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
Miss Valley St
Efficiency #365
2025-26: 3-30 · 2-17 conf
@
Oklahoma
Efficiency #47
2025-26: 21-16 · 9-12 conf
Fri, Nov 6 · TBD
62.0
win 1%
Projected
87.9
win 99%
No line posted yet.
Model: OU −25.9 · total 149.8 · 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, Miss Valley St 68.3 → 67.7 possessions
−1.3
Oklahoma offense vs Miss Valley St defense
+12.5
Miss Valley St offense vs Oklahoma defense
−9.6
Projected total
149.8
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Oklahoma offense vs Miss Valley St defense
+12.5
Miss Valley St offense vs Oklahoma defense
+9.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Oklahoma by 25.9
25.9
Miss Valley St side ◂▸ Oklahoma side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +26.0 against +25.9. 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: 67.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Miss Valley St is the faster team (69.6, #109 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
67.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.8
model
Projected team totals
62.0 / 87.9
Miss Valley St / Oklahoma
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#180
Miss Valley St
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); Miss Valley St allows 55.5% (#341). Expect about 55.5%, 4.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.1 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageMiss Valley St
Where Miss Valley St struggles: shooting
Miss Valley St shoots an effective 45.2% (#359); Oklahoma allows 51.0% (#162). Expect about 47.6%, 3.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.2 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversMiss Valley St
Miss Valley St turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.9% is worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions against Miss Valley St's offense.
GlassOklahoma
Oklahoma owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.6% is worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions for Oklahoma's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Oklahoma, Miss Valley St, Miss Valley St'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 Miss Valley St at about 32.6% of its shots from three, Oklahoma about 44.7%.
ClashOklahoma
Style match: paint scoring
Oklahoma gets only 37.1% of its points in the paint; Miss Valley St protects the paint (37.7% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 39.7% — both habits push the same way.
Miss Valley St has the ball
OffenseOklahoma allowsvs D1 avg
45.2% #359
51.0% #162
-5.2 pt/100
21.9% #362
15.5% #254
-2.6 pt/100
26.4% #313
32.9% #296
-1.0 pt/100
33.9% #215
34.9% #176
-0.1 pt/100
71.6% #217
—
-0.1 pt/100
Miss Valley St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.9 pts/100
Oklahoma has the ball
OffenseMiss Valley St allowsvs D1 avg
54.9% #40
55.5% #341
+6.1 pt/100
14.4% #37
17.1% #145
+1.5 pt/100
32.8% #92
35.5% #346
+2.5 pt/100
35.5% #161
50.8% #362
+1.2 pt/100
75.4% #68
—
+0.3 pt/100
Oklahoma net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +11.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMiss Valley Stoffense vsOklahomadefense
Share of shots by zone
Miss Valley St shoots
30.9
6.1
33.2
29.8
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 | 54.6%#309 | 60.1%#235 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.6%#204 | 40.3%#196 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.7%#239 | 35.0%#77 | 38.0% |
| Three | 29.5%#346 | 34.1%#189 | 33.7% |
Oklahomaoffense vsMiss Valley Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Oklahoma shoots
35.7
4.6
16.1
43.6
Miss Valley St allows
37.6
5.7
14.6
42.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.5%#143 | 62.7%#318 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.8%#25 | 47.0%#331 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.5%#46 | 37.9%#157 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.5%#41 | 37.2%#346 | 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 numbersMiss Valley St
−10.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#365 of 365
Off reb %
26.4%
#313
Def reb %
64.5%
#346
Turnover %
21.9%
#362
Forced TO %
17.1%
#145
FT rate
33.9%
#215
FT allowed
50.8%
#362
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.3
Defensive rebounding−1.6
Ball security−3.5
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed−4.0
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 Miss Valley St’s −10.4 (#365).
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
Miss Valley St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Miss Valley St's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Michael James | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-31 | 36.8 | 21.4 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 51.2% | 34.0% | 7.5 | 90.4% | 34.3% | |
| 0 | Patrick Punch | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-28 | 30.6 | 8.1 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 36.8% | 25.2% | 3.7 | 72.3% | 21.1% | |
| 22 | Daniel Mayfield | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-28 | 29.5 | 13.4 | 6.1 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 45.7% | 30.0% | 2.1 | 79.1% | 29.9% | |
| 24 | X'Zaevion Barnett | G | Jr | 6'2" | 27-10 | 28.4 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 2.1 | 38.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 53.3% | 15.0% | |
| 20 | Mussa Mzein | C | Jr | 6'10" | 33-15 | 17.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 45.6% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 55.6% | 15.7% | |
| 3 | Lamont Sams | F | Sr | 6'9" | 19-16 | 26.7 | 8.4 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 48.8% | 28.8% | 2.7 | 80.0% | 19.9% | |
| 2 | Delkedric Holmes | G | Jr | 6'2" | 17-13 | 25.2 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 33.2% | 15.8% | 1.1 | 79.2% | 19.9% | |
| 11 | Xzayvion Childress | G | Jr | 6'0" | 13-10 | 30.6 | 8.2 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 46.5% | 29.7% | 2.8 | 87.5% | 19.1% | |
| 13 | Tyrone Iroghama | G | Jr | 6'8" | 29-5 | 11.7 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 49.1% | — | 0.0 | 38.6% | 18.2% | |
| 5 | Chance Sutton | F | Jr | 6'7" | 29-1 | 11.7 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 45.2% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 12.6% | |
| 21 | Samuel Murray | F | Jr | 6'8" | 15-5 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 12.5% | 0.5 | 59.1% | 22.8% | |
| 1 | Antonio Sisk | G | Sr | 6'1" | 4-2 | 20.3 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 35.7% | 25.0% | 2.0 | — | 14.3% | |
| 35 | Jonathan Pace | F | So | 6'10" | 15-1 | 4.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 58.3% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 14.7% | |
| 14 | George Ivory III | G | Sr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 9.5 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 71.4% | 66.7% | 1.5 | — | 25.5% | |
| 33 | PJ McDonald | F | So | 6'5" | 2-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 19.1% | |
| 23 | Derrick Singleton | F | Jr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 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)
Miss Valley St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Miss Valley St's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Michael James | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-31 | 36.8 | 21.4 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 51.2% | 34.0% | 7.5 | 90.4% | 34.3% | |
| 0 | Patrick Punch | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-28 | 30.6 | 8.1 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 36.8% | 25.2% | 3.7 | 72.3% | 21.1% | |
| 22 | Daniel Mayfield | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-28 | 29.5 | 13.4 | 6.1 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 45.7% | 30.0% | 2.1 | 79.1% | 29.9% | |
| 24 | X'Zaevion Barnett | G | Jr | 6'2" | 27-10 | 28.4 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 2.1 | 38.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 53.3% | 15.0% | |
| 20 | Mussa Mzein | C | Jr | 6'10" | 33-15 | 17.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 45.6% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 55.6% | 15.7% | |
| 3 | Lamont Sams | F | Sr | 6'9" | 19-16 | 26.7 | 8.4 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 48.8% | 28.8% | 2.7 | 80.0% | 19.9% | |
| 2 | Delkedric Holmes | G | Jr | 6'2" | 17-13 | 25.2 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 33.2% | 15.8% | 1.1 | 79.2% | 19.9% | |
| 11 | Xzayvion Childress | G | Jr | 6'0" | 13-10 | 30.6 | 8.2 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 46.5% | 29.7% | 2.8 | 87.5% | 19.1% | |
| 13 | Tyrone Iroghama | G | Jr | 6'8" | 29-5 | 11.7 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 49.1% | — | 0.0 | 38.6% | 18.2% | |
| 5 | Chance Sutton | F | Jr | 6'7" | 29-1 | 11.7 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 45.2% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 12.6% | |
| 21 | Samuel Murray | F | Jr | 6'8" | 15-5 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 12.5% | 0.5 | 59.1% | 22.8% | |
| 1 | Antonio Sisk | G | Sr | 6'1" | 4-2 | 20.3 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 35.7% | 25.0% | 2.0 | — | 14.3% | |
| 35 | Jonathan Pace | F | So | 6'10" | 15-1 | 4.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 58.3% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 14.7% | |
| 14 | George Ivory III | G | Sr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 9.5 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 71.4% | 66.7% | 1.5 | — | 25.5% | |
| 33 | PJ McDonald | F | So | 6'5" | 2-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 19.1% | |
| 23 | Derrick Singleton | F | Jr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 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 2025-26Miss Valley St
Against the spread
Season
15-16-1
Home
2-7-1
Road
11-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 10 as an underdogCovered 4 of 7 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
14-17-1
Home
4-5-1
Road
9-10
Last 10
3-6-1
avg vs total −1.8
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 10 as an underdog, 1 pushOver in 3 of 7 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | Grambling | N | L 52–77 | +13.5 | L−11.5 | 137.0 | U129 | 78.5 | 116.2 | 66.2 |
| Mar 5 | Jackson St | A | L 77–85 | +11.5 | W+3.5 | 145.0 | O162 | 116.7 | 128.8 | 66.0 |
| Mar 3 | Alcorn St | A | L 64–67 | +9.5 | W+6.5 | 139.0 | U131 | 99.1 | 103.7 | 64.6 |
| Feb 28 | AR-Pine Bluff | A | W 70–69 | +14.0 | W+15.0 | 147.5 | U139 | 100.4 | 99.0 | 69.7 |
| Feb 23 | Grambling | A | L 62–83 | +16.0 | L−5.0 | 137.0 | O145 | 78.6 | 105.2 | 78.9 |
| Feb 21 | Texas Southern | H | W 72–71 | +11.5 | W+12.5 | 143.5 | U143 | 105.3 | 103.8 | 68.4 |
| Feb 19 | Prairie View | H | L 62–72 | +9.0 | L−1.0 | 153.5 | U134 | 91.3 | 106.0 | 67.9 |
| Feb 16 | Alabama St | A | L 55–92 | +16.5 | L−20.5 | 143.0 | O147 | 76.1 | 127.3 | 72.3 |
| Feb 14 | Alabama A&M | A | L 65–72 | +15.5 | W+8.5 | 139.5 | U137 | 101.8 | 112.7 | 63.9 |
| Feb 9 | Alcorn St | H | L 66–74 | +5.5 | L−2.5 | 140.0 | P140 | 112.4 | 126.0 | 58.7 |
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 homeMiss Valley StOklahoma
Efficiency
95.1
117.5
117.8
107.7
68.3
67.7
—
—
Shooting
45.2%
54.9%
45.6%
55.1%
29.5%
36.5%
71.6%
75.4%
33.9%
35.5%
Ball control & glass
21.9%
14.4%
17.1%
15.5%
26.4%
32.8%
35.5%
32.9%
12.4%
8.2%
9.0%
10.2%
Style
30.2%
43.6%
37.9%
37.1%
15.9%
10.1%
52.9%
50.9%
26.5%
29.7%
Roster
3.34
3.67
6'4.8"
6'5.9"
—
38.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMiss Valley St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Miss Valley St's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 100% of last season's minutes. 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)
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 last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Mon, Dec 29 | 2025-26 | Miss Valley St 69 – 93 Oklahoma |
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.