Oakland Golden Grizzlies at Stanford Cardinal: Model Line and Edge

Fri, Nov 6, 10:00 PM ETMaples Pavilion · at Stanford

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Oakland and Stanford
OAK	This season	STAN
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 STAN 85–69 · win probability STAN 92%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 153.7

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: STAN has more of the edges

OAK 1, STAN 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

OAKBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: OAK 38.1, STAN 35.5. Allowed: OAK 24.6, STAN 40.3

STANBig

STAN offense vs OAK defense

Offense 88th of 366 against a defense 266th, on the model’s ratings

STANSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: OAK 31.3%, STAN 32.5%. Defensive: OAK 65.6%, STAN 70.2%

STANSmall

OAK offense vs STAN defense

Offense 159th of 366 against a defense 79th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: OAK plays 71.1 a game (67th fastest), STAN 68.1 (225th). Faster games mean more points

Context

Schedule so far

OAK has played the 150th-hardest schedule, STAN the 76th. A record against a soft schedule means less

STANSmall

Turnovers

Turnover rate: OAK 14.7%, STAN 15.5%. Forced: OAK 15.1%, STAN 18.0%

STANSmall

Three-pointers

OAK hits 34.7% and allows 34.3%; STAN hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 34.0% and 44.0% of their shots

STANSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: OAK 52.7 and allows 54.7; STAN 51.5 and allows 51.0

STANSmall

Home court

STAN at home. This season: STAN 0-0 at home, OAK 0-0 away

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: OAK 20%, STAN 27%. Transfers in: OAK 5, STAN 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	STAN -15.9	—
Total	—	153.7	—
Projected score	—	OAK 68.9 · STAN 84.8

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	STAN -9.3	—
1H total	71.9	—
1H projected score	OAK 31.3 · STAN 40.6	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
OAK LWWLL	17-14	55%	10-7	—
STAN WWWLL	17-16	52%	9-9	—

Venue/role: OAK away; STAN home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
OAK UUUOO	19-12	61%	15-16
STAN OOOUO	15-18	45%	20-13

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
OAK	4-6 40%	4-6 40%	4-6 40%
STAN	6-4 60%	5-5 50%	6-4 60%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Oakland

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 7	@ UCSB	No recent meeting
Nov 9	@ ALA	L59–86LU
Nov 11	@ BOIS	L43–87LU

Stanford

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 9	vs RICE	No recent meeting
Nov 13	@ UNLV	L74–75LU
Nov 17	vs UCI	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Oakland

31 games played

Straight up

15-16

48% wins

Against the spread

17-14

55% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-12

61% overs · avg +4.1 pts vs the total

Straight up

15-1648%

L L L L L W W W W L W L L W W W L W W L W W W L L L L W W L L

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1455%

L W L W L W W W L L W W L W W W L W W L W W W L L L L W W L L

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

19-1261%

O O U O O O O O O U U U O O O O O U U O O U U U O O U U U O O

2 straight overs2 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@MICH	L 78-121	+24.5	L −18.5	156.5	O 199
Nov 7	@PUR	L 77-87	+31.5	W +21.5	158.5	O 164
Nov 12	@HOU	L 45-78	+30.5	L −2.5	138.5	U 123
Nov 17	@UCF	L 83-87	+13.5	W +9.5	163.5	O 170
Nov 21	@EMU	L 91-97	-1.5	L −7.5	153.5	O 188
Nov 24	vsLAM	W 83-68	-3.5	W +11.5	148.5	O 151
Nov 25	@MONT	W 95-87	+4.5	W +12.5	162.5	O 182
Dec 3	vsPFW	W 101-92	-4.5	W +4.5	162.5	O 193
Dec 6	vsTOL	W 98-97	-4.5	L −3.5	166.5	O 195
Dec 13	@UNI	L 63-75	+8.5	L −3.5	149.5	U 138
Dec 17	@NKU	W 82-77	+3.5	W +8.5	163.5	U 159
Dec 20	vsMSU	L 70-79	+19.5	W +10.5	155.5	U 149
Dec 29	@WRST	L 73-88	+3.5	L −11.5	159.5	O 161
Jan 1	@YSU	W 85-83	+1.5	W +3.5	157.5	O 168
Jan 4	vsRMU	W 96-73	-1.5	W +21.5	161.5	O 169
Jan 9	vsCLE	W 97-74	-15.5	W +7.5	169.5	O 171
Jan 11	vsWRST	L 84-94	-4.5	L −14.5	161.5	O 178
Jan 15	@MILW	W 73-60	-2.5	W +10.5	166.5	U 133
Jan 18	@GB	W 88-63	-4.5	W +20.5	153.5	U 151
Jan 21	vsIUIN	L 85-103	-14.5	L −32.5	176.5	O 188
Jan 24	@DETM	W 95-87	-6.5	W +1.5	167.5	O 182
Jan 28	@PFW	W 74-65	-1.5	W +7.5	162.5	U 139
Feb 1	vsNKU	W 76-65	-3.5	W +7.5	166.5	U 141
Feb 4	@CLE	L 78-91	-7.5	L −20.5	170.5	U 169
Feb 12	vsYSU	L 82-86	-3.5	L −7.5	155.5	O 168
Feb 15	@RMU	L 69-93	+1.5	L −22.5	156.5	O 162
Feb 20	vsGB	L 68-73	-6.5	L −11.5	153.5	U 141
Feb 22	vsMILW	W 81-70	-5.5	W +5.5	159.5	U 151
Feb 25	@IUIN	W 86-74	-5.5	W +6.5	169.5	U 160
Feb 28	vsDETM	L 89-95	-8.5	L −14.5	160.5	O 184
Mar 4	vsNKU	L 84-85	-1.5	L −2.5	161.5	O 169

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

MICH

L 78-121

−18.5

PUR

L 77-87

+21.5

HOU

L 45-78

−2.5

UCF

L 83-87

+9.5

EMU

L 91-97

−7.5

LAM

W 83-68

+11.5

MONT

W 95-87

+12.5

PFW

W 101-92

+4.5

TOL

W 98-97

−3.5

UNI

L 63-75

−3.5

NKU

W 82-77

+8.5

MSU

L 70-79

+10.5

WRST

L 73-88

−11.5

YSU

W 85-83

+3.5

RMU

W 96-73

+21.5

CLE

W 97-74

+7.5

WRST

L 84-94

−14.5

MILW

W 73-60

+10.5

W 88-63

+20.5

IUIN

L 85-103

−32.5

DETM

W 95-87

+1.5

PFW

W 74-65

+7.5

NKU

W 76-65

+7.5

CLE

L 78-91

−20.5

YSU

L 82-86

−7.5

RMU

L 69-93

−22.5

L 68-73

−11.5

MILW

W 81-70

+5.5

IUIN

W 86-74

+6.5

DETM

L 89-95

−14.5

NKU

L 84-85

−2.5

covered 17didn’t cover 14avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

MICH

L 78-121

+42.5

PUR

L 77-87

+5.5

HOU

L 45-78

−15.5

UCF

L 83-87

+6.5

EMU

L 91-97

+34.5

LAM

W 83-68

+2.5

MONT

W 95-87

+19.5

PFW

W 101-92

+30.5

TOL

W 98-97

+28.5

UNI

L 63-75

−11.5

NKU

W 82-77

−4.5

MSU

L 70-79

−6.5

WRST

L 73-88

+1.5

YSU

W 85-83

+10.5

RMU

W 96-73

+7.5

CLE

W 97-74

+1.5

WRST

L 84-94

+16.5

MILW

W 73-60

−33.5

W 88-63

−2.5

IUIN

L 85-103

+11.5

DETM

W 95-87

+14.5

PFW

W 74-65

−23.5

NKU

W 76-65

−25.5

CLE

L 78-91

−1.5

YSU

L 82-86

+12.5

RMU

L 69-93

+5.5

L 68-73

−12.5

MILW

W 81-70

−8.5

IUIN

W 86-74

−9.5

DETM

L 89-95

+23.5

NKU

L 84-85

+7.5

over 19under 12avg +4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin

Stanford

33 games played

Straight up

20-13

61% wins

Against the spread

17-16

52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-18

45% overs · avg +0.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

20-1361%

W W W W L W W W L W W W W L W W L W L L L L L W W L L W W W W L L

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1652%

L W L W L W W W L L W W L L W W L W L L W L W W W L L L W W W L L

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1845%

O O U O U U U O U O U U O U U U U O U U O O U O U U U O O O O U O

3 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsPRST	W 89-79	-11.5	L −1.5	144.5	O 168
Nov 8	vsMONT	W 91-68	-12.5	W +10.5	150.5	O 159
Nov 12	vsMTST	W 77-68	-14.5	L −5.5	148.5	U 145
Nov 18	vsUL	W 93-66	-20.5	W +6.5	139.5	O 159
Nov 21	vsSEA	L 69-77	-10.5	L −18.5	152.5	U 146
Nov 27	vsMINN	W 72-68	-2.5	W +1.5	142.5	U 140
Nov 28	vsSLU	W 78-77	+1.5	W +2.5	160.5	U 155
Dec 1	vsPORT	W 94-72	-19.5	W +2.5	156.5	O 166
Dec 7	vsUNLV	L 74-75	-9.5	L −10.5	164.5	U 149
Dec 13	@SJSU	W 86-82	-8.5	L −4.5	145.5	O 168
Dec 17	vsUTA	W 76-60	-10.5	W +5.5	139.5	U 136
Dec 20	vsCOLO	W 77-68	+2.5	W +11.5	154.5	U 145
Dec 27	vsCSUN	W 88-80	-15.5	L −7.5	160.5	O 168
Dec 30	vsND	L 40-47	-6.5	L −13.5	143.5	U 87
Jan 2	vsLOU	W 80-76	+7.5	W +11.5	157.5	U 156
Jan 7	@VT	W 69-68	+3.5	W +4.5	148.5	U 137
Jan 10	@UVA	L 55-70	+12.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 125
Jan 14	vsUNC	W 95-90	+4.5	W +9.5	147.5	O 185
Jan 17	vsDUKE	L 50-80	+11.5	L −18.5	148.5	U 130
Jan 24	vsCAL	L 66-78	-4.5	L −16.5	146.5	U 144
Jan 28	@MIA	L 70-79	+9.5	W +0.5	147.5	O 149
Jan 31	@FSU	L 80-88	+3.5	L −4.5	152.5	O 168
Feb 4	vsCLEM	L 64-66	+3.5	W +1.5	138.5	U 130
Feb 7	vsGT	W 95-72	-9.5	W +13.5	151.5	O 167
Feb 11	@BC	W 70-64	-3.5	W +2.5	139.5	U 134
Feb 14	@WAKE	L 63-68	+4.5	L −0.5	150.5	U 131
Feb 21	@CAL	L 66-72	+1.5	L −4.5	149.5	U 138
Feb 25	vsPITT	W 75-67	-8.5	L −0.5	138.5	O 142
Feb 28	vsSMU	W 95-75	+1.5	W +21.5	155.5	O 170
Mar 4	@ND	W 86-78	-1.5	W +6.5	147.5	O 164
Mar 7	@NCSU	W 85-84	+9.5	W +10.5	152.5	O 169
Mar 10	vsPITT	L 63-64	-4.5	L −5.5	136.5	U 127
Apr 2	vsWVU	L 77-82	+2.5	L −2.5	135.5	O 159

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

PRST

W 89-79

−1.5

MONT

W 91-68

+10.5

MTST

W 77-68

−5.5

W 93-66

+6.5

SEA

L 69-77

−18.5

MINN

W 72-68

+1.5

SLU

W 78-77

+2.5

PORT

W 94-72

+2.5

UNLV

L 74-75

−10.5

SJSU

W 86-82

−4.5

UTA

W 76-60

+5.5

COLO

W 77-68

+11.5

CSUN

W 88-80

−7.5

L 40-47

−13.5

LOU

W 80-76

+11.5

W 69-68

+4.5

UVA

L 55-70

−2.5

UNC

W 95-90

+9.5

DUKE

L 50-80

−18.5

CAL

L 66-78

−16.5

MIA

L 70-79

+0.5

FSU

L 80-88

−4.5

CLEM

L 64-66

+1.5

W 95-72

+13.5

W 70-64

+2.5

WAKE

L 63-68

−0.5

CAL

L 66-72

−4.5

PITT

W 75-67

−0.5

SMU

W 95-75

+21.5

W 86-78

+6.5

NCSU

W 85-84

+10.5

PITT

L 63-64

−5.5

WVU

L 77-82

−2.5

covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

PRST

W 89-79

+23.5

MONT

W 91-68

+8.5

MTST

W 77-68

−3.5

W 93-66

+19.5

SEA

L 69-77

−6.5

MINN

W 72-68

−2.5

SLU

W 78-77

−5.5

PORT

W 94-72

+9.5

UNLV

L 74-75

−15.5

SJSU

W 86-82

+22.5

UTA

W 76-60

−3.5

COLO

W 77-68

−9.5

CSUN

W 88-80

+7.5

L 40-47

−56.5

LOU

W 80-76

−1.5

W 69-68

−11.5

UVA

L 55-70

−18.5

UNC

W 95-90

+37.5

DUKE

L 50-80

−18.5

CAL

L 66-78

−2.5

MIA

L 70-79

+1.5

FSU

L 80-88

+15.5

CLEM

L 64-66

−8.5

W 95-72

+15.5

W 70-64

−5.5

WAKE

L 63-68

−19.5

CAL

L 66-72

−11.5

PITT

W 75-67

+3.5

SMU

W 95-75

+14.5

W 86-78

+16.5

NCSU

W 85-84

+16.5

PITT

L 63-64

−9.5

WVU

L 77-82

+23.5

over 15under 18avg +0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Stanford has the better starters

Position by position: Oakland 1, Stanford 3, even 1

OaklandBetterStanford

G N. Mashhour9 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.4 ast Score 22

STANBig

G C. Bliss TR16.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 5.9 ast Score 84

G B. Swartz TR7.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.3 ast Score 41

STANBig

F N. Townsend TR16.6 pts · 7.3 reb · 4.4 ast Score 93

F B. El Shakery TR11.2 pts · 8 reb · 1.4 ast Score 59

Even

F A. Cammann6.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.4 ast Score 56

F C. Fields TR9.1 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.2 ast Score 79

OAKBig

F D. Young2.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 26

F J. Hill TR7 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.4 ast Score 16

STANBig

C A. Maurer TR7.2 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 70

OaklandBetterStanford

OAK offense159th of 366 · -4.8

STANSmall

STAN defense79th of 366 · +0.4

OAK defense266th of 366 · -6.8

STANBig

STAN offense88th of 366 · +0.2

Backcourt-3.2 · 2 players

STANBig

Backcourt+2.6 · 1 player

Frontcourt-0.2 · 3 players

STANBig

Frontcourt+4.6 · 4 players

Bench-1.7 · 2 players

STANSmall

Bench-0.1 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestOAK betterSTAN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Oakland

Guards

N. Mashhour28 minB. Swartz21 min · TRW. Marshall12 minR. Taylor11 min · TRW. KassiNewH. MashhourNew

Forwards

B. El Shakery27 min · TRC. Fields18 min · TRJ. Hill17 min · TRN. AhnerNewC. ThompsonNewI. TheodileNew

Stanford

Guards

C. Bliss40 min · TRE. Kitch1 minA. BatsonNewM. JonesNewJ. PriceNewI. RogersNew

Forwards

N. Townsend34 min · TRA. Cammann22 minD. Young15 minK. Skrinda6 minE. Stinson5 minT. Toure4 min

Centers

A. Maurer18 min · TR

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

OAK81.6 #37

STAN76.0 #142

Points per possession

OAK1.14 #66

STAN1.12 #108

Pace (possessions)

OAK71.1 #67

STAN68.1 #225

Shooting

Effective FG%

OAK52.7 #114

STAN51.5 #173

3-point %

OAK34.7 #131

STAN35.2 #103

3-point attempt rate

OAK34.0 #294

STAN44.0 #89

Free throw rate

OAK38.1 #100

STAN35.5 #165

Possessions

Turnover rate

OAK14.7 #47

STAN15.5 #105

Offensive rebound rate

OAK31.3 #152

STAN32.5 #109

Assists per game

OAK15.7 #60

STAN11.8 #299

Defense

Points allowed

OAK82.8 #344

STAN73.0 #132

Points allowed per possession

OAK1.17 #340

STAN1.07 #136

Opponent effective FG%

OAK54.7 #322

STAN51.0 #158

Opponent 3-point %

OAK34.3 #206

STAN33.0 #118

Turnovers forced

OAK15.1 #275

STAN18.0 #99

Defensive rebound rate

OAK65.6 #324

STAN70.2 #149

Steals per game

OAK7.2 #106

STAN7.8 #53

Blocks per game

OAK3.7 #110

STAN3.9 #93

OAK		STAN
Scoring
81.6 #37	Points per game	76.0 #142
1.14 #66	Points per possession	1.12 #108
71.1 #67	Pace (possessions)	68.1 #225
Shooting
52.7 #114	Effective FG%	51.5 #173
34.7 #131	3-point %	35.2 #103
34.0 #294	3-point attempt rate	44.0 #89
38.1 #100	Free throw rate	35.5 #165
Possessions
14.7 #47	Turnover rate	15.5 #105
31.3 #152	Offensive rebound rate	32.5 #109
15.7 #60	Assists per game	11.8 #299
Defense
82.8 #344	Points allowed	73.0 #132
1.17 #340	Points allowed per possession	1.07 #136
54.7 #322	Opponent effective FG%	51.0 #158
34.3 #206	Opponent 3-point %	33.0 #118
15.1 #275	Turnovers forced	18.0 #99
65.6 #324	Defensive rebound rate	70.2 #149
7.2 #106	Steals per game	7.8 #53
3.7 #110	Blocks per game	3.9 #93

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Oakland

15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Horizon League

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs N Kentucky84–85
Lvs Detroit Mercy89–95
W@ IU Indy86–74
Wvs Milwaukee81–70
Lvs Green Bay68–73

A week or more of rest.

Stanford

20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 9-10 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs West Virginia77–82
Lvs Pitt63–64
W@ NC State85–84
W@ Notre Dame86–78
Wvs SMU95–75

A week or more of rest.

Oakland Golden Grizzlies at Stanford Cardinal

What could decide it: STAN has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Oakland

Stanford

Stanford has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Oakland

Stanford