Trojan Arena · at Troy
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TROY | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TROY 80–75 · win probability TROY 68%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.4
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: TROY has more of the edges
CSUN 1, TROY 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
TROY offense vs CSUN defense
Offense 143rd of 366 against a defense 271st, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
CSUN hits 32.4% and allows 34.4%; TROY hits 33.0% and allows 31.6%. Threes are 33.6% and 45.9% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CSUN 31.9%, TROY 34.5%. Defensive: CSUN 73.4%, TROY 68.3%
Context
Tempo
About 73 possessions: CSUN plays 75.6 a game (2nd fastest), TROY 69.6 (141st). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: CSUN 34.2, TROY 36.2. Allowed: CSUN 34.3, TROY 31.4
Context
Schedule so far
CSUN has played the 219th-hardest schedule, TROY the 166th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
TROY at home. This season: TROY 0-0 at home, CSUN 0-0 away
Shooting
Effective FG%: CSUN 51.3 and allows 51.6; TROY 51.5 and allows 50.2
Even
CSUN offense vs TROY defense
Offense 140th of 366 against a defense 162nd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CSUN 18%, TROY 11%. Transfers in: CSUN 7, TROY 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CSUN 17.5%, TROY 17.3%. Forced: CSUN 16.5%, TROY 16.7%
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 | — | TROY -5.3 | — |
| Total | — | 154.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | CSUN 74.6 · TROY 79.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TROY -3.0 | — |
| 1H total | 72.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | CSUN 34.6 · TROY 37.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 2-8 20% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
CSUN 1–0 TROYCSUN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · CSUN 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2025-26 | TROY 85 @ CSUN 94 | CSUN +4.5 | CSUN W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
CSU Northridge
32 games played
Straight up
18-14
56% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg −0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-13
59% overs · avg +2.3 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 6 | @ | L 57-86 | +9.5 | L −19.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 9 | @ | W 93-85 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | O 178 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 68-90 | +4.5 | L −17.5 | 156.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 94-85 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 157.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 64-78 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 159.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 50-82 | +1.5 | L −30.5 | 148.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 4 | vs | W 87-66 | -5.5 | W +15.5 | 155.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 71-85 | +7.5 | L −6.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 10 | vs | W 89-87 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 161.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 88-66 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 144.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 100-88 | -8.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 27 | @ | L 80-88 | +15.5 | W +7.5 | 160.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 80-89 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 74-65 | -2.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 95-90 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 175.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 79-86 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 173.5 | U 165 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 84-79 | +7.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 80-87 | -7.5 | L −14.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 68-89 | +10.5 | L −10.5 | 158.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 94-78 | -3.5 | W +12.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 81-64 | +1.5 | W +18.5 | 160.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 97-96 | -2.5 | L −1.5 | 177.5 | O 193 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 88-74 | -10.5 | W +3.5 | 160.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 84-60 | +2.5 | W +26.5 | 162.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 85-83 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 78-76 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 26 | vs | L 67-68 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 84-95 | -4.5 | L −15.5 | 158.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 5 | @ | W 86-84 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 77-90 | -5.5 | L −18.5 | 170.5 | U 167 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-70 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 78-93 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
@
UNI
L 57-86
−19.5
9
@
UND
W 93-85
+1.5
11
@
NDSU
L 68-90
−17.5
16
vs
TROY
W 94-85
+13.5
26
vs
IDHO
L 64-78
−12.5
28
vs
IDST
L 50-82
−30.5
4
vs
CSUB
W 87-66
+15.5
6
@
UCI
L 71-85
−6.5
10
vs
FRES
W 89-87
−1.5
13
@
DEL
W 88-66
+23.5
22
vs
SAC
W 100-88
+3.5
27
@
STAN
L 80-88
+7.5
1
@
UCD
L 80-89
−5.5
3
vs
UCSB
W 74-65
+6.5
8
vs
CP
W 95-90
−1.5
10
@
CSUF
L 79-86
−5.5
15
@
UCSD
W 84-79
+12.5
17
vs
LBSU
L 80-87
−14.5
24
@
HAW
L 68-89
−10.5
29
vs
UCD
W 94-78
+12.5
31
vs
UCSD
W 81-64
+18.5
5
@
CP
W 97-96
−1.5
7
vs
UCR
W 88-74
+3.5
14
vs
HAW
W 84-60
+26.5
19
@
UCSB
W 85-83
+7.5
21
@
LBSU
W 78-76
−0.5
26
vs
UCI
L 67-68
−2.5
28
@
UCR
L 84-95
−15.5
5
@
CSUB
W 86-84
−6.5
7
vs
CSUF
L 77-90
−18.5
12
vs
UCSD
W 80-70
+11.5
13
vs
UCI
L 78-93
−11.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
@
UNI
L 57-86
−10.5
9
@
UND
W 93-85
+19.5
11
@
NDSU
L 68-90
+1.5
16
vs
TROY
W 94-85
+21.5
26
vs
IDHO
L 64-78
−17.5
28
vs
IDST
L 50-82
−16.5
4
vs
CSUB
W 87-66
−2.5
6
@
UCI
L 71-85
+3.5
10
vs
FRES
W 89-87
+14.5
13
@
DEL
W 88-66
+9.5
22
vs
SAC
W 100-88
+23.5
27
@
STAN
L 80-88
+7.5
1
@
UCD
L 80-89
+6.5
3
vs
UCSB
W 74-65
−17.5
8
vs
CP
W 95-90
+9.5
10
@
CSUF
L 79-86
−8.5
15
@
UCSD
W 84-79
+3.5
17
vs
LBSU
L 80-87
+8.5
24
@
HAW
L 68-89
−1.5
29
vs
UCD
W 94-78
+8.5
31
vs
UCSD
W 81-64
−15.5
5
@
CP
W 97-96
+15.5
7
vs
UCR
W 88-74
+1.5
14
vs
HAW
W 84-60
−18.5
19
@
UCSB
W 85-83
+11.5
21
@
LBSU
W 78-76
−3.5
26
vs
UCI
L 67-68
−18.5
28
@
UCR
L 84-95
+20.5
5
@
CSUB
W 86-84
+6.5
7
vs
CSUF
L 77-90
−3.5
12
vs
UCSD
W 80-70
−3.5
13
vs
UCI
L 78-93
+18.5
over 19under 13avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Troy
32 games played
Straight up
20-12
63% wins
Against the spread
18-14
56% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg +2.9 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 3 | @ | W 103-97 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 200 |
| Nov 7 | @ | W 64-61 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 152.5 | U 125 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 63-74 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 140.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 157.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 18 | @ | W 108-107 | +14.5 | W +15.5 | 137.5 | O 215 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 106-107 | +18.5 | W +17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-75 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 159.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 74-64 | -21.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 1 | vs | L 89-93 | -17.5 | L −21.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 14 | @ | W 86-85 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 100-80 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 59-49 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 74-86 | +4.5 | L −7.5 | 160.5 | U 160 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 90-70 | -9.5 | W +10.5 | 136.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 91-65 | -8.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 99-74 | -3.5 | W +21.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 83-77 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 160 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 83-78 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 64-73 | -9.5 | L −18.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 44-66 | -7.5 | L −29.5 | 137.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 74-63 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 79-69 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 157.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 62-74 | -5.5 | L −17.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-69 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 77-76 | -17.5 | L −16.5 | 153.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 54-65 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 78-59 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 134.5 | O 137 |
| Feb 27 | vs | W 80-65 | -18.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-70 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 77-61 | -5.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 47-76 | +13.5 | L −15.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+9.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
+5.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−6.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
−13.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+15.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+17.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−9.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−11.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
−21.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+7.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
+2.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+11.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
+0.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−7.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+10.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+17.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+21.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+0.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+0.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−18.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−29.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
+4.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
+12.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−17.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−9.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−16.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−13.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+7.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−3.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+2.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
+10.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−15.5
covered 18didn’t cover 14avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
KENT
W 103-97
+57.5
7
@
FUR
W 64-61
−27.5
14
@
LMU
L 63-74
−3.5
16
@
CSUN
L 85-94
+21.5
18
@
SDSU
W 108-107
+77.5
20
@
USC
L 106-107
+53.5
24
vs
TOL
L 68-75
−16.5
26
vs
SFPA
W 74-64
−13.5
1
vs
WGA
L 89-93
+31.5
14
@
UAB
W 86-85
+15.5
20
vs
MRSH
W 70-63
−22.5
31
vs
TXST
W 100-80
+34.5
3
vs
USA
W 59-49
−40.5
7
@
ARST
L 74-86
−0.5
10
@
UL
W 90-70
+23.5
14
vs
USM
W 91-65
+10.5
17
vs
ARST
W 99-74
+7.5
21
@
ODU
W 83-77
+7.5
24
@
GASO
W 83-78
+1.5
29
vs
JMU
L 64-73
−10.5
31
vs
APP
L 44-66
−27.5
4
@
GAST
W 74-63
−7.5
7
vs
AKR
W 79-69
−9.5
11
@
TXST
L 62-74
−4.5
14
@
USM
L 65-69
−10.5
18
@
ULM
W 77-76
−0.5
21
@
USA
L 54-65
−23.5
24
vs
UL
W 78-59
+2.5
27
vs
ULM
W 80-65
−8.5
8
vs
USM
W 78-70
+5.5
9
vs
GASO
W 77-61
−14.5
19
vs
NEB
L 47-76
−16.5
over 14under 18avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Troy has the better starters
Position by position: CSU Northridge 1, Troy 2, even 2
CSU NorthridgeBetterTroy
G J. Davis16.2 pts · 4.7 reb · 7.5 ast
Score 71
←CSUNBig
G R. Davis TR9.9 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 14
G C. Smith TR7.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 36
→TROYBig
G D. Oday TR18.9 pts · 3.6 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 95
G M. Ballew TR8.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 19
→TROYBig
G J. Hutchinson TR12.1 pts · 3.4 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 76
G B. Hicks TR8.6 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 49
=Even
F C. Diggs TR10.3 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 59
G K. Ekissi TR4.7 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 29
=Even
F K. Kiel3.6 pts · 3.5 reb · 1 ast
Score 23
CSU NorthridgeBetterTroy
CSUN offense140th of 366 · -4.2
=Even
TROY defense162nd of 366 · -3.6
CSUN defense271st of 366 · -6.8
→TROYBig
TROY offense143rd of 366 · -4.3
Backcourt-4.7 · 5 players
→TROYBig
Backcourt+1.4 · 3 players
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
Bench-2.4 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-2.0 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestCSUN betterTROY betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Davis34 minC. Smith30 min · TRM. Ballew23 min · TRB. Hicks22 min · TRK. Ekissi17 min · TRG. Gazarian2 min
Forwards
J. Martin7 min · TRB. OmotNew
Centers
E. Stephen15 min · TRL. Niang8 min · TR
Guards
R. Davis31 min · TRD. Oday30 min · TRJ. Hutchinson29 min · TRH. Awata2 minJ. KontuniemiNewR. ValakouNew
Forwards
C. Diggs23 min · TRK. Kiel16 minM. Ikegwuruka13 min · TRS. Walters9 min · TRE. Griffin5 min
Centers
A. PachecoNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80.6 #54 | Points per game | 77.3 #110 |
| 1.06 #219 | Points per possession | 1.11 #113 |
| 75.6 #2 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #141 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.3 #183 | Effective FG% | 51.5 #171 |
| 32.4 #260 | 3-point % | 33.0 #229 |
| 33.6 #308 | 3-point attempt rate | 45.9 #47 |
| 34.2 #200 | Free throw rate | 36.2 #147 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.5 #237 | Turnover rate | 17.3 #226 |
| 31.9 #130 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.5 #59 |
| 16.7 #31 | Assists per game | 15.0 #86 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.3 #336 | Points allowed | 74.5 #178 |
| 1.08 #153 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #128 |
| 51.6 #191 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.2 #111 |
| 34.4 #210 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.6 #47 |
| 16.5 #187 | Turnovers forced | 16.7 #173 |
| 73.4 #26 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.3 #243 |
| 6.6 #166 | Steals per game | 7.2 #107 |
| 2.8 #259 | Blocks per game | 3.3 #169 |
CSU Northridge
18-14 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UC Irvine78–93
- Wvs UC San Diego80–70
- Lvs Fullerton77–90
- W@ Bakersfield86–84
- L@ UC Riverside84–95
A week or more of rest.
Troy
20-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Nebraska47–76
- Wvs GA Southern77–61
- Wvs Southern Miss78–70
- Wvs UL Monroe80–65
- Wvs Louisiana78–59
A week or more of rest.