Acrisure Arena · Neutral site
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 UCI 74–73 · win probability UCI 54%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.7
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: UCI has more of the edges
UCI 4, USD 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: UCI 36.0, USD 25.8. Allowed: UCI 26.7, USD 38.8
Shooting
Effective FG%: UCI 49.5 and allows 45.9; USD 51.2 and allows 54.7
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UCI 30.9%, USD 28.1%. Defensive: UCI 68.8%, USD 65.5%
Context
Schedule so far
UCI has played the 215th-hardest schedule, USD the 130th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UCI 44%, USD 7%. Transfers in: UCI 2, USD 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Three-pointers
UCI hits 33.6% and allows 33.7%; USD hits 34.6% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 28.0% and 43.7% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: UCI plays 71.5 a game (51st fastest), USD 69.6 (139th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UCI 17.8%, USD 17.6%. Forced: UCI 18.8%, USD 18.8%
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
UCI offense vs USD defense
Offense 187th of 366 against a defense 189th, on the model’s ratings
Even
USD offense vs UCI defense
Offense 127th of 366 against a defense 126th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | UCI -1.1 | — |
| Total | — | 146.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | UCI 73.9 · USD 72.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCI -0.8 | — |
| 1H total | 68.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | UCI 34.7 · USD 33.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | |
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UC Irvine
33 games played
Straight up
21-12
64% wins
Against the spread
17-16
52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-21
36% overs · avg −3.1 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-1652%
2 straight misses ATS2 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 | L 61-69 | -8.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 79-70 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 72-79 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 69-70 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 45-57 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | U 102 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 64-52 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 116 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 72-63 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 4 | vs | W 73-60 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 85-71 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 19 | vs | L 58-84 | -1.5 | L −27.5 | 150.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 74-73 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 89-70 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 136.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 81-77 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 86-64 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 160.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 74-64 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 66-67 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 72-75 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 80-66 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 61-59 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 87-76 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-62 | -16.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 79-84 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 73-79 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 86-65 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 69-58 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 69-71 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 68-67 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 64-60 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 107-85 | -9.5 | W +12.5 | 160.5 | O 192 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 79-69 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 93-78 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 64-71 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 17 | vs | L 72-75 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
CBU
L 61-69
−16.5
15
vs
WEB
W 79-70
−2.5
19
@
UVU
L 72-79
−4.5
22
vs
UNI
L 69-70
−3.5
25
vs
NMSU
L 45-57
−14.5
26
vs
SDST
W 64-52
+9.5
30
@
SJSU
W 72-63
+5.5
4
vs
UCR
W 73-60
−0.5
6
vs
CSUN
W 85-71
+6.5
19
vs
BEL
L 58-84
−27.5
21
vs
NDSU
W 74-73
+2.5
22
vs
NORF
W 89-70
+7.5
1
@
CSUB
W 81-77
−7.5
3
@
CSUF
W 86-64
+18.5
8
vs
LBSU
W 74-64
−0.5
10
@
HAW
L 66-67
+3.5
17
@
UCD
L 72-75
−6.5
22
@
UCR
W 80-66
+5.5
24
@
UCSD
W 61-59
+4.5
29
vs
HAW
W 87-76
+9.5
5
vs
CSUB
W 78-62
−0.5
7
@
UCSB
L 79-84
−2.5
12
@
CP
L 73-79
−11.5
14
vs
CSUF
W 86-65
+13.5
19
@
LBSU
W 69-58
+5.5
21
vs
UCSD
L 69-71
−5.5
26
@
CSUN
W 68-67
+2.5
28
vs
UCSB
W 64-60
+0.5
5
vs
CP
W 107-85
+12.5
7
vs
UCD
W 79-69
+2.5
13
vs
CSUN
W 93-78
+11.5
14
vs
HAW
L 64-71
−8.5
17
vs
UNLV
L 72-75
−1.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
CBU
L 61-69
−17.5
15
vs
WEB
W 79-70
−2.5
19
@
UVU
L 72-79
+1.5
22
vs
UNI
L 69-70
+0.5
25
vs
NMSU
L 45-57
−37.5
26
vs
SDST
W 64-52
−28.5
30
@
SJSU
W 72-63
−4.5
4
vs
UCR
W 73-60
−9.5
6
vs
CSUN
W 85-71
+3.5
19
vs
BEL
L 58-84
−8.5
21
vs
NDSU
W 74-73
+0.5
22
vs
NORF
W 89-70
+22.5
1
@
CSUB
W 81-77
+14.5
3
@
CSUF
W 86-64
−10.5
8
vs
LBSU
W 74-64
−4.5
10
@
HAW
L 66-67
−7.5
17
@
UCD
L 72-75
−1.5
22
@
UCR
W 80-66
+3.5
24
@
UCSD
W 61-59
−26.5
29
vs
HAW
W 87-76
+18.5
5
vs
CSUB
W 78-62
−4.5
7
@
UCSB
L 79-84
+21.5
12
@
CP
L 73-79
−9.5
14
vs
CSUF
W 86-65
−3.5
19
@
LBSU
W 69-58
−17.5
21
vs
UCSD
L 69-71
−3.5
26
@
CSUN
W 68-67
−18.5
28
vs
UCSB
W 64-60
−14.5
5
vs
CP
W 107-85
+31.5
7
vs
UCD
W 79-69
+3.5
13
vs
CSUN
W 93-78
+18.5
14
vs
HAW
L 64-71
−6.5
17
vs
UNLV
L 72-75
−6.5
over 12under 21avg −3.1 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.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: UC Irvine 2, San Diego 2, even 1
UC IrvineBetterSan Diego
G T. Isaac6 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 17
→USDBig
G M. Worthy TR16.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 3 ast
Score 72
G N. Cooper TR11.8 pts · 4.6 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 89
=Even
G D. Hill TR14.2 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 92
G J. Jester6.2 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 63
←UCISmall
G D. Stromer TR6.4 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 29
F H. Carrington7.9 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 84
←UCIBig
F T. McMorris TR7.5 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 47
F E. Chol4.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 28
→USDSmall
F A. Munoz TR12.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 56
UC IrvineBetterSan Diego
UCI offense187th of 366 · -5.8
=Even
USD defense189th of 366 · -4.4
UCI defense126th of 366 · -2.3
=Even
USD offense127th of 366 · -3.5
Backcourt-0.5 · 3 players
→USDSmall
Backcourt+2.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt+0.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.4 · 2 players
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
→USDSmall
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUCI betterUSD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Isaac27 minN. Cooper25 min · TRJ. Jester16 minB. Egbo4 minL. RedfieldNewT. LeeNew
Forwards
H. Carrington17 minE. Chol17 minM. HodgesNewP. SpeesNewD. BenthoNew
Centers
N. Emeneke8 minO. Rioux2 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.2 #188 | Points per game | 72.8 #228 |
| 1.04 #278 | Points per possession | 1.05 #251 |
| 71.5 #51 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #139 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #268 | Effective FG% | 51.2 #185 |
| 33.6 #191 | 3-point % | 34.6 #141 |
| 28.0 #359 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.7 #96 |
| 36.0 #152 | Free throw rate | 25.8 #358 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #257 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #242 |
| 30.9 #166 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #262 |
| 14.8 #103 | Assists per game | 15.4 #68 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.4 #54 | Points allowed | 78.8 #290 |
| 0.97 #7 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #286 |
| 45.9 #9 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.7 #320 |
| 33.7 #167 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #100 |
| 18.8 #56 | Turnovers forced | 18.8 #55 |
| 68.8 #213 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.5 #328 |
| 7.8 #51 | Steals per game | 7.7 #65 |
| 5.8 #5 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #294 |
UC Irvine
21-12 in 2025-26 overall · 16-6 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UNLV72–75
- Lvs Hawai'i64–71
- Wvs CSU Northridge93–78
- Wvs UC Davis79–69
- Wvs Cal Poly107–85
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.