Titan Gym · at Fullerton
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CSUF | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CSUF 80–75 · win probability CSUF 64%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.9
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: CSUF has more of the edges
WEB 2, CSUF 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
WEB has played the 316th-hardest schedule, CSUF the 164th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WEB 31.8%, CSUF 24.6%. Defensive: WEB 72.3%, CSUF 71.7%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WEB 15.7%, CSUF 15.3%. Forced: WEB 16.3%, CSUF 19.4%
WEB offense vs CSUF defense
Offense 280th of 366 against a defense 344th, on the model’s ratings
CSUF offense vs WEB defense
Offense 272nd of 366 against a defense 336th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WEB 9%, CSUF 39%. Transfers in: WEB 2, CSUF 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
CSUF at home. This season: CSUF 0-0 at home, WEB 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 73 possessions: WEB plays 70.7 a game (85th fastest), CSUF 75.5 (3rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Three-pointers
WEB hits 34.5% and allows 33.5%; CSUF hits 34.2% and allows 34.0%. Threes are 32.8% and 43.1% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WEB 51.7 and allows 54.5; CSUF 51.4 and allows 54.3
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: WEB 39.1, CSUF 37.8. Allowed: WEB 36.4, CSUF 35.3
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 | — | CSUF -4.2 | — |
| Total | — | 154.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | WEB 75.3 · CSUF 79.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CSUF -2.4 | — |
| 1H total | 72.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | WEB 35 · CSUF 37.4 | — |
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% | 6-4 60% | |
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Weber St
30 games played
Straight up
14-16
47% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +3.8 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 8 | @ | L 89-92 | +15.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 73-83 | +22.5 | W +12.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 70-79 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 91-85 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 73-74 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 82-61 | -10.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 92-66 | -7.5 | W +18.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 65-88 | +7.5 | L −15.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 10 | @ | W 64-60 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 74-90 | +15.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 80-82 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 90-95 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 95-82 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 78-65 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 76-71 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 162.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 91-80 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 67-75 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 65-81 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 88-91 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 81-79 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 90-104 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 74-88 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 72-53 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 83-72 | +5.5 | W +16.5 | 153.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-84 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 82-79 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 92-72 | -2.5 | W +17.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 83-73 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 60-84 | +4.5 | L −19.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 79-84 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
UTAH
L 89-92
+12.5
12
@
USU
L 73-83
+12.5
15
@
UCI
L 70-79
+2.5
19
vs
CAM
W 91-85
+4.5
22
vs
UTA
L 73-74
−3.5
29
vs
KC
W 82-61
+10.5
3
vs
ORU
W 92-66
+18.5
7
@
STMN
L 65-88
−15.5
10
@
KC
W 64-60
−3.5
17
@
UVU
L 74-90
−0.5
20
vs
UTU
L 80-82
−7.5
1
vs
PRST
L 90-95
−3.5
3
vs
SAC
W 95-82
+6.5
8
@
NAU
W 78-65
+10.5
10
@
UNCO
W 76-71
+11.5
15
vs
EWU
W 91-80
+7.5
17
vs
IDHO
L 67-75
−6.5
22
@
MONT
L 65-81
−11.5
24
@
MTST
L 88-91
+3.5
31
vs
IDST
W 81-79
−0.5
2
@
SAC
L 90-104
−12.5
5
vs
UNCO
L 74-88
−12.5
7
vs
NAU
W 72-53
+11.5
12
@
IDHO
W 83-72
+16.5
14
@
EWU
L 66-84
−14.5
19
vs
MTST
W 82-79
+1.5
21
vs
MONT
W 92-72
+17.5
28
@
IDST
W 83-73
+12.5
2
@
PRST
L 60-84
−19.5
9
vs
EWU
L 79-84
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
UTAH
L 89-92
+32.5
12
@
USU
L 73-83
−0.5
15
@
UCI
L 70-79
−2.5
19
vs
CAM
W 91-85
+16.5
22
vs
UTA
L 73-74
−2.5
29
vs
KC
W 82-61
−12.5
3
vs
ORU
W 92-66
+0.5
7
@
STMN
L 65-88
−1.5
10
@
KC
W 64-60
−26.5
17
@
UVU
L 74-90
+15.5
20
vs
UTU
L 80-82
+9.5
1
vs
PRST
L 90-95
+36.5
3
vs
SAC
W 95-82
+8.5
8
@
NAU
W 78-65
−6.5
10
@
UNCO
W 76-71
−15.5
15
vs
EWU
W 91-80
+12.5
17
vs
IDHO
L 67-75
−16.5
22
@
MONT
L 65-81
−11.5
24
@
MTST
L 88-91
+31.5
31
vs
IDST
W 81-79
+8.5
2
@
SAC
L 90-104
+31.5
5
vs
UNCO
L 74-88
−0.5
7
vs
NAU
W 72-53
−25.5
12
@
IDHO
W 83-72
+1.5
14
@
EWU
L 66-84
−4.5
19
vs
MTST
W 82-79
+12.5
21
vs
MONT
W 92-72
+11.5
28
@
IDST
W 83-73
+3.5
2
@
PRST
L 60-84
−0.5
9
vs
EWU
L 79-84
+8.5
over 16under 14avg +3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Fullerton has the better starters
Position by position: Weber St 0, Fullerton 1, even 4
Weber StBetterFullerton
G A. Grayson3.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 6
→CSUFSmall
G C. Williams9.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 39
F B. Felder TR2.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G B. Nunn5 pts · 2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
F D. Thompson NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G D. White2.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 0
C A. Ekwe TR2.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G T. Jenkins TR0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
C D. Cutler1.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F K. De Luna4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 7
Weber StBetterFullerton
WEB offense280th of 366 · -8.6
←WEBSmall
CSUF defense344th of 366 · -9.2
WEB defense336th of 366 · -8.9
→CSUFSmall
CSUF offense272nd of 366 · -8.3
Backcourt-1.7 · 1 player
←WEBBig
Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 4 players
←WEBSmall
Frontcourt-2.1 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.1 · 1 player
Score, worst to bestWEB betterCSUF betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Grayson12 minA. JacksonNewA. PowellNewM. AbittanNewS. Marius JonesNewH. HansenNew
Forwards
B. Felder6 min · TRD. ThompsonNewD. WarlickNewC. BurgessNew
Centers
A. Ekwe10 min · TRD. Cutler6 min
Guards
C. Williams27 minB. Nunn19 minD. White13 minT. Jenkins3 min · TRM. Quinlan2 minD. McConnellNew
Forwards
K. De Luna18 minR. ReynoldsNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.8 #82 | Points per game | 80.3 #60 |
| 1.11 #112 | Points per possession | 1.07 #208 |
| 70.7 #85 | Pace (possessions) | 75.5 #3 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.7 #163 | Effective FG% | 51.4 #180 |
| 34.5 #143 | 3-point % | 34.2 #162 |
| 32.8 #320 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.1 #108 |
| 39.1 #76 | Free throw rate | 37.8 #107 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.7 #115 | Turnover rate | 15.3 #82 |
| 31.8 #132 | Offensive rebound rate | 24.6 #345 |
| 12.6 #241 | Assists per game | 15.0 #85 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.1 #300 | Points allowed | 82.2 #342 |
| 1.12 #269 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #181 |
| 54.5 #316 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.3 #307 |
| 33.5 #160 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.0 #185 |
| 16.3 #204 | Turnovers forced | 19.4 #34 |
| 72.3 #56 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.7 #80 |
| 6.9 #133 | Steals per game | 7.9 #45 |
| 1.5 #360 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #258 |
Weber St
14-16 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs E Washington79–84
- L@ Portland St60–84
- W@ Idaho St83–73
- Wvs Montana92–72
- Wvs Montana St82–79
A week or more of rest.
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.