McCarthey Athletic Center · at Gonzaga
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | GONZ | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GONZ 93–58 · win probability GONZ 100%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.3
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: GONZ has more of the edges
UIW 0, GONZ 7 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
UIW offense vs GONZ defense
Offense 291st of 366 against a defense 21st, on the model’s ratings
GONZ offense vs UIW defense
Offense 14th of 366 against a defense 280th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: UIW 50.2 and allows 54.5; GONZ 55.6 and allows 46.3
Context
Schedule so far
UIW has played the 285th-hardest schedule, GONZ the 84th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UIW 17.1%, GONZ 13.7%. Forced: UIW 15.8%, GONZ 19.9%
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UIW 32.1%, GONZ 34.8%. Defensive: UIW 68.0%, GONZ 74.3%
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: UIW plays 65.4 a game (335th fastest), GONZ 70.4 (98th). Faster games mean more points
Free throws
Free throw rate: UIW 34.0, GONZ 31.0. Allowed: UIW 41.6, GONZ 30.9
Home court
GONZ at home. This season: GONZ 0-0 at home, UIW 0-0 away
Even
Three-pointers
UIW hits 36.1% and allows 34.4%; GONZ hits 33.3% and allows 30.6%. Threes are 39.1% and 30.8% of their shots
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UIW 17%, GONZ 21%. Transfers in: UIW 5, GONZ 5. 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 | — | GONZ -34.5 | — |
| Total | — | 151.3 | — |
| Projected score | — | UIW 58.4 · GONZ 92.9 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | GONZ -20.4 | — |
| 1H total | 70.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | UIW 25.2 · GONZ 45.6 | — |
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% | 4-6 40% | |
| 8-2 80% | 5-5 50% | 1-9 10% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Incarnate Word
28 games played
Straight up
9-19
32% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-14
50% overs · avg +1.4 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 64-98 | +10.5 | L −23.5 | 147.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 16 | @ | L 61-69 | +28.5 | W +20.5 | 157.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 20 | vs | W 87-81 | -9.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 168 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 80-91 | +12.5 | W +1.5 | 160.5 | O 171 |
| Dec 1 | vs | W 71-67 | +10.5 | W +14.5 | 145.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | @ | L 67-74 | -1.5 | L −8.5 | 145.5 | U 141 |
| Dec 8 | @ | L 83-84 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 15 | @ | L 65-69 | +19.5 | W +15.5 | 143.5 | U 134 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 90-66 | -6.5 | W +17.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 79-70 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 135.5 | O 149 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 73-56 | -6.5 | W +10.5 | 141.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 67-80 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | O 147 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 51-63 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 140.5 | U 114 |
| Jan 12 | @ | L 46-56 | +7.5 | L −2.5 | 140.5 | U 102 |
| Jan 17 | vs | W 76-74 | -8.5 | L −6.5 | 141.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 19 | vs | L 58-80 | -6.5 | L −28.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 71-79 | -1.5 | L −9.5 | 136.5 | O 150 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 75-81 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 93-106 | +1.5 | L −11.5 | 140.5 | O 199 |
| Feb 2 | @ | W 71-69 | +4.5 | W +6.5 | 140.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 64-81 | +16.5 | L −0.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 62-74 | +1.5 | L −10.5 | 137.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 83-91 | -2.5 | L −10.5 | 148.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 16 | vs | L 64-78 | -2.5 | L −16.5 | 154.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 21 | @ | W 82-73 | +3.5 | W +12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 23 | @ | L 49-54 | +1.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 103 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 72-60 | -1.5 | W +10.5 | 138.5 | U 132 |
| Mar 2 | vs | L 68-76 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 142.5 | O 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
−23.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
+20.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
−3.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+1.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
+14.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−8.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
−2.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
+15.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+17.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+2.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
+10.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
−11.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−10.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−2.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
−6.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−28.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
−9.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
−7.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
−11.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
+6.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−10.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
−10.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−16.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+12.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−3.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
+10.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
−0.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
CSU
L 64-98
+14.5
16
@
IU
L 61-69
−27.5
20
vs
USI
W 87-81
+22.5
22
vs
HPU
L 80-91
+10.5
1
vs
MCN
W 71-67
−7.5
6
@
NICH
L 67-74
−4.5
8
@
NOLA
L 83-84
+18.5
15
@
TCU
L 65-69
−9.5
21
vs
NAU
W 90-66
+15.5
30
vs
SELA
W 79-70
+13.5
3
vs
HCU
W 73-56
−12.5
5
@
RGV
L 67-80
+0.5
10
@
LAM
L 51-63
−26.5
12
@
SFA
L 46-56
−38.5
17
vs
NWST
W 76-74
+8.5
19
vs
ETAM
L 58-80
−4.5
24
vs
AMCC
L 71-79
+13.5
27
@
HCU
L 75-81
+15.5
31
vs
RGV
L 93-106
+58.5
2
@
AMCC
W 71-69
−0.5
7
@
MCN
L 64-81
−0.5
9
@
SELA
L 62-74
−1.5
14
vs
NICH
L 83-91
+25.5
16
vs
NOLA
L 64-78
−12.5
21
@
ETAM
W 82-73
+9.5
23
@
NWST
L 49-54
−35.5
28
vs
LAM
W 72-60
−6.5
2
vs
SFA
L 68-76
+1.5
over 14under 14avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin
Gonzaga
35 games played
Straight up
31-4
89% wins
Against the spread
18-17
51% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
11-24
31% overs · avg −5.1 pts vs the total
Against the spread
18-1751%
2 straight misses ATS1 of last 4 covered
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 | vs | W 98-43 | -29.5 | W +25.5 | 157.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 8 | vs | W 83-68 | -10.5 | W +4.5 | 166.5 | U 151 |
| Nov 11 | vs | W 90-63 | -12.5 | W +14.5 | 164.5 | U 153 |
| Nov 14 | @ | W 77-65 | -13.5 | L −1.5 | 158.5 | U 142 |
| Nov 17 | vs | W 122-50 | -35.5 | W +36.5 | 160.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 24 | vs | W 95-85 | -4.5 | W +5.5 | 178.5 | O 180 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 100-61 | -14.5 | W +24.5 | 157.5 | O 161 |
| Nov 26 | vs | L 61-101 | -3.5 | L −43.5 | 165.5 | U 162 |
| Dec 5 | vs | W 94-59 | -5.5 | W +29.5 | 159.5 | U 153 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 109-58 | -42.5 | W +8.5 | 166.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 82-72 | -10.5 | L −0.5 | 147.5 | O 154 |
| Dec 17 | vs | W 98-70 | -36.5 | L −8.5 | 160.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 21 | vs | W 91-82 | -12.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | O 173 |
| Dec 28 | @ | W 96-56 | -29.5 | W +10.5 | 152.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 99-93 | -29.5 | L −23.5 | 160.5 | O 192 |
| Jan 2 | vs | W 80-72 | -24.5 | L −16.5 | 155.5 | U 152 |
| Jan 4 | vs | W 82-47 | -25.5 | W +9.5 | 154.5 | U 129 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 89-77 | -17.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 166 |
| Jan 15 | @ | W 86-65 | -16.5 | W +4.5 | 155.5 | U 151 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 71-50 | -9.5 | W +11.5 | 150.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 21 | vs | W 84-60 | -28.5 | L −4.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Jan 24 | vs | W 68-66 | -15.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 73-65 | -8.5 | L −0.5 | 144.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 80-87 | -22.5 | L −29.5 | 152.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 81-61 | -19.5 | W +0.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 83-53 | -21.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 94-86 | -4.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 18 | @ | W 80-59 | -15.5 | W +5.5 | 151.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 71-62 | -22.5 | L −13.5 | 144.5 | U 133 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 89-48 | -26.5 | W +14.5 | 150.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 59-70 | -2.5 | L −13.5 | 143.5 | U 129 |
| Mar 9 | vs | W 65-56 | -20.5 | L −11.5 | 145.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 10 | vs | W 79-68 | -8.5 | W +2.5 | 157.5 | U 147 |
| Mar 19 | vs | W 73-64 | -20.5 | L −11.5 | 152.5 | U 137 |
| Mar 21 | vs | L 68-74 | -5.5 | L −11.5 | 146.5 | U 142 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
TXSO
W 98-43
+25.5
8
vs
OU
W 83-68
+4.5
11
vs
CREI
W 90-63
+14.5
14
@
ASU
W 77-65
−1.5
17
vs
SUU
W 122-50
+36.5
24
vs
ALA
W 95-85
+5.5
25
vs
MD
W 100-61
+24.5
26
vs
MICH
L 61-101
−43.5
5
vs
UK
W 94-59
+29.5
7
vs
UNF
W 109-58
+8.5
13
vs
UCLA
W 82-72
−0.5
17
vs
CAM
W 98-70
−8.5
21
vs
ORE
W 91-82
−3.5
28
@
PEPP
W 96-56
+10.5
30
@
USD
W 99-93
−23.5
2
vs
SEA
W 80-72
−16.5
4
vs
LMU
W 82-47
+9.5
8
vs
SCU
W 89-77
−5.5
15
@
WSU
W 86-65
+4.5
17
@
SEA
W 71-50
+11.5
21
vs
PEPP
W 84-60
−4.5
24
vs
SF
W 68-66
−13.5
31
vs
SMC
W 73-65
−0.5
4
@
PORT
L 80-87
−29.5
7
@
ORST
W 81-61
+0.5
10
vs
WSU
W 83-53
+8.5
14
@
SCU
W 94-86
+3.5
18
@
SF
W 80-59
+5.5
21
vs
PAC
W 71-62
−13.5
25
vs
PORT
W 89-48
+14.5
28
@
SMC
L 59-70
−13.5
9
vs
ORST
W 65-56
−11.5
10
vs
SCU
W 79-68
+2.5
19
vs
KENN
W 73-64
−11.5
21
vs
TEX
L 68-74
−11.5
covered 18didn’t cover 17avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
TXSO
W 98-43
−16.5
8
vs
OU
W 83-68
−15.5
11
vs
CREI
W 90-63
−11.5
14
@
ASU
W 77-65
−16.5
17
vs
SUU
W 122-50
+11.5
24
vs
ALA
W 95-85
+1.5
25
vs
MD
W 100-61
+3.5
26
vs
MICH
L 61-101
−3.5
5
vs
UK
W 94-59
−6.5
7
vs
UNF
W 109-58
+0.5
13
vs
UCLA
W 82-72
+6.5
17
vs
CAM
W 98-70
+7.5
21
vs
ORE
W 91-82
+17.5
28
@
PEPP
W 96-56
−0.5
30
@
USD
W 99-93
+31.5
2
vs
SEA
W 80-72
−3.5
4
vs
LMU
W 82-47
−25.5
8
vs
SCU
W 89-77
+2.5
15
@
WSU
W 86-65
−4.5
17
@
SEA
W 71-50
−29.5
21
vs
PEPP
W 84-60
−6.5
24
vs
SF
W 68-66
−15.5
31
vs
SMC
W 73-65
−6.5
4
@
PORT
L 80-87
+14.5
7
@
ORST
W 81-61
−7.5
10
vs
WSU
W 83-53
−20.5
14
@
SCU
W 94-86
+21.5
18
@
SF
W 80-59
−12.5
21
vs
PAC
W 71-62
−11.5
25
vs
PORT
W 89-48
−13.5
28
@
SMC
L 59-70
−14.5
9
vs
ORST
W 65-56
−24.5
10
vs
SCU
W 79-68
−10.5
19
vs
KENN
W 73-64
−15.5
21
vs
TEX
L 68-74
−4.5
over 11under 24avg −5.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Gonzaga has the better starters
Position by position: Incarnate Word 0, Gonzaga 3, even 2
Incarnate WordBetterGonzaga
G I. Habib14.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.7 ast
Score 36
→GONZBig
G J. Bennett TR15.8 pts · 2.2 reb · 2.9 ast
Score 85
G M. Conner TR7.8 pts · 3.4 reb · 6.2 ast
Score 19
→GONZBig
G X. Lee TR11.6 pts · 3.7 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 94
G B. McCreesh TR7.4 pts · 3.1 reb · 1.6 ast
Score 40
→GONZBig
F C. Wiggins TR13.3 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 81
F D. Goodwin TR4.3 pts · 2.3 reb · 0.6 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F B. Huff17.8 pts · 5.6 reb · 1.5 ast
Score 99
F G. Erheriene TR0.8 pts · 0.7 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
C M. Diop TR13.6 pts · 5.8 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 86
Incarnate WordBetterGonzaga
UIW offense291st of 366 · -9.0
→GONZBig
GONZ defense21st of 366 · +5.3
UIW defense280th of 366 · -7.0
→GONZBig
GONZ offense14th of 366 · +9.4
Backcourt-5.7 · 3 players
→GONZBig
Backcourt+5.5 · 2 players
Frontcourt-1.2 · 2 players
→GONZBig
Frontcourt+12.3 · 3 players
Bench-0.1 · 2 players
→GONZSmall
Bench+2.8 · 2 players
Score, worst to bestUIW betterGONZ betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
I. Habib33 minM. Conner30 min · TRB. McCreesh28 min · TRD. Barbee2 minJ. ThomasNewD. CasonNew
Forwards
D. Goodwin14 min · TRG. Erheriene5 min · TRK. Spencer2 min · TRD. EmetuNewK. IoaneNewT. CollinsNew
Centers
C. PareNew
Guards
J. Bennett35 min · TRX. Lee27 min · TRD. Fogle17 minI. Harwell14 min · TRN. De SousaNewA. MetzNew
Forwards
C. Wiggins28 min · TRB. Huff26 minI. AlmansaNewP. JeffersonNewS. FunchesNewL. FosterNew
Centers
M. Diop30 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 70.4 #275 | Points per game | 84.3 #17 |
| 1.07 #206 | Points per possession | 1.20 #13 |
| 65.4 #335 | Pace (possessions) | 70.4 #98 |
| Shooting | ||
| 50.2 #228 | Effective FG% | 55.6 #25 |
| 36.1 #54 | 3-point % | 33.3 #212 |
| 39.1 #190 | 3-point attempt rate | 30.8 #342 |
| 34.0 #210 | Free throw rate | 31.0 #282 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.1 #206 | Turnover rate | 13.7 #17 |
| 32.1 #120 | Offensive rebound rate | 34.8 #52 |
| 10.8 #342 | Assists per game | 18.4 #7 |
| Defense | ||
| 75.0 #189 | Points allowed | 66.2 #15 |
| 1.15 #331 | Points allowed per possession | 0.94 #1 |
| 54.5 #314 | Opponent effective FG% | 46.3 #15 |
| 34.4 #214 | Opponent 3-point % | 30.6 #23 |
| 15.8 #233 | Turnovers forced | 19.9 #25 |
| 68.0 #260 | Defensive rebound rate | 74.3 #16 |
| 5.1 #329 | Steals per game | 8.4 #23 |
| 2.4 #310 | Blocks per game | 3.7 #116 |
Incarnate Word
9-19 in 2025-26 overall · 7-15 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs SF Austin68–76
- Wvs Lamar72–60
- L@ N'Western St49–54
- W@ East Texas A&M82–73
- Lvs LSU N Orleans64–78
A week or more of rest.
Gonzaga
31-4 in 2025-26 overall · 18-2 in conference · Pac-12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Texas68–74
- Wvs Kennesaw St73–64
- Wvs Santa Clara79–68
- Wvs Oregon St65–56
- L@ Saint Mary's59–70
A week or more of rest.