Firestone Fieldhouse · at Pepperdine
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | PEPP | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 75–75 · win probability UCSB 51%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 150.1
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
UCSB 5, PEPP 2 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
UCSB hits 37.4% and allows 33.9%; PEPP hits 31.4% and allows 35.5%. Threes are 44.1% and 39.2% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UCSB 31.0%, PEPP 29.1%. Defensive: UCSB 74.5%, PEPP 66.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: UCSB 54.7 and allows 52.6; PEPP 47.6 and allows 54.2
Free throws
Free throw rate: UCSB 36.8, PEPP 33.9. Allowed: UCSB 42.4, PEPP 28.5
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UCSB 53%, PEPP 5%. Transfers in: UCSB 5, PEPP 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Context
Schedule so far
UCSB has played the 203rd-hardest schedule, PEPP the 128th. A record against a soft schedule means less
UCSB offense vs PEPP defense
Offense 150th of 366 against a defense 216th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
PEPP at home. This season: PEPP 0-0 at home, UCSB 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: UCSB plays 68.2 a game (218th fastest), PEPP 70.0 (117th). Faster games mean more points
Even
PEPP offense vs UCSB defense
Offense 139th of 366 against a defense 128th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UCSB 18.8%, PEPP 18.3%. Forced: UCSB 16.8%, PEPP 16.5%
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 -0.4 | — |
| Total | — | 150.1 | — |
| Projected score | — | UCSB 75.2 · PEPP 74.8 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | UCSB -0.4 | — |
| 1H total | 70.2 | — |
| 1H projected score | UCSB 35.3 · PEPP 34.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 4-6 40% | 6-4 60% | |
| 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | 9-1 90% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UCSB 2–0 PEPPUCSB leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · UCSB has won the last 2 meetings · UCSB 2-0 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2022-23 | UCSB 67 @ PEPP 64 | PEPP -2.5 | UCSB W |
| Dec 3, 2021-22 | PEPP 74 @ UCSB 86 | UCSB -8 | UCSB W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Pepperdine
30 games played
Straight up
7-23
23% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.5 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% overs · avg +2.2 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 | @ | L 63-74 | +29.5 | W +18.5 | 152.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 15 | vs | L 81-88 | +1.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 18 | vs | W 90-79 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 157.5 | O 169 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 60-63 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 148.5 | U 123 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 53-76 | +2.5 | L −20.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Nov 29 | @ | L 69-83 | +1.5 | L −12.5 | 161.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 2 | vs | L 63-71 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 6 | vs | L 56-65 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 142.5 | U 121 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 70-62 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 147.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 18 | @ | L 78-81 | +4.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 159 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 84-62 | +1.5 | W +23.5 | 140.5 | O 146 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 56-96 | +29.5 | L −10.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 45-72 | +19.5 | L −7.5 | 141.5 | U 117 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 63-82 | +20.5 | W +1.5 | 150.5 | U 145 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 69-74 | +11.5 | W +6.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 8 | @ | L 63-83 | +4.5 | L −15.5 | 149.5 | U 146 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 60-80 | +7.5 | L −12.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 67-63 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 60-84 | +28.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 24 | @ | L 79-95 | +11.5 | L −4.5 | 146.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 88-92 | +2.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 81-83 | +12.5 | W +10.5 | 139.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 59-92 | +7.5 | L −25.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 60-88 | +24.5 | L −3.5 | 144.5 | O 148 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 90-89 | +5.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 95-87 | +7.5 | W +15.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 73-83 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 80-87 | +7.5 | W +0.5 | 145.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 88-79 | +7.5 | W +16.5 | 158.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 5 | vs | L 68-77 | +3.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
UCLA
L 63-74
+18.5
15
vs
UNCO
L 81-88
−5.5
18
vs
NOLA
W 90-79
+5.5
21
vs
SFA
L 60-63
−1.5
26
vs
FRES
L 53-76
−20.5
29
@
CSUF
L 69-83
−12.5
2
vs
ACU
L 63-71
−6.5
6
vs
UVM
L 56-65
−7.5
13
@
CSUB
W 70-62
+9.5
18
@
LBSU
L 78-81
+1.5
20
vs
RICE
W 84-62
+23.5
28
vs
GONZ
L 56-96
−10.5
30
vs
SMC
L 45-72
−7.5
2
@
SCU
L 63-82
+1.5
4
@
PAC
L 69-74
+6.5
8
@
USD
L 63-83
−15.5
10
vs
SF
L 60-80
−12.5
14
vs
PORT
W 67-63
+5.5
21
@
GONZ
L 60-84
+4.5
24
@
WSU
L 79-95
−4.5
28
vs
USD
L 88-92
−1.5
4
@
SEA
L 81-83
+10.5
7
vs
PAC
L 59-92
−25.5
11
@
SMC
L 60-88
−3.5
14
vs
LMU
W 90-89
+6.5
18
@
PORT
W 95-87
+15.5
21
@
ORST
L 73-83
−0.5
25
vs
SEA
L 80-87
+0.5
28
vs
WSU
W 88-79
+16.5
5
vs
PORT
L 68-77
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.5 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
UCLA
L 63-74
−15.5
15
vs
UNCO
L 81-88
+15.5
18
vs
NOLA
W 90-79
+11.5
21
vs
SFA
L 60-63
−25.5
26
vs
FRES
L 53-76
−21.5
29
@
CSUF
L 69-83
−9.5
2
vs
ACU
L 63-71
−3.5
6
vs
UVM
L 56-65
−21.5
13
@
CSUB
W 70-62
−15.5
18
@
LBSU
L 78-81
+17.5
20
vs
RICE
W 84-62
+5.5
28
vs
GONZ
L 56-96
−0.5
30
vs
SMC
L 45-72
−24.5
2
@
SCU
L 63-82
−5.5
4
@
PAC
L 69-74
+4.5
8
@
USD
L 63-83
−3.5
10
vs
SF
L 60-80
−0.5
14
vs
PORT
W 67-63
−17.5
21
@
GONZ
L 60-84
−6.5
24
@
WSU
L 79-95
+27.5
28
vs
USD
L 88-92
+28.5
4
@
SEA
L 81-83
+24.5
7
vs
PAC
L 59-92
+8.5
11
@
SMC
L 60-88
+3.5
14
vs
LMU
W 90-89
+31.5
18
@
PORT
W 95-87
+31.5
21
@
ORST
L 73-83
+7.5
25
vs
SEA
L 80-87
+21.5
28
vs
WSU
W 88-79
+8.5
5
vs
PORT
L 68-77
−9.5
over 15under 15avg +2.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Pepperdine has the better starters
Position by position: Santa Barbara 0, Pepperdine 2, even 3
Santa BarbaraBetterPepperdine
G V. Vartiainen TR12.9 pts · 3.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 52
=Even
G J. Williamson TR10.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 58
G M. Little12.7 pts · 5.6 reb · 4.8 ast
Score 91
=No call
G W. McClendon TR13.7 pts · 3 reb · 1.3 ast
Not ranked
G C. Shaw11.6 pts · 1.8 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 62
→PEPPSmall
F P. Majstorovic TR14.4 pts · 6.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 78
G R. Smith TR6.6 pts · 2.4 reb · 2.4 ast
Score 43
→PEPPSmall
F Y. Fritz TR9.8 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 58
C E. Dibami TR9.5 pts · 7.3 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 45
=Even
F E. Meuser TR6.1 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 39
Santa BarbaraBetterPepperdine
UCSB offense150th of 366 · -4.5
←UCSBSmall
PEPP defense216th of 366 · -5.6
UCSB defense128th of 366 · -2.3
=Even
PEPP offense139th of 366 · -4.2
Backcourt+1.4 · 4 players
=Even
Backcourt+1.6 · 2 players
Frontcourt-0.1 · 1 player
→PEPPSmall
Frontcourt+1.2 · 3 players
Bench-3.2 · 5 players
→PEPPSmall
Bench-1.6 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestUCSB betterPEPP betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
J. Williamson26 min · TRW. McClendon25 min · TRE. Haywood19 min · TRD. Mager10 minA. BalianNewC. ChouNew
Forwards
P. Majstorovic32 min · TRY. Fritz26 min · TRE. Meuser21 min · TRA. Robinson10 min · TRA. ConstanzaNewF. BiberovicNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 76.7 #127 | Points per game | 70.4 #277 |
| 1.13 #87 | Points per possession | 1.00 #320 |
| 68.2 #218 | Pace (possessions) | 70.0 #117 |
| Shooting | ||
| 54.7 #47 | Effective FG% | 47.6 #323 |
| 37.4 #23 | 3-point % | 31.4 #310 |
| 44.1 #87 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.2 #187 |
| 36.8 #134 | Free throw rate | 33.9 #216 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.8 #312 | Turnover rate | 18.3 #288 |
| 31.0 #165 | Offensive rebound rate | 29.1 #234 |
| 14.1 #140 | Assists per game | 13.6 #176 |
| Defense | ||
| 73.7 #148 | Points allowed | 79.7 #311 |
| 1.08 #156 | Points allowed per possession | 1.14 #303 |
| 52.6 #244 | Opponent effective FG% | 54.2 #306 |
| 33.9 #177 | Opponent 3-point % | 35.5 #276 |
| 16.8 #170 | Turnovers forced | 16.5 #184 |
| 74.5 #14 | Defensive rebound rate | 66.0 #318 |
| 6.2 #216 | Steals per game | 5.9 #246 |
| 2.3 #322 | Blocks per game | 2.8 #269 |
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.
Pepperdine
7-23 in 2025-26 overall · 4-15 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Portland68–77
- Wvs Washington St88–79
- Lvs Seattle U80–87
- L@ Oregon St73–83
- W@ Portland95–87
A week or more of rest.