Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils vs Washington Huskies basketball final score
Mon, Nov 9 · 10:00 PM ET · Alaska Airlines Arena, Seattle, WA
Non-conferenceBTNAlaska Airlines Arena, Seattle, WA
Miss Valley St
0-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #365
@
Washington
1-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #75
Final
6477
Final score
Projected 57.5 – 94.0
MVSU win 0%WASH win 100%
MarketClose
Spread
WASH −31.5
open WASH −32.75
Total
153.0
open 151.5
Our line
WASH −36.5
as of Mon, Nov 9 · 9:51 PM ET
Our play
How our line is built
each step, from an even game to our lineSpread
Even game
0.0
Washingtonrated 10.8 above average
+10.8
Miss Valley Strated 21.6 below average
+21.6
Home court
+4.0
Our line
WASH −36.5
◂ Miss Valley St sideWashington side ▸
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the line by 0.1. The spread is seen from the home side: a plus moves it toward Washington. Our total joins once both teams have played 3 games.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Washington is the faster team (71.7, #152 of 365) and Miss Valley St the slower (68.7, #243). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.7
per team, 40 min
Market total
153.0
Market close · open 151.5
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.6#194
Miss Valley St
70.8#170
Washington
How this game plays
points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchupOur line
WASH −36.5
Four factors 19.1Not in these stats 17.4
From the four factors
Washington has the ball+12.0
Miss Valley St has the ball−7.0
Washington has the ball
✓Shoots it welleFG% 55.6% #104 · MVSU allows 56.4% #284+6.1
✓Wins second chancesOR% 30.3% #198 · MVSU allows 47.2% #347+2.9
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 13.9% #66 · MVSU forces 17.5% #196 · ~11 turnovers+2.5
✓Gets to the lineFTR 66.7% #6 · MVSU allows 8.6% #3 · FT 83.3% #22+0.6
Miss Valley St has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 38.8% #332 · WASH allows 49.2% #156−7.4
✓Wins second chancesOR% 34.2% #122 · WASH allows 33.3% #219+1.2
✗Coughs it upTO% 24.7% #327 · WASH forces 13.9% #293 · ~14 turnovers−0.9
✓Gets to the lineFTR 27.6% #280 · WASH allows 41.9% #230 · FT 75.0% #95+0.1
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shootMiss Valley Stoffense vsWashingtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Miss Valley St shoots
39.0
4.9
24.4
31.7
Washington allows
34.5
15.5
15.5
34.5
D-I average
38.1
8.0
12.3
41.5
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 68.8%#66 | 60.0%#191 | 58.1% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 50.0%#76 | 22.2%#75 | 38.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 10.0%#313 | 66.7%#335 | 34.4% |
| Three | 16.7%#350 | 31.8%#163 | 32.5% |
Washingtonoffense vsMiss Valley Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Washington shoots
25.0
17.3
5.8
51.9
Miss Valley St allows
37.7
0.0
1.9
60.4
D-I average
38.1
8.0
12.3
41.5
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.8%#235 | 60.0%#191 | 58.1% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 77.8%#18 | — | 38.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 0.0%#320 | 0.0%#1 | 34.4% |
| Three | 35.7%#125 | 32.5%#180 | 32.5% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul lineMiss Valley St
−4.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#244 of 365
Off reb %
34.2%
#122
Def reb %
52.8%
#347
Turnover %
24.7%
#327
Forced TO %
17.5%
#196
FT rate
27.6%
#280
FT allowed
8.6%
#3
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.9
Defensive rebounding−5.2
Ball security−4.7
Forcing turnovers−0.4
Foul shots drawn−2.6
Foul shots allowed+7.7
Washington
+5.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#97 of 365
Off reb %
30.3%
#198
Def reb %
66.7%
#219
Turnover %
13.9%
#66
Forced TO %
13.9%
#293
FT rate
66.7%
#6
FT allowed
41.9%
#230
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding−0.6
Ball security+3.0
Forcing turnovers−2.9
Foul shots drawn+7.6
Foul shots allowed−1.0
Washington has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.6 (#97 of 365) to Miss Valley St’s −4.4 (#244).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Miss Valley St2026-27 numbers through Mon, Nov 9
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | F | Sr | 6'7" | 2-2 | 35.5 | 13.0 | 8.5 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 41.3% | 12.5% | 4.0 | 77.8% | 25.5% | |
| 21 | PF | Jr | 6'10" | 2-2 | 32.5 | 10.0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 30.0% | 5.0 | 100.0% | 17.8% | |
| 5 | G | Jr | 6'2" | 2-1 | 27.5 | 13.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 47.4% | 66.7% | 1.5 | 80.0% | 32.3% | |
| 8 | G | So | 6'5" | 2-2 | 25.5 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 15.1% | |
| 1 | PG | Jr | 5'11" | 2-1 | 25.0 | 6.5 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 37.5% | 28.6% | 3.5 | 100.0% | 24.4% | |
| 2 | G | Jr | 6'1" | 2-1 | 24.5 | 13.5 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 56.3% | 50.0% | 2.0 | 75.0% | 30.2% | |
| 20 | G | So | 6'1" | 2-1 | 18.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 | — | 8.3% | |
| 9 | C | Fr | 7'0" | 2-0 | 12.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 75.0% | 26.8% |
Trends
Results against the closing spread and total, last ten games, entering this gameMiss Valley St
Against the spread
Season
1-0
Home
0-0
Road
1-0
Last 10
1-0
avg cover +13.5
Covered the last game
Over / under
Season
0-1
Home
0-0
Road
0-1
Last 10
0-1
avg vs total −11.0
Under in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6 | Oklahoma | A | L 57–84 | +40.5 | W+13.5 | 152.0 | U141 | 82.9 | 122.2 | 68.7 |
| Mar 9 | Grambling | N | L 52–77 | +13.5 | L−11.5 | 137.0 | U129 | 78.5 | 116.2 | 66.2 |
| Mar 5 | Jackson St | A | L 77–85 | +11.5 | W+3.5 | 145.0 | O162 | 116.7 | 128.8 | 66.0 |
| Mar 3 | Alcorn St | A | L 64–67 | +9.5 | W+6.5 | 139.0 | U131 | 99.1 | 103.7 | 64.6 |
| Feb 28 | AR-Pine Bluff | A | W 70–69 | +14.0 | W+15.0 | 147.5 | U139 | 100.4 | 99.0 | 69.7 |
| Feb 23 | Grambling | A | L 62–83 | +16.0 | L−5.0 | 137.0 | O145 | 78.6 | 105.2 | 78.9 |
| Feb 21 | Texas Southern | H | W 72–71 | +11.5 | W+12.5 | 143.5 | U143 | 105.3 | 103.8 | 68.4 |
| Feb 19 | Prairie View | H | L 62–72 | +9.0 | L−1.0 | 153.5 | U134 | 91.3 | 106.0 | 67.9 |
| Feb 16 | Alabama St | A | L 55–92 | +16.5 | L−20.5 | 143.0 | O147 | 76.1 | 127.3 | 72.3 |
| Feb 14 | Alabama A&M | A | L 65–72 | +15.5 | W+8.5 | 139.5 | U137 | 101.8 | 112.7 | 63.9 |
Washington
Against the spread
Season
0-1
Home
0-1
Road
0-0
Last 10
0-1
avg cover −0.5
Missed the spread in the last game
Over / under
Season
1-0
Home
1-0
Road
0-0
Last 10
1-0
avg vs total +11.5
Over in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2 | Colgate | H | W 90–76 | −14.5 | L−0.5 | 154.5 | O166 | 125.5 | 106.0 | 71.7 |
| Mar 12 | #23Wisconsin | N | L 82–85 | +6.5 | W+3.5 | 156.5 | O167 | 124.0 | 128.5 | 66.2 |
| Mar 11 | USC | N | W 83–79 OT | −3.5 | W+0.5 | 153.0 | O162 | 102.7 | 97.8 | 80.8 |
| Mar 7 | Oregon | A | L 79–85 | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 146.0 | O164 | 120.5 | 129.7 | 65.5 |
| Mar 4 | USC | H | W 91–72 | −5.5 | W+13.5 | 151.0 | O163 | 119.7 | 94.7 | 76.0 |
| Feb 28 | Wisconsin | H | L 73–90 | +2.5 | L−14.5 | 153.5 | O163 | 103.6 | 127.7 | 70.5 |
| Feb 24 | Rutgers | A | W 79–72 | −4.5 | W+2.5 | 140.0 | O151 | 111.9 | 102.0 | 70.6 |
| Feb 21 | Maryland | A | L 60–64 | −3.0 | L−7.0 | 143.5 | U124 | 105.7 | 112.7 | 56.8 |
| Feb 14 | Minnesota | H | W 69–57 | −7.0 | W+5.0 | 138.5 | U126 | 115.1 | 95.1 | 59.9 |
| Feb 11 | Penn State | H | L 60–63 | −12.5 | L−15.5 | 153.0 | U123 | 91.7 | 96.3 | 65.4 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Team comparison
national rank toned left for away, right for homeMiss Valley StWashington
Efficiency
91.8
111.4
115.1
103.1
70.6
70.8
6.7
-2.8
Shooting
38.8%
55.6%
45.0%
57.7%
16.7%
35.7%
75.0%
83.3%
27.6%
66.7%
Ball control & glass
24.7%
13.9%
17.5%
13.9%
34.2%
30.3%
47.2%
33.3%
17.5%
5.6%
10.0%
7.7%
Style
31.0%
51.9%
59.6%
28.9%
5.3%
17.8%
38.1%
40.0%
30.3%
35.5%
Roster
2.75
3.58
6'4.8"
6'4.5"
0.0%
20.7%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMiss Valley St
Returning minutes: 5.1%Returning production: 2.9%
Lost
- Mike James 35.6 mpg, 20.8 ppg · transferred to Alabama St
- Patrick Punch 27.8 mpg, 7.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Daniel Mayfield 25.0 mpg, 11.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- X'Zaevion Barnett 23.3 mpg, 3.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mussa Mzein 17.5 mpg, 3.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Lamont Sams 15.4 mpg, 4.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Tarique Foster from UAlbany · 14.0 mpg, 4.0 ppg last season
- Tory James Jr. from Bakersfield · 1.3 mpg, 0.3 ppg last season
- Harvey Wilson Jr. no D1 minutes last season
- Matt Anglo no D1 minutes last season
- Tianhao Wu no D1 minutes last season
- Qingfang Pang no D1 minutes last season
Returns 5% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Washington
Returning minutes: 20.9%Returning production: 15.0%
Lost
- Hannes Steinbach 31.4 mpg, 16.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Quimari Peterson 30.9 mpg, 9.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Zoom Diallo 29.6 mpg, 15.7 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
- Franck Kepnang 18.8 mpg, 5.1 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
- Bryson Tucker 14.0 mpg, 3.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- JJ Mandaquit 13.1 mpg, 3.5 ppg · transferred to Arizona
Added
- Ryan Beasley from San Francisco · 31.2 mpg, 12.8 ppg last season
- LeJuan Watts from Texas Tech · 26.5 mpg, 11.4 ppg last season
- Parker Friedrichsen from Davidson · 25.3 mpg, 10.8 ppg last season
- Tayshawn Comer from Nevada · 25.2 mpg, 11.0 ppg last season
- Harun Zrno from Rutgers · 19.0 mpg, 6.5 ppg last season
- Steele Venters from Gonzaga · 11.6 mpg, 3.8 ppg last season
Returns 21% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (2 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Line history
Market line, home spread or game totalLines by book
| Book | Spread (home) open → now | Total open → now | ML home | ML away |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DraftKings | -32.5→-31.5-110 | 151.5→153.5o-110 u-110 | — | — |
| FanDuel | -33.5→-31.5-118 | 151.5→153.5o-115 u-105 | — | — |
| BetMGM | -32.5→-31.5-115 | 152.5→153.5o-110 u-110 | — | — |
| BetRivers | -33.5→-31.5-113 | 151.5→153.5o-113 u-109 | — | — |
| Caesars | -32.5→-31.5-110 | 152.5→153o-110 u-110 | — | — |
| Fanatics | -33→-31.5-110 | 151.5→153o-110 u-110 | — | — |
| BetOnline | -32.5→-31-115 | 151→153.5o-110 u-110 | — | — |
| Bovada | -32.5→-31.5-110 | 151.5→153o-110 u-110 | — | — |
| theScore Bet | -32.5→-31.5-110 | 152.5→153.5o-110 u-110 | — | — |
| Hard Rock | -33.5→-31.5-110 | 151.5→153.5o-110 u-110 | — | — |
| Kalshi | — | 153.5o-104 u+100 | — | — |
| Polymarket | -33.5→-31.5-104 | 151.5→153.5o+100 u-108 | — | — |
| Novig | -33.5→-31.5-113 | 152.5→— | — | — |
DraftKings
FanDuel
BetMGM
BetRivers
Caesars
Fanatics
BetOnline
Bovada
theScore Bet
Hard Rock
Kalshi
Polymarket
Novigopen = first-sighted line for this event · now = latest capture
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
More games on Mon, Nov 9
- Marshall at Ohio State · 6:00 PM ET
- Syracuse vs Indiana · 6:30 PM ET
- Howard at Penn · 6:30 PM ET
- FGCU at Georgia · 7:00 PM ET
- Radford at Tennessee · 7:00 PM ET
- Grambling at Texas · 7:00 PM ET
- Cleveland St at Bowling Green · 7:00 PM ET
- Minnesota at Cincinnati · 7:00 PM ET
- North Dakota at Clemson · 7:00 PM ET
- Norfolk St at William & Mary · 7:00 PM ET
- SC State at Chicago St · 7:00 PM ET
- Long Island at Towson · 7:00 PM ET
- Stonehill at Columbia · 7:00 PM ET
- Wagner at UConn · 7:00 PM ET
- Kansas City at Jacksonville · 7:00 PM ET
- North Florida at Miami · 7:00 PM ET
- SC Upstate at Coastal · 7:00 PM ET
- E Illinois at Notre Dame · 7:00 PM ET
- UNC Greensboro at UIC · 7:00 PM ET
- Oakland at Alabama · 7:30 PM ET
- Jackson St at Mississippi St · 7:30 PM ET
- Florida A&M at UAB · 7:30 PM ET
- North Alabama at Oklahoma · 8:00 PM ET
- UL Monroe at Texas A&M · 8:00 PM ET
- Boston U at Northwestern · 8:00 PM ET
- Louisiana Tech at LSU · 8:00 PM ET
- SIUE at Missouri · 8:00 PM ET
- Illinois St at Purdue · 8:30 PM ET
- Alabama A&M at DePaul · 9:00 PM ET
- App State at Auburn · 9:00 PM ET
- Seton Hall vs Charlotte · 9:00 PM ET
- E Washington at Oregon St · 9:30 PM ET
- Rice at Stanford · 10:00 PM ET
- Portland at Hawai'i · 11:59 PM ET
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — the market spread and total (the median across books when no market line is up). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, from our line: the same view our bets are made from.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.