Hornet Pavilion · at Sacramento St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SAC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SAC 79–78 · win probability SAC 56%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.9
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: SAC has more of the edges
PEPP 2, SAC 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PEPP 18.3%, SAC 14.1%. Forced: PEPP 16.5%, SAC 17.1%
PEPP offense vs SAC defense
Offense 139th of 366 against a defense 262nd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
PEPP has played the 128th-hardest schedule, SAC the 248th. A record against a soft schedule means less
SAC offense vs PEPP defense
Offense 146th of 366 against a defense 216th, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PEPP 5%, SAC 42%. Transfers in: PEPP 7, SAC 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
SAC at home. This season: SAC 0-0 at home, PEPP 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: PEPP plays 70.0 a game (117th fastest), SAC 72.6 (24th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PEPP 29.1%, SAC 25.2%. Defensive: PEPP 66.0%, SAC 66.6%
Even
Three-pointers
PEPP hits 31.4% and allows 35.5%; SAC hits 31.9% and allows 35.1%. Threes are 39.2% and 35.6% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: PEPP 47.6 and allows 54.2; SAC 47.0 and allows 55.0
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: PEPP 33.9, SAC 41.2. Allowed: PEPP 28.5, SAC 36.2
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 | — | SAC -1.6 | — |
| Total | — | 156.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | PEPP 77.6 · SAC 79.3 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SAC -0.8 | — |
| 1H total | 73.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | PEPP 36.2 · SAC 37.1 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 9-1 90% | |
| 2-8 20% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Pepperdine
30 games played
Straight up
7-23
23% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg +2.2 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 | @ | L 63-74 | +29.5 | W +18.5 | 152.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 81-88 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 90-79 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 60-63 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 53-76 | +2.5 | L −20.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 69-83 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 63-71 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 56-65 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 142.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 70-62 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 78-81 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 84-62 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 140.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 56-96 | +29.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 45-72 | +19.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 63-82 | +20.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 69-74 | +11.5 | W +6.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 63-83 | +4.5 | L −15.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 60-80 | +7.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 67-63 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 60-84 | +28.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 79-95 | +11.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 88-92 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 81-83 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 59-92 | +7.5 | L −25.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 60-88 | +24.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 90-89 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 95-87 | +7.5 | W +15.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 73-83 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 80-87 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-79 | +7.5 | W +16.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 68-77 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
UCLA
L 63-74
+18.5
15
vs
UNCO
L 81-88
−5.5
18
vs
NOLA
W 90-79
+5.5
21
vs
SFA
L 60-63
−1.5
26
vs
FRES
L 53-76
−20.5
29
@
CSUF
L 69-83
−12.5
2
vs
ACU
L 63-71
−6.5
6
vs
UVM
L 56-65
−7.5
13
@
CSUB
W 70-62
+9.5
18
@
LBSU
L 78-81
+1.5
20
vs
RICE
W 84-62
+23.5
28
vs
GONZ
L 56-96
−10.5
30
vs
SMC
L 45-72
−7.5
2
@
SCU
L 63-82
+1.5
4
@
PAC
L 69-74
+6.5
8
@
USD
L 63-83
−15.5
10
vs
SF
L 60-80
−12.5
14
vs
PORT
W 67-63
+5.5
21
@
GONZ
L 60-84
+4.5
24
@
WSU
L 79-95
−4.5
28
vs
USD
L 88-92
−1.5
4
@
SEA
L 81-83
+10.5
7
vs
PAC
L 59-92
−25.5
11
@
SMC
L 60-88
−3.5
14
vs
LMU
W 90-89
+6.5
18
@
PORT
W 95-87
+15.5
21
@
ORST
L 73-83
−0.5
25
vs
SEA
L 80-87
+0.5
28
vs
WSU
W 88-79
+16.5
5
vs
PORT
L 68-77
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
UCLA
L 63-74
−15.5
15
vs
UNCO
L 81-88
+15.5
18
vs
NOLA
W 90-79
+11.5
21
vs
SFA
L 60-63
−25.5
26
vs
FRES
L 53-76
−21.5
29
@
CSUF
L 69-83
−9.5
2
vs
ACU
L 63-71
−3.5
6
vs
UVM
L 56-65
−21.5
13
@
CSUB
W 70-62
−15.5
18
@
LBSU
L 78-81
+17.5
20
vs
RICE
W 84-62
+5.5
28
vs
GONZ
L 56-96
−0.5
30
vs
SMC
L 45-72
−24.5
2
@
SCU
L 63-82
−5.5
4
@
PAC
L 69-74
+4.5
8
@
USD
L 63-83
−3.5
10
vs
SF
L 60-80
−0.5
14
vs
PORT
W 67-63
−17.5
21
@
GONZ
L 60-84
−6.5
24
@
WSU
L 79-95
+27.5
28
vs
USD
L 88-92
+28.5
4
@
SEA
L 81-83
+24.5
7
vs
PAC
L 59-92
+8.5
11
@
SMC
L 60-88
+3.5
14
vs
LMU
W 90-89
+31.5
18
@
PORT
W 95-87
+31.5
21
@
ORST
L 73-83
+7.5
25
vs
SEA
L 80-87
+21.5
28
vs
WSU
W 88-79
+8.5
5
vs
PORT
L 68-77
−9.5
over 15under 15avg +2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Sacramento St
28 games played
Straight up
7-21
25% wins
Against the spread
12-16
43% covers · avg 0 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-13
54% overs · avg +1.6 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 11 | vs | L 87-92 | +7.5 | W +2.5 | 161.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 73-77 | +4.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 64-62 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 18 | @ | L 48-79 | +27.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 67-91 | +21.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 54-68 | +10.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 88-110 | +29.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | O 198 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 67-74 | +14.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 88-100 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 84-97 | +8.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 82-95 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 168.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 69-96 | +9.5 | L −17.5 | 160.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 83-69 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 93-89 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 163.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 76-86 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 161.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 67-75 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 83-80 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 86-79 | +3.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 104-90 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 73-74 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 79-95 | +11.5 | L −4.5 | 164.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 74-79 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 94-102 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 160.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 80-86 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 73-81 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 61-82 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 83-65 | +1.5 | W +19.5 | 160.5 | U 148 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 45-68 | +6.5 | L −16.5 | 158.5 | U 113 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
11
vs
UCSB
L 87-92
+2.5
14
@
UCD
L 73-77
+0.5
16
vs
PRES
W 64-62
−4.5
18
@
UCLA
L 48-79
−3.5
21
@
CAL
L 67-91
−2.5
29
@
PAC
L 54-68
−3.5
2
@
BAY
L 88-110
+7.5
20
@
CBU
L 67-74
+7.5
22
@
CSUN
L 88-100
−3.5
1
@
IDST
L 84-97
−4.5
3
@
WEB
L 82-95
−6.5
10
@
PRST
L 69-96
−17.5
15
vs
NAU
W 83-69
+12.5
17
vs
UNCO
W 93-89
+10.5
22
@
IDHO
L 76-86
+0.5
24
@
EWU
L 67-75
−2.5
29
vs
MTST
W 83-80
+7.5
31
vs
MONT
W 86-79
+10.5
2
vs
WEB
W 104-90
+12.5
7
vs
PRST
L 73-74
+2.5
12
@
UNCO
L 79-95
−4.5
14
@
NAU
L 74-79
−2.5
19
vs
EWU
L 94-102
−5.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-86
−1.5
26
@
MONT
L 73-81
−0.5
28
@
MTST
L 61-82
−14.5
2
vs
IDST
W 83-65
+19.5
7
vs
IDHO
L 45-68
−16.5
covered 12didn’t cover 16avg 0 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
11
vs
UCSB
L 87-92
+17.5
14
@
UCD
L 73-77
−1.5
16
vs
PRES
W 64-62
−24.5
18
@
UCLA
L 48-79
−19.5
21
@
CAL
L 67-91
+3.5
29
@
PAC
L 54-68
−24.5
2
@
BAY
L 88-110
+39.5
20
@
CBU
L 67-74
−17.5
22
@
CSUN
L 88-100
+23.5
1
@
IDST
L 84-97
+27.5
3
@
WEB
L 82-95
+8.5
10
@
PRST
L 69-96
+4.5
15
vs
NAU
W 83-69
−1.5
17
vs
UNCO
W 93-89
+18.5
22
@
IDHO
L 76-86
+0.5
24
@
EWU
L 67-75
−21.5
29
vs
MTST
W 83-80
+9.5
31
vs
MONT
W 86-79
+9.5
2
vs
WEB
W 104-90
+31.5
7
vs
PRST
L 73-74
−3.5
12
@
UNCO
L 79-95
+9.5
14
@
NAU
L 74-79
−1.5
19
vs
EWU
L 94-102
+35.5
21
vs
IDHO
L 80-86
+2.5
26
@
MONT
L 73-81
−7.5
28
@
MTST
L 61-82
−15.5
2
vs
IDST
W 83-65
−12.5
7
vs
IDHO
L 45-68
−45.5
over 15under 13avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Pepperdine has the better starters
Position by position: Pepperdine 1, Sacramento St 0, even 4
PepperdineBetterSacramento St
G J. Williamson TR10.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 58
=Even
G M. Williams18.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 56
G W. McClendon TR13.7 pts · 3 reb · 1.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G L. Hughes TR17.9 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 77
F P. Majstorovic TR14.4 pts · 6.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 78
=Even
G M. Wilson TR12.5 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 76
F Y. Fritz TR9.8 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 58
=Even
G A. Madi7.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 44
F E. Meuser TR6.1 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 39
←PEPPSmall
F O. Grady TR9.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 21
PepperdineBetterSacramento St
PEPP offense139th of 366 · -4.2
←PEPPSmall
SAC defense262nd of 366 · -6.8
PEPP defense216th of 366 · -5.6
→SACSmall
SAC offense146th of 366 · -4.4
Backcourt+1.6 · 2 players
=Even
Backcourt+0.9 · 4 players
Frontcourt+1.2 · 3 players
←PEPPBig
Frontcourt-2.3 · 1 player
Bench-1.6 · 3 players
←PEPPSmall
Bench-3.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestPEPP betterSAC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Williamson26 min · TRW. McClendon25 min · TRE. Haywood19 min · TRD. Mager10 minA. BalianNewC. ChouNew
Forwards
P. Majstorovic32 min · TRY. Fritz26 min · TRE. Meuser21 min · TRA. Robinson10 min · TRA. ConstanzaNewF. BiberovicNew
Guards
M. Williams36 minL. Hughes32 min · TRM. Wilson27 min · TRA. Madi24 minT. Glover14 minR. Robinson11 min
Forwards
O. Grady31 min · TRR. Tutic23 min · TRS. Ciani10 min · TRM. HuntNewG. AsimakopoulosNew
Centers
J. Das Chagas7 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.4 #277 | Points per game | 75.9 #144 |
| 1.00 #320 | Points per possession | 1.05 #258 |
| 70.0 #117 | Pace (possessions) | 72.6 #24 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.6 #323 | Effective FG% | 47.0 #337 |
| 31.4 #310 | 3-point % | 31.9 #284 |
| 39.2 #187 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.6 #257 |
| 33.9 #216 | Free throw rate | 41.2 #41 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.3 #288 | Turnover rate | 14.1 #26 |
| 29.1 #234 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.2 #336 |
| 13.6 #176 | Assists per game | 12.1 #275 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.7 #311 | Points allowed | 83.6 #352 |
| 1.14 #303 | Points allowed per possession | 1.15 #327 |
| 54.2 #306 | Opponent effective FG% | 55.0 #331 |
| 35.5 #276 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.1 #257 |
| 16.5 #184 | Turnovers forced | 17.1 #140 |
| 66.0 #318 | Defensive rebound rate | 66.6 #306 |
| 5.9 #246 | Steals per game | 7.5 #76 |
| 2.8 #269 | Blocks per game | 2.7 #280 |
Pepperdine
7-23 in 2025-26 overall · 4-15 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Portland68–77
- Wvs Washington St88–79
- Lvs Seattle U80–87
- L@ Oregon St73–83
- W@ Portland95–87
A week or more of rest.
Sacramento St
7-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-13 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho45–68
- Wvs Idaho St83–65
- L@ Montana St61–82
- L@ Montana73–81
- Lvs Idaho80–86
A week or more of rest.