South Dakota Coyotes vs Utah Tech Trailblazers: Model Line and Edge

Sun, Nov 22, 2:00 PM ETSanford Pentagon · Neutral site

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: South Dakota and Utah Tech
SDAK	This season	UTU
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 UTU 79–77 · win probability UTU 58%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 155.3

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

SDAK 3, UTU 3 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

UTUBig

Three-pointers

SDAK hits 32.4% and allows 34.5%; UTU hits 35.0% and allows 30.7%. Threes are 35.9% and 38.2% of their shots

SDAKBig

Free throws

Free throw rate: SDAK 45.2, UTU 30.6. Allowed: SDAK 31.0, UTU 33.0

UTUBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: SDAK 49.9 and allows 54.5; UTU 53.3 and allows 50.9

UTUSmall

UTU offense vs SDAK defense

Offense 251st of 366 against a defense 355th, on the model’s ratings

SDAKSmall

SDAK offense vs UTU defense

Offense 197th of 366 against a defense 295th, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

SDAK has played the 305th-hardest schedule, UTU the 210th. A record against a soft schedule means less

SDAKSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: SDAK 28.7%, UTU 28.1%. Defensive: SDAK 69.7%, UTU 65.5%

Context

Tempo

About 71 possessions: SDAK plays 72.6 a game (23rd fastest), UTU 69.9 (124th). Faster games mean more points

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: SDAK 16.5%, UTU 17.8%. Forced: SDAK 15.9%, UTU 16.8%

Context

Neutral floor

No home court: the model takes it out of the line

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: SDAK 26%, UTU 24%. Transfers in: SDAK 6, UTU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	UTU -2.2	—
Total	—	155.3	—
Projected score	—	SDAK 76.5 · UTU 78.8

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	UTU -1.2	—
1H total	72.6	—
1H projected score	SDAK 35.7 · UTU 36.9	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Neutral	Role
SDAK LLWWL	16-13	55%	1-1	—
UTU WLWWL	19-12	61%	1-3	—

Venue/role: SDAK neutral site; UTU neutral site. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
SDAK UUOUU	12-17	41%	13-16
UTU OUOOO	17-14	55%	16-15

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
SDAK	5-5 50%	6-4 60%	3-7 30%
UTU	6-4 60%	7-3 70%	7-3 70%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

South Dakota

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 25	vs UAPB	No recent meeting
Nov 30	vs MTST	No recent meeting
Dec 3	@ UNF	No recent meeting

Utah Tech

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 28	@ SCU	L80–90WO
Dec 3	vs WEB	W82–80WO
Dec 5	vs IDST	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

SDAK 0–2 UTUUTU leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · UTU has won the last 2 meetings · SDAK 0-2 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 3, 2025-26	UTU 81 @ SDAK 79	SDAK -1.5	UTU W
Dec 19, 2024-25	SDAK 87 @ UTU 92	UTU +2.5	UTU W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

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

Straight up

13-1645%

L L W W L W W L L L W L L L W W L W L W L W W L L L W W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

16-1355%

L W W W L L W L W L W L L W W W L W L W W W W L L L W W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

12-1741%

U U U U U O U U O O O O U O U O O U O U O O U U U U O U U

2 straight unders1 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	vsUTU	L 79-81	-1.5	L −3.5	164.5	U 160
Nov 5	@CREI	L 76-92	+29.5	W +13.5	169.5	U 168
Nov 12	vsUSI	W 89-74	-7.5	W +7.5	164.5	U 163
Nov 16	vsWMU	W 83-78	-3.5	W +1.5	172.5	U 161
Nov 20	@MIZ	L 68-102	+24.5	L −9.5	171.5	U 170
Nov 23	vsSCST	W 82-81	-15.5	L −14.5	160.5	O 163
Nov 29	vsAF	W 80-63	-3.5	W +13.5	147.5	U 143
Dec 3	vsPRST	L 71-77	+2.5	L −3.5	158.5	U 148
Dec 6	@UNCO	L 87-89	+8.5	W +6.5	162.5	O 176
Dec 9	@WYO	L 79-106	+14.5	L −12.5	161.5	O 185
Dec 13	vsPV	W 97-85	-6.5	W +5.5	168.5	O 182
Dec 20	@KSU	L 76-106	+21.5	L −8.5	176.5	O 182
Dec 31	@NDSU	L 61-84	+11.5	L −11.5	164.5	U 145
Jan 7	@STMN	L 86-99	+14.5	W +1.5	162.5	O 185
Jan 10	vsDEN	W 82-72	+1.5	W +11.5	169.5	U 154
Jan 15	vsKC	W 99-83	-7.5	W +8.5	156.5	O 182
Jan 17	@UND	L 80-96	+1.5	L −14.5	160.5	O 176
Jan 21	@OMA	W 68-64	+6.5	W +10.5	160.5	U 132
Jan 24	vsSTMN	L 78-90	+10.5	L −1.5	161.5	O 168
Jan 29	vsORU	W 77-69	-3.5	W +4.5	154.5	U 146
Jan 31	vsNDSU	L 84-89	+8.5	W +3.5	154.5	O 173
Feb 4	@KC	W 82-75	-2.5	W +4.5	156.5	O 157
Feb 7	@SDST	W 68-67	+11.5	W +12.5	159.5	U 135
Feb 11	vsUND	L 71-72	-2.5	L −3.5	156.5	U 143
Feb 19	@DEN	L 70-90	+5.5	L −14.5	163.5	U 160
Feb 21	@ORU	L 62-67	+1.5	L −3.5	151.5	U 129
Feb 25	vsOMA	W 89-72	-1.5	W +15.5	152.5	O 161
Feb 28	vsSDST	W 75-70	+3.5	W +8.5	151.5	U 145
Mar 6	vsOMA	L 62-76	+1.5	L −12.5	150.5	U 138

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UTU

L 79-81

−3.5

CREI

L 76-92

+13.5

USI

W 89-74

+7.5

WMU

W 83-78

+1.5

MIZ

L 68-102

−9.5

SCST

W 82-81

−14.5

W 80-63

+13.5

PRST

L 71-77

−3.5

UNCO

L 87-89

+6.5

WYO

L 79-106

−12.5

W 97-85

+5.5

KSU

L 76-106

−8.5

NDSU

L 61-84

−11.5

STMN

L 86-99

+1.5

DEN

W 82-72

+11.5

W 99-83

+8.5

UND

L 80-96

−14.5

OMA

W 68-64

+10.5

STMN

L 78-90

−1.5

ORU

W 77-69

+4.5

NDSU

L 84-89

+3.5

W 82-75

+4.5

SDST

W 68-67

+12.5

UND

L 71-72

−3.5

DEN

L 70-90

−14.5

ORU

L 62-67

−3.5

OMA

W 89-72

+15.5

SDST

W 75-70

+8.5

OMA

L 62-76

−12.5

covered 16didn’t cover 13avg +0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UTU

L 79-81

−4.5

CREI

L 76-92

−1.5

USI

W 89-74

−1.5

WMU

W 83-78

−11.5

MIZ

L 68-102

−1.5

SCST

W 82-81

+2.5

W 80-63

−4.5

PRST

L 71-77

−10.5

UNCO

L 87-89

+13.5

WYO

L 79-106

+23.5

W 97-85

+13.5

KSU

L 76-106

+5.5

NDSU

L 61-84

−19.5

STMN

L 86-99

+22.5

DEN

W 82-72

−15.5

W 99-83

+25.5

UND

L 80-96

+15.5

OMA

W 68-64

−28.5

STMN

L 78-90

+6.5

ORU

W 77-69

−8.5

NDSU

L 84-89

+18.5

W 82-75

+0.5

SDST

W 68-67

−24.5

UND

L 71-72

−13.5

DEN

L 70-90

−3.5

ORU

L 62-67

−22.5

OMA

W 89-72

+8.5

SDST

W 75-70

−6.5

OMA

L 62-76

−12.5

over 12under 17avg −1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Utah Tech

31 games played

Straight up

16-15

52% wins

Against the spread

19-12

61% covers · avg +1.8 pts vs the line

Over / Under

17-14

55% overs · avg +4.2 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1552%

W L L L W L L W L W L W W L L L W L W W W W W W L W W L L W L

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

19-1261%

W W L L L W L W W W L W W L L L W L W W W W W W L W W L W W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

17-1455%

U U U U O U U O O O O U O O O U U U O O U O O U U O O U O O O

3 straight overs3 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

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	@SDAK	W 81-79	+1.5	W +3.5	164.5	U 160
Nov 7	@ARIZ	L 67-93	+33.5	W +7.5	162.5	U 160
Nov 9	@ASU	L 66-81	+12.5	L −2.5	152.5	U 147
Nov 12	vsMAN	L 75-79	-2.5	L −6.5	158.5	U 154
Nov 14	vsMVSU	W 81-75	-26.5	L −20.5	145.5	O 156
Nov 15	@HAW	L 62-68	+16.5	W +10.5	149.5	U 130
Nov 25	vsPRST	L 63-68	+1.5	L −3.5	146.5	U 131
Nov 29	vsUCR	W 77-69	-5.5	W +2.5	145.5	O 146
Dec 3	@SCU	L 80-90	+20.5	W +10.5	144.5	O 170
Dec 20	@WEB	W 82-80	+5.5	W +7.5	152.5	O 162
Dec 22	@CREI	L 69-92	+19.5	L −3.5	147.5	O 161
Dec 29	vsSUU	W 80-66	-7.5	W +6.5	148.5	U 146
Jan 1	@ACU	W 79-64	+5.5	W +20.5	139.5	O 143
Jan 8	@CBU	L 72-84	+7.5	L −4.5	144.5	O 156
Jan 10	@UVU	L 76-92	+13.5	L −2.5	149.5	O 168
Jan 15	vsUTA	L 52-56	-1.5	L −5.5	141.5	U 108
Jan 17	vsTAR	W 75-71	-3.5	W +0.5	150.5	U 146
Jan 21	@CBU	L 64-73	+8.5	L −0.5	143.5	U 137
Jan 24	vsSUU	W 102-91	-6.5	W +4.5	149.5	O 193
Jan 29	@ACU	W 76-70	+3.5	W +9.5	145.5	O 146
Jan 31	@TAR	W 65-59	+1.5	W +7.5	149.5	U 124
Feb 5	vsUTA	W 87-84	-1.5	W +1.5	139.5	O 171
Feb 12	vsUVU	W 81-77	+9.5	W +13.5	148.5	O 158
Feb 14	vsCBU	W 70-65	+2.5	W +7.5	143.5	U 135
Feb 19	@UTA	L 50-63	+4.5	L −8.5	140.5	U 113
Feb 21	@TAR	W 80-72	+1.5	W +9.5	140.5	O 152
Feb 26	vsACU	W 85-81	-2.5	W +1.5	139.5	O 166
Feb 28	@SUU	L 67-81	-1.5	L −15.5	156.5	U 148
Mar 7	vsUVU	L 101-104	+8.5	W +5.5	147.5	O 205
Mar 12	vsACU	W 80-74	-1.5	W +4.5	142.5	O 154
Mar 13	vsCBU	L 72-86	+8.5	L −5.5	144.5	O 158

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

SDAK

W 81-79

+3.5

ARIZ

L 67-93

+7.5

ASU

L 66-81

−2.5

MAN

L 75-79

−6.5

MVSU

W 81-75

−20.5

HAW

L 62-68

+10.5

PRST

L 63-68

−3.5

UCR

W 77-69

+2.5

SCU

L 80-90

+10.5

WEB

W 82-80

+7.5

CREI

L 69-92

−3.5

SUU

W 80-66

+6.5

ACU

W 79-64

+20.5

CBU

L 72-84

−4.5

UVU

L 76-92

−2.5

UTA

L 52-56

−5.5

TAR

W 75-71

+0.5

CBU

L 64-73

−0.5

SUU

W 102-91

+4.5

ACU

W 76-70

+9.5

TAR

W 65-59

+7.5

UTA

W 87-84

+1.5

UVU

W 81-77

+13.5

CBU

W 70-65

+7.5

UTA

L 50-63

−8.5

TAR

W 80-72

+9.5

ACU

W 85-81

+1.5

SUU

L 67-81

−15.5

UVU

L 101-104

+5.5

ACU

W 80-74

+4.5

CBU

L 72-86

−5.5

covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

SDAK

W 81-79

−4.5

ARIZ

L 67-93

−2.5

ASU

L 66-81

−5.5

MAN

L 75-79

−4.5

MVSU

W 81-75

+10.5

HAW

L 62-68

−19.5

PRST

L 63-68

−15.5

UCR

W 77-69

+0.5

SCU

L 80-90

+25.5

WEB

W 82-80

+9.5

CREI

L 69-92

+13.5

SUU

W 80-66

−2.5

ACU

W 79-64

+3.5

CBU

L 72-84

+11.5

UVU

L 76-92

+18.5

UTA

L 52-56

−33.5

TAR

W 75-71

−4.5

CBU

L 64-73

−6.5

SUU

W 102-91

+43.5

ACU

W 76-70

+0.5

TAR

W 65-59

−25.5

UTA

W 87-84

+31.5

UVU

W 81-77

+9.5

CBU

W 70-65

−8.5

UTA

L 50-63

−27.5

TAR

W 80-72

+11.5

ACU

W 85-81

+26.5

SUU

L 67-81

−8.5

UVU

L 101-104

+57.5

ACU

W 80-74

+11.5

CBU

L 72-86

+13.5

over 17under 14avg +4.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

South Dakota has the better starters

Position by position: South Dakota 3, Utah Tech 1, even 1

South DakotaBetterUtah Tech

G J. Summers TR9.8 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.9 ast Score 22

SDAKSmall

G R. Sunderland TR4.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 3.2 ast Score 4

G M. Sanchez TR9.7 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast Score 34

SDAKSmall

G A. Dupre TR3 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast Score 1

G V. Buzelis7.1 pts · 4.4 reb · 1.4 ast Score 27

SDAKSmall

G M. Brown TR3 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.2 ast Score 6

G K. Kublickas TR5.5 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.7 ast Score 19

UTUBig

F E. Potter17.1 pts · 7.9 reb · 2 ast Score 94

F E. Kizer4 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.2 ast Score 5

Even

F S. Ariyibi2.4 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 11

South DakotaBetterUtah Tech

SDAK offense197th of 366 · -6.1

SDAKSmall

UTU defense295th of 366 · -7.4

SDAK defense355th of 366 · -10.1

UTUSmall

UTU offense251st of 366 · -7.6

Backcourt-7.3 · 4 players

SDAKSmall

Backcourt-8.4 · 3 players

Frontcourt-2.0 · 1 player

UTUBig

Frontcourt+3.6 · 2 players

Bench-1.8 · 4 players

UTUSmall

Bench-0.3 · 3 players

Score, worst to bestSDAK betterUTU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

South Dakota

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

Utah Tech

Guards

R. Sunderland27 min · TRA. Dupre16 min · TRM. Brown14 min · TRB. Harker3 minP. Vandermyde1 minP. RagkosNew

Forwards

E. Potter32 minS. Ariyibi10 minD. Grant2 minJ. ClarkNew

Centers

K. LemkeNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

SDAK78.0 #94

UTU74.7 #171

Points per possession

SDAK1.07 #207

UTU1.08 #193

Pace (possessions)

SDAK72.6 #23

UTU69.9 #124

Shooting

Effective FG%

SDAK49.9 #239

UTU53.3 #90

3-point %

SDAK32.4 #264

UTU35.0 #113

3-point attempt rate

SDAK35.9 #251

UTU38.2 #207

Free throw rate

SDAK45.2 #4

UTU30.6 #290

Possessions

Turnover rate

SDAK16.5 #168

UTU17.8 #256

Offensive rebound rate

SDAK28.7 #242

UTU28.1 #261

Assists per game

SDAK11.9 #295

UTU14.4 #121

Defense

Points allowed

SDAK81.7 #337

UTU77.0 #243

Points allowed per possession

SDAK1.13 #284

UTU1.09 #211

Opponent effective FG%

SDAK54.5 #318

UTU50.9 #151

Opponent 3-point %

SDAK34.5 #219

UTU30.7 #29

Turnovers forced

SDAK15.9 #225

UTU16.8 #166

Defensive rebound rate

SDAK69.7 #172

UTU65.5 #326

Steals per game

SDAK6.1 #223

UTU6.9 #135

Blocks per game

SDAK2.6 #293

UTU3.0 #216

SDAK		UTU
Scoring
78.0 #94	Points per game	74.7 #171
1.07 #207	Points per possession	1.08 #193
72.6 #23	Pace (possessions)	69.9 #124
Shooting
49.9 #239	Effective FG%	53.3 #90
32.4 #264	3-point %	35.0 #113
35.9 #251	3-point attempt rate	38.2 #207
45.2 #4	Free throw rate	30.6 #290
Possessions
16.5 #168	Turnover rate	17.8 #256
28.7 #242	Offensive rebound rate	28.1 #261
11.9 #295	Assists per game	14.4 #121
Defense
81.7 #337	Points allowed	77.0 #243
1.13 #284	Points allowed per possession	1.09 #211
54.5 #318	Opponent effective FG%	50.9 #151
34.5 #219	Opponent 3-point %	30.7 #29
15.9 #225	Turnovers forced	16.8 #166
69.7 #172	Defensive rebound rate	65.5 #326
6.1 #223	Steals per game	6.9 #135
2.6 #293	Blocks per game	3.0 #216

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

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.

Utah Tech

16-15 in 2025-26 overall · 12-8 in conference · Big Sky Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs CA Baptist72–86
Wvs Abilene Chrstn80–74
Lvs Utah Valley101–104
L@ Southern Utah67–81
Wvs Abilene Chrstn85–81

A week or more of rest.

South Dakota Coyotes vs Utah Tech Trailblazers

What could decide it

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

South Dakota

Utah Tech

South Dakota has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

South Dakota

Utah Tech