Utah Tech Trailblazers vs Washington Huskies basketball preview & prediction

Thu, Nov 19 · 9:00 PM ET · Alaska Airlines Arena, Seattle, WA

Non-conferenceB1G+Alaska Airlines Arena, Seattle, WA

Utah Tech

1-1 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #255

Washington

2-0 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #98

Thu, Nov 19 · 9:00 PM ET

Our projected score shows once the market opens.

No line posted yet.

Our play

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Utah Tech is the faster team (76.5, #47 of 365) and Washington the slower (68.9, #238). 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

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

71.5#119

Utah Tech

69.7#242

Washington

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup

From the four factors

Washington has the ball+14.6

Utah Tech has the ball−11.1

Washington has the ball

✓Shoots it welleFG% 55.0% #108 · UTU allows 67.5% #353+11.6

✓Wins second chancesOR% 38.2% #67 · UTU allows 29.6% #151+1.6

✓Takes care of the ballTO% 16.7% #139 · UTU forces 18.3% #159 · ~12 turnovers+0.7

✓Gets to the lineFTR 35.5% #193 · UTU allows 40.0% #214 · FT 79.1% #55+0.6

Utah Tech has the ball

✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 41.8% #310 · WASH allows 46.5% #101−6.9

✗Few second chancesOR% 17.1% #350 · WASH allows 25.0% #61−5.7

✓Takes care of the ballTO% 19.6% #232 · WASH forces 13.1% #315 · ~11 turnovers+2.2

✗Few trips to the lineFTR 23.0% #324 · WASH allows 43.0% #245 · FT 64.3% #267−0.7

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot

Utah Techoffense vsWashingtondefense

Share of shots by zone

Utah Tech shoots

24.4

9.8

14.6

51.2

Washington allows

33.3

12.0

16.7

38.0

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	50.0%#261	61.1%#212	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	50.0%#75	15.4%#44	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	66.7%#16	44.4%#256	34.7%
Three	21.2%#344	31.8%#161	32.5%

Washingtonoffense vsUtah Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

Washington shoots

17.1

12.8

5.1

65.0

Utah Tech allows

46.5

2.3

16.3

34.9

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	70.0%#51	80.0%#354	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	66.7%#29	100.0%#348	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	16.7%#298	42.9%#240	34.7%
Three	34.6%#135	44.0%#332	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 line

Utah Tech

−9.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#304 of 365

Off reb %

17.1%

#350

Def reb %

70.4%

#151

Turnover %

19.6%

#232

Forced TO %

18.3%

#159

FT rate

23.0%

#324

FT allowed

40.0%

#214

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−4.8

Defensive rebounding+0.7

Ball security−1.0

Forcing turnovers+0.2

Foul shots drawn−3.8

Foul shots allowed−0.5

Washington

+0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#172 of 365

Off reb %

38.2%

#67

Def reb %

75.0%

#61

Turnover %

16.7%

#139

Forced TO %

13.1%

#315

FT rate

35.5%

#193

FT allowed

43.0%

#245

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+2.2

Defensive rebounding+2.2

Ball security+1.1

Forcing turnovers−3.5

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed−1.3

Washington has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.2 (#172 of 365) to Utah Tech’s −9.2 (#304).

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

Who has been playing, and who has not

Utah Tech2026-27 numbers

#	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage	Status
24	G	Fr	6'5"	2-2	28.0	5.5	2.0	1.5	0.0	55.0%	33.3%	4.5	—	9.6%	Active
2	G	Fr	6'5"	2-2	27.0	20.0	4.0	2.5	2.0	67.9%	40.0%	7.5	50.0%	33.6%	Active
35	F	Sr	6'8"	2-2	25.0	11.5	7.5	1.5	2.0	57.1%	0.0%	1.0	100.0%	22.8%	Active
4	G	Jr	6'5"	2-0	24.5	8.5	3.5	0.5	0.5	19.0%	0.0%	6.0	69.2%	30.8%	Active
1	G	Sr	6'0"	2-2	24.0	11.0	2.0	3.0	2.0	40.5%	33.3%	4.5	71.4%	31.5%	Active
14	G	Jr	6'5"	2-2	19.5	3.0	0.0	0.5	1.0	21.4%	16.7%	3.0	75.0%	15.0%	Active
17	NA	—	—	2-0	11.5	2.5	2.5	0.5	0.0	66.7%	0.0%	0.5	25.0%	11.5%	Active
33	G	Sr	6'4"	2-0	11.0	6.0	3.0	2.0	0.5	64.3%	50.0%	1.0	75.0%	24.3%	Active
23	F	Sr	6'8"	2-0	9.5	3.0	1.5	0.0	1.0	100.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	16.5%	Active
5	F	Sr	6'8"	2-0	8.0	5.5	3.0	0.5	0.0	91.7%	100.0%	1.5	—	20.3%	Active
12	C	Jr	6'8"	1-0	11.0	8.0	3.0	3.0	0.0	50.0%	—	0.0	66.7%	33.9%	Active
7	F	Fr	6'8"	1-0	8.0	2.0	3.0	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	13.3%	Active
0	G	Sr	6'5"	1-0	5.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	—	10.9%	Active

Competitive minutes leave out garbage time (provisional rule: a second-half lead of 25+ inside 15:00, 20+ inside 10:00, 15+ inside 5:00 or 10+ inside 2:00, held to the end) and are shown per 40 minutes. Status says only whether a player appeared; the reason is not published.

Trends

Results against the closing spread and total, last ten games

Utah Tech

Against the spread

Season

0-1

Home

0-0

Road

0-1

Last 10

0-1

avg cover −16.5

Missed the spread in the last game

Over / under

Season

1-0

Home

0-0

Road

1-0

Last 10

1-0

avg vs total +0.5

Over in the last game

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 4	Grace University Lancers	H	W 103–52	—	—	—	—	140.8	71.1	73.2
Nov 2	New MexicoAdjEM #32	A	L 60–100	+23.5	L−16.5	159.5	O160	78.4	130.7	76.5
Mar 13	CA BaptistAdjEM #239	N	L 72–86	+8.0	L−6.0	143.5	O158	102.3	122.2	70.4
Mar 12	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #301	N	W 80–74	−1.5	W+4.5	141.5	O154	113.6	105.1	70.4
Mar 7	Utah ValleyAdjEM #94	H	L 101–104 2OT	+9.0	W+6.0	148.0	O205	118.6	122.1	85.2
Feb 28	Southern UtahAdjEM #278	A	L 67–81	−2.0	L−16.0	156.0	U148	101.0	122.1	66.3
Feb 26	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #301	H	W 85–81	−2.0	W+2.0	139.0	O166	121.7	115.9	69.9
Feb 21	Tarleton StAdjEM #224	A	W 80–72	+1.5	W+9.5	141.0	O152	123.4	111.1	64.8
Feb 19	UT ArlingtonAdjEM #164	A	L 50–63	+4.5	L−8.5	140.5	U113	81.7	103.0	61.2
Feb 14	CA BaptistAdjEM #239	H	W 70–65	+3.5	W+8.5	143.5	U135	108.9	101.1	64.3

Washington

Against the spread

Season

0-2

Home

0-2

Road

0-0

Last 10

0-2

avg cover −9.5

Missed the spread 2 straight

Over / under

Season

1-1

Home

1-1

Road

0-0

Last 10

1-1

avg vs total −0.2

Under in the last game

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 9	Miss Valley StAdjEM #363	H	W 77–64	−31.5	L−18.5	153.0	U141	116.4	96.8	66.1
Nov 2	ColgateAdjEM #208	H	W 90–76	−14.5	L−0.5	154.5	O166	125.5	106.0	71.7
Mar 12	#23WisconsinAdjEM #64	N	L 82–85	+6.5	W+3.5	156.5	O167	124.0	128.5	66.2
Mar 11	USCAdjEM #74	N	W 83–79 OT	−3.5	W+0.5	153.0	O162	102.7	97.8	80.8
Mar 7	OregonAdjEM #92	A	L 79–85	−1.5	L−7.5	146.0	O164	120.5	129.7	65.5
Mar 4	USCAdjEM #74	H	W 91–72	−5.5	W+13.5	151.0	O163	119.7	94.7	76.0
Feb 28	WisconsinAdjEM #64	H	L 73–90	+2.5	L−14.5	153.5	O163	103.6	127.7	70.5
Feb 24	RutgersAdjEM #126	A	W 79–72	−4.5	W+2.5	140.0	O151	111.9	102.0	70.6
Feb 21	MarylandAdjEM #154	A	L 60–64	−3.0	L−7.0	143.5	U124	105.7	112.7	56.8
Feb 14	MinnesotaAdjEM #55	H	W 69–57	−7.0	W+5.0	138.5	U126	115.1	95.1	59.9

Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.

Team comparison

national rank toned left for away, right for home

Utah TechWashington

Efficiency

103.9

110.6

109.8

104.3

71.5

69.7

16.4

-12.2

Shooting

41.8%

55.0%

53.6%

60.5%

21.2%

34.6%

64.3%

79.1%

23.0%

35.5%

Ball control & glass

19.6%

16.7%

18.3%

13.1%

17.1%

38.2%

29.6%

25.0%

13.1%

8.7%

7.1%

9.3%

Style

54.1%

64.5%

30.0%

28.7%

8.3%

18.0%

50.0%

62.3%

38.3%

39.0%

Roster

2.80

3.53

6'5.1"

6'4.6"

21.9%

20.9%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

Utah Tech

Returning minutes: 21.9%Returning production: 30.7%

Lost

Noah Bolanga 32.7 mpg, 11.9 ppg · transferred to Abilene Chrstn
Chance Trujillo 31.9 mpg, 11.9 ppg · transferred to Hawai'i
Jusaun Holt 30.8 mpg, 11.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Tanner Davis 25.9 mpg, 7.2 ppg · transferred to Utah Valley
Britton Berrett 23.0 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Madiba Owona 10.9 mpg, 4.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Rex Sunderland from Stonehill · 26.9 mpg, 4.7 ppg last season
Alex Dupre from Portland St · 14.9 mpg, 3.1 ppg last season
Mark Brown Jr. from Valparaiso · 9.4 mpg, 2.0 ppg last season
Kyle Lemke no D1 minutes last season
Jax Clark no D1 minutes last season
Aris Rodriguez no D1 minutes last season

Returns 22% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (3 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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

No meetings the last two seasons.

More games on Thu, Nov 19

NC State vs Murray St · 6:00 PM ET
Northeastern at Butler · 7:00 PM ET
Buffalo at St Bonaventure · 7:00 PM ET
UMBC at Ohio State · 7:00 PM ET
Montana St at High Point · 7:00 PM ET
Little Rock at Jacksonville · 7:00 PM ET
Maine at Quinnipiac · 7:00 PM ET
Southern Miss at Grambling · 7:00 PM ET
Robert Morris at Toledo · 7:00 PM ET
Tulane at Louisiana Tech · 7:30 PM ET
Charleston at Drake · 7:30 PM ET
Southern Utah at Texas · 8:00 PM ET
Stetson at Louisville · 8:00 PM ET
Texas A&M at TCU · 8:00 PM ET
SE Missouri at St Thomas · 8:00 PM ET
GA Southern at Hou Christian · 8:00 PM ET
Seton Hall vs Wisconsin · 8:30 PM ET
UTEP at New Mexico St · 9:00 PM ET
Oregon St vs Oregon · 9:00 PM ET
East Texas A&M at California · 10:00 PM ET
Sacramento St at Stanford · 10:00 PM ET
VCU at Santa Clara · 10:30 PM ET
Tarleton St at USC · 11:00 PM ET
Santa Barbara at Pepperdine · TBD

← Wed, Nov 18 · Fri, Nov 20 → · Full season schedule

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.