Dee Glen Smith Spectrum · at Utah State
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | USU | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 USU 88–64 · win probability USU 99%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 151.9
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: USU has more of the edges
OMA 1, USU 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
USU offense vs OMA defense
Offense 53rd of 366 against a defense 306th, on the model’s ratings
Context
Schedule so far
OMA has played the 287th-hardest schedule, USU the 83rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Turnovers
Turnover rate: OMA 16.1%, USU 15.1%. Forced: OMA 14.1%, USU 20.2%
OMA offense vs USU defense
Offense 247th of 366 against a defense 56th, on the model’s ratings
Shooting
Effective FG%: OMA 52.2 and allows 52.7; USU 56.3 and allows 49.7
Home court
USU at home. This season: USU 0-0 at home, OMA 0-0 away
Three-pointers
OMA hits 34.0% and allows 32.9%; USU hits 34.3% and allows 34.5%. Threes are 40.9% and 40.8% of their shots
Even
Free throws
Free throw rate: OMA 34.5, USU 38.8. Allowed: OMA 33.6, USU 39.2
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: OMA 25.5%, USU 32.7%. Defensive: OMA 71.3%, USU 67.2%
Context
Tempo
About 69 possessions: OMA plays 68.9 a game (184th fastest), USU 68.5 (207th). Faster games mean more points
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: OMA 23%, USU 26%. Transfers in: OMA 4, USU 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 | — | USU -25.0 | — |
| Total | — | 151.9 | — |
| Projected score | — | OMA 63.5 · USU 88.4 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | USU -14.7 | — |
| 1H total | 71.0 | — |
| 1H projected score | OMA 28.1 · USU 42.9 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-5 50% | 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | |
| 6-4 60% | 4-6 40% | 5-5 50% |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
Omaha
29 games played
Straight up
12-17
41% wins
Against the spread
14-15
48% covers · avg −0.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
14-15
48% overs · avg −0.7 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 | L 77-85 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 153.5 | O 162 |
| Nov 6 | @ | L 71-73 | +4.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | U 144 |
| Nov 9 | @ | L 74-97 | +14.5 | L −8.5 | 153.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 90-85 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 153.5 | O 175 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 73-99 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 163.5 | O 172 |
| Nov 25 | vs | L 77-88 | +1.5 | L −9.5 | 152.5 | O 165 |
| Nov 26 | @ | L 61-74 | +4.5 | L −8.5 | 157.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 3 | vs | L 70-75 | +3.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | U 145 |
| Dec 6 | @ | W 60-55 | +12.5 | W +17.5 | 144.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 20 | @ | W 85-82 | +5.5 | W +8.5 | 141.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 28 | @ | L 57-80 | +21.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 1 | @ | L 69-84 | +9.5 | L −5.5 | 152.5 | O 153 |
| Jan 3 | vs | L 66-73 | -8.5 | L −15.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Jan 8 | vs | W 90-79 | -5.5 | W +5.5 | 146.5 | O 169 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 76-78 | +5.5 | W +3.5 | 147.5 | O 154 |
| Jan 17 | @ | W 73-62 | +1.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 21 | vs | L 64-68 | -6.5 | L −10.5 | 160.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 24 | @ | W 77-60 | -4.5 | W +12.5 | 148.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 80-71 | +1.5 | W +10.5 | 150.5 | O 151 |
| Jan 31 | @ | W 84-82 | +1.5 | W +3.5 | 158.5 | O 166 |
| Feb 5 | @ | L 73-76 | +1.5 | L −1.5 | 150.5 | U 149 |
| Feb 7 | @ | L 84-92 | +9.5 | W +1.5 | 146.5 | O 176 |
| Feb 12 | vs | W 98-94 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 156.5 | O 192 |
| Feb 15 | vs | W 83-76 | -2.5 | W +4.5 | 160.5 | U 159 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 80-71 | -6.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 72-89 | +1.5 | L −15.5 | 152.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 28 | @ | L 53-68 | +11.5 | L −3.5 | 158.5 | U 121 |
| Mar 6 | vs | W 76-62 | -1.5 | W +12.5 | 150.5 | U 138 |
| Mar 7 | vs | L 50-74 | +8.5 | L −15.5 | 146.5 | U 124 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
vs
MUR
L 77-85
−2.5
6
@
ACU
L 71-73
+2.5
9
@
CSU
L 74-97
−8.5
15
vs
SUU
W 90-85
−3.5
21
@
LSU
L 73-99
−5.5
25
vs
JMU
L 77-88
−9.5
26
@
FIU
L 61-74
−8.5
3
vs
UNCO
L 70-75
−1.5
6
@
PRST
W 60-55
+17.5
20
@
LAM
W 85-82
+8.5
28
@
ORE
L 57-80
−1.5
1
@
SDST
L 69-84
−5.5
3
vs
KC
L 66-73
−15.5
8
vs
UND
W 90-79
+5.5
10
vs
NDSU
L 76-78
+3.5
17
@
ORU
W 73-62
+12.5
21
vs
SDAK
L 64-68
−10.5
24
@
KC
W 77-60
+12.5
28
vs
SDST
W 80-71
+10.5
31
@
DEN
W 84-82
+3.5
5
@
UND
L 73-76
−1.5
7
@
NDSU
L 84-92
+1.5
12
vs
STMN
W 98-94
+8.5
15
vs
DEN
W 83-76
+4.5
18
vs
ORU
W 80-71
+2.5
25
@
SDAK
L 72-89
−15.5
28
@
STMN
L 53-68
−3.5
6
vs
SDAK
W 76-62
+12.5
7
vs
NDSU
L 50-74
−15.5
covered 14didn’t cover 15avg −0.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
vs
MUR
L 77-85
+8.5
6
@
ACU
L 71-73
−6.5
9
@
CSU
L 74-97
+17.5
15
vs
SUU
W 90-85
+21.5
21
@
LSU
L 73-99
+8.5
25
vs
JMU
L 77-88
+12.5
26
@
FIU
L 61-74
−22.5
3
vs
UNCO
L 70-75
−12.5
6
@
PRST
W 60-55
−29.5
20
@
LAM
W 85-82
+25.5
28
@
ORE
L 57-80
−14.5
1
@
SDST
L 69-84
+0.5
3
vs
KC
L 66-73
−9.5
8
vs
UND
W 90-79
+22.5
10
vs
NDSU
L 76-78
+6.5
17
@
ORU
W 73-62
−14.5
21
vs
SDAK
L 64-68
−28.5
24
@
KC
W 77-60
−11.5
28
vs
SDST
W 80-71
+0.5
31
@
DEN
W 84-82
+7.5
5
@
UND
L 73-76
−1.5
7
@
NDSU
L 84-92
+29.5
12
vs
STMN
W 98-94
+35.5
15
vs
DEN
W 83-76
−1.5
18
vs
ORU
W 80-71
−0.5
25
@
SDAK
L 72-89
+8.5
28
@
STMN
L 53-68
−37.5
6
vs
SDAK
W 76-62
−12.5
7
vs
NDSU
L 50-74
−22.5
over 14under 15avg −0.7 ptslonger = bigger margin
Utah State
35 games played
Straight up
28-7
80% wins
Against the spread
16-19
46% covers · avg +1.1 pts vs the line
Over / Under
19-16
54% overs · avg +1.8 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 | vs | W 80-77 | -2.5 | W +0.5 | 163.5 | U 157 |
| Nov 12 | vs | W 83-73 | -22.5 | L −12.5 | 156.5 | U 156 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 75-51 | -16.5 | W +7.5 | 149.5 | U 126 |
| Nov 21 | vs | W 96-75 | -8.5 | W +12.5 | 151.5 | O 171 |
| Nov 23 | vs | W 94-60 | -9.5 | W +24.5 | 147.5 | O 154 |
| Nov 29 | vs | W 84-81 | -17.5 | L −14.5 | 148.5 | O 165 |
| Dec 4 | @ | L 61-74 | +2.5 | L −10.5 | 162.5 | U 135 |
| Dec 7 | @ | W 79-53 | -10.5 | W +15.5 | 139.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 13 | vs | W 83-78 | -8.5 | L −3.5 | 148.5 | O 161 |
| Dec 20 | vs | W 100-58 | -10.5 | W +31.5 | 147.5 | O 158 |
| Dec 30 | @ | W 72-63 | -14.5 | L −5.5 | 154.5 | U 135 |
| Jan 3 | vs | W 96-78 | -22.5 | L −4.5 | 151.5 | O 174 |
| Jan 6 | @ | W 99-62 | -22.5 | W +14.5 | 139.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 10 | @ | W 93-68 | -1.5 | W +23.5 | 149.5 | O 161 |
| Jan 14 | vs | W 71-62 | -13.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 17 | @ | L 74-84 | -5.5 | L −15.5 | 150.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 20 | vs | L 76-86 | -15.5 | L −25.5 | 156.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 23 | @ | W 65-61 | -5.5 | L −1.5 | 149.5 | U 126 |
| Jan 28 | vs | W 94-62 | -13.5 | W +18.5 | 148.5 | O 156 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 71-66 | -6.5 | L −1.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Feb 4 | @ | W 86-66 | +1.5 | W +21.5 | 156.5 | U 152 |
| Feb 7 | @ | W 85-83 | -9.5 | L −7.5 | 149.5 | O 168 |
| Feb 10 | vs | W 91-78 | -21.5 | L −8.5 | 152.5 | O 169 |
| Feb 14 | vs | W 99-75 | -13.5 | W +10.5 | 155.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 18 | vs | W 75-56 | -9.5 | W +9.5 | 151.5 | U 131 |
| Feb 21 | @ | L 77-80 | -5.5 | L −8.5 | 146.5 | O 157 |
| Feb 25 | @ | L 72-89 | -1.5 | L −18.5 | 146.5 | O 161 |
| Feb 28 | vs | W 74-69 | -9.5 | L −4.5 | 147.5 | U 143 |
| Mar 3 | @ | L 65-92 | -7.5 | L −34.5 | 156.5 | O 157 |
| Mar 7 | vs | W 94-90 | -7.5 | L −3.5 | 155.5 | O 184 |
| Mar 12 | vs | W 80-60 | -8.5 | W +11.5 | 156.5 | U 140 |
| Mar 13 | vs | W 79-66 | -6.5 | W +6.5 | 145.5 | U 145 |
| Mar 14 | vs | W 73-62 | -2.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | U 135 |
| Mar 20 | vs | W 86-76 | -1.5 | W +8.5 | 146.5 | O 162 |
| Mar 22 | vs | L 66-78 | +11.5 | L −0.5 | 153.5 | U 144 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
VCU
W 80-77
+0.5
12
vs
WEB
W 83-73
−12.5
15
vs
UTEP
W 75-51
+7.5
21
vs
TULN
W 96-75
+12.5
23
vs
DAV
W 94-60
+24.5
29
vs
MTST
W 84-81
−14.5
4
@
USF
L 61-74
−10.5
7
@
CLT
W 79-53
+15.5
13
vs
ILST
W 83-78
−3.5
20
vs
CSU
W 100-58
+31.5
30
@
FRES
W 72-63
−5.5
3
vs
SJSU
W 96-78
−4.5
6
@
AF
W 99-62
+14.5
10
@
BOIS
W 93-68
+23.5
14
vs
NEV
W 71-62
−4.5
17
@
GCU
L 74-84
−15.5
20
vs
UNLV
L 76-86
−25.5
23
@
CSU
W 65-61
−1.5
28
vs
WYO
W 94-62
+18.5
31
vs
SDSU
W 71-66
−1.5
4
@
UNM
W 86-66
+21.5
7
@
WYO
W 85-83
−7.5
10
vs
FRES
W 91-78
−8.5
14
vs
MEM
W 99-75
+10.5
18
vs
BOIS
W 75-56
+9.5
21
@
NEV
L 77-80
−8.5
25
@
SDSU
L 72-89
−18.5
28
vs
GCU
W 74-69
−4.5
3
@
UNLV
L 65-92
−34.5
7
vs
UNM
W 94-90
−3.5
12
vs
UNLV
W 80-60
+11.5
13
vs
NEV
W 79-66
+6.5
14
vs
SDSU
W 73-62
+8.5
20
vs
VILL
W 86-76
+8.5
22
vs
ARIZ
L 66-78
−0.5
covered 16didn’t cover 19avg +1.1 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
VCU
W 80-77
−6.5
12
vs
WEB
W 83-73
−0.5
15
vs
UTEP
W 75-51
−23.5
21
vs
TULN
W 96-75
+19.5
23
vs
DAV
W 94-60
+6.5
29
vs
MTST
W 84-81
+16.5
4
@
USF
L 61-74
−27.5
7
@
CLT
W 79-53
−7.5
13
vs
ILST
W 83-78
+12.5
20
vs
CSU
W 100-58
+10.5
30
@
FRES
W 72-63
−19.5
3
vs
SJSU
W 96-78
+22.5
6
@
AF
W 99-62
+21.5
10
@
BOIS
W 93-68
+11.5
14
vs
NEV
W 71-62
−14.5
17
@
GCU
L 74-84
+7.5
20
vs
UNLV
L 76-86
+5.5
23
@
CSU
W 65-61
−23.5
28
vs
WYO
W 94-62
+7.5
31
vs
SDSU
W 71-66
−10.5
4
@
UNM
W 86-66
−4.5
7
@
WYO
W 85-83
+18.5
10
vs
FRES
W 91-78
+16.5
14
vs
MEM
W 99-75
+18.5
18
vs
BOIS
W 75-56
−20.5
21
@
NEV
L 77-80
+10.5
25
@
SDSU
L 72-89
+14.5
28
vs
GCU
W 74-69
−4.5
3
@
UNLV
L 65-92
+0.5
7
vs
UNM
W 94-90
+28.5
12
vs
UNLV
W 80-60
−16.5
13
vs
NEV
W 79-66
−0.5
14
vs
SDSU
W 73-62
−10.5
20
vs
VILL
W 86-76
+15.5
22
vs
ARIZ
L 66-78
−9.5
over 19under 16avg +1.8 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
Utah State has the better starters
Position by position: Omaha 0, Utah State 2, even 3
OmahaBetterUtah State
G G. Stubblefield9.3 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.3 ast
Score 64
=Even
G A. Bates TR12.3 pts · 2.7 reb · 5.8 ast
Score 62
G C. Crosby TR2.5 pts · 0.9 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 24
→USUBig
G M. Falslev16.2 pts · 5.7 reb · 3.1 ast
Score 98
G A. Skradis0.4 pts · 0.3 reb · 0 ast
Not ranked
=No call
G D. Hall TR5.9 pts · 3.6 reb · 4.4 ast
Score 49
F C. Dockery TR7.3 pts · 5.7 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 41
=Even
G S. Callaghan TR10.4 pts · 2 reb · 1.1 ast
Score 33
F B. Scholl3.7 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.3 ast
Score 26
→USUBig
F W. Hornseth TR11.5 pts · 4.7 reb · 2.3 ast
Score 88
OmahaBetterUtah State
OMA offense247th of 366 · -7.5
→USUBig
USU defense56th of 366 · +1.4
OMA defense306th of 366 · -7.8
→USUBig
USU offense53rd of 366 · +3.3
Backcourt-0.7 · 3 players
→USUBig
Backcourt+2.9 · 4 players
Frontcourt-1.6 · 2 players
→USUBig
Frontcourt+2.6 · 1 player
Bench-0.0 · 2 players
→USUBig
Bench+3.8 · 3 players
Score, worst to bestOMA betterUSU betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
G. Stubblefield29 minC. Crosby9 min · TRA. Skradis2 minD. Thompson1 min · TRB. OrgilboldNewC. CurtisNew
Forwards
C. Dockery22 min · TRB. Scholl14 minJ. Bolis2 min · TRD. PleasantNewE. SheatsNewG. BakerNew
Centers
I. OndekaneNewH. BukingaNew
Guards
A. Bates34 min · TRM. Falslev33 minD. Hall28 min · TRS. Callaghan28 min · TRB. BoeNewA. ReiserNew
Forwards
W. Hornseth27 min · TRC. Turnbull21 min · TRK. Templin19 minC. Mulholland17 min · TRK. TosiNew
Centers
S. FeltsNewB. RobertsNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 73.9 #202 | Points per game | 81.3 #43 |
| 1.07 #201 | Points per possession | 1.19 #24 |
| 68.9 #184 | Pace (possessions) | 68.5 #207 |
| Shooting | ||
| 52.2 #139 | Effective FG% | 56.3 #18 |
| 34.0 #169 | 3-point % | 34.3 #155 |
| 40.9 #150 | 3-point attempt rate | 40.8 #152 |
| 34.5 #196 | Free throw rate | 38.8 #83 |
| Possessions | ||
| 16.1 #146 | Turnover rate | 15.1 #72 |
| 25.5 #331 | Offensive rebound rate | 32.7 #97 |
| 12.1 #276 | Assists per game | 17.1 #21 |
| Defense | ||
| 77.7 #259 | Points allowed | 71.2 #78 |
| 1.13 #278 | Points allowed per possession | 1.04 #72 |
| 52.7 #258 | Opponent effective FG% | 49.7 #87 |
| 32.9 #114 | Opponent 3-point % | 34.5 #222 |
| 14.1 #333 | Turnovers forced | 20.2 #18 |
| 71.3 #90 | Defensive rebound rate | 67.2 #290 |
| 5.7 #277 | Steals per game | 8.5 #17 |
| 3.0 #234 | Blocks per game | 2.9 #252 |
Omaha
12-17 in 2025-26 overall · 9-9 in conference · Summit League
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs N Dakota St50–74
- Wvs South Dakota76–62
- L@ St Thomas53–68
- L@ South Dakota72–89
- Wvs Oral Roberts80–71
A week or more of rest.
Utah State
28-7 in 2025-26 overall · 18-5 in conference · Pac-12 Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- Lvs Arizona66–78
- Wvs Villanova86–76
- Wvs San Diego St73–62
- Wvs Nevada79–66
- Wvs UNLV80–60
A week or more of rest.