UTSA Convocation Center · at UTSA
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | UTSA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 UTSA 80–76 · win probability UTSA 63%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 156.4
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: DEN has more of the edges
DEN 4, UTSA 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
UTSA offense vs DEN defense
Offense 155th of 366 against a defense 337th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
DEN has played the 249th-hardest schedule, UTSA the 104th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Three-pointers
DEN hits 36.8% and allows 36.7%; UTSA hits 29.2% and allows 35.1%. Threes are 38.6% and 41.3% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: DEN 53.6 and allows 56.0; UTSA 44.8 and allows 53.3
Turnovers
Turnover rate: DEN 14.2%, UTSA 17.4%. Forced: DEN 13.0%, UTSA 14.7%
DEN offense vs UTSA defense
Offense 184th of 366 against a defense 238th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
UTSA at home. This season: UTSA 0-0 at home, DEN 0-0 away
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: DEN 29.8%, UTSA 30.2%. Defensive: DEN 67.2%, UTSA 61.3%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: DEN 27%, UTSA 15%. Transfers in: DEN 6, UTSA 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: DEN 34.1, UTSA 29.5. Allowed: DEN 36.8, UTSA 33.3
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: DEN plays 69.4 a game (151st fastest), UTSA 69.6 (142nd). 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 | — | UTSA -3.8 | — |
| Total | — | 156.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | DEN 76.3 · UTSA 80.1 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UTSA -2.1 | — |
| 1H total | 73.1 | — |
| 1H projected score | DEN 35.5 · UTSA 37.6 | — |
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% | |
| 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
| Date | Game | Last meeting |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 14 | @ UTU | L54–68LU |
No more games listed yet.
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
DEN 0–2 UTSAUTSA leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · UTSA has won the last 2 meetings · DEN 0-2 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2025-26 | UTSA 84 @ DEN 79 | DEN -4.5 | UTSA W |
| Nov 16, 2021-22 | DEN 64 @ UTSA 78 | UTSA -8.5 | UTSA 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
UTSA
28 games played
Straight up
3-25
11% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −3.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-15
46% overs · avg −1.2 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 7 | vs | L 60-77 | -6.5 | L −23.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 69-80 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 84-79 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 50-61 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 77-64 | +3.5 | W +16.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 58-82 | +1.5 | L −22.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 55-97 | +33.5 | L −8.5 | 171.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 64-88 | +22.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 70-97 | +25.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 22 | vs | L 68-71 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 70-110 | +16.5 | L −23.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 57-76 | +10.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 58-74 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 52-85 | +7.5 | L −25.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 73-89 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 18 | @ | L 69-95 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 62-81 | +15.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 64-70 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 73-83 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 88-109 | +23.5 | W +2.5 | 164.5 | O 197 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 58-81 | +10.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 72-88 | +10.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 88-79 | +13.5 | W +22.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 52-60 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | U 112 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 74-100 | +21.5 | L −4.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 81-82 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 67-84 | +15.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 71-80 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
SIUE
L 60-77
−23.5
12
@
TXST
L 69-80
−8.5
15
@
DEN
W 84-79
+9.5
24
vs
ACU
L 50-61
−8.5
25
vs
GASO
W 77-64
+16.5
30
vs
USA
L 58-82
−22.5
7
@
ALA
L 55-97
−8.5
13
@
COLO
L 64-88
−1.5
17
@
USC
L 70-97
−1.5
22
vs
SEA
L 68-71
+7.5
31
@
FAU
L 70-110
−23.5
3
@
TEM
L 57-76
−8.5
7
vs
CLT
L 58-74
−9.5
10
vs
TULN
L 52-85
−25.5
14
vs
RICE
L 73-89
−9.5
18
@
MEM
L 69-95
−5.5
21
@
UNT
L 62-81
−3.5
24
vs
TEM
L 64-70
+4.5
28
vs
UAB
L 73-83
+2.5
4
@
USF
L 88-109
+2.5
7
vs
UNT
L 58-81
−12.5
11
@
ECU
L 72-88
−5.5
15
@
CLT
W 88-79
+22.5
18
vs
FAU
L 52-60
+3.5
22
@
TLSA
L 74-100
−4.5
25
vs
ECU
L 81-82
+3.5
1
vs
WICH
L 67-84
−1.5
8
@
RICE
L 71-80
+2.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −3.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
SIUE
L 60-77
−16.5
12
@
TXST
L 69-80
+1.5
15
@
DEN
W 84-79
+14.5
24
vs
ACU
L 50-61
−33.5
25
vs
GASO
W 77-64
−19.5
30
vs
USA
L 58-82
−1.5
7
@
ALA
L 55-97
−19.5
13
@
COLO
L 64-88
−2.5
17
@
USC
L 70-97
+9.5
22
vs
SEA
L 68-71
−9.5
31
@
FAU
L 70-110
+21.5
3
@
TEM
L 57-76
−16.5
7
vs
CLT
L 58-74
−13.5
10
vs
TULN
L 52-85
−10.5
14
vs
RICE
L 73-89
+17.5
18
@
MEM
L 69-95
+16.5
21
@
UNT
L 62-81
+4.5
24
vs
TEM
L 64-70
−11.5
28
vs
UAB
L 73-83
+0.5
4
@
USF
L 88-109
+32.5
7
vs
UNT
L 58-81
−2.5
11
@
ECU
L 72-88
+9.5
15
@
CLT
W 88-79
+18.5
18
vs
FAU
L 52-60
−45.5
22
@
TLSA
L 74-100
+14.5
25
vs
ECU
L 81-82
+9.5
1
vs
WICH
L 67-84
−0.5
8
@
RICE
L 71-80
−0.5
over 13under 15avg −1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
UTSA has the better starters
Position by position: Denver 1, UTSA 3, even 1
DenverBetterUTSA
G C. Johnson19.9 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 73
←DENBig
G D. Hayes8.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 16
G K. Martin TR5.3 pts · 2.1 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 24
→UTSASmall
G J. Kelly TR8.3 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 44
G C. Hyland TR5 pts · 1.3 reb · 1 ast
Score 20
→UTSABig
G D. Williams TR10 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 72
F J. Rogers TR5.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 2.2 ast
Score 27
=Even
G P. Turner TR7 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 31
F S. Wysocki5.8 pts · 2.9 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 14
→UTSABig
G I. Coleman TR6.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 50
DenverBetterUTSA
DEN offense184th of 366 · -5.7
←DENSmall
UTSA defense238th of 366 · -6.2
DEN defense337th of 366 · -8.9
→UTSABig
UTSA offense155th of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
←DENBig
Backcourt-5.4 · 5 players
Frontcourt-3.3 · 2 players
=No call
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
Bench-2.4 · 3 players
←DENSmall
Bench-3.5 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestDEN betterUTSA 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
D. Hayes31 minJ. Kelly27 min · TRD. Williams22 min · TRP. Turner20 min · TRI. Coleman19 min · TRS. Eberwein19 min · TR
Forwards
A. Smith5 min · TRC. OkpukparaNewM. BroxtonNewJ. PetersonNewK. TaylorNew
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 | 67.3 #329 |
| 1.16 #53 | Points per possession | 0.96 #348 |
| 69.4 #151 | Pace (possessions) | 69.6 #142 |
| Shooting | ||
| 53.6 #79 | Effective FG% | 44.8 #360 |
| 36.8 #32 | 3-point % | 29.2 #351 |
| 38.6 #199 | 3-point attempt rate | 41.3 #143 |
| 34.1 #203 | Free throw rate | 29.5 #320 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.2 #30 | Turnover rate | 17.4 #231 |
| 29.8 #213 | Offensive rebound rate | 30.2 #191 |
| 11.2 #327 | Assists per game | 10.1 #357 |
| Defense | ||
| 84.0 #357 | Points allowed | 82.9 #345 |
| 1.21 #360 | Points allowed per possession | 1.20 #356 |
| 56.0 #344 | Opponent effective FG% | 53.3 #277 |
| 36.7 #338 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.1 #251 |
| 13.0 #355 | Turnovers forced | 14.7 #309 |
| 67.2 #291 | Defensive rebound rate | 61.3 #363 |
| 4.5 #356 | Steals per game | 6.3 #203 |
| 1.9 #348 | Blocks per game | 4.3 #52 |
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.
UTSA
3-25 in 2025-26 overall · 1-17 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Rice71–80
- Lvs Wichita St67–84
- Lvs East Carolina81–82
- L@ Tulsa74–100
- Lvs FAU52–60
A week or more of rest.