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-conferenceLloyd Noble Center, Norman, OK
East Texas A&M
Efficiency #311
2025-26: 11-21 · 6-16 conf
@
Oklahoma
Efficiency #47
2025-26: 21-16 · 9-12 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
67.5
win 8%
Projected
83.6
win 92%
No line posted yet.
Model: OU −16.1 · total 151.1 · 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: Oklahoma 67.7, East Texas A&M 69.0 → 68.4 possessions
+0.2
Oklahoma offense vs East Texas A&M defense
+7.5
East Texas A&M offense vs Oklahoma defense
−4.7
Projected total
151.1
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Oklahoma offense vs East Texas A&M defense
+7.5
East Texas A&M offense vs Oklahoma defense
+4.7
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Oklahoma by 16.1
16.1
East Texas A&M side ◂▸ Oklahoma side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 151.2 against a projected 151.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Oklahoma.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, East Texas A&M is the faster team (68.5, #171 of 365) and Oklahoma the slower (68.5, #174). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
151.1
model
Projected team totals
67.5 / 83.6
East Texas A&M / Oklahoma
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.0#123
East Texas A&M
67.7#232
Oklahoma
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageOklahoma
Where Oklahoma scores: shooting
Oklahoma shoots an effective 54.9% (#40); East Texas A&M allows 52.9% (#261). Expect about 54.2%, 2.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.1 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Oklahoma, East Texas A&M's defense) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect East Texas A&M at about 45.5% of its shots from three, Oklahoma about 41.8%.
AdvantageEast Texas A&M
Where East Texas A&M struggles: shooting
East Texas A&M shoots an effective 49.2% (#282); Oklahoma allows 51.0% (#162). Expect about 50.0%, 1.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions.
GlassOklahoma
Oklahoma owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.2% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Oklahoma's offense.
TurnoversOklahoma
Oklahoma protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for Oklahoma's offense.
East Texas A&M has the ball
OffenseOklahoma allowsvs D1 avg
49.2% #282
51.0% #162
-1.9 pt/100
19.2% #330
15.5% #254
-0.7 pt/100
25.7% #328
32.9% #296
-1.3 pt/100
32.0% #257
34.9% #176
-0.2 pt/100
67.9% #328
—
-0.4 pt/100
East Texas A&M net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.4 pts/100
Oklahoma has the ball
OffenseEast Texas A&M allowsvs D1 avg
54.9% #40
52.9% #261
+4.1 pt/100
14.4% #37
17.0% #153
+1.5 pt/100
32.8% #92
32.8% #288
+1.7 pt/100
35.5% #161
34.5% #165
-0.0 pt/100
75.4% #68
—
+0.3 pt/100
Oklahoma net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersEast Texas A&Moffense vsOklahomadefense
Share of shots by zone
East Texas A&M shoots
36.0
6.1
12.5
45.4
Oklahoma allows
36.2
6.5
17.2
40.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.9%#200 | 60.1%#235 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.3%#190 | 40.3%#196 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 32.8%#332 | 35.0%#77 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.3%#313 | 34.1%#189 | 33.7% |
Oklahomaoffense vsEast Texas A&Mdefense
Share of shots by zone
Oklahoma shoots
35.7
4.6
16.1
43.6
East Texas A&M allows
43.6
6.1
12.6
37.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.5%#143 | 55.1%#62 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.8%#25 | 40.4%#197 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.5%#46 | 35.4%#85 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.5%#41 | 37.3%#347 | 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 numbersEast Texas A&M
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#332 of 365
Off reb %
25.7%
#328
Def reb %
67.2%
#288
Turnover %
19.2%
#330
Forced TO %
17.0%
#153
FT rate
32.0%
#257
FT allowed
34.5%
#165
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.5
Defensive rebounding−0.7
Ball security−1.7
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.8
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Oklahoma
+1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#134 of 365
Off reb %
32.8%
#92
Def reb %
67.1%
#296
Turnover %
14.4%
#37
Forced TO %
15.5%
#254
FT rate
35.5%
#161
FT allowed
34.9%
#176
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.8
Defensive rebounding−0.7
Ball security+1.6
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed+0.1
Oklahoma has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.1 (#134 of 365) to East Texas A&M’s −4.2 (#332).
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
East Texas A&M2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Gianni Hunt | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-32 | 30.9 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 46.5% | 31.3% | 4.0 | 76.4% | 23.9% | |
| 0 | Ronnie Harrison | F | Jr | 6'8" | 30-28 | 29.5 | 14.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 52.3% | 29.6% | 3.6 | 65.5% | 31.1% | |
| 13 | Noah Pagotto | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-22 | 26.1 | 10.4 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 59.3% | 37.3% | 1.6 | 76.8% | 21.0% | |
| 8 | Damian Garcia | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-24 | 26.0 | 10.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 49.8% | 33.3% | 5.0 | 57.1% | 26.7% | |
| 10 | Josh Taylor | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-12 | 16.8 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 53.4% | 31.0% | 0.9 | 55.3% | 19.5% | |
| 5 | Tay Mosher | F | Sr | 6'7" | 27-12 | 16.6 | 4.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 50.4% | 31.9% | 3.5 | 60.0% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Evan Phelps | G | Jr | 6'0" | 30-8 | 14.6 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 29.0% | 20.5% | 1.3 | 26.7% | 13.9% | |
| 6 | London Fields | G | Jr | 6'5" | 24-10 | 15.3 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 43.3% | 25.4% | 2.5 | 70.6% | 16.0% | |
| 7 | Michael Folarin | F | Sr | 6'10" | 20-4 | 13.4 | 5.2 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 52.2% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 63.5% | 23.2% | |
| 30 | Alex McCray | G | Jr | 6'1" | 20-2 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 41.2% | 22.2% | 0.9 | 81.8% | 15.3% | |
| 20 | Parker Whisenhunt | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 20.9% | |
| 3 | Mykol Sanchez-Vega | G | Sr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 6.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 25.0% | 20.0% | 2.5 | — | 28.3% | |
| 4 | Chris Adlam | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Kamren Robinson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Kollin Tolbert | G | Jr | 6'2" | 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.
Oklahoma2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Xzayvier Brown | G | Sr | 6'3" | 37-37 | 32.3 | 15.4 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 52.6% | 34.3% | 4.9 | 87.4% | 27.3% | |
| 32 | Duke Brennanat Villanova | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 31.0 | 12.4 | 10.3 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 65.8% | — | 0.0 | 61.3% | 22.3% | |
| 5 | B.J. Edwardsat SMU | G | Sr | 6'3" | 28-28 | 33.2 | 12.7 | 5.9 | 4.9 | 1.9 | 55.1% | 37.2% | 4.0 | 77.1% | 21.8% | |
| 35 | Derrion Reid | F | Jr | 6'8" | 37-37 | 27.5 | 11.7 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 57.1% | 35.8% | 2.6 | 76.1% | 22.1% | |
| 15 | Tyler Hendricksat Utah Valley | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-28 | 29.8 | 11.8 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 61.7% | 44.8% | 4.8 | 79.1% | 20.4% | |
| 2 | Pop Isaacsat Texas A&M | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-8 | 22.4 | 9.8 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 54.7% | 39.6% | 4.7 | 76.0% | 25.0% | |
| 11 | Khani Roothsat Louisville | F | Jr | 6'9" | 31-2 | 15.9 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 22.4% | 1.9 | 64.9% | 20.1% | |
| 7 | Dayton Forsythe | G | Jr | 6'2" | 28-0 | 17.2 | 5.3 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 40.0% | 28.1% | 2.0 | 86.0% | 21.8% | |
| 9 | Yaak Yaakat Oregon St | C | Sr | 7'0" | 25-9 | 15.0 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 52.6% | 27.3% | 0.4 | 82.9% | 25.8% | |
| 8 | Kai Rogers | F | So | 6'10" | 23-0 | 8.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 72.7% | — | 0.0 | 57.1% | 10.5% | |
| 6 | Finley Keeffe | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ben Moser | G | Sr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 4 | Gage Mayfield | F | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Quincy Wadley | G | Fr | 6'5" | 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: Duke Brennan (from Villanova), B.J. Edwards (from SMU), Tyler Hendricks (from Utah Valley), Pop Isaacs (from Texas A&M), Khani Rooths (from Louisville), Yaak Yaak (from Oregon St)
East Texas A&M2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Gianni Hunt | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-32 | 30.9 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 46.5% | 31.3% | 4.0 | 76.4% | 23.9% | |
| 0 | Ronnie Harrison | F | Jr | 6'8" | 30-28 | 29.5 | 14.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 52.3% | 29.6% | 3.6 | 65.5% | 31.1% | |
| 13 | Noah Pagotto | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-22 | 26.1 | 10.4 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 59.3% | 37.3% | 1.6 | 76.8% | 21.0% | |
| 8 | Damian Garcia | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-24 | 26.0 | 10.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 49.8% | 33.3% | 5.0 | 57.1% | 26.7% | |
| 10 | Josh Taylor | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-12 | 16.8 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 53.4% | 31.0% | 0.9 | 55.3% | 19.5% | |
| 5 | Tay Mosher | F | Sr | 6'7" | 27-12 | 16.6 | 4.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 50.4% | 31.9% | 3.5 | 60.0% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Evan Phelps | G | Jr | 6'0" | 30-8 | 14.6 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 29.0% | 20.5% | 1.3 | 26.7% | 13.9% | |
| 6 | London Fields | G | Jr | 6'5" | 24-10 | 15.3 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 43.3% | 25.4% | 2.5 | 70.6% | 16.0% | |
| 7 | Michael Folarin | F | Sr | 6'10" | 20-4 | 13.4 | 5.2 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 52.2% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 63.5% | 23.2% | |
| 30 | Alex McCray | G | Jr | 6'1" | 20-2 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 41.2% | 22.2% | 0.9 | 81.8% | 15.3% | |
| 20 | Parker Whisenhunt | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 20.9% | |
| 3 | Mykol Sanchez-Vega | G | Sr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 6.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 25.0% | 20.0% | 2.5 | — | 28.3% | |
| 4 | Chris Adlam | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Kamren Robinson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Kollin Tolbert | G | Jr | 6'2" | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26East Texas A&M
Against the spread
Season
13-15
Home
4-8
Road
8-7
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
12-15-1
Home
4-8
Road
7-7-1
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −2.6
Over in the last gameOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2 | Texas A&M-CC | A | L 71–84 | +8.0 | L−5.0 | 137.5 | O155 | 105.6 | 124.9 | 67.2 |
| Feb 28 | UT Rio Grande | A | L 55–63 | +10.0 | W+2.0 | 147.5 | U118 | 95.5 | 109.4 | 57.6 |
| Feb 23 | Hou Christian | H | L 68–69 | −2.0 | L−3.0 | 139.5 | U137 | 106.1 | 107.6 | 64.1 |
| Feb 21 | Incarnate Word | H | L 73–82 | −4.0 | L−13.0 | 146.5 | O155 | 127.6 | 143.4 | 57.2 |
| Feb 16 | SE Louisiana | H | W 70–53 | −1.5 | W+15.5 | 136.5 | U123 | 103.3 | 78.2 | 67.7 |
| Feb 14 | McNeese | H | L 54–97 | +13.5 | L−29.5 | 142.5 | O151 | 79.3 | 142.4 | 68.1 |
| Feb 9 | SF Austin | A | L 70–74 | +15.0 | W+11.0 | 144.5 | U144 | 104.7 | 110.7 | 66.8 |
| Feb 7 | N'Western St | H | W 52–48 | −2.0 | W+2.0 | 141.5 | U100 | 78.1 | 72.1 | 66.5 |
| Feb 4 | N'Western St | A | W 74–68 | +3.0 | W+9.0 | 143.0 | U142 | 117.1 | 107.6 | 63.2 |
| Feb 2 | LSU N Orleans | H | L 85–94 | +2.0 | L−7.0 | 151.0 | O179 | 108.5 | 120.0 | 78.3 |
Oklahoma
Against the spread
Season
17-19-1
Home
7-9
Road
5-6
Last 10
8-2
avg cover +8.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 6 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
19-18
Home
9-7
Road
6-5
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +4.2
Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5 | West Virginia | N | L 82–89 OT | −3.0 | L−10.0 | 138.5 | O171 | 114.2 | 123.9 | 71.8 |
| Apr 4 | Baylor | N | W 82–69 | +1.5 | W+14.5 | 159.5 | U151 | 117.1 | 98.5 | 70.0 |
| Apr 1 | Colorado | N | W 90–86 OT | −9.0 | L−5.0 | 162.0 | O176 | 108.6 | 103.8 | 82.9 |
| Mar 13 | #17Arkansas | N | L 79–82 | +6.0 | W+3.0 | 167.0 | U161 | 112.9 | 117.2 | 70.0 |
| Mar 12 | Texas A&M | N | W 83–63 | +2.0 | W+22.0 | 162.0 | U146 | 127.0 | 96.4 | 65.3 |
| Mar 11 | South Carolina | N | W 86–74 | −8.0 | W+4.0 | 149.0 | O160 | 134.9 | 116.1 | 63.8 |
| Mar 7 | Texas | A | W 88–85 OT | +6.5 | W+9.5 | 153.5 | O173 | 113.6 | 109.7 | 77.5 |
| Mar 3 | Missouri | H | W 80–64 | −1.0 | W+15.0 | 154.0 | U144 | 125.9 | 100.7 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | LSU | A | W 83–67 | +2.0 | W+18.0 | 156.0 | U150 | 127.1 | 102.6 | 65.3 |
| Feb 24 | Auburn | H | W 91–79 | +3.0 | W+15.0 | 158.0 | O170 | 137.2 | 119.1 | 66.3 |
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 homeEast Texas A&MOklahoma
Efficiency
102.4
117.5
110.3
107.7
69.0
67.7
—
—
Shooting
49.2%
54.9%
51.2%
55.1%
31.3%
36.5%
67.9%
75.4%
32.0%
35.5%
Ball control & glass
19.2%
14.4%
17.0%
15.5%
25.7%
32.8%
32.8%
32.9%
10.7%
8.2%
10.7%
10.2%
Style
46.2%
43.6%
41.9%
37.1%
13.4%
10.1%
62.4%
50.9%
32.7%
29.7%
Roster
3.53
3.67
6'5.8"
6'5.9"
91.3%
38.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputEast Texas A&M
Returning minutes: 91.3%Returning production: 91.8%
Lost
- Vinny Sigona 17.5 mpg, 7.1 ppg · transferred to Canisius
Added
- Kollin Tolbert no D1 minutes last season
- Kamren Robinson no D1 minutes last season
- Chris Adlam no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 91% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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).
Oklahoma
Returning minutes: 38.4%Returning production: 36.7%
Lost
- Nijel Pack 30.5 mpg, 16.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tae Davis 29.7 mpg, 13.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mohamed Wague 22.4 mpg, 6.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jadon Jones 18.0 mpg, 5.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kirill Elatontsev 8.6 mpg, 2.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kuol Atak 8.0 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Duke Brennan from Villanova · 30.1 mpg, 12.1 ppg last season
- B.J. Edwards from SMU · 27.4 mpg, 10.5 ppg last season
- Tyler Hendricks from Utah Valley · 24.5 mpg, 9.7 ppg last season
- Pop Isaacs from Texas A&M · 21.7 mpg, 9.5 ppg last season
- Khani Rooths from Louisville · 14.1 mpg, 4.7 ppg last season
- Yaak Yaak from Oregon St · 11.3 mpg, 5.0 ppg last season
Returns 38% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5. 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.