Bernard G. Johnson Coliseum · at Sam Houston
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | SHSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SHSU 79–76 · win probability SHSU 59%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 154.7
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: SHSU has more of the edges
PEPP 2, SHSU 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Three-pointers
PEPP hits 31.4% and allows 35.5%; SHSU hits 37.2% and allows 32.5%. Threes are 39.2% and 35.8% of their shots
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PEPP 29.1%, SHSU 35.9%. Defensive: PEPP 66.0%, SHSU 69.9%
Shooting
Effective FG%: PEPP 47.6 and allows 54.2; SHSU 52.5 and allows 51.4
Free throws
Free throw rate: PEPP 33.9, SHSU 34.4. Allowed: PEPP 28.5, SHSU 36.7
PEPP offense vs SHSU defense
Offense 139th of 366 against a defense 228th, on the model’s ratings
SHSU offense vs PEPP defense
Offense 154th of 366 against a defense 216th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
SHSU at home. This season: SHSU 0-0 at home, PEPP 0-0 away
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PEPP 5%, SHSU 29%. Transfers in: PEPP 7, SHSU 2. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PEPP 18.3%, SHSU 16.8%. Forced: PEPP 16.5%, SHSU 16.1%
Context
Tempo
About 70 possessions: PEPP plays 70.0 a game (117th fastest), SHSU 70.7 (88th). Faster games mean more points
Context
Schedule so far
PEPP has played the 128th-hardest schedule, SHSU the 138th. A record against a soft schedule means less
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 | — | SHSU -2.7 | — |
| Total | — | 154.7 | — |
| Projected score | — | PEPP 76 · SHSU 78.7 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | SHSU -1.5 | — |
| 1H total | 72.3 | — |
| 1H projected score | PEPP 35.4 · SHSU 36.9 | — |
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% | 9-1 90% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
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
Sam Houston
31 games played
Straight up
19-12
61% wins
Against the spread
20-11
65% covers · avg +3.4 pts vs the line
Over / Under
18-13
58% 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 7 | @ | L 77-98 | +31.5 | W +10.5 | 156.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 79-85 | +12.5 | W +6.5 | 159.5 | O 164 |
| Nov 19 | vs | W 78-70 | -1.5 | W +6.5 | 156.5 | U 148 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 84-81 | -1.5 | W +1.5 | 142.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 94-68 | +1.5 | W +27.5 | 154.5 | O 162 |
| Dec 2 | @ | L 83-93 | +13.5 | W +3.5 | 169.5 | O 176 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 82-70 | -7.5 | W +4.5 | 158.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 85-75 | +3.5 | W +13.5 | 153.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 78-87 | +5.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 165 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 91-102 | +5.5 | L −5.5 | 168.5 | O 193 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 67-68 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 156.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 72-60 | -11.5 | W +0.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 74-82 | +1.5 | L −6.5 | 154.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 14 | @ | W 77-62 | +1.5 | W +16.5 | 150.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 76-63 | +2.5 | W +15.5 | 168.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 93-87 | -5.5 | W +0.5 | 167.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 73-58 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 156.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 80-71 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 83-67 | -7.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 70-66 | -10.5 | L −6.5 | 145.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 78-87 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 143.5 | O 165 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 83-79 | +1.5 | W +5.5 | 162.5 | U 162 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 78-70 | -3.5 | W +4.5 | 151.5 | U 148 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 82-78 | -6.5 | L −2.5 | 147.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 26 | vs | W 100-67 | -6.5 | W +26.5 | 161.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 86-81 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 5 | @ | L 80-83 | -7.5 | L −10.5 | 147.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 7 | @ | L 72-79 | +4.5 | L −2.5 | 152.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 11 | vs | W 69-61 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 154.5 | U 130 |
| Mar 13 | vs | L 73-79 | -2.5 | L −8.5 | 159.5 | U 152 |
| Mar 18 | @ | L 83-107 | +11.5 | L −12.5 | 162.5 | O 190 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
@
TTU
L 77-98
+10.5
15
@
UTAH
L 79-85
+6.5
19
vs
WYO
W 78-70
+6.5
26
vs
IDST
W 84-81
+1.5
28
vs
IDHO
W 94-68
+27.5
2
@
OKST
L 83-93
+3.5
6
@
TXSO
W 82-70
+4.5
17
@
ORST
W 85-75
+13.5
21
@
NMSU
L 78-87
−3.5
2
@
WKU
L 91-102
−5.5
4
@
MTSU
L 67-68
+3.5
8
vs
DEL
W 72-60
+0.5
10
vs
LIB
L 74-82
−6.5
14
@
JXST
W 77-62
+16.5
17
@
FIU
W 76-63
+15.5
21
vs
KENN
W 93-87
+0.5
24
vs
WKU
W 73-58
+9.5
28
@
MOST
W 80-71
+10.5
31
vs
LT
W 83-67
+8.5
4
vs
UTEP
W 70-66
−6.5
7
@
LT
L 78-87
−12.5
14
@
KENN
W 83-79
+5.5
18
vs
MTSU
W 78-70
+4.5
21
vs
JXST
W 82-78
−2.5
26
vs
FIU
W 100-67
+26.5
28
vs
MOST
W 86-81
−1.5
5
@
DEL
L 80-83
−10.5
7
@
LIB
L 72-79
−2.5
11
vs
NMSU
W 69-61
+3.5
13
vs
KENN
L 73-79
−8.5
18
@
UNM
L 83-107
−12.5
covered 20didn’t cover 11avg +3.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
@
TTU
L 77-98
+18.5
15
@
UTAH
L 79-85
+4.5
19
vs
WYO
W 78-70
−8.5
26
vs
IDST
W 84-81
+22.5
28
vs
IDHO
W 94-68
+7.5
2
@
OKST
L 83-93
+6.5
6
@
TXSO
W 82-70
−6.5
17
@
ORST
W 85-75
+6.5
21
@
NMSU
L 78-87
+11.5
2
@
WKU
L 91-102
+24.5
4
@
MTSU
L 67-68
−21.5
8
vs
DEL
W 72-60
−12.5
10
vs
LIB
L 74-82
+1.5
14
@
JXST
W 77-62
−11.5
17
@
FIU
W 76-63
−29.5
21
vs
KENN
W 93-87
+12.5
24
vs
WKU
W 73-58
−25.5
28
@
MOST
W 80-71
+2.5
31
vs
LT
W 83-67
+8.5
4
vs
UTEP
W 70-66
−9.5
7
@
LT
L 78-87
+21.5
14
@
KENN
W 83-79
−0.5
18
vs
MTSU
W 78-70
−3.5
21
vs
JXST
W 82-78
+12.5
26
vs
FIU
W 100-67
+5.5
28
vs
MOST
W 86-81
+14.5
5
@
DEL
L 80-83
+15.5
7
@
LIB
L 72-79
−1.5
11
vs
NMSU
W 69-61
−24.5
13
vs
KENN
L 73-79
−7.5
18
@
UNM
L 83-107
+27.5
over 18under 13avg +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: Pepperdine 1, Sam Houston 0, even 4
PepperdineBetterSam Houston
G J. Williamson TR10.4 pts · 2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 58
←PEPPBig
G J. Begg10 pts · 2.6 reb · 3.5 ast
Score 17
G W. McClendon TR13.7 pts · 3 reb · 1.3 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G J. Coleman8.3 pts · 2.4 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 41
F P. Majstorovic TR14.4 pts · 6.3 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 78
=Even
F E. St. Bernard TR5.6 pts · 5.3 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 78
F Y. Fritz TR9.8 pts · 5.4 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 58
=Even
F M. Dann2.8 pts · 2 reb · 0.4 ast
Score 58
F E. Meuser TR6.1 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 39
=No call
F R. Greppi TR0 pts · 0.4 reb · 0.1 ast
Not ranked
PepperdineBetterSam Houston
PEPP offense139th of 366 · -4.2
←PEPPSmall
SHSU defense228th of 366 · -6.1
PEPP defense216th of 366 · -5.6
→SHSUSmall
SHSU offense154th of 366 · -4.7
Backcourt+1.6 · 2 players
←PEPPBig
Backcourt-3.6 · 2 players
Frontcourt+1.2 · 3 players
=Even
Frontcourt+1.0 · 3 players
Bench-1.6 · 3 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestPEPP betterSHSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
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
Guards
J. Begg27 minJ. Coleman22 minZ. PipkinNewA. McDowellNewN. NguyenNewK. PartainNew
Forwards
E. St. Bernard18 min · TRM. Dann9 minR. Greppi1 min · TRC. Sadibou NdiayeNewY. OkeNewA. LoustauNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.4 #277 | Points per game | 80.0 #67 |
| 1.00 #320 | Points per possession | 1.13 #78 |
| 70.0 #117 | Pace (possessions) | 70.7 #88 |
| Shooting | ||
| 47.6 #323 | Effective FG% | 52.5 #128 |
| 31.4 #310 | 3-point % | 37.2 #24 |
| 39.2 #187 | 3-point attempt rate | 35.8 #253 |
| 33.9 #216 | Free throw rate | 34.4 #199 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.3 #288 | Turnover rate | 16.8 #186 |
| 29.1 #234 | Offensive rebound rate | 35.9 #25 |
| 13.6 #176 | Assists per game | 14.9 #95 |
| Defense | ||
| 79.7 #311 | Points allowed | 76.9 #237 |
| 1.14 #303 | Points allowed per possession | 1.09 #191 |
| 54.2 #306 | Opponent effective FG% | 51.4 #180 |
| 35.5 #276 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.5 #89 |
| 16.5 #184 | Turnovers forced | 16.1 #220 |
| 66.0 #318 | Defensive rebound rate | 69.9 #168 |
| 5.9 #246 | Steals per game | 7.0 #128 |
| 2.8 #269 | Blocks per game | 2.6 #288 |
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.
Sam Houston
19-12 in 2025-26 overall · 14-8 in conference · Conference USA
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ New Mexico83–107
- Lvs Kennesaw St73–79
- Wvs New Mexico St69–61
- L@ Liberty72–79
- L@ Delaware80–83
A week or more of rest.