Jenny Craig Pavilion · at San Diego
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | USD | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 USD 81–70 · win probability USD 82%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.7
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: USD has more of the edges
UCR 2, USD 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
USD offense vs UCR defense
Offense 127th of 366 against a defense 296th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UCR 19.0%, USD 17.6%. Forced: UCR 15.5%, USD 18.8%
Three-pointers
UCR hits 31.6% and allows 33.5%; USD hits 34.6% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 38.3% and 43.7% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UCR 27.8%, USD 28.1%. Defensive: UCR 70.0%, USD 65.5%
UCR offense vs USD defense
Offense 265th of 366 against a defense 189th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: UCR 35.0, USD 25.8. Allowed: UCR 40.9, USD 38.8
Context
Schedule so far
UCR has played the 182nd-hardest schedule, USD the 130th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
USD at home. This season: USD 0-0 at home, UCR 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UCR plays 71.0 a game (74th fastest), USD 69.6 (139th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UCR 21%, USD 7%. Transfers in: UCR 5, USD 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: UCR 48.9 and allows 52.7; USD 51.2 and allows 54.7
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 | — | USD -10.3 | — |
| Total | — | 150.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | UCR 70.2 · USD 80.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | USD -6.0 | — |
| 1H total | 70.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | UCR 32.2 · USD 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% | 6-4 60% | |
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UCR 1–2 USDUSD leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · UCR 1-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2025-26 | UCR 85 @ USD 71 | USD -7.5 | UCR W |
| Dec 20, 2022-23 | USD 92 @ UCR 84 | UCR -6.5 | USD W |
| Nov 17, 2021-22 | UCR 62 @ USD 74 | USD -3 | USD W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UC Riverside
30 games played
Straight up
8-22
27% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg +0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +1 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 6 | @ | W 74-70 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 68-82 | +19.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 74-76 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 57-80 | +12.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 85-71 | +7.5 | W +21.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 83-74 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 69-77 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 4 | @ | L 60-73 | +13.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 88-84 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 53-100 | +33.5 | L −13.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 78-92 | +14.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 65-97 | +24.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 45-88 | +8.5 | L −34.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 66-67 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 66-69 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 73-88 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 81-72 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 66-80 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 66-74 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 71-61 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 87-94 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 162.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 72-78 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 74-88 | +10.5 | L −3.5 | 160.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 68-76 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-72 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 93-65 | -6.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 73-78 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 59-70 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 95-84 | +4.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 74-93 | +12.5 | L −6.5 | 150.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
UND
W 74-70
+5.5
11
@
UNM
L 68-82
+5.5
15
vs
UND
L 74-76
−5.5
18
@
CBU
L 57-80
−10.5
21
@
USD
W 85-71
+21.5
24
vs
GRAM
W 83-74
+5.5
29
@
UTU
L 69-77
−2.5
4
@
UCI
L 60-73
+0.5
6
@
CP
W 88-84
+9.5
13
@
BYU
L 53-100
−13.5
20
@
STMN
L 78-92
+0.5
23
@
UCLA
L 65-97
−7.5
1
vs
HAW
L 45-88
−34.5
8
@
CSUB
L 66-67
+2.5
10
vs
UCSD
L 66-69
+7.5
15
@
LBSU
L 73-88
−9.5
17
vs
CSUF
W 81-72
+12.5
22
vs
UCI
L 66-80
−5.5
24
@
UCD
L 66-74
+1.5
29
vs
LBSU
W 71-61
+11.5
31
vs
CP
L 87-94
−8.5
5
@
CSUF
L 72-78
−0.5
7
@
CSUN
L 74-88
−3.5
12
vs
UCSB
L 68-76
−1.5
14
@
UCSD
L 66-72
+5.5
19
vs
CSUB
W 93-65
+21.5
21
vs
UCD
L 73-78
−2.5
26
@
UCSB
L 59-70
−0.5
28
vs
CSUN
W 95-84
+15.5
5
@
HAW
L 74-93
−6.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
UND
W 74-70
−2.5
11
@
UNM
L 68-82
+8.5
15
vs
UND
L 74-76
+1.5
18
@
CBU
L 57-80
−5.5
21
@
USD
W 85-71
+3.5
24
vs
GRAM
W 83-74
+12.5
29
@
UTU
L 69-77
+0.5
4
@
UCI
L 60-73
−9.5
6
@
CP
W 88-84
+9.5
13
@
BYU
L 53-100
−2.5
20
@
STMN
L 78-92
+17.5
23
@
UCLA
L 65-97
+13.5
1
vs
HAW
L 45-88
−16.5
8
@
CSUB
L 66-67
−14.5
10
vs
UCSD
L 66-69
−14.5
15
@
LBSU
L 73-88
+19.5
17
vs
CSUF
W 81-72
−4.5
22
vs
UCI
L 66-80
+3.5
24
@
UCD
L 66-74
−9.5
29
vs
LBSU
W 71-61
−12.5
31
vs
CP
L 87-94
+18.5
5
@
CSUF
L 72-78
−6.5
7
@
CSUN
L 74-88
+1.5
12
vs
UCSB
L 68-76
−1.5
14
@
UCSD
L 66-72
−9.5
19
vs
CSUB
W 93-65
+7.5
21
vs
UCD
L 73-78
+1.5
26
@
UCSB
L 59-70
−16.5
28
vs
CSUN
W 95-84
+20.5
5
@
HAW
L 74-93
+16.5
over 16under 14avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
San Diego
31 games played
Straight up
10-21
32% wins
Against the spread
16-15
52% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-18
42% overs · avg +0.5 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 7 | vs | L 68-71 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 78-74 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 78-68 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 71-85 | -7.5 | L −21.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 61-76 | +7.5 | L −7.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 30 | @ | L 72-76 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 69-86 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 9 | vs | L 81-94 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 78-69 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 19 | @ | W 82-80 | +12.5 | W +14.5 | 156.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 56-86 | +18.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 66-54 | +2.5 | W +14.5 | 150.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 93-99 | +29.5 | W +23.5 | 160.5 | O 192 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 64-74 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 70-98 | +17.5 | L −10.5 | 161.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 83-63 | -4.5 | W +15.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 70-77 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 147.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 64-75 | +9.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 96-92 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 73-85 | +13.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 92-88 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 76-78 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 60-87 | +20.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 63-83 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 151.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 71-58 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 79-92 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 65-77 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 82-92 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 74-87 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 66-62 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 56-58 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | U 114 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
IDST
L 68-71
−7.5
12
vs
IDHO
W 78-74
+5.5
18
vs
GRAM
W 78-68
+3.5
21
vs
UCR
L 71-85
−21.5
25
vs
CBU
L 61-76
−7.5
30
@
LBSU
L 72-76
−6.5
5
@
SJSU
L 69-86
−10.5
9
vs
USC
L 81-94
+1.5
13
vs
NAU
W 78-69
+4.5
19
@
UCSD
W 82-80
+14.5
22
@
WASH
L 56-86
−11.5
28
vs
PAC
W 66-54
+14.5
30
vs
GONZ
L 93-99
+23.5
2
@
SF
L 64-74
+2.5
4
@
SCU
L 70-98
−10.5
8
vs
PEPP
W 83-63
+15.5
10
@
PAC
L 70-77
+1.5
15
@
SEA
L 64-75
−1.5
21
vs
WSU
W 96-92
+5.5
24
vs
SCU
L 73-85
+1.5
28
@
PEPP
W 92-88
+1.5
31
vs
ORST
L 76-78
−5.5
4
@
SMC
L 60-87
−6.5
7
@
LMU
L 63-83
−13.5
11
vs
PORT
W 71-58
+11.5
15
vs
SF
L 79-92
−7.5
21
vs
LMU
L 65-77
−9.5
25
@
ORST
L 82-92
−3.5
28
@
PORT
L 74-87
−10.5
5
vs
LMU
W 66-62
+9.5
6
vs
SEA
L 56-58
+6.5
covered 16didn’t cover 15avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
IDST
L 68-71
−13.5
12
vs
IDHO
W 78-74
−3.5
18
vs
GRAM
W 78-68
−3.5
21
vs
UCR
L 71-85
+3.5
25
vs
CBU
L 61-76
−9.5
30
@
LBSU
L 72-76
+0.5
5
@
SJSU
L 69-86
+10.5
9
vs
USC
L 81-94
+16.5
13
vs
NAU
W 78-69
−2.5
19
@
UCSD
W 82-80
+5.5
22
@
WASH
L 56-86
−17.5
28
vs
PAC
W 66-54
−30.5
30
vs
GONZ
L 93-99
+31.5
2
@
SF
L 64-74
−14.5
4
@
SCU
L 70-98
+6.5
8
vs
PEPP
W 83-63
−3.5
10
@
PAC
L 70-77
−0.5
15
@
SEA
L 64-75
−8.5
21
vs
WSU
W 96-92
+35.5
24
vs
SCU
L 73-85
−4.5
28
@
PEPP
W 92-88
+28.5
31
vs
ORST
L 76-78
+3.5
4
@
SMC
L 60-87
−1.5
7
@
LMU
L 63-83
−5.5
11
vs
PORT
W 71-58
−21.5
15
vs
SF
L 79-92
+22.5
21
vs
LMU
L 65-77
−7.5
25
@
ORST
L 82-92
+29.5
28
@
PORT
L 74-87
+12.5
5
vs
LMU
W 66-62
−17.5
6
vs
SEA
L 56-58
−25.5
over 13under 18avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
San Diego has the better starters
Position by position: UC Riverside 1, San Diego 3, even 1
UC RiversideBetterSan Diego
G D. Perteete6.2 pts · 3.2 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 31
→USDBig
G M. Worthy TR16.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 3 ast
Score 72
G J. Evans TR5.8 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 25
→USDBig
G D. Hill TR14.2 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 92
G B. Waller4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 37
=Even
G D. Stromer TR6.4 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 29
G D. Malcolm TR5.8 pts · 3.4 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 87
←UCRBig
F T. McMorris TR7.5 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 47
F D. Washington TR2.7 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 0
→USDBig
F A. Munoz TR12.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 56
UC RiversideBetterSan Diego
UCR offense265th of 366 · -8.1
→USDSmall
USD defense189th of 366 · -4.4
UCR defense296th of 366 · -7.4
→USDBig
USD offense127th of 366 · -3.5
Backcourt-2.7 · 4 players
→USDBig
Backcourt+2.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.0 · 1 player
→USDSmall
Frontcourt-0.4 · 2 players
Bench+0.3 · 2 players
=Even
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUCR betterUSD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Perteete28 minJ. Evans15 min · TRB. Waller14 minD. Malcolm14 min · TRT. Duckett7 min · TRE. ReaganNew
Forwards
D. Washington11 min · TRT. Parrish-TillmanNewA. McKinneyNewJ. MajokNew
Centers
A. Oyeadier2 min · TR
Guards
M. Worthy35 min · TRD. Hill27 min · TRD. Stromer23 min · TRC. Versher2 minN. Del Bosque1 minB. RomanNew
Forwards
T. McMorris26 min · TRA. Munoz25 min · TRJ. Roberto Tanchyn19 min · TRS. Konneh13 min · TRA. Aviles11 minJ. HillNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.6 #258 | Points per game | 72.8 #228 |
| 1.01 #317 | Points per possession | 1.05 #251 |
| 71.0 #74 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #139 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.9 #291 | Effective FG% | 51.2 #185 |
| 31.6 #301 | 3-point % | 34.6 #141 |
| 38.3 #203 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.7 #96 |
| 35.0 #177 | Free throw rate | 25.8 #358 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.0 #321 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #242 |
| 27.8 #275 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #262 |
| 12.3 #262 | Assists per game | 15.4 #68 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.1 #303 | Points allowed | 78.8 #290 |
| 1.11 #256 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #286 |
| 52.7 #252 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.7 #320 |
| 33.5 #159 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #100 |
| 15.5 #250 | Turnovers forced | 18.8 #55 |
| 70.0 #159 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.5 #328 |
| 5.1 #325 | Steals per game | 7.7 #65 |
| 4.1 #67 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #294 |
UC Riverside
8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Hawai'i74–93
- Wvs CSU Northridge95–84
- L@ Santa Barbara59–70
- Lvs UC Davis73–78
- Wvs Bakersfield93–65
A week or more of rest.
San Diego
10-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Seattle U56–58
- Wvs LMU66–62
- L@ Portland74–87
- L@ Oregon St82–92
- Lvs LMU65–77
A week or more of rest.