The Thunderdome · at Santa Barbara
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UCSB | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UCSB 81–68 · win probability UCSB 88%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 148.7
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: UCSB has more of the edges
UNCG 1, UCSB 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: UNCG 42.0, UCSB 36.8. Allowed: UNCG 30.6, UCSB 42.4
UCSB offense vs UNCG defense
Offense 150th of 366 against a defense 299th, on the model’s ratings
UNCG offense vs UCSB defense
Offense 260th of 366 against a defense 128th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
UNCG hits 35.6% and allows 38.0%; UCSB hits 37.4% and allows 33.9%. Threes are 40.2% and 44.1% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: UNCG 52.0 and allows 56.2; UCSB 54.7 and allows 52.6
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UNCG 28.1%, UCSB 31.0%. Defensive: UNCG 71.0%, UCSB 74.5%
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UNCG 5%, UCSB 53%. Transfers in: UNCG 6, UCSB 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
UNCG has played the 256th-hardest schedule, UCSB the 203rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Home court
UCSB at home. This season: UCSB 0-0 at home, UNCG 0-0 away
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UNCG 15.0%, UCSB 18.8%. Forced: UNCG 13.6%, UCSB 16.8%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UNCG plays 69.3 a game (157th fastest), UCSB 68.2 (218th). Faster games mean more points
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 | — | UCSB -13.3 | — |
| Total | — | 148.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | UNCG 67.7 · UCSB 81 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCSB -7.8 | — |
| 1H total | 69.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | UNCG 30.9 · UCSB 38.7 | — |
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% | 7-3 70% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UNC Greensboro
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
13-19
41% covers · avg −1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
22-10
69% overs · avg +8.1 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 64-93 | +18.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 157 |
| Nov 8 | vs | L 90-92 | -4.5 | L −6.5 | 142.5 | O 182 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 64-110 | +30.5 | L −15.5 | 153.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 63-69 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 20 | @ | L 94-101 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 150.5 | O 195 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 68-62 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 152.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 60-73 | -1.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 133 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 71-82 | +10.5 | L −0.5 | 150.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 77-82 | +4.5 | L −0.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 82-78 | +7.5 | W +11.5 | 139.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 16 | vs | L 65-71 | -6.5 | L −12.5 | 147.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 1 | vs | W 77-72 | +2.5 | W +7.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 89-82 | +2.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 7 | @ | L 85-97 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 153.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 60-86 | +11.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 69-66 | -9.5 | L −6.5 | 148.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 92-102 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | O 194 |
| Jan 21 | @ | W 85-78 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 23 | vs | L 66-89 | +4.5 | L −18.5 | 150.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 77-95 | +10.5 | L −7.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 66-71 | -2.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 81-78 | +1.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | O 159 |
| Feb 8 | @ | W 67-64 | +10.5 | W +13.5 | 149.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 11 | vs | W 92-71 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 99-89 | +2.5 | W +12.5 | 154.5 | O 188 |
| Feb 18 | @ | L 77-91 | +5.5 | L −8.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 75-87 | +6.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 85-80 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 78-87 | +8.5 | L −0.5 | 156.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 84-70 | -7.5 | W +6.5 | 154.5 | U 154 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 75-72 | +4.5 | W +7.5 | 155.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 8 | vs | L 75-81 | +5.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | O 156 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
KSU
L 64-93
−10.5
8
vs
ELON
L 90-92
−6.5
12
@
NCSU
L 64-110
−15.5
15
vs
APSU
L 63-69
−7.5
20
@
QUC
L 94-101
+0.5
23
vs
YSU
W 68-62
+11.5
25
vs
DEL
L 60-73
−14.5
26
vs
M-OH
L 71-82
−0.5
2
vs
UNCA
L 77-82
−0.5
6
@
ECU
W 82-78
+11.5
16
vs
NCAT
L 65-71
−12.5
1
vs
UTC
W 77-72
+7.5
3
vs
SAM
W 89-82
+9.5
7
@
WOF
L 85-97
−4.5
10
@
ETSU
L 60-86
−14.5
15
vs
CIT
W 69-66
−6.5
17
vs
MER
L 92-102
−4.5
21
@
VMI
W 85-78
+4.5
23
vs
FUR
L 66-89
−18.5
29
@
MER
L 77-95
−7.5
31
@
CIT
L 66-71
−7.5
4
vs
WCU
W 81-78
+4.5
8
@
FUR
W 67-64
+13.5
11
vs
VMI
W 92-71
+12.5
14
vs
WOF
W 99-89
+12.5
18
@
WCU
L 77-91
−8.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 75-87
−5.5
26
@
UTC
W 85-80
+9.5
28
@
SAM
L 78-87
−0.5
6
vs
VMI
W 84-70
+6.5
7
vs
WOF
W 75-72
+7.5
8
vs
FUR
L 75-81
−0.5
covered 13didn’t cover 19avg −1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
KSU
L 64-93
+8.5
8
vs
ELON
L 90-92
+39.5
12
@
NCSU
L 64-110
+20.5
15
vs
APSU
L 63-69
−13.5
20
@
QUC
L 94-101
+44.5
23
vs
YSU
W 68-62
−22.5
25
vs
DEL
L 60-73
−9.5
26
vs
M-OH
L 71-82
+2.5
2
vs
UNCA
L 77-82
+15.5
6
@
ECU
W 82-78
+20.5
16
vs
NCAT
L 65-71
−11.5
1
vs
UTC
W 77-72
+1.5
3
vs
SAM
W 89-82
+19.5
7
@
WOF
L 85-97
+28.5
10
@
ETSU
L 60-86
−2.5
15
vs
CIT
W 69-66
−13.5
17
vs
MER
L 92-102
+38.5
21
@
VMI
W 85-78
+11.5
23
vs
FUR
L 66-89
+4.5
29
@
MER
L 77-95
+13.5
31
@
CIT
L 66-71
−10.5
4
vs
WCU
W 81-78
+3.5
8
@
FUR
W 67-64
−18.5
11
vs
VMI
W 92-71
+12.5
14
vs
WOF
W 99-89
+33.5
18
@
WCU
L 77-91
+12.5
21
vs
ETSU
L 75-87
+13.5
26
@
UTC
W 85-80
+7.5
28
@
SAM
L 78-87
+8.5
6
vs
VMI
W 84-70
−0.5
7
vs
WOF
W 75-72
−8.5
8
vs
FUR
L 75-81
+8.5
over 22under 10avg +8.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Santa Barbara
30 games played
Straight up
16-14
53% wins
Against the spread
12-18
40% covers · avg −1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-14
53% overs · avg +3 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 | vs | W 85-74 | -9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 11 | @ | W 92-87 | -7.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | O 179 |
| Nov 17 | vs | L 74-78 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 22 | @ | L 64-77 | +5.5 | L −7.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 72-70 | -10.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 74-71 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 142.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 4 | vs | W 84-77 | -13.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 109-84 | -12.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 193 |
| Dec 13 | vs | L 53-68 | +5.5 | L −9.5 | 146.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 64-67 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | U 131 |
| Dec 22 | vs | W 79-61 | -9.5 | W +8.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 84-95 | -3.5 | L −14.5 | 155.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 65-74 | +2.5 | L −6.5 | 156.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 8 | vs | L 86-93 | -4.5 | L −11.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 75-69 | -7.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 77-62 | +2.5 | W +17.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 107-67 | -8.5 | W +31.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 74-71 | -4.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 29 | @ | W 62-48 | +4.5 | W +18.5 | 145.5 | U 110 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 83-69 | -8.5 | W +5.5 | 153.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 75-85 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 84-79 | -2.5 | W +2.5 | 141.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 76-68 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 145.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 79-89 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 159.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 83-85 | -5.5 | L −7.5 | 156.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 75-78 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 70-59 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-64 | +3.5 | L −0.5 | 138.5 | U 124 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 63-64 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 141.5 | U 127 |
| Mar 11 | vs | L 73-79 | -4.5 | L −10.5 | 139.5 | O 152 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
8
vs
SJSU
W 85-74
+1.5
11
@
SAC
W 92-87
−2.5
17
vs
LMU
L 74-78
−7.5
22
@
NEV
L 64-77
−7.5
28
vs
LEH
W 72-70
−8.5
29
vs
SEA
W 74-71
+5.5
4
vs
LBSU
W 84-77
−6.5
6
vs
CSUB
W 109-84
+12.5
13
vs
UVU
L 53-68
−9.5
17
@
GB
L 64-67
−10.5
22
vs
PORT
W 79-61
+8.5
1
@
CSUF
L 84-95
−14.5
3
@
CSUN
L 65-74
−6.5
8
vs
UCD
L 86-93
−11.5
15
@
CSUB
W 75-69
−1.5
17
vs
HAW
W 77-62
+17.5
22
vs
CP
W 107-67
+31.5
24
@
LBSU
W 74-71
−1.5
29
@
UCSD
W 62-48
+18.5
31
vs
CSUF
W 83-69
+5.5
5
@
UCD
L 75-85
−13.5
7
vs
UCI
W 84-79
+2.5
12
@
UCR
W 76-68
+1.5
14
@
CP
L 79-89
−13.5
19
vs
CSUN
L 83-85
−7.5
21
@
HAW
L 75-78
+2.5
26
vs
UCR
W 70-59
+0.5
28
@
UCI
L 60-64
−0.5
7
vs
UCSD
L 63-64
−3.5
11
vs
UCD
L 73-79
−10.5
covered 12didn’t cover 18avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
8
vs
SJSU
W 85-74
+12.5
11
@
SAC
W 92-87
+17.5
17
vs
LMU
L 74-78
+6.5
22
@
NEV
L 64-77
−6.5
28
vs
LEH
W 72-70
−4.5
29
vs
SEA
W 74-71
+2.5
4
vs
LBSU
W 84-77
+19.5
6
vs
CSUB
W 109-84
+47.5
13
vs
UVU
L 53-68
−25.5
17
@
GB
L 64-67
−9.5
22
vs
PORT
W 79-61
−7.5
1
@
CSUF
L 84-95
+23.5
3
@
CSUN
L 65-74
−17.5
8
vs
UCD
L 86-93
+31.5
15
@
CSUB
W 75-69
−0.5
17
vs
HAW
W 77-62
−4.5
22
vs
CP
W 107-67
+14.5
24
@
LBSU
W 74-71
+0.5
29
@
UCSD
W 62-48
−35.5
31
vs
CSUF
W 83-69
−1.5
5
@
UCD
L 75-85
+12.5
7
vs
UCI
W 84-79
+21.5
12
@
UCR
W 76-68
−1.5
14
@
CP
L 79-89
+8.5
19
vs
CSUN
L 83-85
+11.5
21
@
HAW
L 75-78
+7.5
26
vs
UCR
W 70-59
−16.5
28
@
UCI
L 60-64
−14.5
7
vs
UCSD
L 63-64
−14.5
11
vs
UCD
L 73-79
+12.5
over 16under 14avg +3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Santa Barbara has the better starters
Position by position: UNC Greensboro 0, Santa Barbara 2, even 3
UNC GreensboroBetterSanta Barbara
G B. Stacker TR11.9 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 47
=Even
G V. Vartiainen TR12.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 52
G C. Grant TR2.2 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 9
→UCSBBig
G M. Little12.7 pts · 5.6 reb · 4.8 ast
Score 91
F Z. Fitch TR6.1 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 31
→UCSBSmall
G C. Shaw11.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 62
F V. Collins TR1 pts · 3 reb · 0.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G R. Smith TR6.6 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 43
F A. Beljan TR2.2 pts · 0.8 reb · 0.2 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C E. Dibami TR9.5 pts · 7.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 45
UNC GreensboroBetterSanta Barbara
UNCG offense260th of 366 · -8.0
→UCSBBig
UCSB defense128th of 366 · -2.3
UNCG defense299th of 366 · -7.7
→UCSBBig
UCSB offense150th of 366 · -4.5
Backcourt-2.1 · 2 players
→UCSBBig
Backcourt+1.4 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.9 · 3 players
→UCSBSmall
Frontcourt-0.1 · 1 player
Bench-0.5 · 3 players
←UNCGSmall
Bench-3.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestUNCG betterUCSB betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
B. Stacker29 min · TRC. Grant11 min · TRC. Bailey6 minR. Greer6 min · TRB. MishakNewJ. ManiNew
Forwards
Z. Fitch23 min · TRV. Collins7 min · TRA. Beljan7 min · TRC. Bynum4 minC. LaFrentzNew
Guards
V. Vartiainen31 min · TRM. Little30 minC. Shaw29 minR. Smith28 min · TRM. McGhee21 minL. Zuffelato4 min
Forwards
A. Chol24 min · TRM. Simcoe9 minD. Duru7 min · TRK. Keat Tong6 minK. Haughy2 minJ. Simcoe2 min
Centers
E. Dibami29 min · TRM. John WuolNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.6 #128 | Points per game | 76.7 #127 |
| 1.11 #125 | Points per possession | 1.13 #87 |
| 69.3 #157 | Pace (possessions) | 68.2 #218 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.0 #146 | Effective FG% | 54.7 #47 |
| 35.6 #80 | 3-point % | 37.4 #23 |
| 40.2 #165 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.1 #87 |
| 42.0 #31 | Free throw rate | 36.8 #134 |
| Possessions | ||
| 15.0 #63 | Turnover rate | 18.8 #312 |
| 28.1 #259 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.0 #165 |
| 12.1 #283 | Assists per game | 14.1 #140 |
| Defense | ||
| 81.9 #341 | Points allowed | 73.7 #148 |
| 1.18 #347 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #156 |
| 56.2 #347 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.6 #244 |
| 38.0 #357 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.9 #177 |
| 13.6 #343 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #170 |
| 71.0 #104 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.5 #14 |
| 5.5 #301 | Steals per game | 6.2 #216 |
| 1.9 #350 | Blocks per game | 2.3 #322 |
UNC Greensboro
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Southern Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Furman75–81
- Wvs Wofford75–72
- Wvs VMI84–70
- L@ Samford78–87
- W@ Chattanooga85–80
A week or more of rest.
Santa Barbara
16-14 in 2025-26 overall · 11-10 in conference · Big West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs UC Davis73–79
- Lvs UC San Diego63–64
- L@ UC Irvine60–64
- Wvs UC Riverside70–59
- L@ Hawai'i75–78
A week or more of rest.