Mott Athletics Center · at Cal Poly
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CP | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CP 86–77 · win probability CP 80%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 162.6
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: CP has more of the edges
MONT 3, CP 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CP offense vs MONT defense
Offense 91st of 366 against a defense 294th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
MONT hits 36.6% and allows 32.3%; CP hits 33.0% and allows 34.7%. Threes are 41.8% and 52.6% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: MONT 55.8 and allows 50.5; CP 51.5 and allows 53.8
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: MONT 39%, CP 100%. Transfers in: MONT 0, CP 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
MONT offense vs CP defense
Offense 256th of 366 against a defense 343rd, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: MONT 20.7%, CP 30.0%. Defensive: MONT 70.4%, CP 70.4%
Context
Schedule so far
MONT has played the 250th-hardest schedule, CP the 170th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: MONT 19.5%, CP 19.8%. Forced: MONT 14.3%, CP 16.3%
Home court
CP at home. This season: CP 0-0 at home, MONT 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: MONT 36.8, CP 34.9. Allowed: MONT 32.6, CP 34.1
Context
Tempo
About 74 possessions: MONT plays 71.1 a game (72nd fastest), CP 76.4 (1st). 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 | — | CP -9.6 | — |
| Total | — | 162.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | MONT 76.5 · CP 86.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CP -5.5 | — |
| 1H total | 76.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | MONT 35.2 · CP 40.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 15 | @ COLO | No recent meeting |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
MONT 1–0 CPMONT leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · MONT 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2025-26 | CP 82 @ MONT 90 | MONT -7.5 | MONT W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Montana
30 games played
Straight up
15-15
50% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% overs · avg −0.4 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 8 | @ | L 68-91 | +12.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 102-93 | +10.5 | W +19.5 | 157.5 | O 195 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 90-82 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 168.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 81-86 | +17.5 | W +12.5 | 164.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 63-68 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 87-95 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 72-81 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 79-75 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 54-94 | +30.5 | L −9.5 | 166.5 | U 148 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 78-64 | -5.5 | W +8.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 88-79 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 79-73 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 65-66 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 67-76 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 98-72 | -3.5 | W +22.5 | 146.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 81-65 | -4.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 69-60 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 148.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 64-60 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 79-86 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 74-82 | -5.5 | L −13.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 73-68 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 71-82 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 69-73 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 72-92 | +2.5 | L −17.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 81-73 | -7.5 | W +0.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-68 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 57-85 | +5.5 | L −22.5 | 154.5 | U 142 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 95-89 | +4.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 75-72 | +3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 66-77 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
STAN
L 68-91
−10.5
11
@
UNLV
W 102-93
+19.5
14
vs
CP
W 90-82
+0.5
18
@
TA&M
L 81-86
+12.5
23
vs
LAM
L 63-68
−9.5
25
vs
OAK
L 87-95
−12.5
3
vs
NDSU
L 72-81
−12.5
6
@
UND
W 79-75
−1.5
20
@
LOU
L 54-94
−9.5
1
vs
NAU
W 78-64
+8.5
3
vs
UNCO
W 88-79
+10.5
8
@
IDHO
W 79-73
+10.5
10
@
EWU
L 65-66
+0.5
17
@
MTST
L 67-76
−3.5
19
@
NAU
W 98-72
+22.5
22
vs
WEB
W 81-65
+11.5
24
vs
IDST
W 69-60
+4.5
29
@
PRST
W 64-60
+8.5
31
@
SAC
L 79-86
−10.5
5
vs
EWU
L 74-82
−13.5
7
vs
IDHO
W 73-68
+3.5
14
vs
MTST
L 71-82
−13.5
19
@
IDST
L 69-73
−5.5
21
@
WEB
L 72-92
−17.5
26
vs
SAC
W 81-73
+0.5
28
vs
PRST
W 74-68
+4.5
2
@
UNCO
L 57-85
−22.5
9
vs
UNCO
W 95-89
+10.5
10
vs
PRST
W 75-72
+6.5
11
vs
IDHO
L 66-77
−7.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
STAN
L 68-91
+8.5
11
@
UNLV
W 102-93
+37.5
14
vs
CP
W 90-82
+3.5
18
@
TA&M
L 81-86
+2.5
23
vs
LAM
L 63-68
−17.5
25
vs
OAK
L 87-95
+19.5
3
vs
NDSU
L 72-81
−0.5
6
@
UND
W 79-75
−0.5
20
@
LOU
L 54-94
−18.5
1
vs
NAU
W 78-64
−7.5
3
vs
UNCO
W 88-79
+5.5
8
@
IDHO
W 79-73
−2.5
10
@
EWU
L 65-66
−30.5
17
@
MTST
L 67-76
−7.5
19
@
NAU
W 98-72
+23.5
22
vs
WEB
W 81-65
−11.5
24
vs
IDST
W 69-60
−19.5
29
@
PRST
W 64-60
−19.5
31
@
SAC
L 79-86
+9.5
5
vs
EWU
L 74-82
+4.5
7
vs
IDHO
W 73-68
−11.5
14
vs
MTST
L 71-82
+7.5
19
@
IDST
L 69-73
−7.5
21
@
WEB
L 72-92
+11.5
26
vs
SAC
W 81-73
−7.5
28
vs
PRST
W 74-68
+0.5
2
@
UNCO
L 57-85
−12.5
9
vs
UNCO
W 95-89
+31.5
10
vs
PRST
W 75-72
+1.5
11
vs
IDHO
L 66-77
−4.5
over 14under 16avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Montana 1, Cal Poly 1, even 3
MontanaBetterCal Poly
G T. Thompson8.4 pts · 3.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 24
→CPBig
G H. Mousa20.3 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 96
G C. Anderson5.6 pts · 1 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G C. Ward14.3 pts · 6.4 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 58
G C. Dick1.6 pts · 1.2 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G G. Vasilic7.8 pts · 2.3 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 21
F K. Aguino8.6 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 48
←MONTSmall
G J. Davis5.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 15
F A. Jedkins0.9 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G K. Elliott5.1 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 33
MontanaBetterCal Poly
MONT offense256th of 366 · -7.8
←MONTSmall
CP defense343rd of 366 · -9.2
MONT defense294th of 366 · -7.4
→CPBig
CP offense91st of 366 · -0.2
Backcourt-3.2 · 3 players
→CPSmall
Backcourt-1.4 · 5 players
Frontcourt-0.9 · 2 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-4.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestMONT betterCP betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Thompson30 minC. Anderson10 minC. Dick9 minG. DutroNewJ. BrownNewJ. ClarkNew
Forwards
K. Aguino24 minA. Jedkins5 minJ. SandersNewC. MpianaNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.7 #148 | Points per game | 81.3 #42 |
| 1.06 #216 | Points per possession | 1.06 #222 |
| 71.1 #72 | Pace (possessions) | 76.4 #1 |
| Shooting | ||
| 55.8 #23 | Effective FG% | 51.5 #170 |
| 36.6 #38 | 3-point % | 33.0 #228 |
| 41.8 #138 | 3-point attempt rate | 52.6 #5 |
| 36.8 #135 | Free throw rate | 34.9 #182 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.5 #339 | Turnover rate | 19.8 #345 |
| 20.7 #363 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.0 #202 |
| 14.3 #125 | Assists per game | 13.3 #194 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.6 #254 | Points allowed | 85.3 #360 |
| 1.09 #204 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #274 |
| 50.5 #129 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.8 #292 |
| 32.3 #74 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.7 #231 |
| 14.3 #326 | Turnovers forced | 16.3 #203 |
| 70.4 #143 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.4 #141 |
| 5.4 #306 | Steals per game | 6.4 #188 |
| 2.4 #313 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #337 |
Montana
15-15 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho66–77
- Wvs Portland St75–72
- Wvs N Colorado95–89
- L@ N Colorado57–85
- Wvs Portland St74–68
A week or more of rest.
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.