Maples Pavilion · at Stanford
LineNo line yet
Total—
| 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 79–67 · win probability STAN 85%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 145.5
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: STAN has more of the edges
UCI 1, STAN 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: UCI 36.0, STAN 35.5. Allowed: UCI 26.7, STAN 40.3
Context
Schedule so far
UCI has played the 215th-hardest schedule, STAN the 76th. A record against a soft schedule means less
UCI offense vs STAN defense
Offense 187th of 366 against a defense 79th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: UCI plays 71.5 a game (51st fastest), STAN 68.1 (225th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
UCI hits 33.6% and allows 33.7%; STAN hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 28.0% and 44.0% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UCI 30.9%, STAN 32.5%. Defensive: UCI 68.8%, STAN 70.2%
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UCI 17.8%, STAN 15.5%. Forced: UCI 18.8%, STAN 18.0%
Home court
STAN at home. This season: STAN 0-0 at home, UCI 0-0 away
Even
STAN offense vs UCI defense
Offense 88th of 366 against a defense 126th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UCI 44%, STAN 27%. Transfers in: UCI 2, STAN 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: UCI 49.5 and allows 45.9; STAN 51.5 and allows 51.0
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 | — | STAN -11.9 | — |
| Total | — | 145.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | UCI 66.8 · STAN 78.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | STAN -7.0 | — |
| 1H total | 68.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | UCI 30.6 · STAN 37.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% | 3-7 30% | |
| 6-4 60% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UC Irvine
33 games played
Straight up
21-12
64% wins
Against the spread
17-16
52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-21
36% overs · avg −3.1 pts vs the total
Against the spread
17-1652%
2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered
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 7 | vs | L 61-69 | -8.5 | L −16.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 79-70 | -11.5 | L −2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | @ | L 72-79 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 69-70 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 139 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 45-57 | -2.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | U 102 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 64-52 | -2.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 116 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 72-63 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 4 | vs | W 73-60 | -13.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 85-71 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 19 | vs | L 58-84 | -1.5 | L −27.5 | 150.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 74-73 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 89-70 | -11.5 | W +7.5 | 136.5 | O 159 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 81-77 | -11.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 86-64 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 160.5 | U 150 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 74-64 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 66-67 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 72-75 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 80-66 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 61-59 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 87-76 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 78-62 | -16.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 79-84 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 12 | @ | L 73-79 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 86-65 | -7.5 | W +13.5 | 154.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 19 | @ | W 69-58 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 69-71 | -3.5 | L −5.5 | 143.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 68-67 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 64-60 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 138.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 107-85 | -9.5 | W +12.5 | 160.5 | O 192 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 79-69 | -7.5 | W +2.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 93-78 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | O 171 |
| Mar 14 | vs | L 64-71 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 17 | vs | L 72-75 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 153.5 | U 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
CBU
L 61-69
−16.5
15
vs
WEB
W 79-70
−2.5
19
@
UVU
L 72-79
−4.5
22
vs
UNI
L 69-70
−3.5
25
vs
NMSU
L 45-57
−14.5
26
vs
SDST
W 64-52
+9.5
30
@
SJSU
W 72-63
+5.5
4
vs
UCR
W 73-60
−0.5
6
vs
CSUN
W 85-71
+6.5
19
vs
BEL
L 58-84
−27.5
21
vs
NDSU
W 74-73
+2.5
22
vs
NORF
W 89-70
+7.5
1
@
CSUB
W 81-77
−7.5
3
@
CSUF
W 86-64
+18.5
8
vs
LBSU
W 74-64
−0.5
10
@
HAW
L 66-67
+3.5
17
@
UCD
L 72-75
−6.5
22
@
UCR
W 80-66
+5.5
24
@
UCSD
W 61-59
+4.5
29
vs
HAW
W 87-76
+9.5
5
vs
CSUB
W 78-62
−0.5
7
@
UCSB
L 79-84
−2.5
12
@
CP
L 73-79
−11.5
14
vs
CSUF
W 86-65
+13.5
19
@
LBSU
W 69-58
+5.5
21
vs
UCSD
L 69-71
−5.5
26
@
CSUN
W 68-67
+2.5
28
vs
UCSB
W 64-60
+0.5
5
vs
CP
W 107-85
+12.5
7
vs
UCD
W 79-69
+2.5
13
vs
CSUN
W 93-78
+11.5
14
vs
HAW
L 64-71
−8.5
17
vs
UNLV
L 72-75
−1.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
CBU
L 61-69
−17.5
15
vs
WEB
W 79-70
−2.5
19
@
UVU
L 72-79
+1.5
22
vs
UNI
L 69-70
+0.5
25
vs
NMSU
L 45-57
−37.5
26
vs
SDST
W 64-52
−28.5
30
@
SJSU
W 72-63
−4.5
4
vs
UCR
W 73-60
−9.5
6
vs
CSUN
W 85-71
+3.5
19
vs
BEL
L 58-84
−8.5
21
vs
NDSU
W 74-73
+0.5
22
vs
NORF
W 89-70
+22.5
1
@
CSUB
W 81-77
+14.5
3
@
CSUF
W 86-64
−10.5
8
vs
LBSU
W 74-64
−4.5
10
@
HAW
L 66-67
−7.5
17
@
UCD
L 72-75
−1.5
22
@
UCR
W 80-66
+3.5
24
@
UCSD
W 61-59
−26.5
29
vs
HAW
W 87-76
+18.5
5
vs
CSUB
W 78-62
−4.5
7
@
UCSB
L 79-84
+21.5
12
@
CP
L 73-79
−9.5
14
vs
CSUF
W 86-65
−3.5
19
@
LBSU
W 69-58
−17.5
21
vs
UCSD
L 69-71
−3.5
26
@
CSUN
W 68-67
−18.5
28
vs
UCSB
W 64-60
−14.5
5
vs
CP
W 107-85
+31.5
7
vs
UCD
W 79-69
+3.5
13
vs
CSUN
W 93-78
+18.5
14
vs
HAW
L 64-71
−6.5
17
vs
UNLV
L 72-75
−6.5
over 12under 21avg −3.1 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
Against the spread
17-1652%
2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered
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 89-79 | -11.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 91-68 | -12.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 77-68 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 93-66 | -20.5 | W +6.5 | 139.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 69-77 | -10.5 | L −18.5 | 152.5 | U 146 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 72-68 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 142.5 | U 140 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 78-77 | +1.5 | W +2.5 | 160.5 | U 155 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 94-72 | -19.5 | W +2.5 | 156.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 74-75 | -9.5 | L −10.5 | 164.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 86-82 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 145.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 76-60 | -10.5 | W +5.5 | 139.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 77-68 | +2.5 | W +11.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 27 | vs | W 88-80 | -15.5 | L −7.5 | 160.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 40-47 | -6.5 | L −13.5 | 143.5 | U 87 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 80-76 | +7.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | U 156 |
| Jan 7 | @ | W 69-68 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 55-70 | +12.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 95-90 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 50-80 | +11.5 | L −18.5 | 148.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 66-78 | -4.5 | L −16.5 | 146.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 70-79 | +9.5 | W +0.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 80-88 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 152.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 4 | vs | L 64-66 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 138.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 95-72 | -9.5 | W +13.5 | 151.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 11 | @ | W 70-64 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-68 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 66-72 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 75-67 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 138.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 95-75 | +1.5 | W +21.5 | 155.5 | O 170 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 86-78 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 85-84 | +9.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 63-64 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 136.5 | U 127 |
| Apr 2 | vs | L 77-82 | +2.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | O 159 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
PRST
W 89-79
−1.5
8
vs
MONT
W 91-68
+10.5
12
vs
MTST
W 77-68
−5.5
18
vs
UL
W 93-66
+6.5
21
vs
SEA
L 69-77
−18.5
27
vs
MINN
W 72-68
+1.5
28
vs
SLU
W 78-77
+2.5
1
vs
PORT
W 94-72
+2.5
7
vs
UNLV
L 74-75
−10.5
13
@
SJSU
W 86-82
−4.5
17
vs
UTA
W 76-60
+5.5
20
vs
COLO
W 77-68
+11.5
27
vs
CSUN
W 88-80
−7.5
30
vs
ND
L 40-47
−13.5
2
vs
LOU
W 80-76
+11.5
7
@
VT
W 69-68
+4.5
10
@
UVA
L 55-70
−2.5
14
vs
UNC
W 95-90
+9.5
17
vs
DUKE
L 50-80
−18.5
24
vs
CAL
L 66-78
−16.5
28
@
MIA
L 70-79
+0.5
31
@
FSU
L 80-88
−4.5
4
vs
CLEM
L 64-66
+1.5
7
vs
GT
W 95-72
+13.5
11
@
BC
W 70-64
+2.5
14
@
WAKE
L 63-68
−0.5
21
@
CAL
L 66-72
−4.5
25
vs
PITT
W 75-67
−0.5
28
vs
SMU
W 95-75
+21.5
4
@
ND
W 86-78
+6.5
7
@
NCSU
W 85-84
+10.5
10
vs
PITT
L 63-64
−5.5
2
vs
WVU
L 77-82
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
PRST
W 89-79
+23.5
8
vs
MONT
W 91-68
+8.5
12
vs
MTST
W 77-68
−3.5
18
vs
UL
W 93-66
+19.5
21
vs
SEA
L 69-77
−6.5
27
vs
MINN
W 72-68
−2.5
28
vs
SLU
W 78-77
−5.5
1
vs
PORT
W 94-72
+9.5
7
vs
UNLV
L 74-75
−15.5
13
@
SJSU
W 86-82
+22.5
17
vs
UTA
W 76-60
−3.5
20
vs
COLO
W 77-68
−9.5
27
vs
CSUN
W 88-80
+7.5
30
vs
ND
L 40-47
−56.5
2
vs
LOU
W 80-76
−1.5
7
@
VT
W 69-68
−11.5
10
@
UVA
L 55-70
−18.5
14
vs
UNC
W 95-90
+37.5
17
vs
DUKE
L 50-80
−18.5
24
vs
CAL
L 66-78
−2.5
28
@
MIA
L 70-79
+1.5
31
@
FSU
L 80-88
+15.5
4
vs
CLEM
L 64-66
−8.5
7
vs
GT
W 95-72
+15.5
11
@
BC
W 70-64
−5.5
14
@
WAKE
L 63-68
−19.5
21
@
CAL
L 66-72
−11.5
25
vs
PITT
W 75-67
+3.5
28
vs
SMU
W 95-75
+14.5
4
@
ND
W 86-78
+16.5
7
@
NCSU
W 85-84
+16.5
10
vs
PITT
L 63-64
−9.5
2
vs
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: UC Irvine 1, Stanford 2, even 2
UC IrvineBetterStanford
G T. Isaac6 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 17
→STANBig
G C. Bliss TR16.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 5.9 ast
Score 84
G N. Cooper TR11.8 pts · 4.6 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 89
=Even
F N. Townsend TR16.6 pts · 7.3 reb · 4.4 ast
Score 93
G J. Jester6.2 pts · 2.8 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 63
=Even
F A. Cammann6.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 56
F H. Carrington7.9 pts · 3.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 84
←UCIBig
F D. Young2.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 26
F E. Chol4.5 pts · 3 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 28
→STANBig
C A. Maurer TR7.2 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 70
UC IrvineBetterStanford
UCI offense187th of 366 · -5.8
→STANSmall
STAN defense79th of 366 · +0.4
UCI defense126th of 366 · -2.3
=Even
STAN offense88th of 366 · +0.2
Backcourt-0.5 · 3 players
→STANBig
Backcourt+2.6 · 1 player
Frontcourt+0.3 · 2 players
→STANBig
Frontcourt+4.6 · 4 players
Bench-1.3 · 3 players
→STANSmall
Bench-0.1 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestUCI betterSTAN betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
T. Isaac27 minN. Cooper25 min · TRJ. Jester16 minB. Egbo4 minL. RedfieldNewT. LeeNew
Forwards
H. Carrington17 minE. Chol17 minM. HodgesNewP. SpeesNewD. BenthoNew
Centers
N. Emeneke8 minO. Rioux2 min · TR
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 74.2 #188 | Points per game | 76.0 #142 |
| 1.04 #278 | Points per possession | 1.12 #108 |
| 71.5 #51 | Pace (possessions) | 68.1 #225 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.5 #268 | Effective FG% | 51.5 #173 |
| 33.6 #191 | 3-point % | 35.2 #103 |
| 28.0 #359 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.0 #89 |
| 36.0 #152 | Free throw rate | 35.5 #165 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.8 #257 | Turnover rate | 15.5 #105 |
| 30.9 #166 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.5 #109 |
| 14.8 #103 | Assists per game | 11.8 #299 |
| Defense | ||
| 69.4 #54 | Points allowed | 73.0 #132 |
| 0.97 #7 | Points allowed per possession | 1.07 #136 |
| 45.9 #9 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.0 #158 |
| 33.7 #167 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.0 #118 |
| 18.8 #56 | Turnovers forced | 18.0 #99 |
| 68.8 #213 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.2 #149 |
| 7.8 #51 | Steals per game | 7.8 #53 |
| 5.8 #5 | Blocks per game | 3.9 #93 |
UC Irvine
21-12 in 2025-26 overall · 16-6 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UNLV72–75
- Lvs Hawai'i64–71
- Wvs CSU Northridge93–78
- Wvs UC Davis79–69
- Wvs Cal Poly107–85
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.