Colonial Hall · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UAB | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GW 77–76 · win probability GW 53%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.6
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
GW 2, UAB 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: GW 34.9, UAB 36.4. Allowed: GW 35.0, UAB 28.6
Three-pointers
GW hits 35.1% and allows 33.9%; UAB hits 27.8% and allows 32.6%. Threes are 47.0% and 30.5% of their shots
Turnovers
Turnover rate: GW 18.1%, UAB 12.6%. Forced: GW 17.8%, UAB 16.1%
Shooting
Effective FG%: GW 54.4 and allows 52.4; UAB 48.4 and allows 50.0
Context
Schedule so far
GW has played the 95th-hardest schedule, UAB the 129th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
GW offense vs UAB defense
Offense 112th of 366 against a defense 141st, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: GW plays 70.2 a game (107th fastest), UAB 71.2 (61st). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: GW 35.8%, UAB 32.5%. Defensive: GW 71.3%, UAB 72.3%
Even
UAB offense vs GW defense
Offense 82nd of 366 against a defense 95th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: GW 13%, UAB 10%. Transfers in: GW 9, UAB 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 | — | GW -0.9 | — |
| Total | — | 152.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | GW 76.8 · UAB 75.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | GW -0.7 | — |
| 1H total | 71.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | GW 36 · UAB 35.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
G Washington
34 games played
Straight up
18-16
53% wins
Against the spread
15-19
44% covers · avg −0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-18
47% overs · avg +0.2 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 | vs | W 67-47 | -20.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 114 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 99-95 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 107-67 | -17.5 | W +22.5 | 151.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 96-73 | -15.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 89-52 | -22.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 86-92 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 92-79 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 95-96 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 167.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 84-70 | -19.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 99-86 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 174.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 10 | vs | L 58-70 | -21.5 | L −33.5 | 152.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 70-80 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 99-85 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 162.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 77-55 | -16.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 72-79 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 101-66 | -14.5 | W +20.5 | 154.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 79-84 | -9.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 64-69 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-69 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 76-79 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 167.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 65-79 | -11.5 | L −25.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 73-76 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 86-88 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 75-70 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 13 | vs | W 72-53 | -3.5 | W +15.5 | 149.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 75-89 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 161.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 24 | @ | W 104-77 | -8.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 66-68 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 4 | vs | W 91-82 | -7.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 62-68 | -9.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 66-62 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 81-88 | +6.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 18 | @ | W 79-78 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 22 | @ | L 61-86 | +6.5 | L −18.5 | 161.5 | U 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
ME
W 67-47
−0.5
8
vs
USF
W 99-95
+5.5
12
vs
AMER
W 107-67
+22.5
15
vs
ODU
W 96-73
+7.5
19
vs
UMBC
W 89-52
+14.5
23
vs
MCN
L 86-92
−11.5
24
vs
MTSU
W 92-79
+3.5
25
vs
MUR
L 95-96
−8.5
2
@
ARMY
W 84-70
−5.5
6
vs
W&M
W 99-86
−0.5
10
vs
DEL
L 58-70
−33.5
13
vs
FLA
L 70-80
+4.5
31
@
RICH
W 99-85
+11.5
3
vs
LAS
W 77-55
+5.5
6
@
DAY
L 72-79
−4.5
10
vs
LUC
W 101-66
+20.5
14
vs
DAV
L 79-84
−14.5
19
@
GMU
L 64-69
−3.5
24
vs
RICH
W 85-69
+5.5
27
@
SLU
L 76-79
+7.5
31
vs
FOR
L 65-79
−25.5
4
@
JOES
L 73-76
−4.5
7
@
DUQ
L 86-88
−3.5
10
vs
URI
W 75-70
−0.5
13
vs
GMU
W 72-53
+15.5
17
@
VCU
L 75-89
−7.5
24
@
LAS
W 104-77
+18.5
27
vs
DAY
L 66-68
−4.5
4
vs
SBU
W 91-82
+1.5
7
@
LUC
L 62-68
−15.5
12
vs
FOR
W 66-62
−3.5
13
vs
SLU
L 81-88
−0.5
18
@
UVU
W 79-78
+2.5
22
@
UNM
L 61-86
−18.5
covered 15didn’t cover 19avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
ME
W 67-47
−29.5
8
vs
USF
W 99-95
+34.5
12
vs
AMER
W 107-67
+22.5
15
vs
ODU
W 96-73
+13.5
19
vs
UMBC
W 89-52
−19.5
23
vs
MCN
L 86-92
+20.5
24
vs
MTSU
W 92-79
+12.5
25
vs
MUR
L 95-96
+23.5
2
@
ARMY
W 84-70
−2.5
6
vs
W&M
W 99-86
+10.5
10
vs
DEL
L 58-70
−24.5
13
vs
FLA
L 70-80
−12.5
31
@
RICH
W 99-85
+21.5
3
vs
LAS
W 77-55
−18.5
6
@
DAY
L 72-79
−3.5
10
vs
LUC
W 101-66
+12.5
14
vs
DAV
L 79-84
+12.5
19
@
GMU
L 64-69
−20.5
24
vs
RICH
W 85-69
−5.5
27
@
SLU
L 76-79
−12.5
31
vs
FOR
L 65-79
−6.5
4
@
JOES
L 73-76
−6.5
7
@
DUQ
L 86-88
+15.5
10
vs
URI
W 75-70
−6.5
13
vs
GMU
W 72-53
−24.5
17
@
VCU
L 75-89
+2.5
24
@
LAS
W 104-77
+34.5
27
vs
DAY
L 66-68
−18.5
4
vs
SBU
W 91-82
+15.5
7
@
LUC
L 62-68
−18.5
12
vs
FOR
W 66-62
−16.5
13
vs
SLU
L 81-88
+10.5
18
@
UVU
W 79-78
+4.5
22
@
UNM
L 61-86
−14.5
over 16under 18avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
UAB
31 games played
Straight up
19-12
61% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-17
45% overs · avg −1.5 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 106-55 | -34.5 | W +16.5 | 145.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 70-94 | +19.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 11 | vs | L 74-77 | -19.5 | L −22.5 | 164.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 91-74 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 168.5 | U 165 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 80-72 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 81-73 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 75-59 | -8.5 | W +7.5 | 146.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 61-76 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 5 | @ | W 74-69 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 85-86 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 101-77 | -18.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 72-47 | -13.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 70-75 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | W 109-106 | +8.5 | W +11.5 | 163.5 | O 215 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 71-76 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 162.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 11 | @ | W 87-85 | -7.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 82-69 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 18 | vs | L 77-99 | -1.5 | L −23.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 69-82 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 168.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 83-73 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 72-68 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 80-90 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Feb 8 | vs | W 71-65 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 68-63 | +10.5 | W +15.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 15 | vs | L 54-55 | -6.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | U 109 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 76-71 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 143.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 22 | @ | W 78-67 | +5.5 | W +16.5 | 152.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 58-62 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 142.5 | U 120 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 80-74 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 90-83 | -10.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | O 173 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 78-83 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MVSU
W 106-55
+16.5
7
@
NCSU
L 70-94
−4.5
11
vs
ALST
L 74-77
−22.5
14
vs
HPU
W 91-74
+18.5
21
vs
USA
W 80-72
+0.5
24
vs
SIU
W 81-73
+5.5
25
vs
UTEP
W 75-59
+7.5
1
@
MTSU
L 61-76
−16.5
5
@
DRKE
W 74-69
+6.5
14
vs
TROY
L 85-86
−7.5
17
vs
CLE
W 101-77
+5.5
21
vs
UNCA
W 72-47
+11.5
31
vs
WICH
L 70-75
−8.5
4
@
USF
W 109-106
+11.5
7
vs
FAU
L 71-76
−8.5
11
@
ECU
W 87-85
−5.5
14
@
TULN
W 82-69
+11.5
18
vs
TLSA
L 77-99
−23.5
22
vs
USF
L 69-82
−10.5
28
@
UTSA
W 83-73
−2.5
31
@
UNT
W 72-68
+5.5
5
vs
MEM
L 80-90
−11.5
8
vs
RICE
W 71-65
−2.5
11
@
TLSA
W 68-63
+15.5
15
vs
TULN
L 54-55
−7.5
18
@
TEM
W 76-71
+6.5
22
@
MEM
W 78-67
+16.5
1
vs
UNT
L 58-62
−8.5
4
@
CLT
W 80-74
+3.5
8
vs
ECU
W 90-83
−3.5
13
vs
CLT
L 78-83
−10.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MVSU
W 106-55
+15.5
7
@
NCSU
L 70-94
+1.5
11
vs
ALST
L 74-77
−13.5
14
vs
HPU
W 91-74
−3.5
21
vs
USA
W 80-72
+2.5
24
vs
SIU
W 81-73
−7.5
25
vs
UTEP
W 75-59
−12.5
1
@
MTSU
L 61-76
−16.5
5
@
DRKE
W 74-69
−5.5
14
vs
TROY
L 85-86
+15.5
17
vs
CLE
W 101-77
+21.5
21
vs
UNCA
W 72-47
−32.5
31
vs
WICH
L 70-75
−4.5
4
@
USF
W 109-106
+51.5
7
vs
FAU
L 71-76
−15.5
11
@
ECU
W 87-85
+21.5
14
@
TULN
W 82-69
−2.5
18
vs
TLSA
L 77-99
+16.5
22
vs
USF
L 69-82
−17.5
28
@
UTSA
W 83-73
+0.5
31
@
UNT
W 72-68
−1.5
5
vs
MEM
L 80-90
+14.5
8
vs
RICE
W 71-65
−17.5
11
@
TLSA
W 68-63
−30.5
15
vs
TULN
L 54-55
−43.5
18
@
TEM
W 76-71
+3.5
22
@
MEM
W 78-67
−7.5
1
vs
UNT
L 58-62
−22.5
4
@
CLT
W 80-74
+7.5
8
vs
ECU
W 90-83
+21.5
13
vs
CLT
L 78-83
+13.5
over 14under 17avg −1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UAB has the better starters
Position by position: G Washington 0, UAB 3, even 2
G WashingtonBetterUAB
G A. Phillips TR13.8 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 50
=Even
G J. Fernandez TR16.6 pts · 4.6 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 56
G O. Witherspoon TR7.5 pts · 3 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 34
→UABSmall
G J. Elyzee TR11.1 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 61
G J. Aranguren8.1 pts · 4.1 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 70
→UABSmall
G D. Jones TR16.4 pts · 4 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 91
G F. Kossaras TR4.6 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 37
→UABBig
G E. Duval TR15.6 pts · 4 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 74
F A. Shaw TR4.5 pts · 6.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 48
=Even
G T. Caldwell TR9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 56
G WashingtonBetterUAB
GW offense112th of 366 · -1.9
=Even
UAB defense141st of 366 · -3.1
GW defense95th of 366 · -0.5
=Even
UAB offense82nd of 366 · +0.4
Backcourt-2.8 · 4 players
→UABBig
Backcourt+2.8 · 5 players
Frontcourt-0.4 · 1 player
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-0.5 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-1.4 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestGW betterUAB betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Phillips34 min · TRO. Witherspoon28 min · TRJ. Aranguren24 minF. Kossaras16 min · TRT. Arceneaux16 min · TRA. Arrington1 min
Forwards
A. Shaw26 min · TRA. Vukovic15 min · TRD. James15 min · TRM. Arrington14 min · TRR. Frost7 min · TRL. UrbihaNew
Guards
J. Fernandez37 min · TRJ. Elyzee30 min · TRD. Jones29 min · TRE. Duval27 min · TRT. Caldwell20 min · TRS. London20 min
Forwards
A. Alston8 min · TRA. Sandlin-ElNew
Centers
M. MboleNewK. DavisNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80.9 #46 | Points per game | 78.2 #92 |
| 1.15 #63 | Points per possession | 1.10 #141 |
| 70.2 #107 | Pace (possessions) | 71.2 #61 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.4 #55 | Effective FG% | 48.4 #305 |
| 35.1 #106 | 3-point % | 27.8 #364 |
| 47.0 #33 | 3-point attempt rate | 30.5 #350 |
| 34.9 #184 | Free throw rate | 36.4 #141 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.1 #276 | Turnover rate | 12.6 #2 |
| 35.8 #26 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.5 #104 |
| 15.4 #69 | Assists per game | 14.2 #135 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.2 #195 | Points allowed | 74.3 #168 |
| 1.08 #149 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #79 |
| 52.4 #234 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.0 #98 |
| 33.9 #175 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.6 #95 |
| 17.8 #110 | Turnovers forced | 16.1 #217 |
| 71.3 #91 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.3 #53 |
| 7.2 #103 | Steals per game | 7.5 #74 |
| 3.5 #142 | Blocks per game | 3.5 #139 |
G Washington
18-16 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ New Mexico61–86
- W@ Utah Valley79–78
- Lvs Saint Louis81–88
- Wvs Fordham66–62
- L@ Loyola Chicago62–68
A week or more of rest.
UAB
19-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Charlotte78–83
- Wvs East Carolina90–83
- W@ Charlotte80–74
- Lvs North Texas58–62
- W@ Memphis78–67
A week or more of rest.