Tahoe Blue Event Center · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WICH | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 USC 81–75 · win probability USC 71%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.4
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: WICH has more of the edges
USC 2, WICH 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USC 32.4%, WICH 38.0%. Defensive: USC 67.8%, WICH 71.2%
Free throws
Free throw rate: USC 44.2, WICH 36.0. Allowed: USC 33.4, WICH 34.3
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: USC plays 72.4 a game (25th fastest), WICH 69.3 (164th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
USC has played the 42nd-hardest schedule, WICH the 106th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USC 17.4%, WICH 15.0%. Forced: USC 16.4%, WICH 15.7%
USC offense vs WICH defense
Offense 27th of 366 against a defense 82nd, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
USC hits 31.7% and allows 30.9%; WICH hits 33.5% and allows 31.5%. Threes are 34.1% and 33.9% of their shots
Even
WICH offense vs USC defense
Offense 78th of 366 against a defense 55th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USC 64%, WICH 55%. Transfers in: USC 6, WICH 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: USC 50.4 and allows 49.7; WICH 49.4 and allows 47.2
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | USC -6.5 | — |
| Total | — | 156.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | USC 81.4 · WICH 75 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | USC -4.0 | — |
| 1H total | 73.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | USC 38.5 · WICH 34.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | |
| 8-2 80% | 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
USC
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −3.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-14
55% overs · avg +2.3 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 | vs | W 94-64 | -24.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 114-83 | -28.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 87-67 | -15.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 107-106 | -18.5 | L −17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 70-67 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 83-81 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 88-75 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 161.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 82-77 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 76-84 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 154.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 9 | @ | W 94-81 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 68-61 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 97-70 | -25.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 66-96 | +22.5 | L −7.5 | 173.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 51-80 | +11.5 | L −17.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 70-69 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 88-71 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 64-69 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 68-74 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 25 | @ | W 73-71 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 158.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 72-73 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 78-75 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 81-75 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 77-75 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 82-89 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 65-101 | +8.5 | L −27.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 70-71 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 62-81 | +6.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 67-82 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 72-91 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 68-89 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CP
W 94-64
+5.5
9
vs
MAN
W 114-83
+2.5
14
vs
ILST
W 87-67
+4.5
20
vs
TROY
W 107-106
−17.5
24
vs
BOIS
W 70-67
−0.5
25
vs
HALL
W 83-81
−4.5
26
vs
ASU
W 88-75
+8.5
2
@
ORE
W 82-77
+2.5
6
vs
WASH
L 76-84
−12.5
9
@
USD
W 94-81
−1.5
14
vs
WSU
W 68-61
−5.5
17
vs
UTSA
W 97-70
+1.5
2
@
MICH
L 66-96
−7.5
5
@
MSU
L 51-80
−17.5
9
@
MINN
W 70-69
+4.5
13
vs
MD
W 88-71
+7.5
17
vs
PUR
L 64-69
+4.5
21
vs
NU
L 68-74
−12.5
25
@
WIS
W 73-71
+9.5
28
@
IOWA
L 72-73
+8.5
31
vs
RUTG
W 78-75
−8.5
3
vs
IU
W 81-75
+7.5
8
@
PSU
W 77-75
−1.5
11
@
OSU
L 82-89
+0.5
18
vs
ILL
L 65-101
−27.5
21
vs
ORE
L 70-71
−6.5
24
@
UCLA
L 62-81
−12.5
28
vs
NEB
L 67-82
−9.5
4
@
WASH
L 72-91
−13.5
7
vs
UCLA
L 68-89
−16.5
11
vs
WASH
L 79-83
−0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CP
W 94-64
−5.5
9
vs
MAN
W 114-83
+41.5
14
vs
ILST
W 87-67
−1.5
20
vs
TROY
W 107-106
+53.5
24
vs
BOIS
W 70-67
−18.5
25
vs
HALL
W 83-81
+18.5
26
vs
ASU
W 88-75
+1.5
2
@
ORE
W 82-77
+4.5
6
vs
WASH
L 76-84
+5.5
9
@
USD
W 94-81
+16.5
14
vs
WSU
W 68-61
−27.5
17
vs
UTSA
W 97-70
+9.5
2
@
MICH
L 66-96
−11.5
5
@
MSU
L 51-80
−20.5
9
@
MINN
W 70-69
−8.5
13
vs
MD
W 88-71
+8.5
17
vs
PUR
L 64-69
−22.5
21
vs
NU
L 68-74
−7.5
25
@
WIS
W 73-71
−14.5
28
@
IOWA
L 72-73
+3.5
31
vs
RUTG
W 78-75
+6.5
3
vs
IU
W 81-75
+2.5
8
@
PSU
W 77-75
−5.5
11
@
OSU
L 82-89
+18.5
18
vs
ILL
L 65-101
+14.5
21
vs
ORE
L 70-71
−8.5
24
@
UCLA
L 62-81
−7.5
28
vs
NEB
L 67-82
−0.5
4
@
WASH
L 72-91
+12.5
7
vs
UCLA
L 68-89
+5.5
11
vs
WASH
L 79-83
+7.5
over 17under 14avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Wichita St
35 games played
Straight up
23-12
66% wins
Against the spread
23-12
66% covers · avg +3.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-20
43% 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 4 | vs | W 75-58 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 157.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 105-62 | -20.5 | W +22.5 | 156.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 95-74 | -5.5 | W +15.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 59-62 | +9.5 | W +6.5 | 150.5 | U 121 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 75-58 | -10.5 | W +6.5 | 158.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 65-70 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 70-76 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 70-75 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 155.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 74-69 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 135.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 58-61 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | U 119 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 84-73 | -12.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 88-57 | -14.5 | W +16.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 75-70 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 100-104 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 140.5 | O 204 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 64-66 | -13.5 | L −15.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 11 | vs | W 78-67 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 67-85 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 86-85 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 77-60 | -12.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 74-59 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 1 | @ | L 83-93 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 154.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 74-64 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 75-61 | -5.5 | W +8.5 | 148.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 58-66 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 81-77 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 92-89 | -7.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 69-57 | -8.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | U 126 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 88-82 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 1 | @ | W 84-67 | -15.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 88-70 | -8.5 | W +9.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 81-68 | +1.5 | W +14.5 | 152.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 15 | vs | L 55-70 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 151.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 17 | vs | W 74-70 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 22 | @ | W 96-70 | +2.5 | W +28.5 | 164.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 24 | @ | L 79-83 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
UNCA
W 75-58
+10.5
8
vs
PV
W 105-62
+22.5
13
vs
LUC
W 95-74
+15.5
18
@
BOIS
L 59-62
+6.5
22
vs
MILW
W 75-58
+6.5
26
vs
SMC
L 65-70
+4.5
27
vs
CSU
L 70-76
−4.5
28
vs
WKU
L 70-75
−9.5
6
@
UNI
W 74-69
+6.5
13
vs
DEP
L 58-61
−10.5
17
vs
WOF
W 84-73
−1.5
21
vs
EKU
W 88-57
+16.5
31
@
UAB
W 75-70
+8.5
3
@
CLT
L 100-104
−9.5
7
vs
RICE
L 64-66
−15.5
11
vs
UNT
W 78-67
+2.5
15
@
FAU
L 67-85
−14.5
18
@
USF
W 86-85
+8.5
21
vs
ECU
W 77-60
+4.5
24
vs
MEM
W 74-59
+11.5
1
@
TLSA
L 83-93
−4.5
4
vs
CLT
W 74-64
+0.5
8
@
TULN
W 75-61
+8.5
11
vs
USF
L 58-66
−5.5
14
vs
TLSA
W 81-77
+2.5
18
@
ECU
W 92-89
−4.5
21
vs
TEM
W 69-57
+3.5
26
@
MEM
W 88-82
+7.5
1
@
UTSA
W 84-67
+1.5
7
vs
FAU
W 88-70
+9.5
14
vs
TLSA
W 81-68
+14.5
15
vs
USF
L 55-70
−8.5
17
vs
WYO
W 74-70
−1.5
22
@
OKST
W 96-70
+28.5
24
@
TLSA
L 79-83
+0.5
covered 23didn’t cover 12avg +3.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
UNCA
W 75-58
−24.5
8
vs
PV
W 105-62
+10.5
13
vs
LUC
W 95-74
+15.5
18
@
BOIS
L 59-62
−29.5
22
vs
MILW
W 75-58
−25.5
26
vs
SMC
L 65-70
−4.5
27
vs
CSU
L 70-76
+3.5
28
vs
WKU
L 70-75
−10.5
6
@
UNI
W 74-69
+7.5
13
vs
DEP
L 58-61
−26.5
17
vs
WOF
W 84-73
+12.5
21
vs
EKU
W 88-57
−3.5
31
@
UAB
W 75-70
−4.5
3
@
CLT
L 100-104
+63.5
7
vs
RICE
L 64-66
−15.5
11
vs
UNT
W 78-67
+9.5
15
@
FAU
L 67-85
−3.5
18
@
USF
W 86-85
+12.5
21
vs
ECU
W 77-60
−7.5
24
vs
MEM
W 74-59
−12.5
1
@
TLSA
L 83-93
+21.5
4
vs
CLT
W 74-64
−5.5
8
@
TULN
W 75-61
−12.5
11
vs
USF
L 58-66
−36.5
14
vs
TLSA
W 81-77
+5.5
18
@
ECU
W 92-89
+31.5
21
vs
TEM
W 69-57
−18.5
26
@
MEM
W 88-82
+20.5
1
@
UTSA
W 84-67
−0.5
7
vs
FAU
W 88-70
+7.5
14
vs
TLSA
W 81-68
−3.5
15
vs
USF
L 55-70
−26.5
17
vs
WYO
W 74-70
−4.5
22
@
OKST
W 96-70
+1.5
24
@
TLSA
L 79-83
+7.5
over 15under 20avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
USC has the better starters
Position by position: USC 2, Wichita St 0, even 3
USCBetterWichita St
G J. Cox TR18.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 5.2 ast
Score 96
←USCSmall
G J. Long TR11.8 pts · 3.3 reb · 4 ast
Score 72
G J. Jones15.5 pts · 8.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
=Even
G J. Frison TR16.5 pts · 3.4 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 93
G R. Rice20.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 6 ast
Score 97
←USCBig
G M. Gray7.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 37
G I. Bruns TR20.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 88
=Even
G T. Williams8.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 80
F J. Cofie9.8 pts · 6.8 reb · 2 ast
Score 77
=Even
C W. Berg8.8 pts · 8 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 85
USCBetterWichita St
USC offense27th of 366 · +7.0
←USCSmall
WICH defense82nd of 366 · +0.2
USC defense55th of 366 · +1.4
=Even
WICH offense78th of 366 · +0.8
Backcourt+15.2 · 4 players
←USCBig
Backcourt+3.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
→WICHSmall
Frontcourt+2.8 · 1 player
Bench+2.9 · 5 players
←USCSmall
Bench+0.8 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUSC betterWICH betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Cox35 min · TRJ. Jones35 minR. Rice34 minI. Bruns32 min · TRK. Lewis30 min · TRA. Hunkin-Claytor28 min · TR
Forwards
J. Cofie31 minJ. Hughes28 min · TRA. RatliffNewC. CollinsNew
Centers
E. Reibe14 min · TRD. RatliffNewO. Joe AguNew
Guards
J. Long34 min · TRJ. Frison31 min · TRM. Gray27 minT. Williams22 minB. Heard18 min · TRJ. IghovodjaNew
Forwards
D. Battie18 minJ. Valencia13 minN. Hill5 minH. Thengvall2 min
Centers
W. Berg22 minC. Malonga11 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.8 #97 | Points per game | 77.6 #105 |
| 1.07 #199 | Points per possession | 1.12 #98 |
| 72.4 #25 | Pace (possessions) | 69.3 #164 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.4 #225 | Effective FG% | 49.4 #274 |
| 31.7 #299 | 3-point % | 33.5 #195 |
| 34.1 #292 | 3-point attempt rate | 33.9 #300 |
| 44.2 #8 | Free throw rate | 36.0 #149 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #228 | Turnover rate | 15.0 #62 |
| 32.4 #113 | Offensive rebound rate | 38.0 #8 |
| 14.9 #92 | Assists per game | 11.3 #325 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.4 #277 | Points allowed | 70.8 #71 |
| 1.08 #173 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #42 |
| 49.7 #89 | Opponent effective FG% | 47.2 #24 |
| 30.9 #31 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.5 #44 |
| 16.4 #198 | Turnovers forced | 15.7 #238 |
| 67.8 #269 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.2 #93 |
| 6.2 #217 | Steals per game | 6.0 #235 |
| 5.5 #8 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #100 |
USC
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 7-14 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Washington79–83
- Lvs UCLA68–89
- L@ Washington72–91
- Lvs Nebraska67–82
- L@ UCLA62–81
A week or more of rest.
Wichita St
23-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Tulsa79–83
- W@ Oklahoma St96–70
- Wvs Wyoming74–70
- Lvs South Florida55–70
- Wvs Tulsa81–68
A week or more of rest.