Moby Arena · at Colorado St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | CSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 CSU 81–63 · win probability CSU 94%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 143.5
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: CSU has more of the edges
PRST 2, CSU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
PRST has played the 322nd-hardest schedule, CSU the 96th. A record against a soft schedule means less
PRST offense vs CSU defense
Offense 284th of 366 against a defense 61st, on the model’s ratings
CSU offense vs PRST defense
Offense 103rd of 366 against a defense 244th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PRST 16.9%, CSU 18.5%. Forced: PRST 18.0%, CSU 15.4%
Free throws
Free throw rate: PRST 37.1, CSU 39.4. Allowed: PRST 42.8, CSU 34.2
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PRST 6%, CSU 67%. Transfers in: PRST 4, CSU 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Tempo
About 67 possessions: PRST plays 69.6 a game (140th fastest), CSU 64.4 (355th). Faster games mean more points
Three-pointers
PRST hits 32.6% and allows 32.3%; CSU hits 38.6% and allows 34.2%. Threes are 34.4% and 49.1% of their shots
Home court
CSU at home. This season: CSU 0-0 at home, PRST 0-0 away
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PRST 30.0%, CSU 30.0%. Defensive: PRST 73.6%, CSU 70.8%
Even
Shooting
Effective FG%: PRST 50.5 and allows 48.8; CSU 57.5 and allows 52.9
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 | — | CSU -17.6 | — |
| Total | — | 143.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | PRST 63 · CSU 80.6 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | CSU -10.3 | — |
| 1H total | 67.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | PRST 28.4 · CSU 38.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% | |
| 7-3 70% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Portland St
28 games played
Straight up
17-11
61% wins
Against the spread
19-9
68% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
12-16
43% 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 4 | @ | L 79-89 | +11.5 | W +1.5 | 144.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 70-80 | +13.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 93-80 | -8.5 | W +4.5 | 141.5 | O 173 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 68-63 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 3 | @ | W 77-71 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | U 148 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 55-60 | -12.5 | L −17.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 73-84 | +16.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 157 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 61-63 | +2.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 95-90 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 148.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 93-87 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 142.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 96-69 | -9.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 76-73 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 63-52 | -11.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 65-61 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 69-66 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 29 | vs | L 60-64 | -4.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 63-54 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 117 |
| Feb 2 | vs | W 88-65 | -7.5 | W +15.5 | 136.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 74-73 | -3.5 | L −2.5 | 150.5 | U 147 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 77-68 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 145 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 65-77 | +3.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 77-67 | -3.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 55-67 | -6.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 69-84 | +2.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 68-74 | +1.5 | L −4.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Mar 2 | vs | W 84-60 | -4.5 | W +19.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 85-78 | -5.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 10 | vs | L 72-75 | -3.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | O 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
STAN
L 79-89
+1.5
12
@
SF
L 70-80
+3.5
17
vs
CSUB
W 93-80
+4.5
25
@
UTU
W 68-63
+3.5
3
@
SDAK
W 77-71
+3.5
6
vs
OMA
L 55-60
−17.5
17
@
COLO
L 73-84
+5.5
20
@
TULN
L 61-63
+0.5
1
@
WEB
W 95-90
+3.5
3
@
IDST
W 93-87
+9.5
10
vs
SAC
W 96-69
+17.5
15
vs
UNCO
W 76-73
+0.5
17
vs
NAU
W 63-52
−0.5
22
@
EWU
W 65-61
+1.5
24
@
IDHO
W 69-66
+4.5
29
vs
MONT
L 60-64
−8.5
31
vs
MTST
W 63-54
+4.5
2
vs
IDST
W 88-65
+15.5
7
@
SAC
W 74-73
−2.5
12
@
NAU
W 77-68
+2.5
14
@
UNCO
L 65-77
−8.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 77-67
+6.5
21
vs
EWU
L 55-67
−18.5
26
@
MTST
L 69-84
−12.5
28
@
MONT
L 68-74
−4.5
2
vs
WEB
W 84-60
+19.5
8
vs
IDST
W 85-78
+1.5
10
vs
MONT
L 72-75
−6.5
covered 19didn’t cover 9avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
STAN
L 79-89
+23.5
12
@
SF
L 70-80
−4.5
17
vs
CSUB
W 93-80
+31.5
25
@
UTU
W 68-63
−15.5
3
@
SDAK
W 77-71
−10.5
6
vs
OMA
L 55-60
−29.5
17
@
COLO
L 73-84
+6.5
20
@
TULN
L 61-63
−21.5
1
@
WEB
W 95-90
+36.5
3
@
IDST
W 93-87
+37.5
10
vs
SAC
W 96-69
+4.5
15
vs
UNCO
W 76-73
−6.5
17
vs
NAU
W 63-52
−25.5
22
@
EWU
W 65-61
−24.5
24
@
IDHO
W 69-66
−10.5
29
vs
MONT
L 60-64
−19.5
31
vs
MTST
W 63-54
−21.5
2
vs
IDST
W 88-65
+16.5
7
@
SAC
W 74-73
−3.5
12
@
NAU
W 77-68
+8.5
14
@
UNCO
L 65-77
−7.5
19
vs
IDHO
W 77-67
−1.5
21
vs
EWU
L 55-67
−24.5
26
@
MTST
L 69-84
+12.5
28
@
MONT
L 68-74
+0.5
2
vs
WEB
W 84-60
−0.5
8
vs
IDST
W 85-78
+21.5
10
vs
MONT
L 72-75
+1.5
over 12under 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Colorado St
33 games played
Straight up
20-13
61% wins
Against the spread
18-15
55% covers · avg −0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
17-16
52% overs · avg +0.2 pts vs the total
Against the spread
18-1555%
4 straight misses ATS0 of last 4 covered
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 98-64 | -10.5 | W +23.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 97-74 | -14.5 | W +8.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 93-79 | -18.5 | L −4.5 | 165.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 16 | @ | W 80-67 | -3.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 81-83 | -18.5 | L −20.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 64-66 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 153.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 27 | vs | W 76-70 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 83-68 | +2.5 | W +17.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 91-86 | -1.5 | W +3.5 | 149.5 | O 177 |
| Dec 9 | vs | W 76-55 | -20.5 | W +0.5 | 153.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 58-100 | +10.5 | L −31.5 | 147.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 62-75 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 139.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 3 | @ | W 70-60 | +6.5 | W +16.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 6 | vs | L 70-80 | +1.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 70-62 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 13 | @ | L 69-79 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 16 | @ | L 73-79 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
| Jan 20 | vs | W 81-52 | -19.5 | W +9.5 | 133.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 61-65 | +5.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 50-73 | +9.5 | L −13.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 57-68 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 65-57 | -15.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 10 | @ | W 91-74 | -16.5 | W +0.5 | 137.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 79-68 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 147 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 91-86 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 83-74 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 139.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 24 | vs | W 74-70 | -8.5 | L −4.5 | 149.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 85-73 | -4.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | O 158 |
| Mar 4 | @ | W 82-74 | +8.5 | W +16.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 67-78 | -1.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | O 145 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 67-63 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 12 | vs | L 62-71 | +6.5 | L −2.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Mar 18 | vs | L 64-69 | -5.5 | L −10.5 | 144.5 | U 133 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
UIW
W 98-64
+23.5
9
vs
OMA
W 97-74
+8.5
12
vs
CP
W 93-79
−4.5
16
@
LUC
W 80-67
+9.5
21
vs
DEN
L 81-83
−20.5
26
vs
VT
L 64-66
+2.5
27
vs
WICH
W 76-70
+4.5
28
vs
USF
W 83-68
+17.5
6
vs
COLO
W 91-86
+3.5
9
vs
DART
W 76-55
+0.5
20
@
USU
L 58-100
−31.5
30
vs
NEV
L 62-75
−14.5
3
@
GCU
W 70-60
+16.5
6
vs
UNM
L 70-80
−8.5
9
vs
UNLV
W 70-62
+1.5
13
@
FRES
L 69-79
−13.5
16
@
BOIS
L 73-79
−0.5
20
vs
AF
W 81-52
+9.5
23
vs
USU
L 61-65
+1.5
28
@
SDSU
L 50-73
−13.5
31
@
WYO
L 57-68
−9.5
7
vs
SJSU
W 65-57
−7.5
10
@
AF
W 91-74
+0.5
14
vs
WYO
W 79-68
+7.5
18
@
UNLV
W 91-86
+7.5
21
vs
SDSU
W 83-74
+12.5
24
vs
FRES
W 74-70
−4.5
28
@
SJSU
W 85-73
+7.5
4
@
UNM
W 82-74
+16.5
7
vs
BOIS
L 67-78
−12.5
11
vs
FRES
W 67-63
−3.5
12
vs
SDSU
L 62-71
−2.5
18
vs
JOES
L 64-69
−10.5
covered 18didn’t cover 15avg −0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
UIW
W 98-64
+14.5
9
vs
OMA
W 97-74
+17.5
12
vs
CP
W 93-79
+6.5
16
@
LUC
W 80-67
−4.5
21
vs
DEN
L 81-83
+14.5
26
vs
VT
L 64-66
−23.5
27
vs
WICH
W 76-70
+3.5
28
vs
USF
W 83-68
−4.5
6
vs
COLO
W 91-86
+27.5
9
vs
DART
W 76-55
−22.5
20
@
USU
L 58-100
+10.5
30
vs
NEV
L 62-75
−2.5
3
@
GCU
W 70-60
−13.5
6
vs
UNM
L 70-80
+6.5
9
vs
UNLV
W 70-62
−19.5
13
@
FRES
L 69-79
+8.5
16
@
BOIS
L 73-79
+11.5
20
vs
AF
W 81-52
−0.5
23
vs
USU
L 61-65
−23.5
28
@
SDSU
L 50-73
−16.5
31
@
WYO
L 57-68
−17.5
7
vs
SJSU
W 65-57
−16.5
10
@
AF
W 91-74
+27.5
14
vs
WYO
W 79-68
+6.5
18
@
UNLV
W 91-86
+29.5
21
vs
SDSU
W 83-74
+17.5
24
vs
FRES
W 74-70
−5.5
28
@
SJSU
W 85-73
+6.5
4
@
UNM
W 82-74
+5.5
7
vs
BOIS
L 67-78
+1.5
11
vs
FRES
W 67-63
−16.5
12
vs
SDSU
L 62-71
−9.5
18
vs
JOES
L 64-69
−11.5
over 17under 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Colorado St has the better starters
Position by position: Portland St 0, Colorado St 3, even 2
Portland StBetterColorado St
G E. Skytt TR3.4 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 26
→CSUBig
G J. Menard TR12.8 pts · 2.9 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 79
G K. Johnson TR1.8 pts · 0.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 39
→CSUSmall
G J. Pascarelli10.2 pts · 2.8 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 64
G C. Ness0.6 pts · 0.3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Butler9.4 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 67
F B. Barron0.7 pts · 1.1 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F K. Jorgensen11.5 pts · 4.3 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 87
C K. Ibekwe TR3.5 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 34
→CSUBig
F C. Booth10.7 pts · 5.6 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 90
Portland StBetterColorado St
PRST offense284th of 366 · -8.8
→CSUBig
CSU defense61st of 366 · +1.2
PRST defense244th of 366 · -6.4
→CSUBig
CSU offense103rd of 366 · -1.2
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
→CSUBig
Backcourt+1.8 · 3 players
Frontcourt-0.6 · 2 players
→CSUBig
Frontcourt+5.0 · 2 players
Bench-0.3 · 2 players
=Even
Bench-0.7 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestPRST betterCSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
E. Skytt12 min · TRK. Johnson10 min · TRC. Ness4 minN. PollardNewT. FrankNewD. JohnsonNew
Forwards
B. Barron4 minC. Chukwu3 minL. Kearney3 min · TRJ. RandolphNewA. PusateriNewF. CoratoNew
Centers
K. Ibekwe9 min · TR
Guards
J. Menard29 min · TRJ. Pascarelli27 minJ. Butler26 minJ. McIver12 minR. SawyerNewP. DunsonNew
Forwards
K. Jorgensen26 minC. Booth25 minR. Mbemba18 minC. Dortch2 minA. MillerNewD. TedeschiNew
Centers
J. ClarkNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #199 | Points per game | 74.8 #169 |
| 1.06 #220 | Points per possession | 1.16 #44 |
| 69.6 #140 | Pace (possessions) | 64.4 #355 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.5 #211 | Effective FG% | 57.5 #12 |
| 32.6 #250 | 3-point % | 38.6 #9 |
| 34.4 #287 | 3-point attempt rate | 49.1 #19 |
| 37.1 #126 | Free throw rate | 39.4 #69 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.9 #200 | Turnover rate | 18.5 #298 |
| 30.0 #199 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.0 #198 |
| 13.4 #186 | Assists per game | 15.6 #62 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.2 #80 | Points allowed | 71.6 #95 |
| 1.02 #45 | Points allowed per possession | 1.11 #241 |
| 48.8 #56 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.9 #263 |
| 32.3 #77 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.2 #196 |
| 18.0 #94 | Turnovers forced | 15.4 #255 |
| 73.6 #23 | Defensive rebound rate | 70.8 #123 |
| 7.2 #104 | Steals per game | 5.2 #320 |
| 3.8 #108 | Blocks per game | 2.1 #338 |
Portland St
17-11 in 2025-26 overall · 14-6 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Montana72–75
- Wvs Idaho St85–78
- Wvs Weber St84–60
- L@ Montana68–74
- L@ Montana St69–84
A week or more of rest.
Colorado St
20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 12-10 in conference · Pac-12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Saint Joseph's64–69
- Lvs San Diego St62–71
- Wvs Fresno St67–63
- Lvs Boise St67–78
- W@ New Mexico82–74
A week or more of rest.