ICCU Arena · at Idaho
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | IDHO | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 IDHO 80–71 · win probability IDHO 80%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.6
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: IDHO has more of the edges
CSUB 1, IDHO 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: CSUB 45.7 and allows 54.0; IDHO 51.4 and allows 50.5
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CSUB 30.4%, IDHO 28.4%. Defensive: CSUB 64.4%, IDHO 75.8%
Three-pointers
CSUB hits 29.0% and allows 36.0%; IDHO hits 34.1% and allows 35.2%. Threes are 28.9% and 47.0% of their shots
IDHO offense vs CSUB defense
Offense 253rd of 366 against a defense 348th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: CSUB plays 72.7 a game (22nd fastest), IDHO 69.4 (153rd). Faster games mean more points
CSUB offense vs IDHO defense
Offense 287th of 366 against a defense 233rd, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: CSUB 42.2, IDHO 34.6. Allowed: CSUB 42.6, IDHO 38.5
Home court
IDHO at home. This season: IDHO 0-0 at home, CSUB 0-0 away
Context
Schedule so far
CSUB has played the 211th-hardest schedule, IDHO the 262nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CSUB 18.8%, IDHO 15.0%. Forced: CSUB 17.9%, IDHO 15.0%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CSUB 10%, IDHO 23%. Transfers in: CSUB 4, IDHO 3. 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 | — | IDHO -9.7 | — |
| Total | — | 150.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | CSUB 70.5 · IDHO 80.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | IDHO -5.6 | — |
| 1H total | 70.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | CSUB 32.4 · IDHO 38 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-10 0% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CSUB 3–0 IDHOCSUB leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · CSUB has won the last 3 meetings · CSUB 2-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 23, 2025-26 | IDHO 63 @ CSUB 64 | CSUB +7.5 | CSUB W |
| Nov 16, 2022-23 | CSUB 52 @ IDHO 43 | IDHO -3 | CSUB W |
| Dec 11, 2021-22 | IDHO 58 @ CSUB 59 | CSUB -12 | IDHO W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Bakersfield
30 games played
Straight up
6-24
20% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −3.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +5.1 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 | @ | L 60-87 | +15.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 74-58 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 60-82 | +23.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 80-93 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 86-70 | -21.5 | L −5.5 | 138.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 59-89 | +26.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-71 | +10.5 | W +15.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 4 | @ | L 66-87 | +5.5 | L −15.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 84-109 | +12.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | O 193 |
| Dec 11 | vs | L 69-80 | +7.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 62-70 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 23 | vs | W 64-63 | +7.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 77-81 | +11.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 81-79 | +9.5 | W +11.5 | 151.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 67-66 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 75-81 | +6.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 69-75 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 62-83 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 71-98 | +17.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 79-104 | +1.5 | L −23.5 | 161.5 | O 183 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 72-80 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 62-78 | +16.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 66-82 | +9.5 | L −6.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 74-89 | +13.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 65-93 | +6.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 80-88 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 160.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 72-84 | +14.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 87-88 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 84-86 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 163.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-108 | +8.5 | L −23.5 | 174.5 | O 184 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CAL
L 60-87
−11.5
11
vs
WIU
W 74-58
+8.5
14
@
MISS
L 60-82
+1.5
17
@
PRST
L 80-93
−4.5
22
vs
MVSU
W 86-70
−5.5
25
@
FSU
L 59-89
−3.5
30
vs
FRES
W 76-71
+15.5
4
@
CSUN
L 66-87
−15.5
6
@
UCSB
L 84-109
−12.5
11
vs
NDSU
L 69-80
−3.5
13
vs
PEPP
L 62-70
−9.5
23
vs
IDHO
W 64-63
+8.5
1
vs
UCI
L 77-81
+7.5
3
@
UCD
W 81-79
+11.5
8
vs
UCR
W 67-66
−2.5
10
@
LBSU
L 75-81
+0.5
15
vs
UCSB
L 69-75
+1.5
17
vs
UCSD
L 62-83
−12.5
22
@
HAW
L 71-98
−9.5
29
vs
CP
L 79-104
−23.5
31
vs
UCD
L 72-80
−2.5
5
@
UCI
L 62-78
+0.5
7
@
CSUF
L 66-82
−6.5
12
vs
HAW
L 74-89
−1.5
19
@
UCR
L 65-93
−21.5
21
vs
CSUF
L 80-88
−2.5
26
@
UCSD
L 72-84
+2.5
28
vs
LBSU
L 87-88
+2.5
5
vs
CSUN
L 84-86
+6.5
7
@
CP
L 76-108
−23.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CAL
L 60-87
−0.5
11
vs
WIU
W 74-58
−9.5
14
@
MISS
L 60-82
+1.5
17
@
PRST
L 80-93
+31.5
22
vs
MVSU
W 86-70
+17.5
25
@
FSU
L 59-89
−11.5
30
vs
FRES
W 76-71
−3.5
4
@
CSUN
L 66-87
−2.5
6
@
UCSB
L 84-109
+47.5
11
vs
NDSU
L 69-80
−0.5
13
vs
PEPP
L 62-70
−15.5
23
vs
IDHO
W 64-63
−23.5
1
vs
UCI
L 77-81
+14.5
3
@
UCD
W 81-79
+8.5
8
vs
UCR
W 67-66
−14.5
10
@
LBSU
L 75-81
+13.5
15
vs
UCSB
L 69-75
−0.5
17
vs
UCSD
L 62-83
−2.5
22
@
HAW
L 71-98
+24.5
29
vs
CP
L 79-104
+21.5
31
vs
UCD
L 72-80
−0.5
5
@
UCI
L 62-78
−4.5
7
@
CSUF
L 66-82
−9.5
12
vs
HAW
L 74-89
+11.5
19
@
UCR
L 65-93
+7.5
21
vs
CSUF
L 80-88
+7.5
26
@
UCSD
L 72-84
+7.5
28
vs
LBSU
L 87-88
+22.5
5
vs
CSUN
L 84-86
+6.5
7
@
CP
L 76-108
+9.5
over 16under 14avg +5.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Idaho
33 games played
Straight up
18-15
55% wins
Against the spread
16-17
48% covers · avg +0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-19
42% overs · avg −1.8 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 | @ | W 83-81 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 74-78 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 67-75 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 78-64 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 68-94 | -1.5 | L −27.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 90-58 | -11.5 | W +20.5 | 151.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 84-81 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 147.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 65-80 | +11.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 83-80 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 167.5 | U 163 |
| Dec 23 | @ | L 63-64 | -7.5 | L −8.5 | 150.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 84-81 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 73-79 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 92-89 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 68-76 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 75-67 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 158.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 86-76 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 66-69 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 83-91 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 79-62 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 146.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 66-73 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 68-73 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 72-83 | -5.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 99-69 | -6.5 | W +23.5 | 146.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 67-77 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 86-80 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 78-58 | -10.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 67-76 | -2.5 | L −11.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 85-81 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 68-45 | -6.5 | W +16.5 | 158.5 | U 113 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-74 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 81-68 | -1.5 | W +11.5 | 148.5 | O 149 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 77-66 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 47-78 | +24.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | U 125 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
WSU
W 83-81
+9.5
12
@
USD
L 74-78
−5.5
15
@
UCSD
L 67-75
−2.5
26
vs
CSUN
W 78-64
+12.5
28
vs
SHSU
L 68-94
−27.5
3
vs
UND
W 90-58
+20.5
6
@
SDST
W 84-81
+8.5
10
@
ND
L 65-80
−3.5
21
@
CP
W 83-80
+1.5
23
@
CSUB
L 63-64
−8.5
3
vs
EWU
W 84-81
−3.5
8
vs
MONT
L 73-79
−10.5
10
vs
MTST
W 92-89
+1.5
15
@
IDST
L 68-76
−5.5
17
@
WEB
W 75-67
+6.5
22
vs
SAC
W 86-76
−0.5
24
vs
PRST
L 66-69
−4.5
29
@
UNCO
L 83-91
−5.5
31
@
NAU
W 79-62
+11.5
5
@
MTST
L 66-73
−4.5
7
@
MONT
L 68-73
−3.5
12
vs
WEB
L 72-83
−16.5
14
vs
IDST
W 99-69
+23.5
19
@
PRST
L 67-77
−6.5
21
@
SAC
W 86-80
+1.5
26
vs
NAU
W 78-58
+9.5
28
vs
UNCO
L 67-76
−11.5
2
@
EWU
W 85-81
+7.5
7
vs
SAC
W 68-45
+16.5
8
vs
MTST
W 78-74
+2.5
10
vs
EWU
W 81-68
+11.5
11
vs
MONT
W 77-66
+7.5
19
vs
HOU
L 47-78
−6.5
covered 16didn’t cover 17avg +0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
WSU
W 83-81
+9.5
12
@
USD
L 74-78
−3.5
15
@
UCSD
L 67-75
−6.5
26
vs
CSUN
W 78-64
−17.5
28
vs
SHSU
L 68-94
+7.5
3
vs
UND
W 90-58
−3.5
6
@
SDST
W 84-81
+17.5
10
@
ND
L 65-80
+0.5
21
@
CP
W 83-80
−4.5
23
@
CSUB
L 63-64
−23.5
3
vs
EWU
W 84-81
+6.5
8
vs
MONT
L 73-79
−2.5
10
vs
MTST
W 92-89
+36.5
15
@
IDST
L 68-76
−5.5
17
@
WEB
W 75-67
−16.5
22
vs
SAC
W 86-76
+0.5
24
vs
PRST
L 66-69
−10.5
29
@
UNCO
L 83-91
+18.5
31
@
NAU
W 79-62
−5.5
5
@
MTST
L 66-73
−8.5
7
@
MONT
L 68-73
−11.5
12
vs
WEB
L 72-83
+1.5
14
vs
IDST
W 99-69
+21.5
19
@
PRST
L 67-77
−1.5
21
@
SAC
W 86-80
+2.5
26
vs
NAU
W 78-58
−9.5
28
vs
UNCO
L 67-76
−13.5
2
@
EWU
W 85-81
+14.5
7
vs
SAC
W 68-45
−45.5
8
vs
MTST
W 78-74
+8.5
10
vs
EWU
W 81-68
+0.5
11
vs
MONT
W 77-66
−4.5
19
vs
HOU
L 47-78
−12.5
over 14under 19avg −1.8 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: Bakersfield 0, Idaho 0, even 5
BakersfieldBetterIdaho
G B. Cofield TR9.8 pts · 4.8 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 42
=No call
G K. Gonzalez18 pts · 1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
G J. Alexander9.4 pts · 3.4 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 62
=No call
G R. Lafferty TR0.9 pts · 1.6 reb · 1.3 ast
Not ranked
G S. Pouedet TR0.6 pts · 0.2 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G M. Klapper2.8 pts · 1.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 35
F C. Dioramma TR4.8 pts · 4.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 38
=Even
F H. Ward TR5 pts · 3.4 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 35
F C. Barnes TR0.3 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F S. Joba4.9 pts · 3.4 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 25
BakersfieldBetterIdaho
CSUB offense287th of 366 · -8.9
→IDHOSmall
IDHO defense233rd of 366 · -6.2
CSUB defense348th of 366 · -9.5
→IDHOSmall
IDHO offense253rd of 366 · -7.6
Backcourt-1.4 · 3 players
=Even
Backcourt-1.6 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.9 · 2 players
←CSUBSmall
Frontcourt-1.9 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.2 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestCSUB betterIDHO betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Cofield21 min · TRJ. Alexander20 minS. Pouedet5 min · TRS. WigingtonNewK. BradleyNewE. BrysonNew
Forwards
C. Dioramma15 min · TRC. Barnes6 min · TRT. KoppensNewP. IvancicNew
Guards
K. Gonzalez18 minR. Lafferty13 min · TRM. Klapper12 minK. Wynott10 min · TRB. KennisonNewT. WalNew
Forwards
H. Ward19 min · TRS. Joba17 minD. Trejo-DelgadoNewM. DiaoNewW. JensonNewN. Newman-GomezNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.0 #244 | Points per game | 75.8 #147 |
| 0.99 #336 | Points per possession | 1.10 #145 |
| 72.7 #22 | Pace (possessions) | 69.4 #153 |
| Shooting | ||
| 45.7 #355 | Effective FG% | 51.4 #177 |
| 29.0 #353 | 3-point % | 34.1 #168 |
| 28.9 #356 | 3-point attempt rate | 47.0 #34 |
| 42.2 #27 | Free throw rate | 34.6 #193 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.8 #313 | Turnover rate | 15.0 #69 |
| 30.4 #181 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.4 #250 |
| 10.9 #340 | Assists per game | 11.4 #313 |
| Defense | ||
| 83.4 #351 | Points allowed | 74.1 #157 |
| 1.15 #326 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #112 |
| 54.0 #301 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #128 |
| 36.0 #306 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.2 #264 |
| 17.9 #101 | Turnovers forced | 15.0 #288 |
| 64.4 #349 | Defensive rebound rate | 75.8 #5 |
| 7.4 #91 | Steals per game | 5.6 #282 |
| 5.0 #18 | Blocks per game | 2.4 #319 |
Bakersfield
6-24 in 2025-26 overall · 2-18 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Cal Poly76–108
- Lvs CSU Northridge84–86
- Lvs Long Beach St87–88
- L@ UC San Diego72–84
- Lvs Fullerton80–88
A week or more of rest.
Idaho
18-15 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Houston47–78
- Wvs Montana77–66
- Wvs E Washington81–68
- Wvs Montana St78–74
- Wvs Sacramento St68–45
A week or more of rest.