Who will win UC Irvine vs Stanford?
The model gives Stanford a 75% chance to beat UC Irvine, with a projected score of Stanford 78, UC Irvine 70.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Stanford | |||||
| TownsendF · 34 min | 19.1 | 6.9 | 4.2 | 20+ 44% | |
| PriceG · 31 min | 11.5 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 10+ 58% | |
| BlissG · 26 min | 11.5 | 4.2 | 2.9 | 10+ 58% | |
| CammannF · 22 min | 8.3 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 10+ 35% | |
 UC Irvine | |||||
| Jester Jr.G · 21 min | 10.7 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 10+ 53% | |
| CooperG · 25 min | 9.7 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 10+ 46% | |
| IsaacG · 24 min | 8.3 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 10+ 35% | |
| JohnsonG · 20 min | 7.9 | 2.3 | 1.5 | 10+ 33% | |
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 Nick Townsend: UC Irvine 39%Stanford 61%
The white mark is the call with him: Stanford 75%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | Stanford without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stanford | ||||
| Nick Townsend | 4.4 | 61% | −14 | 72–76 |
| Aidan Cammann | 2.0 | 69% | −6 | 71–77 |
| Austin Maurer | 1.7 | 70% | −5 | 71–77 |
| Christian Bliss | 1.7 | 70% | −5 | 71–77 |
| UC Irvine | ||||
| Nils Cooper | 1.9 | 80% | +5 | 69–79 |
| Olivier Rioux | 1.6 | 79% | +4 | 69–79 |
| Jovan Jester Jr. | 1.5 | 79% | +4 | 69–79 |
| Tama Isaac | 0.9 | 77% | +2 | 70–79 |
Change is in Stanford's win chance, in points. Scores read UC Irvine, then Stanford. 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
UC Irvine 3-0WWW
- Nov 11W 90-40vs Lincoln (CA)
- Nov 7W 91-79vs San José StCovered −8.5 · Over 145.5
- Nov 3W 92-66vs Chapman
- Last 3
- 3–0, scoring 91.0 and allowing 61.7
- Against the spread, this season
- 1–0
- Totals, this season
- 1 over, 0 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
| UC Irvine | Stanford | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 106.4 135th | 111.0 84th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 102.0 83rd | 101.3 74th |
| Possessions a game | 71.8 79th | 70.4 222nd |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 50.4% 186th | 50.7% 168th |
| Opponents' shooting | 51.4% 247th | 50.7% 195th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 18.7% 255th | 18.3% 209th |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 34.2% 46th | 29.5% 307th |
| Free throws per shot | 0.27 150th | 0.26 212th |
The widest gap: Stanford's defense (74th) against UC Irvine's offense (135th), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- UC Irvine 33, Stanford 37
- First-half margin
- Stanford by 4.3
- First-half points, both teams
- 69.6
- Projected second half
- UC Irvine 38, Stanford 41
- Second-half points, both teams
- 78.7
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- UC Irvine, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 46.0 scored, 26.0 allowed
- Stanford, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 39.0 scored, 30.7 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
UC Irvine
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nils CooperG | 25 | 9.7 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 0.4 |
| 10+ pts 46% · 4+ reb 52% · 2+ ast 43% | |||||
| Tama IsaacG | 24 | 8.3 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 0.7 |
| 10+ pts 35% · 3+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 50% | |||||
| Jovan Jester Jr.G | 21 | 10.7 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 0.8 |
| 10+ pts 53% · 4+ reb 48% · 1+ threes 51% | |||||
| Josiah JohnsonG | 20 | 7.9 | 2.3 | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| 10+ pts 33% · 2+ ast 41% · 1+ threes 41% | |||||
| Olivier RiouxC | 18 | 4.7 | 5.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| 5+ pts 42% · 5+ reb 54% | |||||
| Langston RedfieldG | 16 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 27% · 2+ reb 38% · 1+ threes 32% | |||||
| Nes EmenekeC | 14 | 1.8 | 4.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| 4+ reb 53% | |||||
| Luke IsaakG | 13 | 4.4 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 39% · 2+ reb 54% · 1+ threes 54% | |||||
Stanford
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick TownsendF | 34 | 19.1 | 6.9 | 4.2 | 0.9 |
| 20+ pts 44% · 7+ reb 50% · 1+ threes 55% | |||||
| Julius PriceG | 31 | 11.5 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 1.3 |
| 10+ pts 58% · 3+ reb 55% · 3+ ast 60% | |||||
| Christian BlissG | 26 | 11.5 | 4.2 | 2.9 | 1.4 |
| 10+ pts 58% · 4+ reb 56% · 3+ ast 54% | |||||
| Aziz OlajuwonG | 23 | 8.2 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| 10+ pts 35% · 3+ reb 56% · 2+ threes 39% | |||||
| Aidan CammannF | 22 | 8.3 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 |
| 10+ pts 35% · 4+ reb 43% · 2+ ast 36% | |||||
| Isaiah RogersG | 20 | 6.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.3 |
| 5+ pts 57% · 2+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 46% | |||||
| Austin MaurerC | 19 | 7.3 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
| 5+ pts 67% · 5+ reb 57% · 1+ threes 20% | |||||
| Evan StinsonF | 11 | 3.0 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| 5+ pts 25% · 2+ reb 51% · 1+ threes 19% | |||||
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…