Mitchell Center · at South Alabama
LineNo line yet
Total—
| This season | USA | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 USA 76–73 · win probability USA 61%
Pick this game
Your picksMy picks ›
Winner
Line
—
no line yet
Total
—
model 149.4
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: USA has more of the edges
UTSA 1, USA 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games
Turnovers
Turnover rate: UTSA 17.4%, USA 13.1%. Forced: UTSA 14.7%, USA 18.0%
Shooting
Effective FG%: UTSA 44.8 and allows 53.3; USA 52.6 and allows 50.1
Free throws
Free throw rate: UTSA 29.5, USA 38.5. Allowed: UTSA 33.3, USA 25.4
Three-pointers
UTSA hits 29.2% and allows 35.1%; USA hits 34.5% and allows 33.1%. Threes are 41.3% and 36.5% of their shots
Context
Schedule so far
UTSA has played the 104th-hardest schedule, USA the 223rd. A record against a soft schedule means less
Context
Tempo
About 68 possessions: UTSA plays 69.6 a game (142nd fastest), USA 67.1 (277th). Faster games mean more points
UTSA offense vs USA defense
Offense 155th of 366 against a defense 212th, on the model’s ratings
Home court
USA at home. This season: USA 0-0 at home, UTSA 0-0 away
Even
Who is back
Minutes back from last season: UTSA 15%, USA 21%. Transfers in: UTSA 9, USA 0. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price
Even
Rebounding
Offensive rebound rate: UTSA 30.2%, USA 25.0%. Defensive: UTSA 61.3%, USA 68.6%
Even
USA offense vs UTSA defense
Offense 242nd of 366 against a defense 238th, on the model’s ratings
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 | — | USA -3.1 | — |
| Total | — | 149.4 | — |
| Projected score | — | UTSA 73.1 · USA 76.2 |
1st-half model
| Model | Actual | |
|---|---|---|
| 1H spread | USA -1.7 | — |
| 1H total | 69.8 | — |
| 1H projected score | UTSA 34.1 · USA 35.8 | — |
Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.
Last 10 games
2025-26
| Straight up | Spread | Over / under | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-9 10% | 6-4 60% | 6-4 60% | |
| 5-5 50% | 7-3 70% | 6-4 60% |
Recent meetings
Since 2021-22
UTSA 0–1 USAUSA leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · UTSA 0-1 ATS
| Date | Result | Line | Covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2025-26 | USA 82 @ UTSA 58 | UTSA +1.5 | USA W |
ATS History · 2025-26
WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total
UTSA
28 games played
Straight up
3-25
11% wins
Against the spread
10-18
36% covers · avg −3.9 pts vs the line
Over / Under
13-15
46% overs · avg −1.2 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 | L 60-77 | -6.5 | L −23.5 | 153.5 | U 137 |
| Nov 12 | @ | L 69-80 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 147.5 | O 149 |
| Nov 15 | @ | W 84-79 | +4.5 | W +9.5 | 148.5 | O 163 |
| Nov 24 | vs | L 50-61 | +2.5 | L −8.5 | 144.5 | U 111 |
| Nov 25 | vs | W 77-64 | +3.5 | W +16.5 | 160.5 | U 141 |
| Nov 30 | vs | L 58-82 | +1.5 | L −22.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 7 | @ | L 55-97 | +33.5 | L −8.5 | 171.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 13 | @ | L 64-88 | +22.5 | L −1.5 | 154.5 | U 152 |
| Dec 17 | @ | L 70-97 | +25.5 | L −1.5 | 157.5 | O 167 |
| Dec 22 | vs | L 68-71 | +10.5 | W +7.5 | 148.5 | U 139 |
| Dec 31 | @ | L 70-110 | +16.5 | L −23.5 | 158.5 | O 180 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 57-76 | +10.5 | L −8.5 | 149.5 | U 133 |
| Jan 7 | vs | L 58-74 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 145.5 | U 132 |
| Jan 10 | vs | L 52-85 | +7.5 | L −25.5 | 147.5 | U 137 |
| Jan 14 | vs | L 73-89 | +6.5 | L −9.5 | 144.5 | O 162 |
| Jan 18 | @ | L 69-95 | +20.5 | L −5.5 | 147.5 | O 164 |
| Jan 21 | @ | L 62-81 | +15.5 | L −3.5 | 138.5 | O 143 |
| Jan 24 | vs | L 64-70 | +10.5 | W +4.5 | 145.5 | U 134 |
| Jan 28 | vs | L 73-83 | +12.5 | W +2.5 | 155.5 | O 156 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 88-109 | +23.5 | W +2.5 | 164.5 | O 197 |
| Feb 7 | vs | L 58-81 | +10.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | U 139 |
| Feb 11 | @ | L 72-88 | +10.5 | L −5.5 | 150.5 | O 160 |
| Feb 15 | @ | W 88-79 | +13.5 | W +22.5 | 148.5 | O 167 |
| Feb 18 | vs | L 52-60 | +11.5 | W +3.5 | 157.5 | U 112 |
| Feb 22 | @ | L 74-100 | +21.5 | L −4.5 | 159.5 | O 174 |
| Feb 25 | vs | L 81-82 | +4.5 | W +3.5 | 153.5 | O 163 |
| Mar 1 | vs | L 67-84 | +15.5 | L −1.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
| Mar 8 | @ | L 71-80 | +11.5 | W +2.5 | 151.5 | U 151 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
7
vs
SIUE
L 60-77
−23.5
12
@
TXST
L 69-80
−8.5
15
@
DEN
W 84-79
+9.5
24
vs
ACU
L 50-61
−8.5
25
vs
GASO
W 77-64
+16.5
30
vs
USA
L 58-82
−22.5
7
@
ALA
L 55-97
−8.5
13
@
COLO
L 64-88
−1.5
17
@
USC
L 70-97
−1.5
22
vs
SEA
L 68-71
+7.5
31
@
FAU
L 70-110
−23.5
3
@
TEM
L 57-76
−8.5
7
vs
CLT
L 58-74
−9.5
10
vs
TULN
L 52-85
−25.5
14
vs
RICE
L 73-89
−9.5
18
@
MEM
L 69-95
−5.5
21
@
UNT
L 62-81
−3.5
24
vs
TEM
L 64-70
+4.5
28
vs
UAB
L 73-83
+2.5
4
@
USF
L 88-109
+2.5
7
vs
UNT
L 58-81
−12.5
11
@
ECU
L 72-88
−5.5
15
@
CLT
W 88-79
+22.5
18
vs
FAU
L 52-60
+3.5
22
@
TLSA
L 74-100
−4.5
25
vs
ECU
L 81-82
+3.5
1
vs
WICH
L 67-84
−1.5
8
@
RICE
L 71-80
+2.5
covered 10didn’t cover 18avg −3.9 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
7
vs
SIUE
L 60-77
−16.5
12
@
TXST
L 69-80
+1.5
15
@
DEN
W 84-79
+14.5
24
vs
ACU
L 50-61
−33.5
25
vs
GASO
W 77-64
−19.5
30
vs
USA
L 58-82
−1.5
7
@
ALA
L 55-97
−19.5
13
@
COLO
L 64-88
−2.5
17
@
USC
L 70-97
+9.5
22
vs
SEA
L 68-71
−9.5
31
@
FAU
L 70-110
+21.5
3
@
TEM
L 57-76
−16.5
7
vs
CLT
L 58-74
−13.5
10
vs
TULN
L 52-85
−10.5
14
vs
RICE
L 73-89
+17.5
18
@
MEM
L 69-95
+16.5
21
@
UNT
L 62-81
+4.5
24
vs
TEM
L 64-70
−11.5
28
vs
UAB
L 73-83
+0.5
4
@
USF
L 88-109
+32.5
7
vs
UNT
L 58-81
−2.5
11
@
ECU
L 72-88
+9.5
15
@
CLT
W 88-79
+18.5
18
vs
FAU
L 52-60
−45.5
22
@
TLSA
L 74-100
+14.5
25
vs
ECU
L 81-82
+9.5
1
vs
WICH
L 67-84
−0.5
8
@
RICE
L 71-80
−0.5
over 13under 15avg −1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
South Alabama
31 games played
Straight up
19-12
61% wins
Against the spread
17-14
55% covers · avg +1.2 pts vs the line
Over / Under
16-15
52% overs · avg +2.3 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 | @ | W 76-74 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 150.5 | U 150 |
| Nov 6 | vs | W 76-70 | -18.5 | L −12.5 | 141.5 | O 146 |
| Nov 13 | vs | W 66-64 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 142.5 | U 130 |
| Nov 15 | vs | W 72-62 | -18.5 | L −8.5 | 133.5 | O 134 |
| Nov 19 | @ | W 71-65 | +2.5 | W +8.5 | 135.5 | O 136 |
| Nov 21 | @ | L 72-80 | +7.5 | L −0.5 | 149.5 | O 152 |
| Nov 30 | @ | W 82-58 | -1.5 | W +22.5 | 141.5 | U 140 |
| Dec 2 | vs | W 77-75 | +2.5 | W +4.5 | 135.5 | O 152 |
| Dec 5 | @ | L 65-91 | +7.5 | L −18.5 | 143.5 | O 156 |
| Dec 14 | vs | L 57-58 | -1.5 | L −2.5 | 135.5 | U 115 |
| Dec 17 | @ | W 96-92 | -9.5 | L −5.5 | 148.5 | O 188 |
| Dec 20 | @ | L 65-67 | +3.5 | W +1.5 | 136.5 | U 132 |
| Dec 31 | @ | W 63-58 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 127.5 | U 121 |
| Jan 3 | @ | L 49-59 | +9.5 | L −0.5 | 148.5 | U 108 |
| Jan 10 | vs | W 87-71 | -2.5 | W +13.5 | 148.5 | O 158 |
| Jan 15 | vs | W 91-87 | +4.5 | W +8.5 | 154.5 | O 178 |
| Jan 17 | vs | L 56-59 | -9.5 | L −12.5 | 129.5 | U 115 |
| Jan 22 | @ | W 90-83 | +4.5 | W +11.5 | 138.5 | O 173 |
| Jan 29 | vs | W 53-48 | -3.5 | W +1.5 | 139.5 | U 101 |
| Jan 31 | vs | W 69-67 | -5.5 | L −3.5 | 140.5 | U 136 |
| Feb 4 | @ | L 57-65 | +5.5 | L −2.5 | 131.5 | U 122 |
| Feb 7 | vs | W 81-69 | -3.5 | W +8.5 | 145.5 | O 150 |
| Feb 12 | @ | W 84-78 | +1.5 | W +7.5 | 135.5 | O 162 |
| Feb 14 | @ | W 92-88 | +8.5 | W +12.5 | 149.5 | O 180 |
| Feb 16 | @ | L 80-84 | +6.5 | W +2.5 | 150.5 | O 164 |
| Feb 19 | vs | L 82-90 | -3.5 | L −11.5 | 137.5 | O 172 |
| Feb 21 | vs | W 65-54 | +2.5 | W +13.5 | 142.5 | U 119 |
| Feb 25 | vs | W 89-54 | -14.5 | W +20.5 | 153.5 | U 143 |
| Feb 27 | vs | L 55-68 | -4.5 | L −17.5 | 141.5 | U 123 |
| Mar 6 | vs | L 85-94 | -4.5 | L −13.5 | 149.5 | O 179 |
| Mar 17 | @ | L 67-78 | +18.5 | W +7.5 | 151.5 | U 145 |
Day
Opp
Result
MissedCovered
Margin
3
@
TOL
W 76-74
+4.5
6
vs
ALCN
W 76-70
−12.5
13
vs
CMU
W 66-64
−3.5
15
vs
COPP
W 72-62
−8.5
19
@
JXST
W 71-65
+8.5
21
@
UAB
L 72-80
−0.5
30
@
UTSA
W 82-58
+22.5
2
vs
NMSU
W 77-75
+4.5
5
@
ETSU
L 65-91
−18.5
14
vs
UNT
L 57-58
−2.5
17
@
ULM
W 96-92
−5.5
20
@
TXST
L 65-67
+1.5
31
@
UL
W 63-58
+1.5
3
@
TROY
L 49-59
−0.5
10
vs
GASO
W 87-71
+13.5
15
vs
ARST
W 91-87
+8.5
17
vs
UL
L 56-59
−12.5
22
@
JMU
W 90-83
+11.5
29
vs
CCU
W 53-48
+1.5
31
vs
GAST
W 69-67
−3.5
4
@
APP
L 57-65
−2.5
7
vs
BUF
W 81-69
+8.5
12
@
USM
W 84-78
+7.5
14
@
ARST
W 92-88
+12.5
16
@
MRSH
L 80-84
+2.5
19
vs
TXST
L 82-90
−11.5
21
vs
TROY
W 65-54
+13.5
25
vs
ULM
W 89-54
+20.5
27
vs
USM
L 55-68
−17.5
6
vs
GASO
L 85-94
−13.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-78
+7.5
covered 17didn’t cover 14avg +1.2 ptslonger = bigger margin
Day
Opp
Result
UnderOver
Margin
3
@
TOL
W 76-74
−0.5
6
vs
ALCN
W 76-70
+4.5
13
vs
CMU
W 66-64
−12.5
15
vs
COPP
W 72-62
+0.5
19
@
JXST
W 71-65
+0.5
21
@
UAB
L 72-80
+2.5
30
@
UTSA
W 82-58
−1.5
2
vs
NMSU
W 77-75
+16.5
5
@
ETSU
L 65-91
+12.5
14
vs
UNT
L 57-58
−20.5
17
@
ULM
W 96-92
+39.5
20
@
TXST
L 65-67
−4.5
31
@
UL
W 63-58
−6.5
3
@
TROY
L 49-59
−40.5
10
vs
GASO
W 87-71
+9.5
15
vs
ARST
W 91-87
+23.5
17
vs
UL
L 56-59
−14.5
22
@
JMU
W 90-83
+34.5
29
vs
CCU
W 53-48
−38.5
31
vs
GAST
W 69-67
−4.5
4
@
APP
L 57-65
−9.5
7
vs
BUF
W 81-69
+4.5
12
@
USM
W 84-78
+26.5
14
@
ARST
W 92-88
+30.5
16
@
MRSH
L 80-84
+13.5
19
vs
TXST
L 82-90
+34.5
21
vs
TROY
W 65-54
−23.5
25
vs
ULM
W 89-54
−10.5
27
vs
USM
L 55-68
−18.5
6
vs
GASO
L 85-94
+29.5
17
@
AUB
L 67-78
−6.5
over 16under 15avg +2.3 ptslonger = bigger margin
Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.
South Alabama has the better starters
Position by position: UTSA 0, South Alabama 2, even 3
UTSABetterSouth Alabama
G D. Hayes8.7 pts · 1.8 reb · 1.8 ast
Score 16
=No call
G A. Goldstein NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
G J. Kelly TR8.3 pts · 3.9 reb · 0.6 ast
Score 44
=No call
G A. Lewis NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
G D. Williams TR10 pts · 3.2 reb · 0.9 ast
Score 72
=No call
G J. Langsy NEWNo Division I numbers yet
Not ranked
G P. Turner TR7 pts · 1.5 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 31
→USABig
F P. Law13.1 pts · 5.7 reb · 1 ast
Score 86
G I. Coleman TR6.4 pts · 3.8 reb · 0.8 ast
Score 50
→USASmall
F S. Williams6 pts · 4.2 reb · 0.2 ast
Score 84
UTSABetterSouth Alabama
UTSA offense155th of 366 · -4.7
←UTSASmall
USA defense212th of 366 · -5.4
UTSA defense238th of 366 · -6.2
=Even
USA offense242nd of 366 · -7.3
Backcourt-5.4 · 5 players
=No call
BackcourtNo numbers yet
FrontcourtNo numbers yet
=No call
Frontcourt+3.5 · 2 players
Bench-3.5 · 5 players
=No call
BenchNo numbers yet
Score, worst to bestUTSA betterUSA betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers
Depth chart
Projected rotation by position, starters outlined
Guards
D. Hayes31 minJ. Kelly27 min · TRD. Williams22 min · TRP. Turner20 min · TRI. Coleman19 min · TRS. Eberwein19 min · TR
Forwards
A. Smith5 min · TRC. OkpukparaNewM. BroxtonNewJ. PetersonNewK. TaylorNew
Guards
A. GoldsteinNewA. LewisNewJ. LangsyNewS. ShoptawNewD. WilliamsNewD. RomanNew
Forwards
P. Law26 minS. Williams15 minL. KunzewitschNewO. KenneyNewR. WilliamsNewD. HueittNew
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67.3 #329 | Points per game | 73.2 #218 |
| 0.96 #348 | Points per possession | 1.10 #139 |
| 69.6 #142 | Pace (possessions) | 67.1 #277 |
| Shooting | ||
| 44.8 #360 | Effective FG% | 52.6 #120 |
| 29.2 #351 | 3-point % | 34.5 #146 |
| 41.3 #143 | 3-point attempt rate | 36.5 #237 |
| 29.5 #320 | Free throw rate | 38.5 #89 |
| Possessions | ||
| 17.4 #231 | Turnover rate | 13.1 #8 |
| 30.2 #191 | Offensive rebound rate | 25.0 #341 |
| 10.1 #357 | Assists per game | 11.9 #287 |
| Defense | ||
| 82.9 #345 | Points allowed | 71.3 #85 |
| 1.20 #356 | Points allowed per possession | 1.06 #100 |
| 53.3 #277 | Opponent effective FG% | 50.1 #105 |
| 35.1 #251 | Opponent 3-point % | 33.1 #133 |
| 14.7 #309 | Turnovers forced | 18.0 #96 |
| 61.3 #363 | Defensive rebound rate | 68.6 #222 |
| 6.3 #203 | Steals per game | 7.9 #46 |
| 4.3 #52 | Blocks per game | 2.2 #330 |
UTSA
3-25 in 2025-26 overall · 1-17 in conference · American Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Rice71–80
- Lvs Wichita St67–84
- Lvs East Carolina81–82
- L@ Tulsa74–100
- Lvs FAU52–60
A week or more of rest.
South Alabama
19-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Sun Belt Conference
Last five, 2025-26
- L@ Auburn67–78
- Lvs GA Southern85–94
- Lvs Southern Miss55–68
- Wvs UL Monroe89–54
- Wvs Troy65–54
A week or more of rest.