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 80–72 · win probability UCSB 75%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.8
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
OAK 2, UCSB 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Free throws
Free throw rate: OAK 38.1, UCSB 36.8. Allowed: OAK 24.6, UCSB 42.4
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: OAK 31.3%, UCSB 31.0%. Defensive: OAK 65.6%, UCSB 74.5%
UCSB offense vs OAK defense
Offense 150th of 366 against a defense 266th, on the model’s ratings
Turnovers
Turnover rate: OAK 14.7%, UCSB 18.8%. Forced: OAK 15.1%, UCSB 16.8%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: OAK plays 71.1 a game (67th fastest), UCSB 68.2 (218th). Faster games mean more points
Shooting
Effective FG%: OAK 52.7 and allows 54.7; UCSB 54.7 and allows 52.6
Three-pointers
OAK hits 34.7% and allows 34.3%; UCSB hits 37.4% and allows 33.9%. Threes are 34.0% and 44.1% of their shots
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: OAK 20%, UCSB 53%. Transfers in: OAK 5, UCSB 5. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
OAK has played the 150th-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, OAK 0-0 away
Even
OAK offense vs UCSB defense
Offense 159th of 366 against a defense 128th, on the model’s ratings
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 -7.8 | — |
| Total | — | 151.8 | — |
| Projected score | — | OAK 72 · UCSB 79.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCSB -4.5 | — |
| 1H total | 71.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | OAK 33.2 · UCSB 37.7 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | 4-6 40% | |
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Oakland
31 games played
Straight up
15-16
48% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-12
61% overs · avg +4.1 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 3 | @ | L 78-121 | +24.5 | L −18.5 | 156.5 | O 199 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 77-87 | +31.5 | W +21.5 | 158.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 45-78 | +30.5 | L −2.5 | 138.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 83-87 | +13.5 | W +9.5 | 163.5 | O 170 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 91-97 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 153.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 83-68 | -3.5 | W +11.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Nov 25 | @ | W 95-87 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 162.5 | O 182 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 101-92 | -4.5 | W +4.5 | 162.5 | O 193 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 98-97 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 166.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 63-75 | +8.5 | L −3.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 82-77 | +3.5 | W +8.5 | 163.5 | U 159 |
| Dec 20 | vs | L 70-79 | +19.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | U 149 |
| Dec 29 | @ | L 73-88 | +3.5 | L −11.5 | 159.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 85-83 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | O 168 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 96-73 | -1.5 | W +21.5 | 161.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 9 | vs | W 97-74 | -15.5 | W +7.5 | 169.5 | O 171 |
| Jan 11 | vs | L 84-94 | -4.5 | L −14.5 | 161.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 73-60 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 166.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 18 | @ | W 88-63 | -4.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 85-103 | -14.5 | L −32.5 | 176.5 | O 188 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 95-87 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 167.5 | O 182 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 74-65 | -1.5 | W +7.5 | 162.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 1 | vs | W 76-65 | -3.5 | W +7.5 | 166.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 78-91 | -7.5 | L −20.5 | 170.5 | U 169 |
| Feb 12 | vs | L 82-86 | -3.5 | L −7.5 | 155.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 69-93 | +1.5 | L −22.5 | 156.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 20 | vs | L 68-73 | -6.5 | L −11.5 | 153.5 | U 141 |
| Feb 22 | vs | W 81-70 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 159.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 25 | @ | W 86-74 | -5.5 | W +6.5 | 169.5 | U 160 |
| Feb 28 | vs | L 89-95 | -8.5 | L −14.5 | 160.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 4 | vs | L 84-85 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 161.5 | O 169 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MICH
L 78-121
−18.5
7
@
PUR
L 77-87
+21.5
12
@
HOU
L 45-78
−2.5
17
@
UCF
L 83-87
+9.5
21
@
EMU
L 91-97
−7.5
24
vs
LAM
W 83-68
+11.5
25
@
MONT
W 95-87
+12.5
3
vs
PFW
W 101-92
+4.5
6
vs
TOL
W 98-97
−3.5
13
@
UNI
L 63-75
−3.5
17
@
NKU
W 82-77
+8.5
20
vs
MSU
L 70-79
+10.5
29
@
WRST
L 73-88
−11.5
1
@
YSU
W 85-83
+3.5
4
vs
RMU
W 96-73
+21.5
9
vs
CLE
W 97-74
+7.5
11
vs
WRST
L 84-94
−14.5
15
@
MILW
W 73-60
+10.5
18
@
GB
W 88-63
+20.5
21
vs
IUIN
L 85-103
−32.5
24
@
DETM
W 95-87
+1.5
28
@
PFW
W 74-65
+7.5
1
vs
NKU
W 76-65
+7.5
4
@
CLE
L 78-91
−20.5
12
vs
YSU
L 82-86
−7.5
15
@
RMU
L 69-93
−22.5
20
vs
GB
L 68-73
−11.5
22
vs
MILW
W 81-70
+5.5
25
@
IUIN
W 86-74
+6.5
28
vs
DETM
L 89-95
−14.5
4
vs
NKU
L 84-85
−2.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MICH
L 78-121
+42.5
7
@
PUR
L 77-87
+5.5
12
@
HOU
L 45-78
−15.5
17
@
UCF
L 83-87
+6.5
21
@
EMU
L 91-97
+34.5
24
vs
LAM
W 83-68
+2.5
25
@
MONT
W 95-87
+19.5
3
vs
PFW
W 101-92
+30.5
6
vs
TOL
W 98-97
+28.5
13
@
UNI
L 63-75
−11.5
17
@
NKU
W 82-77
−4.5
20
vs
MSU
L 70-79
−6.5
29
@
WRST
L 73-88
+1.5
1
@
YSU
W 85-83
+10.5
4
vs
RMU
W 96-73
+7.5
9
vs
CLE
W 97-74
+1.5
11
vs
WRST
L 84-94
+16.5
15
@
MILW
W 73-60
−33.5
18
@
GB
W 88-63
−2.5
21
vs
IUIN
L 85-103
+11.5
24
@
DETM
W 95-87
+14.5
28
@
PFW
W 74-65
−23.5
1
vs
NKU
W 76-65
−25.5
4
@
CLE
L 78-91
−1.5
12
vs
YSU
L 82-86
+12.5
15
@
RMU
L 69-93
+5.5
20
vs
GB
L 68-73
−12.5
22
vs
MILW
W 81-70
−8.5
25
@
IUIN
W 86-74
−9.5
28
vs
DETM
L 89-95
+23.5
4
vs
NKU
L 84-85
+7.5
over 19under 12avg +4.1 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: Oakland 1, Santa Barbara 3, even 1
OaklandBetterSanta Barbara
G N. Mashhour9 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 22
→UCSBSmall
G V. Vartiainen TR12.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 52
G B. Swartz TR7.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 41
→UCSBBig
G M. Little12.7 pts · 5.6 reb · 4.8 ast
Score 91
F B. El Shakery TR11.2 pts · 8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 59
=Even
G C. Shaw11.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 62
F C. Fields TR9.1 pts · 6.2 reb · 1.2 ast
Score 79
←OAKBig
G R. Smith TR6.6 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 43
F J. Hill TR7 pts · 4.4 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 16
→UCSBSmall
C E. Dibami TR9.5 pts · 7.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 45
OaklandBetterSanta Barbara
OAK offense159th of 366 · -4.8
=Even
UCSB defense128th of 366 · -2.3
OAK defense266th of 366 · -6.8
→UCSBSmall
UCSB offense150th of 366 · -4.5
Backcourt-3.2 · 2 players
→UCSBBig
Backcourt+1.4 · 4 players
Frontcourt-0.2 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt-0.1 · 1 player
Bench-1.7 · 2 players
←OAKSmall
Bench-3.2 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestOAK betterUCSB betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
N. Mashhour28 minB. Swartz21 min · TRW. Marshall12 minR. Taylor11 min · TRW. KassiNewH. MashhourNew
Forwards
B. El Shakery27 min · TRC. Fields18 min · TRJ. Hill17 min · TRN. AhnerNewC. ThompsonNewI. TheodileNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 81.6 #37 | Points per game | 76.7 #127 |
| 1.14 #66 | Points per possession | 1.13 #87 |
| 71.1 #67 | Pace (possessions) | 68.2 #218 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.7 #114 | Effective FG% | 54.7 #47 |
| 34.7 #131 | 3-point % | 37.4 #23 |
| 34.0 #294 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.1 #87 |
| 38.1 #100 | Free throw rate | 36.8 #134 |
| Possessions | ||
| 14.7 #47 | Turnover rate | 18.8 #312 |
| 31.3 #152 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.0 #165 |
| 15.7 #60 | Assists per game | 14.1 #140 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.8 #344 | Points allowed | 73.7 #148 |
| 1.17 #340 | Points allowed per possession | 1.08 #156 |
| 54.7 #322 | Opponent effective FG% | 52.6 #244 |
| 34.3 #206 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.9 #177 |
| 15.1 #275 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #170 |
| 65.6 #324 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.5 #14 |
| 7.2 #106 | Steals per game | 6.2 #216 |
| 3.7 #110 | Blocks per game | 2.3 #322 |
Oakland
15-16 in 2025-26 overall · 12-9 in conference · Horizon League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs N Kentucky84–85
- Lvs Detroit Mercy89–95
- W@ IU Indy86–74
- Wvs Milwaukee81–70
- Lvs Green Bay68–73
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.