Viking Pavilion · at Portland St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PRST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 PRST 77–73 · win probability PRST 65%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.0
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: PRST has more of the edges
CSUF 3, PRST 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
CSUF has played the 164th-hardest schedule, PRST the 322nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: CSUF 51.4 and allows 54.3; PRST 50.5 and allows 48.8
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CSUF 24.6%, PRST 30.0%. Defensive: CSUF 71.7%, PRST 73.6%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CSUF 15.3%, PRST 16.9%. Forced: CSUF 19.4%, PRST 18.0%
Free throws
Free throw rate: CSUF 37.8, PRST 37.1. Allowed: CSUF 35.3, PRST 42.8
Context
Tempo
About 73 possessions: CSUF plays 75.5 a game (3rd fastest), PRST 69.6 (140th). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CSUF 39%, PRST 6%. Transfers in: CSUF 1, PRST 4. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
PRST offense vs CSUF defense
Offense 284th of 366 against a defense 344th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
PRST at home. This season: PRST 0-0 at home, CSUF 0-0 away
Even
CSUF offense vs PRST defense
Offense 272nd of 366 against a defense 244th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
CSUF hits 34.2% and allows 34.0%; PRST hits 32.6% and allows 32.3%. Threes are 43.1% and 34.4% of their shots
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 | — | PRST -4.5 | — |
| Total | — | 150.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | CSUF 72.7 · PRST 77.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | PRST -2.5 | — |
| 1H total | 70.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | CSUF 33.8 · PRST 36.3 | — |
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% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
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
Portland St
28 games played
Straight up
17-11
61% wins
Against the spread
19-9
68% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-16
43% overs · avg −0.9 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 | @ | L 79-89 | +11.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 70-80 | +13.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 93-80 | -8.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 68-63 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 77-71 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 55-60 | -12.5 | L −17.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 73-84 | +16.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 61-63 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 95-90 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 93-87 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 96-69 | -9.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 76-73 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 63-52 | -11.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 65-61 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 69-66 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 60-64 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 63-54 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 88-65 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 136.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 74-73 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-68 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-77 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 77-67 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 55-67 | -6.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 69-84 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 68-74 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 84-60 | -4.5 | W +19.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 85-78 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 72-75 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
STAN
L 79-89
+1.5
12
@
SF
L 70-80
+3.5
17
vs
CSUB
W 93-80
+4.5
25
@
UTU
W 68-63
+3.5
3
@
SDAK
W 77-71
+3.5
6
vs
OMA
L 55-60
−17.5
17
@
COLO
L 73-84
+5.5
20
@
TULN
L 61-63
+0.5
1
@
WEB
W 95-90
+3.5
3
@
IDST
W 93-87
+9.5
10
vs
SAC
W 96-69
+17.5
15
vs
UNCO
W 76-73
+0.5
17
vs
NAU
W 63-52
−0.5
22
@
EWU
W 65-61
+1.5
24
@
IDHO
W 69-66
+4.5
29
vs
MONT
L 60-64
−8.5
31
vs
MTST
W 63-54
+4.5
2
vs
IDST
W 88-65
+15.5
7
@
SAC
W 74-73
−2.5
12
@
NAU
W 77-68
+2.5
14
@
UNCO
L 65-77
−8.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 77-67
+6.5
21
vs
EWU
L 55-67
−18.5
26
@
MTST
L 69-84
−12.5
28
@
MONT
L 68-74
−4.5
2
vs
WEB
W 84-60
+19.5
8
vs
IDST
W 85-78
+1.5
10
vs
MONT
L 72-75
−6.5
covered 19didn’t cover 9avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
STAN
L 79-89
+23.5
12
@
SF
L 70-80
−4.5
17
vs
CSUB
W 93-80
+31.5
25
@
UTU
W 68-63
−15.5
3
@
SDAK
W 77-71
−10.5
6
vs
OMA
L 55-60
−29.5
17
@
COLO
L 73-84
+6.5
20
@
TULN
L 61-63
−21.5
1
@
WEB
W 95-90
+36.5
3
@
IDST
W 93-87
+37.5
10
vs
SAC
W 96-69
+4.5
15
vs
UNCO
W 76-73
−6.5
17
vs
NAU
W 63-52
−25.5
22
@
EWU
W 65-61
−24.5
24
@
IDHO
W 69-66
−10.5
29
vs
MONT
L 60-64
−19.5
31
vs
MTST
W 63-54
−21.5
2
vs
IDST
W 88-65
+16.5
7
@
SAC
W 74-73
−3.5
12
@
NAU
W 77-68
+8.5
14
@
UNCO
L 65-77
−7.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 77-67
−1.5
21
vs
EWU
L 55-67
−24.5
26
@
MTST
L 69-84
+12.5
28
@
MONT
L 68-74
+0.5
2
vs
WEB
W 84-60
−0.5
8
vs
IDST
W 85-78
+21.5
10
vs
MONT
L 72-75
+1.5
over 12under 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Portland St has the better starters
Position by position: Fullerton 0, Portland St 2, even 3
FullertonBetterPortland St
G C. Williams9.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 39
=Even
G E. Skytt TR3.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 26
G B. Nunn5 pts · 2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
→PRSTSmall
G K. Johnson TR1.8 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 39
G D. White2.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 0
=No call
G C. Ness0.6 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
G T. Jenkins TR0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F B. Barron0.7 pts · 1.1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
F K. De Luna4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 7
→PRSTSmall
C K. Ibekwe TR3.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 34
FullertonBetterPortland St
CSUF offense272nd of 366 · -8.3
=Even
PRST defense244th of 366 · -6.4
CSUF defense344th of 366 · -9.2
→PRSTSmall
PRST offense284th of 366 · -8.8
Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players
→PRSTBig
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.1 · 1 player
→PRSTSmall
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
Bench-0.1 · 1 player
=Even
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestCSUF betterPRST 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
E. Skytt12 min · TRK. Johnson10 min · TRC. Ness4 minN. PollardNewT. FrankNewD. JohnsonNew
Forwards
B. Barron4 minC. Chukwu3 minL. Kearney3 min · TRJ. RandolphNewA. PusateriNewF. CoratoNew
Centers
K. Ibekwe9 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 | 73.9 #199 |
| 1.07 #208 | Points per possession | 1.06 #220 |
| 75.5 #3 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #140 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #180 | Effective FG% | 50.5 #211 |
| 34.2 #162 | 3-point % | 32.6 #250 |
| 43.1 #108 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.4 #287 |
| 37.8 #107 | Free throw rate | 37.1 #126 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.3 #82 | Turnover rate | 16.9 #200 |
| 24.6 #345 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.0 #199 |
| 15.0 #85 | Assists per game | 13.4 #186 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.2 #342 | Points allowed | 71.2 #80 |
| 1.08 #181 | Points allowed per possession | 1.02 #45 |
| 54.3 #307 | Opponent effective FG% | 48.8 #56 |
| 34.0 #185 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.3 #77 |
| 19.4 #34 | Turnovers forced | 18.0 #94 |
| 71.7 #80 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.6 #23 |
| 7.9 #45 | Steals per game | 7.2 #104 |
| 2.8 #258 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #108 |
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.
Portland St
17-11 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Montana72–75
- Wvs Idaho St85–78
- Wvs Weber St84–60
- L@ Montana68–74
- L@ Montana St69–84
A week or more of rest.