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-conferenceESPNULloyd Noble Center, Norman, OKACC/SEC Men's Challenge
Syracuse
Efficiency #85
2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf
@
Oklahoma
Efficiency #47
2025-26: 21-16 · 9-12 conf
Tue, Dec 1 · 9:00 PM ET
72.7
win 27%
Projected
79.9
win 73%
No line posted yet.
Model: OU −7.2 · total 152.6 · 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, Syracuse 68.3 → 67.7 possessions
−1.3
Oklahoma offense vs Syracuse defense
+4.5
Syracuse offense vs Oklahoma defense
+1.2
Projected total
152.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Oklahoma offense vs Syracuse defense
+4.5
Syracuse offense vs Oklahoma defense
−1.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Oklahoma by 7.2
7.2
Syracuse side ◂▸ Oklahoma 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 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, Oklahoma is the faster team (68.5, #174 of 365) and Syracuse the slower (67.8, #212). 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
152.6
model
Projected team totals
72.7 / 79.9
Syracuse / Oklahoma
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#185
Syracuse
67.7#232
Oklahoma
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetDefenseSyracuse
Syracuse's shot-blocking
Syracuse ranks #7 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 13.8% of Oklahoma's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageOklahoma
Where Oklahoma scores: shooting
Oklahoma shoots an effective 54.9% (#40); Syracuse allows 50.3% (#116). Expect about 52.9%, 1.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Oklahoma) 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 Syracuse at about 38.2% of its shots from three, Oklahoma about 40.5%.
GlassOklahoma
Oklahoma owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.6% is worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions for Oklahoma's offense.
AdvantageSyracuse
Where Syracuse scores: ball control
Syracuse turns it over on 16.0% of possessions (#136); Oklahoma forces turnovers on 15.5% of opponent possessions (#254). Expect about 15.5%, 1.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions.
ClashOklahoma
Style clash: 3-point volume
Oklahoma takes 43.6% of its shots from three; Syracuse runs teams off the line (35.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Syracuse has the ball
OffenseOklahoma allowsvs D1 avg
52.6% #122
51.0% #162
+0.9 pt/100
16.0% #136
15.5% #254
+1.6 pt/100
29.2% #228
32.9% #296
+0.2 pt/100
35.1% #171
34.9% #176
-0.0 pt/100
64.8% #361
—
-0.7 pt/100
Syracuse net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.1 pts/100
Oklahoma has the ball
OffenseSyracuse allowsvs D1 avg
54.9% #40
50.3% #116
+2.2 pt/100
14.4% #37
17.4% #124
+1.2 pt/100
32.8% #92
33.6% #310
+2.0 pt/100
35.5% #161
32.6% #117
-0.2 pt/100
75.4% #68
—
+0.3 pt/100
Oklahoma net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersSyracuseoffense vsOklahomadefense
Share of shots by zone
Syracuse shoots
39.0
7.0
16.7
37.4
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 | 62.4%#64 | 60.1%#235 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.9%#126 | 40.3%#196 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.8%#233 | 35.0%#77 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.9%#239 | 34.1%#189 | 33.7% |
Oklahomaoffense vsSyracusedefense
Share of shots by zone
Oklahoma shoots
35.7
4.6
16.1
43.6
Syracuse allows
40.2
7.7
16.2
35.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.5%#143 | 60.1%#232 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.8%#25 | 38.1%#138 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.5%#46 | 31.0%#9 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.5%#41 | 34.1%#186 | 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 numbersSyracuse
+0.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#165 of 365
Off reb %
29.2%
#228
Def reb %
66.4%
#310
Turnover %
16.0%
#136
Forced TO %
17.4%
#124
FT rate
35.1%
#171
FT allowed
32.6%
#117
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.5
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed+0.7
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 Syracuse’s +0.4 (#165).
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
Syracuse2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Gavin Dotyat Siena | G | Jr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 36.7 | 18.0 | 6.9 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 50.8% | 32.6% | 4.0 | 85.8% | 28.4% | |
| 25 | Aiden Tobiasonat Temple | G | Jr | 6'6" | 32-32 | 35.4 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 55.1% | 33.8% | 4.3 | 80.0% | 24.3% | |
| 23 | Luke Wilsonat App State | C | Jr | 6'10" | 32-30 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 8.3 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 64.2% | — | 0.0 | 56.7% | 21.2% | |
| 11 | Francis Folefacat Siena | F | So | 6'7" | 35-26 | 28.1 | 11.3 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 52.6% | 37.5% | 0.5 | 74.0% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Garwey Dualat McNeese | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-17 | 26.6 | 8.4 | 2.9 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 50.9% | 31.6% | 2.2 | 76.4% | 21.0% | |
| 7 | Kiyan Anthony | G | So | 6'5" | 29-2 | 18.7 | 8.0 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 44.6% | 25.4% | 2.4 | 62.8% | 28.7% | |
| 1 | Sadiq White Jr. | F | So | 6'8" | 31-11 | 15.2 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 57.1% | 36.8% | 0.6 | 51.3% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | Tasman Goodrickat Siena | F | Sr | 6'10" | 9-9 | 23.4 | 9.7 | 7.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 64.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 58.3% | 22.4% | |
| 24 | Noah Lobdell | G | Jr | 6'0" | 4-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 23.7% | |
| 6 | Calvin Russell III | G | So | 6'5" | 1-0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 126.8% | |
| 10 | Abdramane Siby | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Ethan Butler | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Iker Martinez | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Mark Morano | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ryan Moesch | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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: Gavin Doty (from Siena), Garwey Dual (from McNeese), Francis Folefac (from Siena), Tasman Goodrick (from Siena), Aiden Tobiason (from Temple), Luke Wilson (from App State)
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)
Syracuse2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Gavin Dotyat Siena | G | Jr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 36.7 | 18.0 | 6.9 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 50.8% | 32.6% | 4.0 | 85.8% | 28.4% | |
| 25 | Aiden Tobiasonat Temple | G | Jr | 6'6" | 32-32 | 35.4 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 55.1% | 33.8% | 4.3 | 80.0% | 24.3% | |
| 23 | Luke Wilsonat App State | C | Jr | 6'10" | 32-30 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 8.3 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 64.2% | — | 0.0 | 56.7% | 21.2% | |
| 11 | Francis Folefacat Siena | F | So | 6'7" | 35-26 | 28.1 | 11.3 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 52.6% | 37.5% | 0.5 | 74.0% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Garwey Dualat McNeese | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-17 | 26.6 | 8.4 | 2.9 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 50.9% | 31.6% | 2.2 | 76.4% | 21.0% | |
| 7 | Kiyan Anthony | G | So | 6'5" | 29-2 | 18.7 | 8.0 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 44.6% | 25.4% | 2.4 | 62.8% | 28.7% | |
| 1 | Sadiq White Jr. | F | So | 6'8" | 31-11 | 15.2 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 57.1% | 36.8% | 0.6 | 51.3% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | Tasman Goodrickat Siena | F | Sr | 6'10" | 9-9 | 23.4 | 9.7 | 7.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 64.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 58.3% | 22.4% | |
| 24 | Noah Lobdell | G | Jr | 6'0" | 4-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 23.7% | |
| 6 | Calvin Russell III | G | So | 6'5" | 1-0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 126.8% | |
| 10 | Abdramane Siby | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Ethan Butler | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Iker Martinez | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Mark Morano | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ryan Moesch | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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: Gavin Doty (from Siena), Garwey Dual (from McNeese), Francis Folefac (from Siena), Tasman Goodrick (from Siena), Aiden Tobiason (from Temple), Luke Wilson (from App State)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Syracuse
Against the spread
Season
14-17-1
Home
8-10
Road
4-4-1
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover −4.8
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+, 1 push
Over / under
Season
16-15-1
Home
7-11
Road
7-2
Last 10
4-5-1
avg vs total +5.0
Over in 3 of 7 as an underdog, 1 pushOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | SMU | N | L 69–86 | +4.0 | L−13.0 | 155.0 | P155 | 104.4 | 130.2 | 66.1 |
| Mar 7 | Pitt | H | L 69–71 OT | −6.5 | L−8.5 | 142.0 | U140 | 101.0 | 104.0 | 68.3 |
| Mar 3 | Louisville | A | L 62–77 | +15.0 | P0.0 | 160.0 | U139 | 91.6 | 113.8 | 67.7 |
| Feb 28 | Wake Forest | A | L 83–88 | +4.0 | L−1.0 | 152.0 | O171 | 127.5 | 135.2 | 65.1 |
| Feb 21 | #16North Carolina | H | L 64–77 | −1.5 | L−14.5 | 154.5 | U141 | 94.2 | 113.3 | 67.9 |
| Feb 16 | #3Duke | A | L 64–101 | +20.5 | L−16.5 | 145.0 | O165 | 99.8 | 157.4 | 64.2 |
| Feb 14 | SMU | H | W 79–78 | +2.0 | W+3.0 | 158.0 | U157 | 121.0 | 119.4 | 65.3 |
| Feb 11 | California | H | W 107–100 2OT | −6.5 | W+0.5 | 149.0 | O207 | 118.3 | 110.6 | 90.4 |
| Feb 7 | #18Virginia | A | L 59–72 | +14.0 | W+1.0 | 147.0 | U131 | 95.2 | 116.2 | 62.0 |
| Feb 2 | #14North Carolina | A | L 77–87 | +11.5 | W+1.5 | 158.0 | O164 | 106.5 | 120.3 | 72.3 |
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 homeSyracuseOklahoma
Efficiency
111.0
117.5
106.1
107.7
68.3
67.7
—
—
Shooting
52.6%
54.9%
54.5%
55.1%
32.9%
36.5%
64.8%
75.4%
35.1%
35.5%
Ball control & glass
16.0%
14.4%
17.4%
15.5%
29.2%
32.8%
33.6%
32.9%
9.9%
8.2%
7.9%
10.2%
Style
37.2%
43.6%
47.6%
37.1%
15.5%
10.1%
47.1%
50.9%
27.2%
29.7%
Roster
2.86
3.67
6'6.6"
6'5.9"
15.6%
38.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputSyracuse
Returning minutes: 15.6%Returning production: 13.6%
Lost
- Naithan George 32.2 mpg, 10.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nate Kingz 31.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- William Kyle III 28.1 mpg, 8.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- J.J. Starling 27.2 mpg, 10.3 ppg · transferred to Buffalo
- Donnie Freeman 22.5 mpg, 11.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tyler Betsey 17.5 mpg, 6.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Gavin Doty from Siena · 36.7 mpg, 18.0 ppg last season
- Aiden Tobiason from Temple · 35.4 mpg, 15.3 ppg last season
- Luke Wilson from App State · 28.2 mpg, 10.7 ppg last season
- Francis Folefac from Siena · 28.1 mpg, 11.3 ppg last season
- Garwey Dual from McNeese · 26.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg last season
- Tasman Goodrick from Siena · 6.0 mpg, 2.5 ppg last season
Returns 16% 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).
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.