Oakland Golden Grizzlies vs Boise State Broncos basketball prediction & odds

Wed, Nov 11 · 9:00 PM ET · ExtraMile Arena, Boise, ID

Non-conferenceYouTubeExtraMile Arena, Boise, ID
Oakland
0-4 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #267
@
Boise St
2-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #63
Wed, Nov 11 · 9:00 PM ET
72.590.5
Projected score
OAK win 6%BOIS win 94%
No line posted yet.

Our play

How our line is built

each step, from an even game to our line
Spread
Even game
0.0
Boise Strated 8.2 above average
+8.2
Oaklandrated 5.6 below average
+5.6
Home court
+4.2
Our line
BOIS −18.0
◂ Oakland sideBoise St side ▸

The spread is seen from the home side: a plus moves it toward Boise St. Our total joins once both teams have played 3 games.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Boise St is the faster team (83.8, #3 of 365) and Oakland the slower (69.3, #227). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
71.8
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.4#262
Oakland
72.9#58
Boise St

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup
Our line
BOIS −18.0
Four factors +22.5 · not in these stats −4.5
From the four factors
Boise St has the ball+14.2
Oakland has the ball−8.3
Boise St has the ball
✓Shoots it welleFG% 56.3% #81 · OAK allows 62.5% #339+9.9
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 11.9% #22 · OAK forces 13.7% #295 · ~8 turnovers+5.7
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 21.5% #334 · OAK allows 24.1% #40 · FT 64.7% #258−1.7
✓Wins second chancesOR% 31.1% #189 · OAK allows 33.3% #217+0.3
Oakland has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 43.6% #286 · BOIS allows 44.6% #73−6.9
✗Coughs it upTO% 19.8% #244 · BOIS forces 17.9% #186 · ~14 turnovers−0.6
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 42.3% #114 · BOIS allows 21.6% #29 · FT 70.8% #162−0.6
✗Few second chancesOR% 33.3% #135 · BOIS allows 27.9% #122−0.2

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot
Oaklandoffense vsBoise Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Oakland shoots
Boise St allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim51.4%#25563.2%#24458.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)30.8%#22420.0%#5438.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)23.1%#267—34.7%
Three26.5%#27022.2%#2332.5%
Boise Stoffense vsOaklanddefense
Share of shots by zone
Boise St shoots
Oakland allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim42.9%#32472.1%#32458.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)16.7%#29930.8%#11938.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)0.0%#32735.7%#18734.7%
Three48.6%#542.6%#32332.5%
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
Oakland
+0.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#166 of 365
Off reb %
33.3%
#135
Def reb %
66.7%
#217
Turnover %
19.8%
#244
Forced TO %
13.7%
#295
FT rate
42.3%
#114
FT allowed
24.1%
#40
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.6
Defensive rebounding−0.6
Ball security−1.1
Forcing turnovers−3.1
Foul shots drawn+1.3
Foul shots allowed+3.6
Boise St
+5.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#100 of 365
Off reb %
31.1%
#189
Def reb %
72.1%
#122
Turnover %
11.9%
#22
Forced TO %
17.9%
#186
FT rate
21.5%
#334
FT allowed
21.6%
#29
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security+4.5
Forcing turnovers−0.1
Foul shots drawn−4.1
Foul shots allowed+4.3

Boise St has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.6 (#100 of 365) to Oakland’s +0.7 (#166).

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
Oakland2026-27 numbers · last game: Alabama, Nov 9
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGMin/40, last 8Last 3 vs beforeStatusPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%Usage
2FSr6'8"4-433.337—Started last17.310.01.52.849.0%100.0%0.371.4%32.2%
0GJr6'6"4-432.037—Started last15.53.51.53.344.1%29.0%7.894.4%32.7%
3GSo6'3"4-021.514—Bench7.03.01.01.854.3%27.3%2.850.0%22.0%
13GJr6'6"4-421.529—Started last3.82.31.01.325.0%0.0%1.883.3%18.6%
10GSr6'0"4-220.315—Bench3.51.51.01.558.3%44.4%2.3—12.9%
24FSr6'8"4-417.89—Started last5.02.80.81.031.6%0.0%0.361.5%23.6%
4GSr6'10"4-213.59—Started last4.32.80.31.534.4%20.0%1.354.5%29.1%
1GSo6'4"4-012.817—Bench2.01.50.00.544.4%25.0%2.0—12.5%
6FSo6'7"4-010.519—Bench3.82.00.80.042.9%—0.081.8%16.8%
5GSo6'8"4-06.010—Bench3.00.30.30.066.7%50.0%1.0—22.3%
22FJr6'8"4-04.00—Bench0.50.50.00.014.3%0.0%1.0—25.8%
11GFr6'6"4-03.5——Active0.00.00.00.30.0%0.0%0.3—8.4%
21FFr6'8"4-03.3——Active1.00.30.30.0100.0%—0.00.0%15.5%
7GFr6'6"1-01.0——Out L30.01.00.00.00.0%0.0%1.0—56.1%

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.

Team comparison

national rank toned left for away, right for home
OaklandBoise St
Efficiency
107.6
111.8
113.9
101.7
69.4
72.9
13.6
8.3
Shooting
43.6%
56.3%
45.8%
43.2%
26.5%
48.6%
70.8%
64.7%
42.3%
21.5%
Ball control & glass
19.8%
11.9%
13.7%
17.9%
33.3%
31.1%
33.3%
27.9%
11.5%
4.8%
16.0%
4.5%
Style
36.6%
44.3%
44.4%
36.0%
9.0%
11.0%
37.5%
61.1%
40.0%
40.2%
Roster
3.10
2.97
6'5.9"
6'5.6"
9.9%
27.5%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Oakland
Returning minutes: 9.9%Returning production: 7.7%
Lost
  • Brody Robinson 35.8 mpg, 17.6 ppg · transferred to Creighton
  • Tuburu Naivalurua 31.9 mpg, 14.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Ziare Wells 26.8 mpg, 9.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Isaac Garrett 25.3 mpg, 12.0 ppg · transferred to High Point
  • Brett White II 24.0 mpg, 9.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Michael Houge 22.5 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Belal El Shakery from New Hampshire · 25.7 mpg, 11.0 ppg last season
  • Brady Swartz from W Michigan · 16.6 mpg, 6.2 ppg last season
  • Chris Fields Jr. from Campbell · 14.8 mpg, 7.7 ppg last season
  • Josh Hill from Robert Morris · 11.3 mpg, 5.0 ppg last season
  • RJ Taylor from Northern Iowa · 9.1 mpg, 2.2 ppg last season
  • Hamoudy Mashhour no D1 minutes last season

Returns 10% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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).

Boise St
Returning minutes: 27.5%Returning production: 20.6%
Lost
  • Andrew Meadow 30.0 mpg, 12.1 ppg · transferred to Oregon
  • Dylan Andrews 29.3 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Javan Buchanan 27.0 mpg, 12.3 ppg · transferred to West Virginia
  • Drew Fielder 23.7 mpg, 14.7 ppg · transferred to Alabama
  • R.J. Keene II 21.5 mpg, 2.6 ppg · transferred to NC State
  • Dominic Parolin 17.0 mpg, 5.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Dovydas Butka from Campbell · 30.9 mpg, 12.7 ppg last season
  • Damari Wheeler-Thomas from N Dakota St · 27.9 mpg, 13.2 ppg last season
  • Lamar Washington from Georgia Tech · 26.6 mpg, 8.9 ppg last season
  • Jerquarius Stanback from Alabama St · 24.6 mpg, 8.8 ppg last season
  • Ty Rodgers no D1 minutes last season
  • Jikany Deang no D1 minutes last season

Returns 28% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5 (4 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 Wed, Nov 11

← Tue, Nov 10 · Thu, Nov 12 → · 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.