Cal Poly at Montana St
Sunday, November 15, 2026, 6:00 PM ET at Worthington Arena. Cal Poly our rank 186 · 1-2; Montana St our rank 118 · 1-2.
Who will win Cal Poly vs Montana St?
The model gives Montana State a 80% chance to beat Cal Poly, with a projected score of Montana St 86, Cal Poly 77.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 70–80% have been right 74.5% of the time in 14,414 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 8.8 points. After the final, the result is pinned to this strip. As of 2:23 AM ET on November 13, 2026. Updated three times a day until tip-off.
Players to watch
| Player | Pts | Reb | Ast | Last games | Chance of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Montana St | |||||
| DavisG · 28 min | 15.5 | 4.6 | 1.9 | 15+ 52% | |
| KingF · 28 min | 14.4 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 15+ 45% | |
| MillerG · 30 min | 12.9 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 15+ 36% | |
| HoldenG · 26 min | 8.6 | 2.3 | 3.3 | 10+ 38% | |
| Cal Poly | |||||
| MousaG · 28 min | 19.9 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 20+ 49% | |
| WardG · 28 min | 12.0 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 10+ 62% | |
| Esso EssisG · 24 min | 9.9 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 10+ 47% | |
| VasilicG · 24 min | 6.4 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 5+ 60% | |
Bars: points in the player's latest games this season. Blue line: tonight's projection. Every regular's line
The game without one player
Without Jed Miller: Cal Poly 27%Montana St 73%
The white mark is the call with him: Montana St 80%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | Montana St without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Montana St | ||||
| Jed Miller | 2.5 | 73% | −7 | 78–85 |
| Jeremiah Davis | 1.6 | 75% | −5 | 77–85 |
| Christian King | 1.4 | 76% | −4 | 77–85 |
| Jaden Steppe | 0.7 | 78% | −2 | 77–86 |
| Cal Poly | ||||
| Hamad Mousa | 1.7 | 84% | +4 | 76–87 |
| Cayden Ward | 0.6 | 81% | +1 | 76–86 |
Change is in Montana St's win chance, in points. Scores read Cal Poly, then Montana St. A player's value is what the team is better by with him than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
Cal Poly 1-2WLL
- Nov 11L 71-99at Grand CanyonDidn't cover +18.5 · Under 181.5
- Nov 5L 84-104at ArizonaCovered +30.5 · Over 174.5
- Nov 2W 78-62vs Cal State San Marcos
- Last 3
- 1–2, scoring 77.7 and allowing 88.3
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–1
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 1 under
Montana St 1-2LWL
- Nov 12L 71-86at BYUCovered +21.5 · Under 162.5
- Nov 7W 83-70vs Long Beach StCovered −10.5 · Over 144.5
- Nov 2L 74-84at Colorado St
- Last 3
- 1–2, scoring 76.0 and allowing 80.0
- Against the spread, this season
- 2–0
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 1 under
The spread and the total are the lines logged with each prediction. Form is what happened; the ratings above already count recent games more.
Offense against defense
| Cal Poly | Montana St | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 104.8 164th | 108.8 105th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 110.8 255th | 107.3 159th |
| Possessions a game | 74.7 1st | 70.3 238th |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 52.1% 82nd | 52.3% 68th |
| Opponents' shooting | 51.3% 241st | 52.7% 321st |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 19.5% 319th | 17.3% 97th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 31.6% 194th | 30.0% 279th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.25 257th | 0.24 301st |
The widest gap: Montana St's offense (105th) against Cal Poly's defense (255th), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Cal Poly 36, Montana St 41
- First-half margin
- Montana St by 5.1
- First-half points, both teams
- 76.2
- Projected second half
- Cal Poly 41, Montana St 45
- Second-half points, both teams
- 86.2
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Cal Poly, first halves so far
- Led 1 of 3 · 35.0 scored, 40.0 allowed
- Montana St, first halves so far
- Led 1 of 3 · 36.0 scored, 39.7 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 11,516 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 67.2% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.1 points on average. This season: 366 of 476 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
Cal Poly
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hamad MousaG | 28 | 19.9 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 2.7 |
| 20+ pts 49% · 2+ ast 45% · 3+ threes 46% | |||||
| Cayden WardG | 28 | 12.0 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 1.3 |
| 10+ pts 62% · 6+ reb 52% · 2+ ast 57% | |||||
| Guzman VasilicG | 24 | 6.4 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
| 5+ pts 60% · 3+ reb 52% · 2+ threes 50% | |||||
| Jess Esso EssisG | 24 | 9.9 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 1.4 |
| 10+ pts 47% · 4+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 49% | |||||
| Austin GoodeF | 18 | 6.3 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| 5+ pts 59% · 4+ reb 41% · 1+ threes 63% | |||||
| Troy PlumtreeF | 16 | 6.4 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 0.2 |
| 5+ pts 59% · 3+ reb 54% · 2+ ast 28% | |||||
| Ali AssranF | 13 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| 5+ pts 33% · 4+ reb 47% · 1+ threes 28% | |||||
| Jackson MosleyPG | 13 | 3.5 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 30% · 2+ ast 29% · 1+ threes 43% | |||||
Montana St
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jed MillerG | 30 | 12.9 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 2.6 |
| 15+ pts 36% · 5+ reb 45% · 3+ ast 50% | |||||
| Christian KingF | 28 | 14.4 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 2.3 |
| 15+ pts 45% · 5+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 56% | |||||
| Jeremiah DavisG | 28 | 15.5 | 4.6 | 1.9 | 1.4 |
| 15+ pts 52% · 5+ reb 46% · 2+ ast 54% | |||||
| Cavin HoldenG | 26 | 8.6 | 2.3 | 3.3 | 1.7 |
| 10+ pts 38% · 4+ ast 42% · 2+ threes 46% | |||||
| Howie KeeneG | 23 | 7.3 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 1.7 |
| 5+ pts 67% · 4+ reb 45% · 2+ threes 45% | |||||
| Jaden SteppeF | 23 | 8.3 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 0.8 |
| 10+ pts 36% · 5+ reb 44% · 1+ threes 53% | |||||
| Darnez SlaterG | 16 | 6.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 61% · 2+ reb 56% · 1+ threes 51% | |||||
| London PraytorF | 16 | 7.6 | 4.0 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| 5+ pts 69% · 4+ reb 54% · 1+ threes 49% | |||||
Our own projections from each player's minutes and production, this opponent and the game's pace: not a sportsbook's lines. Under each name, the round numbers the player is about as likely as not to reach. How they have done
Win probability
Game chat
Loading the chat…