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 76–66 · win probability HAW 83%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 141.9
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
SELA 1, HAW 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Shooting
Effective FG%: SELA 46.7 and allows 52.4; HAW 52.0 and allows 46.8
Three-pointers
SELA hits 28.4% and allows 36.0%; HAW hits 31.7% and allows 30.3%. Threes are 39.5% and 39.8% of their shots
SELA offense vs HAW defense
Offense 315th of 366 against a defense 150th, on the model’s ratings
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: SELA 28.6%, HAW 31.3%. Defensive: SELA 68.6%, HAW 74.7%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: SELA plays 65.9 a game (318th fastest), HAW 73.0 (19th). Faster games mean more points
Turnovers
Turnover rate: SELA 18.4%, HAW 18.8%. Forced: SELA 19.1%, HAW 16.8%
Free throws
Free throw rate: SELA 40.3, HAW 41.4. Allowed: SELA 41.2, HAW 35.6
Home court
HAW at home. This season: HAW 0-0 at home, SELA 0-0 away
Even
HAW offense vs SELA defense
Offense 136th of 366 against a defense 177th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
SELA has played the 276th-hardest schedule, HAW the 242nd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: SELA 4%, HAW 10%. Transfers in: SELA 10, HAW 6. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
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 -10.9 | — |
| Total | — | 141.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | SELA 65.5 · HAW 76.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | HAW -6.4 | — |
| 1H total | 66.4 | — |
| 1H projected score | SELA 30 · HAW 36.4 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-7 30% | 3-7 30% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 7-3 70% |
Next 3 games
With how the last meeting with each opponent went
No more games listed yet.
No more games listed yet.
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
SE Louisiana
30 games played
Straight up
8-22
27% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −0.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-17
43% overs · avg −1.3 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 3 | @ | L 58-88 | +21.5 | L −8.5 | 143.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 7 | @ | L 52-58 | +3.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 110 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 60-70 | +14.5 | W +4.5 | 133.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | @ | L 68-75 | +27.5 | W +20.5 | 150.5 | U 143 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 57-70 | +11.5 | L −1.5 | 137.5 | U 127 |
| Nov 28 | vs | W 76-68 | -6.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 144 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 69-65 | +3.5 | W +7.5 | 136.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 7 | vs | L 68-76 | -7.5 | L −15.5 | 133.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 13 | @ | W 74-71 | +2.5 | W +5.5 | 132.5 | O 145 |
| Dec 15 | vs | L 69-70 | -4.5 | L −5.5 | 137.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 19 | @ | L 65-78 | +24.5 | W +11.5 | 144.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 30 | @ | L 70-79 | +6.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 63-73 | +3.5 | L −6.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Jan 5 | vs | W 60-52 | +1.5 | W +9.5 | 135.5 | U 112 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 61-73 | +16.5 | W +4.5 | 138.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 12 | vs | L 76-79 | -2.5 | L −5.5 | 142.5 | O 155 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 56-68 | +5.5 | L −6.5 | 130.5 | U 124 |
| Jan 19 | @ | L 65-68 | +5.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 67-61 | -2.5 | W +3.5 | 141.5 | U 128 |
| Jan 27 | vs | L 66-76 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 139.5 | O 142 |
| Jan 31 | @ | L 58-85 | +9.5 | L −17.5 | 135.5 | O 143 |
| Feb 2 | @ | L 54-73 | +5.5 | L −13.5 | 132.5 | U 127 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 55-47 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 133.5 | U 102 |
| Feb 9 | vs | W 74-62 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | L 66-69 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 131.5 | O 135 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 53-70 | +2.5 | L −14.5 | 136.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 75-96 | +4.5 | L −16.5 | 138.5 | O 171 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 68-73 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 130.5 | O 141 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 60-68 | +4.5 | L −3.5 | 139.5 | U 128 |
| Mar 2 | @ | W 82-78 | +6.5 | W +10.5 | 143.5 | O 160 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
MISS
L 58-88
−8.5
7
@
UL
L 52-58
−2.5
10
@
GT
L 60-70
+4.5
15
@
MSST
L 68-75
+20.5
26
@
UNCW
L 57-70
−1.5
28
vs
GWEB
W 76-68
+1.5
29
vs
NAVY
W 69-65
+7.5
7
vs
NWST
L 68-76
−15.5
13
@
HCU
W 74-71
+5.5
15
vs
ETAM
L 69-70
−5.5
19
@
LSU
L 65-78
+11.5
30
@
UIW
L 70-79
−2.5
3
vs
SFA
L 63-73
−6.5
5
vs
LAM
W 60-52
+9.5
10
@
MCN
L 61-73
+4.5
12
vs
NOLA
L 76-79
−5.5
17
@
AMCC
L 56-68
−6.5
19
@
RGV
L 65-68
+2.5
24
vs
NICH
W 67-61
+3.5
27
vs
MCN
L 66-76
+2.5
31
@
SFA
L 58-85
−17.5
2
@
LAM
L 54-73
−13.5
7
vs
HCU
W 55-47
+3.5
9
vs
UIW
W 74-62
+10.5
14
@
NWST
L 66-69
−1.5
16
@
ETAM
L 53-70
−14.5
21
vs
RGV
L 75-96
−16.5
23
vs
AMCC
L 68-73
−3.5
28
@
NICH
L 60-68
−3.5
2
@
NOLA
W 82-78
+10.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −0.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
MISS
L 58-88
+2.5
7
@
UL
L 52-58
−25.5
10
@
GT
L 60-70
−3.5
15
@
MSST
L 68-75
−7.5
26
@
UNCW
L 57-70
−10.5
28
vs
GWEB
W 76-68
+2.5
29
vs
NAVY
W 69-65
−2.5
7
vs
NWST
L 68-76
+10.5
13
@
HCU
W 74-71
+12.5
15
vs
ETAM
L 69-70
+1.5
19
@
LSU
L 65-78
−1.5
30
@
UIW
L 70-79
+13.5
3
vs
SFA
L 63-73
−1.5
5
vs
LAM
W 60-52
−23.5
10
@
MCN
L 61-73
−4.5
12
vs
NOLA
L 76-79
+12.5
17
@
AMCC
L 56-68
−6.5
19
@
RGV
L 65-68
−2.5
24
vs
NICH
W 67-61
−13.5
27
vs
MCN
L 66-76
+2.5
31
@
SFA
L 58-85
+7.5
2
@
LAM
L 54-73
−5.5
7
vs
HCU
W 55-47
−31.5
9
vs
UIW
W 74-62
−1.5
14
@
NWST
L 66-69
+3.5
16
@
ETAM
L 53-70
−13.5
21
vs
RGV
L 75-96
+32.5
23
vs
AMCC
L 68-73
+10.5
28
@
NICH
L 60-68
−11.5
2
@
NOLA
W 82-78
+16.5
over 13under 17avg −1.3 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: SE Louisiana 1, Hawai'i 2, even 2
SE LouisianaBetterHawai'i
G Q. Allen TR9.5 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.7 ast
Score 62
←SELASmall
G C. Trujillo TR12.3 pts · 3.3 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 39
G J. Furman TR8.6 pts · 3.2 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 13
→HAWSmall
G I. Kerr6.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 38
G T. Bailey TR6.5 pts · 2.2 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 12
→HAWBig
F Z. Davidson TR12.9 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 69
G T. Rolison TR5.5 pts · 1.7 reb · 2.6 ast
Score 58
=Even
C B. Dengdit TR10.8 pts · 5 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 62
F A. Sims TR7.2 pts · 4.9 reb · 2.1 ast
Score 28
=Even
C H. Dan TR5.4 pts · 2.4 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 36
SE LouisianaBetterHawai'i
SELA offense315th of 366 · -10.2
→HAWBig
HAW defense150th of 366 · -3.3
SELA defense177th of 366 · -4.0
=Even
HAW offense136th of 366 · -3.9
Backcourt-5.3 · 4 players
→HAWSmall
Backcourt-2.6 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.9 · 1 player
→HAWBig
Frontcourt+1.3 · 3 players
Bench-3.3 · 5 players
→HAWSmall
Bench-0.4 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestSELA betterHAW betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
Q. Allen25 min · TRJ. Furman24 min · TRT. Bailey23 min · TRT. Rolison17 min · TRG. Sanford12 min · TRJ. Nyam1 min · TR
Forwards
A. Sims32 min · TRJ. Massaquoi17 min · TRY. Ndjonga10 min · TRG. Shoemaker7 min
Centers
D. Akoue12 min · TR
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 64.8 #350 | Points per game | 78.7 #86 |
| 0.98 #339 | Points per possession | 1.08 #186 |
| 65.9 #318 | Pace (possessions) | 73.0 #19 |
| Shooting | ||
| 46.7 #343 | Effective FG% | 52.0 #148 |
| 28.4 #362 | 3-point % | 31.7 #298 |
| 39.5 #183 | 3-point attempt rate | 39.8 #175 |
| 40.3 #56 | Free throw rate | 41.4 #38 |
| Possessions | ||
| 18.4 #291 | Turnover rate | 18.8 #315 |
| 28.6 #245 | Offensive rebound rate | 31.3 #154 |
| 11.4 #319 | Assists per game | 13.3 #187 |
| Defense | ||
| 71.3 #86 | Points allowed | 71.2 #76 |
| 1.08 #172 | Points allowed per possession | 0.98 #10 |
| 52.4 #233 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.8 #19 |
| 36.0 #301 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.3 #13 |
| 19.1 #47 | Turnovers forced | 16.8 #167 |
| 68.6 #225 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.7 #11 |
| 6.8 #145 | Steals per game | 6.5 #175 |
| 2.7 #272 | Blocks per game | 4.0 #73 |
SE Louisiana
8-22 in 2025-26 overall · 6-16 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- W@ LSU N Orleans82–78
- L@ Nicholls60–68
- Lvs Texas A&M-CC68–73
- Lvs UT Rio Grande75–96
- L@ East Texas A&M53–70
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.