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 80–73 · win probability PORT 72%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 153.3
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
EWU 2, PORT 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
PORT offense vs EWU defense
Offense 156th of 366 against a defense 322nd, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
EWU hits 35.9% and allows 35.2%; PORT hits 29.9% and allows 36.1%. Threes are 34.7% and 35.4% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: EWU 31.3%, PORT 28.1%. Defensive: EWU 69.2%, PORT 67.5%
Context
Schedule so far
EWU has played the 213th-hardest schedule, PORT the 124th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
PORT at home. This season: PORT 0-0 at home, EWU 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: EWU 36.1, PORT 34.4. Allowed: EWU 37.3, PORT 32.6
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: EWU 17.6%, PORT 19.6%. Forced: EWU 16.3%, PORT 17.0%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: EWU plays 69.5 a game (149th fastest), PORT 70.2 (106th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: EWU 53.7 and allows 54.9; PORT 51.2 and allows 52.7
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: EWU 30%, PORT 41%. Transfers in: EWU 1, PORT 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
EWU offense vs PORT defense
Offense 189th of 366 against a defense 202nd, 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 | — | PORT -6.6 | — |
| Total | — | 153.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | EWU 73.4 · PORT 79.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PORT -3.8 | — |
| 1H total | 71.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | EWU 33.9 · PORT 37.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
E Washington
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-13
59% overs · avg +3.3 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 | @ | L 74-80 | +29.5 | W +23.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 5 | @ | L 62-70 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 97-102 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 67-94 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 65-92 | -4.5 | L −31.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 71-79 | +12.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 89-93 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 90-66 | -9.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 12 | vs | L 83-88 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 63-78 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 77-101 | +10.5 | L −13.5 | 160.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 81-109 | +34.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 81-84 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 64-68 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 66-65 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 80-91 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-66 | +6.5 | W +24.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 61-65 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-67 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 86-92 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-74 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 82-74 | +5.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 72-71 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 88-75 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 84-66 | -3.5 | W +14.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 102-94 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 67-55 | +6.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 82-72 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-57 | -9.5 | W +21.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 81-85 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 84-79 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 68-81 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UCLA
L 74-80
+23.5
5
@
LMU
L 62-70
+1.5
8
@
COLO
L 97-102
+11.5
12
@
SEA
L 67-94
−18.5
23
@
CARK
L 65-92
−31.5
25
@
UNT
L 71-79
+4.5
3
@
DEN
L 89-93
−2.5
6
vs
KC
W 90-66
+14.5
12
vs
CBU
L 83-88
−1.5
17
vs
WSU
L 63-78
−8.5
20
@
UTAH
L 77-101
−13.5
22
@
BYU
L 81-109
+6.5
3
@
IDHO
L 81-84
+3.5
8
vs
MTST
L 64-68
−1.5
10
vs
MONT
W 66-65
−0.5
15
@
WEB
L 80-91
−7.5
17
@
IDST
W 84-66
+24.5
22
vs
PRST
L 61-65
−1.5
24
vs
SAC
W 75-67
+2.5
29
@
NAU
L 86-92
−8.5
31
@
UNCO
L 71-74
+3.5
5
@
MONT
W 82-74
+13.5
7
@
MTST
W 72-71
+6.5
12
vs
IDST
W 88-75
+10.5
14
vs
WEB
W 84-66
+14.5
19
@
SAC
W 102-94
+5.5
21
@
PRST
W 67-55
+18.5
26
vs
UNCO
W 82-72
+11.5
28
vs
NAU
W 88-57
+21.5
2
vs
IDHO
L 81-85
−7.5
9
vs
WEB
W 84-79
+1.5
10
vs
IDHO
L 68-81
−11.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UCLA
L 74-80
+4.5
5
@
LMU
L 62-70
−21.5
8
@
COLO
L 97-102
+46.5
12
@
SEA
L 67-94
+12.5
23
@
CARK
L 65-92
+2.5
25
@
UNT
L 71-79
+8.5
3
@
DEN
L 89-93
+26.5
6
vs
KC
W 90-66
+4.5
12
vs
CBU
L 83-88
+17.5
17
vs
WSU
L 63-78
−12.5
20
@
UTAH
L 77-101
+17.5
22
@
BYU
L 81-109
+21.5
3
@
IDHO
L 81-84
+6.5
8
vs
MTST
L 64-68
−24.5
10
vs
MONT
W 66-65
−30.5
15
@
WEB
L 80-91
+12.5
17
@
IDST
W 84-66
−2.5
22
vs
PRST
L 61-65
−24.5
24
vs
SAC
W 75-67
−21.5
29
@
NAU
L 86-92
+32.5
31
@
UNCO
L 71-74
−11.5
5
@
MONT
W 82-74
+4.5
7
@
MTST
W 72-71
−5.5
12
vs
IDST
W 88-75
+15.5
14
vs
WEB
W 84-66
−4.5
19
@
SAC
W 102-94
+35.5
21
@
PRST
W 67-55
−24.5
26
vs
UNCO
W 82-72
−3.5
28
vs
NAU
W 88-57
−1.5
2
vs
IDHO
L 81-85
+14.5
9
vs
WEB
W 84-79
+8.5
10
vs
IDHO
L 68-81
+0.5
over 19under 13avg +3.3 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.
E Washington has the better starters
Position by position: E Washington 2, Portland 1, even 2
E WashingtonBetterPortland
G J. Griffith TR11.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 75
←EWUSmall
G J. Olvera TR13.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 51
G C. Scherer2.1 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 14
=Even
G K. Isaac TR5 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 10
F A. Hamilton13.6 pts · 5.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 83
←EWUBig
G D. Censori-Hercules3.2 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 22
F E. Marquardt5.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 31
→PORTSmall
F J. O'Donnell9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 60
F S. Ngoyi0.5 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F T. George11.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 93
E WashingtonBetterPortland
EWU offense189th of 366 · -5.8
=Even
PORT defense202nd of 366 · -5.0
EWU defense322nd of 366 · -8.3
→PORTBig
PORT offense156th of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt-0.2 · 2 players
←EWUBig
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
Frontcourt+0.6 · 3 players
→PORTSmall
Frontcourt+2.9 · 2 players
Bench-0.3 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.2 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestEWU betterPORT betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Griffith23 min · TRC. Scherer8 minM. Monson3 minA. CookNewT. JacksonNewI. HomeliusNew
Forwards
A. Hamilton28 minE. Marquardt16 minS. Ngoyi4 minJ. MillerNewA. HamiltonNewA. GballouNew
Centers
Z. TrezvantNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.7 #102 | Points per game | 72.1 #238 |
| 1.11 #120 | Points per possession | 1.02 #299 |
| 69.5 #149 | Pace (possessions) | 70.2 #106 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.7 #75 | Effective FG% | 51.2 #188 |
| 35.9 #62 | 3-point % | 29.9 #344 |
| 34.7 #282 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.4 #263 |
| 36.1 #148 | Free throw rate | 34.4 #197 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.6 #241 | Turnover rate | 19.6 #342 |
| 31.3 #153 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #266 |
| 13.5 #181 | Assists per game | 15.9 #51 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.2 #304 | Points allowed | 78.1 #271 |
| 1.15 #320 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #258 |
| 54.9 #326 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.7 #255 |
| 35.2 #261 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.1 #308 |
| 16.3 #200 | Turnovers forced | 17.0 #148 |
| 69.2 #194 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.5 #281 |
| 5.9 #249 | Steals per game | 5.8 #251 |
| 3.4 #161 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #246 |
E Washington
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho68–81
- Wvs Weber St84–79
- Lvs Idaho81–85
- Wvs N Arizona88–57
- Wvs N Colorado82–72
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.