Pacific Tigers at Stanford Cardinal: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Dec 6, 4:00 PM ETMaples Pavilion · at Stanford

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Pacific and Stanford
PAC	This season	STAN
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 STAN 80–66 · win probability STAN 88%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 145.8

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: STAN has more of the edges

PAC 2, STAN 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

STANBig

Turnovers

Turnover rate: PAC 20.1%, STAN 15.5%. Forced: PAC 15.1%, STAN 18.0%

STANBig

PAC offense vs STAN defense

Offense 195th of 366 against a defense 79th, on the model’s ratings

PACSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: PAC 35.3%, STAN 32.5%. Defensive: PAC 75.0%, STAN 70.2%

STANSmall

STAN offense vs PAC defense

Offense 88th of 366 against a defense 147th, on the model’s ratings

STANSmall

Home court

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

Context

Schedule so far

PAC has played the 122nd-hardest schedule, STAN the 76th. A record against a soft schedule means less

PACSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: PAC 52.2 and allows 50.0; STAN 51.5 and allows 51.0

Context

Tempo

About 67 possessions: PAC plays 66.1 a game (312th fastest), STAN 68.1 (225th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Three-pointers

PAC hits 35.8% and allows 34.7%; STAN hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 35.4% and 44.0% of their shots

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: PAC 8%, STAN 27%. Transfers in: PAC 9, STAN 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: PAC 30.5, STAN 35.5. Allowed: PAC 36.3, STAN 40.3

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	—	STAN -13.2	—
Total	—	145.8	—
Projected score	—	PAC 66.3 · STAN 79.5

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	STAN -7.7	—
1H total	68.2	—
1H projected score	PAC 30.3 · STAN 38	—

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
PAC LWLWW	17-14	55%	7-8	—
STAN WWWLL	17-16	52%	9-9	—

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

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
PAC OUUUU	11-20	35%	16-15
STAN OOOUO	15-18	45%	20-13

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
PAC	3-7 30%	5-5 50%	3-7 30%
STAN	6-4 60%	5-5 50%	6-4 60%

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

Pacific

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 12	vs UVU	No recent meeting
Dec 15	@ NMSU	No recent meeting

Stanford

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 14	vs UNCO	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

PAC 0–1 STANSTAN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · PAC 1-0 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 7, 2022-23	PAC 78 @ STAN 88	STAN -14.5	PAC W

ATS History · 2025-26

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

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

Stanford

33 games played

Straight up

20-13

61% wins

Against the spread

17-16

52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-18

45% overs · avg +0.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

20-1361%

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

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1652%

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

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1845%

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

3 of last 4 overno streak

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 4	vsPRST	W 89-79	-11.5	L −1.5	144.5	O 168
Nov 8	vsMONT	W 91-68	-12.5	W +10.5	150.5	O 159
Nov 12	vsMTST	W 77-68	-14.5	L −5.5	148.5	U 145
Nov 18	vsUL	W 93-66	-20.5	W +6.5	139.5	O 159
Nov 21	vsSEA	L 69-77	-10.5	L −18.5	152.5	U 146
Nov 27	vsMINN	W 72-68	-2.5	W +1.5	142.5	U 140
Nov 28	vsSLU	W 78-77	+1.5	W +2.5	160.5	U 155
Dec 1	vsPORT	W 94-72	-19.5	W +2.5	156.5	O 166
Dec 7	vsUNLV	L 74-75	-9.5	L −10.5	164.5	U 149
Dec 13	@SJSU	W 86-82	-8.5	L −4.5	145.5	O 168
Dec 17	vsUTA	W 76-60	-10.5	W +5.5	139.5	U 136
Dec 20	vsCOLO	W 77-68	+2.5	W +11.5	154.5	U 145
Dec 27	vsCSUN	W 88-80	-15.5	L −7.5	160.5	O 168
Dec 30	vsND	L 40-47	-6.5	L −13.5	143.5	U 87
Jan 2	vsLOU	W 80-76	+7.5	W +11.5	157.5	U 156
Jan 7	@VT	W 69-68	+3.5	W +4.5	148.5	U 137
Jan 10	@UVA	L 55-70	+12.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 125
Jan 14	vsUNC	W 95-90	+4.5	W +9.5	147.5	O 185
Jan 17	vsDUKE	L 50-80	+11.5	L −18.5	148.5	U 130
Jan 24	vsCAL	L 66-78	-4.5	L −16.5	146.5	U 144
Jan 28	@MIA	L 70-79	+9.5	W +0.5	147.5	O 149
Jan 31	@FSU	L 80-88	+3.5	L −4.5	152.5	O 168
Feb 4	vsCLEM	L 64-66	+3.5	W +1.5	138.5	U 130
Feb 7	vsGT	W 95-72	-9.5	W +13.5	151.5	O 167
Feb 11	@BC	W 70-64	-3.5	W +2.5	139.5	U 134
Feb 14	@WAKE	L 63-68	+4.5	L −0.5	150.5	U 131
Feb 21	@CAL	L 66-72	+1.5	L −4.5	149.5	U 138
Feb 25	vsPITT	W 75-67	-8.5	L −0.5	138.5	O 142
Feb 28	vsSMU	W 95-75	+1.5	W +21.5	155.5	O 170
Mar 4	@ND	W 86-78	-1.5	W +6.5	147.5	O 164
Mar 7	@NCSU	W 85-84	+9.5	W +10.5	152.5	O 169
Mar 10	vsPITT	L 63-64	-4.5	L −5.5	136.5	U 127
Apr 2	vsWVU	L 77-82	+2.5	L −2.5	135.5	O 159

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

PRST

W 89-79

−1.5

MONT

W 91-68

+10.5

MTST

W 77-68

−5.5

W 93-66

+6.5

SEA

L 69-77

−18.5

MINN

W 72-68

+1.5

SLU

W 78-77

+2.5

PORT

W 94-72

+2.5

UNLV

L 74-75

−10.5

SJSU

W 86-82

−4.5

UTA

W 76-60

+5.5

COLO

W 77-68

+11.5

CSUN

W 88-80

−7.5

L 40-47

−13.5

LOU

W 80-76

+11.5

W 69-68

+4.5

UVA

L 55-70

−2.5

UNC

W 95-90

+9.5

DUKE

L 50-80

−18.5

CAL

L 66-78

−16.5

MIA

L 70-79

+0.5

FSU

L 80-88

−4.5

CLEM

L 64-66

+1.5

W 95-72

+13.5

W 70-64

+2.5

WAKE

L 63-68

−0.5

CAL

L 66-72

−4.5

PITT

W 75-67

−0.5

SMU

W 95-75

+21.5

W 86-78

+6.5

NCSU

W 85-84

+10.5

PITT

L 63-64

−5.5

WVU

L 77-82

−2.5

covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

PRST

W 89-79

+23.5

MONT

W 91-68

+8.5

MTST

W 77-68

−3.5

W 93-66

+19.5

SEA

L 69-77

−6.5

MINN

W 72-68

−2.5

SLU

W 78-77

−5.5

PORT

W 94-72

+9.5

UNLV

L 74-75

−15.5

SJSU

W 86-82

+22.5

UTA

W 76-60

−3.5

COLO

W 77-68

−9.5

CSUN

W 88-80

+7.5

L 40-47

−56.5

LOU

W 80-76

−1.5

W 69-68

−11.5

UVA

L 55-70

−18.5

UNC

W 95-90

+37.5

DUKE

L 50-80

−18.5

CAL

L 66-78

−2.5

MIA

L 70-79

+1.5

FSU

L 80-88

+15.5

CLEM

L 64-66

−8.5

W 95-72

+15.5

W 70-64

−5.5

WAKE

L 63-68

−19.5

CAL

L 66-72

−11.5

PITT

W 75-67

+3.5

SMU

W 95-75

+14.5

W 86-78

+16.5

NCSU

W 85-84

+16.5

PITT

L 63-64

−9.5

WVU

L 77-82

+23.5

over 15under 18avg +0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Stanford has the better starters

Position by position: Pacific 0, Stanford 3, even 2

PacificBetterStanford

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

Even

G C. Bliss TR16.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 5.9 ast Score 84

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

STANBig

F N. Townsend TR16.6 pts · 7.3 reb · 4.4 ast Score 93

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

STANBig

F A. Cammann6.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.4 ast Score 56

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

STANSmall

F D. Young2.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 26

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

Even

C A. Maurer TR7.2 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 70

PacificBetterStanford

PAC offense195th of 366 · -6.1

STANSmall

STAN defense79th of 366 · +0.4

PAC defense147th of 366 · -3.2

STANSmall

STAN offense88th of 366 · +0.2

Backcourt-2.4 · 3 players

STANBig

Backcourt+2.6 · 1 player

Frontcourt-1.7 · 2 players

STANBig

Frontcourt+4.6 · 4 players

Bench-1.2 · 5 players

STANSmall

Bench-0.1 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestPAC betterSTAN 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

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

Stanford

Guards

C. Bliss40 min · TRE. Kitch1 minA. BatsonNewM. JonesNewJ. PriceNewI. RogersNew

Forwards

N. Townsend34 min · TRA. Cammann22 minD. Young15 minK. Skrinda6 minE. Stinson5 minT. Toure4 min

Centers

A. Maurer18 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

PAC71.3 #262

STAN76.0 #142

Points per possession

PAC1.08 #176

STAN1.12 #108

Pace (possessions)

PAC66.1 #312

STAN68.1 #225

Shooting

Effective FG%

PAC52.2 #140

STAN51.5 #173

3-point %

PAC35.8 #65

STAN35.2 #103

3-point attempt rate

PAC35.4 #266

STAN44.0 #89

Free throw rate

PAC30.5 #297

STAN35.5 #165

Possessions

Turnover rate

PAC20.1 #350

STAN15.5 #105

Offensive rebound rate

PAC35.3 #42

STAN32.5 #109

Assists per game

PAC14.9 #93

STAN11.8 #299

Defense

Points allowed

PAC69.8 #60

STAN73.0 #132

Points allowed per possession

PAC1.05 #93

STAN1.07 #136

Opponent effective FG%

PAC50.0 #101

STAN51.0 #158

Opponent 3-point %

PAC34.7 #233

STAN33.0 #118

Turnovers forced

PAC15.1 #281

STAN18.0 #99

Defensive rebound rate

PAC75.0 #8

STAN70.2 #149

Steals per game

PAC5.4 #309

STAN7.8 #53

Blocks per game

PAC2.2 #332

STAN3.9 #93

PAC		STAN
Scoring
71.3 #262	Points per game	76.0 #142
1.08 #176	Points per possession	1.12 #108
66.1 #312	Pace (possessions)	68.1 #225
Shooting
52.2 #140	Effective FG%	51.5 #173
35.8 #65	3-point %	35.2 #103
35.4 #266	3-point attempt rate	44.0 #89
30.5 #297	Free throw rate	35.5 #165
Possessions
20.1 #350	Turnover rate	15.5 #105
35.3 #42	Offensive rebound rate	32.5 #109
14.9 #93	Assists per game	11.8 #299
Defense
69.8 #60	Points allowed	73.0 #132
1.05 #93	Points allowed per possession	1.07 #136
50.0 #101	Opponent effective FG%	51.0 #158
34.7 #233	Opponent 3-point %	33.0 #118
15.1 #281	Turnovers forced	18.0 #99
75.0 #8	Defensive rebound rate	70.2 #149
5.4 #309	Steals per game	7.8 #53
2.2 #332	Blocks per game	3.9 #93

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.

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.

Stanford

20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 9-10 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs West Virginia77–82
Lvs Pitt63–64
W@ NC State85–84
W@ Notre Dame86–78
Wvs SMU95–75

A week or more of rest.

Pacific Tigers at Stanford Cardinal

What could decide it: STAN 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

Pacific

Stanford

Stanford has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Pacific

Stanford