Sanford Coyote Sports Center · at South Dakota
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SDAK | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SDAK 80–78 · win probability SDAK 57%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 157.8
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
CSUF 3, SDAK 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
SDAK offense vs CSUF defense
Offense 197th of 366 against a defense 344th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CSUF has played the 164th-hardest schedule, SDAK the 305th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CSUF 15.3%, SDAK 16.5%. Forced: CSUF 19.4%, SDAK 15.9%
Free throws
Free throw rate: CSUF 37.8, SDAK 45.2. Allowed: CSUF 35.3, SDAK 31.0
CSUF offense vs SDAK defense
Offense 272nd of 366 against a defense 355th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
CSUF hits 34.2% and allows 34.0%; SDAK hits 32.4% and allows 34.5%. Threes are 43.1% and 35.9% of their shots
Home court
SDAK at home. This season: SDAK 0-0 at home, CSUF 0-0 away
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: CSUF 51.4 and allows 54.3; SDAK 49.9 and allows 54.5
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CSUF 39%, SDAK 26%. Transfers in: CSUF 1, SDAK 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 74 possessions: CSUF plays 75.5 a game (3rd fastest), SDAK 72.6 (23rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CSUF 24.6%, SDAK 28.7%. Defensive: CSUF 71.7%, SDAK 69.7%
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 | — | SDAK -2.1 | — |
| Total | — | 157.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | CSUF 77.9 · SDAK 79.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SDAK -1.1 | — |
| 1H total | 73.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | CSUF 36.3 · SDAK 37.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Fullerton
32 games played
Straight up
16-16
50% wins
Against the spread
19-12
61% covers · avg +2.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-18
42% 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 8 | @ | L 82-92 | +15.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 65-93 | +22.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 73-85 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 85-103 | +6.5 | L −11.5 | 164.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 88-80 | +11.5 | W +19.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 93-97 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 164.5 | O 190 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 83-69 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 4 | vs | L 91-94 | -1.5 | L −4.5 | 177.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 59-69 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 105-86 | +3.5 | W +22.5 | 165.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 89-94 | +19.5 | W +14.5 | 176.5 | O 183 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 63-110 | +21.5 | L −25.5 | 170.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 95-84 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 64-86 | +3.5 | L −18.5 | 160.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 88-71 | +13.5 | W +30.5 | 166.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 86-79 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 173.5 | U 165 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 69-74 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 166.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 72-81 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 157.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 71-61 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 93-78 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 173.5 | U 171 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 69-83 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-72 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 156.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-66 | -9.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 86-82 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-86 | +7.5 | L −13.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 93-92 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 185 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 88-80 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 85-87 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 75-71 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 90-77 | +5.5 | W +18.5 | 170.5 | U 167 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 82-70 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 63-78 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 157.5 | U 141 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
WYO
L 82-92
+5.5
10
@
CAL
L 65-93
−5.5
15
vs
PAC
L 73-85
−5.5
21
@
PORT
L 85-103
−11.5
22
vs
STMN
W 88-80
+19.5
23
vs
UNCO
L 93-97
+4.5
29
vs
PEPP
W 83-69
+12.5
4
vs
CP
L 91-94
−4.5
13
@
DEN
W 105-86
+22.5
21
@
OKST
L 89-94
+14.5
28
@
SMU
L 63-110
−25.5
1
vs
UCSB
W 95-84
+14.5
3
vs
UCI
L 64-86
−18.5
8
@
UCSD
W 88-71
+30.5
10
vs
CSUN
W 86-79
+5.5
15
@
UCD
L 69-74
−1.5
17
@
UCR
L 72-81
−12.5
22
vs
LBSU
W 71-61
+6.5
24
@
CP
W 93-78
+13.5
31
@
UCSB
L 69-83
−5.5
5
vs
UCR
W 78-72
+0.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 82-66
+6.5
12
@
LBSU
W 86-82
+6.5
14
@
UCI
L 65-86
−13.5
19
vs
UCD
W 93-92
−0.5
21
@
CSUB
W 88-80
+2.5
28
vs
HAW
L 85-87
+1.5
5
vs
UCSD
W 75-71
+6.5
7
@
CSUN
W 90-77
+18.5
12
vs
UCD
W 82-70
+10.5
13
vs
HAW
L 63-78
−9.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
WYO
L 82-92
+19.5
10
@
CAL
L 65-93
−4.5
15
vs
PAC
L 73-85
−1.5
21
@
PORT
L 85-103
+23.5
22
vs
STMN
W 88-80
+5.5
23
vs
UNCO
L 93-97
+25.5
29
vs
PEPP
W 83-69
−9.5
4
vs
CP
L 91-94
+7.5
13
@
DEN
W 105-86
+25.5
21
@
OKST
L 89-94
+6.5
28
@
SMU
L 63-110
+2.5
1
vs
UCSB
W 95-84
+23.5
3
vs
UCI
L 64-86
−10.5
8
@
UCSD
W 88-71
−7.5
10
vs
CSUN
W 86-79
−8.5
15
@
UCD
L 69-74
−23.5
17
@
UCR
L 72-81
−4.5
22
vs
LBSU
W 71-61
−28.5
24
@
CP
W 93-78
−2.5
31
@
UCSB
L 69-83
−1.5
5
vs
UCR
W 78-72
−6.5
7
vs
CSUB
W 82-66
−9.5
12
@
LBSU
W 86-82
+11.5
14
@
UCI
L 65-86
−3.5
19
vs
UCD
W 93-92
+28.5
21
@
CSUB
W 88-80
+7.5
28
vs
HAW
L 85-87
+13.5
5
vs
UCSD
W 75-71
−10.5
7
@
CSUN
W 90-77
−3.5
12
vs
UCD
W 82-70
−3.5
13
vs
HAW
L 63-78
−16.5
over 13under 18avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
South Dakota
29 games played
Straight up
13-16
45% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-17
41% overs · avg −1.2 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 | L 79-81 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 5 | @ | L 76-92 | +29.5 | W +13.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 89-74 | -7.5 | W +7.5 | 164.5 | U 163 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 83-78 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 172.5 | U 161 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 68-102 | +24.5 | L −9.5 | 171.5 | U 170 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 82-81 | -15.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 80-63 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 71-77 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 87-89 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 162.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 79-106 | +14.5 | L −12.5 | 161.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 97-85 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 168.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 76-106 | +21.5 | L −8.5 | 176.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 61-84 | +11.5 | L −11.5 | 164.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 86-99 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 82-72 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 169.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 99-83 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 80-96 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 68-64 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 78-90 | +10.5 | L −1.5 | 161.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 77-69 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 84-89 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 82-75 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 68-67 | +11.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 71-72 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 70-90 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 163.5 | U 160 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 62-67 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 89-72 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 75-70 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 62-76 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 138 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UTU
L 79-81
−3.5
5
@
CREI
L 76-92
+13.5
12
vs
USI
W 89-74
+7.5
16
vs
WMU
W 83-78
+1.5
20
@
MIZ
L 68-102
−9.5
23
vs
SCST
W 82-81
−14.5
29
vs
AF
W 80-63
+13.5
3
vs
PRST
L 71-77
−3.5
6
@
UNCO
L 87-89
+6.5
9
@
WYO
L 79-106
−12.5
13
vs
PV
W 97-85
+5.5
20
@
KSU
L 76-106
−8.5
31
@
NDSU
L 61-84
−11.5
7
@
STMN
L 86-99
+1.5
10
vs
DEN
W 82-72
+11.5
15
vs
KC
W 99-83
+8.5
17
@
UND
L 80-96
−14.5
21
@
OMA
W 68-64
+10.5
24
vs
STMN
L 78-90
−1.5
29
vs
ORU
W 77-69
+4.5
31
vs
NDSU
L 84-89
+3.5
4
@
KC
W 82-75
+4.5
7
@
SDST
W 68-67
+12.5
11
vs
UND
L 71-72
−3.5
19
@
DEN
L 70-90
−14.5
21
@
ORU
L 62-67
−3.5
25
vs
OMA
W 89-72
+15.5
28
vs
SDST
W 75-70
+8.5
6
vs
OMA
L 62-76
−12.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UTU
L 79-81
−4.5
5
@
CREI
L 76-92
−1.5
12
vs
USI
W 89-74
−1.5
16
vs
WMU
W 83-78
−11.5
20
@
MIZ
L 68-102
−1.5
23
vs
SCST
W 82-81
+2.5
29
vs
AF
W 80-63
−4.5
3
vs
PRST
L 71-77
−10.5
6
@
UNCO
L 87-89
+13.5
9
@
WYO
L 79-106
+23.5
13
vs
PV
W 97-85
+13.5
20
@
KSU
L 76-106
+5.5
31
@
NDSU
L 61-84
−19.5
7
@
STMN
L 86-99
+22.5
10
vs
DEN
W 82-72
−15.5
15
vs
KC
W 99-83
+25.5
17
@
UND
L 80-96
+15.5
21
@
OMA
W 68-64
−28.5
24
vs
STMN
L 78-90
+6.5
29
vs
ORU
W 77-69
−8.5
31
vs
NDSU
L 84-89
+18.5
4
@
KC
W 82-75
+0.5
7
@
SDST
W 68-67
−24.5
11
vs
UND
L 71-72
−13.5
19
@
DEN
L 70-90
−3.5
21
@
ORU
L 62-67
−22.5
25
vs
OMA
W 89-72
+8.5
28
vs
SDST
W 75-70
−6.5
6
vs
OMA
L 62-76
−12.5
over 12under 17avg −1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
South Dakota has the better starters
Position by position: Fullerton 1, South Dakota 2, even 2
FullertonBetterSouth Dakota
G C. Williams9.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 39
←CSUFSmall
G J. Summers TR9.8 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 22
G B. Nunn5 pts · 2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
→SDAKSmall
G M. Sanchez TR9.7 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 34
G D. White2.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 0
→SDAKSmall
G V. Buzelis7.1 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 27
G T. Jenkins TR0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G K. Kublickas TR5.5 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 19
F K. De Luna4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 7
=Even
F E. Kizer4 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 5
FullertonBetterSouth Dakota
CSUF offense272nd of 366 · -8.3
←CSUFSmall
SDAK defense355th of 366 · -10.1
CSUF defense344th of 366 · -9.2
→SDAKBig
SDAK offense197th of 366 · -6.1
Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players
←CSUFSmall
Backcourt-7.3 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.1 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-2.0 · 1 player
Bench-0.1 · 1 player
←CSUFSmall
Bench-1.8 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestCSUF betterSDAK betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Williams27 minB. Nunn19 minD. White13 minT. Jenkins3 min · TRM. Quinlan2 minD. McConnellNew
Forwards
K. De Luna18 minR. ReynoldsNew
Guards
J. Summers27 min · TRM. Sanchez25 min · TRV. Buzelis24 minK. Kublickas20 min · TRC. Kelderman4 min · TRE. WarrenNew
Forwards
E. Kizer15 minJ. Brack14 minJ. Townley-Thomas5 min · TRT. NetolickyNewB. DomschNew
Centers
S. van Bussel5 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80.3 #60 | Points per game | 78.0 #94 |
| 1.07 #208 | Points per possession | 1.07 #207 |
| 75.5 #3 | Pace (possessions) | 72.6 #23 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #180 | Effective FG% | 49.9 #239 |
| 34.2 #162 | 3-point % | 32.4 #264 |
| 43.1 #108 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.9 #251 |
| 37.8 #107 | Free throw rate | 45.2 #4 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.3 #82 | Turnover rate | 16.5 #168 |
| 24.6 #345 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.7 #242 |
| 15.0 #85 | Assists per game | 11.9 #295 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.2 #342 | Points allowed | 81.7 #337 |
| 1.08 #181 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #284 |
| 54.3 #307 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.5 #318 |
| 34.0 #185 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.5 #219 |
| 19.4 #34 | Turnovers forced | 15.9 #225 |
| 71.7 #80 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.7 #172 |
| 7.9 #45 | Steals per game | 6.1 #223 |
| 2.8 #258 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #293 |
Fullerton
16-16 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Hawai'i63–78
- Wvs UC Davis82–70
- W@ CSU Northridge90–77
- Wvs UC San Diego75–71
- Lvs Hawai'i85–87
A week or more of rest.
South Dakota
13-16 in 2025-26 overall · 8-9 in conference · Summit League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Omaha62–76
- Wvs S Dakota St75–70
- Wvs Omaha89–72
- L@ Oral Roberts62–67
- L@ Denver70–90
A week or more of rest.