Jon M. Huntsman Center · at Utah
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UTAH | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UTAH 86–66 · win probability UTAH 96%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.5
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: UTAH has more of the edges
WEB 2, UTAH 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
WEB has played the 316th-hardest schedule, UTAH the 53rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
UTAH offense vs WEB defense
Offense 79th of 366 against a defense 336th, on the model’s ratings
WEB offense vs UTAH defense
Offense 280th of 366 against a defense 68th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WEB 31.8%, UTAH 29.3%. Defensive: WEB 72.3%, UTAH 68.4%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WEB 15.7%, UTAH 16.7%. Forced: WEB 16.3%, UTAH 13.3%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: WEB plays 70.7 a game (85th fastest), UTAH 68.3 (211th). Faster games mean more points
Home court
UTAH at home. This season: UTAH 0-0 at home, WEB 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
WEB hits 34.5% and allows 33.5%; UTAH hits 35.3% and allows 35.1%. Threes are 32.8% and 37.5% of their shots
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WEB 51.7 and allows 54.5; UTAH 52.0 and allows 53.9
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: WEB 39.1, UTAH 31.7. Allowed: WEB 36.4, UTAH 29.9
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WEB 9%, UTAH 14%. Transfers in: WEB 2, UTAH 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | UTAH -20.5 | — |
| Total | — | 151.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | WEB 65.5 · UTAH 86 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UTAH -12.1 | — |
| 1H total | 70.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | WEB 29.4 · UTAH 41.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | |
| 1-9 10% | 5-5 50% | 3-7 30% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
WEB 0–1 UTAHUTAH leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · WEB 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2025-26 | WEB 89 @ UTAH 92 | UTAH -15.5 | WEB W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Weber St
30 games played
Straight up
14-16
47% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +3.8 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 89-92 | +15.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 73-83 | +22.5 | W +12.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 70-79 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 91-85 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 73-74 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 82-61 | -10.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 92-66 | -7.5 | W +18.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 65-88 | +7.5 | L −15.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 10 | @ | W 64-60 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 74-90 | +15.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 80-82 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 90-95 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 95-82 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 78-65 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 76-71 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 162.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 91-80 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 67-75 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 65-81 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 88-91 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 81-79 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 90-104 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 74-88 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 72-53 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 83-72 | +5.5 | W +16.5 | 153.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-84 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 82-79 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 92-72 | -2.5 | W +17.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 83-73 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 60-84 | +4.5 | L −19.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 79-84 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
UTAH
L 89-92
+12.5
12
@
USU
L 73-83
+12.5
15
@
UCI
L 70-79
+2.5
19
vs
CAM
W 91-85
+4.5
22
vs
UTA
L 73-74
−3.5
29
vs
KC
W 82-61
+10.5
3
vs
ORU
W 92-66
+18.5
7
@
STMN
L 65-88
−15.5
10
@
KC
W 64-60
−3.5
17
@
UVU
L 74-90
−0.5
20
vs
UTU
L 80-82
−7.5
1
vs
PRST
L 90-95
−3.5
3
vs
SAC
W 95-82
+6.5
8
@
NAU
W 78-65
+10.5
10
@
UNCO
W 76-71
+11.5
15
vs
EWU
W 91-80
+7.5
17
vs
IDHO
L 67-75
−6.5
22
@
MONT
L 65-81
−11.5
24
@
MTST
L 88-91
+3.5
31
vs
IDST
W 81-79
−0.5
2
@
SAC
L 90-104
−12.5
5
vs
UNCO
L 74-88
−12.5
7
vs
NAU
W 72-53
+11.5
12
@
IDHO
W 83-72
+16.5
14
@
EWU
L 66-84
−14.5
19
vs
MTST
W 82-79
+1.5
21
vs
MONT
W 92-72
+17.5
28
@
IDST
W 83-73
+12.5
2
@
PRST
L 60-84
−19.5
9
vs
EWU
L 79-84
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
UTAH
L 89-92
+32.5
12
@
USU
L 73-83
−0.5
15
@
UCI
L 70-79
−2.5
19
vs
CAM
W 91-85
+16.5
22
vs
UTA
L 73-74
−2.5
29
vs
KC
W 82-61
−12.5
3
vs
ORU
W 92-66
+0.5
7
@
STMN
L 65-88
−1.5
10
@
KC
W 64-60
−26.5
17
@
UVU
L 74-90
+15.5
20
vs
UTU
L 80-82
+9.5
1
vs
PRST
L 90-95
+36.5
3
vs
SAC
W 95-82
+8.5
8
@
NAU
W 78-65
−6.5
10
@
UNCO
W 76-71
−15.5
15
vs
EWU
W 91-80
+12.5
17
vs
IDHO
L 67-75
−16.5
22
@
MONT
L 65-81
−11.5
24
@
MTST
L 88-91
+31.5
31
vs
IDST
W 81-79
+8.5
2
@
SAC
L 90-104
+31.5
5
vs
UNCO
L 74-88
−0.5
7
vs
NAU
W 72-53
−25.5
12
@
IDHO
W 83-72
+1.5
14
@
EWU
L 66-84
−4.5
19
vs
MTST
W 82-79
+12.5
21
vs
MONT
W 92-72
+11.5
28
@
IDST
W 83-73
+3.5
2
@
PRST
L 60-84
−0.5
9
vs
EWU
L 79-84
+8.5
over 16under 14avg +3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Utah
32 games played
Straight up
10-22
31% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg −0.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-14
56% overs · avg −0.6 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 84-75 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 92-89 | -15.5 | L −12.5 | 148.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 87-69 | -21.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 85-79 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 159.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 85-77 | -13.5 | L −5.5 | 161.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 85-92 | -14.5 | L −21.5 | 167.5 | O 177 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 58-68 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 75-74 | +10.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | O 149 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 72-79 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 91-85 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 74-82 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 153.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 101-77 | -10.5 | W +13.5 | 160.5 | O 178 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 65-74 | +12.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 78-97 | +17.5 | L −1.5 | 162.5 | O 175 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 73-85 | +9.5 | L −2.5 | 162.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 84-89 | +14.5 | W +9.5 | 168.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 74-88 | +17.5 | W +3.5 | 159.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 82-79 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 20 | @ | L 78-81 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 168.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 78-91 | +19.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 69-81 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 166.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 63-71 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 59-71 | +18.5 | W +6.5 | 150.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 10 | vs | L 52-66 | +16.5 | W +2.5 | 142.5 | U 118 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 65-69 | +12.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 61-56 | +10.5 | W +15.5 | 133.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 71-73 | +1.5 | L −0.5 | 154.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 24 | vs | L 59-75 | +14.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-73 | +6.5 | L −6.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 3 | vs | L 78-92 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 148.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 75-101 | +13.5 | L −12.5 | 148.5 | O 176 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 66-73 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
SJSU
W 84-75
−2.5
8
vs
WEB
W 92-89
−12.5
10
vs
HC
W 87-69
−3.5
15
vs
SHSU
W 85-79
−6.5
18
vs
PFW
W 85-77
−5.5
20
vs
CP
L 85-92
−21.5
25
vs
GCU
L 58-68
−4.5
26
vs
MISS
W 75-74
+11.5
2
@
CAL
L 72-79
+0.5
6
vs
CBU
W 91-85
+0.5
13
vs
MSST
L 74-82
−6.5
20
vs
EWU
W 101-77
+13.5
29
@
WASH
L 65-74
+3.5
3
vs
ARIZ
L 78-97
−1.5
7
@
COLO
L 73-85
−2.5
10
vs
BYU
L 84-89
+9.5
14
@
TTU
L 74-88
+3.5
17
vs
TCU
W 82-79
+7.5
20
@
KSU
L 78-81
+7.5
24
@
BYU
L 78-91
+6.5
31
vs
OKST
L 69-81
−10.5
4
vs
ASU
L 63-71
−9.5
7
@
KU
L 59-71
+6.5
10
vs
HOU
L 52-66
+2.5
15
@
CIN
L 65-69
+8.5
18
@
WVU
W 61-56
+15.5
21
vs
UCF
L 71-73
−0.5
24
vs
ISU
L 59-75
−1.5
28
@
ASU
L 60-73
−6.5
3
vs
COLO
L 78-92
−12.5
7
@
BAY
L 75-101
−12.5
10
vs
CIN
L 66-73
+5.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
SJSU
W 84-75
+12.5
8
vs
WEB
W 92-89
+32.5
10
vs
HC
W 87-69
+0.5
15
vs
SHSU
W 85-79
+4.5
18
vs
PFW
W 85-77
+0.5
20
vs
CP
L 85-92
+9.5
25
vs
GCU
L 58-68
−27.5
26
vs
MISS
W 75-74
+4.5
2
@
CAL
L 72-79
−1.5
6
vs
CBU
W 91-85
+30.5
13
vs
MSST
L 74-82
+2.5
20
vs
EWU
W 101-77
+17.5
29
@
WASH
L 65-74
−18.5
3
vs
ARIZ
L 78-97
+12.5
7
@
COLO
L 73-85
−4.5
10
vs
BYU
L 84-89
+4.5
14
@
TTU
L 74-88
+2.5
17
vs
TCU
W 82-79
+6.5
20
@
KSU
L 78-81
−9.5
24
@
BYU
L 78-91
+0.5
31
vs
OKST
L 69-81
−16.5
4
vs
ASU
L 63-71
−27.5
7
@
KU
L 59-71
−20.5
10
vs
HOU
L 52-66
−24.5
15
@
CIN
L 65-69
−5.5
18
@
WVU
W 61-56
−16.5
21
vs
UCF
L 71-73
−10.5
24
vs
ISU
L 59-75
−10.5
28
@
ASU
L 60-73
−17.5
3
vs
COLO
L 78-92
+21.5
7
@
BAY
L 75-101
+27.5
10
vs
CIN
L 66-73
+0.5
over 18under 14avg −0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Utah has the better starters
Position by position: Weber St 0, Utah 1, even 4
Weber StBetterUtah
G A. Grayson3.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 6
→UTAHBig
G T. Campbell TR13.7 pts · 3.8 reb · 3.9 ast
Score 85
F B. Felder TR2.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Holcombe TR15.9 pts · 6.5 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 97
F D. Thompson NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G T. Burch TR12.8 pts · 2.5 reb · 3.4 ast
Score 88
C A. Ekwe TR2.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G O. Abbey2.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 12
C D. Cutler1.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C M. Gomma TR8 pts · 6.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 28
Weber StBetterUtah
WEB offense280th of 366 · -8.6
→UTAHBig
UTAH defense68th of 366 · +0.9
WEB defense336th of 366 · -8.9
→UTAHBig
UTAH offense79th of 366 · +0.7
Backcourt-1.7 · 1 player
→UTAHBig
Backcourt+6.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.8 · 4 players
=Even
Frontcourt-1.4 · 1 player
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench-0.7 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestWEB betterUTAH betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Grayson12 minA. JacksonNewA. PowellNewM. AbittanNewS. Marius JonesNewH. HansenNew
Forwards
B. Felder6 min · TRD. ThompsonNewD. WarlickNewC. BurgessNew
Centers
A. Ekwe10 min · TRD. Cutler6 min
Guards
T. Campbell34 min · TRJ. Holcombe31 min · TRT. Burch25 min · TRO. Abbey15 minT. Chatman13 min · TRL. Langarita12 min
Forwards
G. Gaddis1 min · TRB. FayeNewZ. LoubakiNewJ. JohnsonNewA. AnigbataNew
Centers
M. Gomma26 min · TRF. SchottNewL. McCannaNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 78.8 #82 | Points per game | 74.3 #185 |
| 1.11 #112 | Points per possession | 1.08 #173 |
| 70.7 #85 | Pace (possessions) | 68.3 #211 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.7 #163 | Effective FG% | 52.0 #142 |
| 34.5 #143 | 3-point % | 35.3 #98 |
| 32.8 #320 | 3-point attempt rate | 37.5 #222 |
| 39.1 #76 | Free throw rate | 31.7 #262 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.7 #115 | Turnover rate | 16.7 #175 |
| 31.8 #132 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.3 #224 |
| 12.6 #241 | Assists per game | 13.7 #169 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.1 #300 | Points allowed | 79.1 #302 |
| 1.12 #269 | Points allowed per possession | 1.16 #337 |
| 54.5 #316 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.9 #298 |
| 33.5 #160 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.1 #254 |
| 16.3 #204 | Turnovers forced | 13.3 #348 |
| 72.3 #56 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.4 #233 |
| 6.9 #133 | Steals per game | 5.3 #315 |
| 1.5 #360 | Blocks per game | 3.4 #160 |
Weber St
14-16 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs E Washington79–84
- L@ Portland St60–84
- W@ Idaho St83–73
- Wvs Montana92–72
- Wvs Montana St82–79
A week or more of rest.
Utah
10-22 in 2025-26 overall · 2-17 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Cincinnati66–73
- L@ Baylor75–101
- Lvs Colorado78–92
- L@ Arizona St60–73
- Lvs Iowa State59–75
A week or more of rest.