Chiles Center · at Portland
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 77–67 · win probability PORT 79%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.0
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: PORT has more of the edges
LAM 2, PORT 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
LAM has played the 328th-hardest schedule, PORT the 124th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LAM 35.7%, PORT 28.1%. Defensive: LAM 70.6%, PORT 67.5%
Free throws
Free throw rate: LAM 27.9, PORT 34.4. Allowed: LAM 44.4, PORT 32.6
LAM offense vs PORT defense
Offense 334th of 366 against a defense 202nd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: LAM plays 66.1 a game (311th fastest), PORT 70.2 (106th). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LAM 0%, PORT 41%. Transfers in: LAM 6, PORT 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Three-pointers
LAM hits 32.9% and allows 35.3%; PORT hits 29.9% and allows 36.1%. Threes are 33.9% and 35.4% of their shots
PORT offense vs LAM defense
Offense 156th of 366 against a defense 213th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
PORT at home. This season: PORT 0-0 at home, LAM 0-0 away
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LAM 18.1%, PORT 19.6%. Forced: LAM 17.3%, PORT 17.0%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: LAM 47.8 and allows 50.9; PORT 51.2 and allows 52.7
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 | — | PORT -9.3 | — |
| Total | — | 144.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | LAM 67.3 · PORT 76.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PORT -5.4 | — |
| 1H total | 67.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | LAM 31 · PORT 36.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 3-7 30% | 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
Lamar
29 games played
Straight up
10-19
34% wins
Against the spread
12-17
41% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg −0.9 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 10 | @ | L 65-78 | +18.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 17 | @ | W 79-66 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 68-63 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-83 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 65-55 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 129.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 49-57 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | U 106 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 71-89 | +17.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 72-83 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 82-85 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 76-61 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 69-62 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 70-82 | +16.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 52-60 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 135.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 63-51 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 64-56 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 90-80 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 76-89 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 81-88 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 140.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 63-64 | +10.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 73-54 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 74-84 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 68-70 | -6.5 | L −8.5 | 135.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-76 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 65-70 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 71-77 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 52-53 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-72 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 53-75 | -2.5 | L −24.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
10
@
TCU
L 65-78
+5.5
17
@
ULM
W 79-66
+1.5
23
@
MONT
W 68-63
+9.5
24
vs
OAK
L 68-83
−11.5
3
vs
UL
W 65-55
−0.5
6
vs
AMCC
L 49-57
−11.5
10
@
SDSU
L 71-89
−0.5
16
vs
RGV
L 72-83
−14.5
20
vs
OMA
L 82-85
−8.5
29
@
NWST
W 76-61
+11.5
31
@
ETAM
W 69-62
+1.5
2
@
MCN
L 70-82
+4.5
5
@
SELA
L 52-60
−9.5
10
vs
UIW
W 63-51
+10.5
12
vs
HCU
W 64-56
−0.5
17
@
NICH
W 90-80
+13.5
19
@
NOLA
L 76-89
−14.5
24
vs
SFA
L 81-88
−2.5
27
vs
ETAM
W 82-61
+14.5
31
vs
MCN
L 63-64
+9.5
2
vs
SELA
W 73-54
+13.5
7
@
SFA
L 74-84
−1.5
9
vs
NWST
L 68-70
−8.5
14
@
AMCC
L 63-76
−10.5
16
@
RGV
L 65-70
+1.5
21
vs
NOLA
L 71-77
−10.5
23
vs
NICH
L 52-53
−4.5
28
@
UIW
L 60-72
−10.5
2
@
HCU
L 53-75
−24.5
covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
10
@
TCU
L 65-78
−4.5
17
@
ULM
W 79-66
+4.5
23
@
MONT
W 68-63
−17.5
24
vs
OAK
L 68-83
+2.5
3
vs
UL
W 65-55
−9.5
6
vs
AMCC
L 49-57
−30.5
10
@
SDSU
L 71-89
+24.5
16
vs
RGV
L 72-83
+15.5
20
vs
OMA
L 82-85
+25.5
29
@
NWST
W 76-61
−1.5
31
@
ETAM
W 69-62
−12.5
2
@
MCN
L 70-82
+6.5
5
@
SELA
L 52-60
−23.5
10
vs
UIW
W 63-51
−26.5
12
vs
HCU
W 64-56
−14.5
17
@
NICH
W 90-80
+30.5
19
@
NOLA
L 76-89
+20.5
24
vs
SFA
L 81-88
+32.5
27
vs
ETAM
W 82-61
+2.5
31
vs
MCN
L 63-64
−17.5
2
vs
SELA
W 73-54
−5.5
7
@
SFA
L 74-84
+19.5
9
vs
NWST
L 68-70
+2.5
14
@
AMCC
L 63-76
+3.5
16
@
RGV
L 65-70
−6.5
21
vs
NOLA
L 71-77
+1.5
23
vs
NICH
L 52-53
−38.5
28
@
UIW
L 60-72
−6.5
2
@
HCU
L 53-75
−4.5
over 14under 15avg −0.9 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.
Portland has the better starters
Position by position: Lamar 1, Portland 2, even 2
LamarBetterPortland
G F. Radakovic TR9.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 38
=Even
G J. Olvera TR13.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 51
G N. Moretti TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 24
=Even
G K. Isaac TR5 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 10
G Q. Berry TR6.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 61
←LAMBig
G D. Censori-Hercules3.2 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 22
G M. Collins TR1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 12
→PORTBig
F J. O'Donnell9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 60
F M. Ljubicic TR5.5 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 7
→PORTBig
F T. George11.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 93
LamarBetterPortland
LAM offense334th of 366 · -10.9
→PORTBig
PORT defense202nd of 366 · -5.0
LAM defense213th of 366 · -5.4
→PORTSmall
PORT offense156th of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt-4.6 · 4 players
=Even
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.4 · 1 player
→PORTBig
Frontcourt+2.9 · 2 players
Bench-0.8 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.2 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestLAM betterPORT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
F. Radakovic27 min · TRN. Moretti27 min · TRQ. Berry18 min · TRM. Collins9 min · TRJ. JonesNewS. LynchNew
Forwards
M. Ljubicic20 min · TRM. Reed7 min · TRC. HinkerNewA. AgotNewD. EasonNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.4 #308 | Points per game | 72.1 #238 |
| 1.04 #279 | Points per possession | 1.02 #299 |
| 66.1 #311 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #106 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.8 #318 | Effective FG% | 51.2 #188 |
| 32.9 #238 | 3-point % | 29.9 #344 |
| 33.9 #297 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #263 |
| 27.9 #344 | Free throw rate | 34.4 #197 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.1 #273 | Turnover rate | 19.6 #342 |
| 35.7 #31 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #266 |
| 13.9 #157 | Assists per game | 15.9 #51 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.5 #64 | Points allowed | 78.1 #271 |
| 1.07 #122 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #258 |
| 50.9 #153 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.7 #255 |
| 35.3 #266 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.1 #308 |
| 17.3 #130 | Turnovers forced | 17.0 #148 |
| 70.6 #130 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.5 #281 |
| 6.1 #227 | Steals per game | 5.8 #251 |
| 4.2 #54 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #246 |
Lamar
10-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Hou Christian53–75
- L@ Incarnate Word60–72
- Lvs Nicholls52–53
- Lvs LSU N Orleans71–77
- L@ UT Rio Grande65–70
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.