Qubein Center · at High Point
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | HPU | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 0-0 | ATS | 1-0 |
| 0-0 | O/U | 0-1 |
ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders
Model: projects HPU 83–72 · win probability HPU 82%
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: HPU has more of the edges
WSU 0, HPU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WSU 18.5%, HPU 12.8%. Forced: WSU 14.5%, HPU 21.3%
Context
Schedule so far
WSU has played the 100th-hardest schedule, HPU the 288th. A record against a soft schedule means less
HPU offense vs WSU defense
Offense 64th of 366 against a defense 166th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: WSU 30.2, HPU 40.8. Allowed: WSU 33.0, HPU 35.5
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: WSU plays 68.9 a game (183rd fastest), HPU 71.7 (47th). Faster games mean more points
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WSU 1%, HPU 36%. Transfers in: WSU 8, HPU 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Shooting
Effective FG%: WSU 54.7 and allows 52.6; HPU 54.5 and allows 50.5
Home court
HPU at home. This season: HPU 0-0 at home, WSU 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
WSU hits 36.5% and allows 35.4%; HPU hits 34.2% and allows 32.6%. Threes are 44.8% and 43.6% of their shots
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WSU 29.5%, HPU 31.8%. Defensive: WSU 71.8%, HPU 68.9%
Even
WSU offense vs HPU defense
Offense 130th of 366 against a defense 127th, 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 | — | HPU -10.5 | — |
| Total | — | 154.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | WSU 72 · HPU 82.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HPU -6.1 | — |
| 1H total | 72.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | WSU 33 · HPU 39.1 | — |
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% | 5-5 50% | |
| 9-1 90% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Washington St
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg +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 3 | vs | L 81-83 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 69-85 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 81-71 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 69-81 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 98-74 | -12.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 94-100 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 61-75 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 60-64 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 64-78 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 145.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 61-68 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 78-63 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 84-78 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 28 | @ | W 67-62 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 55-69 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 78-76 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 81-67 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 82-88 | +15.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 65-86 | +16.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 18 | @ | L 80-85 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 92-96 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 95-79 | -11.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 70-58 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 104-74 | -8.5 | W +21.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 64-74 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 92-96 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 160.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 10 | @ | L 53-83 | +21.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 87-70 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 67-83 | +8.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 66-67 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 79-88 | -7.5 | L −16.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 68-74 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
IDHO
L 81-83
−9.5
7
@
DAV
L 69-85
−11.5
10
vs
STMN
W 81-71
+7.5
14
vs
WASH
L 69-81
−3.5
19
vs
SUU
W 98-74
+11.5
25
vs
ASU
L 94-100
−1.5
26
vs
HALL
L 61-75
−5.5
2
@
BRAD
L 60-64
+1.5
7
vs
NEV
L 64-78
−16.5
14
@
USC
L 61-68
+5.5
17
vs
EWU
W 78-63
+8.5
20
vs
MER
W 84-78
−1.5
28
@
PORT
W 67-62
+1.5
30
@
SEA
L 55-69
−7.5
2
vs
LMU
W 78-76
−1.5
4
vs
ORST
W 81-67
+7.5
10
@
SMC
L 82-88
+9.5
15
vs
GONZ
L 65-86
−4.5
18
@
SF
L 80-85
+0.5
21
@
USD
L 92-96
−5.5
24
vs
PEPP
W 95-79
+4.5
28
vs
SEA
W 70-58
+10.5
31
vs
PORT
W 104-74
+21.5
4
@
ORST
L 64-74
−11.5
7
vs
SCU
L 92-96
+4.5
10
@
GONZ
L 53-83
−8.5
18
vs
PAC
W 87-70
+14.5
21
vs
SMC
L 67-83
−7.5
25
@
LMU
L 66-67
+0.5
28
@
PEPP
L 79-88
−16.5
6
vs
PORT
L 68-74
−11.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
IDHO
L 81-83
+9.5
7
@
DAV
L 69-85
+0.5
10
vs
STMN
W 81-71
−5.5
14
vs
WASH
L 69-81
−8.5
19
vs
SUU
W 98-74
+14.5
25
vs
ASU
L 94-100
+36.5
26
vs
HALL
L 61-75
−11.5
2
@
BRAD
L 60-64
−24.5
7
vs
NEV
L 64-78
−3.5
14
@
USC
L 61-68
−27.5
17
vs
EWU
W 78-63
−12.5
20
vs
MER
W 84-78
+10.5
28
@
PORT
W 67-62
−23.5
30
@
SEA
L 55-69
−20.5
2
vs
LMU
W 78-76
+11.5
4
vs
ORST
W 81-67
+7.5
10
@
SMC
L 82-88
+26.5
15
vs
GONZ
L 65-86
−4.5
18
@
SF
L 80-85
+18.5
21
@
USD
L 92-96
+35.5
24
vs
PEPP
W 95-79
+27.5
28
vs
SEA
W 70-58
−14.5
31
vs
PORT
W 104-74
+25.5
4
@
ORST
L 64-74
−9.5
7
vs
SCU
L 92-96
+27.5
10
@
GONZ
L 53-83
−20.5
18
vs
PAC
W 87-70
+12.5
21
vs
SMC
L 67-83
+0.5
25
@
LMU
L 66-67
−16.5
28
@
PEPP
L 79-88
+8.5
6
vs
PORT
L 68-74
−7.5
over 16under 15avg +2 ptslonger = bigger margin
High Point
33 games played
Straight up
28-5
85% wins
Against the spread
16-17
48% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-11
67% overs · avg +1.5 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 | vs | W 97-71 | -3.5 | W +22.5 | 153.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 85-64 | -17.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 74-91 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 168.5 | U 165 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 93-50 | -23.5 | W +19.5 | 152.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 90-80 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 158.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 91-80 | -12.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 93-73 | -16.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 84-86 | -9.5 | L −11.5 | 162.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 89-72 | -28.5 | L −11.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 78-86 | -12.5 | L −20.5 | 144.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 19 | vs | W 84-72 | -13.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 93-47 | -19.5 | W +26.5 | 153.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 87-69 | -10.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 80-67 | -16.5 | L −3.5 | 160.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 7 | vs | W 104-49 | -26.5 | W +28.5 | 162.5 | U 153 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 84-82 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 75-92 | -2.5 | L −19.5 | 162.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 89-69 | -16.5 | W +3.5 | 152.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 93-83 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 165.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 84-81 | -14.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 71-59 | -9.5 | W +2.5 | 156.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 80-55 | -14.5 | W +10.5 | 162.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 86-77 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 162.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 95-70 | -14.5 | W +10.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 112-87 | -25.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 74-48 | -14.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 89-87 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 166.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 79-73 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 151.5 | O 152 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 81-59 | -27.5 | L −5.5 | 155.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 75-71 | -14.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 91-76 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 83-82 | +10.5 | W +11.5 | 161.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 88-94 | +12.5 | W +6.5 | 171.5 | O 182 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
FUR
W 97-71
+22.5
11
vs
JAX
W 85-64
+3.5
14
@
UAB
L 74-91
−18.5
17
vs
CAN
W 93-50
+19.5
20
vs
UIC
W 90-80
−0.5
22
vs
UIW
W 91-80
−1.5
29
vs
WCU
W 93-73
+3.5
3
vs
SIU
L 84-86
−11.5
5
vs
NJIT
W 89-72
−11.5
14
vs
APP
L 78-86
−20.5
19
vs
LAS
W 84-72
−1.5
22
vs
BRY
W 93-47
+26.5
31
@
UNCA
W 87-69
+7.5
3
vs
LONG
W 80-67
−3.5
7
vs
GWEB
W 104-49
+28.5
10
@
CHSO
W 84-82
−6.5
14
@
WIN
L 75-92
−19.5
17
vs
UPST
W 89-69
+3.5
23
@
RAD
W 93-83
+2.5
29
vs
PRES
W 84-81
−11.5
31
@
LONG
W 71-59
+2.5
4
vs
CHSO
W 80-55
+10.5
7
vs
RAD
W 86-77
−5.5
12
@
UPST
W 95-70
+10.5
14
@
GWEB
W 112-87
−0.5
19
vs
UNCA
W 74-48
+11.5
21
vs
WIN
W 89-87
−7.5
26
@
PRES
W 79-73
−6.5
6
vs
GWEB
W 81-59
−5.5
7
vs
UNCA
W 75-71
−10.5
8
vs
WIN
W 91-76
+8.5
19
vs
WIS
W 83-82
+11.5
21
vs
ARK
L 88-94
+6.5
covered 16didn’t cover 17avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
FUR
W 97-71
+14.5
11
vs
JAX
W 85-64
−7.5
14
@
UAB
L 74-91
−3.5
17
vs
CAN
W 93-50
−9.5
20
vs
UIC
W 90-80
+11.5
22
vs
UIW
W 91-80
+10.5
29
vs
WCU
W 93-73
+6.5
3
vs
SIU
L 84-86
+7.5
5
vs
NJIT
W 89-72
+5.5
14
vs
APP
L 78-86
+19.5
19
vs
LAS
W 84-72
+6.5
22
vs
BRY
W 93-47
−13.5
31
@
UNCA
W 87-69
+4.5
3
vs
LONG
W 80-67
−13.5
7
vs
GWEB
W 104-49
−9.5
10
@
CHSO
W 84-82
+2.5
14
@
WIN
L 75-92
+4.5
17
vs
UPST
W 89-69
+5.5
23
@
RAD
W 93-83
+10.5
29
vs
PRES
W 84-81
+15.5
31
@
LONG
W 71-59
−26.5
4
vs
CHSO
W 80-55
−27.5
7
vs
RAD
W 86-77
+0.5
12
@
UPST
W 95-70
+10.5
14
@
GWEB
W 112-87
+37.5
19
vs
UNCA
W 74-48
−30.5
21
vs
WIN
W 89-87
+9.5
26
@
PRES
W 79-73
+0.5
6
vs
GWEB
W 81-59
−15.5
7
vs
UNCA
W 75-71
−1.5
8
vs
WIN
W 91-76
+9.5
19
vs
WIS
W 83-82
+3.5
21
vs
ARK
L 88-94
+10.5
over 22under 11avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
High Point has the better starters
Position by position: Washington St 0, High Point 3, even 2
Washington StBetterHigh Point
G S. Akins TR5.3 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 57
→HPUSmall
G J. Rivera-Torres TR15.9 pts · 8.1 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 91
F F. Roxburgh TR10.9 pts · 5.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 21
→HPUBig
G C. Williams TR12.4 pts · 4.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 60
F R. Harrison TR14.2 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 67
=Even
G C. Brown TR10.5 pts · 3.7 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 64
F L. Dembele TR5.2 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F I. Garrett TR13.8 pts · 7.2 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 79
F T. Kropp TR3.1 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 48
→HPUBig
F F. Sherman TR10.8 pts · 8.6 reb · 1 ast
Score 85
Washington StBetterHigh Point
WSU offense130th of 366 · -3.5
=Even
HPU defense127th of 366 · -2.3
WSU defense166th of 366 · -3.7
→HPUSmall
HPU offense64th of 366 · +2.2
Backcourt-0.2 · 1 player
→HPUBig
Backcourt+3.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.6 · 4 players
→HPUBig
Frontcourt+3.9 · 2 players
Bench-0.5 · 4 players
→HPUBig
Bench+4.4 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestWSU betterHPU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
S. Akins15 min · TRJ. Phillips11 min · TRJ. Harrell9 min · TRR. Jones7 min · TRD. Blakely1 minC. JonesNew
Forwards
F. Roxburgh31 min · TRR. Harrison31 min · TRL. Dembele20 min · TRT. Kropp12 min · TRM. SankheNewB. KymanNew
Guards
J. Rivera-Torres36 min · TRC. Williams32 min · TRC. Brown27 min · TRC. Martinez22 minL. Campbell15 min · TRS. McDermott2 min · TR
Forwards
I. Garrett29 min · TRF. Sherman26 min · TRF. Brankovic24 min · TRC. Fletcher22 minB. Hausen21 minC. Miller7 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.7 #152 | Points per game | 86.4 #9 |
| 1.10 #136 | Points per possession | 1.20 #12 |
| 68.9 #183 | Pace (possessions) | 71.7 #47 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.7 #48 | Effective FG% | 54.5 #51 |
| 36.5 #40 | 3-point % | 34.2 #161 |
| 44.8 #73 | 3-point attempt rate | 43.6 #98 |
| 30.2 #305 | Free throw rate | 40.8 #50 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.5 #295 | Turnover rate | 12.8 #5 |
| 29.5 #221 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.8 #131 |
| 13.8 #163 | Assists per game | 15.4 #74 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.3 #245 | Points allowed | 72.8 #128 |
| 1.12 #266 | Points allowed per possession | 1.01 #38 |
| 52.6 #248 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.5 #126 |
| 35.4 #273 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.6 #97 |
| 14.5 #322 | Turnovers forced | 21.3 #8 |
| 71.8 #71 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.9 #207 |
| 5.5 #299 | Steals per game | 10.1 #2 |
| 2.9 #242 | Blocks per game | 3.6 #119 |
Washington St
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Pac-12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Portland68–74
- L@ Pepperdine79–88
- L@ LMU66–67
- Lvs Saint Mary's67–83
- Wvs Pacific87–70
A week or more of rest.
High Point
28-5 in 2025-26 overall · 18-1 in conference · Big South Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arkansas88–94
- Wvs Wisconsin83–82
- Wvs Winthrop91–76
- Wvs UNC Asheville75–71
- Wvs Gardner-Webb81–59
6 days since their last game.