UPMC Cooper Fieldhouse · at Duquesne
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | DUQ | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 DUQ 79–73 · win probability DUQ 70%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.0
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: DUQ has more of the edges
WSU 1, DUQ 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WSU 18.5%, DUQ 17.6%. Forced: WSU 14.5%, DUQ 18.4%
Three-pointers
WSU hits 36.5% and allows 35.4%; DUQ hits 33.1% and allows 36.2%. Threes are 44.8% and 44.4% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WSU 1%, DUQ 49%. Transfers in: WSU 8, DUQ 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
DUQ offense vs WSU defense
Offense 107th of 366 against a defense 166th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
DUQ at home. This season: DUQ 0-0 at home, WSU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: WSU plays 68.9 a game (183rd fastest), DUQ 70.4 (99th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: WSU 54.7 and allows 52.6; DUQ 52.3 and allows 52.5
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: WSU 30.2, DUQ 38.3. Allowed: WSU 33.0, DUQ 39.9
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WSU 29.5%, DUQ 30.4%. Defensive: WSU 71.8%, DUQ 70.4%
Even
WSU offense vs DUQ defense
Offense 130th of 366 against a defense 118th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
WSU has played the 100th-hardest schedule, DUQ the 108th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | DUQ -6.0 | — |
| Total | — | 152.0 | — |
| Projected score | — | WSU 73 · DUQ 79 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | DUQ -3.4 | — |
| 1H total | 71.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | WSU 33.8 · DUQ 37.2 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | |
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 3-7 30% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Washington St
31 games played
Straight up
11-20
35% wins
Against the spread
15-16
48% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg +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 81-83 | -7.5 | L −9.5 | 154.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 69-85 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 81-71 | -2.5 | W +7.5 | 157.5 | U 152 |
| Nov 14 | vs | L 69-81 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 98-74 | -12.5 | W +11.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 94-100 | +4.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | O 194 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 61-75 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 60-64 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 64-78 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 145.5 | U 142 |
| Dec 14 | @ | L 61-68 | +12.5 | W +5.5 | 156.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 78-63 | -6.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 84-78 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 28 | @ | W 67-62 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 152.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 55-69 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 78-76 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 81-67 | -6.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 82-88 | +15.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | O 170 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 65-86 | +16.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 18 | @ | L 80-85 | +5.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 92-96 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 95-79 | -11.5 | W +4.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 70-58 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 142.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 104-74 | -8.5 | W +21.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 64-74 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 92-96 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 160.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 10 | @ | L 53-83 | +21.5 | L −8.5 | 156.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 87-70 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 144.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 67-83 | +8.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 66-67 | +1.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 79-88 | -7.5 | L −16.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 68-74 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
IDHO
L 81-83
−9.5
7
@
DAV
L 69-85
−11.5
10
vs
STMN
W 81-71
+7.5
14
vs
WASH
L 69-81
−3.5
19
vs
SUU
W 98-74
+11.5
25
vs
ASU
L 94-100
−1.5
26
vs
HALL
L 61-75
−5.5
2
@
BRAD
L 60-64
+1.5
7
vs
NEV
L 64-78
−16.5
14
@
USC
L 61-68
+5.5
17
vs
EWU
W 78-63
+8.5
20
vs
MER
W 84-78
−1.5
28
@
PORT
W 67-62
+1.5
30
@
SEA
L 55-69
−7.5
2
vs
LMU
W 78-76
−1.5
4
vs
ORST
W 81-67
+7.5
10
@
SMC
L 82-88
+9.5
15
vs
GONZ
L 65-86
−4.5
18
@
SF
L 80-85
+0.5
21
@
USD
L 92-96
−5.5
24
vs
PEPP
W 95-79
+4.5
28
vs
SEA
W 70-58
+10.5
31
vs
PORT
W 104-74
+21.5
4
@
ORST
L 64-74
−11.5
7
vs
SCU
L 92-96
+4.5
10
@
GONZ
L 53-83
−8.5
18
vs
PAC
W 87-70
+14.5
21
vs
SMC
L 67-83
−7.5
25
@
LMU
L 66-67
+0.5
28
@
PEPP
L 79-88
−16.5
6
vs
PORT
L 68-74
−11.5
covered 15didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
IDHO
L 81-83
+9.5
7
@
DAV
L 69-85
+0.5
10
vs
STMN
W 81-71
−5.5
14
vs
WASH
L 69-81
−8.5
19
vs
SUU
W 98-74
+14.5
25
vs
ASU
L 94-100
+36.5
26
vs
HALL
L 61-75
−11.5
2
@
BRAD
L 60-64
−24.5
7
vs
NEV
L 64-78
−3.5
14
@
USC
L 61-68
−27.5
17
vs
EWU
W 78-63
−12.5
20
vs
MER
W 84-78
+10.5
28
@
PORT
W 67-62
−23.5
30
@
SEA
L 55-69
−20.5
2
vs
LMU
W 78-76
+11.5
4
vs
ORST
W 81-67
+7.5
10
@
SMC
L 82-88
+26.5
15
vs
GONZ
L 65-86
−4.5
18
@
SF
L 80-85
+18.5
21
@
USD
L 92-96
+35.5
24
vs
PEPP
W 95-79
+27.5
28
vs
SEA
W 70-58
−14.5
31
vs
PORT
W 104-74
+25.5
4
@
ORST
L 64-74
−9.5
7
vs
SCU
L 92-96
+27.5
10
@
GONZ
L 53-83
−20.5
18
vs
PAC
W 87-70
+12.5
21
vs
SMC
L 67-83
+0.5
25
@
LMU
L 66-67
−16.5
28
@
PEPP
L 79-88
+8.5
6
vs
PORT
L 68-74
−7.5
over 16under 15avg +2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Duquesne
31 games played
Straight up
16-15
52% wins
Against the spread
14-17
45% covers · avg −0.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg +1.5 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 83-63 | -17.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 92-80 | -12.5 | L −0.5 | 157.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 87-81 | -12.5 | L −6.5 | 162.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 77-87 | +10.5 | W +0.5 | 151.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 92-78 | -14.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 86-93 | -7.5 | L −14.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 79-83 | -5.5 | L −9.5 | 170.5 | U 162 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 84-75 | -9.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 10 | @ | L 64-86 | +14.5 | L −7.5 | 150.5 | U 150 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 75-78 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 103-59 | -19.5 | W +24.5 | 143.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 89-83 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 150.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 80-93 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 165.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 90-97 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | O 187 |
| Jan 13 | vs | L 65-71 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 152.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 74-63 | -1.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 77-81 | +8.5 | W +4.5 | 165.5 | U 158 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 71-59 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 79-87 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 76-61 | -2.5 | W +12.5 | 146.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 71-65 | +8.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 88-86 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 78-73 | +1.5 | W +6.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 62-61 | -11.5 | L −10.5 | 145.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 66-78 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 56-67 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 76-91 | +13.5 | L −1.5 | 160.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 4 | @ | L 52-64 | +2.5 | L −9.5 | 143.5 | U 116 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 79-77 | -4.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 67-61 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 66-71 | +6.5 | W +1.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NIA
W 83-63
+2.5
7
vs
SHU
W 92-80
−0.5
11
vs
QUC
W 87-81
−6.5
15
@
VILL
L 77-87
+0.5
19
vs
L-MD
W 92-78
−0.5
22
vs
NE
L 86-93
−14.5
2
vs
W&M
L 79-83
−9.5
6
vs
STBK
W 84-75
−0.5
10
@
BOIS
L 64-86
−7.5
13
@
NEV
L 75-78
+2.5
22
vs
CAN
W 103-59
+24.5
30
@
DAV
W 89-83
+8.5
3
vs
VCU
L 80-93
−7.5
7
@
JOES
L 90-97
−8.5
13
vs
DAY
L 65-71
−3.5
17
@
FOR
W 74-63
+9.5
20
vs
SLU
L 77-81
+4.5
24
@
LUC
W 71-59
+6.5
28
vs
SBU
L 79-87
−11.5
1
vs
URI
W 76-61
+12.5
4
@
GMU
W 71-65
+14.5
7
vs
GW
W 88-86
+3.5
14
@
SBU
W 78-73
+6.5
18
vs
LAS
W 62-61
−10.5
21
@
DAY
L 66-78
−5.5
25
vs
DAV
L 56-67
−14.5
28
@
SLU
L 76-91
−1.5
4
@
URI
L 52-64
−9.5
7
vs
RICH
W 79-77
−2.5
12
vs
URI
W 67-61
+4.5
13
vs
VCU
L 66-71
+1.5
covered 14didn’t cover 17avg −0.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NIA
W 83-63
+6.5
7
vs
SHU
W 92-80
+14.5
11
vs
QUC
W 87-81
+5.5
15
@
VILL
L 77-87
+12.5
19
vs
L-MD
W 92-78
+19.5
22
vs
NE
L 86-93
+31.5
2
vs
W&M
L 79-83
−8.5
6
vs
STBK
W 84-75
+8.5
10
@
BOIS
L 64-86
−0.5
13
@
NEV
L 75-78
+1.5
22
vs
CAN
W 103-59
+18.5
30
@
DAV
W 89-83
+21.5
3
vs
VCU
L 80-93
+7.5
7
@
JOES
L 90-97
+37.5
13
vs
DAY
L 65-71
−16.5
17
@
FOR
W 74-63
−8.5
20
vs
SLU
L 77-81
−7.5
24
@
LUC
W 71-59
−22.5
28
vs
SBU
L 79-87
+15.5
1
vs
URI
W 76-61
−9.5
4
@
GMU
W 71-65
−7.5
7
vs
GW
W 88-86
+15.5
14
@
SBU
W 78-73
−1.5
18
vs
LAS
W 62-61
−22.5
21
@
DAY
L 66-78
−4.5
25
vs
DAV
L 56-67
−19.5
28
@
SLU
L 76-91
+6.5
4
@
URI
L 52-64
−27.5
7
vs
RICH
W 79-77
+8.5
12
vs
URI
W 67-61
−10.5
13
vs
VCU
L 66-71
−16.5
over 16under 15avg +1.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Duquesne has the better starters
Position by position: Washington St 1, Duquesne 2, even 2
Washington StBetterDuquesne
G S. Akins TR5.3 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 57
→DUQBig
G T. Guinyard16.9 pts · 3.2 reb · 4.7 ast
Score 93
F F. Roxburgh TR10.9 pts · 5.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 21
→DUQBig
G J. Smith TR15.9 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 63
F R. Harrison TR14.2 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 67
←WSUBig
G B. Hall3.4 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 6
F L. Dembele TR5.2 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. DiMichele3.5 pts · 1.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 31
F T. Kropp TR3.1 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 48
=Even
F Y. Berman12.3 pts · 3.9 reb · 3.6 ast
Score 49
Washington StBetterDuquesne
WSU offense130th of 366 · -3.5
=Even
DUQ defense118th of 366 · -1.8
WSU defense166th of 366 · -3.7
→DUQSmall
DUQ offense107th of 366 · -1.6
Backcourt-0.2 · 1 player
=Even
Backcourt+0.1 · 4 players
Frontcourt-2.6 · 4 players
→DUQSmall
Frontcourt-0.4 · 1 player
Bench-0.5 · 4 players
=Even
Bench-0.1 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestWSU betterDUQ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
S. Akins15 min · TRJ. Phillips11 min · TRJ. Harrell9 min · TRR. Jones7 min · TRD. Blakely1 minC. JonesNew
Forwards
F. Roxburgh31 min · TRR. Harrison31 min · TRL. Dembele20 min · TRT. Kropp12 min · TRM. SankheNewB. KymanNew
Guards
T. Guinyard34 minJ. Smith27 min · TRB. Hall19 minJ. DiMichele14 minI. Pasha8 min · TRE. Anish2 min
Forwards
Y. Berman29 minK. Konan8 min · TRS. Olowoniyi5 min · TRF. JellumNewZ. OwinjeNewC. GalbutNew
Centers
E. Demir9 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 75.7 #152 | Points per game | 76.9 #118 |
| 1.10 #136 | Points per possession | 1.09 #164 |
| 68.9 #183 | Pace (possessions) | 70.4 #99 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.7 #48 | Effective FG% | 52.3 #131 |
| 36.5 #40 | 3-point % | 33.1 #223 |
| 44.8 #73 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.4 #81 |
| 30.2 #305 | Free throw rate | 38.3 #94 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.5 #295 | Turnover rate | 17.6 #243 |
| 29.5 #221 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.4 #184 |
| 13.8 #163 | Assists per game | 14.7 #107 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.3 #245 | Points allowed | 75.9 #214 |
| 1.12 #266 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #171 |
| 52.6 #248 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.5 #241 |
| 35.4 #273 | Opponent 3-point % | 36.2 #314 |
| 14.5 #322 | Turnovers forced | 18.4 #83 |
| 71.8 #71 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.4 #142 |
| 5.5 #299 | Steals per game | 7.6 #71 |
| 2.9 #242 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #214 |
Washington St
11-20 in 2025-26 overall · 7-12 in conference · Pac-12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Portland68–74
- L@ Pepperdine79–88
- L@ LMU66–67
- Lvs Saint Mary's67–83
- Wvs Pacific87–70
A week or more of rest.
Duquesne
16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Atlantic 10 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs VCU66–71
- Wvs Rhode Island67–61
- Wvs Richmond79–77
- L@ Rhode Island52–64
- L@ Saint Louis76–91
A week or more of rest.