Matthew Knight Arena · at Oregon
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ORE | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ORE 86–66 · win probability ORE 96%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.4
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: ORE has more of the edges
EWU 1, ORE 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
ORE offense vs EWU defense
Offense 66th of 366 against a defense 322nd, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
EWU has played the 213th-hardest schedule, ORE the 25th. A record against a soft schedule means less
EWU offense vs ORE defense
Offense 189th of 366 against a defense 39th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: EWU plays 69.5 a game (149th fastest), ORE 66.8 (287th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: EWU 36.1, ORE 35.0. Allowed: EWU 37.3, ORE 32.0
Home court
ORE at home. This season: ORE 0-0 at home, EWU 0-0 away
Three-pointers
EWU hits 35.9% and allows 35.2%; ORE hits 32.0% and allows 33.4%. Threes are 34.7% and 42.8% of their shots
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: EWU 31.3%, ORE 32.3%. Defensive: EWU 69.2%, ORE 67.7%
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: EWU 17.6%, ORE 17.6%. Forced: EWU 16.3%, ORE 15.8%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: EWU 30%, ORE 23%. Transfers in: EWU 1, ORE 8. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: EWU 53.7 and allows 54.9; ORE 49.5 and allows 50.9
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 | — | ORE -20.0 | — |
| Total | — | 151.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | EWU 65.7 · ORE 85.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ORE -11.8 | — |
| 1H total | 70.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | EWU 29.5 · ORE 41.3 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8-2 80% | 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% | |
| 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
E Washington
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
19-13
59% covers · avg +2.7 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-13
59% overs · avg +3.3 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 3 | @ | L 74-80 | +29.5 | W +23.5 | 149.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 5 | @ | L 62-70 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 97-102 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 67-94 | +8.5 | L −18.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 23 | @ | L 65-92 | -4.5 | L −31.5 | 154.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 71-79 | +12.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 89-93 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 90-66 | -9.5 | W +14.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 12 | vs | L 83-88 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 63-78 | +6.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 77-101 | +10.5 | L −13.5 | 160.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 81-109 | +34.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 190 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 81-84 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 64-68 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 66-65 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 161.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 15 | @ | L 80-91 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 84-66 | +6.5 | W +24.5 | 152.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 61-65 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 75-67 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 163.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 86-92 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-74 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 82-74 | +5.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 72-71 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 88-75 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 84-66 | -3.5 | W +14.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 102-94 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 160.5 | O 196 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 67-55 | +6.5 | W +18.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 82-72 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-57 | -9.5 | W +21.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 81-85 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 84-79 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 68-81 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 149 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
UCLA
L 74-80
+23.5
5
@
LMU
L 62-70
+1.5
8
@
COLO
L 97-102
+11.5
12
@
SEA
L 67-94
−18.5
23
@
CARK
L 65-92
−31.5
25
@
UNT
L 71-79
+4.5
3
@
DEN
L 89-93
−2.5
6
vs
KC
W 90-66
+14.5
12
vs
CBU
L 83-88
−1.5
17
vs
WSU
L 63-78
−8.5
20
@
UTAH
L 77-101
−13.5
22
@
BYU
L 81-109
+6.5
3
@
IDHO
L 81-84
+3.5
8
vs
MTST
L 64-68
−1.5
10
vs
MONT
W 66-65
−0.5
15
@
WEB
L 80-91
−7.5
17
@
IDST
W 84-66
+24.5
22
vs
PRST
L 61-65
−1.5
24
vs
SAC
W 75-67
+2.5
29
@
NAU
L 86-92
−8.5
31
@
UNCO
L 71-74
+3.5
5
@
MONT
W 82-74
+13.5
7
@
MTST
W 72-71
+6.5
12
vs
IDST
W 88-75
+10.5
14
vs
WEB
W 84-66
+14.5
19
@
SAC
W 102-94
+5.5
21
@
PRST
W 67-55
+18.5
26
vs
UNCO
W 82-72
+11.5
28
vs
NAU
W 88-57
+21.5
2
vs
IDHO
L 81-85
−7.5
9
vs
WEB
W 84-79
+1.5
10
vs
IDHO
L 68-81
−11.5
covered 19didn’t cover 13avg +2.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
UCLA
L 74-80
+4.5
5
@
LMU
L 62-70
−21.5
8
@
COLO
L 97-102
+46.5
12
@
SEA
L 67-94
+12.5
23
@
CARK
L 65-92
+2.5
25
@
UNT
L 71-79
+8.5
3
@
DEN
L 89-93
+26.5
6
vs
KC
W 90-66
+4.5
12
vs
CBU
L 83-88
+17.5
17
vs
WSU
L 63-78
−12.5
20
@
UTAH
L 77-101
+17.5
22
@
BYU
L 81-109
+21.5
3
@
IDHO
L 81-84
+6.5
8
vs
MTST
L 64-68
−24.5
10
vs
MONT
W 66-65
−30.5
15
@
WEB
L 80-91
+12.5
17
@
IDST
W 84-66
−2.5
22
vs
PRST
L 61-65
−24.5
24
vs
SAC
W 75-67
−21.5
29
@
NAU
L 86-92
+32.5
31
@
UNCO
L 71-74
−11.5
5
@
MONT
W 82-74
+4.5
7
@
MTST
W 72-71
−5.5
12
vs
IDST
W 88-75
+15.5
14
vs
WEB
W 84-66
−4.5
19
@
SAC
W 102-94
+35.5
21
@
PRST
W 67-55
−24.5
26
vs
UNCO
W 82-72
−3.5
28
vs
NAU
W 88-57
−1.5
2
vs
IDHO
L 81-85
+14.5
9
vs
WEB
W 84-79
+8.5
10
vs
IDHO
L 68-81
+0.5
over 19under 13avg +3.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Oregon
32 games played
Straight up
12-20
38% wins
Against the spread
12-20
38% covers · avg −2.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −1.3 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 4 | vs | W 60-59 | -11.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 67-63 | -15.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 83-69 | -16.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 87-75 | -13.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 73-84 | +4.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 80-97 | -2.5 | L −19.5 | 141.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 66-76 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 77-82 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 63-74 | +8.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 104-62 | -13.5 | W +28.5 | 146.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 94-69 | -19.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 82-91 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 155.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 80-57 | -21.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 2 | @ | W 64-54 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | U 118 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 85-88 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 139.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 62-72 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 55-90 | +10.5 | L −24.5 | 146.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 71-81 | +18.5 | W +8.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 52-68 | +10.5 | L −5.5 | 139.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 25 | @ | L 57-72 | +7.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 57-73 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 1 | vs | L 66-84 | +9.5 | L −8.5 | 133.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 64-68 | +19.5 | W +15.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 74-92 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 83-72 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 17 | vs | L 44-61 | -3.5 | L −20.5 | 136.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 71-70 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 85-71 | +5.5 | W +19.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 62-63 | +3.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 54-80 | +17.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | U 134 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 85-79 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 60-70 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | U 130 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
HAW
W 60-59
−10.5
7
vs
RICE
W 67-63
−11.5
12
vs
SDST
W 83-69
−2.5
17
vs
ORST
W 87-75
−1.5
24
vs
AUB
L 73-84
−6.5
25
vs
SDSU
L 80-97
−19.5
27
vs
CREI
L 66-76
−7.5
2
vs
USC
L 77-82
−2.5
6
@
UCLA
L 63-74
−2.5
13
vs
UCD
W 104-62
+28.5
17
vs
PORT
W 94-69
+5.5
21
vs
GONZ
L 82-91
+3.5
28
vs
OMA
W 80-57
+1.5
2
@
MD
W 64-54
+8.5
5
@
RUTG
L 85-88
−7.5
8
vs
OSU
L 62-72
−11.5
13
@
NEB
L 55-90
−24.5
17
vs
MICH
L 71-81
+8.5
20
vs
MSU
L 52-68
−5.5
25
@
WASH
L 57-72
−7.5
28
vs
UCLA
L 57-73
−11.5
1
vs
IOWA
L 66-84
−8.5
7
@
PUR
L 64-68
+15.5
9
@
IU
L 74-92
−7.5
14
vs
PSU
W 83-72
+4.5
17
vs
MINN
L 44-61
−20.5
21
@
USC
W 71-70
+6.5
25
vs
WIS
W 85-71
+19.5
28
@
NU
L 62-63
+2.5
3
@
ILL
L 54-80
−8.5
7
vs
WASH
W 85-79
+7.5
10
vs
MD
L 60-70
−14.5
covered 12didn’t cover 20avg −2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
HAW
W 60-59
−25.5
7
vs
RICE
W 67-63
−15.5
12
vs
SDST
W 83-69
+6.5
17
vs
ORST
W 87-75
+20.5
24
vs
AUB
L 73-84
+1.5
25
vs
SDSU
L 80-97
+35.5
27
vs
CREI
L 66-76
−8.5
2
vs
USC
L 77-82
+4.5
6
@
UCLA
L 63-74
−9.5
13
vs
UCD
W 104-62
+19.5
17
vs
PORT
W 94-69
+8.5
21
vs
GONZ
L 82-91
+17.5
28
vs
OMA
W 80-57
−14.5
2
@
MD
W 64-54
−28.5
5
@
RUTG
L 85-88
+33.5
8
vs
OSU
L 62-72
−18.5
13
@
NEB
L 55-90
−1.5
17
vs
MICH
L 71-81
−5.5
20
vs
MSU
L 52-68
−19.5
25
@
WASH
L 57-72
−14.5
28
vs
UCLA
L 57-73
−6.5
1
vs
IOWA
L 66-84
+16.5
7
@
PUR
L 64-68
−12.5
9
@
IU
L 74-92
+22.5
14
vs
PSU
W 83-72
+9.5
17
vs
MINN
L 44-61
−31.5
21
@
USC
W 71-70
−8.5
25
vs
WIS
W 85-71
+3.5
28
@
NU
L 62-63
−16.5
3
@
ILL
L 54-80
−13.5
7
vs
WASH
W 85-79
+18.5
10
vs
MD
L 60-70
−9.5
over 14under 18avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Oregon has the better starters
Position by position: E Washington 0, Oregon 2, even 3
E WashingtonBetterOregon
G J. Griffith TR11.3 pts · 1.6 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 75
=Even
G F. Payne TR15.8 pts · 4.2 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 88
G C. Scherer2.1 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 14
→OREBig
G T. Riley TR12.3 pts · 4.9 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 78
F A. Hamilton13.6 pts · 5.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 83
=Even
F A. Meadow TR12 pts · 3.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 77
F E. Marquardt5.5 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 31
→ORESmall
F S. Stewart6.5 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 64
F S. Ngoyi0.5 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F T. Bol Bowen TR6.3 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 67
E WashingtonBetterOregon
EWU offense189th of 366 · -5.8
→OREBig
ORE defense39th of 366 · +3.0
EWU defense322nd of 366 · -8.3
→OREBig
ORE offense66th of 366 · +1.8
Backcourt-0.2 · 2 players
→OREBig
Backcourt+4.1 · 2 players
Frontcourt+0.6 · 3 players
→ORESmall
Frontcourt+2.6 · 3 players
Bench-0.3 · 1 player
→ORESmall
Bench+1.8 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestEWU betterORE betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Griffith23 min · TRC. Scherer8 minM. Monson3 minA. CookNewT. JacksonNewI. HomeliusNew
Forwards
A. Hamilton28 minE. Marquardt16 minS. Ngoyi4 minJ. MillerNewA. HamiltonNewA. GballouNew
Centers
Z. TrezvantNew
Guards
F. Payne35 min · TRT. Riley32 min · TRJ. Easter18 min · TRW. Lin18 minJ. Johnson12 min · TRR. GonzalesNew
Forwards
A. Meadow30 min · TRS. Stewart23 minT. Bol Bowen19 min · TRP. Compton14 min · TRD. Aristode13 min · TRL. Johnson6 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.7 #102 | Points per game | 70.8 #267 |
| 1.11 #120 | Points per possession | 1.06 #235 |
| 69.5 #149 | Pace (possessions) | 66.8 #287 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.7 #75 | Effective FG% | 49.5 #271 |
| 35.9 #62 | 3-point % | 32.0 #277 |
| 34.7 #282 | 3-point attempt rate | 42.8 #121 |
| 36.1 #148 | Free throw rate | 35.0 #181 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.6 #241 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #244 |
| 31.3 #153 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.3 #114 |
| 13.5 #181 | Assists per game | 14.3 #126 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.2 #304 | Points allowed | 73.9 #155 |
| 1.15 #320 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #249 |
| 54.9 #326 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #148 |
| 35.2 #261 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.4 #144 |
| 16.3 #200 | Turnovers forced | 15.8 #231 |
| 69.2 #194 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.7 #271 |
| 5.9 #249 | Steals per game | 6.1 #231 |
| 3.4 #161 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #79 |
E Washington
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho68–81
- Wvs Weber St84–79
- Lvs Idaho81–85
- Wvs N Arizona88–57
- Wvs N Colorado82–72
A week or more of rest.
Oregon
12-20 in 2025-26 overall · 5-16 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Maryland60–70
- Wvs Washington85–79
- L@ Illinois54–80
- L@ Northwestern62–63
- Wvs Wisconsin85–71
A week or more of rest.