Worthington Arena · at Montana St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MTST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MTST 82–78 · win probability MTST 62%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 159.9
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: MTST has more of the edges
CP 1, MTST 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
MTST offense vs CP defense
Offense 190th of 366 against a defense 343rd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CP 19.8%, MTST 14.8%. Forced: CP 16.3%, MTST 15.6%
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: CP plays 76.4 a game (1st fastest), MTST 67.9 (233rd). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
CP has played the 170th-hardest schedule, MTST the 278th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
CP hits 33.0% and allows 34.7%; MTST hits 36.1% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 52.6% and 44.6% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: CP 51.5 and allows 53.8; MTST 53.6 and allows 51.6
CP offense vs MTST defense
Offense 91st of 366 against a defense 155th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
MTST at home. This season: MTST 0-0 at home, CP 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CP 100%, MTST 89%. Transfers in: CP 0, MTST 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CP 30.0%, MTST 27.0%. Defensive: CP 70.4%, MTST 71.8%
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CP 34.9, MTST 30.2. Allowed: CP 34.1, MTST 29.6
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 | — | MTST -3.5 | — |
| Total | — | 159.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | CP 78.2 · MTST 81.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MTST -2.0 | — |
| 1H total | 74.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | CP 36.3 · MTST 38.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CP 0–1 MTSTMTST leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CP 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2025-26 | MTST 83 @ CP 80 | CP +2.5 | MTST W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Cal Poly
31 games played
Straight up
12-19
39% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% overs · avg +0.7 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 | @ | L 64-94 | +24.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 8 | @ | W 73-71 | +10.5 | W +12.5 | 164.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 79-93 | +18.5 | W +4.5 | 165.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 82-90 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 20 | @ | W 92-85 | +14.5 | W +21.5 | 167.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 87-93 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 68-84 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 170.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 4 | @ | W 94-91 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 177.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 84-88 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 162.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 80-83 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 87-108 | +24.5 | W +3.5 | 161.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 80-83 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 167.5 | U 163 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 67-65 | +8.5 | W +10.5 | 174.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 66-74 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 90-95 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 175.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 84-78 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 168.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 66-86 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 67-107 | +8.5 | L −31.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 78-93 | +1.5 | L −13.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 104-79 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 161.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 94-87 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 162.5 | O 181 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 96-97 | +2.5 | W +1.5 | 177.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 58-67 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 169.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 79-73 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 89-79 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 86-75 | +11.5 | W +22.5 | 160.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 102-92 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 64-80 | +7.5 | L −8.5 | 164.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 85-107 | +9.5 | L −12.5 | 160.5 | O 192 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 108-76 | -8.5 | W +23.5 | 174.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 69-72 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | U 141 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
USC
L 64-94
−5.5
8
@
SEA
W 73-71
+12.5
12
@
CSU
L 79-93
+4.5
14
@
MONT
L 82-90
−0.5
20
@
UTAH
W 92-85
+21.5
24
@
NAU
L 87-93
−7.5
25
vs
SEMO
L 68-84
−14.5
4
@
CSUF
W 94-91
+4.5
6
vs
UCR
L 84-88
−9.5
16
vs
MTST
L 80-83
−0.5
19
@
UCLA
L 87-108
+3.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-83
−1.5
1
vs
UCSD
W 67-65
+10.5
3
@
LBSU
L 66-74
−5.5
8
@
CSUN
L 90-95
+1.5
10
vs
UCD
W 84-78
+7.5
15
vs
HAW
L 66-86
−14.5
22
@
UCSB
L 67-107
−31.5
24
vs
CSUF
L 78-93
−13.5
29
@
CSUB
W 104-79
+23.5
31
@
UCR
W 94-87
+8.5
5
vs
CSUN
L 96-97
+1.5
7
@
UCD
L 58-67
−3.5
12
vs
UCI
W 79-73
+11.5
14
vs
UCSB
W 89-79
+13.5
19
@
HAW
W 86-75
+22.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 102-92
+4.5
28
@
UCSD
L 64-80
−8.5
5
@
UCI
L 85-107
−12.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 108-76
+23.5
11
vs
UCSD
L 69-72
+1.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
USC
L 64-94
−5.5
8
@
SEA
W 73-71
−20.5
12
@
CSU
L 79-93
+6.5
14
@
MONT
L 82-90
+3.5
20
@
UTAH
W 92-85
+9.5
24
@
NAU
L 87-93
+15.5
25
vs
SEMO
L 68-84
−18.5
4
@
CSUF
W 94-91
+7.5
6
vs
UCR
L 84-88
+9.5
16
vs
MTST
L 80-83
+3.5
19
@
UCLA
L 87-108
+33.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-83
−4.5
1
vs
UCSD
W 67-65
−42.5
3
@
LBSU
L 66-74
−22.5
8
@
CSUN
L 90-95
+9.5
10
vs
UCD
W 84-78
−6.5
15
vs
HAW
L 66-86
−8.5
22
@
UCSB
L 67-107
+14.5
24
vs
CSUF
L 78-93
−2.5
29
@
CSUB
W 104-79
+21.5
31
@
UCR
W 94-87
+18.5
5
vs
CSUN
L 96-97
+15.5
7
@
UCD
L 58-67
−44.5
12
vs
UCI
W 79-73
−9.5
14
vs
UCSB
W 89-79
+8.5
19
@
HAW
W 86-75
+0.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 102-92
+31.5
28
@
UCSD
L 64-80
−20.5
5
@
UCI
L 85-107
+31.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 108-76
+9.5
11
vs
UCSD
L 69-72
−21.5
over 18under 13avg +0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Montana St
29 games played
Straight up
15-14
52% wins
Against the spread
17-12
59% covers · avg +1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-13
55% overs · avg +1.4 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 | @ | L 78-84 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 9 | vs | L 73-75 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 68-77 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 58-62 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 78-72 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 81-84 | +17.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 82-74 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 68-72 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 57-67 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 83-80 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 89-75 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 77-68 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 68-64 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 89-92 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 76-67 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 73-68 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 74-62 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 91-88 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 80-83 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 54-63 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 73-66 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 71-72 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 82-71 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 79-82 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 76-91 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 144.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 84-69 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 76-65 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 74-78 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
COLO
L 78-84
+5.5
9
vs
DEN
L 73-75
−9.5
12
@
STAN
L 68-77
+5.5
15
@
BOIS
L 58-62
+12.5
21
@
LBSU
W 78-72
+2.5
29
@
USU
L 81-84
+14.5
3
vs
STMN
W 82-74
+5.5
6
@
ORU
L 68-72
−10.5
13
@
ORST
L 57-67
−8.5
16
@
CP
W 83-80
+0.5
1
vs
UNCO
W 89-75
+11.5
3
vs
NAU
W 77-68
−1.5
8
@
EWU
W 68-64
+1.5
10
@
IDHO
L 89-92
−1.5
17
vs
MONT
W 76-67
+3.5
19
@
UNCO
W 73-68
+7.5
22
vs
IDST
W 74-62
+6.5
24
vs
WEB
W 91-88
−3.5
29
@
SAC
L 80-83
−7.5
31
@
PRST
L 54-63
−4.5
5
vs
IDHO
W 73-66
+4.5
7
vs
EWU
L 71-72
−6.5
14
@
MONT
W 82-71
+13.5
19
@
WEB
L 79-82
−1.5
21
@
IDST
L 76-91
−16.5
26
vs
PRST
W 84-69
+12.5
28
vs
SAC
W 82-61
+14.5
2
@
NAU
W 76-65
+5.5
8
vs
IDHO
L 74-78
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 12avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
COLO
L 78-84
+13.5
9
vs
DEN
L 73-75
+1.5
12
@
STAN
L 68-77
−3.5
15
@
BOIS
L 58-62
−27.5
21
@
LBSU
W 78-72
+9.5
29
@
USU
L 81-84
+16.5
3
vs
STMN
W 82-74
+8.5
6
@
ORU
L 68-72
−10.5
13
@
ORST
L 57-67
−16.5
16
@
CP
W 83-80
+3.5
1
vs
UNCO
W 89-75
+9.5
3
vs
NAU
W 77-68
+1.5
8
@
EWU
W 68-64
−24.5
10
@
IDHO
L 89-92
+36.5
17
vs
MONT
W 76-67
−7.5
19
@
UNCO
W 73-68
−12.5
22
vs
IDST
W 74-62
−8.5
24
vs
WEB
W 91-88
+31.5
29
@
SAC
L 80-83
+9.5
31
@
PRST
L 54-63
−21.5
5
vs
IDHO
W 73-66
−8.5
7
vs
EWU
L 71-72
−5.5
14
@
MONT
W 82-71
+7.5
19
@
WEB
L 79-82
+12.5
21
@
IDST
L 76-91
+22.5
26
vs
PRST
W 84-69
+12.5
28
vs
SAC
W 82-61
−15.5
2
@
NAU
W 76-65
−1.5
8
vs
IDHO
L 74-78
+8.5
over 16under 13avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Montana St has the better starters
Position by position: Cal Poly 0, Montana St 2, even 3
Cal PolyBetterMontana St
G H. Mousa20.3 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 96
=Even
G J. Miller15.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 82
G C. Ward14.3 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 58
=No call
G C. Holden8.3 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Not ranked
G G. Vasilic7.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 21
→MTSTBig
G J. Davis9.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 59
G J. Davis5.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 15
→MTSTBig
G S. Amunrud7.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 53
G K. Elliott5.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 33
=Even
F C. King12.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 41
Cal PolyBetterMontana St
CP offense91st of 366 · -0.2
←CPSmall
MTST defense155th of 366 · -3.4
CP defense343rd of 366 · -9.2
→MTSTBig
MTST offense190th of 366 · -5.8
Backcourt-1.4 · 5 players
=Even
Backcourt-0.8 · 4 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-0.9 · 1 player
Bench-4.1 · 5 players
=Even
Bench-4.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestCP betterMTST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
H. Mousa32 minC. Ward30 minG. Vasilic23 minJ. Davis21 minK. Elliott18 minJ. Esso Essis17 min
Forwards
A. Goode16 minT. Plumtree13 minA. Assran13 minA. Price6 minB. FreemanNew
Guards
J. Miller36 minC. Holden28 minJ. Davis25 minS. Amunrud21 minH. Keene11 minD. Slater7 min · TR
Forwards
C. King29 minJ. Steppe15 minW. Mbatch11 minL. Praytor4 min · TRC. Rutherfurd1 minJ. StewardNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.3 #42 | Points per game | 75.7 #151 |
| 1.06 #222 | Points per possession | 1.12 #107 |
| 76.4 #1 | Pace (possessions) | 67.9 #233 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.5 #170 | Effective FG% | 53.6 #80 |
| 33.0 #228 | 3-point % | 36.1 #52 |
| 52.6 #5 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.6 #76 |
| 34.9 #182 | Free throw rate | 30.2 #303 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.8 #345 | Turnover rate | 14.8 #53 |
| 30.0 #202 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.0 #292 |
| 13.3 #194 | Assists per game | 10.6 #347 |
| Defense | ||
| 85.3 #360 | Points allowed | 73.5 #144 |
| 1.12 #274 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #158 |
| 53.8 #292 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.6 #193 |
| 34.7 #231 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #198 |
| 16.3 #203 | Turnovers forced | 15.6 #242 |
| 70.4 #141 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.8 #75 |
| 6.4 #188 | Steals per game | 6.5 #171 |
| 2.2 #337 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #263 |
Cal Poly
12-19 in 2025-26 overall · 10-11 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UC San Diego69–72
- Wvs Bakersfield108–76
- L@ UC Irvine85–107
- L@ UC San Diego64–80
- Wvs Long Beach St102–92
A week or more of rest.
Montana St
15-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho74–78
- W@ N Arizona76–65
- Wvs Sacramento St82–61
- Wvs Portland St84–69
- L@ Idaho St76–91
A week or more of rest.