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-conferenceConte Forum, Chestnut Hill, MA
New Hampshire
Efficiency #340
2025-26: 9-21 · 5-12 conf
@
Boston College
Efficiency #187
2025-26: 11-20 · 4-14 conf
Sun, Nov 15 · TBD
62.8
win 17%
Projected
74.0
win 83%
No line posted yet.
Model: BC −11.1 · total 136.8 · 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: Boston College 67.4, New Hampshire 68.3 → 67.4 possessions
−2.1
Boston College offense vs New Hampshire defense
−1.0
New Hampshire offense vs Boston College defense
−8.3
Projected total
136.8
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Boston College offense vs New Hampshire defense
−1.0
New Hampshire offense vs Boston College defense
+8.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Boston College by 11.1
11.1
New Hampshire side ◂▸ Boston College side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +11.2 against +11.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Boston College.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, New Hampshire is the faster team (67.1, #237 of 365) and Boston College the slower (66.4, #281). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
136.8
model
Projected team totals
62.8 / 74.0
New Hampshire / Boston College
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#184
New Hampshire
67.4#262
Boston College
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageNew Hampshire
Where New Hampshire struggles: shooting
New Hampshire shoots an effective 46.7% (#344); Boston College allows 48.9% (#62). Expect about 47.4%, 3.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.5 points per 100 possessions.
GlassNew Hampshire
New Hampshire gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.3% is worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions against New Hampshire's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Boston College, New Hampshire) 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 New Hampshire at about 42.1% of its shots from three, Boston College about 40.1%.
AdvantageBoston College
Where Boston College struggles: shooting
Boston College shoots an effective 47.0% (#338); New Hampshire allows 53.4% (#282). Expect about 49.9%, 1.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions.
GlassBoston College
Boston College gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.2% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Boston College's offense.
ClashBoston College
Style match: ball movement
Boston College creates off the dribble (assists on 47.4% of its baskets); New Hampshire breaks up passing offenses (assists on 48.0% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 46.4% — both habits push the same way.
New Hampshire has the ball
OffenseBoston College allowsvs D1 avg
46.7% #344
48.9% #62
-5.5 pt/100
16.5% #168
14.9% #300
+1.7 pt/100
25.7% #329
28.6% #87
-2.5 pt/100
28.5% #338
34.6% #166
-0.4 pt/100
65.1% #359
—
-0.6 pt/100
New Hampshire net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -7.5 pts/100
Boston College has the ball
OffenseNew Hampshire allowsvs D1 avg
47.0% #338
53.4% #282
-2.0 pt/100
15.4% #95
15.8% #231
+1.7 pt/100
28.3% #254
26.9% #32
-1.9 pt/100
32.4% #251
35.8% #206
-0.1 pt/100
65.3% #358
—
-0.6 pt/100
Boston College net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersNew Hampshireoffense vsBoston Collegedefense
Share of shots by zone
New Hampshire shoots
41.4
5.6
9.6
43.3
Boston College allows
38.9
5.3
16.6
39.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 52.2%#347 | 57.1%#116 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.6%#255 | 35.6%#78 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 31.4%#344 | 36.0%#110 | 38.0% |
| Three | 30.5%#333 | 31.9%#59 | 33.7% |
Boston Collegeoffense vsNew Hampshiredefense
Share of shots by zone
Boston College shoots
31.0
7.9
18.6
42.6
New Hampshire allows
43.8
7.4
12.0
36.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.3%#260 | 59.3%#202 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 45.7%#55 | 46.2%#321 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.0%#109 | 40.6%#262 | 38.0% |
| Three | 29.4%#348 | 34.3%#204 | 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 numbersNew Hampshire
−2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#288 of 365
Off reb %
25.7%
#329
Def reb %
73.1%
#32
Turnover %
16.5%
#168
Forced TO %
15.8%
#231
FT rate
28.5%
#338
FT allowed
35.8%
#206
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.5
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers−0.6
Foul shots drawn−1.7
Foul shots allowed−0.2
Boston College
−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#219 of 365
Off reb %
28.3%
#254
Def reb %
71.4%
#87
Turnover %
15.4%
#95
Forced TO %
14.9%
#300
FT rate
32.4%
#251
FT allowed
34.6%
#166
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security+0.9
Forcing turnovers−1.2
Foul shots drawn−0.7
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Boston College has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.8 (#219 of 365) to New Hampshire’s −2.6 (#288).
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
New Hampshire2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | Davide Poser | F | Jr | 6'4" | 30-30 | 28.5 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 47.6% | 32.6% | 5.8 | 66.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | John Squire | F | So | 6'8" | 30-30 | 26.7 | 6.1 | 5.7 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 60.0% | 26.7% | 0.5 | 62.3% | 13.6% | |
| 23 | Belal El Shakery | F | Jr | 6'8" | 29-29 | 26.6 | 11.4 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 43.3% | 5.9% | 1.2 | 49.1% | 33.1% | |
| 0 | Tyler Bike | G | Fr | 5'10" | 30-15 | 23.8 | 7.5 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 50.5% | 37.5% | 4.8 | 70.8% | 19.6% | |
| 8 | KiJan Robinson | G | Jr | 6'3" | 26-17 | 25.5 | 10.7 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 47.3% | 30.3% | 3.8 | 82.7% | 27.1% | |
| 5 | R.J. Kennedy | G | Fr | 6'1" | 30-5 | 19.6 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 45.6% | 31.0% | 2.9 | 70.6% | 19.7% | |
| 10 | Comeh Emuobor | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-1 | 18.9 | 9.0 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 41.7% | 10.7% | 1.0 | 65.1% | 35.4% | |
| 6 | Giannos Xanthopoulos | C | Fr | 6'10" | 29-0 | 6.4 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 47.5% | 30.8% | 0.4 | 91.7% | 17.6% | |
| 24 | Jon O'Neill | F | So | 6'9" | 15-0 | 6.2 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 75.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 9.3% | |
| 4 | Myles Blackley | G | Fr | 6'4" | 11-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 15.4% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 100.0% | 21.3% | |
| 3 | Dylan Saunders | F | Jr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 3.3 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 81.8% | 60.0% | 0.8 | 100.0% | 19.8% | |
| 14 | Antoni Siewruk | G | So | 6'9" | 5-0 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 23.9% | |
| 11 | Nick Sanford | G | So | 6'1" | 6-0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 17.0% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Boston College2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Ernest Sheltonat Merrimack | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-34 | 36.9 | 15.9 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 51.3% | 34.6% | 8.4 | 87.2% | 25.2% | |
| 5 | Armoni Zeiglerat Ball State | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-29 | 32.4 | 12.5 | 5.1 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 45.0% | 33.0% | 3.0 | 77.9% | 28.0% | |
| 0 | Money Williamsat Montana | G | Sr | 6'4" | 34-34 | 31.2 | 20.6 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 54.7% | 34.0% | 4.2 | 85.5% | 37.4% | |
| 20 | Brandon Benjaminat Fairfield | F | So | 6'8" | 32-31 | 31.3 | 14.2 | 10.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 56.8% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 68.6% | 26.5% | |
| 1 | Andrija Bukumirovicat UT Martin | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-32 | 29.3 | 13.8 | 7.8 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 59.0% | 36.4% | 4.0 | 57.5% | 26.5% | |
| 11 | JB Frankelat Northeastern | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-13 | 20.7 | 5.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 42.9% | 29.7% | 3.7 | 84.0% | 20.4% | |
| 33 | Luke Hungerat G Washington | F | Sr | 6'10" | 33-13 | 19.2 | 8.4 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 52.9% | 31.1% | 1.4 | 81.7% | 25.7% | |
| 13 | Aly Tounkaraat Arkansas St | F | Jr | 7'0" | 32-21 | 18.2 | 4.3 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 62.9% | — | 0.0 | 36.8% | 13.9% | |
| 2 | Colby Dugganat Charleston | F | Sr | 6'7" | 19-19 | 28.0 | 9.3 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 1.5 | 47.9% | 29.5% | 4.1 | 86.4% | 21.4% | |
| 7 | Jacob Furphyat UConn | G | So | 6'5" | 14-0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 42.9% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 15.7% | |
| 12 | Jameson O'Tooleat Fordham | G | Sr | 6'3" | 7-1 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 31.3% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 100.0% | 23.0% | |
| 21 | Will Eggemeier | G | Sr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 61.3% | |
| 22 | Jack Bailey | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | ak Smrekar | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jordan Ghee | G | Fr | 6'4" | 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: Brandon Benjamin (from Fairfield), Andrija Bukumirovic (from UT Martin), Colby Duggan (from Charleston), JB Frankel (from Northeastern), Jacob Furphy (from UConn), Luke Hunger (from G Washington), Jameson O'Toole (from Fordham), Ernest Shelton (from Merrimack), Aly Tounkara (from Arkansas St), Money Williams (from Montana), Armoni Zeigler (from Ball State)
New Hampshire2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | Davide Poser | F | Jr | 6'4" | 30-30 | 28.5 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 47.6% | 32.6% | 5.8 | 66.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | John Squire | F | So | 6'8" | 30-30 | 26.7 | 6.1 | 5.7 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 60.0% | 26.7% | 0.5 | 62.3% | 13.6% | |
| 23 | Belal El Shakery | F | Jr | 6'8" | 29-29 | 26.6 | 11.4 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 43.3% | 5.9% | 1.2 | 49.1% | 33.1% | |
| 0 | Tyler Bike | G | Fr | 5'10" | 30-15 | 23.8 | 7.5 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 50.5% | 37.5% | 4.8 | 70.8% | 19.6% | |
| 8 | KiJan Robinson | G | Jr | 6'3" | 26-17 | 25.5 | 10.7 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 47.3% | 30.3% | 3.8 | 82.7% | 27.1% | |
| 5 | R.J. Kennedy | G | Fr | 6'1" | 30-5 | 19.6 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 45.6% | 31.0% | 2.9 | 70.6% | 19.7% | |
| 10 | Comeh Emuobor | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-1 | 18.9 | 9.0 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 41.7% | 10.7% | 1.0 | 65.1% | 35.4% | |
| 6 | Giannos Xanthopoulos | C | Fr | 6'10" | 29-0 | 6.4 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 47.5% | 30.8% | 0.4 | 91.7% | 17.6% | |
| 24 | Jon O'Neill | F | So | 6'9" | 15-0 | 6.2 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 75.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 9.3% | |
| 4 | Myles Blackley | G | Fr | 6'4" | 11-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 15.4% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 100.0% | 21.3% | |
| 3 | Dylan Saunders | F | Jr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 3.3 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 81.8% | 60.0% | 0.8 | 100.0% | 19.8% | |
| 14 | Antoni Siewruk | G | So | 6'9" | 5-0 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 23.9% | |
| 11 | Nick Sanford | G | So | 6'1" | 6-0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 17.0% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26New Hampshire
Against the spread
Season
12-16
Home
4-7
Road
8-9
Last 10
1-9
avg cover −9.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 0 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-13
Home
7-4
Road
8-9
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +5.4
Over 3 straightOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | UMBC | A | L 69–84 | +13.0 | L−2.0 | 142.0 | O153 | 106.0 | 129.1 | 65.1 |
| Mar 3 | Bryant | H | W 88–83 2OT | −1.0 | W+4.0 | 135.5 | O171 | 112.7 | 106.3 | 78.1 |
| Feb 28 | UAlbany | A | L 61–84 | +3.0 | L−20.0 | 139.0 | O145 | 91.0 | 125.3 | 67.0 |
| Feb 26 | Binghamton | A | L 63–65 | −3.0 | L−5.0 | 141.5 | U128 | 100.5 | 103.7 | 62.7 |
| Feb 21 | Maine | H | L 58–61 | −3.5 | L−6.5 | 136.0 | U119 | 89.2 | 93.8 | 65.0 |
| Feb 19 | UMass Lowell | A | L 56–78 | +3.5 | L−18.5 | 151.0 | U134 | 79.5 | 110.7 | 70.5 |
| Feb 14 | UMBC | H | L 63–85 | +2.0 | L−20.0 | 144.0 | O148 | 91.6 | 123.6 | 68.8 |
| Feb 12 | NJIT | H | L 70–76 | −2.5 | L−8.5 | 143.5 | O146 | 104.8 | 113.8 | 66.8 |
| Feb 7 | Vermont | A | L 57–80 | +10.0 | L−13.0 | 138.0 | U137 | 84.0 | 117.9 | 67.8 |
| Jan 31 | Bryant | A | L 84–92 | +1.0 | L−7.0 | 132.5 | O176 | 113.6 | 124.4 | 73.9 |
Boston College
Against the spread
Season
15-16
Home
9-8
Road
6-5
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +0.8
Covered 2 straightCovered 6 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
12-19
Home
6-11
Road
4-7
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −2.1
Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 10 as an underdogOver in 2 of 5 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Notre Dame | H | W 77–69 | +2.5 | W+10.5 | 142.0 | O146 | 102.4 | 91.7 | 75.2 |
| Mar 3 | Virginia Tech | A | L 63–72 | +11.5 | W+2.5 | 143.0 | U135 | 95.2 | 108.8 | 66.2 |
| Feb 28 | Miami | A | L 54–76 | +16.0 | L−6.0 | 144.5 | U130 | 83.6 | 117.6 | 64.6 |
| Feb 25 | Wake Forest | H | W 68–67 | +4.0 | W+5.0 | 144.5 | U135 | 106.9 | 105.3 | 63.6 |
| Feb 21 | SMU | A | L 70–94 | +15.5 | L−8.5 | 150.0 | O164 | 106.6 | 143.1 | 65.7 |
| Feb 17 | Florida St | A | L 72–80 | +12.0 | W+4.0 | 148.0 | O152 | 107.6 | 119.6 | 66.9 |
| Feb 14 | California | H | L 75–86 | +3.5 | L−7.5 | 141.0 | O161 | 116.1 | 133.1 | 64.6 |
| Feb 11 | Stanford | H | L 64–70 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 139.5 | U134 | 93.4 | 102.2 | 68.5 |
| Feb 7 | Miami | H | L 68–74 | +8.0 | W+2.0 | 141.5 | O142 | 97.4 | 106.0 | 69.8 |
| Feb 3 | #4Duke | A | L 49–67 | +26.5 | W+8.5 | 142.0 | U116 | 79.8 | 109.1 | 61.4 |
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 homeNew HampshireBoston College
Efficiency
100.1
103.8
111.6
104.5
68.3
67.4
—
—
Shooting
46.7%
47.0%
47.4%
49.1%
30.5%
29.4%
65.1%
65.3%
28.5%
32.4%
Ball control & glass
16.5%
15.4%
15.8%
14.9%
25.7%
28.3%
26.9%
28.6%
9.1%
9.2%
11.3%
10.0%
Style
43.1%
42.4%
45.7%
40.9%
11.4%
9.5%
44.3%
47.4%
32.9%
30.0%
Roster
2.25
3.65
6'4.4"
6'6.3"
86.4%
0.0%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputNew Hampshire
Returning minutes: 86.4%Returning production: 86.0%
Lost
- Jack Graham 28.0 mpg, 11.2 ppg · transferred to Marist
Added
Nobody of note.
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 86% 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).
Boston College
Returning minutes: 0.0%Returning production: -0.1%
Lost
- Fred Payne 34.7 mpg, 15.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Donald Hand Jr. 27.8 mpg, 11.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Boden Kapke 26.8 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Aidan Shaw 25.5 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chase Forte 23.3 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jayden Hastings 22.6 mpg, 6.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ernest Shelton from Merrimack · 36.9 mpg, 15.9 ppg last season
- Armoni Zeigler from Ball State · 32.4 mpg, 12.5 ppg last season
- Money Williams from Montana · 31.2 mpg, 20.6 ppg last season
- Brandon Benjamin from Fairfield · 29.5 mpg, 13.4 ppg last season
- Andrija Bukumirovic from UT Martin · 28.4 mpg, 13.3 ppg last season
- JB Frankel from Northeastern · 20.0 mpg, 5.7 ppg last season
Returns 0% 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 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.