Acrisure Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PORT | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PORT 74–72 · win probability PORT 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.0
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: CBU has more of the edges
CBU 3, PORT 1 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CBU 37.5%, PORT 28.1%. Defensive: CBU 72.8%, PORT 67.5%
Three-pointers
CBU hits 33.4% and allows 29.5%; PORT hits 29.9% and allows 36.1%. Threes are 32.0% and 35.4% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
CBU has played the 202nd-hardest schedule, PORT the 124th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: CBU 48.3 and allows 46.3; PORT 51.2 and allows 52.7
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: CBU plays 68.3 a game (217th fastest), PORT 70.2 (106th). Faster games mean more points
CBU offense vs PORT defense
Offense 246th of 366 against a defense 202nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CBU 18%, PORT 41%. Transfers in: CBU 2, PORT 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CBU 35.9, PORT 34.4. Allowed: CBU 36.6, PORT 32.6
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CBU 18.0%, PORT 19.6%. Forced: CBU 16.9%, PORT 17.0%
Even
PORT offense vs CBU defense
Offense 156th of 366 against a defense 178th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | PORT -1.6 | — |
| Total | — | 146.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | CBU 72.2 · PORT 73.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PORT -0.8 | — |
| 1H total | 68.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | CBU 33.7 · PORT 34.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 8-2 80% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
CA Baptist
34 games played
Straight up
25-9
74% wins
Against the spread
20-14
59% covers · avg +1.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-22
35% overs · avg −4.3 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 87-75 | -14.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 69-61 | +8.5 | W +16.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 69-59 | -15.5 | L −5.5 | 140.5 | U 128 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 80-57 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 72-59 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 76-61 | -7.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 29 | @ | W 75-69 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 137.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 70-78 | +13.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 60-91 | +18.5 | L −12.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 85-91 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 12 | @ | W 88-83 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 75-67 | -12.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 74-67 | -14.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 66-73 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 51-63 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 134.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 76-81 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 84-72 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 58-55 | -14.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 113 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 74-58 | +1.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 73-64 | -8.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 78-71 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 87-77 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 134.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 56-55 | -10.5 | L −9.5 | 138.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 65-63 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 83-66 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-70 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 46-65 | +8.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | U 111 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 68-56 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 134.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 82-67 | -8.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 87-48 | -9.5 | W +29.5 | 136.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 82-75 | -6.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 86-72 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 63-61 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 20 | vs | L 60-68 | +14.5 | W +6.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UPST
W 87-75
−2.5
7
@
UCI
W 69-61
+16.5
14
vs
WIU
W 69-59
−5.5
18
vs
UCR
W 80-57
+10.5
21
vs
GRAM
W 72-59
−1.5
25
vs
USD
W 76-61
+7.5
29
@
ORST
W 75-69
+7.5
1
@
COLO
L 70-78
+5.5
3
@
BYU
L 60-91
−12.5
6
@
UTAH
L 85-91
−0.5
12
@
EWU
W 88-83
+1.5
16
vs
SOU
W 75-67
−4.5
20
vs
SAC
W 74-67
−7.5
29
@
UVU
L 66-73
+0.5
1
@
UTA
L 51-63
−14.5
3
@
TAR
L 76-81
−3.5
8
vs
UTU
W 84-72
+4.5
10
vs
SUU
W 58-55
−11.5
15
@
ACU
W 74-58
+17.5
21
vs
UTU
W 73-64
+0.5
24
vs
UVU
W 78-71
+5.5
31
@
UTA
W 87-77
+8.5
5
vs
TAR
W 56-55
−9.5
7
vs
ACU
W 65-63
−6.5
12
@
SUU
W 83-66
+11.5
14
@
UTU
L 65-70
−7.5
19
@
UVU
L 46-65
−10.5
26
vs
UTA
W 68-56
+5.5
28
vs
TAR
W 82-67
+6.5
5
vs
ACU
W 87-48
+29.5
7
@
SUU
W 82-75
+0.5
13
vs
UTU
W 86-72
+5.5
14
vs
UVU
W 63-61
+4.5
20
vs
KU
L 60-68
+6.5
covered 20didn’t cover 14avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UPST
W 87-75
+9.5
7
@
UCI
W 69-61
−17.5
14
vs
WIU
W 69-59
−12.5
18
vs
UCR
W 80-57
−5.5
21
vs
GRAM
W 72-59
−13.5
25
vs
USD
W 76-61
−9.5
29
@
ORST
W 75-69
+6.5
1
@
COLO
L 70-78
−2.5
3
@
BYU
L 60-91
−2.5
6
@
UTAH
L 85-91
+30.5
12
@
EWU
W 88-83
+17.5
16
vs
SOU
W 75-67
−13.5
20
vs
SAC
W 74-67
−17.5
29
@
UVU
L 66-73
−9.5
1
@
UTA
L 51-63
−20.5
3
@
TAR
L 76-81
+9.5
8
vs
UTU
W 84-72
+11.5
10
vs
SUU
W 58-55
−37.5
15
@
ACU
W 74-58
−8.5
21
vs
UTU
W 73-64
−6.5
24
vs
UVU
W 78-71
+1.5
31
@
UTA
W 87-77
+29.5
5
vs
TAR
W 56-55
−27.5
7
vs
ACU
W 65-63
−7.5
12
@
SUU
W 83-66
+1.5
14
@
UTU
L 65-70
−8.5
19
@
UVU
L 46-65
−31.5
26
vs
UTA
W 68-56
−10.5
28
vs
TAR
W 82-67
+9.5
5
vs
ACU
W 87-48
−1.5
7
@
SUU
W 82-75
+8.5
13
vs
UTU
W 86-72
+13.5
14
vs
UVU
W 63-61
−15.5
20
vs
KU
L 60-68
−14.5
over 12under 22avg −4.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Portland
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% 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 | vs | W 83-74 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 67-63 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 56-93 | +11.5 | L −25.5 | 160.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 103-85 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 164.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-86 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 66-76 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 93-73 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 72-94 | +19.5 | L −2.5 | 156.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 88-78 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 69-94 | +19.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 61-79 | +9.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 62-67 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 152.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 85-92 | +13.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 57-78 | +18.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 68-73 | +11.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 90-89 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 82-76 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 63-67 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 71-58 | +8.5 | W +21.5 | 148.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 69-75 | +14.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 51-74 | +8.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-104 | +8.5 | L −21.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 87-80 | +22.5 | W +29.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 54-53 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 58-71 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 87-95 | -7.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 59-71 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 48-89 | +26.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 87-74 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 77-68 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 74-68 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 65-82 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
vs
UAPB
W 83-74
−3.5
9
vs
UCD
W 67-63
+2.5
15
@
WYO
L 56-93
−25.5
21
vs
CSUF
W 103-85
+11.5
22
vs
UNCO
L 80-86
−2.5
23
vs
STMN
L 66-76
−4.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 93-73
+14.5
1
@
STAN
L 72-94
−2.5
14
vs
KENT
W 88-78
+17.5
17
@
ORE
L 69-94
−5.5
22
@
UCSB
L 61-79
−8.5
28
vs
WSU
L 62-67
−1.5
30
vs
SCU
L 85-92
+6.5
2
@
SMC
L 57-78
−2.5
4
@
SF
L 68-73
+6.5
8
vs
PAC
W 90-89
+4.5
10
vs
ORST
W 82-76
+3.5
14
@
PEPP
L 63-67
−5.5
17
@
LMU
W 71-58
+21.5
24
vs
SMC
L 69-75
+8.5
28
@
PAC
L 51-74
−14.5
31
@
WSU
L 74-104
−21.5
4
vs
GONZ
W 87-80
+29.5
7
vs
SEA
W 54-53
+4.5
11
@
USD
L 58-71
−11.5
18
vs
PEPP
L 87-95
−15.5
21
@
SEA
L 59-71
−4.5
25
@
GONZ
L 48-89
−14.5
28
vs
USD
W 87-74
+10.5
5
vs
PEPP
W 77-68
+5.5
6
vs
WSU
W 74-68
+11.5
7
vs
SF
L 65-82
−10.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
vs
UAPB
W 83-74
−7.5
9
vs
UCD
W 67-63
−21.5
15
@
WYO
L 56-93
−11.5
21
vs
CSUF
W 103-85
+23.5
22
vs
UNCO
L 80-86
+8.5
23
vs
STMN
L 66-76
−13.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 93-73
+17.5
1
@
STAN
L 72-94
+9.5
14
vs
KENT
W 88-78
+5.5
17
@
ORE
L 69-94
+8.5
22
@
UCSB
L 61-79
−7.5
28
vs
WSU
L 62-67
−23.5
30
vs
SCU
L 85-92
+19.5
2
@
SMC
L 57-78
−11.5
4
@
SF
L 68-73
−6.5
8
vs
PAC
W 90-89
+34.5
10
vs
ORST
W 82-76
+12.5
14
@
PEPP
L 63-67
−17.5
17
@
LMU
W 71-58
−19.5
24
vs
SMC
L 69-75
−0.5
28
@
PAC
L 51-74
−17.5
31
@
WSU
L 74-104
+25.5
4
vs
GONZ
W 87-80
+14.5
7
vs
SEA
W 54-53
−36.5
11
@
USD
L 58-71
−21.5
18
vs
PEPP
L 87-95
+31.5
21
@
SEA
L 59-71
−10.5
25
@
GONZ
L 48-89
−13.5
28
vs
USD
W 87-74
+12.5
5
vs
PEPP
W 77-68
−9.5
6
vs
WSU
W 74-68
−7.5
7
vs
SF
L 65-82
+0.5
over 14under 18avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
CA Baptist has the better starters
Position by position: CA Baptist 1, Portland 0, even 4
CA BaptistBetterPortland
G E. Duncan TR10.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 67
←CBUSmall
G J. Olvera TR13.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 51
G J. Muller4.4 pts · 1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 7
=Even
G K. Isaac TR5 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 10
G J. Dollar1.9 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Censori-Hercules3.2 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 22
F R. D'Amelio2.6 pts · 3 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. O'Donnell9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 60
F N. Richart TR0.3 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F T. George11.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 93
CA BaptistBetterPortland
CBU offense246th of 366 · -7.5
=Even
PORT defense202nd of 366 · -5.0
CBU defense178th of 366 · -4.0
=Even
PORT offense156th of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt-2.2 · 3 players
←CBUBig
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 2 players
→PORTBig
Frontcourt+2.9 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.2 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestCBU betterPORT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
E. Duncan21 min · TRJ. Muller21 minJ. Dollar5 minT. ConerNewJ. StonkusNewO. BlanksonNew
Forwards
R. D'Amelio11 minN. Richart7 min · TRA. MilenkovicNewJ. ZilinskasNewA. SafinNew
Centers
M. KovacNew
Guards
J. Olvera29 min · TRK. Isaac24 min · TRD. Censori-Hercules21 minR. Parker19 minH. Adam15 min · TRR. NanceNew
Forwards
J. O'Donnell23 minT. George20 minV. Perkovic7 min · TRO. SukurNewH. SewellNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.7 #230 | Points per game | 72.1 #238 |
| 1.07 #209 | Points per possession | 1.02 #299 |
| 68.3 #217 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #106 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.3 #308 | Effective FG% | 51.2 #188 |
| 33.4 #200 | 3-point % | 29.9 #344 |
| 32.0 #330 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #263 |
| 35.9 #154 | Free throw rate | 34.4 #197 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.0 #270 | Turnover rate | 19.6 #342 |
| 37.5 #13 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #266 |
| 10.2 #355 | Assists per game | 15.9 #51 |
| Defense | ||
| 67.6 #28 | Points allowed | 78.1 #271 |
| 0.99 #18 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #258 |
| 46.3 #16 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.7 #255 |
| 29.5 #5 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.1 #308 |
| 16.9 #159 | Turnovers forced | 17.0 #148 |
| 72.8 #41 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.5 #281 |
| 5.5 #296 | Steals per game | 5.8 #251 |
| 2.9 #253 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #246 |
CA Baptist
25-9 in 2025-26 overall · 15-5 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Kansas60–68
- Wvs Utah Valley63–61
- Wvs Utah Tech86–72
- W@ Southern Utah82–75
- Wvs Abilene Chrstn87–48
A week or more of rest.
Portland
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs San Francisco65–82
- Wvs Washington St74–68
- Wvs Pepperdine77–68
- Wvs San Diego87–74
- L@ Gonzaga48–89
A week or more of rest.