Lee & Penny Anderson Arena · at St Thomas
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | STMN | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UCSD 74–72 · win probability UCSD 58%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.1
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
UCSD 3, STMN 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
UCSD has played the 205th-hardest schedule, STMN the 341st. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
UCSD hits 32.8% and allows 31.6%; STMN hits 36.0% and allows 31.7%. Threes are 42.3% and 46.3% of their shots
STMN offense vs UCSD defense
Offense 192nd of 366 against a defense 110th, on the model’s ratings
UCSD offense vs STMN defense
Offense 145th of 366 against a defense 223rd, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UCSD 16.5%, STMN 14.4%. Forced: UCSD 16.8%, STMN 17.0%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UCSD 68%, STMN 35%. Transfers in: UCSD 5, STMN 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
STMN at home. This season: STMN 0-0 at home, UCSD 0-0 away
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: UCSD 31.2, STMN 33.8. Allowed: UCSD 29.3, STMN 30.7
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: UCSD 52.6 and allows 48.4; STMN 58.9 and allows 50.7
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UCSD 26.1%, STMN 22.6%. Defensive: UCSD 73.0%, STMN 73.4%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UCSD plays 69.7 a game (130th fastest), STMN 69.7 (137th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | UCSD -2.3 | — |
| Total | — | 146.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | UCSD 74.2 · STMN 71.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCSD -1.5 | — |
| 1H total | 68.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | UCSD 34.9 · STMN 33.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 1-9 10% | |
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
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
UC San Diego
32 games played
Straight up
21-11
66% wins
Against the spread
16-16
50% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-20
38% overs · avg −6.2 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 8 | vs | W 78-60 | -7.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 12 | @ | W 78-73 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 75-67 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 148.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 91-76 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 87-77 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 87-73 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 138.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 70-76 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 80-74 | -8.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 93-67 | -5.5 | W +20.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 67-57 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 19 | vs | L 80-82 | -12.5 | L −14.5 | 156.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 65-67 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 174.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 83-73 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 71-88 | -13.5 | L −30.5 | 166.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 69-66 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 79-84 | -7.5 | L −12.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 83-62 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 80-74 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 152.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 59-61 | -2.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 48-62 | -4.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 64-81 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 160.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 77-74 | -10.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 67-72 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 68-51 | -5.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 72-66 | -11.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 71-69 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 84-72 | -14.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 80-64 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 164.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 71-75 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 156.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 64-63 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 127 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 72-69 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 70-80 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | U 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
vs
HCU
W 78-60
+10.5
12
@
FRES
W 78-73
+6.5
15
vs
IDHO
W 75-67
+2.5
24
vs
TEM
W 91-76
+16.5
25
vs
BRAD
W 87-77
+11.5
26
vs
TOW
W 87-73
+12.5
2
@
NEV
L 70-76
−0.5
6
@
LBSU
W 80-74
−2.5
13
vs
TULN
W 93-67
+20.5
16
@
LMU
W 67-57
+8.5
19
vs
USD
L 80-82
−14.5
1
@
CP
L 65-67
−10.5
3
vs
HAW
W 83-73
+7.5
8
vs
CSUF
L 71-88
−30.5
10
@
UCR
W 69-66
−7.5
15
vs
CSUN
L 79-84
−12.5
17
@
CSUB
W 83-62
+12.5
22
@
UCD
W 80-74
+4.5
24
vs
UCI
L 59-61
−4.5
29
vs
UCSB
L 48-62
−18.5
31
@
CSUN
L 64-81
−18.5
5
vs
LBSU
W 77-74
−7.5
7
@
HAW
L 67-72
+1.5
12
vs
UCD
W 68-51
+11.5
14
vs
UCR
W 72-66
−5.5
21
@
UCI
W 71-69
+5.5
26
vs
CSUB
W 84-72
−2.5
28
vs
CP
W 80-64
+8.5
5
@
CSUF
L 71-75
−6.5
7
@
UCSB
W 64-63
+3.5
11
vs
CP
W 72-69
−1.5
12
vs
CSUN
L 70-80
−11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 16avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
vs
HCU
W 78-60
−3.5
12
@
FRES
W 78-73
+2.5
15
vs
IDHO
W 75-67
−6.5
24
vs
TEM
W 91-76
+18.5
25
vs
BRAD
W 87-77
+18.5
26
vs
TOW
W 87-73
+21.5
2
@
NEV
L 70-76
−3.5
6
@
LBSU
W 80-74
+8.5
13
vs
TULN
W 93-67
+10.5
16
@
LMU
W 67-57
−26.5
19
vs
USD
L 80-82
+5.5
1
@
CP
L 65-67
−42.5
3
vs
HAW
W 83-73
+7.5
8
vs
CSUF
L 71-88
−7.5
10
@
UCR
W 69-66
−14.5
15
vs
CSUN
L 79-84
+3.5
17
@
CSUB
W 83-62
−2.5
22
@
UCD
W 80-74
+1.5
24
vs
UCI
L 59-61
−26.5
29
vs
UCSB
L 48-62
−35.5
31
@
CSUN
L 64-81
−15.5
5
vs
LBSU
W 77-74
+6.5
7
@
HAW
L 67-72
−10.5
12
vs
UCD
W 68-51
−31.5
14
vs
UCR
W 72-66
−9.5
21
@
UCI
W 71-69
−3.5
26
vs
CSUB
W 84-72
+7.5
28
vs
CP
W 80-64
−20.5
5
@
CSUF
L 71-75
−10.5
7
@
UCSB
W 64-63
−14.5
11
vs
CP
W 72-69
−21.5
12
vs
CSUN
L 70-80
−3.5
over 12under 20avg −6.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
St Thomas
31 games played
Straight up
21-10
68% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg +0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg −0.4 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 3 | @ | L 58-84 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 83-76 | -18.5 | L −11.5 | 151.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 71-81 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 80-61 | -13.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 84-72 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 73-72 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-88 | -11.5 | L −19.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 76-66 | -5.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 74-82 | +2.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 88-65 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 80-59 | -3.5 | W +17.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 92-78 | -14.5 | L −0.5 | 152.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 92-88 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 163.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 99-86 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 82-71 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 91-80 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 65-68 | +2.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 74-69 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 155.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 90-78 | -10.5 | W +1.5 | 161.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 80-81 | -11.5 | L −12.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 99-64 | -17.5 | W +17.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 77-62 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 157.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 92-75 | -15.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 94-98 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | O 192 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 104-64 | -12.5 | W +27.5 | 154.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 80-82 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 168.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 84-62 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 155.5 | U 146 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 68-53 | -11.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 80-67 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 66-67 | -11.5 | L −12.5 | 153.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 52-67 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | U 119 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SMC
L 58-84
−12.5
8
vs
ARMY
W 83-76
−11.5
10
@
WSU
L 71-81
−7.5
13
vs
GB
W 80-61
+5.5
15
@
SEMO
W 84-72
+9.5
21
vs
UNCO
W 73-72
−3.5
22
vs
CSUF
L 80-88
−19.5
23
@
PORT
W 76-66
+4.5
3
@
MTST
L 74-82
−5.5
7
vs
WEB
W 88-65
+15.5
13
@
UNCA
W 80-59
+17.5
20
vs
UCR
W 92-78
−0.5
4
vs
DEN
W 92-88
−7.5
7
vs
SDAK
W 99-86
−1.5
10
@
ORU
W 82-71
+2.5
15
@
UND
W 91-80
+0.5
17
@
NDSU
L 65-68
−0.5
22
vs
SDST
W 74-69
−1.5
24
@
SDAK
W 90-78
+1.5
29
vs
UND
L 80-81
−12.5
1
vs
KC
W 99-64
+17.5
4
@
SDST
W 77-62
+16.5
7
vs
ORU
W 92-75
+1.5
12
@
OMA
L 94-98
−8.5
14
@
KC
W 104-64
+27.5
21
@
DEN
L 80-82
−5.5
26
vs
NDSU
W 84-62
+18.5
28
vs
OMA
W 68-53
+3.5
5
vs
SDST
W 80-67
+8.5
7
vs
UND
L 66-67
−12.5
17
@
SEA
L 52-67
−12.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg +0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SMC
L 58-84
+0.5
8
vs
ARMY
W 83-76
+7.5
10
@
WSU
L 71-81
−5.5
13
vs
GB
W 80-61
−9.5
15
@
SEMO
W 84-72
+3.5
21
vs
UNCO
W 73-72
−12.5
22
vs
CSUF
L 80-88
+5.5
23
@
PORT
W 76-66
−13.5
3
@
MTST
L 74-82
+8.5
7
vs
WEB
W 88-65
−1.5
13
@
UNCA
W 80-59
−9.5
20
vs
UCR
W 92-78
+17.5
4
vs
DEN
W 92-88
+16.5
7
vs
SDAK
W 99-86
+22.5
10
@
ORU
W 82-71
+0.5
15
@
UND
W 91-80
+19.5
17
@
NDSU
L 65-68
−18.5
22
vs
SDST
W 74-69
−12.5
24
@
SDAK
W 90-78
+6.5
29
vs
UND
L 80-81
+8.5
1
vs
KC
W 99-64
+11.5
4
@
SDST
W 77-62
−18.5
7
vs
ORU
W 92-75
+15.5
12
@
OMA
L 94-98
+35.5
14
@
KC
W 104-64
+13.5
21
@
DEN
L 80-82
−6.5
26
vs
NDSU
W 84-62
−9.5
28
vs
OMA
W 68-53
−37.5
5
vs
SDST
W 80-67
−3.5
7
vs
UND
L 66-67
−20.5
17
@
SEA
L 52-67
−26.5
over 16under 15avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UC San Diego has the better starters
Position by position: UC San Diego 3, St Thomas 0, even 2
UC San DiegoBetterSt Thomas
G R. Barno TR11.7 pts · 2.7 reb · 5 ast
Score 52
=Even
G A. Herro5.7 pts · 4 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 57
G T. Beattie10.7 pts · 5.3 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 71
←UCSDBig
G H. Tibbits2.7 pts · 1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 24
G C. Wagner TR12 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 50
←UCSDSmall
F C. Bjerke9.2 pts · 3.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 25
G T. Eaglestaff TR9.8 pts · 4.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 77
←UCSDBig
F C. Wilkins TR6.9 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 9
F L. Beath11.6 pts · 5.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 51
=No call
F J. Lorenz TR2.2 pts · 1.8 reb · 1 ast
Not ranked
UC San DiegoBetterSt Thomas
UCSD offense145th of 366 · -4.4
←UCSDSmall
STMN defense223rd of 366 · -5.8
UCSD defense110th of 366 · -1.3
←UCSDSmall
STMN offense192nd of 366 · -5.9
Backcourt+0.3 · 4 players
←UCSDSmall
Backcourt-1.0 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.3 · 1 player
←UCSDBig
Frontcourt-4.0 · 3 players
Bench-3.3 · 5 players
→STMNSmall
Bench-1.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUCSD betterSTMN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
R. Barno32 min · TRT. Beattie32 minC. Wagner30 min · TRT. Eaglestaff29 min · TRK. Dotson27 min · TRA. Chaikin25 min
Forwards
L. Beath30 minO. Suutela18 min · TRJ. Vance13 minC. Pendleton8 minJ. HolmesNew
Centers
D. Vukicevic7 min
Guards
A. Herro24 minH. Tibbits10 minK. Blue4 min · TRT. Franks3 minT. Humphries2 minA. Tauer2 min
Forwards
C. Bjerke25 minC. Wilkins22 min · TRJ. Lorenz10 min · TRK. Counts4 minL. MomcilovicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.5 #179 | Points per game | 80.9 #48 |
| 1.07 #211 | Points per possession | 1.16 #45 |
| 69.7 #130 | Pace (possessions) | 69.7 #137 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.6 #124 | Effective FG% | 58.9 #5 |
| 32.8 #241 | 3-point % | 36.0 #57 |
| 42.3 #131 | 3-point attempt rate | 46.3 #41 |
| 31.2 #277 | Free throw rate | 33.8 #220 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.5 #165 | Turnover rate | 14.4 #37 |
| 26.1 #320 | Offensive rebound rate | 22.6 #353 |
| 14.9 #94 | Assists per game | 16.4 #37 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.5 #63 | Points allowed | 73.1 #135 |
| 1.01 #35 | Points allowed per possession | 1.05 #82 |
| 48.4 #45 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.7 #139 |
| 31.6 #45 | Opponent 3-point % | 31.7 #52 |
| 16.8 #165 | Turnovers forced | 17.0 #152 |
| 73.0 #38 | Defensive rebound rate | 73.4 #25 |
| 7.4 #94 | Steals per game | 7.5 #87 |
| 2.6 #299 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #296 |
UC San Diego
21-11 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs CSU Northridge70–80
- Wvs Cal Poly72–69
- W@ Santa Barbara64–63
- L@ Fullerton71–75
- Wvs Cal Poly80–64
A week or more of rest.
St Thomas
21-10 in 2025-26 overall · 13-5 in conference · Summit League
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Seattle U52–67
- Lvs North Dakota66–67
- Wvs S Dakota St80–67
- Wvs Omaha68–53
- Wvs N Dakota St84–62
A week or more of rest.