Dee Events Center · at Weber St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WEB | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CSUN 80–77 · win probability CSUN 61%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.4
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: WEB has more of the edges
CSUN 2, WEB 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
CSUN offense vs WEB defense
Offense 140th of 366 against a defense 336th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
CSUN has played the 219th-hardest schedule, WEB the 316th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
CSUN hits 32.4% and allows 34.4%; WEB hits 34.5% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 33.6% and 32.8% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: CSUN 51.3 and allows 51.6; WEB 51.7 and allows 54.5
Turnovers
Turnover rate: CSUN 17.5%, WEB 15.7%. Forced: CSUN 16.5%, WEB 16.3%
Home court
WEB at home. This season: WEB 0-0 at home, CSUN 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 73 possessions: CSUN plays 75.6 a game (2nd fastest), WEB 70.7 (85th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: CSUN 34.2, WEB 39.1. Allowed: CSUN 34.3, WEB 36.4
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: CSUN 18%, WEB 9%. Transfers in: CSUN 7, WEB 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: CSUN 31.9%, WEB 31.8%. Defensive: CSUN 73.4%, WEB 72.3%
Even
WEB offense vs CSUN defense
Offense 280th of 366 against a defense 271st, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | CSUN -3.1 | — |
| Total | — | 156.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | CSUN 79.8 · WEB 76.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CSUN -2.0 | — |
| 1H total | 73.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | CSUN 37.5 · WEB 35.5 | — |
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% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
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
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
CSU Northridge has the better starters
Position by position: CSU Northridge 1, Weber St 0, even 4
CSU NorthridgeBetterWeber St
G J. Davis16.2 pts · 4.7 reb · 7.5 ast
Score 71
←CSUNBig
G A. Grayson3.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 6
G C. Smith TR7.1 pts · 7.1 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 36
=No call
F B. Felder TR2.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
G M. Ballew TR8.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 19
=No call
F D. Thompson NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
G B. Hicks TR8.6 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 49
=No call
C A. Ekwe TR2.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
G K. Ekissi TR4.7 pts · 1.7 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 29
=No call
C D. Cutler1.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
CSU NorthridgeBetterWeber St
CSUN offense140th of 366 · -4.2
←CSUNBig
WEB defense336th of 366 · -8.9
CSUN defense271st of 366 · -6.8
=Even
WEB offense280th of 366 · -8.6
Backcourt-4.7 · 5 players
→WEBBig
Backcourt-1.7 · 1 player
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt-0.8 · 4 players
Bench-2.4 · 4 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestCSUN betterWEB 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
A. Grayson12 minA. JacksonNewA. PowellNewM. AbittanNewS. Marius JonesNewH. HansenNew
Forwards
B. Felder6 min · TRD. ThompsonNewD. WarlickNewC. BurgessNew
Centers
A. Ekwe10 min · TRD. Cutler6 min
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 | 78.8 #82 |
| 1.06 #219 | Points per possession | 1.11 #112 |
| 75.6 #2 | Pace (possessions) | 70.7 #85 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.3 #183 | Effective FG% | 51.7 #163 |
| 32.4 #260 | 3-point % | 34.5 #143 |
| 33.6 #308 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.8 #320 |
| 34.2 #200 | Free throw rate | 39.1 #76 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.5 #237 | Turnover rate | 15.7 #115 |
| 31.9 #130 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.8 #132 |
| 16.7 #31 | Assists per game | 12.6 #241 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.3 #336 | Points allowed | 79.1 #300 |
| 1.08 #153 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #269 |
| 51.6 #191 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.5 #316 |
| 34.4 #210 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #160 |
| 16.5 #187 | Turnovers forced | 16.3 #204 |
| 73.4 #26 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.3 #56 |
| 6.6 #166 | Steals per game | 6.9 #133 |
| 2.8 #259 | Blocks per game | 1.5 #360 |
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.
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.