Dee Events Center · at Weber St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | WEB | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WSU 80–73 · win probability WSU 72%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 152.7
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: WEB has more of the edges
WSU 3, WEB 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Context
Schedule so far
WSU has played the 100th-hardest schedule, WEB the 316th. A record against a soft schedule means less
WSU offense vs WEB defense
Offense 130th of 366 against a defense 336th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: WSU 18.5%, WEB 15.7%. Forced: WSU 14.5%, WEB 16.3%
WEB offense vs WSU defense
Offense 280th of 366 against a defense 166th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: WSU 54.7 and allows 52.6; WEB 51.7 and allows 54.5
Free throws
Free throw rate: WSU 30.2, WEB 39.1. Allowed: WSU 33.0, WEB 36.4
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: WSU 29.5%, WEB 31.8%. Defensive: WSU 71.8%, WEB 72.3%
Home court
WEB at home. This season: WEB 0-0 at home, WSU 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: WSU plays 68.9 a game (183rd fastest), WEB 70.7 (85th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: WSU 1%, WEB 9%. Transfers in: WSU 8, WEB 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Three-pointers
WSU hits 36.5% and allows 35.4%; WEB hits 34.5% and allows 33.5%. Threes are 44.8% and 32.8% of their shots
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 | — | WSU -6.8 | — |
| Total | — | 152.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | WSU 79.8 · WEB 73 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | WSU -4.2 | — |
| 1H total | 71.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | WSU 37.8 · WEB 33.6 | — |
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% | 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
WSU 1–0 WEBWSU leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · WSU 1-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2021-22 | WEB 60 @ WSU 94 | WSU -7.5 | WSU W |
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
Weber St
30 games played
Straight up
14-16
47% wins
Against the spread
16-14
53% covers · avg +1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +3.8 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 8 | @ | L 89-92 | +15.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | O 181 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 73-83 | +22.5 | W +12.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 70-79 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 91-85 | -1.5 | W +4.5 | 159.5 | O 176 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 73-74 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 82-61 | -10.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 92-66 | -7.5 | W +18.5 | 157.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 65-88 | +7.5 | L −15.5 | 154.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 10 | @ | W 64-60 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 74-90 | +15.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 164 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 80-82 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 152.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 1 | vs | L 90-95 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 185 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 95-82 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 168.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 8 | @ | W 78-65 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 149.5 | U 143 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 76-71 | +6.5 | W +11.5 | 162.5 | U 147 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 91-80 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 158.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 67-75 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 158.5 | U 142 |
| Jan 22 | @ | L 65-81 | +4.5 | L −11.5 | 157.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 88-91 | +6.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 81-79 | -2.5 | L −0.5 | 151.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 90-104 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | O 194 |
| Feb 5 | vs | L 74-88 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 72-53 | -7.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 125 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 83-72 | +5.5 | W +16.5 | 153.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-84 | +3.5 | L −14.5 | 154.5 | U 150 |
| Feb 19 | vs | W 82-79 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 92-72 | -2.5 | W +17.5 | 152.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 83-73 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 152.5 | O 156 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 60-84 | +4.5 | L −19.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 79-84 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
@
UTAH
L 89-92
+12.5
12
@
USU
L 73-83
+12.5
15
@
UCI
L 70-79
+2.5
19
vs
CAM
W 91-85
+4.5
22
vs
UTA
L 73-74
−3.5
29
vs
KC
W 82-61
+10.5
3
vs
ORU
W 92-66
+18.5
7
@
STMN
L 65-88
−15.5
10
@
KC
W 64-60
−3.5
17
@
UVU
L 74-90
−0.5
20
vs
UTU
L 80-82
−7.5
1
vs
PRST
L 90-95
−3.5
3
vs
SAC
W 95-82
+6.5
8
@
NAU
W 78-65
+10.5
10
@
UNCO
W 76-71
+11.5
15
vs
EWU
W 91-80
+7.5
17
vs
IDHO
L 67-75
−6.5
22
@
MONT
L 65-81
−11.5
24
@
MTST
L 88-91
+3.5
31
vs
IDST
W 81-79
−0.5
2
@
SAC
L 90-104
−12.5
5
vs
UNCO
L 74-88
−12.5
7
vs
NAU
W 72-53
+11.5
12
@
IDHO
W 83-72
+16.5
14
@
EWU
L 66-84
−14.5
19
vs
MTST
W 82-79
+1.5
21
vs
MONT
W 92-72
+17.5
28
@
IDST
W 83-73
+12.5
2
@
PRST
L 60-84
−19.5
9
vs
EWU
L 79-84
−1.5
covered 16didn’t cover 14avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
@
UTAH
L 89-92
+32.5
12
@
USU
L 73-83
−0.5
15
@
UCI
L 70-79
−2.5
19
vs
CAM
W 91-85
+16.5
22
vs
UTA
L 73-74
−2.5
29
vs
KC
W 82-61
−12.5
3
vs
ORU
W 92-66
+0.5
7
@
STMN
L 65-88
−1.5
10
@
KC
W 64-60
−26.5
17
@
UVU
L 74-90
+15.5
20
vs
UTU
L 80-82
+9.5
1
vs
PRST
L 90-95
+36.5
3
vs
SAC
W 95-82
+8.5
8
@
NAU
W 78-65
−6.5
10
@
UNCO
W 76-71
−15.5
15
vs
EWU
W 91-80
+12.5
17
vs
IDHO
L 67-75
−16.5
22
@
MONT
L 65-81
−11.5
24
@
MTST
L 88-91
+31.5
31
vs
IDST
W 81-79
+8.5
2
@
SAC
L 90-104
+31.5
5
vs
UNCO
L 74-88
−0.5
7
vs
NAU
W 72-53
−25.5
12
@
IDHO
W 83-72
+1.5
14
@
EWU
L 66-84
−4.5
19
vs
MTST
W 82-79
+12.5
21
vs
MONT
W 92-72
+11.5
28
@
IDST
W 83-73
+3.5
2
@
PRST
L 60-84
−0.5
9
vs
EWU
L 79-84
+8.5
over 16under 14avg +3.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Washington St has the better starters
Position by position: Washington St 1, Weber St 0, even 4
Washington StBetterWeber St
G S. Akins TR5.3 pts · 1.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 57
←WSUBig
G A. Grayson3.3 pts · 1.2 reb · 1 ast
Score 6
F F. Roxburgh TR10.9 pts · 5.7 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 21
=No call
F B. Felder TR2.3 pts · 1.8 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
F R. Harrison TR14.2 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 67
=No call
F D. Thompson NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
F L. Dembele TR5.2 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.4 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C A. Ekwe TR2.4 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
F T. Kropp TR3.1 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 48
=No call
C D. Cutler1.2 pts · 1.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
Washington StBetterWeber St
WSU offense130th of 366 · -3.5
←WSUBig
WEB defense336th of 366 · -8.9
WSU defense166th of 366 · -3.7
←WSUSmall
WEB offense280th of 366 · -8.6
Backcourt-0.2 · 1 player
←WSUSmall
Backcourt-1.7 · 1 player
Frontcourt-2.6 · 4 players
→WEBSmall
Frontcourt-0.8 · 4 players
Bench-0.5 · 4 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestWSU betterWEB 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
A. Grayson12 minA. JacksonNewA. PowellNewM. AbittanNewS. Marius JonesNewH. HansenNew
Forwards
B. Felder6 min · TRD. ThompsonNewD. WarlickNewC. BurgessNew
Centers
A. Ekwe10 min · TRD. Cutler6 min
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 | 78.8 #82 |
| 1.10 #136 | Points per possession | 1.11 #112 |
| 68.9 #183 | Pace (possessions) | 70.7 #85 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.7 #48 | Effective FG% | 51.7 #163 |
| 36.5 #40 | 3-point % | 34.5 #143 |
| 44.8 #73 | 3-point attempt rate | 32.8 #320 |
| 30.2 #305 | Free throw rate | 39.1 #76 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.5 #295 | Turnover rate | 15.7 #115 |
| 29.5 #221 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.8 #132 |
| 13.8 #163 | Assists per game | 12.6 #241 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.3 #245 | Points allowed | 79.1 #300 |
| 1.12 #266 | Points allowed per possession | 1.12 #269 |
| 52.6 #248 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.5 #316 |
| 35.4 #273 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.5 #160 |
| 14.5 #322 | Turnovers forced | 16.3 #204 |
| 71.8 #71 | Defensive rebound rate | 72.3 #56 |
| 5.5 #299 | Steals per game | 6.9 #133 |
| 2.9 #242 | Blocks per game | 1.5 #360 |
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.
Weber St
14-16 in 2025-26 overall · 10-9 in conference · Big Sky Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs E Washington79–84
- L@ Portland St60–84
- W@ Idaho St83–73
- Wvs Montana92–72
- Wvs Montana St82–79
A week or more of rest.