Acrisure Arena · Neutral site
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | USC | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 USC 81–73 · win probability USC 74%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.1
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: USC has more of the edges
SC 0, USC 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SC 13%, USC 64%. Transfers in: SC 6, USC 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: SC plays 68.8 a game (195th fastest), USC 72.4 (25th). Faster games mean more points
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SC 27.2%, USC 32.4%. Defensive: SC 67.9%, USC 67.8%
Free throws
Free throw rate: SC 36.7, USC 44.2. Allowed: SC 34.0, USC 33.4
Shooting
Effective FG%: SC 50.3 and allows 51.6; USC 50.4 and allows 49.7
Even
SC offense vs USC defense
Offense 98th of 366 against a defense 55th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SC 14.4%, USC 17.4%. Forced: SC 14.6%, USC 16.4%
Even
USC offense vs SC defense
Offense 27th of 366 against a defense 53rd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Three-pointers
SC hits 31.1% and allows 31.8%; USC hits 31.7% and allows 30.9%. Threes are 44.4% and 34.1% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
SC has played the 54th-hardest schedule, USC the 42nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Neutral floor
No home court: the model takes it out of the line
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 | — | USC -7.4 | — |
| Total | — | 154.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | SC 73.4 · USC 80.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | USC -4.3 | — |
| 1H total | 72.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | SC 33.9 · USC 38.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% | |
| 2-8 20% | 2-8 20% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
South Carolina
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
14-18
44% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-16
50% 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 91-72 | -22.5 | L −3.5 | 143.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 83-79 | -17.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 81-61 | -16.5 | W +3.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 87-58 | -10.5 | W +18.5 | 153.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 72-79 | +3.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 77-79 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 74-62 | -17.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 83-86 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | O 169 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 82-51 | -22.5 | W +8.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 71-55 | -22.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | U 126 |
| Dec 16 | @ | L 61-68 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 95-70 | -31.5 | L −6.5 | 149.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 96-67 | -19.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 71-83 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 155.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 78-68 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 70-75 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 163.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 74-108 | +12.5 | L −21.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 67-71 | +13.5 | W +9.5 | 152.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 85-76 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 69-92 | +10.5 | L −12.5 | 155.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 48-95 | +13.5 | L −33.5 | 151.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 87-92 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 3 | @ | L 75-84 | +13.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 59-78 | +3.5 | L −15.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 75-89 | +17.5 | W +3.5 | 170.5 | U 164 |
| Feb 17 | @ | L 62-76 | +23.5 | W +9.5 | 156.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 97-89 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | O 186 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 63-72 | +7.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 68-87 | +12.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 155 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 59-78 | +10.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 64-61 | +7.5 | W +10.5 | 147.5 | U 125 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 74-86 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
NCAT
W 91-72
−3.5
9
vs
USM
W 83-79
−13.5
12
vs
PRES
W 81-61
+3.5
18
vs
RAD
W 87-58
+18.5
21
vs
BTLR
L 72-79
−3.5
23
vs
NU
L 77-79
+2.5
28
vs
CHSO
W 74-62
−5.5
2
vs
VT
L 83-86
−5.5
6
vs
STET
W 82-51
+8.5
13
vs
CIT
W 71-55
−6.5
16
@
CLEM
L 61-68
+5.5
22
vs
SCST
W 95-70
−6.5
30
vs
UALB
W 96-67
+9.5
3
vs
VAN
L 71-83
−2.5
6
@
LSU
W 78-68
+17.5
10
vs
UGA
L 70-75
−0.5
14
@
ARK
L 74-108
−21.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-71
+9.5
20
vs
OU
W 85-76
+11.5
24
@
TA&M
L 69-92
−12.5
28
vs
FLA
L 48-95
−33.5
31
vs
LSU
L 87-92
−2.5
3
@
TEX
L 75-84
+4.5
7
vs
MIZ
L 59-78
−15.5
14
@
ALA
L 75-89
+3.5
17
@
FLA
L 62-76
+9.5
21
vs
MSST
W 97-89
+9.5
24
vs
UK
L 63-72
−1.5
28
@
UGA
L 68-87
−6.5
3
vs
TENN
L 59-78
−8.5
7
@
MISS
W 64-61
+10.5
11
vs
OU
L 74-86
−4.5
covered 14didn’t cover 18avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
NCAT
W 91-72
+19.5
9
vs
USM
W 83-79
+14.5
12
vs
PRES
W 81-61
+4.5
18
vs
RAD
W 87-58
−8.5
21
vs
BTLR
L 72-79
+0.5
23
vs
NU
L 77-79
+9.5
28
vs
CHSO
W 74-62
−14.5
2
vs
VT
L 83-86
+19.5
6
vs
STET
W 82-51
−9.5
13
vs
CIT
W 71-55
−15.5
16
@
CLEM
L 61-68
−13.5
22
vs
SCST
W 95-70
+15.5
30
vs
UALB
W 96-67
+14.5
3
vs
VAN
L 71-83
−1.5
6
@
LSU
W 78-68
+0.5
10
vs
UGA
L 70-75
−18.5
14
@
ARK
L 74-108
+26.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-71
−14.5
20
vs
OU
W 85-76
+10.5
24
@
TA&M
L 69-92
+5.5
28
vs
FLA
L 48-95
−8.5
31
vs
LSU
L 87-92
+31.5
3
@
TEX
L 75-84
+9.5
7
vs
MIZ
L 59-78
−10.5
14
@
ALA
L 75-89
−6.5
17
@
FLA
L 62-76
−18.5
21
vs
MSST
W 97-89
+34.5
24
vs
UK
L 63-72
−16.5
28
@
UGA
L 68-87
−3.5
3
vs
TENN
L 59-78
−4.5
7
@
MISS
W 64-61
−22.5
11
vs
OU
L 74-86
+10.5
over 16under 16avg +1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
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
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
USC has the better starters
Position by position: South Carolina 0, USC 4, even 1
South CarolinaBetterUSC
G S. Blakeney TR14.3 pts · 5 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 71
→USCSmall
G J. Cox TR18.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 5.2 ast
Score 96
G K. Mincy TR14.2 pts · 3.6 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 81
=Even
G J. Jones15.5 pts · 8.8 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 86
F J. Necas TR6.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 1 ast
Score 46
→USCBig
G R. Rice20.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 6 ast
Score 97
F C. Heide TR5.8 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 40
→USCBig
G I. Bruns TR20.9 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 88
F A. Bieliauskas TR4.9 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 36
→USCBig
F J. Cofie9.8 pts · 6.8 reb · 2 ast
Score 77
South CarolinaBetterUSC
SC offense98th of 366 · -0.8
=Even
USC defense55th of 366 · +1.4
SC defense53rd of 366 · +1.6
=Even
USC offense27th of 366 · +7.0
Backcourt+2.5 · 2 players
→USCBig
Backcourt+15.2 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.0 · 3 players
→USCBig
Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player
Bench-0.7 · 4 players
→USCBig
Bench+2.9 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestSC betterUSC betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
S. Blakeney34 min · TRK. Mincy34 min · TRG. Polk13 minD. Hannah13 min · TRE. Sparkman4 minM. JohnsonNew
Forwards
J. Necas25 min · TRC. Heide23 min · TRA. Bieliauskas20 min · TRH. Assemian10 minH. LopezNewJ. FernandezNew
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.9 #165 | Points per game | 77.8 #97 |
| 1.09 #161 | Points per possession | 1.07 #199 |
| 68.8 #195 | Pace (possessions) | 72.4 #25 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.3 #226 | Effective FG% | 50.4 #225 |
| 31.1 #317 | 3-point % | 31.7 #299 |
| 44.4 #80 | 3-point attempt rate | 34.1 #292 |
| 36.7 #137 | Free throw rate | 44.2 #8 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.4 #39 | Turnover rate | 17.4 #228 |
| 27.2 #289 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.4 #113 |
| 13.3 #190 | Assists per game | 14.9 #92 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.5 #228 | Points allowed | 78.4 #277 |
| 1.11 #252 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #173 |
| 51.6 #188 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.7 #89 |
| 31.8 #56 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.9 #31 |
| 14.6 #314 | Turnovers forced | 16.4 #198 |
| 67.9 #263 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.8 #269 |
| 5.5 #295 | Steals per game | 6.2 #217 |
| 2.4 #317 | Blocks per game | 5.5 #8 |
South Carolina
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 4-15 in conference · Southeastern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Oklahoma74–86
- W@ Ole Miss64–61
- Lvs Tennessee59–78
- L@ Georgia68–87
- Lvs Kentucky63–72
A week or more of rest.
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.