Worthington Arena · at Montana St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | MTST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MTST 79–67 · win probability MTST 84%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.3
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: MTST has more of the edges
LBSU 0, MTST 8 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LBSU 8%, MTST 89%. Transfers in: LBSU 5, MTST 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
LBSU offense vs MTST defense
Offense 285th of 366 against a defense 155th, on the model’s ratings
Free throws
Free throw rate: LBSU 30.7, MTST 30.2. Allowed: LBSU 42.3, MTST 29.6
Context
Schedule so far
LBSU has played the 152nd-hardest schedule, MTST the 278th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Shooting
Effective FG%: LBSU 50.6 and allows 53.7; MTST 53.6 and allows 51.6
MTST offense vs LBSU defense
Offense 190th of 366 against a defense 300th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
LBSU hits 32.7% and allows 34.4%; MTST hits 36.1% and allows 34.3%. Threes are 34.8% and 44.6% of their shots
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: LBSU plays 71.7 a game (46th fastest), MTST 67.9 (233rd). Faster games mean more points
Home court
MTST at home. This season: MTST 0-0 at home, LBSU 0-0 away
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LBSU 18.0%, MTST 14.8%. Forced: LBSU 17.5%, MTST 15.6%
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LBSU 26.2%, MTST 27.0%. Defensive: LBSU 72.2%, MTST 71.8%
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 | — | MTST -11.5 | — |
| Total | — | 146.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | LBSU 67.4 · MTST 78.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | MTST -6.7 | — |
| 1H total | 68.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | LBSU 30.9 · MTST 37.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-8 20% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | |
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
LBSU 1–2 MTSTMTST leads · 3 games since 2021-22 · LBSU 1-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2025-26 | MTST 78 @ LBSU 72 | LBSU +3.5 | MTST W |
| Nov 26, 2023-24 | LBSU 75 @ MTST 69 | MTST +3.5 | LBSU W |
| Nov 13, 2022-23 | MTST 70 @ LBSU 57 | LBSU -3.5 | MTST W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Long Beach St
30 games played
Straight up
8-22
27% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg +0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-10
67% overs · avg +4.6 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 4 | @ | L 45-77 | +25.5 | L −6.5 | 135.5 | U 122 |
| Nov 8 | @ | L 62-82 | +6.5 | L −13.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 66-69 | +12.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 16 | vs | L 80-82 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 72-78 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 73-93 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 30 | vs | W 76-72 | +2.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 148 |
| Dec 4 | @ | L 77-84 | +13.5 | W +6.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 74-80 | +8.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 83-89 | +7.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 18 | vs | W 81-78 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 60-91 | +37.5 | W +6.5 | 149.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 74-66 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 64-74 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 81-75 | -6.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 88-73 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 87-80 | +7.5 | W +14.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 61-71 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 71-74 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 61-71 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 82-89 | +8.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 74-77 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 144.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 82-86 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 54-71 | +4.5 | L −12.5 | 149.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 58-69 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 76-78 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 157.5 | U 154 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 92-102 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 88-87 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | O 175 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 70-76 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Mar 7 | @ | W 84-75 | +14.5 | W +23.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
SDSU
L 45-77
−6.5
8
@
FRES
L 62-82
−13.5
12
@
PAC
L 66-69
+9.5
16
vs
ILST
L 80-82
+6.5
21
vs
MTST
L 72-78
−2.5
26
@
PORT
L 73-93
−14.5
30
vs
USD
W 76-72
+6.5
4
@
UCSB
L 77-84
+6.5
6
vs
UCSD
L 74-80
+2.5
9
@
SJSU
L 83-89
+1.5
18
vs
PEPP
W 81-78
−1.5
21
@
ISU
L 60-91
+6.5
3
vs
CP
W 74-66
+5.5
8
@
UCI
L 64-74
+0.5
10
vs
CSUB
W 81-75
−0.5
15
vs
UCR
W 88-73
+9.5
17
@
CSUN
W 87-80
+14.5
22
@
CSUF
L 61-71
−6.5
24
vs
UCSB
L 71-74
+1.5
29
@
UCR
L 61-71
−11.5
31
vs
HAW
L 82-89
+1.5
5
@
UCSD
L 74-77
+7.5
12
vs
CSUF
L 82-86
−6.5
14
@
UCD
L 54-71
−12.5
19
vs
UCI
L 58-69
−5.5
21
vs
CSUN
L 76-78
+0.5
26
@
CP
L 92-102
−4.5
28
@
CSUB
W 88-87
−2.5
5
vs
UCD
L 70-76
−4.5
7
@
HAW
W 84-75
+23.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg +0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
SDSU
L 45-77
−13.5
8
@
FRES
L 62-82
+1.5
12
@
PAC
L 66-69
−6.5
16
vs
ILST
L 80-82
+20.5
21
vs
MTST
L 72-78
+9.5
26
@
PORT
L 73-93
+17.5
30
vs
USD
W 76-72
+0.5
4
@
UCSB
L 77-84
+19.5
6
vs
UCSD
L 74-80
+8.5
9
@
SJSU
L 83-89
+30.5
18
vs
PEPP
W 81-78
+17.5
21
@
ISU
L 60-91
+1.5
3
vs
CP
W 74-66
−22.5
8
@
UCI
L 64-74
−4.5
10
vs
CSUB
W 81-75
+13.5
15
vs
UCR
W 88-73
+19.5
17
@
CSUN
W 87-80
+8.5
22
@
CSUF
L 61-71
−28.5
24
vs
UCSB
L 71-74
+0.5
29
@
UCR
L 61-71
−12.5
31
vs
HAW
L 82-89
+26.5
5
@
UCSD
L 74-77
+6.5
12
vs
CSUF
L 82-86
+11.5
14
@
UCD
L 54-71
−24.5
19
vs
UCI
L 58-69
−17.5
21
vs
CSUN
L 76-78
−3.5
26
@
CP
L 92-102
+31.5
28
@
CSUB
W 88-87
+22.5
5
vs
UCD
L 70-76
−3.5
7
@
HAW
W 84-75
+8.5
over 20under 10avg +4.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Montana St
29 games played
Straight up
15-14
52% wins
Against the spread
17-12
59% covers · avg +1.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-13
55% overs · avg +1.4 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 78-84 | +11.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 9 | vs | L 73-75 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 68-77 | +14.5 | W +5.5 | 148.5 | U 145 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 58-62 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 147.5 | U 120 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 78-72 | -3.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | O 150 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 81-84 | +17.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 82-74 | -2.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 68-72 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 150.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 57-67 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 16 | @ | W 83-80 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 159.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 89-75 | -2.5 | W +11.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 77-68 | -10.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 68-64 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 156.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 89-92 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 181 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 76-67 | -5.5 | W +3.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 73-68 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 74-62 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 144.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 91-88 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 80-83 | -4.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 54-63 | +4.5 | L −4.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 73-66 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 147.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 71-72 | -5.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 82-71 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 79-82 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 76-91 | -1.5 | L −16.5 | 144.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 84-69 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 158.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 76-65 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 74-78 | +1.5 | L −2.5 | 143.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
COLO
L 78-84
+5.5
9
vs
DEN
L 73-75
−9.5
12
@
STAN
L 68-77
+5.5
15
@
BOIS
L 58-62
+12.5
21
@
LBSU
W 78-72
+2.5
29
@
USU
L 81-84
+14.5
3
vs
STMN
W 82-74
+5.5
6
@
ORU
L 68-72
−10.5
13
@
ORST
L 57-67
−8.5
16
@
CP
W 83-80
+0.5
1
vs
UNCO
W 89-75
+11.5
3
vs
NAU
W 77-68
−1.5
8
@
EWU
W 68-64
+1.5
10
@
IDHO
L 89-92
−1.5
17
vs
MONT
W 76-67
+3.5
19
@
UNCO
W 73-68
+7.5
22
vs
IDST
W 74-62
+6.5
24
vs
WEB
W 91-88
−3.5
29
@
SAC
L 80-83
−7.5
31
@
PRST
L 54-63
−4.5
5
vs
IDHO
W 73-66
+4.5
7
vs
EWU
L 71-72
−6.5
14
@
MONT
W 82-71
+13.5
19
@
WEB
L 79-82
−1.5
21
@
IDST
L 76-91
−16.5
26
vs
PRST
W 84-69
+12.5
28
vs
SAC
W 82-61
+14.5
2
@
NAU
W 76-65
+5.5
8
vs
IDHO
L 74-78
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 12avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
COLO
L 78-84
+13.5
9
vs
DEN
L 73-75
+1.5
12
@
STAN
L 68-77
−3.5
15
@
BOIS
L 58-62
−27.5
21
@
LBSU
W 78-72
+9.5
29
@
USU
L 81-84
+16.5
3
vs
STMN
W 82-74
+8.5
6
@
ORU
L 68-72
−10.5
13
@
ORST
L 57-67
−16.5
16
@
CP
W 83-80
+3.5
1
vs
UNCO
W 89-75
+9.5
3
vs
NAU
W 77-68
+1.5
8
@
EWU
W 68-64
−24.5
10
@
IDHO
L 89-92
+36.5
17
vs
MONT
W 76-67
−7.5
19
@
UNCO
W 73-68
−12.5
22
vs
IDST
W 74-62
−8.5
24
vs
WEB
W 91-88
+31.5
29
@
SAC
L 80-83
+9.5
31
@
PRST
L 54-63
−21.5
5
vs
IDHO
W 73-66
−8.5
7
vs
EWU
L 71-72
−5.5
14
@
MONT
W 82-71
+7.5
19
@
WEB
L 79-82
+12.5
21
@
IDST
L 76-91
+22.5
26
vs
PRST
W 84-69
+12.5
28
vs
SAC
W 82-61
−15.5
2
@
NAU
W 76-65
−1.5
8
vs
IDHO
L 74-78
+8.5
over 16under 13avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
The starting fives are even
Position by position: Long Beach St 1, Montana St 1, even 3
Long Beach StBetterMontana St
G J. Payne TR6.9 pts · 3.7 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 40
→MTSTBig
G J. Miller15.2 pts · 5.6 reb · 2.8 ast
Score 82
G Y. Sissoko TR2.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 1 ast
Score 32
=No call
G C. Holden8.3 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.7 ast
Not ranked
G C. Jones3.1 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Davis9.2 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 59
F G. Brcic TR4.3 pts · 4.8 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 39
=Even
G S. Amunrud7.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 53
C N. Amenhauser TR5.1 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 57
←LBSUSmall
F C. King12.6 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 41
Long Beach StBetterMontana St
LBSU offense285th of 366 · -8.8
→MTSTBig
MTST defense155th of 366 · -3.4
LBSU defense300th of 366 · -7.7
→MTSTSmall
MTST offense190th of 366 · -5.8
Backcourt-2.0 · 3 players
→MTSTSmall
Backcourt-0.8 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.9 · 1 player
Bench-1.9 · 2 players
←LBSUSmall
Bench-4.0 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestLBSU betterMTST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Payne22 min · TRY. Sissoko11 min · TRC. Jones10 minJ. TenganNewJ. GrayNewM. AdamsNew
Forwards
G. Brcic17 min · TRK. Smith8 min · TRJ. Chaikovsky6 minB. WrightNewH. LauNewM. VanlaninghamNew
Centers
N. Amenhauser12 min · TR
Guards
J. Miller36 minC. Holden28 minJ. Davis25 minS. Amunrud21 minH. Keene11 minD. Slater7 min · TR
Forwards
C. King29 minJ. Steppe15 minW. Mbatch11 minL. Praytor4 min · TRC. Rutherfurd1 minJ. StewardNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.2 #219 | Points per game | 75.7 #151 |
| 1.02 #303 | Points per possession | 1.12 #107 |
| 71.7 #46 | Pace (possessions) | 67.9 #233 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.6 #207 | Effective FG% | 53.6 #80 |
| 32.7 #245 | 3-point % | 36.1 #52 |
| 34.8 #280 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.6 #76 |
| 30.7 #287 | Free throw rate | 30.2 #303 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.0 #271 | Turnover rate | 14.8 #53 |
| 26.2 #315 | Offensive rebound rate | 27.0 #292 |
| 12.3 #264 | Assists per game | 10.6 #347 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.0 #297 | Points allowed | 73.5 #144 |
| 1.10 #220 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #158 |
| 53.7 #290 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.6 #193 |
| 34.4 #212 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.3 #198 |
| 17.5 #119 | Turnovers forced | 15.6 #242 |
| 72.2 #60 | Defensive rebound rate | 71.8 #75 |
| 6.5 #173 | Steals per game | 6.5 #171 |
| 2.9 #250 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #263 |
Long Beach St
8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 6-14 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- W@ Hawai'i84–75
- Lvs UC Davis70–76
- W@ Bakersfield88–87
- L@ Cal Poly92–102
- Lvs CSU Northridge76–78
A week or more of rest.
Montana St
15-14 in 2025-26 overall · 12-7 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Idaho74–78
- W@ N Arizona76–65
- Wvs Sacramento St82–61
- Wvs Portland St84–69
- L@ Idaho St76–91
A week or more of rest.