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 85–66 · win probability CAL 95%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.9
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
UCR 0, CAL 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CAL offense vs UCR defense
Offense 84th of 366 against a defense 296th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
UCR hits 31.6% and allows 33.5%; CAL hits 36.9% and allows 31.0%. Threes are 38.3% and 43.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: UCR 48.9 and allows 52.7; CAL 52.6 and allows 49.8
UCR offense vs CAL defense
Offense 265th of 366 against a defense 100th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UCR 19.0%, CAL 15.1%. Forced: UCR 15.5%, CAL 16.1%
Context
Schedule so far
UCR has played the 182nd-hardest schedule, CAL the 77th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: UCR 35.0, CAL 36.2. Allowed: UCR 40.9, CAL 36.3
Home court
CAL at home. This season: CAL 0-0 at home, UCR 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UCR 27.8%, CAL 26.0%. Defensive: UCR 70.0%, CAL 69.5%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UCR plays 71.0 a game (74th fastest), CAL 69.8 (126th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UCR 21%, CAL 29%. Transfers in: UCR 5, CAL 5. 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 | — | CAL -18.6 | — |
| Total | — | 150.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | UCR 66.1 · CAL 84.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CAL -10.9 | — |
| 1H total | 70.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | UCR 29.8 · CAL 40.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% | |
| 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
UC Riverside
30 games played
Straight up
8-22
27% wins
Against the spread
15-15
50% covers · avg +0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% 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 | @ | W 74-70 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 68-82 | +19.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 74-76 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 57-80 | +12.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 85-71 | +7.5 | W +21.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 83-74 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 69-77 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 4 | @ | L 60-73 | +13.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 88-84 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 53-100 | +33.5 | L −13.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 78-92 | +14.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 65-97 | +24.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 45-88 | +8.5 | L −34.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 66-67 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 66-69 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 73-88 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 81-72 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 66-80 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 66-74 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 71-61 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 87-94 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 162.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 72-78 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 74-88 | +10.5 | L −3.5 | 160.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 68-76 | +6.5 | L −1.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-72 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 93-65 | -6.5 | W +21.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 73-78 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 59-70 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 95-84 | +4.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 74-93 | +12.5 | L −6.5 | 150.5 | O 167 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
UND
W 74-70
+5.5
11
@
UNM
L 68-82
+5.5
15
vs
UND
L 74-76
−5.5
18
@
CBU
L 57-80
−10.5
21
@
USD
W 85-71
+21.5
24
vs
GRAM
W 83-74
+5.5
29
@
UTU
L 69-77
−2.5
4
@
UCI
L 60-73
+0.5
6
@
CP
W 88-84
+9.5
13
@
BYU
L 53-100
−13.5
20
@
STMN
L 78-92
+0.5
23
@
UCLA
L 65-97
−7.5
1
vs
HAW
L 45-88
−34.5
8
@
CSUB
L 66-67
+2.5
10
vs
UCSD
L 66-69
+7.5
15
@
LBSU
L 73-88
−9.5
17
vs
CSUF
W 81-72
+12.5
22
vs
UCI
L 66-80
−5.5
24
@
UCD
L 66-74
+1.5
29
vs
LBSU
W 71-61
+11.5
31
vs
CP
L 87-94
−8.5
5
@
CSUF
L 72-78
−0.5
7
@
CSUN
L 74-88
−3.5
12
vs
UCSB
L 68-76
−1.5
14
@
UCSD
L 66-72
+5.5
19
vs
CSUB
W 93-65
+21.5
21
vs
UCD
L 73-78
−2.5
26
@
UCSB
L 59-70
−0.5
28
vs
CSUN
W 95-84
+15.5
5
@
HAW
L 74-93
−6.5
covered 15didn’t cover 15avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
UND
W 74-70
−2.5
11
@
UNM
L 68-82
+8.5
15
vs
UND
L 74-76
+1.5
18
@
CBU
L 57-80
−5.5
21
@
USD
W 85-71
+3.5
24
vs
GRAM
W 83-74
+12.5
29
@
UTU
L 69-77
+0.5
4
@
UCI
L 60-73
−9.5
6
@
CP
W 88-84
+9.5
13
@
BYU
L 53-100
−2.5
20
@
STMN
L 78-92
+17.5
23
@
UCLA
L 65-97
+13.5
1
vs
HAW
L 45-88
−16.5
8
@
CSUB
L 66-67
−14.5
10
vs
UCSD
L 66-69
−14.5
15
@
LBSU
L 73-88
+19.5
17
vs
CSUF
W 81-72
−4.5
22
vs
UCI
L 66-80
+3.5
24
@
UCD
L 66-74
−9.5
29
vs
LBSU
W 71-61
−12.5
31
vs
CP
L 87-94
+18.5
5
@
CSUF
L 72-78
−6.5
7
@
CSUN
L 74-88
+1.5
12
vs
UCSB
L 68-76
−1.5
14
@
UCSD
L 66-72
−9.5
19
vs
CSUB
W 93-65
+7.5
21
vs
UCD
L 73-78
+1.5
26
@
UCSB
L 59-70
−16.5
28
vs
CSUN
W 95-84
+20.5
5
@
HAW
L 74-93
+16.5
over 16under 14avg +1 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: UC Riverside 1, California 4, even 0
UC RiversideBetterCalifornia
G D. Perteete6.2 pts · 3.2 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 31
→CALBig
G M. Cooper TR13.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 2 ast
Score 74
G J. Evans TR5.8 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 25
→CALBig
G N. Indrusaitis TR9.1 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 76
G B. Waller4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 37
→CALSmall
G J. Ross TR6.7 pts · 2.5 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 58
G D. Malcolm TR5.8 pts · 3.4 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 87
←UCRBig
G S. Carr3.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 46
F D. Washington TR2.7 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 0
→CALBig
F L. Dort8 pts · 7.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 83
UC RiversideBetterCalifornia
UCR offense265th of 366 · -8.1
→CALBig
CAL defense100th of 366 · -0.7
UCR defense296th of 366 · -7.4
→CALBig
CAL offense84th of 366 · +0.4
Backcourt-2.7 · 4 players
→CALBig
Backcourt+1.0 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.0 · 1 player
→CALBig
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
Bench+0.3 · 2 players
=Even
Bench+0.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUCR betterCAL betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Perteete28 minJ. Evans15 min · TRB. Waller14 minD. Malcolm14 min · TRT. Duckett7 min · TRE. ReaganNew
Forwards
D. Washington11 min · TRT. Parrish-TillmanNewA. McKinneyNewJ. MajokNew
Centers
A. Oyeadier2 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 71.6 #258 | Points per game | 77.7 #99 |
| 1.01 #317 | Points per possession | 1.11 #118 |
| 71.0 #74 | Pace (possessions) | 69.8 #126 |
| Shooting | ||
| 48.9 #291 | Effective FG% | 52.6 #119 |
| 31.6 #301 | 3-point % | 36.9 #30 |
| 38.3 #203 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.1 #111 |
| 35.0 #177 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #146 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.0 #321 | Turnover rate | 15.1 #74 |
| 27.8 #275 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.0 #322 |
| 12.3 #262 | Assists per game | 14.1 #142 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.1 #303 | Points allowed | 73.4 #140 |
| 1.11 #256 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #92 |
| 52.7 #252 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.8 #91 |
| 33.5 #159 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.0 #34 |
| 15.5 #250 | Turnovers forced | 16.1 #216 |
| 70.0 #159 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.5 #180 |
| 5.1 #325 | Steals per game | 5.9 #244 |
| 4.1 #67 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #217 |
UC Riverside
8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 5-15 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Hawai'i74–93
- Wvs CSU Northridge95–84
- L@ Santa Barbara59–70
- Lvs UC Davis73–78
- Wvs Bakersfield93–65
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.