Dickies Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | TTU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 TTU 84–76 · win probability TTU 76%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 159.6
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: TTU has more of the edges
USC 1, TTU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: USC 44.2, TTU 27.7. Allowed: USC 33.4, TTU 31.4
Three-pointers
USC hits 31.7% and allows 30.9%; TTU hits 39.1% and allows 32.1%. Threes are 34.1% and 47.6% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: USC 50.4 and allows 49.7; TTU 56.1 and allows 49.7
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: USC plays 72.4 a game (25th fastest), TTU 68.2 (222nd). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: USC 32.4%, TTU 33.3%. Defensive: USC 67.8%, TTU 69.4%
Even
TTU offense vs USC defense
Offense 12th of 366 against a defense 55th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: USC 64%, TTU 45%. Transfers in: USC 6, TTU 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
USC has played the 42nd-hardest schedule, TTU the 12th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
USC offense vs TTU defense
Offense 27th of 366 against a defense 12th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: USC 17.4%, TTU 15.8%. Forced: USC 16.4%, TTU 14.8%
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 | — | TTU -8.1 | — |
| Total | — | 159.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | USC 75.7 · TTU 83.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | TTU -4.7 | — |
| 1H total | 74.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | USC 34.9 · TTU 39.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 15 | vs UIW | W84–62LO |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
USC
31 games played
Straight up
17-14
55% wins
Against the spread
13-18
42% covers · avg −3.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-14
55% overs · avg +2.3 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 | vs | W 94-64 | -24.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 114-83 | -28.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 197 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 87-67 | -15.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 107-106 | -18.5 | L −17.5 | 159.5 | O 213 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 70-67 | -3.5 | L −0.5 | 155.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 83-81 | -6.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 88-75 | -4.5 | W +8.5 | 161.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 2 | @ | W 82-77 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 76-84 | -4.5 | L −12.5 | 154.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 9 | @ | W 94-81 | -14.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 68-61 | -12.5 | L −5.5 | 156.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 97-70 | -25.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 66-96 | +22.5 | L −7.5 | 173.5 | U 162 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 51-80 | +11.5 | L −17.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 9 | @ | W 70-69 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 13 | vs | W 88-71 | -9.5 | W +7.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 64-69 | +9.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 68-74 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 25 | @ | W 73-71 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 158.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 72-73 | +9.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 78-75 | -11.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 3 | vs | W 81-75 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 77-75 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 82-89 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 65-101 | +8.5 | L −27.5 | 151.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 70-71 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 62-81 | +6.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 67-82 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 149.5 | U 149 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 72-91 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 68-89 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 151.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 79-83 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
CP
W 94-64
+5.5
9
vs
MAN
W 114-83
+2.5
14
vs
ILST
W 87-67
+4.5
20
vs
TROY
W 107-106
−17.5
24
vs
BOIS
W 70-67
−0.5
25
vs
HALL
W 83-81
−4.5
26
vs
ASU
W 88-75
+8.5
2
@
ORE
W 82-77
+2.5
6
vs
WASH
L 76-84
−12.5
9
@
USD
W 94-81
−1.5
14
vs
WSU
W 68-61
−5.5
17
vs
UTSA
W 97-70
+1.5
2
@
MICH
L 66-96
−7.5
5
@
MSU
L 51-80
−17.5
9
@
MINN
W 70-69
+4.5
13
vs
MD
W 88-71
+7.5
17
vs
PUR
L 64-69
+4.5
21
vs
NU
L 68-74
−12.5
25
@
WIS
W 73-71
+9.5
28
@
IOWA
L 72-73
+8.5
31
vs
RUTG
W 78-75
−8.5
3
vs
IU
W 81-75
+7.5
8
@
PSU
W 77-75
−1.5
11
@
OSU
L 82-89
+0.5
18
vs
ILL
L 65-101
−27.5
21
vs
ORE
L 70-71
−6.5
24
@
UCLA
L 62-81
−12.5
28
vs
NEB
L 67-82
−9.5
4
@
WASH
L 72-91
−13.5
7
vs
UCLA
L 68-89
−16.5
11
vs
WASH
L 79-83
−0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 18avg −3.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
CP
W 94-64
−5.5
9
vs
MAN
W 114-83
+41.5
14
vs
ILST
W 87-67
−1.5
20
vs
TROY
W 107-106
+53.5
24
vs
BOIS
W 70-67
−18.5
25
vs
HALL
W 83-81
+18.5
26
vs
ASU
W 88-75
+1.5
2
@
ORE
W 82-77
+4.5
6
vs
WASH
L 76-84
+5.5
9
@
USD
W 94-81
+16.5
14
vs
WSU
W 68-61
−27.5
17
vs
UTSA
W 97-70
+9.5
2
@
MICH
L 66-96
−11.5
5
@
MSU
L 51-80
−20.5
9
@
MINN
W 70-69
−8.5
13
vs
MD
W 88-71
+8.5
17
vs
PUR
L 64-69
−22.5
21
vs
NU
L 68-74
−7.5
25
@
WIS
W 73-71
−14.5
28
@
IOWA
L 72-73
+3.5
31
vs
RUTG
W 78-75
+6.5
3
vs
IU
W 81-75
+2.5
8
@
PSU
W 77-75
−5.5
11
@
OSU
L 82-89
+18.5
18
vs
ILL
L 65-101
+14.5
21
vs
ORE
L 70-71
−8.5
24
@
UCLA
L 62-81
−7.5
28
vs
NEB
L 67-82
−0.5
4
@
WASH
L 72-91
+12.5
7
vs
UCLA
L 68-89
+5.5
11
vs
WASH
L 79-83
+7.5
over 17under 14avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Texas Tech
34 games played
Straight up
23-11
68% wins
Against the spread
17-17
50% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-19
44% overs · avg −1.7 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 98-60 | -29.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 158 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 98-77 | -31.5 | L −10.5 | 156.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 11 | @ | L 77-81 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 168.5 | U 158 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 80-63 | -27.5 | L −10.5 | 165.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 84-83 | -9.5 | L −8.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 56-86 | +3.5 | L −26.5 | 153.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 82-50 | -29.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-72 | -19.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 82-58 | -5.5 | W +18.5 | 154.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 86-93 | -2.5 | L −9.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 16 | vs | W 101-90 | -25.5 | L −14.5 | 152.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 82-81 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 28 | vs | W 87-57 | -17.5 | W +12.5 | 163.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 102-80 | -12.5 | W +9.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 6 | @ | L 65-69 | +7.5 | W +3.5 | 142.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 73-71 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 161.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 88-74 | -17.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 84-71 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 165.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 20 | @ | W 92-73 | -1.5 | W +17.5 | 154.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 90-86 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 141.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 80-88 | -5.5 | L −13.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 61-64 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 155.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 70-63 | -4.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 78-44 | -13.5 | W +20.5 | 155.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-75 | +8.5 | W +11.5 | 156.5 | U 153 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 67-72 | -7.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 100-72 | -12.5 | W +15.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 80-68 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 143.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 82-73 | +10.5 | W +19.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 65-73 | -8.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 76-82 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 159.5 | U 158 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 53-75 | +7.5 | L −14.5 | 143.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 91-71 | -6.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 65-90 | +1.5 | L −23.5 | 164.5 | U 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
LIN
W 98-60
+8.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 98-77
−10.5
11
@
ILL
L 77-81
−0.5
14
vs
MILW
W 80-63
−10.5
20
vs
WAKE
W 84-83
−8.5
21
vs
PUR
L 56-86
−26.5
26
vs
NOLA
W 82-50
+2.5
30
vs
WYO
W 76-72
−15.5
7
vs
LSU
W 82-58
+18.5
13
vs
ARK
L 86-93
−9.5
16
vs
UNCO
W 101-90
−14.5
20
vs
DUKE
W 82-81
+10.5
28
vs
WIN
W 87-57
+12.5
3
vs
OKST
W 102-80
+9.5
6
@
HOU
L 65-69
+3.5
10
@
COLO
W 73-71
−3.5
14
vs
UTAH
W 88-74
−3.5
17
vs
BYU
W 84-71
+10.5
20
@
BAY
W 92-73
+17.5
24
vs
HOU
W 90-86
+5.5
31
@
UCF
L 80-88
−13.5
2
vs
KU
L 61-64
−6.5
8
@
WVU
W 70-63
+2.5
11
vs
COLO
W 78-44
+20.5
14
@
ARIZ
W 78-75
+11.5
17
@
ASU
L 67-72
−12.5
21
vs
KSU
W 100-72
+15.5
24
vs
CIN
W 80-68
+5.5
28
@
ISU
W 82-73
+19.5
3
vs
TCU
L 65-73
−16.5
7
@
BYU
L 76-82
−3.5
12
vs
ISU
L 53-75
−14.5
20
vs
AKR
W 91-71
+13.5
22
vs
ALA
L 65-90
−23.5
covered 17didn’t cover 17avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
LIN
W 98-60
+11.5
7
vs
SHSU
W 98-77
+18.5
11
@
ILL
L 77-81
−10.5
14
vs
MILW
W 80-63
−22.5
20
vs
WAKE
W 84-83
+6.5
21
vs
PUR
L 56-86
−11.5
26
vs
NOLA
W 82-50
−25.5
30
vs
WYO
W 76-72
−4.5
7
vs
LSU
W 82-58
−14.5
13
vs
ARK
L 86-93
+23.5
16
vs
UNCO
W 101-90
+38.5
20
vs
DUKE
W 82-81
+10.5
28
vs
WIN
W 87-57
−19.5
3
vs
OKST
W 102-80
+14.5
6
@
HOU
L 65-69
−8.5
10
@
COLO
W 73-71
−17.5
14
vs
UTAH
W 88-74
+2.5
17
vs
BYU
W 84-71
−10.5
20
@
BAY
W 92-73
+10.5
24
vs
HOU
W 90-86
+34.5
31
@
UCF
L 80-88
+8.5
2
vs
KU
L 61-64
−30.5
8
@
WVU
W 70-63
−6.5
11
vs
COLO
W 78-44
−33.5
14
@
ARIZ
W 78-75
−3.5
17
@
ASU
L 67-72
−17.5
21
vs
KSU
W 100-72
+13.5
24
vs
CIN
W 80-68
+4.5
28
@
ISU
W 82-73
+9.5
3
vs
TCU
L 65-73
−9.5
7
@
BYU
L 76-82
−1.5
12
vs
ISU
L 53-75
−15.5
20
vs
AKR
W 91-71
+7.5
22
vs
ALA
L 65-90
−9.5
over 15under 19avg −1.7 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: USC 0, Texas Tech 0, even 5
USCBetterTexas Tech
G J. Cox TR18.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 5.2 ast
Score 96
=Even
G C. Davis TR20.1 pts · 3.5 reb · 4.6 ast
Score 91
G J. Jones15.5 pts · 8.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
=Even
G D. Atwell13.5 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 88
G R. Rice20.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 6 ast
Score 97
=Even
G D. Gibbs-Lawhorn TR20.7 pts · 3.1 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 95
G I. Bruns TR20.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 88
=Even
F J. Toppin21.8 pts · 10.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 100
F J. Cofie9.8 pts · 6.8 reb · 2 ast
Score 77
=Even
F D. Williams TR14 pts · 4.6 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 76
USCBetterTexas Tech
USC offense27th of 366 · +7.0
=Even
TTU defense12th of 366 · +6.6
USC defense55th of 366 · +1.4
=Even
TTU offense12th of 366 · +9.9
Backcourt+15.2 · 4 players
←USCBig
Backcourt+10.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
→TTUBig
Frontcourt+10.8 · 2 players
Bench+2.9 · 5 players
→TTUBig
Bench+7.2 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUSC betterTTU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Cox35 min · TRJ. Jones35 minR. Rice34 minI. Bruns32 min · TRK. Lewis30 min · TRA. Hunkin-Claytor28 min · TR
Forwards
J. Cofie31 minJ. Hughes28 min · TRA. RatliffNewC. CollinsNew
Centers
E. Reibe14 min · TRD. RatliffNewO. Joe AguNew
Guards
C. Davis39 min · TRD. Atwell35 minD. Gibbs-Lawhorn35 min · TRD. Dennis24 min · TRD. SpearNewA. BarrettNew
Forwards
J. Toppin35 minD. Williams30 min · TRJ. Stillwell28 min · TRJ. Moseley14 minM. Akuentok6 minL. HooverNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 77.8 #97 | Points per game | 80.3 #62 |
| 1.07 #199 | Points per possession | 1.18 #35 |
| 72.4 #25 | Pace (possessions) | 68.2 #222 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.4 #225 | Effective FG% | 56.1 #21 |
| 31.7 #299 | 3-point % | 39.1 #4 |
| 34.1 #292 | 3-point attempt rate | 47.6 #29 |
| 44.2 #8 | Free throw rate | 27.7 #347 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #228 | Turnover rate | 15.8 #123 |
| 32.4 #113 | Offensive rebound rate | 33.3 #82 |
| 14.9 #92 | Assists per game | 15.7 #59 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.4 #277 | Points allowed | 73.1 #134 |
| 1.08 #173 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #138 |
| 49.7 #89 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.7 #86 |
| 30.9 #31 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.1 #67 |
| 16.4 #198 | Turnovers forced | 14.8 #305 |
| 67.8 #269 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.4 #186 |
| 6.2 #217 | Steals per game | 6.0 #239 |
| 5.5 #8 | Blocks per game | 3.8 #103 |
USC
17-14 in 2025-26 overall · 7-14 in conference · Big Ten Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Washington79–83
- Lvs UCLA68–89
- L@ Washington72–91
- Lvs Nebraska67–82
- L@ UCLA62–81
A week or more of rest.
Texas Tech
23-11 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Alabama65–90
- Wvs Akron91–71
- Lvs Iowa State53–75
- L@ BYU76–82
- Lvs TCU65–73
A week or more of rest.