Gill Coliseum · at Oregon St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ORST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ORST 80–64 · win probability ORST 93%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 144.1
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: ORST has more of the edges
LAM 2, ORST 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: LAM 27.9, ORST 43.1. Allowed: LAM 44.4, ORST 35.1
LAM offense vs ORST defense
Offense 334th of 366 against a defense 109th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
LAM has played the 328th-hardest schedule, ORST the 120th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: LAM 35.7%, ORST 26.8%. Defensive: LAM 70.6%, ORST 67.9%
Three-pointers
LAM hits 32.9% and allows 35.3%; ORST hits 35.0% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 33.9% and 44.3% of their shots
ORST offense vs LAM defense
Offense 95th of 366 against a defense 213th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: LAM 47.8 and allows 50.9; ORST 50.5 and allows 50.3
Turnovers
Turnover rate: LAM 18.1%, ORST 17.7%. Forced: LAM 17.3%, ORST 15.3%
Home court
ORST at home. This season: ORST 0-0 at home, LAM 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: LAM 0%, ORST 17%. Transfers in: LAM 6, ORST 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: LAM plays 66.1 a game (311th fastest), ORST 67.2 (272nd). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | ORST -16.6 | — |
| Total | — | 144.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | LAM 63.8 · ORST 80.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ORST -9.7 | — |
| 1H total | 67.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | LAM 28.8 · ORST 38.6 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 14 | vs ASU | W78–75WO |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Lamar
29 games played
Straight up
10-19
34% wins
Against the spread
12-17
41% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg −0.9 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 10 | @ | L 65-78 | +18.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 17 | @ | W 79-66 | -11.5 | W +1.5 | 140.5 | O 145 |
| Nov 23 | @ | W 68-63 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 68-83 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 65-55 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 129.5 | U 120 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 49-57 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 136.5 | U 106 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 71-89 | +17.5 | L −0.5 | 135.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 72-83 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | O 155 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 82-85 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 29 | @ | W 76-61 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 69-62 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 143.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 70-82 | +16.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 52-60 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 135.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 63-51 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | vs | W 64-56 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 134.5 | U 120 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 90-80 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 139.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 76-89 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 144.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 81-88 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 136.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 27 | vs | W 82-61 | -6.5 | W +14.5 | 140.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 63-64 | +10.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 73-54 | -5.5 | W +13.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 74-84 | +8.5 | L −1.5 | 138.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 9 | vs | L 68-70 | -6.5 | L −8.5 | 135.5 | O 138 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 63-76 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 135.5 | O 139 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 65-70 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 71-77 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 52-53 | -3.5 | L −4.5 | 143.5 | U 105 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-72 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 53-75 | -2.5 | L −24.5 | 132.5 | U 128 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
10
@
TCU
L 65-78
+5.5
17
@
ULM
W 79-66
+1.5
23
@
MONT
W 68-63
+9.5
24
vs
OAK
L 68-83
−11.5
3
vs
UL
W 65-55
−0.5
6
vs
AMCC
L 49-57
−11.5
10
@
SDSU
L 71-89
−0.5
16
vs
RGV
L 72-83
−14.5
20
vs
OMA
L 82-85
−8.5
29
@
NWST
W 76-61
+11.5
31
@
ETAM
W 69-62
+1.5
2
@
MCN
L 70-82
+4.5
5
@
SELA
L 52-60
−9.5
10
vs
UIW
W 63-51
+10.5
12
vs
HCU
W 64-56
−0.5
17
@
NICH
W 90-80
+13.5
19
@
NOLA
L 76-89
−14.5
24
vs
SFA
L 81-88
−2.5
27
vs
ETAM
W 82-61
+14.5
31
vs
MCN
L 63-64
+9.5
2
vs
SELA
W 73-54
+13.5
7
@
SFA
L 74-84
−1.5
9
vs
NWST
L 68-70
−8.5
14
@
AMCC
L 63-76
−10.5
16
@
RGV
L 65-70
+1.5
21
vs
NOLA
L 71-77
−10.5
23
vs
NICH
L 52-53
−4.5
28
@
UIW
L 60-72
−10.5
2
@
HCU
L 53-75
−24.5
covered 12didn’t cover 17avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
10
@
TCU
L 65-78
−4.5
17
@
ULM
W 79-66
+4.5
23
@
MONT
W 68-63
−17.5
24
vs
OAK
L 68-83
+2.5
3
vs
UL
W 65-55
−9.5
6
vs
AMCC
L 49-57
−30.5
10
@
SDSU
L 71-89
+24.5
16
vs
RGV
L 72-83
+15.5
20
vs
OMA
L 82-85
+25.5
29
@
NWST
W 76-61
−1.5
31
@
ETAM
W 69-62
−12.5
2
@
MCN
L 70-82
+6.5
5
@
SELA
L 52-60
−23.5
10
vs
UIW
W 63-51
−26.5
12
vs
HCU
W 64-56
−14.5
17
@
NICH
W 90-80
+30.5
19
@
NOLA
L 76-89
+20.5
24
vs
SFA
L 81-88
+32.5
27
vs
ETAM
W 82-61
+2.5
31
vs
MCN
L 63-64
−17.5
2
vs
SELA
W 73-54
−5.5
7
@
SFA
L 74-84
+19.5
9
vs
NWST
L 68-70
+2.5
14
@
AMCC
L 63-76
+3.5
16
@
RGV
L 65-70
−6.5
21
vs
NOLA
L 71-77
+1.5
23
vs
NICH
L 52-53
−38.5
28
@
UIW
L 60-72
−6.5
2
@
HCU
L 53-75
−4.5
over 14under 15avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Oregon St
33 games played
Straight up
17-16
52% wins
Against the spread
16-17
48% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-14
58% overs · avg +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 | vs | W 67-65 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 76-73 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 66-64 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 134.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 75-87 | +13.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 69-73 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 84-91 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 157.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 65-73 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 69-75 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 80-58 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 81-70 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 67-57 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 75-85 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 153.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 78-75 | +12.5 | W +15.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 64-102 | +7.5 | L −30.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 70-62 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 53-84 | +4.5 | L −26.5 | 137.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 67-81 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 68-55 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 76-82 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 76-70 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 64-81 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 51-81 | +19.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 72-69 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 78-76 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 74-64 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 61-81 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 90-63 | +8.5 | W +35.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 50-60 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 136.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 83-73 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 92-82 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 72-93 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-77 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 56-65 | +20.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 121 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NDSU
W 67-65
−7.5
7
vs
UIC
W 76-73
−3.5
12
vs
UNT
W 66-64
−1.5
17
@
ORE
L 75-87
+1.5
21
vs
EVAN
L 69-73
−10.5
22
vs
IONA
L 84-91
−10.5
24
vs
MASS
L 65-73
−11.5
29
vs
CBU
L 69-75
−7.5
3
vs
UVM
W 80-58
+18.5
6
vs
SUU
W 81-70
+0.5
13
vs
MTST
W 67-57
+8.5
17
vs
SHSU
L 75-85
−13.5
21
@
ASU
W 78-75
+15.5
28
vs
SCU
L 64-102
−30.5
30
vs
SF
W 70-62
+12.5
2
@
PAC
L 53-84
−26.5
4
@
WSU
L 67-81
−7.5
8
vs
SEA
W 68-55
+17.5
10
@
PORT
L 76-82
−3.5
14
vs
LMU
W 76-70
+7.5
17
vs
PAC
L 64-81
−18.5
21
@
SMC
L 51-81
−10.5
28
@
LMU
W 72-69
+8.5
31
@
USD
W 78-76
+5.5
4
vs
WSU
W 74-64
+11.5
7
vs
GONZ
L 61-81
−0.5
12
@
SF
W 90-63
+35.5
15
@
SEA
L 50-60
−3.5
21
vs
PEPP
W 83-73
+0.5
25
vs
USD
W 92-82
+3.5
28
@
SCU
L 72-93
−5.5
8
vs
SF
W 78-77
+4.5
9
vs
GONZ
L 56-65
+11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 17avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NDSU
W 67-65
−12.5
7
vs
UIC
W 76-73
+2.5
12
vs
UNT
W 66-64
−4.5
17
@
ORE
L 75-87
+20.5
21
vs
EVAN
L 69-73
+5.5
22
vs
IONA
L 84-91
+17.5
24
vs
MASS
L 65-73
−11.5
29
vs
CBU
L 69-75
+6.5
3
vs
UVM
W 80-58
−5.5
6
vs
SUU
W 81-70
+4.5
13
vs
MTST
W 67-57
−16.5
17
vs
SHSU
L 75-85
+6.5
21
@
ASU
W 78-75
+5.5
28
vs
SCU
L 64-102
+15.5
30
vs
SF
W 70-62
−12.5
2
@
PAC
L 53-84
−0.5
4
@
WSU
L 67-81
+7.5
8
vs
SEA
W 68-55
−16.5
10
@
PORT
L 76-82
+12.5
14
vs
LMU
W 76-70
+5.5
17
vs
PAC
L 64-81
+5.5
21
@
SMC
L 51-81
−10.5
28
@
LMU
W 72-69
−0.5
31
@
USD
W 78-76
+3.5
4
vs
WSU
W 74-64
−9.5
7
vs
GONZ
L 61-81
−7.5
12
@
SF
W 90-63
+12.5
15
@
SEA
L 50-60
−26.5
21
vs
PEPP
W 83-73
+7.5
25
vs
USD
W 92-82
+29.5
28
@
SCU
L 72-93
+11.5
8
vs
SF
W 78-77
+10.5
9
vs
GONZ
L 56-65
−24.5
over 19under 14avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Oregon St has the better starters
Position by position: Lamar 0, Oregon St 4, even 1
LamarBetterOregon St
G F. Radakovic TR9.7 pts · 4.1 reb · 2.5 ast
Score 38
→ORSTBig
G J. Lake13.1 pts · 4.1 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 87
G N. Moretti TR5.9 pts · 2 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 24
→ORSTBig
G D. Freitag TR20 pts · 4.3 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 93
G Q. Berry TR6.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 61
=Even
G L. Smiley TR7.8 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 52
G M. Collins TR1.4 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 12
→ORSTSmall
F J. Rasmussen TR13 pts · 4.7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 43
F M. Ljubicic TR5.5 pts · 3.5 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 7
→ORSTBig
F D. Gory TR13.7 pts · 6.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 80
LamarBetterOregon St
LAM offense334th of 366 · -10.9
→ORSTBig
ORST defense109th of 366 · -1.1
LAM defense213th of 366 · -5.4
→ORSTSmall
ORST offense95th of 366 · -0.7
Backcourt-4.6 · 4 players
→ORSTBig
Backcourt+5.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-2.4 · 1 player
→ORSTBig
Frontcourt+1.1 · 2 players
Bench-0.8 · 1 player
→ORSTSmall
Bench+1.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestLAM betterORST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
F. Radakovic27 min · TRN. Moretti27 min · TRQ. Berry18 min · TRM. Collins9 min · TRJ. JonesNewS. LynchNew
Forwards
M. Ljubicic20 min · TRM. Reed7 min · TRC. HinkerNewA. AgotNewD. EasonNew
Guards
J. Lake34 minD. Freitag34 min · TRL. Smiley21 min · TRC. Johnson16 min · TRS. Blakely Drummond1 min · TRJ. LakeNew
Forwards
J. Rasmussen32 min · TRD. Gory30 min · TRP. Pinnis4 min · TRK. TreacherNew
Centers
D. Evans9 min · TRX. Staton5 min · TRY. AklogNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 68.4 #308 | Points per game | 71.1 #264 |
| 1.04 #279 | Points per possession | 1.06 #232 |
| 66.1 #311 | Pace (possessions) | 67.2 #272 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.8 #318 | Effective FG% | 50.5 #216 |
| 32.9 #238 | 3-point % | 35.0 #115 |
| 33.9 #297 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.3 #84 |
| 27.9 #344 | Free throw rate | 43.1 #20 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.1 #273 | Turnover rate | 17.7 #254 |
| 35.7 #31 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.8 #303 |
| 13.9 #157 | Assists per game | 13.8 #159 |
| Defense | ||
| 70.5 #64 | Points allowed | 74.2 #159 |
| 1.07 #122 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #223 |
| 50.9 #153 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.3 #119 |
| 35.3 #266 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #116 |
| 17.3 #130 | Turnovers forced | 15.3 #264 |
| 70.6 #130 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.9 #265 |
| 6.1 #227 | Steals per game | 5.5 #293 |
| 4.2 #54 | Blocks per game | 3.7 #115 |
Lamar
10-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Hou Christian53–75
- L@ Incarnate Word60–72
- Lvs Nicholls52–53
- Lvs LSU N Orleans71–77
- L@ UT Rio Grande65–70
A week or more of rest.
Oregon St
17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Pac-12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Gonzaga56–65
- Wvs San Francisco78–77
- L@ Santa Clara72–93
- Wvs San Diego92–82
- Wvs Pepperdine83–73
A week or more of rest.