Stan Sheriff Center · at Hawai'i
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | HAW | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 HAW 77–72 · win probability HAW 69%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.2
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: HAW has more of the edges
PORT 1, HAW 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: PORT 28.1%, HAW 31.3%. Defensive: PORT 67.5%, HAW 74.7%
Three-pointers
PORT hits 29.9% and allows 36.1%; HAW hits 31.7% and allows 30.3%. Threes are 35.4% and 39.8% of their shots
Shooting
Effective FG%: PORT 51.2 and allows 52.7; HAW 52.0 and allows 46.8
Context
Schedule so far
PORT has played the 124th-hardest schedule, HAW the 242nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
HAW offense vs PORT defense
Offense 136th of 366 against a defense 202nd, on the model’s ratings
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: PORT 41%, HAW 10%. Transfers in: PORT 4, HAW 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Home court
HAW at home. This season: HAW 0-0 at home, PORT 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 72 possessions: PORT plays 70.2 a game (106th fastest), HAW 73.0 (19th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: PORT 34.4, HAW 41.4. Allowed: PORT 32.6, HAW 35.6
Even
PORT offense vs HAW defense
Offense 156th of 366 against a defense 150th, on the model’s ratings
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: PORT 19.6%, HAW 18.8%. Forced: PORT 17.0%, HAW 16.8%
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 | — | HAW -5.6 | — |
| Total | — | 149.2 | — |
| Projected score | — | PORT 71.8 · HAW 77.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HAW -3.2 | — |
| 1H total | 69.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | PORT 33.3 · HAW 36.5 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 5-5 50% | 4-6 40% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
PORT 0–1 HAWHAW leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · PORT 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21, 2023-24 | PORT 56 @ HAW 69 | HAW -7.5 | HAW W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Portland
32 games played
Straight up
13-19
41% wins
Against the spread
15-17
47% covers · avg +0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-18
44% overs · avg −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 6 | vs | W 83-74 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 164.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 9 | vs | W 67-63 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 56-93 | +11.5 | L −25.5 | 160.5 | U 149 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 103-85 | -6.5 | W +11.5 | 164.5 | O 188 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-86 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 157.5 | O 166 |
| Nov 23 | vs | L 66-76 | +5.5 | L −4.5 | 155.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 26 | vs | W 93-73 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 148.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 1 | @ | L 72-94 | +19.5 | L −2.5 | 156.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 14 | vs | W 88-78 | +7.5 | W +17.5 | 160.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 69-94 | +19.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | O 163 |
| Dec 22 | @ | L 61-79 | +9.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 62-67 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 152.5 | U 129 |
| Dec 30 | vs | L 85-92 | +13.5 | W +6.5 | 157.5 | O 177 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 57-78 | +18.5 | L −2.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 68-73 | +11.5 | W +6.5 | 147.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 90-89 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 179 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 82-76 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | @ | L 63-67 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | U 130 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 71-58 | +8.5 | W +21.5 | 148.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 69-75 | +14.5 | W +8.5 | 144.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 28 | @ | L 51-74 | +8.5 | L −14.5 | 142.5 | U 125 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 74-104 | +8.5 | L −21.5 | 152.5 | O 178 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 87-80 | +22.5 | W +29.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 54-53 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 143.5 | U 107 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 58-71 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 150.5 | U 129 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 87-95 | -7.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | O 182 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 59-71 | +7.5 | L −4.5 | 140.5 | U 130 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 48-89 | +26.5 | L −14.5 | 150.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 87-74 | -2.5 | W +10.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 77-68 | -3.5 | W +5.5 | 154.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 74-68 | +5.5 | W +11.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 65-82 | +6.5 | L −10.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
6
vs
UAPB
W 83-74
−3.5
9
vs
UCD
W 67-63
+2.5
15
@
WYO
L 56-93
−25.5
21
vs
CSUF
W 103-85
+11.5
22
vs
UNCO
L 80-86
−2.5
23
vs
STMN
L 66-76
−4.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 93-73
+14.5
1
@
STAN
L 72-94
−2.5
14
vs
KENT
W 88-78
+17.5
17
@
ORE
L 69-94
−5.5
22
@
UCSB
L 61-79
−8.5
28
vs
WSU
L 62-67
−1.5
30
vs
SCU
L 85-92
+6.5
2
@
SMC
L 57-78
−2.5
4
@
SF
L 68-73
+6.5
8
vs
PAC
W 90-89
+4.5
10
vs
ORST
W 82-76
+3.5
14
@
PEPP
L 63-67
−5.5
17
@
LMU
W 71-58
+21.5
24
vs
SMC
L 69-75
+8.5
28
@
PAC
L 51-74
−14.5
31
@
WSU
L 74-104
−21.5
4
vs
GONZ
W 87-80
+29.5
7
vs
SEA
W 54-53
+4.5
11
@
USD
L 58-71
−11.5
18
vs
PEPP
L 87-95
−15.5
21
@
SEA
L 59-71
−4.5
25
@
GONZ
L 48-89
−14.5
28
vs
USD
W 87-74
+10.5
5
vs
PEPP
W 77-68
+5.5
6
vs
WSU
W 74-68
+11.5
7
vs
SF
L 65-82
−10.5
covered 15didn’t cover 17avg +0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
6
vs
UAPB
W 83-74
−7.5
9
vs
UCD
W 67-63
−21.5
15
@
WYO
L 56-93
−11.5
21
vs
CSUF
W 103-85
+23.5
22
vs
UNCO
L 80-86
+8.5
23
vs
STMN
L 66-76
−13.5
26
vs
LBSU
W 93-73
+17.5
1
@
STAN
L 72-94
+9.5
14
vs
KENT
W 88-78
+5.5
17
@
ORE
L 69-94
+8.5
22
@
UCSB
L 61-79
−7.5
28
vs
WSU
L 62-67
−23.5
30
vs
SCU
L 85-92
+19.5
2
@
SMC
L 57-78
−11.5
4
@
SF
L 68-73
−6.5
8
vs
PAC
W 90-89
+34.5
10
vs
ORST
W 82-76
+12.5
14
@
PEPP
L 63-67
−17.5
17
@
LMU
W 71-58
−19.5
24
vs
SMC
L 69-75
−0.5
28
@
PAC
L 51-74
−17.5
31
@
WSU
L 74-104
+25.5
4
vs
GONZ
W 87-80
+14.5
7
vs
SEA
W 54-53
−36.5
11
@
USD
L 58-71
−21.5
18
vs
PEPP
L 87-95
+31.5
21
@
SEA
L 59-71
−10.5
25
@
GONZ
L 48-89
−13.5
28
vs
USD
W 87-74
+12.5
5
vs
PEPP
W 77-68
−9.5
6
vs
WSU
W 74-68
−7.5
7
vs
SF
L 65-82
+0.5
over 14under 18avg −1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Hawai'i
31 games played
Straight up
22-9
71% wins
Against the spread
13-16
45% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg +0.9 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 4 | @ | L 59-60 | +11.5 | W +10.5 | 144.5 | U 119 |
| Nov 10 | vs | W 100-74 | -18.5 | W +7.5 | 145.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 88-56 | -41.5 | L −9.5 | 151.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 14 | vs | W 86-56 | -15.5 | W +14.5 | 156.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 68-62 | -16.5 | L −10.5 | 149.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | L 76-83 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | O 159 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 92-55 | -18.5 | W +18.5 | 149.5 | U 147 |
| Dec 4 | vs | W 75-69 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 69-59 | — | — | — | — |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 66-61 | -12.5 | L −7.5 | 138.5 | U 127 |
| Jan 1 | @ | W 88-45 | -8.5 | W +34.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 73-83 | +2.5 | L −7.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 67-66 | -4.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 86-66 | -5.5 | W +14.5 | 160.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 62-77 | -2.5 | L −17.5 | 143.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 22 | vs | W 98-71 | -17.5 | W +9.5 | 144.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 89-68 | -10.5 | W +10.5 | 158.5 | U 157 |
| Jan 29 | @ | L 76-87 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 163 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 89-82 | -8.5 | L −1.5 | 144.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 72-67 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 89-74 | -13.5 | W +1.5 | 151.5 | O 163 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 60-84 | -2.5 | L −26.5 | 162.5 | U 144 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 75-86 | -11.5 | L −22.5 | 160.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 78-75 | -5.5 | L −2.5 | 145.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 26 | @ | W 77-73 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 28 | @ | W 87-85 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | O 172 |
| Mar 5 | vs | W 93-74 | -12.5 | W +6.5 | 150.5 | O 167 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 75-84 | -14.5 | L −23.5 | 150.5 | O 159 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 78-63 | -5.5 | W +9.5 | 157.5 | U 141 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 71-64 | +1.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 19 | vs | L 78-97 | +14.5 | L −4.5 | 158.5 | O 175 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
4
@
ORE
L 59-60
+10.5
10
vs
ETAM
W 100-74
+7.5
12
vs
MVSU
W 88-56
−9.5
14
vs
MAN
W 86-56
+14.5
15
vs
UTU
W 68-62
−10.5
20
vs
ASU
L 76-83
−8.5
28
vs
UND
W 92-55
+18.5
13
vs
UTEP
W 66-61
−7.5
1
@
UCR
W 88-45
+34.5
3
@
UCSD
L 73-83
−7.5
10
vs
UCI
W 67-66
−3.5
15
@
CP
W 86-66
+14.5
17
@
UCSB
L 62-77
−17.5
22
vs
CSUB
W 98-71
+9.5
24
vs
CSUN
W 89-68
+10.5
29
@
UCI
L 76-87
−9.5
31
@
LBSU
W 89-82
−1.5
7
vs
UCSD
W 72-67
−1.5
12
@
CSUB
W 89-74
+1.5
14
@
CSUN
L 60-84
−26.5
19
vs
CP
L 75-86
−22.5
21
vs
UCSB
W 78-75
−2.5
26
@
UCD
W 77-73
+2.5
28
@
CSUF
W 87-85
−1.5
5
vs
UCR
W 93-74
+6.5
7
vs
LBSU
L 75-84
−23.5
13
vs
CSUF
W 78-63
+9.5
14
vs
UCI
W 71-64
+8.5
19
vs
ARK
L 78-97
−4.5
covered 13didn’t cover 16avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
4
@
ORE
L 59-60
−25.5
10
vs
ETAM
W 100-74
+28.5
12
vs
MVSU
W 88-56
−7.5
14
vs
MAN
W 86-56
−14.5
15
vs
UTU
W 68-62
−19.5
20
vs
ASU
L 76-83
+15.5
28
vs
UND
W 92-55
−2.5
13
vs
UTEP
W 66-61
−11.5
1
@
UCR
W 88-45
−16.5
3
@
UCSD
L 73-83
+7.5
10
vs
UCI
W 67-66
−7.5
15
@
CP
W 86-66
−8.5
17
@
UCSB
L 62-77
−4.5
22
vs
CSUB
W 98-71
+24.5
24
vs
CSUN
W 89-68
−1.5
29
@
UCI
L 76-87
+18.5
31
@
LBSU
W 89-82
+26.5
7
vs
UCSD
W 72-67
−10.5
12
@
CSUB
W 89-74
+11.5
14
@
CSUN
L 60-84
−18.5
19
vs
CP
L 75-86
+0.5
21
vs
UCSB
W 78-75
+7.5
26
@
UCD
W 77-73
+3.5
28
@
CSUF
W 87-85
+13.5
5
vs
UCR
W 93-74
+16.5
7
vs
LBSU
L 75-84
+8.5
13
vs
CSUF
W 78-63
−16.5
14
vs
UCI
W 71-64
−6.5
19
vs
ARK
L 78-97
+16.5
over 14under 15avg +0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Hawai'i has the better starters
Position by position: Portland 1, Hawai'i 2, even 2
PortlandBetterHawai'i
G J. Olvera TR13.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.9 ast
Score 51
=Even
G C. Trujillo TR12.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 39
G K. Isaac TR5 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.4 ast
Score 10
→HAWSmall
G I. Kerr6.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 38
G D. Censori-Hercules3.2 pts · 3.5 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 22
→HAWBig
F Z. Davidson TR12.9 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 69
F J. O'Donnell9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 60
=Even
C B. Dengdit TR10.8 pts · 5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 62
F T. George11.7 pts · 4.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 93
←PORTBig
C H. Dan TR5.4 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 36
PortlandBetterHawai'i
PORT offense156th of 366 · -4.7
=Even
HAW defense150th of 366 · -3.3
PORT defense202nd of 366 · -5.0
→HAWSmall
HAW offense136th of 366 · -3.9
Backcourt-5.2 · 3 players
→HAWSmall
Backcourt-2.6 · 2 players
Frontcourt+2.9 · 2 players
←PORTSmall
Frontcourt+1.3 · 3 players
Bench-0.2 · 3 players
=Even
Bench-0.4 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestPORT betterHAW betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
J. Olvera29 min · TRK. Isaac24 min · TRD. Censori-Hercules21 minR. Parker19 minH. Adam15 min · TRR. NanceNew
Forwards
J. O'Donnell23 minT. George20 minV. Perkovic7 min · TRO. SukurNewH. SewellNew
Guards
C. Trujillo34 min · TRI. Kerr21 minT. CuffNewJ. MatingouNewL. AwanNewS. BelnapNew
Forwards
Z. Davidson24 min · TRM. Adams12 min · TRM. Joses9 min · TRK. HamptonNew
Centers
B. Dengdit23 min · TRH. Dan15 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72.1 #238 | Points per game | 78.7 #86 |
| 1.02 #299 | Points per possession | 1.08 #186 |
| 70.2 #106 | Pace (possessions) | 73.0 #19 |
| Shooting | ||
| 51.2 #188 | Effective FG% | 52.0 #148 |
| 29.9 #344 | 3-point % | 31.7 #298 |
| 35.4 #263 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.8 #175 |
| 34.4 #197 | Free throw rate | 41.4 #38 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.6 #342 | Turnover rate | 18.8 #315 |
| 28.1 #266 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.3 #154 |
| 15.9 #51 | Assists per game | 13.3 #187 |
| Defense | ||
| 78.1 #271 | Points allowed | 71.2 #76 |
| 1.11 #258 | Points allowed per possession | 0.98 #10 |
| 52.7 #255 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.8 #19 |
| 36.1 #308 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.3 #13 |
| 17.0 #148 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #167 |
| 67.5 #281 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.7 #11 |
| 5.8 #251 | Steals per game | 6.5 #175 |
| 2.9 #246 | Blocks per game | 4.0 #73 |
Portland
13-19 in 2025-26 overall · 8-13 in conference · West Coast Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs San Francisco65–82
- Wvs Washington St74–68
- Wvs Pepperdine77–68
- Wvs San Diego87–74
- L@ Gonzaga48–89
A week or more of rest.
Hawai'i
22-9 in 2025-26 overall · 16-6 in conference · Mountain West Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arkansas78–97
- Wvs UC Irvine71–64
- Wvs Fullerton78–63
- Lvs Long Beach St75–84
- Wvs UC Riverside93–74
A week or more of rest.