Desert Financial Arena · at Arizona St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ASU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ASU 87–69 · win probability ASU 95%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 155.6
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: ASU has more of the edges
OAK 2, ASU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
ASU offense vs OAK defense
Offense 55th of 366 against a defense 266th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
OAK has played the 150th-hardest schedule, ASU the 13th. A record against a soft schedule means less
OAK offense vs ASU defense
Offense 159th of 366 against a defense 60th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: OAK 38.1, ASU 39.5. Allowed: OAK 24.6, ASU 34.3
Three-pointers
OAK hits 34.7% and allows 34.3%; ASU hits 33.4% and allows 35.0%. Threes are 34.0% and 38.4% of their shots
Home court
ASU at home. This season: ASU 0-0 at home, OAK 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: OAK 31.3%, ASU 29.9%. Defensive: OAK 65.6%, ASU 65.1%
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: OAK 14.7%, ASU 17.1%. Forced: OAK 15.1%, ASU 18.4%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: OAK 20%, ASU 11%. Transfers in: OAK 5, ASU 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 71 possessions: OAK plays 71.1 a game (67th fastest), ASU 70.6 (93rd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: OAK 52.7 and allows 54.7; ASU 51.1 and allows 52.4
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 | — | ASU -18.6 | — |
| Total | — | 155.6 | — |
| Projected score | — | OAK 68.5 · ASU 87.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ASU -11.0 | — |
| 1H total | 72.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | OAK 30.9 · ASU 41.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
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
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 | @ | L 78-121 | +24.5 | L −18.5 | 156.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 77-87 | +31.5 | W +21.5 | 158.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 45-78 | +30.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 83-87 | +13.5 | W +9.5 | 163.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 91-97 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 83-68 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 95-87 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 162.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 101-92 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | O 193 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 98-97 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 166.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 63-75 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 82-77 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 163.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 70-79 | +19.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 73-88 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 85-83 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 96-73 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 161.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 97-74 | -15.5 | W +7.5 | 169.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 84-94 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 161.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 73-60 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 88-63 | -4.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 85-103 | -14.5 | L −32.5 | 176.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 95-87 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 74-65 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 76-65 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 78-91 | -7.5 | L −20.5 | 170.5 | U 169 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 82-86 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 69-93 | +1.5 | L −22.5 | 156.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 20 | vs | L 68-73 | -6.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 81-70 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 86-74 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 169.5 | U 160 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 89-95 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 84-85 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MICH
L 78-121
−18.5
7
@
PUR
L 77-87
+21.5
12
@
HOU
L 45-78
−2.5
17
@
UCF
L 83-87
+9.5
21
@
EMU
L 91-97
−7.5
24
vs
LAM
W 83-68
+11.5
25
@
MONT
W 95-87
+12.5
3
vs
PFW
W 101-92
+4.5
6
vs
TOL
W 98-97
−3.5
13
@
UNI
L 63-75
−3.5
17
@
NKU
W 82-77
+8.5
20
vs
MSU
L 70-79
+10.5
29
@
WRST
L 73-88
−11.5
1
@
YSU
W 85-83
+3.5
4
vs
RMU
W 96-73
+21.5
9
vs
CLE
W 97-74
+7.5
11
vs
WRST
L 84-94
−14.5
15
@
MILW
W 73-60
+10.5
18
@
GB
W 88-63
+20.5
21
vs
IUIN
L 85-103
−32.5
24
@
DETM
W 95-87
+1.5
28
@
PFW
W 74-65
+7.5
1
vs
NKU
W 76-65
+7.5
4
@
CLE
L 78-91
−20.5
12
vs
YSU
L 82-86
−7.5
15
@
RMU
L 69-93
−22.5
20
vs
GB
L 68-73
−11.5
22
vs
MILW
W 81-70
+5.5
25
@
IUIN
W 86-74
+6.5
28
vs
DETM
L 89-95
−14.5
4
vs
NKU
L 84-85
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MICH
L 78-121
+42.5
7
@
PUR
L 77-87
+5.5
12
@
HOU
L 45-78
−15.5
17
@
UCF
L 83-87
+6.5
21
@
EMU
L 91-97
+34.5
24
vs
LAM
W 83-68
+2.5
25
@
MONT
W 95-87
+19.5
3
vs
PFW
W 101-92
+30.5
6
vs
TOL
W 98-97
+28.5
13
@
UNI
L 63-75
−11.5
17
@
NKU
W 82-77
−4.5
20
vs
MSU
L 70-79
−6.5
29
@
WRST
L 73-88
+1.5
1
@
YSU
W 85-83
+10.5
4
vs
RMU
W 96-73
+7.5
9
vs
CLE
W 97-74
+1.5
11
vs
WRST
L 84-94
+16.5
15
@
MILW
W 73-60
−33.5
18
@
GB
W 88-63
−2.5
21
vs
IUIN
L 85-103
+11.5
24
@
DETM
W 95-87
+14.5
28
@
PFW
W 74-65
−23.5
1
vs
NKU
W 76-65
−25.5
4
@
CLE
L 78-91
−1.5
12
vs
YSU
L 82-86
+12.5
15
@
RMU
L 69-93
+5.5
20
vs
GB
L 68-73
−12.5
22
vs
MILW
W 81-70
−8.5
25
@
IUIN
W 86-74
−9.5
28
vs
DETM
L 89-95
+23.5
4
vs
NKU
L 84-85
+7.5
over 19under 12avg +4.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Arizona St
33 games played
Straight up
17-16
52% wins
Against the spread
20-13
61% covers · avg +0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-17
48% overs · avg +0.1 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 81-64 | -17.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 81-66 | -12.5 | W +2.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 65-77 | +13.5 | W +1.5 | 158.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 75-62 | -18.5 | L −5.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 20 | @ | W 83-76 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 87-86 | +6.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 100-94 | -4.5 | W +1.5 | 157.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 75-88 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 161.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 86-70 | +5.5 | W +21.5 | 157.5 | U 156 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 73-48 | -16.5 | W +8.5 | 154.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 82-79 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 77-90 | +9.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 21 | vs | L 75-78 | -12.5 | L −15.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 89-95 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 184 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 76-104 | +17.5 | L −10.5 | 168.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 87-84 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 169.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 82-89 | +21.5 | W +14.5 | 167.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 18 | @ | L 73-103 | +18.5 | L −11.5 | 142.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 63-75 | -1.5 | L −13.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 82-68 | +3.5 | W +17.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 76-79 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 161.5 | U 155 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 74-87 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 163.5 | U 161 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 71-63 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 161.5 | U 134 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 70-78 | +3.5 | L −4.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 85-76 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 163.5 | U 161 |
| Feb 17 | vs | W 72-67 | +7.5 | W +12.5 | 156.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 68-73 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 24 | @ | L 78-90 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 73-60 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 150.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 3 | vs | W 70-60 | +5.5 | W +15.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 65-86 | +16.5 | L −4.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 83-79 | +5.5 | W +9.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 42-91 | +13.5 | L −35.5 | 148.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
vs
SUU
W 81-64
−0.5
9
vs
UTU
W 81-66
+2.5
14
vs
GONZ
L 65-77
+1.5
17
vs
GAST
W 75-62
−5.5
20
@
HAW
W 83-76
+8.5
24
vs
TEX
W 87-86
+7.5
25
vs
WSU
W 100-94
+1.5
26
vs
USC
L 75-88
−8.5
6
vs
OU
W 86-70
+21.5
9
vs
NAU
W 73-48
+8.5
13
vs
SCU
W 82-79
+4.5
17
@
UCLA
L 77-90
−3.5
21
vs
ORST
L 75-78
−15.5
3
vs
COLO
L 89-95
−7.5
7
@
BYU
L 76-104
−10.5
10
vs
KSU
W 87-84
+1.5
14
@
ARIZ
L 82-89
+14.5
18
@
HOU
L 73-103
−11.5
21
vs
WVU
L 63-75
−13.5
24
vs
CIN
W 82-68
+17.5
27
@
UCF
L 76-79
+3.5
31
vs
ARIZ
L 74-87
+1.5
4
@
UTAH
W 71-63
+9.5
7
@
COLO
L 70-78
−4.5
10
vs
OKST
W 85-76
+5.5
17
vs
TTU
W 72-67
+12.5
21
@
BAY
L 68-73
+3.5
24
@
TCU
L 78-90
−5.5
28
vs
UTAH
W 73-60
+6.5
3
vs
KU
W 70-60
+15.5
7
@
ISU
L 65-86
−4.5
10
vs
BAY
W 83-79
+9.5
11
vs
ISU
L 42-91
−35.5
covered 20didn’t cover 13avg +0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
vs
SUU
W 81-64
−6.5
9
vs
UTU
W 81-66
−5.5
14
vs
GONZ
L 65-77
−16.5
17
vs
GAST
W 75-62
−8.5
20
@
HAW
W 83-76
+15.5
24
vs
TEX
W 87-86
+19.5
25
vs
WSU
W 100-94
+36.5
26
vs
USC
L 75-88
+1.5
6
vs
OU
W 86-70
−1.5
9
vs
NAU
W 73-48
−33.5
13
vs
SCU
W 82-79
+6.5
17
@
UCLA
L 77-90
+24.5
21
vs
ORST
L 75-78
+5.5
3
vs
COLO
L 89-95
+27.5
7
@
BYU
L 76-104
+11.5
10
vs
KSU
W 87-84
+1.5
14
@
ARIZ
L 82-89
+3.5
18
@
HOU
L 73-103
+33.5
21
vs
WVU
L 63-75
−7.5
24
vs
CIN
W 82-68
+3.5
27
@
UCF
L 76-79
−6.5
31
vs
ARIZ
L 74-87
−2.5
4
@
UTAH
W 71-63
−27.5
7
@
COLO
L 70-78
−10.5
10
vs
OKST
W 85-76
−2.5
17
vs
TTU
W 72-67
−17.5
21
@
BAY
L 68-73
−16.5
24
@
TCU
L 78-90
+18.5
28
vs
UTAH
W 73-60
−17.5
3
vs
KU
W 70-60
−21.5
7
@
ISU
L 65-86
+2.5
10
vs
BAY
W 83-79
+9.5
11
vs
ISU
L 42-91
−15.5
over 16under 17avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Arizona St has the better starters
Position by position: Oakland 0, Arizona St 3, even 2
OaklandBetterArizona St
G N. Mashhour9 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 22
→ASUBig
G J. Foxwell TR15.8 pts · 4.3 reb · 6.4 ast
Score 79
G B. Swartz TR7.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 41
=Even
G D. Shaw TR7.5 pts · 5.3 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 55
F B. El Shakery TR11.2 pts · 8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 59
=Even
G E. Innocenti TR6 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.7 ast
Score 58
F C. Fields TR9.1 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 79
→ASUSmall
F P. Murauskas TR18.4 pts · 7.8 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 97
F J. Hill TR7 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 16
→ASUBig
C B. Defty TR15.1 pts · 6.8 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 84
OaklandBetterArizona St
OAK offense159th of 366 · -4.8
→ASUSmall
ASU defense60th of 366 · +1.2
OAK defense266th of 366 · -6.8
→ASUBig
ASU offense55th of 366 · +3.2
Backcourt-3.2 · 2 players
→ASUBig
Backcourt+1.0 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.2 · 3 players
→ASUBig
Frontcourt+9.4 · 2 players
Bench-1.7 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-0.9 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestOAK betterASU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
J. Foxwell36 min · TRD. Shaw28 min · TRE. Innocenti24 min · TRB. Ford22 minV. WallaceNewJ. CroyNew
Forwards
P. Murauskas33 min · TRA. NyuonNewM. VaughnsNew
Centers
B. Defty29 min · TRN. Garcia7 min · TRF. MalesevicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.6 #37 | Points per game | 76.3 #133 |
| 1.14 #66 | Points per possession | 1.08 #178 |
| 71.1 #67 | Pace (possessions) | 70.6 #93 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.7 #114 | Effective FG% | 51.1 #190 |
| 34.7 #131 | 3-point % | 33.4 #202 |
| 34.0 #294 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.4 #201 |
| 38.1 #100 | Free throw rate | 39.5 #66 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.7 #47 | Turnover rate | 17.1 #211 |
| 31.3 #152 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.9 #206 |
| 15.7 #60 | Assists per game | 13.7 #166 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.8 #344 | Points allowed | 78.3 #273 |
| 1.17 #340 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #239 |
| 54.7 #322 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.4 #235 |
| 34.3 #206 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.0 #249 |
| 15.1 #275 | Turnovers forced | 18.4 #77 |
| 65.6 #324 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.1 #337 |
| 7.2 #106 | Steals per game | 7.0 #122 |
| 3.7 #110 | Blocks per game | 4.6 #32 |
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.
Arizona St
17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 8-12 in conference · Big 12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Iowa State42–91
- Wvs Baylor83–79
- L@ Iowa State65–86
- Wvs Kansas70–60
- Wvs Utah73–60
A week or more of rest.