CBB Matchups
Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.
College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.
Non-conferenceNeutral siteMichelob ULTRA Arena, Las Vegas, NVPlayers Era Eight
Florida
Efficiency #5
2025-26: 27-8 · 17-3 conf
vs
Notre Dame
Efficiency #106
2025-26: 13-18 · 4-14 conf
Tue, Nov 17 · 4:30 PM ET
82.3
win 86%
Projected
69.9
win 14%
No line posted yet.
Model: FLA −12.4 · total 152.1 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.
How the projection is built
each step, from an average D-I game to this oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Notre Dame 67.4, Florida 70.2 → 69.4 possessions
+2.3
Notre Dame offense vs Florida defense
−5.4
Florida offense vs Notre Dame defense
+7.0
Projected total
152.1
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Notre Dame offense vs Florida defense
−5.4
Florida offense vs Notre Dame defense
−7.0
Florida by 12.4
12.4
Florida side ◂▸ Notre Dame side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Notre Dame.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Florida is the faster team (72.0, #23 of 365) and Notre Dame the slower (66.7, #259). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
152.1
model
Projected team totals
82.3 / 69.9
Florida / Notre Dame
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.2#35
Florida
67.4#254
Notre Dame
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageFlorida
Where Florida scores: the offensive glass
Florida rebounds 43.3% of its own misses (#2); Notre Dame lets opponents grab 26.7% of their own misses (#27). Expect about 37.6%, 7.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.4 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageNotre Dame
Where Notre Dame struggles: shooting
Notre Dame shoots an effective 52.3% (#133); Florida allows 46.1% (#10). Expect about 49.2%, 2.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Notre Dame averages 66.7 possessions per 40, Florida 72.0. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 69 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
TurnoversFlorida
Florida protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.7% is worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions for Florida's offense.
ClashNotre Dame
Style match: ball movement
Notre Dame creates off the dribble (assists on 47.4% of its baskets); Florida breaks up passing offenses (assists on 44.6% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 44.1% — both habits push the same way.
ClashNotre Dame
Style clash: 3-point volume
Notre Dame takes 43.5% of its shots from three; Florida runs teams off the line (34.1% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 39.2% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Florida has the ball
OffenseNotre Dame allowsvs D1 avg
54.1% #63
51.8% #200
+2.7 pt/100
16.3% #160
14.0% #337
+2.5 pt/100
43.3% #2
26.7% #27
+4.4 pt/100
39.0% #80
36.2% #214
+0.3 pt/100
71.2% #232
—
-0.1 pt/100
Florida net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.9 pts/100
Notre Dame has the ball
OffenseFlorida allowsvs D1 avg
52.3% #133
46.1% #10
-2.9 pt/100
17.0% #202
15.3% #269
+1.1 pt/100
31.2% #155
24.8% #7
-1.3 pt/100
34.1% #206
34.0% #153
-0.1 pt/100
69.7% #278
—
-0.2 pt/100
Notre Dame net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersFloridaoffense vsNotre Damedefense
Share of shots by zone
Florida shoots
44.2
7.3
10.3
38.2
Notre Dame allows
28.2
6.7
17.3
47.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.9%#24 | 62.8%#320 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 45.9%#52 | 45.0%#296 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.4%#97 | 39.9%#237 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.2%#315 | 33.2%#138 | 33.7% |
Notre Dameoffense vsFloridadefense
Share of shots by zone
Notre Dame shoots
31.9
4.8
20.0
43.3
Florida allows
38.8
7.9
20.9
32.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.0%#72 | 50.6%#5 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 28.2%#356 | 34.8%#53 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.3%#211 | 34.9%#73 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#82 | 32.1%#66 | 33.7% |
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 · 2025-26 numbersFlorida
+6.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#8 of 365
Off reb %
43.3%
#2
Def reb %
75.2%
#7
Turnover %
16.3%
#160
Forced TO %
15.3%
#269
FT rate
39.0%
#80
FT allowed
34.0%
#153
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+4.2
Defensive rebounding+1.9
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.0
Foul shots drawn+1.0
Foul shots allowed+0.3
Notre Dame
−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#226 of 365
Off reb %
31.2%
#155
Def reb %
73.3%
#27
Turnover %
17.0%
#202
Forced TO %
14.0%
#337
FT rate
34.1%
#206
FT allowed
36.2%
#214
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−1.9
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed−0.2
Florida has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.7 (#8 of 365) to Notre Dame’s −0.9 (#226).
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
Florida2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Thomas Haugh | F | Sr | 6'9" | 34-34 | 33.3 | 17.1 | 6.1 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 53.3% | 32.6% | 5.2 | 77.4% | 26.9% | |
| 1 | Denzel Aberdeenat Kentucky | G | Sr | 6'5" | 36-35 | 30.6 | 13.5 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 51.6% | 36.3% | 4.8 | 79.8% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | Boogie Fland | G | Jr | 6'3" | 35-35 | 30.0 | 11.6 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 49.2% | 24.0% | 3.6 | 72.6% | 23.3% | |
| 21 | Alex Condon | F | Sr | 6'11" | 34-34 | 30.5 | 15.1 | 7.5 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 56.9% | 17.0% | 1.6 | 64.9% | 27.8% | |
| 9 | Rueben Chinyelu | C | Sr | 6'10" | 35-35 | 24.5 | 10.9 | 11.2 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 58.4% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 69.5% | 23.8% | |
| 7 | Urban Klavzar | G | Sr | 6'1" | 35-0 | 20.7 | 9.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 59.6% | 40.6% | 5.0 | 90.3% | 22.4% | |
| 20 | Isaiah Brown | G | Jr | 6'4" | 32-0 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 54.0% | 34.6% | 1.6 | 73.3% | 22.9% | |
| 11 | CJ Ingram | G | So | 6'6" | 20-0 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 57.1% | 50.0% | 0.8 | 50.0% | 23.7% | |
| 4 | Alex Lloyd | G | So | 6'3" | 17-0 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 38.5% | 21.1% | 1.1 | 20.0% | 23.2% | |
| 8 | Alex Kovatchev | G | Sr | 6'5" | 15-0 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 22.2% | 0.6 | — | 14.5% | |
| 12 | Viktor Mikic | C | Jr | 6'11" | 15-0 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 32.6% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 53.8% | 39.7% | |
| 3 | AJ Brown | G | Sr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 25 | Arturas Butajevas | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 19 | Domen Petrovic | F | Jr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Jones Lay | C | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Transfers in: Denzel Aberdeen (from Kentucky)
Notre Dame2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Braeden Shrewsberry | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 53.2% | 40.2% | 7.1 | 77.8% | 21.8% | |
| 23 | Ethan Robertsat Penn | G | Sr | 6'5" | 23-23 | 30.5 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 46.9% | 40.4% | 4.3 | 79.9% | 33.0% | |
| 5 | Devin Brownat Davidson | G | So | 6'6" | 34-27 | 23.4 | 6.4 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 48.3% | 31.0% | 2.6 | 63.2% | 19.1% | |
| 51 | Logan Duncombat Winthrop | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-28 | 24.3 | 18.3 | 8.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 73.5% | 36.9% | |
| 2 | Logan Imes | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-10 | 21.1 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 46.2% | 32.5% | 2.5 | 52.4% | 17.7% | |
| 3 | Braeden Smithat Gonzaga | G | Sr | 6'0" | 35-18 | 17.1 | 5.1 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 52.9% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 80.5% | 18.5% | |
| 6 | Brady Koehler | F | So | 6'10" | 30-13 | 15.9 | 5.6 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 53.6% | 38.2% | 1.8 | 73.9% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Bryce Ruglass Dortchat Rutgers | F | Jr | 6'9" | 31-3 | 14.5 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 61.0% | — | 0.0 | 53.6% | 8.9% | |
| 0 | Brady Stevens | G | Jr | 6'4" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 23.3% | |
| 22 | Luke Devine | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Tommy Ahneman | C | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 44 | Gan-Erdene Solongo | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jake Burow | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Jonathan Sanderson | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Nick Shrewsberry | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Yoro Diallo | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Transfers in: Devin Brown (from Davidson), Logan Duncomb (from Winthrop), Ethan Roberts (from Penn), Bryce Ruglass Dortch (from Rutgers), Braeden Smith (from Gonzaga)
Florida2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Thomas Haugh | F | Sr | 6'9" | 34-34 | 33.3 | 17.1 | 6.1 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 53.3% | 32.6% | 5.2 | 77.4% | 26.9% | |
| 1 | Denzel Aberdeenat Kentucky | G | Sr | 6'5" | 36-35 | 30.6 | 13.5 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 51.6% | 36.3% | 4.8 | 79.8% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | Boogie Fland | G | Jr | 6'3" | 35-35 | 30.0 | 11.6 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 49.2% | 24.0% | 3.6 | 72.6% | 23.3% | |
| 21 | Alex Condon | F | Sr | 6'11" | 34-34 | 30.5 | 15.1 | 7.5 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 56.9% | 17.0% | 1.6 | 64.9% | 27.8% | |
| 9 | Rueben Chinyelu | C | Sr | 6'10" | 35-35 | 24.5 | 10.9 | 11.2 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 58.4% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 69.5% | 23.8% | |
| 7 | Urban Klavzar | G | Sr | 6'1" | 35-0 | 20.7 | 9.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 59.6% | 40.6% | 5.0 | 90.3% | 22.4% | |
| 20 | Isaiah Brown | G | Jr | 6'4" | 32-0 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 54.0% | 34.6% | 1.6 | 73.3% | 22.9% | |
| 11 | CJ Ingram | G | So | 6'6" | 20-0 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 57.1% | 50.0% | 0.8 | 50.0% | 23.7% | |
| 4 | Alex Lloyd | G | So | 6'3" | 17-0 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 38.5% | 21.1% | 1.1 | 20.0% | 23.2% | |
| 8 | Alex Kovatchev | G | Sr | 6'5" | 15-0 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 22.2% | 0.6 | — | 14.5% | |
| 12 | Viktor Mikic | C | Jr | 6'11" | 15-0 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 32.6% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 53.8% | 39.7% | |
| 3 | AJ Brown | G | Sr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 25 | Arturas Butajevas | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 19 | Domen Petrovic | F | Jr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Jones Lay | C | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Transfers in: Denzel Aberdeen (from Kentucky)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Florida
Against the spread
Season
19-16
Home
7-8
Road
9-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +2.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 6 of 10 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 7 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
14-20-1
Home
6-9
Road
3-7
Last 10
5-4-1
avg vs total +3.0
Over in 5 of 10 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 4 of 7 with a line of 10+, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22 | #9Iowa | N | L 72–73 | −10.0 | L−11.0 | 145.0 | P145 | 117.8 | 119.4 | 61.1 |
| Mar 20 | #16Prairie View | N | W 114–55 | −35.0 | W+24.0 | 154.0 | O169 | 164.5 | 79.4 | 69.3 |
| Mar 14 | #22Vanderbilt | N | L 74–91 | −7.0 | L−24.0 | 160.0 | O165 | 115.8 | 142.4 | 63.9 |
| Mar 13 | Kentucky | N | W 71–63 | −10.0 | L−2.0 | 160.5 | U134 | 97.1 | 86.2 | 73.1 |
| Mar 7 | Kentucky | A | W 84–77 | −5.5 | W+1.5 | 162.0 | U161 | 117.3 | 107.6 | 71.6 |
| Mar 3 | Mississippi St | H | W 108–74 | −21.0 | W+13.0 | 160.5 | O182 | 143.9 | 98.6 | 75.1 |
| Feb 28 | #20Arkansas | H | W 111–77 | −10.5 | W+23.5 | 170.0 | O188 | 137.4 | 95.3 | 80.8 |
| Feb 25 | Texas | A | W 84–71 | −7.0 | W+6.0 | 158.5 | U155 | 130.1 | 110.0 | 64.5 |
| Feb 21 | Ole Miss | A | W 94–75 | −13.5 | W+5.5 | 150.5 | O169 | 122.2 | 97.5 | 76.9 |
| Feb 17 | South Carolina | H | W 76–62 | −23.0 | L−9.0 | 155.0 | U138 | 113.4 | 92.5 | 67.0 |
Notre Dame
Against the spread
Season
15-16
Home
8-9
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.9
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
22-9
Home
14-3
Road
8-3
Last 10
9-1
avg vs total +10.1
Over 8 straightOver in 6 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Boston College | A | L 69–77 | −2.5 | L−10.5 | 142.0 | O146 | 91.7 | 102.4 | 75.2 |
| Mar 4 | Stanford | H | L 78–86 | +1.0 | L−7.0 | 147.0 | O164 | 122.9 | 135.5 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | NC State | H | W 96–90 OT | +6.5 | W+12.5 | 155.0 | O186 | 134.5 | 126.1 | 71.4 |
| Feb 24 | #1Duke | H | L 56–100 | +17.0 | L−27.0 | 142.0 | O156 | 78.3 | 139.8 | 71.5 |
| Feb 21 | Pitt | A | L 68–73 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 108.4 | 116.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | Georgia Tech | H | W 89–74 | −6.0 | W+9.0 | 150.0 | O163 | 129.3 | 107.5 | 68.8 |
| Feb 10 | SMU | A | L 81–89 | +10.5 | W+2.5 | 154.0 | O170 | 117.2 | 128.8 | 69.1 |
| Feb 7 | Florida St | H | L 79–82 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 153.0 | O161 | 109.1 | 113.2 | 72.4 |
| Feb 4 | #24Louisville | A | L 65–76 | +18.0 | W+7.0 | 155.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 110.0 | 69.1 |
| Jan 31 | Syracuse | A | L 72–86 | +5.0 | L−9.0 | 147.5 | O158 | 107.1 | 127.9 | 67.2 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Tale of the tape
national rank toned left for away, right for homeFloridaNotre Dame
Efficiency
119.2
111.4
97.9
107.9
70.2
67.4
—
—
Shooting
54.1%
52.3%
58.5%
51.4%
31.2%
35.6%
71.2%
69.7%
39.0%
34.1%
Ball control & glass
16.3%
17.0%
15.3%
14.0%
43.3%
31.2%
24.8%
26.7%
9.0%
9.1%
7.0%
8.8%
Style
37.0%
43.5%
50.2%
40.2%
18.2%
9.8%
55.0%
47.4%
27.5%
31.4%
Roster
3.71
3.45
6'6.5"
6'5.8"
78.8%
34.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputFlorida
Returning minutes: 78.8%Returning production: 79.0%
Lost
- Xaivian Lee 27.4 mpg, 11.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Micah Handlogten 14.4 mpg, 4.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Olivier Rioux 0.5 mpg, 0.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Cooper Josefsberg 0.1 mpg, 0.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Denzel Aberdeen from Kentucky · 30.6 mpg, 13.5 ppg last season
- Jones Lay no D1 minutes last season
- Arturas Butajevas no D1 minutes last season
- AJ Brown no D1 minutes last season
- Domen Petrovic no D1 minutes last season
Returns 79% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Notre Dame
Returning minutes: 34.3%Returning production: 29.4%
Lost
- Cole Certa 26.9 mpg, 12.8 ppg · transferred to Clemson
- Carson Towt 26.0 mpg, 5.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jalen Haralson 23.2 mpg, 14.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Garrett Sundra 17.9 mpg, 3.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sir Mohammed 16.4 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Markus Burton 9.7 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ethan Roberts from Penn · 23.4 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
- Devin Brown from Davidson · 23.4 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
- Logan Duncomb from Winthrop · 22.9 mpg, 17.2 ppg last season
- Braeden Smith from Gonzaga · 17.1 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season
- Bryce Ruglass Dortch from Rutgers · 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg last season
- Nick Shrewsberry no D1 minutes last season
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). 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, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.