Haas Pavilion · at California
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CAL | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CAL 85–67 · win probability CAL 93%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.9
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: CAL has more of the edges
UTU 0, CAL 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CAL offense vs UTU defense
Offense 84th of 366 against a defense 295th, on the model’s ratings
UTU offense vs CAL defense
Offense 251st of 366 against a defense 100th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
UTU has played the 210th-hardest schedule, CAL the 77th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UTU 17.8%, CAL 15.1%. Forced: UTU 16.8%, CAL 16.1%
Home court
CAL at home. This season: CAL 0-0 at home, UTU 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UTU 28.1%, CAL 26.0%. Defensive: UTU 65.5%, CAL 69.5%
Even
Three-pointers
UTU hits 35.0% and allows 30.7%; CAL hits 36.9% and allows 31.0%. Threes are 38.2% and 43.1% of their shots
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: UTU 30.6, CAL 36.2. Allowed: UTU 33.0, CAL 36.3
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: UTU 53.3 and allows 50.9; CAL 52.6 and allows 49.8
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UTU 24%, CAL 29%. Transfers in: UTU 3, CAL 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UTU plays 69.9 a game (124th fastest), CAL 69.8 (126th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | CAL -17.2 | — |
| Total | — | 151.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | UTU 67.3 · CAL 84.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CAL -10.1 | — |
| 1H total | 71.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | UTU 30.4 · CAL 40.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Utah Tech
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-14
55% overs · avg +4.2 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 | @ | W 81-79 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 67-93 | +33.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 66-81 | +12.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 12 | vs | L 75-79 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 81-75 | -26.5 | L −20.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 62-68 | +16.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 63-68 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 77-69 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 80-90 | +20.5 | W +10.5 | 144.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 82-80 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 69-92 | +19.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 80-66 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 79-64 | +5.5 | W +20.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 72-84 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 76-92 | +13.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 52-56 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 75-71 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 64-73 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 102-91 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 76-70 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 65-59 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 87-84 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 81-77 | +9.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 70-65 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 50-63 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 80-72 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 85-81 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-81 | -1.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 101-104 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 205 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-74 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 72-86 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SDAK
W 81-79
+3.5
7
@
ARIZ
L 67-93
+7.5
9
@
ASU
L 66-81
−2.5
12
vs
MAN
L 75-79
−6.5
14
vs
MVSU
W 81-75
−20.5
15
@
HAW
L 62-68
+10.5
25
vs
PRST
L 63-68
−3.5
29
vs
UCR
W 77-69
+2.5
3
@
SCU
L 80-90
+10.5
20
@
WEB
W 82-80
+7.5
22
@
CREI
L 69-92
−3.5
29
vs
SUU
W 80-66
+6.5
1
@
ACU
W 79-64
+20.5
8
@
CBU
L 72-84
−4.5
10
@
UVU
L 76-92
−2.5
15
vs
UTA
L 52-56
−5.5
17
vs
TAR
W 75-71
+0.5
21
@
CBU
L 64-73
−0.5
24
vs
SUU
W 102-91
+4.5
29
@
ACU
W 76-70
+9.5
31
@
TAR
W 65-59
+7.5
5
vs
UTA
W 87-84
+1.5
12
vs
UVU
W 81-77
+13.5
14
vs
CBU
W 70-65
+7.5
19
@
UTA
L 50-63
−8.5
21
@
TAR
W 80-72
+9.5
26
vs
ACU
W 85-81
+1.5
28
@
SUU
L 67-81
−15.5
7
vs
UVU
L 101-104
+5.5
12
vs
ACU
W 80-74
+4.5
13
vs
CBU
L 72-86
−5.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SDAK
W 81-79
−4.5
7
@
ARIZ
L 67-93
−2.5
9
@
ASU
L 66-81
−5.5
12
vs
MAN
L 75-79
−4.5
14
vs
MVSU
W 81-75
+10.5
15
@
HAW
L 62-68
−19.5
25
vs
PRST
L 63-68
−15.5
29
vs
UCR
W 77-69
+0.5
3
@
SCU
L 80-90
+25.5
20
@
WEB
W 82-80
+9.5
22
@
CREI
L 69-92
+13.5
29
vs
SUU
W 80-66
−2.5
1
@
ACU
W 79-64
+3.5
8
@
CBU
L 72-84
+11.5
10
@
UVU
L 76-92
+18.5
15
vs
UTA
L 52-56
−33.5
17
vs
TAR
W 75-71
−4.5
21
@
CBU
L 64-73
−6.5
24
vs
SUU
W 102-91
+43.5
29
@
ACU
W 76-70
+0.5
31
@
TAR
W 65-59
−25.5
5
vs
UTA
W 87-84
+31.5
12
vs
UVU
W 81-77
+9.5
14
vs
CBU
W 70-65
−8.5
19
@
UTA
L 50-63
−27.5
21
@
TAR
W 80-72
+11.5
26
vs
ACU
W 85-81
+26.5
28
@
SUU
L 67-81
−8.5
7
vs
UVU
L 101-104
+57.5
12
vs
ACU
W 80-74
+11.5
13
vs
CBU
L 72-86
+13.5
over 17under 14avg +4.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
California
33 games played
Straight up
21-12
64% wins
Against the spread
17-16
52% covers · avg +1.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-19
42% overs · avg +1.1 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 3 | vs | W 87-60 | -15.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 77-67 | -14.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 93-65 | -22.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 13 | @ | L 96-99 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | O 195 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 67-57 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 124.5 | U 124 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 91-67 | -21.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 80-72 | +7.5 | W +15.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 79-72 | -7.5 | L −0.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 67-61 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 79-70 | -19.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 97-50 | -26.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 74-56 | -8.5 | W +9.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 70-90 | +7.5 | L −12.5 | 159.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 72-71 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 60-84 | +14.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 75-78 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 56-71 | +14.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 84-78 | +7.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 78-66 | +4.5 | W +16.5 | 146.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 61-63 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 86-85 | +11.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 90-85 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 175 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 55-77 | +4.5 | L −17.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 100-107 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 207 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 86-75 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 72-66 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 73-69 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 56-72 | -6.5 | L −22.5 | 143.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 76-65 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 154.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 73-80 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 89-95 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 18 | vs | W 91-73 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 75-76 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CSUB
W 87-60
+11.5
6
vs
WRST
W 77-67
−4.5
10
vs
CSUF
W 93-65
+5.5
13
@
KSU
L 96-99
+3.5
18
vs
PRES
W 67-57
−0.5
21
vs
SAC
W 91-67
+2.5
25
vs
UCLA
W 80-72
+15.5
2
vs
UTAH
W 79-72
−0.5
6
vs
PAC
W 67-61
−1.5
13
vs
NWST
W 79-70
−10.5
19
vs
MORG
W 97-50
+20.5
21
vs
COLU
W 74-56
+9.5
30
vs
LOU
L 70-90
−12.5
2
vs
ND
W 72-71
−2.5
7
@
UVA
L 60-84
−9.5
10
@
VT
L 75-78
+2.5
14
vs
DUKE
L 56-71
−0.5
17
vs
UNC
W 84-78
+13.5
24
@
STAN
W 78-66
+16.5
28
@
FSU
L 61-63
+1.5
31
@
MIA
W 86-85
+12.5
4
vs
GT
W 90-85
−2.5
7
vs
CLEM
L 55-77
−17.5
11
@
SYR
L 100-107
−0.5
14
@
BC
W 86-75
+7.5
21
vs
STAN
W 72-66
+4.5
25
vs
SMU
W 73-69
+8.5
28
vs
PITT
L 56-72
−22.5
4
@
GT
W 76-65
+8.5
7
@
WAKE
L 73-80
−1.5
11
vs
FSU
L 89-95
−4.5
18
vs
UIC
W 91-73
+11.5
22
vs
JOES
L 75-76
−6.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CSUB
W 87-60
−0.5
6
vs
WRST
W 77-67
−4.5
10
vs
CSUF
W 93-65
−4.5
13
@
KSU
L 96-99
+30.5
18
vs
PRES
W 67-57
−0.5
21
vs
SAC
W 91-67
+3.5
25
vs
UCLA
W 80-72
+8.5
2
vs
UTAH
W 79-72
−1.5
6
vs
PAC
W 67-61
−16.5
13
vs
NWST
W 79-70
+3.5
19
vs
MORG
W 97-50
−4.5
21
vs
COLU
W 74-56
−23.5
30
vs
LOU
L 70-90
+0.5
2
vs
ND
W 72-71
+4.5
7
@
UVA
L 60-84
−4.5
10
@
VT
L 75-78
+4.5
14
vs
DUKE
L 56-71
−22.5
17
vs
UNC
W 84-78
+10.5
24
@
STAN
W 78-66
−2.5
28
@
FSU
L 61-63
−33.5
31
@
MIA
W 86-85
+22.5
4
vs
GT
W 90-85
+22.5
7
vs
CLEM
L 55-77
−7.5
11
@
SYR
L 100-107
+58.5
14
@
BC
W 86-75
+16.5
21
vs
STAN
W 72-66
−11.5
25
vs
SMU
W 73-69
−21.5
28
vs
PITT
L 56-72
−15.5
4
@
GT
W 76-65
−13.5
7
@
WAKE
L 73-80
−1.5
11
vs
FSU
L 89-95
+29.5
18
vs
UIC
W 91-73
+13.5
22
vs
JOES
L 75-76
−1.5
over 14under 19avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
California has the better starters
Position by position: Utah Tech 1, California 4, even 0
Utah TechBetterCalifornia
G R. Sunderland TR4.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 4
→CALBig
G M. Cooper TR13.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 2 ast
Score 74
G A. Dupre TR3 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 1
→CALBig
G N. Indrusaitis TR9.1 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 76
G M. Brown TR3 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 6
→CALBig
G J. Ross TR6.7 pts · 2.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 58
F E. Potter17.1 pts · 7.9 reb · 2 ast
Score 94
←UTUBig
G S. Carr3.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 46
F S. Ariyibi2.4 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 11
→CALBig
F L. Dort8 pts · 7.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 83
Utah TechBetterCalifornia
UTU offense251st of 366 · -7.6
→CALBig
CAL defense100th of 366 · -0.7
UTU defense295th of 366 · -7.4
→CALBig
CAL offense84th of 366 · +0.4
Backcourt-8.4 · 3 players
→CALBig
Backcourt+1.0 · 4 players
Frontcourt+3.6 · 2 players
←UTUSmall
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
Bench-0.3 · 3 players
=Even
Bench+0.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUTU betterCAL betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
R. Sunderland27 min · TRA. Dupre16 min · TRM. Brown14 min · TRB. Harker3 minP. Vandermyde1 minP. RagkosNew
Forwards
E. Potter32 minS. Ariyibi10 minD. Grant2 minJ. ClarkNew
Centers
K. LemkeNew
Guards
M. Cooper27 min · TRN. Indrusaitis24 min · TRJ. Ross21 min · TRS. Carr17 minB. Fisher1 minL. Butler1 min
Forwards
L. Dort23 minJ. Wilkins10 min · TRA. Ali7 min · TRS. Yeanay5 minD. Manyiel Dut4 min
Centers
M. Kocanas7 minN. MitrovicNewD. DaubarisNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.7 #171 | Points per game | 77.7 #99 |
| 1.08 #193 | Points per possession | 1.11 #118 |
| 69.9 #124 | Pace (possessions) | 69.8 #126 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.3 #90 | Effective FG% | 52.6 #119 |
| 35.0 #113 | 3-point % | 36.9 #30 |
| 38.2 #207 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.1 #111 |
| 30.6 #290 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #146 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #256 | Turnover rate | 15.1 #74 |
| 28.1 #261 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.0 #322 |
| 14.4 #121 | Assists per game | 14.1 #142 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.0 #243 | Points allowed | 73.4 #140 |
| 1.09 #211 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #92 |
| 50.9 #151 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.8 #91 |
| 30.7 #29 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.0 #34 |
| 16.8 #166 | Turnovers forced | 16.1 #216 |
| 65.5 #326 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.5 #180 |
| 6.9 #135 | Steals per game | 5.9 #244 |
| 3.0 #216 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #217 |
Utah Tech
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs CA Baptist72–86
- Wvs Abilene Chrstn80–74
- Lvs Utah Valley101–104
- L@ Southern Utah67–81
- Wvs Abilene Chrstn85–81
A week or more of rest.
California
21-12 in 2025-26 overall · 9-10 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Saint Joseph's75–76
- Wvs UIC91–73
- Lvs Florida St89–95
- L@ Wake Forest73–80
- W@ Georgia Tech76–65
A week or more of rest.