Gill Coliseum · at Oregon St
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | ORST | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ORST 83–63 · win probability ORST 96%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 146.5
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: ORST has more of the edges
ETAM 0, ORST 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
ETAM offense vs ORST defense
Offense 344th of 366 against a defense 109th, on the model’s ratings
ORST offense vs ETAM defense
Offense 95th of 366 against a defense 317th, on the model’s ratings
Three-pointers
ETAM hits 31.3% and allows 37.3%; ORST hits 35.0% and allows 32.9%. Threes are 46.2% and 44.3% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
ETAM has played the 265th-hardest schedule, ORST the 120th. A record against a soft schedule means less
Free throws
Free throw rate: ETAM 32.0, ORST 43.1. Allowed: ETAM 34.5, ORST 35.1
Shooting
Effective FG%: ETAM 49.2 and allows 52.9; ORST 50.5 and allows 50.3
Home court
ORST at home. This season: ORST 0-0 at home, ETAM 0-0 away
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: ETAM plays 68.5 a game (203rd fastest), ORST 67.2 (272nd). Faster games mean more points
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: ETAM 25.7%, ORST 26.8%. Defensive: ETAM 67.2%, ORST 67.9%
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: ETAM 7%, ORST 17%. Transfers in: ETAM 2, ORST 9. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Turnovers
Turnover rate: ETAM 19.2%, ORST 17.7%. Forced: ETAM 17.0%, ORST 15.3%
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 | — | ORST -20.2 | — |
| Total | — | 146.5 | — |
| Projected score | — | ETAM 63.1 · ORST 83.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | ORST -11.9 | — |
| 1H total | 68.5 | — |
| 1H projected score | ETAM 28.3 · ORST 40.2 | — |
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% | 5-5 50% | |
| 6-4 60% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
East Texas A&M
30 games played
Straight up
9-21
30% wins
Against the spread
14-16
47% covers · avg −1.6 pts vs the line
Over / Under
15-15
50% 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 5 | @ | L 54-76 | +22.5 | W +0.5 | 143.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 10 | @ | L 74-100 | +18.5 | L −7.5 | 145.5 | O 174 |
| Nov 14 | @ | L 64-71 | +10.5 | W +3.5 | 146.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 24 | @ | W 70-65 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 84-67 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 143.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 59-83 | +36.5 | W +12.5 | 141.5 | O 142 |
| Dec 7 | vs | W 75-68 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 143 |
| Dec 12 | @ | L 66-102 | +20.5 | L −15.5 | 142.5 | O 168 |
| Dec 15 | @ | W 70-69 | +4.5 | W +5.5 | 137.5 | O 139 |
| Dec 21 | @ | L 77-118 | +28.5 | L −12.5 | 166.5 | O 195 |
| Dec 29 | vs | L 48-75 | +4.5 | L −22.5 | 146.5 | U 123 |
| Dec 31 | vs | L 62-69 | +5.5 | L −1.5 | 143.5 | U 131 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 58-80 | +6.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 5 | @ | L 73-83 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 150.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 77-69 | +3.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 12 | vs | L 50-61 | +3.5 | L −7.5 | 142.5 | U 111 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 70-81 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 139.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 19 | @ | W 80-58 | +6.5 | W +28.5 | 142.5 | U 138 |
| Jan 27 | @ | L 61-82 | +6.5 | L −14.5 | 140.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 31 | vs | L 68-72 | -1.5 | L −5.5 | 146.5 | U 140 |
| Feb 2 | vs | L 85-94 | +1.5 | L −7.5 | 151.5 | O 179 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 74-68 | +3.5 | W +9.5 | 143.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 52-48 | -1.5 | W +2.5 | 140.5 | U 100 |
| Feb 9 | @ | L 70-74 | +16.5 | W +12.5 | 143.5 | O 144 |
| Feb 14 | vs | L 54-97 | +13.5 | L −29.5 | 142.5 | O 151 |
| Feb 16 | vs | W 70-53 | -2.5 | W +14.5 | 136.5 | U 123 |
| Feb 21 | vs | L 73-82 | -3.5 | L −12.5 | 145.5 | O 155 |
| Feb 23 | vs | L 68-69 | -2.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 55-63 | +10.5 | W +2.5 | 146.5 | U 118 |
| Mar 2 | @ | L 71-84 | +7.5 | L −5.5 | 136.5 | O 155 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
5
@
UNM
L 54-76
+0.5
10
@
HAW
L 74-100
−7.5
14
@
RICE
L 64-71
+3.5
24
@
FDU
W 70-65
+1.5
25
vs
ARMY
W 84-67
+14.5
5
@
CONN
L 59-83
+12.5
7
vs
CARK
W 75-68
+4.5
12
@
MCN
L 66-102
−15.5
15
@
SELA
W 70-69
+5.5
21
@
TA&M
L 77-118
−12.5
29
vs
SFA
L 48-75
−22.5
31
vs
LAM
L 62-69
−1.5
3
@
NICH
L 58-80
−15.5
5
@
NOLA
L 73-83
−3.5
10
vs
RGV
W 77-69
+11.5
12
vs
AMCC
L 50-61
−7.5
17
@
HCU
L 70-81
−8.5
19
@
UIW
W 80-58
+28.5
27
@
LAM
L 61-82
−14.5
31
vs
NICH
L 68-72
−5.5
2
vs
NOLA
L 85-94
−7.5
4
@
NWST
W 74-68
+9.5
7
vs
NWST
W 52-48
+2.5
9
@
SFA
L 70-74
+12.5
14
vs
MCN
L 54-97
−29.5
16
vs
SELA
W 70-53
+14.5
21
vs
UIW
L 73-82
−12.5
23
vs
HCU
L 68-69
−3.5
28
@
RGV
L 55-63
+2.5
2
@
AMCC
L 71-84
−5.5
covered 14didn’t cover 16avg −1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
5
@
UNM
L 54-76
−13.5
10
@
HAW
L 74-100
+28.5
14
@
RICE
L 64-71
−11.5
24
@
FDU
W 70-65
−14.5
25
vs
ARMY
W 84-67
+7.5
5
@
CONN
L 59-83
+0.5
7
vs
CARK
W 75-68
−2.5
12
@
MCN
L 66-102
+25.5
15
@
SELA
W 70-69
+1.5
21
@
TA&M
L 77-118
+28.5
29
vs
SFA
L 48-75
−23.5
31
vs
LAM
L 62-69
−12.5
3
@
NICH
L 58-80
−8.5
5
@
NOLA
L 73-83
+5.5
10
vs
RGV
W 77-69
+0.5
12
vs
AMCC
L 50-61
−31.5
17
@
HCU
L 70-81
+11.5
19
@
UIW
W 80-58
−4.5
27
@
LAM
L 61-82
+2.5
31
vs
NICH
L 68-72
−6.5
2
vs
NOLA
L 85-94
+27.5
4
@
NWST
W 74-68
−1.5
7
vs
NWST
W 52-48
−40.5
9
@
SFA
L 70-74
+0.5
14
vs
MCN
L 54-97
+8.5
16
vs
SELA
W 70-53
−13.5
21
vs
UIW
L 73-82
+9.5
23
vs
HCU
L 68-69
−1.5
28
@
RGV
L 55-63
−28.5
2
@
AMCC
L 71-84
+18.5
over 15under 15avg −1.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Oregon St
33 games played
Straight up
17-16
52% wins
Against the spread
16-17
48% covers · avg −0.3 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-14
58% 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 3 | vs | W 67-65 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Nov 7 | vs | W 76-73 | -6.5 | L −3.5 | 146.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 66-64 | -3.5 | L −1.5 | 134.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 17 | @ | L 75-87 | +13.5 | W +1.5 | 141.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 21 | vs | L 69-73 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 136.5 | O 142 |
| Nov 22 | vs | L 84-91 | -3.5 | L −10.5 | 157.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 65-73 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 149.5 | U 138 |
| Nov 29 | vs | L 69-75 | -1.5 | L −7.5 | 137.5 | O 144 |
| Dec 3 | vs | W 80-58 | -3.5 | W +18.5 | 143.5 | U 138 |
| Dec 6 | vs | W 81-70 | -10.5 | W +0.5 | 146.5 | O 151 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 67-57 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 140.5 | U 124 |
| Dec 17 | vs | L 75-85 | -3.5 | L −13.5 | 153.5 | O 160 |
| Dec 21 | @ | W 78-75 | +12.5 | W +15.5 | 147.5 | O 153 |
| Dec 28 | vs | L 64-102 | +7.5 | L −30.5 | 150.5 | O 166 |
| Dec 30 | vs | W 70-62 | +4.5 | W +12.5 | 144.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 2 | @ | L 53-84 | +4.5 | L −26.5 | 137.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 4 | @ | L 67-81 | +6.5 | L −7.5 | 140.5 | O 148 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 68-55 | +4.5 | W +17.5 | 139.5 | U 123 |
| Jan 10 | @ | L 76-82 | +2.5 | L −3.5 | 145.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 76-70 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 140.5 | O 146 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 64-81 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 139.5 | O 145 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 51-81 | +19.5 | L −10.5 | 142.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 28 | @ | W 72-69 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | U 141 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 78-76 | +3.5 | W +5.5 | 150.5 | O 154 |
| Feb 4 | vs | W 74-64 | +1.5 | W +11.5 | 147.5 | U 138 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 61-81 | +19.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | U 142 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 90-63 | +8.5 | W +35.5 | 140.5 | O 153 |
| Feb 15 | @ | L 50-60 | +6.5 | L −3.5 | 136.5 | U 110 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 83-73 | -9.5 | W +0.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 92-82 | -6.5 | W +3.5 | 144.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 72-93 | +15.5 | L −5.5 | 153.5 | O 165 |
| Mar 8 | vs | W 78-77 | +3.5 | W +4.5 | 144.5 | O 155 |
| Mar 9 | vs | L 56-65 | +20.5 | W +11.5 | 145.5 | U 121 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
NDSU
W 67-65
−7.5
7
vs
UIC
W 76-73
−3.5
12
vs
UNT
W 66-64
−1.5
17
@
ORE
L 75-87
+1.5
21
vs
EVAN
L 69-73
−10.5
22
vs
IONA
L 84-91
−10.5
24
vs
MASS
L 65-73
−11.5
29
vs
CBU
L 69-75
−7.5
3
vs
UVM
W 80-58
+18.5
6
vs
SUU
W 81-70
+0.5
13
vs
MTST
W 67-57
+8.5
17
vs
SHSU
L 75-85
−13.5
21
@
ASU
W 78-75
+15.5
28
vs
SCU
L 64-102
−30.5
30
vs
SF
W 70-62
+12.5
2
@
PAC
L 53-84
−26.5
4
@
WSU
L 67-81
−7.5
8
vs
SEA
W 68-55
+17.5
10
@
PORT
L 76-82
−3.5
14
vs
LMU
W 76-70
+7.5
17
vs
PAC
L 64-81
−18.5
21
@
SMC
L 51-81
−10.5
28
@
LMU
W 72-69
+8.5
31
@
USD
W 78-76
+5.5
4
vs
WSU
W 74-64
+11.5
7
vs
GONZ
L 61-81
−0.5
12
@
SF
W 90-63
+35.5
15
@
SEA
L 50-60
−3.5
21
vs
PEPP
W 83-73
+0.5
25
vs
USD
W 92-82
+3.5
28
@
SCU
L 72-93
−5.5
8
vs
SF
W 78-77
+4.5
9
vs
GONZ
L 56-65
+11.5
covered 16didn’t cover 17avg −0.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
NDSU
W 67-65
−12.5
7
vs
UIC
W 76-73
+2.5
12
vs
UNT
W 66-64
−4.5
17
@
ORE
L 75-87
+20.5
21
vs
EVAN
L 69-73
+5.5
22
vs
IONA
L 84-91
+17.5
24
vs
MASS
L 65-73
−11.5
29
vs
CBU
L 69-75
+6.5
3
vs
UVM
W 80-58
−5.5
6
vs
SUU
W 81-70
+4.5
13
vs
MTST
W 67-57
−16.5
17
vs
SHSU
L 75-85
+6.5
21
@
ASU
W 78-75
+5.5
28
vs
SCU
L 64-102
+15.5
30
vs
SF
W 70-62
−12.5
2
@
PAC
L 53-84
−0.5
4
@
WSU
L 67-81
+7.5
8
vs
SEA
W 68-55
−16.5
10
@
PORT
L 76-82
+12.5
14
vs
LMU
W 76-70
+5.5
17
vs
PAC
L 64-81
+5.5
21
@
SMC
L 51-81
−10.5
28
@
LMU
W 72-69
−0.5
31
@
USD
W 78-76
+3.5
4
vs
WSU
W 74-64
−9.5
7
vs
GONZ
L 61-81
−7.5
12
@
SF
W 90-63
+12.5
15
@
SEA
L 50-60
−26.5
21
vs
PEPP
W 83-73
+7.5
25
vs
USD
W 92-82
+29.5
28
@
SCU
L 72-93
+11.5
8
vs
SF
W 78-77
+10.5
9
vs
GONZ
L 56-65
−24.5
over 19under 14avg +1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Oregon St has the better starters
Position by position: East Texas A&M 0, Oregon St 1, even 4
East Texas A&MBetterOregon St
G A. Dodd TR14.3 pts · 5.3 reb · 4.1 ast
Score 82
=Even
G J. Lake13.1 pts · 4.1 reb · 4.2 ast
Score 87
G E. Phelps1.3 pts · 0.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 0
→ORSTBig
G D. Freitag TR20 pts · 4.3 reb · 3.8 ast
Score 93
G K. Tolbert NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
G L. Smiley TR7.8 pts · 1.8 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 52
F J. Ford TR3.1 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.5 ast
Not ranked
=No call
F J. Rasmussen TR13 pts · 4.7 reb · 1.3 ast
Score 43
F B. Aldridge NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
=No call
F D. Gory TR13.7 pts · 6.3 reb · 2 ast
Score 80
East Texas A&MBetterOregon St
ETAM offense344th of 366 · -11.8
→ORSTBig
ORST defense109th of 366 · -1.1
ETAM defense317th of 366 · -8.2
→ORSTBig
ORST offense95th of 366 · -0.7
Backcourt-1.7 · 3 players
→ORSTBig
Backcourt+5.7 · 3 players
Frontcourt-1.0 · 2 players
→ORSTSmall
Frontcourt+1.1 · 2 players
BenchNo numbers yet
=No call
Bench+1.3 · 5 players
Score, worst to bestETAM betterORST betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
A. Dodd32 min · TRE. Phelps15 minK. TolbertNewC. AdlamNewK. RobinsonNewG. SkorjancNew
Forwards
J. Ford10 min · TRB. AldridgeNewY. VidalNewM. DiakiteNewC. DinuNewM. CarrioNew
Guards
J. Lake34 minD. Freitag34 min · TRL. Smiley21 min · TRC. Johnson16 min · TRS. Blakely Drummond1 min · TRJ. LakeNew
Forwards
J. Rasmussen32 min · TRD. Gory30 min · TRP. Pinnis4 min · TRK. TreacherNew
Centers
D. Evans9 min · TRX. Staton5 min · TRY. AklogNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.1 #331 | Points per game | 71.1 #264 |
| 0.98 #342 | Points per possession | 1.06 #232 |
| 68.5 #203 | Pace (possessions) | 67.2 #272 |
| Shooting | ||
| 49.2 #282 | Effective FG% | 50.5 #216 |
| 31.3 #313 | 3-point % | 35.0 #115 |
| 46.2 #43 | 3-point attempt rate | 44.3 #84 |
| 32.0 #257 | Free throw rate | 43.1 #20 |
| Possessions | ||
| 19.2 #330 | Turnover rate | 17.7 #254 |
| 25.7 #328 | Offensive rebound rate | 26.8 #303 |
| 14.6 #109 | Assists per game | 13.8 #159 |
| Defense | ||
| 76.0 #218 | Points allowed | 74.2 #159 |
| 1.11 #240 | Points allowed per possession | 1.10 #223 |
| 52.9 #261 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.3 #119 |
| 37.3 #347 | Opponent 3-point % | 32.9 #116 |
| 17.0 #156 | Turnovers forced | 15.3 #264 |
| 67.2 #288 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.9 #265 |
| 6.7 #150 | Steals per game | 5.5 #293 |
| 3.1 #196 | Blocks per game | 3.7 #115 |
East Texas A&M
9-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-16 in conference · Southland Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Texas A&M-CC71–84
- L@ UT Rio Grande55–63
- Lvs Hou Christian68–69
- Lvs Incarnate Word73–82
- Wvs SE Louisiana70–53
A week or more of rest.
Oregon St
17-16 in 2025-26 overall · 10-10 in conference · Pac-12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Gonzaga56–65
- Wvs San Francisco78–77
- L@ Santa Clara72–93
- Wvs San Diego92–82
- Wvs Pepperdine83–73
A week or more of rest.