2 minT. KeeneNew

Forwards

L. Hobin29 minE. Robinson28 minC. Walker22 minR. Dering14 minK. Gilles13 minB. Martin5 min

Centers

W. Celichowski21 minM. CaslaruNew

Pacific

Guards

J. Winston36 min · TRC. Amundsen30 min · TRC. Jones17 min · TRA. Nyorha10 min · TRD. Harris6 min · TRN. BuduNew

Forwards

G. Ripp17 min · TRJ. Pitt17 minJ. Thompson11 min · TRV. OsazeeNewJ. CarotNew

Centers

J. McFarland3 min · TRI. Matlekovic2 min · TR

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

AF61.5 #362

PAC71.3 #262

Points per possession

AF0.91 #363

PAC1.08 #176

Pace (possessions)

AF67.4 #259

PAC66.1 #312

Shooting

Effective FG%

AF48.9 #292

PAC52.2 #140

3-point %

AF30.6 #332

PAC35.8 #65

3-point attempt rate

AF41.8 #139

PAC35.4 #266

Free throw rate

AF35.1 #174

PAC30.5 #297

Possessions

Turnover rate

AF21.9 #362

PAC20.1 #350

Offensive rebound rate

AF21.4 #360

PAC35.3 #42

Assists per game

AF12.2 #273

PAC14.9 #93

Defense

Points allowed

AF79.9 #316

PAC69.8 #60

Points allowed per possession

AF1.19 #352

PAC1.05 #93

Opponent effective FG%

AF56.4 #350

PAC50.0 #101

Opponent 3-point %

AF37.6 #352

PAC34.7 #233

Turnovers forced

AF15.1 #280

PAC15.1 #281

Defensive rebound rate

AF68.7 #215

PAC75.0 #8

Steals per game

AF5.6 #281

PAC5.4 #309

Blocks per game

AF2.4 #316

PAC2.2 #332

AF		PAC
Scoring
61.5 #362	Points per game	71.3 #262
0.91 #363	Points per possession	1.08 #176
67.4 #259	Pace (possessions)	66.1 #312
Shooting
48.9 #292	Effective FG%	52.2 #140
30.6 #332	3-point %	35.8 #65
41.8 #139	3-point attempt rate	35.4 #266
35.1 #174	Free throw rate	30.5 #297
Possessions
21.9 #362	Turnover rate	20.1 #350
21.4 #360	Offensive rebound rate	35.3 #42
12.2 #273	Assists per game	14.9 #93
Defense
79.9 #316	Points allowed	69.8 #60
1.19 #352	Points allowed per possession	1.05 #93
56.4 #350	Opponent effective FG%	50.0 #101
37.6 #352	Opponent 3-point %	34.7 #233
15.1 #280	Turnovers forced	15.1 #281
68.7 #215	Defensive rebound rate	75.0 #8
5.6 #281	Steals per game	5.4 #309
2.4 #316	Blocks per game	2.2 #332

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Air Force

3-29 in 2025-26 overall · 0-21 in conference · Mountain West Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Nevada45–80
L@ Nevada59–74
Lvs Grand Canyon60–86
L@ Wyoming62–66
Lvs San José St80–86

A week or more of rest.

Pacific

16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · West Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Santa Clara68–76
Wvs Seattle U61–58
Lvs San Francisco61–72
L@ Gonzaga62–71
L@ Washington St70–87

A week or more of rest.

Air Force Falcons at Pacific Tigers

What could decide it: PAC has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Air Force

Pacific

Air Force has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Air Force

Pacific