Burns Arena · at Utah Tech
LineNo line yet
Total—
| 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 155.4
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: UTU has more of the edges
DEN 1, UTU 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
DEN hits 36.8% and allows 36.7%; UTU hits 35.0% and allows 30.7%. Threes are 38.6% and 38.2% of their shots
DEN offense vs UTU defense
Offense 184th of 366 against a defense 295th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: DEN 53.6 and allows 56.0; UTU 53.3 and allows 50.9
UTU offense vs DEN defense
Offense 251st of 366 against a defense 337th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
UTU at home. This season: UTU 0-0 at home, DEN 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DEN 29.8%, UTU 28.1%. Defensive: DEN 67.2%, UTU 65.5%
Context
Schedule so far
DEN has played the 249th-hardest schedule, UTU the 210th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DEN 14.2%, UTU 17.8%. Forced: DEN 13.0%, UTU 16.8%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: DEN plays 69.4 a game (151st fastest), UTU 69.9 (124th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: DEN 34.1, UTU 30.6. Allowed: DEN 36.8, UTU 33.0
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DEN 27%, UTU 24%. Transfers in: DEN 6, UTU 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 | — | UTU -2.4 | — |
| Total | — | 155.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | DEN 76.5 · UTU 78.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UTU -1.3 | — |
| 1H total | 72.7 | — |
| 1H projected score | DEN 35.7 · UTU 37 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | 3-7 30% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 7-3 70% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
DEN 0–2 UTUUTU leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · UTU has won the last 2 meetings · DEN 0-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2024-25 | DEN 54 vs UTU 68 | UTU -2.5 | UTU W |
| Dec 11, 2021-22 | DEN 62 @ UTU 82 | UTU -6 | UTU W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Denver
29 games played
Straight up
12-17
41% wins
Against the spread
18-11
62% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
20-9
69% overs · avg +6.9 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 3 | @ | L 73-84 | +13.5 | W +2.5 | 136.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 70-84 | +27.5 | W +13.5 | 153.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 9 | @ | W 75-73 | +7.5 | W +9.5 | 146.5 | O 148 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 79-84 | -4.5 | L −9.5 | 148.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 21 | @ | W 83-81 | +18.5 | W +20.5 | 149.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 24 | @ | L 73-103 | +32.5 | W +2.5 | 154.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 59-101 | +9.5 | L −32.5 | 153.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 93-89 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 79-93 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 172 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 86-105 | -3.5 | L −22.5 | 165.5 | O 191 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 86-79 | +8.5 | W +15.5 | 159.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 85-90 | +16.5 | W +11.5 | 160.5 | O 175 |
| Dec 31 | vs | W 87-74 | -9.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 88-92 | +11.5 | W +7.5 | 163.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 79-87 | +8.5 | W +0.5 | 162.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 72-82 | -1.5 | L −11.5 | 169.5 | U 154 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 98-87 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 156.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 22 | vs | L 77-82 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 86-93 | -5.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 69-61 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 161.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 82-84 | -1.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 5 | @ | W 78-71 | +12.5 | W +19.5 | 156.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 98-79 | +3.5 | W +22.5 | 161.5 | O 177 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 79-61 | +2.5 | W +20.5 | 160.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 76-83 | +2.5 | L −4.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 90-70 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 163.5 | U 160 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 82-80 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 168.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 26 | @ | L 80-102 | -2.5 | L −24.5 | 156.5 | O 182 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 67-83 | -2.5 | L −18.5 | 160.5 | U 150 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SEA
L 73-84
+2.5
6
@
WASH
L 70-84
+13.5
9
@
MTST
W 75-73
+9.5
15
vs
UTSA
L 79-84
−9.5
21
@
CSU
W 83-81
+20.5
24
@
ARIZ
L 73-103
+2.5
26
@
WYO
L 59-101
−32.5
3
vs
EWU
W 93-89
+2.5
6
@
IDST
L 79-93
−5.5
13
vs
CSUF
L 86-105
−22.5
20
@
UNCO
W 86-79
+15.5
22
@
TLSA
L 85-90
+11.5
31
vs
KC
W 87-74
+3.5
4
@
STMN
L 88-92
+7.5
8
@
SDST
L 79-87
+0.5
10
@
SDAK
L 72-82
−11.5
14
vs
ORU
W 98-87
+4.5
22
vs
NDSU
L 77-82
−0.5
24
vs
UND
L 86-93
−12.5
28
@
KC
W 69-61
+4.5
31
vs
OMA
L 82-84
−3.5
5
@
NDSU
W 78-71
+19.5
7
@
UND
W 98-79
+22.5
12
vs
SDST
W 79-61
+20.5
15
@
OMA
L 76-83
−4.5
19
vs
SDAK
W 90-70
+14.5
21
vs
STMN
W 82-80
+5.5
26
@
ORU
L 80-102
−24.5
6
vs
UND
L 67-83
−18.5
covered 18didn’t cover 11avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SEA
L 73-84
+20.5
6
@
WASH
L 70-84
+0.5
9
@
MTST
W 75-73
+1.5
15
vs
UTSA
L 79-84
+14.5
21
@
CSU
W 83-81
+14.5
24
@
ARIZ
L 73-103
+21.5
26
@
WYO
L 59-101
+6.5
3
vs
EWU
W 93-89
+26.5
6
@
IDST
L 79-93
+29.5
13
vs
CSUF
L 86-105
+25.5
20
@
UNCO
W 86-79
+5.5
22
@
TLSA
L 85-90
+14.5
31
vs
KC
W 87-74
+4.5
4
@
STMN
L 88-92
+16.5
8
@
SDST
L 79-87
+3.5
10
@
SDAK
L 72-82
−15.5
14
vs
ORU
W 98-87
+28.5
22
vs
NDSU
L 77-82
−1.5
24
vs
UND
L 86-93
+16.5
28
@
KC
W 69-61
−31.5
31
vs
OMA
L 82-84
+7.5
5
@
NDSU
W 78-71
−7.5
7
@
UND
W 98-79
+15.5
12
vs
SDST
W 79-61
−20.5
15
@
OMA
L 76-83
−1.5
19
vs
SDAK
W 90-70
−3.5
21
vs
STMN
W 82-80
−6.5
26
@
ORU
L 80-102
+25.5
6
vs
UND
L 67-83
−10.5
over 20under 9avg +6.9 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
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 | @ | W 81-79 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 164.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 67-93 | +33.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 160 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 66-81 | +12.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 12 | vs | L 75-79 | -2.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 154 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 81-75 | -26.5 | L −20.5 | 145.5 | O 156 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 62-68 | +16.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 63-68 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | U 131 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 77-69 | -5.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 3 | @ | L 80-90 | +20.5 | W +10.5 | 144.5 | O 170 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 82-80 | +5.5 | W +7.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 69-92 | +19.5 | L −3.5 | 147.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 29 | vs | W 80-66 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 79-64 | +5.5 | W +20.5 | 139.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 72-84 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 144.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 76-92 | +13.5 | L −2.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 15 | vs | L 52-56 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 141.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 75-71 | -3.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 64-73 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 102-91 | -6.5 | W +4.5 | 149.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 76-70 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 65-59 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 124 |
| Feb 5 | vs | W 87-84 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 81-77 | +9.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 70-65 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 143.5 | U 135 |
| Feb 19 | @ | L 50-63 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 140.5 | U 113 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 80-72 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 140.5 | O 152 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 85-81 | -2.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 67-81 | -1.5 | L −15.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 101-104 | +8.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | O 205 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-74 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 142.5 | O 154 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 72-86 | +8.5 | L −5.5 | 144.5 | O 158 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
SDAK
W 81-79
+3.5
7
@
ARIZ
L 67-93
+7.5
9
@
ASU
L 66-81
−2.5
12
vs
MAN
L 75-79
−6.5
14
vs
MVSU
W 81-75
−20.5
15
@
HAW
L 62-68
+10.5
25
vs
PRST
L 63-68
−3.5
29
vs
UCR
W 77-69
+2.5
3
@
SCU
L 80-90
+10.5
20
@
WEB
W 82-80
+7.5
22
@
CREI
L 69-92
−3.5
29
vs
SUU
W 80-66
+6.5
1
@
ACU
W 79-64
+20.5
8
@
CBU
L 72-84
−4.5
10
@
UVU
L 76-92
−2.5
15
vs
UTA
L 52-56
−5.5
17
vs
TAR
W 75-71
+0.5
21
@
CBU
L 64-73
−0.5
24
vs
SUU
W 102-91
+4.5
29
@
ACU
W 76-70
+9.5
31
@
TAR
W 65-59
+7.5
5
vs
UTA
W 87-84
+1.5
12
vs
UVU
W 81-77
+13.5
14
vs
CBU
W 70-65
+7.5
19
@
UTA
L 50-63
−8.5
21
@
TAR
W 80-72
+9.5
26
vs
ACU
W 85-81
+1.5
28
@
SUU
L 67-81
−15.5
7
vs
UVU
L 101-104
+5.5
12
vs
ACU
W 80-74
+4.5
13
vs
CBU
L 72-86
−5.5
covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
SDAK
W 81-79
−4.5
7
@
ARIZ
L 67-93
−2.5
9
@
ASU
L 66-81
−5.5
12
vs
MAN
L 75-79
−4.5
14
vs
MVSU
W 81-75
+10.5
15
@
HAW
L 62-68
−19.5
25
vs
PRST
L 63-68
−15.5
29
vs
UCR
W 77-69
+0.5
3
@
SCU
L 80-90
+25.5
20
@
WEB
W 82-80
+9.5
22
@
CREI
L 69-92
+13.5
29
vs
SUU
W 80-66
−2.5
1
@
ACU
W 79-64
+3.5
8
@
CBU
L 72-84
+11.5
10
@
UVU
L 76-92
+18.5
15
vs
UTA
L 52-56
−33.5
17
vs
TAR
W 75-71
−4.5
21
@
CBU
L 64-73
−6.5
24
vs
SUU
W 102-91
+43.5
29
@
ACU
W 76-70
+0.5
31
@
TAR
W 65-59
−25.5
5
vs
UTA
W 87-84
+31.5
12
vs
UVU
W 81-77
+9.5
14
vs
CBU
W 70-65
−8.5
19
@
UTA
L 50-63
−27.5
21
@
TAR
W 80-72
+11.5
26
vs
ACU
W 85-81
+26.5
28
@
SUU
L 67-81
−8.5
7
vs
UVU
L 101-104
+57.5
12
vs
ACU
W 80-74
+11.5
13
vs
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.
Denver has the better starters
Position by position: Denver 2, Utah Tech 1, even 2
DenverBetterUtah Tech
G C. Johnson19.9 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 73
←DENBig
G R. Sunderland TR4.8 pts · 3.5 reb · 3.2 ast
Score 4
G K. Martin TR5.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 24
←DENSmall
G A. Dupre TR3 pts · 1.6 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 1
G C. Hyland TR5 pts · 1.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 20
=Even
G M. Brown TR3 pts · 1.1 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 6
F J. Rogers TR5.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 27
→UTUBig
F E. Potter17.1 pts · 7.9 reb · 2 ast
Score 94
F S. Wysocki5.8 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 14
=Even
F S. Ariyibi2.4 pts · 1.7 reb · 0.5 ast
Score 11
DenverBetterUtah Tech
DEN offense184th of 366 · -5.7
←DENSmall
UTU defense295th of 366 · -7.4
DEN defense337th of 366 · -8.9
→UTUSmall
UTU offense251st of 366 · -7.6
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
←DENBig
Backcourt-8.4 · 3 players
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
→UTUBig
Frontcourt+3.6 · 2 players
Bench-2.4 · 3 players
→UTUSmall
Bench-0.3 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestDEN betterUTU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
C. Johnson36 minK. Martin16 min · TRC. Hyland15 min · TRT. Cady11 min · TRL. ThreattNewJ. NelsonNew
Forwards
J. Rogers27 min · TRS. Wysocki19 minS. Mahoney5 min · TRH. BatesNewC. DimmockNewO. Wickstrom StumerNew
Centers
B. Mbengue9 min · TR
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
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80.3 #61 | Points per game | 74.7 #171 |
| 1.16 #53 | Points per possession | 1.08 #193 |
| 69.4 #151 | Pace (possessions) | 69.9 #124 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.6 #79 | Effective FG% | 53.3 #90 |
| 36.8 #32 | 3-point % | 35.0 #113 |
| 38.6 #199 | 3-point attempt rate | 38.2 #207 |
| 34.1 #203 | Free throw rate | 30.6 #290 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.2 #30 | Turnover rate | 17.8 #256 |
| 29.8 #213 | Offensive rebound rate | 28.1 #261 |
| 11.2 #327 | Assists per game | 14.4 #121 |
| Defense | ||
| 84.0 #357 | Points allowed | 77.0 #243 |
| 1.21 #360 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #211 |
| 56.0 #344 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.9 #151 |
| 36.7 #338 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.7 #29 |
| 13.0 #355 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #166 |
| 67.2 #291 | Defensive rebound rate | 65.5 #326 |
| 4.5 #356 | Steals per game | 6.9 #135 |
| 1.9 #348 | Blocks per game | 3.0 #216 |
Denver
12-17 in 2025-26 overall · 8-9 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs North Dakota67–83
- L@ Oral Roberts80–102
- Wvs St Thomas82–80
- Wvs South Dakota90–70
- L@ Omaha76–83
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.