Jon M. Huntsman Center · at Utah
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UTAH | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UTAH 82–63 · win probability UTAH 95%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.5
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: UTAH has more of the edges
ACU 2, UTAH 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
ACU offense vs UTAH defense
Offense 298th of 366 against a defense 68th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
ACU hits 31.0% and allows 40.9%; UTAH hits 35.3% and allows 35.1%. Threes are 32.8% and 37.5% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
ACU has played the 183rd-hardest schedule, UTAH the 53rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
UTAH offense vs ACU defense
Offense 79th of 366 against a defense 200th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: ACU 47.5 and allows 56.5; UTAH 52.0 and allows 53.9
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ACU 31.0%, UTAH 29.3%. Defensive: ACU 70.9%, UTAH 68.4%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ACU 20.8%, UTAH 16.7%. Forced: ACU 23.4%, UTAH 13.3%
Home court
UTAH at home. This season: UTAH 0-0 at home, ACU 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: ACU 41.7, UTAH 31.7. Allowed: ACU 53.5, UTAH 29.9
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: ACU plays 69.2 a game (167th fastest), UTAH 68.3 (211th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ACU 25%, UTAH 14%. Transfers in: ACU 3, UTAH 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | UTAH -18.5 | — |
| Total | — | 144.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | ACU 63 · UTAH 81.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UTAH -10.8 | — |
| 1H total | 67.6 | — |
| 1H projected score | ACU 28.4 · UTAH 39.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
ACU 0–1 UTAHUTAH leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · ACU 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2021-22 | ACU 56 @ UTAH 70 | UTAH -10 | UTAH W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Abilene Chrstn
30 games played
Straight up
11-19
37% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +1.3 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 6 | vs | W 73-71 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 66-76 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 49-63 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | U 112 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 61-50 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 58-92 | -1.5 | L −35.5 | 147.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 71-63 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 77-69 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 131.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 62-96 | +34.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 67-85 | +33.5 | W +15.5 | 146.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 22 | @ | W 75-68 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 64-79 | -5.5 | L −20.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 85-68 | +7.5 | W +24.5 | 139.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 84-80 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 72-82 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 134.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 58-74 | -1.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 52-74 | -3.5 | L −25.5 | 149.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 70-76 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 76-79 | -6.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 55-68 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 63-65 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | U 128 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 67-63 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 134.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 73-59 | -3.5 | W +10.5 | 134.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 62-65 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 134.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 87-83 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 81-85 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 139.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-74 | +14.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 141 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 48-87 | +9.5 | L −29.5 | 136.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 57-64 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 131.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 84-78 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 134.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 74-80 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
vs
OMA
W 73-71
−2.5
14
@
SFA
L 66-76
−3.5
18
@
TXST
L 49-63
−12.5
24
vs
UTSA
W 61-50
+8.5
25
vs
W&M
L 58-92
−35.5
2
@
PEPP
W 71-63
+6.5
6
vs
NMSU
W 77-69
+9.5
16
@
ARIZ
L 62-96
+0.5
19
@
BYU
L 67-85
+15.5
22
@
TXSO
W 75-68
+2.5
1
vs
UTU
L 64-79
−20.5
3
vs
UVU
W 85-68
+24.5
8
@
TAR
W 84-80
+8.5
10
@
UTA
L 72-82
−6.5
15
vs
CBU
L 58-74
−17.5
17
@
SUU
L 52-74
−25.5
29
vs
UTU
L 70-76
−9.5
31
vs
SUU
L 76-79
−9.5
5
@
UVU
L 55-68
+1.5
7
@
CBU
L 63-65
+6.5
12
vs
UTA
W 67-63
+2.5
14
vs
TAR
W 73-59
+10.5
16
@
TAR
L 62-65
−4.5
21
vs
SUU
W 87-83
−4.5
26
@
UTU
L 81-85
−1.5
28
@
UVU
L 67-74
+7.5
5
@
CBU
L 48-87
−29.5
7
vs
UTA
L 57-64
−8.5
11
vs
TAR
W 84-78
+4.5
12
vs
UTU
L 74-80
−4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
vs
OMA
W 73-71
−6.5
14
@
SFA
L 66-76
−0.5
18
@
TXST
L 49-63
−26.5
24
vs
UTSA
W 61-50
−33.5
25
vs
W&M
L 58-92
+2.5
2
@
PEPP
W 71-63
−3.5
6
vs
NMSU
W 77-69
+14.5
16
@
ARIZ
L 62-96
+12.5
19
@
BYU
L 67-85
+5.5
22
@
TXSO
W 75-68
+4.5
1
vs
UTU
L 64-79
+3.5
3
vs
UVU
W 85-68
+13.5
8
@
TAR
W 84-80
+23.5
10
@
UTA
L 72-82
+19.5
15
vs
CBU
L 58-74
−8.5
17
@
SUU
L 52-74
−23.5
29
vs
UTU
L 70-76
+0.5
31
vs
SUU
L 76-79
+4.5
5
@
UVU
L 55-68
−22.5
7
@
CBU
L 63-65
−7.5
12
vs
UTA
W 67-63
−4.5
14
vs
TAR
W 73-59
−2.5
16
@
TAR
L 62-65
−7.5
21
vs
SUU
W 87-83
+26.5
26
@
UTU
L 81-85
+26.5
28
@
UVU
L 67-74
+0.5
5
@
CBU
L 48-87
−1.5
7
vs
UTA
L 57-64
−10.5
11
vs
TAR
W 84-78
+27.5
12
vs
UTU
L 74-80
+11.5
over 16under 14avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Utah
32 games played
Straight up
10-22
31% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-14
56% overs · avg −0.6 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 84-75 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 92-89 | -15.5 | L −12.5 | 148.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 87-69 | -21.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 85-79 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 159.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 85-77 | -13.5 | L −5.5 | 161.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 85-92 | -14.5 | L −21.5 | 167.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 58-68 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 75-74 | +10.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 72-79 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 91-85 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 74-82 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 101-77 | -10.5 | W +13.5 | 160.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 65-74 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 78-97 | +17.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 73-85 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 84-89 | +14.5 | W +9.5 | 168.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 74-88 | +17.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 82-79 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 78-81 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 168.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 78-91 | +19.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 69-81 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 166.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 63-71 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 59-71 | +18.5 | W +6.5 | 150.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 10 | vs | L 52-66 | +16.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 118 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 65-69 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 61-56 | +10.5 | W +15.5 | 133.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 71-73 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 59-75 | +14.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-73 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 78-92 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 148.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 75-101 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 148.5 | O 176 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 66-73 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SJSU
W 84-75
−2.5
8
vs
WEB
W 92-89
−12.5
10
vs
HC
W 87-69
−3.5
15
vs
SHSU
W 85-79
−6.5
18
vs
PFW
W 85-77
−5.5
20
vs
CP
L 85-92
−21.5
25
vs
GCU
L 58-68
−4.5
26
vs
MISS
W 75-74
+11.5
2
@
CAL
L 72-79
+0.5
6
vs
CBU
W 91-85
+0.5
13
vs
MSST
L 74-82
−6.5
20
vs
EWU
W 101-77
+13.5
29
@
WASH
L 65-74
+3.5
3
vs
ARIZ
L 78-97
−1.5
7
@
COLO
L 73-85
−2.5
10
vs
BYU
L 84-89
+9.5
14
@
TTU
L 74-88
+3.5
17
vs
TCU
W 82-79
+7.5
20
@
KSU
L 78-81
+7.5
24
@
BYU
L 78-91
+6.5
31
vs
OKST
L 69-81
−10.5
4
vs
ASU
L 63-71
−9.5
7
@
KU
L 59-71
+6.5
10
vs
HOU
L 52-66
+2.5
15
@
CIN
L 65-69
+8.5
18
@
WVU
W 61-56
+15.5
21
vs
UCF
L 71-73
−0.5
24
vs
ISU
L 59-75
−1.5
28
@
ASU
L 60-73
−6.5
3
vs
COLO
L 78-92
−12.5
7
@
BAY
L 75-101
−12.5
10
vs
CIN
L 66-73
+5.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SJSU
W 84-75
+12.5
8
vs
WEB
W 92-89
+32.5
10
vs
HC
W 87-69
+0.5
15
vs
SHSU
W 85-79
+4.5
18
vs
PFW
W 85-77
+0.5
20
vs
CP
L 85-92
+9.5
25
vs
GCU
L 58-68
−27.5
26
vs
MISS
W 75-74
+4.5
2
@
CAL
L 72-79
−1.5
6
vs
CBU
W 91-85
+30.5
13
vs
MSST
L 74-82
+2.5
20
vs
EWU
W 101-77
+17.5
29
@
WASH
L 65-74
−18.5
3
vs
ARIZ
L 78-97
+12.5
7
@
COLO
L 73-85
−4.5
10
vs
BYU
L 84-89
+4.5
14
@
TTU
L 74-88
+2.5
17
vs
TCU
W 82-79
+6.5
20
@
KSU
L 78-81
−9.5
24
@
BYU
L 78-91
+0.5
31
vs
OKST
L 69-81
−16.5
4
vs
ASU
L 63-71
−27.5
7
@
KU
L 59-71
−20.5
10
vs
HOU
L 52-66
−24.5
15
@
CIN
L 65-69
−5.5
18
@
WVU
W 61-56
−16.5
21
vs
UCF
L 71-73
−10.5
24
vs
ISU
L 59-75
−10.5
28
@
ASU
L 60-73
−17.5
3
vs
COLO
L 78-92
+21.5
7
@
BAY
L 75-101
+27.5
10
vs
CIN
L 66-73
+0.5
over 18under 14avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Utah has the better starters
Position by position: Abilene Chrstn 1, Utah 2, even 2
Abilene ChrstnBetterUtah
G N. Bolanga TR11.6 pts · 5.9 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 38
→UTAHBig
G T. Campbell TR13.7 pts · 3.8 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 85
G Y. Rivera7.4 pts · 1.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 41
→UTAHBig
G J. Holcombe TR15.9 pts · 6.5 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 97
G I. Dye1.7 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G T. Burch TR12.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 88
G E. Boisdur TR1.3 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G O. Abbey2.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 12
F C. Hornecker5.2 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 48
←ACUSmall
C M. Gomma TR8 pts · 6.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 28
Abilene ChrstnBetterUtah
ACU offense298th of 366 · -9.2
→UTAHBig
UTAH defense68th of 366 · +0.9
ACU defense200th of 366 · -5.0
→UTAHSmall
UTAH offense79th of 366 · +0.7
Backcourt-3.6 · 4 players
→UTAHBig
Backcourt+6.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.2 · 1 player
←ACUSmall
Frontcourt-1.4 · 1 player
Bench-0.0 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-0.7 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestACU betterUTAH betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. Bolanga34 min · TRY. Rivera25 minI. Dye6 minE. Boisdur6 min · TRT. Pons5 min · TRI. Neyhart3 min
Forwards
C. Hornecker16 minV. Yimga MoukouriNewS. RowleyNewW. Marie-AnaisNew
Guards
T. Campbell34 min · TRJ. Holcombe31 min · TRT. Burch25 min · TRO. Abbey15 minT. Chatman13 min · TRL. Langarita12 min
Forwards
G. Gaddis1 min · TRB. FayeNewZ. LoubakiNewJ. JohnsonNewA. AnigbataNew
Centers
M. Gomma26 min · TRF. SchottNewL. McCannaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.9 #313 | Points per game | 74.3 #185 |
| 0.98 #340 | Points per possession | 1.08 #173 |
| 69.2 #167 | Pace (possessions) | 68.3 #211 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.5 #326 | Effective FG% | 52.0 #142 |
| 31.0 #319 | 3-point % | 35.3 #98 |
| 32.8 #318 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.5 #222 |
| 41.7 #34 | Free throw rate | 31.7 #262 |
| Possessions | ||
| 20.8 #356 | Turnover rate | 16.7 #175 |
| 31.0 #164 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.3 #224 |
| 12.5 #249 | Assists per game | 13.7 #169 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.9 #151 | Points allowed | 79.1 #302 |
| 1.07 #123 | Points allowed per possession | 1.16 #337 |
| 56.5 #352 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.9 #298 |
| 40.9 #365 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.1 #254 |
| 23.4 #3 | Turnovers forced | 13.3 #348 |
| 70.9 #113 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.4 #233 |
| 9.6 #4 | Steals per game | 5.3 #315 |
| 2.6 #298 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #160 |
Abilene Chrstn
11-19 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · United Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Utah Tech74–80
- Wvs Tarleton St84–78
- Lvs UT Arlington57–64
- L@ CA Baptist48–87
- L@ Utah Valley67–74
A week or more of rest.
Utah
10-22 in 2025-26 overall · 2-17 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Cincinnati66–73
- L@ Baylor75–101
- Lvs Colorado78–92
- L@ Arizona St60–73
- Lvs Iowa State59–75
A week or more of rest.