Sanford Coyote Sports Center · at South Dakota
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SDAK | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SDAK 75–72 · win probability SDAK 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 147.1
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: SDAK has more of the edges
HCU 0, SDAK 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: HCU plays 64.7 a game (352nd fastest), SDAK 72.6 (23rd). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: HCU 36.0, SDAK 45.2. Allowed: HCU 30.7, SDAK 31.0
Home court
SDAK at home. This season: SDAK 0-0 at home, HCU 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: HCU 29.9%, SDAK 28.7%. Defensive: HCU 67.5%, SDAK 69.7%
Even
Three-pointers
HCU hits 31.7% and allows 35.0%; SDAK hits 32.4% and allows 34.5%. Threes are 36.5% and 35.9% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
HCU has played the 332nd-hardest schedule, SDAK the 305th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: HCU 18.9%, SDAK 16.5%. Forced: HCU 17.6%, SDAK 15.9%
Even
HCU offense vs SDAK defense
Offense 342nd of 366 against a defense 355th, on the model’s ratings
Even
SDAK offense vs HCU defense
Offense 197th of 366 against a defense 203rd, on the model’s ratings
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: HCU 25%, SDAK 26%. Transfers in: HCU 5, SDAK 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: HCU 49.7 and allows 54.2; SDAK 49.9 and allows 54.5
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 | — | SDAK -2.6 | — |
| Total | — | 147.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | HCU 72.2 · SDAK 74.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SDAK -1.4 | — |
| 1H total | 68.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | HCU 33.7 · SDAK 35.1 | — |
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% | 2-8 20% | |
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Hou Christian
30 games played
Straight up
10-20
33% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.8 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-16
47% 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 8 | @ | L 60-78 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 72-61 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 25 | @ | L 69-74 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | @ | W 72-65 | -1.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 62-80 | +7.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 75-77 | +11.5 | W +9.5 | 127.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 85-76 | +4.5 | W +13.5 | 140.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 71-74 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 132.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 15 | vs | L 68-78 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 137.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-79 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | O 143 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 61-89 | +35.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 56-73 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 5 | vs | L 65-81 | +3.5 | L −12.5 | 132.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 67-85 | +12.5 | L −5.5 | 137.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 56-64 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 134.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 81-70 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 19 | vs | W 82-80 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 139.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 51-68 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | U 119 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 81-75 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 71-73 | +7.5 | W +5.5 | 135.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 57-74 | +9.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 47-55 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 133.5 | U 102 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 69-73 | +21.5 | W +17.5 | 137.5 | O 142 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 61-60 | -1.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 121 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 72-68 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 140 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 53-71 | +2.5 | L −15.5 | 134.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 23 | @ | W 69-68 | +2.5 | W +3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 56-77 | +8.5 | L −12.5 | 138.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 75-53 | +2.5 | W +24.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 60-73 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 143.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
UCSD
L 60-78
−10.5
13
vs
ULM
W 72-61
+2.5
25
@
BELL
L 69-74
−7.5
26
@
CIT
W 72-65
+5.5
29
@
GASO
L 62-80
−10.5
2
@
UNT
L 75-77
+9.5
6
@
NOLA
W 85-76
+13.5
13
vs
SELA
L 71-74
−5.5
15
vs
MCN
L 68-78
+4.5
17
@
NICH
L 64-79
−11.5
29
@
ISU
L 61-89
+7.5
3
@
UIW
L 56-73
−10.5
5
vs
AMCC
L 65-81
−12.5
10
@
SFA
L 67-85
−5.5
12
@
LAM
L 56-64
+0.5
17
vs
ETAM
W 81-70
+8.5
19
vs
NWST
W 82-80
−0.5
24
vs
RGV
L 51-68
−14.5
27
vs
UIW
W 81-75
+7.5
31
@
AMCC
L 71-73
+5.5
2
@
RGV
L 57-74
−7.5
7
@
SELA
L 47-55
−3.5
9
@
MCN
L 69-73
+17.5
14
vs
NOLA
W 61-60
−0.5
16
vs
NICH
W 72-68
+2.5
21
@
NWST
L 53-71
−15.5
23
@
ETAM
W 69-68
+3.5
28
vs
SFA
L 56-77
−12.5
2
vs
LAM
W 75-53
+24.5
8
vs
NOLA
L 60-73
−7.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
UCSD
L 60-78
−3.5
13
vs
ULM
W 72-61
−10.5
25
@
BELL
L 69-74
−1.5
26
@
CIT
W 72-65
−0.5
29
@
GASO
L 62-80
−6.5
2
@
UNT
L 75-77
+24.5
6
@
NOLA
W 85-76
+20.5
13
vs
SELA
L 71-74
+12.5
15
vs
MCN
L 68-78
+8.5
17
@
NICH
L 64-79
+5.5
29
@
ISU
L 61-89
+4.5
3
@
UIW
L 56-73
−12.5
5
vs
AMCC
L 65-81
+13.5
10
@
SFA
L 67-85
+14.5
12
@
LAM
L 56-64
−14.5
17
vs
ETAM
W 81-70
+11.5
19
vs
NWST
W 82-80
+22.5
24
vs
RGV
L 51-68
−21.5
27
vs
UIW
W 81-75
+15.5
31
@
AMCC
L 71-73
+8.5
2
@
RGV
L 57-74
−10.5
7
@
SELA
L 47-55
−31.5
9
@
MCN
L 69-73
+4.5
14
vs
NOLA
W 61-60
−27.5
16
vs
NICH
W 72-68
+3.5
21
@
NWST
L 53-71
−10.5
23
@
ETAM
W 69-68
−1.5
28
vs
SFA
L 56-77
−5.5
2
vs
LAM
W 75-53
−4.5
8
vs
NOLA
L 60-73
−10.5
over 14under 16avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
South Dakota
29 games played
Straight up
13-16
45% wins
Against the spread
16-13
55% covers · avg +0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-17
41% overs · avg −1.2 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 | L 79-81 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 5 | @ | L 76-92 | +29.5 | W +13.5 | 169.5 | U 168 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 89-74 | -7.5 | W +7.5 | 164.5 | U 163 |
| Nov 16 | vs | W 83-78 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 172.5 | U 161 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 68-102 | +24.5 | L −9.5 | 171.5 | U 170 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 82-81 | -15.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 80-63 | -3.5 | W +13.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 71-77 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 87-89 | +8.5 | W +6.5 | 162.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 9 | @ | L 79-106 | +14.5 | L −12.5 | 161.5 | O 185 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 97-85 | -6.5 | W +5.5 | 168.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 76-106 | +21.5 | L −8.5 | 176.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 61-84 | +11.5 | L −11.5 | 164.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 86-99 | +14.5 | W +1.5 | 162.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 82-72 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 169.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 99-83 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 80-96 | +1.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 176 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 68-64 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 78-90 | +10.5 | L −1.5 | 161.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 77-69 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 154.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 84-89 | +8.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | O 173 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 82-75 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 68-67 | +11.5 | W +12.5 | 159.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 11 | vs | L 71-72 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 156.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 70-90 | +5.5 | L −14.5 | 163.5 | U 160 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 62-67 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 151.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 89-72 | -1.5 | W +15.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 75-70 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 62-76 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 150.5 | U 138 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UTU
L 79-81
−3.5
5
@
CREI
L 76-92
+13.5
12
vs
USI
W 89-74
+7.5
16
vs
WMU
W 83-78
+1.5
20
@
MIZ
L 68-102
−9.5
23
vs
SCST
W 82-81
−14.5
29
vs
AF
W 80-63
+13.5
3
vs
PRST
L 71-77
−3.5
6
@
UNCO
L 87-89
+6.5
9
@
WYO
L 79-106
−12.5
13
vs
PV
W 97-85
+5.5
20
@
KSU
L 76-106
−8.5
31
@
NDSU
L 61-84
−11.5
7
@
STMN
L 86-99
+1.5
10
vs
DEN
W 82-72
+11.5
15
vs
KC
W 99-83
+8.5
17
@
UND
L 80-96
−14.5
21
@
OMA
W 68-64
+10.5
24
vs
STMN
L 78-90
−1.5
29
vs
ORU
W 77-69
+4.5
31
vs
NDSU
L 84-89
+3.5
4
@
KC
W 82-75
+4.5
7
@
SDST
W 68-67
+12.5
11
vs
UND
L 71-72
−3.5
19
@
DEN
L 70-90
−14.5
21
@
ORU
L 62-67
−3.5
25
vs
OMA
W 89-72
+15.5
28
vs
SDST
W 75-70
+8.5
6
vs
OMA
L 62-76
−12.5
covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UTU
L 79-81
−4.5
5
@
CREI
L 76-92
−1.5
12
vs
USI
W 89-74
−1.5
16
vs
WMU
W 83-78
−11.5
20
@
MIZ
L 68-102
−1.5
23
vs
SCST
W 82-81
+2.5
29
vs
AF
W 80-63
−4.5
3
vs
PRST
L 71-77
−10.5
6
@
UNCO
L 87-89
+13.5
9
@
WYO
L 79-106
+23.5
13
vs
PV
W 97-85
+13.5
20
@
KSU
L 76-106
+5.5
31
@
NDSU
L 61-84
−19.5
7
@
STMN
L 86-99
+22.5
10
vs
DEN
W 82-72
−15.5
15
vs
KC
W 99-83
+25.5
17
@
UND
L 80-96
+15.5
21
@
OMA
W 68-64
−28.5
24
vs
STMN
L 78-90
+6.5
29
vs
ORU
W 77-69
−8.5
31
vs
NDSU
L 84-89
+18.5
4
@
KC
W 82-75
+0.5
7
@
SDST
W 68-67
−24.5
11
vs
UND
L 71-72
−13.5
19
@
DEN
L 70-90
−3.5
21
@
ORU
L 62-67
−22.5
25
vs
OMA
W 89-72
+8.5
28
vs
SDST
W 75-70
−6.5
6
vs
OMA
L 62-76
−12.5
over 12under 17avg −1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Hou Christian has the better starters
Position by position: Hou Christian 2, South Dakota 1, even 2
Hou ChristianBetterSouth Dakota
G C. Mubiru TR6.7 pts · 4 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 37
←HCUSmall
G J. Summers TR9.8 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 22
G D. Samuels8.7 pts · 3.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 46
=Even
G M. Sanchez TR9.7 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 34
G E. Pippa-White TR4.3 pts · 1.7 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 5
→SDAKSmall
G V. Buzelis7.1 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 27
F S. Simmons TR6.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 33
=Even
G K. Kublickas TR5.5 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 19
F M. Mara5.4 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 33
←HCUSmall
F E. Kizer4 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 5
Hou ChristianBetterSouth Dakota
HCU offense342nd of 366 · -11.7
=Even
SDAK defense355th of 366 · -10.1
HCU defense203rd of 366 · -5.0
=Even
SDAK offense197th of 366 · -6.1
Backcourt-4.6 · 3 players
←HCUSmall
Backcourt-7.3 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.3 · 2 players
=Even
Frontcourt-2.0 · 1 player
Bench-3.9 · 3 players
→SDAKSmall
Bench-1.8 · 4 players
Score, worst to bestHCU betterSDAK betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Mubiru27 min · TRD. Samuels23 minE. Pippa-White18 min · TRB. Alvarez15 min · TRK. Clark7 minM. AlexanderNew
Forwards
S. Simmons26 min · TRM. Mara20 minA. Miller15 min · TRI. SackoNewK. KeinysNewJ. PapeNew
Guards
J. Summers27 min · TRM. Sanchez25 min · TRV. Buzelis24 minK. Kublickas20 min · TRC. Kelderman4 min · TRE. WarrenNew
Forwards
E. Kizer15 minJ. Brack14 minJ. Townley-Thomas5 min · TRT. NetolickyNewB. DomschNew
Centers
S. van Bussel5 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 66.3 #342 | Points per game | 78.0 #94 |
| 1.03 #297 | Points per possession | 1.07 #207 |
| 64.7 #352 | Pace (possessions) | 72.6 #23 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.7 #252 | Effective FG% | 49.9 #239 |
| 31.7 #291 | 3-point % | 32.4 #264 |
| 36.5 #239 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.9 #251 |
| 36.0 #151 | Free throw rate | 45.2 #4 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.9 #317 | Turnover rate | 16.5 #168 |
| 29.9 #205 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.7 #242 |
| 13.7 #164 | Assists per game | 11.9 #295 |
| Defense | ||
| 72.4 #113 | Points allowed | 81.7 #337 |
| 1.12 #268 | Points allowed per possession | 1.13 #284 |
| 54.2 #304 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.5 #318 |
| 35.0 #248 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.5 #219 |
| 17.6 #117 | Turnovers forced | 15.9 #225 |
| 67.5 #279 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.7 #172 |
| 6.3 #200 | Steals per game | 6.1 #223 |
| 3.7 #111 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #293 |
Hou Christian
10-20 in 2025-26 overall · 8-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs LSU N Orleans60–73
- Wvs Lamar75–53
- Lvs SF Austin56–77
- W@ East Texas A&M69–68
- L@ N'Western St53–71
A week or more of rest.
South Dakota
13-16 in 2025-26 overall · 8-9 in conference · Summit League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Omaha62–76
- Wvs S Dakota St75–70
- Wvs Omaha89–72
- L@ Oral Roberts62–67
- L@ Denver70–90
A week or more of rest.