UT Arlington Mavericks vs Hawai'i Rainbow Warriors basketball final score
Sun, Nov 8 · 10:00 PM ET · Stan Sheriff Center, Honolulu, HI
Rainbow ClassicNon-conferenceMW+Stan Sheriff Center, Honolulu, HI
UT Arlington
2-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #160
@
Hawai'i
2-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #121
Final
6271
Final score
Projected 69.1 – 79.4
UTA win 19%HAW win 81%
MarketClose
Spread
HAW −8.0
open HAW −9.5
Total
146.0
open 148.5
Our line
HAW −10.3
as of Sun, Nov 8 · 9:51 PM ET
Our play
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 73.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, UT Arlington is the faster team (80.3, #16 of 365) and Hawai'i the slower (73.8, #97). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
73.8
per team, 40 min
Market total
146.0
Market close · open 148.5
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
71.7#116
UT Arlington
72.8#62
Hawai'i
How this game plays
points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchupOur line
HAW −10.3
Four factors −2.0 · not in these stats +12.3
From the four factors
Hawai'i has the ball−1.0
UT Arlington has the ball+1.0
Hawai'i has the ball
✓Shoots it welleFG% 56.9% #80 · UTA allows 62.7% #334+10.7
✗Coughs it upTO% 21.7% #277 · UTA forces 26.1% #25 · ~19 turnovers−6.4
✗Few second chancesOR% 17.9% #340 · UTA allows 22.2% #32−6.4
✓Gets to the lineFTR 43.1% #109 · UTA allows 49.1% #289 · FT 72.7% #125+1.1
UT Arlington has the ball
✓Shoots it welleFG% 58.9% #49 · HAW allows 56.5% #275+8.6
✗Coughs it upTO% 16.2% #129 · HAW forces 27.1% #19 · ~17 turnovers−4.2
✗Few second chancesOR% 26.5% #265 · HAW allows 25.9% #88−2.9
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 40.3% #138 · HAW allows 31.5% #122 · FT 64.0% #260−0.6
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shootUT Arlingtonoffense vsHawai'idefense
Share of shots by zone
UT Arlington shoots
38.7
12.9
8.1
40.3
Hawai'i allows
44.4
13.0
13.0
29.6
D-I average
38.0
7.9
12.4
41.6
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.5%#123 | 66.7%#263 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 50.0%#79 | 14.3%#52 | 38.0% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 20.0%#267 | 42.9%#240 | 34.9% |
| Three | 44.0%#27 | 43.8%#318 | 32.3% |
Hawai'ioffense vsUT Arlingtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Hawai'i shoots
41.2
13.7
2.0
43.1
UT Arlington allows
32.7
3.6
21.8
41.8
D-I average
38.0
7.9
12.4
41.6
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 52.4%#234 | 55.6%#132 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 71.4%#28 | 50.0%#232 | 38.0% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 100.0%#1 | 58.3%#314 | 34.9% |
| Three | 36.4%#106 | 47.8%#338 | 32.3% |
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 lineUT Arlington
+6.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#84 of 365
Off reb %
26.5%
#265
Def reb %
77.8%
#32
Turnover %
16.2%
#129
Forced TO %
26.1%
#25
FT rate
40.3%
#138
FT allowed
49.1%
#289
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.7
Defensive rebounding+3.2
Ball security+1.4
Forcing turnovers+5.6
Foul shots drawn+0.7
Foul shots allowed−2.9
Hawai'i
+4.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#116 of 365
Off reb %
17.9%
#340
Def reb %
74.1%
#88
Turnover %
21.7%
#277
Forced TO %
27.1%
#19
FT rate
43.1%
#109
FT allowed
31.5%
#122
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−4.6
Defensive rebounding+1.9
Ball security−2.5
Forcing turnovers+6.3
Foul shots drawn+1.5
Foul shots allowed+1.7
UT Arlington has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.3 (#84 of 365) to Hawai'i’s +4.3 (#116).
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
UT Arlington2026-27 numbers through Mon, Nov 9
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | G | Sr | 6'2" | 4-4 | 32.3 | 12.3 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 1.3 | 47.7% | 12.5% | 2.0 | 80.0% | 21.0% | |
| 2 | G | Sr | 6'3" | 4-4 | 30.3 | 12.0 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 32.3% | 7.8 | 83.3% | 19.5% | |
| 4 | G | So | 6'2" | 3-3 | 31.3 | 10.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 46.8% | 33.3% | 7.0 | 20.0% | 20.9% | |
| 15 | F | Jr | 7'1" | 4-0 | 21.0 | 14.8 | 8.5 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 52.1% | 41.7% | 3.0 | 90.9% | 37.9% | |
| 8 | F | Sr | 6'8" | 4-0 | 19.8 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 70.0% | — | 0.0 | 62.5% | 15.8% | |
| 11 | F | So | 6'10" | 4-4 | 19.5 | 12.8 | 7.3 | 0.3 | 3.5 | 54.9% | 14.3% | 1.8 | 37.5% | 41.3% | |
| 5 | F | Jr | 7'0" | 4-4 | 18.8 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.8% | 100.0% | 0.3 | 60.0% | 21.8% | |
| 7 | G | Jr | 6'5" | 4-1 | 16.5 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 53.7% | 30.0% | 2.5 | 100.0% | 22.1% | |
| 0 | F | Fr | 6'7" | 3-0 | 18.7 | 9.0 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 71.1% | 58.3% | 4.0 | — | 18.9% | |
| 10 | G | Fr | 6'0" | 2-0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 42.9% | 33.3% | 3.0 | — | 24.7% | |
| 16 | G | Fr | 6'0" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 1 | G | Fr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% |
Trends
Results against the closing spread and total, last ten games, entering this gameUT Arlington
Against the spread
Season
1-0
Home
0-0
Road
0-0
Last 10
1-0
avg cover +6.0
Covered the last game
Over / under
Season
1-0
Home
0-0
Road
0-0
Last 10
1-0
avg vs total +24.0
Over in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6 | Portland | N | W 89–85 | +2.0 | W+6.0 | 150.0 | O174 | 110.8 | 105.8 | 80.3 |
| Nov 2 | UNT Dallas Trailblazers | H | W 89–56 | — | — | — | — | 117.1 | 73.7 | 76.0 |
| Mar 13 | Utah Valley | N | L 65–67 | +8.0 | W+6.0 | 136.0 | U132 | 104.2 | 107.4 | 62.4 |
| Mar 12 | Southern Utah | N | W 69–63 | −5.0 | W+1.0 | 141.5 | U132 | 96.7 | 88.3 | 71.3 |
| Mar 7 | Abilene Chrstn | A | W 64–57 | +1.0 | W+8.0 | 133.0 | U121 | 97.8 | 87.1 | 65.4 |
| Mar 5 | Tarleton St | A | W 65–60 | +1.0 | W+6.0 | 136.0 | U125 | 107.4 | 99.2 | 60.5 |
| Feb 26 | CA Baptist | A | L 56–68 | +6.5 | L−5.5 | 134.5 | U124 | 89.0 | 108.1 | 62.9 |
| Feb 21 | Utah Valley | H | L 54–66 | +5.5 | L−6.5 | 137.5 | U120 | 81.0 | 99.0 | 66.6 |
| Feb 19 | Utah Tech | H | W 63–50 | −4.5 | W+8.5 | 140.5 | U113 | 103.0 | 81.7 | 61.2 |
| Feb 14 | Southern Utah | H | L 73–78 | −8.5 | L−13.5 | 144.5 | O151 | 104.5 | 111.7 | 69.8 |
Hawai'i
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 +4.5
Over in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6 | Bethesda Flames | H | W 116–44 | — | — | — | — | 150.0 | 56.9 | 77.3 |
| Nov 2 | Seattle U | H | W 74–73 | −1.5 | L−0.5 | 142.5 | O147 | 100.3 | 99.0 | 73.8 |
| Mar 19 | #4Arkansas | N | L 78–97 | +15.0 | L−4.0 | 158.0 | O175 | 101.8 | 126.5 | 76.7 |
| Mar 14 | UC Irvine | N | W 71–64 | +1.5 | W+8.5 | 142.0 | U135 | 100.6 | 90.7 | 70.6 |
| Mar 13 | Fullerton | N | W 78–63 | −5.0 | W+10.0 | 157.5 | U141 | 106.1 | 85.7 | 73.5 |
| Mar 7 | Long Beach St | H | L 75–84 | −14.0 | L−23.0 | 150.0 | O159 | 97.9 | 109.6 | 76.6 |
| Mar 5 | UC Riverside | H | W 93–74 | −12.5 | W+6.5 | 149.0 | O167 | 129.5 | 103.1 | 71.8 |
| Feb 28 | Fullerton | A | W 87–85 | −3.5 | L−1.5 | 157.0 | O172 | 121.0 | 118.2 | 71.9 |
| Feb 26 | UC Davis | A | W 77–73 | −2.0 | W+2.0 | 147.0 | O150 | 112.0 | 106.2 | 68.8 |
| Feb 21 | Santa Barbara | H | W 78–75 OT | −5.0 | L−2.0 | 145.5 | O153 | 105.4 | 101.3 | 74.0 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Team comparison
national rank toned left for away, right for homeUT ArlingtonHawai'i
Efficiency
102.4
104.9
102.1
101.1
71.7
72.8
-4.9
5.5
Shooting
58.9%
56.9%
54.1%
58.6%
44.0%
36.4%
64.0%
72.7%
40.3%
43.1%
Ball control & glass
16.2%
21.7%
26.1%
27.1%
26.5%
17.9%
22.2%
25.9%
5.0%
12.2%
8.1%
10.3%
Style
40.3%
43.1%
44.9%
43.2%
11.2%
12.2%
41.9%
48.0%
34.8%
40.8%
Roster
3.09
2.81
6'6"
6'6.8"
6.1%
0.0%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputUT Arlington
Returning minutes: 6.1%Returning production: 4.0%
Lost
- Raysean Seamster 29.7 mpg, 12.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Marcell McCreary 29.3 mpg, 12.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Cash Chavis 27.1 mpg, 10.5 ppg · transferred to North Texas
- Bahsil Laster 19.3 mpg, 7.3 ppg · transferred to Norfolk St
- Marcus Rigsby Jr. 17.2 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tyran Mason 16.9 mpg, 6.5 ppg · transferred to ETSU
Added
- Tycen McDaniels from Alcorn St · 27.3 mpg, 12.0 ppg last season
- Mier Panoam from Xavier · 1.2 mpg, 0.2 ppg last season
- Niko Bundalo from Ole Miss · 1.0 mpg, 0.2 ppg last season
- Noah Shelby from Texas A&M · 0.6 mpg, 0.3 ppg last season
- Bryson McGlothin from Richmond · 0.4 mpg, 0.1 ppg last season
- Teodor Simic no D1 minutes last season
Returns 6% 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).
Hawai'i
Returning minutes: 9.7%Returning production: 7.1%
Lost
- Hunter Erickson 31.4 mpg, 8.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Dre Bullock 28.4 mpg, 13.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Harry Rouhliadeff 24.0 mpg, 10.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Gytis Nemeiksa 23.8 mpg, 9.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Isaac Finlinson 22.7 mpg, 9.2 ppg · transferred to W Michigan
- Isaac Johnson 21.2 mpg, 14.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Chance Trujillo from Utah Tech · 31.9 mpg, 11.9 ppg last season
- Bol Dengdit from UC San Diego · 23.4 mpg, 10.7 ppg last season
- Houran Dan from Seattle U · 15.0 mpg, 5.7 ppg last season
- Zack Davidson from N Arizona · 10.3 mpg, 6.1 ppg last season
- Manie Joses from Davidson · 8.6 mpg, 1.7 ppg last season
- Marcus Adams Jr. from Arizona St · 5.0 mpg, 1.5 ppg last season
Returns 10% 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).
Line history
Market line, home spread or game totalLines by book
| Book | Spread (home) open → now | Total open → now | ML home | ML away |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DraftKings | -9.5→-8.5-105 | 148.5→145.5o-112 u-108 | -425 | +330 |
| FanDuel | -8.5-110 | 148.5→145.5o-115 u-105 | -400 | +310 |
| BetMGM | -9.5→-8.5-105 | 149.5→146.5o-105 u-115 | -375 | +300 |
| BetRivers | -8.5-112 | 146.5o-107 u-117 | -420 | +310 |
| Caesars | -9.5→-8-110 | 149.5→146o-110 u-110 | -420 | +320 |
| Fanatics | -9.5→-8-115 | 150.5→146o-110 u-110 | -425 | +325 |
| BetOnline | -8.5→-8-110 | 148→145.5o-110 u-110 | -425 | +334 |
| Bovada | -10.5→-8-110 | 150.5→146.5o-110 u-110 | -450 | +335 |
| theScore Bet | -9.5→-8.5-105 | 148.5→145.5o-110 u-110 | -450 | +340 |
| Hard Rock | -11.5→-8.5-110 | 149.5→145.5o-115 u-105 | -425 | +300 |
| Kalshi | -9.5→-6.5-133 | 144.5o-117 u+113 | -355 | +335 |
| Polymarket | -8.5+104 | 145.5o-104 u+100 | -376 | +355 |
| Novig | — | 149.5→— | -355 | +344 |
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 Sun, Nov 8
- Iona at St John's · 12:00 PM ET
- Arkansas vs Virginia · 1:00 PM ET
- Fairfield at Bryant · 1:00 PM ET
- Manhattan at Maine · 1:00 PM ET
- Sacred Heart at New Hampshire · 1:00 PM ET
- Marist at UMass Lowell · 1:00 PM ET
- SE Missouri at South Carolina · 1:00 PM ET
- Princeton at Siena · 1:00 PM ET
- Butler at Boise St · 2:00 PM ET
- Brown at Lehigh · 2:00 PM ET
- C Connecticut at Dartmouth · 2:00 PM ET
- Quinnipiac at Vermont · 2:00 PM ET
- Campbell at W Michigan · 2:00 PM ET
- Green Bay at St Thomas · 2:00 PM ET
- Merrimack at UAlbany · 2:00 PM ET
- Idaho St at Air Force · 3:00 PM ET
- Western KY at Tennessee Tech · 3:00 PM ET
- Southern at Drake · 3:00 PM ET
- Rider at Binghamton · 4:00 PM ET
- Saint Peter's at NJIT · 4:00 PM ET
- Saint Mary's vs Nevada · 4:30 PM ET
- Richmond vs Temple · 5:00 PM ET
- N Dakota St at Bakersfield · 6:00 PM ET
- Norfolk St at William & Mary · 6:00 PM ET
- Incarnate Word at UTEP · 7:00 PM ET
- Pitt vs Penn State · 8:00 PM ET
- California vs Houston · 8:30 PM ET
- Wichita St vs USC · 11:00 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.