Reed Gym · at Idaho St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | IDST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 77–76 · win probability CSUF 51%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.6
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: CSUF has more of the edges
CSUF 3, IDST 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CSUF 15.3%, IDST 17.1%. Forced: CSUF 19.4%, IDST 14.6%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CSUF 24.6%, IDST 32.8%. Defensive: CSUF 71.7%, IDST 72.1%
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: CSUF plays 75.5 a game (3rd fastest), IDST 67.3 (266th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
CSUF has played the 164th-hardest schedule, IDST the 295th. A record against a soft schedule means less
CSUF offense vs IDST defense
Offense 272nd of 366 against a defense 349th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CSUF 39%, IDST 6%. Transfers in: CSUF 1, IDST 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
IDST at home. This season: IDST 0-0 at home, CSUF 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CSUF 37.8, IDST 38.0. Allowed: CSUF 35.3, IDST 38.0
Even
Three-pointers
CSUF hits 34.2% and allows 34.0%; IDST hits 33.6% and allows 34.5%. Threes are 43.1% and 41.9% of their shots
Even
IDST offense vs CSUF defense
Offense 324th of 366 against a defense 344th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: CSUF 51.4 and allows 54.3; IDST 51.9 and allows 54.5
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 -0.4 | — |
| Total | — | 152.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | CSUF 76.5 · IDST 76.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CSUF -0.4 | — |
| 1H total | 71.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | CSUF 35.9 · IDST 35.5 | — |
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% | |
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 12 | @ BYU | No recent meeting |
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CSUF 1–0 IDSTCSUF leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CSUF 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2024-25 | IDST 61 @ CSUF 62 | CSUF -2.5 | IDST W |
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
Idaho St
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −2.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-13
57% overs · avg +5.4 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 7 | @ | W 71-68 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 57-73 | +21.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 74-83 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 138.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 55-64 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 81-84 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 82-50 | -1.5 | W +30.5 | 148.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 68-59 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 137.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 93-79 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 69-73 | +9.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 83-93 | -5.5 | L −15.5 | 143.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 97-84 | -8.5 | W +4.5 | 153.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 87-93 | -3.5 | L −9.5 | 142.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 72-85 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 157 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 81-79 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 76-68 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 66-84 | -6.5 | L −24.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 62-74 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 144.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 60-69 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 79-81 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 65-88 | +7.5 | L −15.5 | 136.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 73-79 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 141.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 61-69 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 75-88 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 69-99 | +6.5 | L −23.5 | 146.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 73-69 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 91-76 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 144.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 73-83 | -2.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 65-83 | -1.5 | L −19.5 | 160.5 | U 148 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 73-65 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 78-85 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
USD
W 71-68
+7.5
9
@
SDSU
L 57-73
+5.5
15
@
SEA
L 74-83
+2.5
18
@
SCU
L 55-64
+5.5
26
vs
SHSU
L 81-84
−1.5
28
vs
CSUN
W 82-50
+30.5
3
@
KC
W 68-59
+3.5
6
vs
DEN
W 93-79
+5.5
10
@
UVU
L 69-73
+5.5
21
vs
UCD
L 83-93
−15.5
1
vs
SAC
W 97-84
+4.5
3
vs
PRST
L 87-93
−9.5
8
@
UNCO
L 72-85
−8.5
10
@
NAU
W 81-79
−2.5
15
vs
IDHO
W 76-68
+5.5
17
vs
EWU
L 66-84
−24.5
22
@
MTST
L 62-74
−6.5
24
@
MONT
L 60-69
−4.5
31
@
WEB
L 79-81
+0.5
2
@
PRST
L 65-88
−15.5
5
vs
NAU
L 73-79
−14.5
7
vs
UNCO
L 61-69
−5.5
12
@
EWU
L 75-88
−10.5
14
@
IDHO
L 69-99
−23.5
19
vs
MONT
W 73-69
+5.5
21
vs
MTST
W 91-76
+16.5
28
vs
WEB
L 73-83
−12.5
2
@
SAC
L 65-83
−19.5
7
vs
NAU
W 73-65
+3.5
8
vs
PRST
L 78-85
−1.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
USD
W 71-68
−13.5
9
@
SDSU
L 57-73
−5.5
15
@
SEA
L 74-83
+18.5
18
@
SCU
L 55-64
−22.5
26
vs
SHSU
L 81-84
+22.5
28
vs
CSUN
W 82-50
−16.5
3
@
KC
W 68-59
−10.5
6
vs
DEN
W 93-79
+29.5
10
@
UVU
L 69-73
+0.5
21
vs
UCD
L 83-93
+32.5
1
vs
SAC
W 97-84
+27.5
3
vs
PRST
L 87-93
+37.5
8
@
UNCO
L 72-85
+1.5
10
@
NAU
W 81-79
+20.5
15
vs
IDHO
W 76-68
−5.5
17
vs
EWU
L 66-84
−2.5
22
@
MTST
L 62-74
−8.5
24
@
MONT
L 60-69
−19.5
31
@
WEB
L 79-81
+8.5
2
@
PRST
L 65-88
+16.5
5
vs
NAU
L 73-79
+10.5
7
vs
UNCO
L 61-69
−20.5
12
@
EWU
L 75-88
+15.5
14
@
IDHO
L 69-99
+21.5
19
vs
MONT
W 73-69
−7.5
21
vs
MTST
W 91-76
+22.5
28
vs
WEB
L 73-83
+3.5
2
@
SAC
L 65-83
−12.5
7
vs
NAU
W 73-65
−4.5
8
vs
PRST
L 78-85
+21.5
over 17under 13avg +5.4 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: Fullerton 0, Idaho St 0, even 5
FullertonBetterIdaho St
G C. Williams9.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 39
=No call
G L. Birley0.5 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
G B. Nunn5 pts · 2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
=No call
G E. Harel TR0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
G D. White2.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 0
=No call
G A. Goffe NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
G T. Jenkins TR0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Dorsey NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F K. De Luna4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 7
=No call
F Q. Patterson0.9 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
FullertonBetterIdaho St
CSUF offense272nd of 366 · -8.3
←CSUFSmall
IDST defense349th of 366 · -9.6
CSUF defense344th of 366 · -9.2
=Even
IDST offense324th of 366 · -10.6
Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players
→IDSTBig
Backcourt-0.3 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.1 · 1 player
=Even
Frontcourt-1.3 · 1 player
Bench-0.1 · 1 player
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestCSUF betterIDST 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
L. Birley4 minE. Harel1 min · TRA. GoffeNewJ. DorseyNewM. MorrisNewT. VirgilNew
Forwards
Q. Patterson7 minM. JohnsonNewI. PalmerNewK. DeMuynckNewM. JohnsonNewB. LowenbachNew
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 | 73.6 #213 |
| 1.07 #208 | Points per possession | 1.10 #135 |
| 75.5 #3 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #266 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.4 #180 | Effective FG% | 51.9 #151 |
| 34.2 #162 | 3-point % | 33.6 #192 |
| 43.1 #108 | 3-point attempt rate | 41.9 #137 |
| 37.8 #107 | Free throw rate | 38.0 #104 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.3 #82 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #213 |
| 24.6 #345 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.8 #94 |
| 15.0 #85 | Assists per game | 11.8 #302 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.2 #342 | Points allowed | 77.6 #255 |
| 1.08 #181 | Points allowed per possession | 1.14 #314 |
| 54.3 #307 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.5 #315 |
| 34.0 #185 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.5 #220 |
| 19.4 #34 | Turnovers forced | 14.6 #316 |
| 71.7 #80 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.1 #63 |
| 7.9 #45 | Steals per game | 5.2 #322 |
| 2.8 #258 | Blocks per game | 4.0 #78 |
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.
Idaho St
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Portland St78–85
- Wvs N Arizona73–65
- L@ Sacramento St65–83
- Lvs Weber St73–83
- Wvs Montana St91–76
A week or more of rest.