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-conferenceLittlejohn Coliseum, Clemson, SC
Georgetown
Efficiency #95
2025-26: 16-18 · 8-15 conf
@
Clemson
Efficiency #35
2025-26: 24-11 · 14-7 conf
Fri, Nov 13 · TBD
65.8
win 23%
Projected
74.3
win 77%
No line posted yet.
Model: CLEM −8.5 · total 140.2 · 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: Clemson 66.1, Georgetown 67.6 → 65.4 possessions
−6.4
Clemson offense vs Georgetown defense
+1.5
Georgetown offense vs Clemson defense
−3.2
Projected total
140.2
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Clemson offense vs Georgetown defense
+1.5
Georgetown offense vs Clemson defense
+3.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Clemson by 8.5
8.5
Georgetown side ◂▸ Clemson side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 140.1 against a projected 140.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Clemson.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Georgetown is the faster team (67.0, #244 of 365) and Clemson the slower (65.1, #330). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
140.2
model
Projected team totals
65.8 / 74.3
Georgetown / Clemson
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.6#247
Georgetown
66.1#338
Clemson
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Clemson averages 65.1 possessions per 40, Georgetown 67.0. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageGeorgetown
Where Georgetown struggles: shooting
Georgetown shoots an effective 49.6% (#257); Clemson allows 48.8% (#59). Expect about 49.1%, 2.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.1 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageClemson
Where Clemson scores: ball control
Clemson turns it over on 14.0% of possessions (#24); Georgetown forces turnovers on 16.2% of opponent possessions (#212). Expect about 14.8%, 1.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions.
ClashGeorgetown
Style clash: 3-point volume
Georgetown rarely shoots threes (35.2% of its shots); Clemson lets opponents take 43.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 38.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashGeorgetown
Style clash: ball movement
Georgetown assists on 57.8% of its made baskets; Clemson breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.0% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 51.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
Georgetown has the ball
OffenseClemson allowsvs D1 avg
49.6% #257
48.8% #59
-3.1 pt/100
15.8% #119
17.4% #123
+0.2 pt/100
32.5% #107
26.3% #21
-0.3 pt/100
37.3% #121
33.9% #150
+0.1 pt/100
74.0% #133
—
+0.1 pt/100
Georgetown net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.1 pts/100
Clemson has the ball
OffenseGeorgetown allowsvs D1 avg
52.6% #126
49.9% #96
+0.1 pt/100
14.0% #24
16.2% #212
+2.4 pt/100
28.1% #264
31.5% #228
-0.7 pt/100
36.7% #136
33.9% #146
+0.0 pt/100
72.5% #187
—
+0.0 pt/100
Clemson net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersGeorgetownoffense vsClemsondefense
Share of shots by zone
Georgetown shoots
39.1
6.3
19.7
35.0
Clemson allows
33.0
5.5
17.9
43.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.9%#243 | 57.6%#133 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.7%#182 | 35.1%#60 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.9%#80 | 37.1%#135 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.8%#285 | 32.4%#88 | 33.7% |
Clemsonoffense vsGeorgetowndefense
Share of shots by zone
Clemson shoots
36.3
6.9
13.7
43.1
Georgetown allows
35.4
4.9
18.7
41.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.0%#195 | 56.6%#105 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 52.4%#5 | 33.3%#31 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#81 | 41.9%#294 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.1%#165 | 33.3%#139 | 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 numbersGeorgetown
+1.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#113 of 365
Off reb %
32.5%
#107
Def reb %
68.5%
#228
Turnover %
15.8%
#119
Forced TO %
16.2%
#212
FT rate
37.3%
#121
FT allowed
33.9%
#146
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.7
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+0.7
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn+0.6
Foul shots allowed+0.3
Clemson
+3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#40 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#264
Def reb %
73.7%
#21
Turnover %
14.0%
#24
Forced TO %
17.4%
#123
FT rate
36.7%
#136
FT allowed
33.9%
#150
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding+1.4
Ball security+1.9
Forcing turnovers+0.5
Foul shots drawn+0.4
Foul shots allowed+0.3
Clemson has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.8 (#40 of 365) to Georgetown’s +1.7 (#113).
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
Georgetown2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Georgetown'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Malik Mack | G | Jr | 6'2" | 34-34 | 32.2 | 13.6 | 3.0 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 45.0% | 29.8% | 5.5 | 81.8% | 28.8% | |
| 4 | Caleb Williams | F | So | 6'7" | 33-33 | 30.0 | 8.8 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 54.2% | 37.7% | 3.5 | 75.4% | 17.1% | |
| 5 | KJ Lewis | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-27 | 30.0 | 14.9 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 45.6% | 30.5% | 3.8 | 75.2% | 33.1% | |
| 25 | Jeremiah Williams | G | Sr | 6'4" | 34-7 | 20.3 | 5.9 | 1.9 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 43.1% | 37.1% | 1.0 | 67.9% | 22.7% | |
| 7 | Isaiah Abraham | F | So | 6'7" | 33-31 | 19.9 | 4.8 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 47.2% | 32.5% | 2.3 | 69.4% | 15.9% | |
| 11 | Julius Halaifonua | C | So | 7'0" | 32-28 | 19.8 | 9.5 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 62.4% | 27.3% | 0.7 | 74.7% | 24.1% | |
| 3 | Vince Iwuchukwu | C | Sr | 7'1" | 24-6 | 23.2 | 11.6 | 6.1 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 56.6% | 37.5% | 0.7 | 75.5% | 28.5% | |
| 45 | Kayvaun Mulready | G | So | 6'4" | 32-2 | 16.8 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 52.8% | 34.1% | 2.8 | 72.4% | 20.5% | |
| 0 | Jayden Fort | F | So | 6'9" | 34-1 | 13.6 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.6% | 10.0% | 0.3 | 60.0% | 15.7% | |
| 13 | Langston Love | G | Sr | 6'5" | 22-1 | 12.4 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 45.6% | 25.0% | 1.5 | 80.0% | 16.5% | |
| 1 | DeShawn Harris-Smith | G | Jr | 6'5" | 6-0 | 16.7 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 16.7% | |
| 14 | Seal Diouf | C | So | 6'9" | 10-0 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 24.1% | |
| 22 | Mason Moses | G | So | 6'6" | 3-0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 27.4% | |
| 30 | Michael Van Raaphorst | G | So | 6'2" | 3-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 14.5% | |
| 12 | Austin Montgomery | F | Jr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 8 | Gabriel Landeira | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Hashem Asadallah | 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.
Clemson2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cole Certaat Notre Dame | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-16 | 26.9 | 12.8 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 50.8% | 36.7% | 7.1 | 89.2% | 26.6% | |
| 15 | Dylan Faulknerat Samford | F | Sr | 6'10" | 30-30 | 26.2 | 17.2 | 8.6 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 61.7% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 56.3% | 34.5% | |
| 45 | Liutauras Leleviciusat TCU | F | Sr | 6'7" | 34-22 | 23.7 | 8.0 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 57.4% | 38.0% | 3.6 | 88.7% | 17.1% | |
| 8 | David Fuchsat San Francisco | F | Sr | 6'9" | 29-19 | 24.0 | 12.7 | 7.8 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 53.9% | 30.3% | 1.1 | 64.5% | 32.3% | |
| 21 | Ace Buckner | G | Jr | 6'3" | 35-3 | 19.5 | 8.3 | 2.9 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 49.1% | 31.2% | 2.7 | 81.3% | 27.6% | |
| 22 | Carter Welling | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-24 | 20.9 | 10.2 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 53.2% | 29.3% | 1.8 | 70.1% | 29.3% | |
| 3 | Chase Thompson | F | So | 6'8" | 35-0 | 8.9 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 62.3% | 40.0% | 0.7 | 68.4% | 14.4% | |
| 5 | Zac Foster | G | So | 6'4" | 12-0 | 18.6 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 38.7% | 27.7% | 3.9 | 81.8% | 29.1% | |
| 11 | Dallas Thomas | F | Jr | 6'9" | 22-0 | 4.4 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 71.0% | 57.1% | 1.0 | 62.5% | 24.8% | |
| 44 | Trent Steinour | F | So | 6'10" | 6-0 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 30.2% | |
| 4 | Blake Davidson | F | So | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Amare James | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Harris Reynolds | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 25 | Will Stevens | C | Fr | 6'10" | 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: Cole Certa (from Notre Dame), Dylan Faulkner (from Samford), David Fuchs (from San Francisco), Liutauras Lelevicius (from TCU)
Georgetown2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Georgetown'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Malik Mack | G | Jr | 6'2" | 34-34 | 32.2 | 13.6 | 3.0 | 4.1 | 2.0 | 45.0% | 29.8% | 5.5 | 81.8% | 28.8% | |
| 4 | Caleb Williams | F | So | 6'7" | 33-33 | 30.0 | 8.8 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 54.2% | 37.7% | 3.5 | 75.4% | 17.1% | |
| 5 | KJ Lewis | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-27 | 30.0 | 14.9 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 45.6% | 30.5% | 3.8 | 75.2% | 33.1% | |
| 25 | Jeremiah Williams | G | Sr | 6'4" | 34-7 | 20.3 | 5.9 | 1.9 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 43.1% | 37.1% | 1.0 | 67.9% | 22.7% | |
| 7 | Isaiah Abraham | F | So | 6'7" | 33-31 | 19.9 | 4.8 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 47.2% | 32.5% | 2.3 | 69.4% | 15.9% | |
| 11 | Julius Halaifonua | C | So | 7'0" | 32-28 | 19.8 | 9.5 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 62.4% | 27.3% | 0.7 | 74.7% | 24.1% | |
| 3 | Vince Iwuchukwu | C | Sr | 7'1" | 24-6 | 23.2 | 11.6 | 6.1 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 56.6% | 37.5% | 0.7 | 75.5% | 28.5% | |
| 45 | Kayvaun Mulready | G | So | 6'4" | 32-2 | 16.8 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 52.8% | 34.1% | 2.8 | 72.4% | 20.5% | |
| 0 | Jayden Fort | F | So | 6'9" | 34-1 | 13.6 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.6% | 10.0% | 0.3 | 60.0% | 15.7% | |
| 13 | Langston Love | G | Sr | 6'5" | 22-1 | 12.4 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 45.6% | 25.0% | 1.5 | 80.0% | 16.5% | |
| 1 | DeShawn Harris-Smith | G | Jr | 6'5" | 6-0 | 16.7 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 16.7% | |
| 14 | Seal Diouf | C | So | 6'9" | 10-0 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 24.1% | |
| 22 | Mason Moses | G | So | 6'6" | 3-0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 27.4% | |
| 30 | Michael Van Raaphorst | G | So | 6'2" | 3-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 14.5% | |
| 12 | Austin Montgomery | F | Jr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 8 | Gabriel Landeira | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Hashem Asadallah | 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 2025-26Georgetown
Against the spread
Season
14-19-1
Home
4-12-1
Road
8-4
Last 10
5-4-1
avg cover +2.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
18-16
Home
13-4
Road
3-9
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −1.7
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13 | #6UConn | N | L 51–67 | +14.0 | L−2.0 | 139.0 | U118 | 85.7 | 112.6 | 59.5 |
| Mar 12 | Villanova | N | W 78–64 | +6.5 | W+20.5 | 141.0 | O142 | 121.1 | 99.4 | 64.4 |
| Mar 11 | DePaul | N | W 63–56 | +5.0 | W+12.0 | 130.0 | U119 | 100.2 | 89.0 | 62.9 |
| Mar 7 | Providence | H | W 80–79 | −1.0 | P0.0 | 157.0 | O159 | 109.8 | 108.5 | 72.8 |
| Mar 3 | #18St John's | A | L 69–72 | +15.5 | W+12.5 | 148.0 | U141 | 99.2 | 103.5 | 69.6 |
| Feb 28 | Xavier | A | L 84–91 | +4.5 | L−2.5 | 154.0 | O175 | 117.6 | 127.4 | 71.4 |
| Feb 24 | Marquette | H | L 60–76 | −2.5 | L−18.5 | 150.5 | U136 | 92.0 | 116.6 | 65.2 |
| Feb 21 | Seton Hall | A | L 47–51 | +5.5 | W+1.5 | 136.0 | U98 | 74.4 | 80.8 | 63.1 |
| Feb 18 | Butler | H | L 89–93 | −6.0 | L−10.0 | 147.0 | O182 | 130.5 | 136.4 | 68.2 |
| Feb 14 | #6UConn | A | L 75–79 | +17.0 | W+13.0 | 138.5 | O154 | 114.7 | 120.8 | 65.4 |
Clemson
Against the spread
Season
16-17-2
Home
6-8-2
Road
7-4
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −3.7
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-21
Home
6-10
Road
5-6
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +1.2
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #9Iowa | N | L 61–67 | +1.5 | L−4.5 | 131.0 | U128 | 113.6 | 124.7 | 53.7 |
| Mar 13 | #1Duke | N | L 61–73 | +10.5 | L−1.5 | 135.0 | U134 | 96.5 | 115.5 | 63.2 |
| Mar 12 | #19North Carolina | N | W 80–79 | −1.5 | L−0.5 | 140.5 | O159 | 115.9 | 114.5 | 69.0 |
| Mar 11 | Wake Forest | N | W 71–62 | −5.5 | W+3.5 | 142.0 | U133 | 119.0 | 103.9 | 59.6 |
| Mar 7 | Georgia Tech | H | W 79–76 | −17.5 | L−14.5 | 144.5 | O155 | 119.4 | 114.9 | 66.2 |
| Mar 3 | #17North Carolina | A | L 63–67 | +2.5 | L−1.5 | 142.0 | U130 | 96.2 | 102.3 | 65.5 |
| Feb 28 | #24Louisville | H | W 80–75 | +2.0 | W+7.0 | 146.5 | O155 | 114.4 | 107.3 | 69.9 |
| Feb 21 | Florida St | H | L 65–70 | −8.5 | L−13.5 | 144.5 | U135 | 108.6 | 116.9 | 59.9 |
| Feb 18 | Wake Forest | A | L 77–85 | −4.0 | L−12.0 | 140.0 | O162 | 115.6 | 127.6 | 66.6 |
| Feb 14 | #4Duke | A | L 54–67 | +13.5 | W+0.5 | 133.5 | U121 | 87.2 | 108.2 | 61.9 |
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 homeGeorgetownClemson
Efficiency
110.7
112.9
106.3
101.3
67.6
66.1
—
—
Shooting
49.6%
52.6%
50.7%
53.6%
31.8%
34.1%
74.0%
72.5%
37.3%
36.7%
Ball control & glass
15.8%
14.0%
16.2%
17.4%
32.5%
28.1%
31.5%
26.3%
9.2%
8.4%
9.1%
10.1%
Style
35.2%
43.1%
44.1%
42.2%
16.0%
10.0%
57.8%
50.3%
33.5%
37.6%
Roster
2.74
3.47
6'6.3"
6'7.4"
—
28.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputGeorgetown
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Georgetown'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.)
Clemson
Returning minutes: 28.4%Returning production: 32.0%
Lost
- Dillon Hunter 28.6 mpg, 7.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jestin Porter 27.1 mpg, 9.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- RJ Godfrey 25.2 mpg, 12.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nick Davidson 21.9 mpg, 9.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Butta Johnson 21.1 mpg, 6.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jake Wahlin 20.5 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Cole Certa from Notre Dame · 26.9 mpg, 12.8 ppg last season
- Dylan Faulkner from Samford · 24.5 mpg, 16.1 ppg last season
- Liutauras Lelevicius from TCU · 23.0 mpg, 7.8 ppg last season
- David Fuchs from San Francisco · 21.1 mpg, 11.2 ppg last season
- Blake Davidson no D1 minutes last season
- Will Stevens no D1 minutes last season
Returns 28% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Nov 15 | 2025-26 | Clemson 74 – 79 Georgetown |
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.