The Sobrato Center · at San Francisco
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SF | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SF 78–71 · win probability SF 71%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.7
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: SF has more of the edges
BCU 0, SF 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
BCU has played the 244th-hardest schedule, SF the 98th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: BCU plays 71.8 a game (43rd fastest), SF 67.3 (271st). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: BCU 40.9, SF 40.1. Allowed: BCU 38.6, SF 29.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: BCU 30.1%, SF 31.4%. Defensive: BCU 68.3%, SF 71.0%
Home court
SF at home. This season: SF 0-0 at home, BCU 0-0 away
Turnovers
Turnover rate: BCU 19.2%, SF 15.9%. Forced: BCU 15.8%, SF 14.1%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: BCU 25%, SF 3%. Transfers in: BCU 9, SF 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
SF offense vs BCU defense
Offense 178th of 366 against a defense 218th, on the model’s ratings
Even
BCU offense vs SF defense
Offense 188th of 366 against a defense 165th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: BCU 51.0 and allows 49.7; SF 51.3 and allows 50.8
Even
Three-pointers
BCU hits 33.0% and allows 32.9%; SF hits 34.6% and allows 34.1%. Threes are 29.7% and 46.1% of their shots
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 | — | SF -6.4 | — |
| Total | — | 148.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | BCU 71.2 · SF 77.5 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SF -3.7 | — |
| 1H total | 69.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | BCU 32.9 · SF 36.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | |
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Bethune
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% overs · avg +2.1 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 90-95 | +24.5 | W +19.5 | 153.5 | O 185 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 61-101 | +16.5 | L −23.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 82-91 | +21.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 76-73 | +6.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 64-69 | -3.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 54-61 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 115 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 56-100 | +29.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 80-59 | -13.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 60-82 | +20.5 | L −1.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 53-112 | +26.5 | L −32.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 71-107 | +39.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 77-103 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 164.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 87-83 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 74-65 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 12 | vs | L 73-77 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 79-63 | -16.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 87-82 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 85-48 | -8.5 | W +28.5 | 156.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 26 | vs | W 82-73 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 69-54 | -1.5 | W +13.5 | 152.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 80-62 | -2.5 | W +15.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 82-76 | -10.5 | L −4.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 79-69 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 55-57 | -8.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | U 112 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 86-91 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 150.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 82-71 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 85-76 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 76-71 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 82-79 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 77-81 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 67-71 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
AUB
L 90-95
+19.5
6
@
MIA
L 61-101
−23.5
15
@
DAY
L 82-91
+12.5
19
@
OHIO
W 76-73
+9.5
24
vs
JAX
L 64-69
−8.5
25
vs
STBK
L 54-61
−11.5
29
@
IU
L 56-100
−14.5
5
vs
SCST
W 80-59
+7.5
14
@
MIZ
L 60-82
−1.5
17
@
SLU
L 53-112
−32.5
22
@
ARIZ
L 71-107
+3.5
29
@
OKST
L 77-103
−5.5
3
vs
FAMU
W 87-83
−3.5
10
vs
GRAM
W 74-65
+5.5
12
vs
SOU
L 73-77
−7.5
17
@
MVSU
W 79-63
−0.5
19
@
UAPB
W 87-82
+2.5
24
vs
JKST
W 85-48
+28.5
26
vs
ALCN
W 82-73
−4.5
31
@
ALST
W 69-54
+13.5
2
@
AAMU
W 80-62
+15.5
7
vs
PV
W 82-76
−4.5
9
vs
TXSO
W 79-69
+2.5
14
@
ALCN
L 55-57
−10.5
16
@
JKST
L 86-91
−9.5
19
vs
ALST
W 82-71
+5.5
21
vs
AAMU
W 85-76
+2.5
26
@
GRAM
W 76-71
+6.5
28
@
SOU
W 82-79
+5.5
5
@
FAMU
L 77-81
−6.5
11
vs
PV
L 67-71
−9.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
AUB
L 90-95
+31.5
6
@
MIA
L 61-101
+7.5
15
@
DAY
L 82-91
+24.5
19
@
OHIO
W 76-73
−8.5
24
vs
JAX
L 64-69
−10.5
25
vs
STBK
L 54-61
−30.5
29
@
IU
L 56-100
+7.5
5
vs
SCST
W 80-59
−9.5
14
@
MIZ
L 60-82
−4.5
17
@
SLU
L 53-112
+7.5
22
@
ARIZ
L 71-107
+23.5
29
@
OKST
L 77-103
+15.5
3
vs
FAMU
W 87-83
+24.5
10
vs
GRAM
W 74-65
−5.5
12
vs
SOU
L 73-77
−1.5
17
@
MVSU
W 79-63
−2.5
19
@
UAPB
W 87-82
+13.5
24
vs
JKST
W 85-48
−23.5
26
vs
ALCN
W 82-73
+7.5
31
@
ALST
W 69-54
−29.5
2
@
AAMU
W 80-62
+0.5
7
vs
PV
W 82-76
+0.5
9
vs
TXSO
W 79-69
−4.5
14
@
ALCN
L 55-57
−32.5
16
@
JKST
L 86-91
+26.5
19
vs
ALST
W 82-71
+5.5
21
vs
AAMU
W 85-76
+18.5
26
@
GRAM
W 76-71
+2.5
28
@
SOU
W 82-79
+7.5
5
@
FAMU
L 77-81
+12.5
11
vs
PV
L 67-71
−9.5
over 18under 13avg +2.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
San Francisco
32 games played
Straight up
16-16
50% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg −2.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-15
53% overs · avg +1 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 70-76 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 80-70 | -13.5 | L −3.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 75-64 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | U 139 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 84-64 | -16.5 | W +3.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 22 | vs | W 77-65 | +1.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 27 | vs | L 69-79 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 28 | vs | L 65-81 | -5.5 | L −21.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 63-65 | -16.5 | L −18.5 | 145.5 | U 128 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 65-62 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | U 127 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 75-85 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 85-71 | -11.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 94-64 | -25.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 28 | @ | W 67-59 | +2.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 62-70 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 74-64 | -12.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 73-68 | -11.5 | L −6.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 82-84 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 141.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 80-60 | -7.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 68-82 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 18 | vs | W 85-80 | -5.5 | L −0.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 66-68 | +15.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 73-88 | +9.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 87-82 | -4.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 75-84 | -8.5 | L −17.5 | 145.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 54-79 | +11.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 63-90 | -8.5 | L −35.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 92-79 | -5.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 59-80 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 73-94 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 72-61 | +3.5 | W +14.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 82-65 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 77-78 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
MEM
L 70-76
−3.5
12
vs
PRST
W 80-70
−3.5
15
vs
BRAD
W 75-64
+1.5
18
vs
NWST
W 84-64
+3.5
22
vs
MINN
W 77-65
+13.5
27
vs
COLO
L 69-79
−11.5
28
vs
NEV
L 65-81
−21.5
3
vs
UNA
L 63-65
−18.5
7
vs
MSST
W 65-62
+7.5
13
@
SLU
L 75-85
+2.5
17
vs
LUC
W 85-71
+2.5
21
vs
MORG
W 94-64
+4.5
28
@
SEA
W 67-59
+10.5
30
@
ORST
L 62-70
−12.5
2
vs
USD
W 74-64
−2.5
4
vs
PORT
W 73-68
−6.5
8
@
LMU
L 82-84
−0.5
10
@
PEPP
W 80-60
+12.5
13
vs
SMC
L 68-82
−8.5
18
vs
WSU
W 85-80
−0.5
24
@
GONZ
L 66-68
+13.5
28
@
SCU
L 73-88
−5.5
31
vs
PAC
W 87-82
+0.5
4
vs
LMU
L 75-84
−17.5
7
@
SMC
L 54-79
−13.5
12
vs
ORST
L 63-90
−35.5
15
@
USD
W 92-79
+7.5
18
vs
GONZ
L 59-80
−5.5
21
vs
SCU
L 73-94
−14.5
28
@
PAC
W 72-61
+14.5
7
vs
PORT
W 82-65
+10.5
8
vs
ORST
L 77-78
−4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg −2.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
MEM
L 70-76
−11.5
12
vs
PRST
W 80-70
−4.5
15
vs
BRAD
W 75-64
−7.5
18
vs
NWST
W 84-64
+4.5
22
vs
MINN
W 77-65
+1.5
27
vs
COLO
L 69-79
−2.5
28
vs
NEV
L 65-81
+3.5
3
vs
UNA
L 63-65
−17.5
7
vs
MSST
W 65-62
−23.5
13
@
SLU
L 75-85
+4.5
17
vs
LUC
W 85-71
+12.5
21
vs
MORG
W 94-64
+12.5
28
@
SEA
W 67-59
−20.5
30
@
ORST
L 62-70
−12.5
2
vs
USD
W 74-64
−14.5
4
vs
PORT
W 73-68
−6.5
8
@
LMU
L 82-84
+24.5
10
@
PEPP
W 80-60
−0.5
13
vs
SMC
L 68-82
+8.5
18
vs
WSU
W 85-80
+18.5
24
@
GONZ
L 66-68
−15.5
28
@
SCU
L 73-88
+10.5
31
vs
PAC
W 87-82
+30.5
4
vs
LMU
L 75-84
+13.5
7
@
SMC
L 54-79
−9.5
12
vs
ORST
L 63-90
+12.5
15
@
USD
W 92-79
+22.5
18
vs
GONZ
L 59-80
−12.5
21
vs
SCU
L 73-94
+8.5
28
@
PAC
W 72-61
−9.5
7
vs
PORT
W 82-65
+0.5
8
vs
ORST
L 77-78
+10.5
over 17under 15avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Bethune 0, San Francisco 0, even 5
BethuneBetterSan Francisco
G K. Branch TR11.7 pts · 2.6 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 24
=No call
G A. Bashir TR2.4 pts · 0.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
G J. Morris TR11.2 pts · 2.5 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 49
=No call
G A. Braccia0.4 pts · 0.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
G J. Jones TR9.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 43
=Even
F B. Oosterbaan TR7.6 pts · 4.1 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 31
F Q. Heady10.2 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 55
=No call
F N. Newbury NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F D. Johnson TR10 pts · 5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 52
=No call
C I. Diagne TR1.1 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
BethuneBetterSan Francisco
BCU offense188th of 366 · -5.8
=Even
SF defense165th of 366 · -3.7
BCU defense218th of 366 · -5.7
=Even
SF offense178th of 366 · -5.5
Backcourt-4.2 · 3 players
→SFBig
Backcourt-0.9 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.3 · 2 players
←BCUSmall
Frontcourt-1.6 · 3 players
Bench-1.6 · 5 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestBCU betterSF betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
K. Branch30 min · TRJ. Morris30 min · TRJ. Jones28 min · TRM. Jordan13 min · TRK. Patton8 min · TRK. MurphyNew
Forwards
Q. Heady26 minD. Johnson26 min · TRD. Perez-Rouzan24 minV. Boskovic21 min · TRI. Ezuma8 min · TRJ. SmithNew
Centers
M. Martinez16 min · TR
Guards
A. Bashir10 min · TRA. Braccia5 minW. FodeNewM. MageeNewY. VitlemNewD. BordonNew
Forwards
B. Oosterbaan25 min · TRN. NewburyNewA. TysonNewG. KnudsenNewD. WileyNewJ. PihtovsNew
Centers
I. Diagne7 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.5 #175 | Points per game | 73.9 #198 |
| 1.04 #273 | Points per possession | 1.10 #131 |
| 71.8 #43 | Pace (possessions) | 67.3 #271 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.0 #195 | Effective FG% | 51.3 #184 |
| 33.0 #230 | 3-point % | 34.6 #140 |
| 29.7 #353 | 3-point attempt rate | 46.1 #45 |
| 40.9 #48 | Free throw rate | 40.1 #59 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.2 #329 | Turnover rate | 15.9 #129 |
| 30.1 #194 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.4 #148 |
| 13.3 #195 | Assists per game | 13.6 #174 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.5 #251 | Points allowed | 73.8 #149 |
| 1.08 #157 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #206 |
| 49.7 #88 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.8 #143 |
| 32.9 #112 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.1 #187 |
| 15.8 #229 | Turnovers forced | 14.1 #331 |
| 68.3 #242 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.0 #105 |
| 6.8 #147 | Steals per game | 5.1 #332 |
| 4.5 #34 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #238 |
Bethune
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 14-5 in conference · Southwestern Athletic Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Prairie View67–71
- L@ Florida A&M77–81
- W@ Southern82–79
- W@ Grambling76–71
- Wvs Alabama A&M85–76
A week or more of rest.
San Francisco
16-16 in 2025-26 overall · 9-11 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Oregon St77–78
- Wvs Portland82–65
- W@ Pacific72–61
- Lvs Santa Clara73–94
- Lvs Gonzaga59–80
A week or more of rest.