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 USC 85–72 · win probability USC 88%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 157.4
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: USC has more of the edges
USC 6, USD 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: USC 44.2, USD 25.8. Allowed: USC 33.4, USD 38.8
USC offense vs USD defense
Offense 27th of 366 against a defense 189th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USC 64%, USD 7%. Transfers in: USC 6, USD 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USC 32.4%, USD 28.1%. Defensive: USC 67.8%, USD 65.5%
Shooting
Effective FG%: USC 50.4 and allows 49.7; USD 51.2 and allows 54.7
Context
Schedule so far
USC has played the 42nd-hardest schedule, USD the 130th. A record against a soft schedule means less
USD offense vs USC defense
Offense 127th of 366 against a defense 55th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USC 17.4%, USD 17.6%. Forced: USC 16.4%, USD 18.8%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: USC plays 72.4 a game (25th fastest), USD 69.6 (139th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
USD at home. This season: USD 0-0 at home, USC 0-0 away
Three-pointers
USC hits 31.7% and allows 30.9%; USD hits 34.6% and allows 32.7%. Threes are 34.1% and 43.7% of their shots
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 | — | USC -13.2 | — |
| Total | — | 157.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | USC 85.3 · USD 72.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | USC -8.0 | — |
| 1H total | 73.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | USC 40.8 · USD 32.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | |
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
USC 1–0 USDUSC leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · USC 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2025-26 | USC 94 @ USD 81 | USD +14.5 | USD W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
USC
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −3.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-14
55% overs · avg +2.3 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 94-64 | -24.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 114-83 | -28.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 87-67 | -15.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 107-106 | -18.5 | L −17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 70-67 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 83-81 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 88-75 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 161.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 82-77 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 76-84 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 154.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 9 | @ | W 94-81 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 68-61 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 97-70 | -25.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 66-96 | +22.5 | L −7.5 | 173.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 51-80 | +11.5 | L −17.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 70-69 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 88-71 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 64-69 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 68-74 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 25 | @ | W 73-71 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 158.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 72-73 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 78-75 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 81-75 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 77-75 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 82-89 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 65-101 | +8.5 | L −27.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 70-71 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 62-81 | +6.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 67-82 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 72-91 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 68-89 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CP
W 94-64
+5.5
9
vs
MAN
W 114-83
+2.5
14
vs
ILST
W 87-67
+4.5
20
vs
TROY
W 107-106
−17.5
24
vs
BOIS
W 70-67
−0.5
25
vs
HALL
W 83-81
−4.5
26
vs
ASU
W 88-75
+8.5
2
@
ORE
W 82-77
+2.5
6
vs
WASH
L 76-84
−12.5
9
@
USD
W 94-81
−1.5
14
vs
WSU
W 68-61
−5.5
17
vs
UTSA
W 97-70
+1.5
2
@
MICH
L 66-96
−7.5
5
@
MSU
L 51-80
−17.5
9
@
MINN
W 70-69
+4.5
13
vs
MD
W 88-71
+7.5
17
vs
PUR
L 64-69
+4.5
21
vs
NU
L 68-74
−12.5
25
@
WIS
W 73-71
+9.5
28
@
IOWA
L 72-73
+8.5
31
vs
RUTG
W 78-75
−8.5
3
vs
IU
W 81-75
+7.5
8
@
PSU
W 77-75
−1.5
11
@
OSU
L 82-89
+0.5
18
vs
ILL
L 65-101
−27.5
21
vs
ORE
L 70-71
−6.5
24
@
UCLA
L 62-81
−12.5
28
vs
NEB
L 67-82
−9.5
4
@
WASH
L 72-91
−13.5
7
vs
UCLA
L 68-89
−16.5
11
vs
WASH
L 79-83
−0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CP
W 94-64
−5.5
9
vs
MAN
W 114-83
+41.5
14
vs
ILST
W 87-67
−1.5
20
vs
TROY
W 107-106
+53.5
24
vs
BOIS
W 70-67
−18.5
25
vs
HALL
W 83-81
+18.5
26
vs
ASU
W 88-75
+1.5
2
@
ORE
W 82-77
+4.5
6
vs
WASH
L 76-84
+5.5
9
@
USD
W 94-81
+16.5
14
vs
WSU
W 68-61
−27.5
17
vs
UTSA
W 97-70
+9.5
2
@
MICH
L 66-96
−11.5
5
@
MSU
L 51-80
−20.5
9
@
MINN
W 70-69
−8.5
13
vs
MD
W 88-71
+8.5
17
vs
PUR
L 64-69
−22.5
21
vs
NU
L 68-74
−7.5
25
@
WIS
W 73-71
−14.5
28
@
IOWA
L 72-73
+3.5
31
vs
RUTG
W 78-75
+6.5
3
vs
IU
W 81-75
+2.5
8
@
PSU
W 77-75
−5.5
11
@
OSU
L 82-89
+18.5
18
vs
ILL
L 65-101
+14.5
21
vs
ORE
L 70-71
−8.5
24
@
UCLA
L 62-81
−7.5
28
vs
NEB
L 67-82
−0.5
4
@
WASH
L 72-91
+12.5
7
vs
UCLA
L 68-89
+5.5
11
vs
WASH
L 79-83
+7.5
over 17under 14avg +2.3 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.
USC has the better starters
Position by position: USC 4, San Diego 0, even 1
USCBetterSan Diego
G J. Cox TR18.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 5.2 ast
Score 96
←USCSmall
G M. Worthy TR16.6 pts · 4.7 reb · 3 ast
Score 72
G J. Jones15.5 pts · 8.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
=Even
G D. Hill TR14.2 pts · 4.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 92
G R. Rice20.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 6 ast
Score 97
←USCBig
G D. Stromer TR6.4 pts · 2.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 29
G I. Bruns TR20.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 88
←USCBig
F T. McMorris TR7.5 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 47
F J. Cofie9.8 pts · 6.8 reb · 2 ast
Score 77
←USCSmall
F A. Munoz TR12.7 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 56
USCBetterSan Diego
USC offense27th of 366 · +7.0
←USCBig
USD defense189th of 366 · -4.4
USC defense55th of 366 · +1.4
←USCSmall
USD offense127th of 366 · -3.5
Backcourt+15.2 · 4 players
←USCBig
Backcourt+2.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
←USCSmall
Frontcourt-0.4 · 2 players
Bench+2.9 · 5 players
←USCSmall
Bench+0.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUSC betterUSD betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Cox35 min · TRJ. Jones35 minR. Rice34 minI. Bruns32 min · TRK. Lewis30 min · TRA. Hunkin-Claytor28 min · TR
Forwards
J. Cofie31 minJ. Hughes28 min · TRA. RatliffNewC. CollinsNew
Centers
E. Reibe14 min · TRD. RatliffNewO. Joe AguNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.8 #97 | Points per game | 72.8 #228 |
| 1.07 #199 | Points per possession | 1.05 #251 |
| 72.4 #25 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #139 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.4 #225 | Effective FG% | 51.2 #185 |
| 31.7 #299 | 3-point % | 34.6 #141 |
| 34.1 #292 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.7 #96 |
| 44.2 #8 | Free throw rate | 25.8 #358 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #228 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #242 |
| 32.4 #113 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #262 |
| 14.9 #92 | Assists per game | 15.4 #68 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.4 #277 | Points allowed | 78.8 #290 |
| 1.08 #173 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #286 |
| 49.7 #89 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.7 #320 |
| 30.9 #31 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.7 #100 |
| 16.4 #198 | Turnovers forced | 18.8 #55 |
| 67.8 #269 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.5 #328 |
| 6.2 #217 | Steals per game | 7.7 #65 |
| 5.5 #8 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #294 |
USC
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 7-14 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Washington79–83
- Lvs UCLA68–89
- L@ Washington72–91
- Lvs Nebraska67–82
- L@ UCLA62–81
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.