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-conferenceCameron Indoor Stadium, Durham, NC
Army
Efficiency #336
2025-26: 11-21 · 5-14 conf
@
Duke
Efficiency #2
2025-26: 35-3 · 20-1 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
58.9
win 1%
Projected
87.0
win 99%
No line posted yet.
Model: DUKE −28.2 · total 145.9 · 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: Duke 67.2, Army 68.2 → 67.1 possessions
−2.7
Duke offense vs Army defense
+12.3
Army offense vs Duke defense
−12.0
Projected total
145.9
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Duke offense vs Army defense
+12.3
Army offense vs Duke defense
+12.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Duke by 28.2
28.2
Army side ◂▸ Duke side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 145.8 against a projected 145.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Duke.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Army is the faster team (67.2, #234 of 365) and Duke the slower (66.8, #250). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
145.9
model
Projected team totals
58.9 / 87.0
Army / Duke
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.2#195
Army
67.2#274
Duke
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageDuke
Where Duke scores: shooting
Duke shoots an effective 56.6% (#13); Army allows 55.1% (#334). Expect about 56.3%, 5.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +7.2 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageArmy
Where Army struggles: shooting
Army shoots an effective 49.3% (#279); Duke allows 46.2% (#13). Expect about 47.5%, 3.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.3 points per 100 possessions.
ClashArmy
Style match: 3-point volume
Army takes 53.3% of its shots from three; Duke lets opponents take 45.0% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 54.1% — both habits push the same way.
ClashDuke
Strength vs strength: offensive rebounding
Duke (#4 in offensive rebounding) against Army (#54 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 34.7%. Historically Duke's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.70 vs 0.49).
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Duke'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 Army at about 54.1% of its shots from three, Duke about 44.1%.
GlassArmy
Army gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Army's offense.
Army has the ball
OffenseDuke allowsvs D1 avg
49.3% #279
46.2% #13
-5.3 pt/100
17.2% #220
17.3% #132
-0.7 pt/100
29.6% #219
25.2% #10
-1.9 pt/100
26.8% #352
22.8% #2
-1.4 pt/100
71.7% #215
—
-0.1 pt/100
Army net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -9.4 pts/100
Duke has the ball
OffenseArmy allowsvs D1 avg
56.6% #13
55.1% #334
+7.2 pt/100
15.9% #135
15.4% #257
+1.6 pt/100
38.4% #4
27.7% #54
+2.6 pt/100
38.2% #97
39.6% #298
+0.5 pt/100
72.9% #175
—
+0.0 pt/100
Duke net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +12.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersArmyoffense vsDukedefense
Share of shots by zone
Army shoots
34.7
3.5
9.1
52.7
Duke allows
30.5
6.1
18.7
44.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.2%#187 | 55.4%#75 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.0%#194 | 41.9%#229 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 27.5%#364 | 34.4%#61 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#278 | 30.6%#27 | 33.7% |
Dukeoffense vsArmydefense
Share of shots by zone
Duke shoots
44.5
4.3
8.0
43.1
Army allows
38.3
5.2
14.3
42.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.4%#29 | 64.9%#348 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 42.7%#108 | 37.3%#121 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.1%#34 | 37.6%#144 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.7%#133 | 35.6%#285 | 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 numbersArmy
−3.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#319 of 365
Off reb %
29.6%
#219
Def reb %
72.3%
#54
Turnover %
17.2%
#220
Forced TO %
15.4%
#257
FT rate
26.8%
#352
FT allowed
39.6%
#298
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.3
Defensive rebounding+1.0
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−0.9
Foul shots drawn−2.1
Foul shots allowed−1.1
Duke
+9.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#1 of 365
Off reb %
38.4%
#4
Def reb %
74.8%
#10
Turnover %
15.9%
#135
Forced TO %
17.3%
#132
FT rate
38.2%
#97
FT allowed
22.8%
#2
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.6
Defensive rebounding+1.7
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.4
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed+3.2
Duke has more extra scoring chances per game: +9.3 (#1 of 365) to Army’s −3.7 (#319).
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
Army2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Army'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 | Ryan Curry | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-31 | 33.8 | 13.3 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 50.4% | 33.5% | 7.3 | 81.3% | 25.6% | |
| 10 | Jacen Holloway | F | So | 6'4" | 31-23 | 28.2 | 10.8 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 54.5% | 30.9% | 1.8 | 64.8% | 23.3% | |
| 4 | Jaxson Bell | G | So | 6'3" | 30-8 | 25.3 | 12.2 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 51.5% | 35.9% | 4.8 | 80.9% | 29.8% | |
| 1 | Jackson Furman | G | Fr | 6'3" | 32-8 | 23.5 | 8.9 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 47.7% | 34.7% | 5.4 | 82.2% | 26.7% | |
| 22 | Kevin McCarthy | G | So | 6'4" | 30-29 | 24.3 | 7.9 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 50.9% | 34.6% | 5.3 | 68.8% | 20.9% | |
| 32 | Tate Laczkowski | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-30 | 21.5 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 57.1% | 28.1% | 1.0 | 43.8% | 15.8% | |
| 54 | Jorn Everson | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-26 | 18.9 | 7.6 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 30.1% | 3.5 | 60.0% | 25.5% | |
| 5 | Joshua Eli | F | So | 6'6" | 29-0 | 14.3 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 53.9% | 54.2% | 0.8 | 62.2% | 17.3% | |
| 24 | Alex Engro | G | So | 6'2" | 23-0 | 6.6 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 25.0% | 12.5% | 1.0 | 50.0% | 15.4% | |
| 13 | Dillon Watt | G | Fr | 5'11" | 21-0 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 17.6% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 84.2% | 18.0% | |
| 23 | Dylan Benner | F | Fr | 6'7" | 19-1 | 5.7 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 43.1% | 20.8% | 1.3 | 62.5% | 22.3% | |
| 21 | Jackson Mayo | G | Sr | 6'0" | 16-2 | 5.9 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 39.5% | 27.8% | 2.3 | 50.0% | 27.1% | |
| 0 | Dayon Polk | G | So | 6'0" | 10-1 | 8.0 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 20.6% | 8.3% | 1.2 | — | 18.9% | |
| 12 | Dylan Murans | F | So | 6'7" | 12-0 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 50.0% | 17.5% | |
| 25 | Jahaan Green | G | Fr | 6'5" | 10-0 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 50.0% | 100.0% | 0.1 | 100.0% | 21.9% | |
| 14 | Brendon O'Keefe | G | So | 5'10" | 8-0 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.8 | — | 23.3% | |
| 34 | Nnaemeka Ikechi | F | So | 6'7" | 3-0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 11.3% | |
| 15 | Chanse Perkins | F | Sr | 6'4" | 0-1 | 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.
Duke2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | John Blackwellat Wisconsin | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-34 | 33.8 | 19.1 | 5.1 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.4% | 38.9% | 7.3 | 85.9% | 30.6% | |
| 7 | Dame Sarr | F | So | 6'8" | 38-30 | 23.5 | 6.4 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 32.3% | 3.5 | 53.2% | 18.8% | |
| 2 | Cayden Boozer | G | So | 6'4" | 38-11 | 22.8 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 54.8% | 30.3% | 1.7 | 81.3% | 20.6% | |
| 1 | Caleb Foster | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-30 | 24.9 | 8.3 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 53.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 58.2% | 21.0% | |
| 8 | Drew Scharnowskiat Belmont | F | Sr | 6'10" | 30-24 | 21.7 | 10.7 | 6.0 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 68.3% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 43.6% | 27.3% | |
| 26 | Jacob Theodosiouat Loyola MD | G | Sr | 6'4" | 27-18 | 23.4 | 13.1 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 51.7% | 29.6% | 3.6 | 67.2% | 35.2% | |
| 21 | Patrick Ngongba II | C | Jr | 6'11" | 32-28 | 21.9 | 10.1 | 5.8 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 62.8% | 25.8% | 1.0 | 66.4% | 24.8% | |
| 50 | Brock Davis | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Sebastian Wilkins | F | So | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Bryson Howard | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Cameron Williams | F | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Deron Rippey Jr. | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 30 | Joaquim Boumtje Boumtje | C | Fr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Maxime Meyer | C | Fr | 7'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Nick Arnold | G | Fr | 5'11" | 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: John Blackwell (from Wisconsin), Drew Scharnowski (from Belmont), Jacob Theodosiou (from Loyola MD)
Army2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Army'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 | Ryan Curry | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-31 | 33.8 | 13.3 | 4.1 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 50.4% | 33.5% | 7.3 | 81.3% | 25.6% | |
| 10 | Jacen Holloway | F | So | 6'4" | 31-23 | 28.2 | 10.8 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 54.5% | 30.9% | 1.8 | 64.8% | 23.3% | |
| 4 | Jaxson Bell | G | So | 6'3" | 30-8 | 25.3 | 12.2 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 51.5% | 35.9% | 4.8 | 80.9% | 29.8% | |
| 1 | Jackson Furman | G | Fr | 6'3" | 32-8 | 23.5 | 8.9 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 47.7% | 34.7% | 5.4 | 82.2% | 26.7% | |
| 22 | Kevin McCarthy | G | So | 6'4" | 30-29 | 24.3 | 7.9 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 50.9% | 34.6% | 5.3 | 68.8% | 20.9% | |
| 32 | Tate Laczkowski | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-30 | 21.5 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 57.1% | 28.1% | 1.0 | 43.8% | 15.8% | |
| 54 | Jorn Everson | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-26 | 18.9 | 7.6 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 30.1% | 3.5 | 60.0% | 25.5% | |
| 5 | Joshua Eli | F | So | 6'6" | 29-0 | 14.3 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 53.9% | 54.2% | 0.8 | 62.2% | 17.3% | |
| 24 | Alex Engro | G | So | 6'2" | 23-0 | 6.6 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 25.0% | 12.5% | 1.0 | 50.0% | 15.4% | |
| 13 | Dillon Watt | G | Fr | 5'11" | 21-0 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 17.6% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 84.2% | 18.0% | |
| 23 | Dylan Benner | F | Fr | 6'7" | 19-1 | 5.7 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 43.1% | 20.8% | 1.3 | 62.5% | 22.3% | |
| 21 | Jackson Mayo | G | Sr | 6'0" | 16-2 | 5.9 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 39.5% | 27.8% | 2.3 | 50.0% | 27.1% | |
| 0 | Dayon Polk | G | So | 6'0" | 10-1 | 8.0 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 20.6% | 8.3% | 1.2 | — | 18.9% | |
| 12 | Dylan Murans | F | So | 6'7" | 12-0 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 50.0% | 17.5% | |
| 25 | Jahaan Green | G | Fr | 6'5" | 10-0 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 50.0% | 100.0% | 0.1 | 100.0% | 21.9% | |
| 14 | Brendon O'Keefe | G | So | 5'10" | 8-0 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.8 | — | 23.3% | |
| 34 | Nnaemeka Ikechi | F | So | 6'7" | 3-0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 11.3% | |
| 15 | Chanse Perkins | F | Sr | 6'4" | 0-1 | 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 2025-26Army
Against the spread
Season
12-18
Home
4-10
Road
8-7
Last 10
1-9
avg cover −3.7
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-13
Home
7-7
Road
9-6
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −3.0
Under in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 3 | Bucknell | A | L 55–65 | +2.0 | L−8.0 | 144.0 | U120 | 82.2 | 97.2 | 66.9 |
| Feb 28 | Lafayette | A | L 77–83 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 144.5 | O160 | 106.2 | 114.5 | 72.5 |
| Feb 25 | Bucknell | H | L 73–75 | −3.5 | L−5.5 | 142.5 | O148 | 100.8 | 103.6 | 72.4 |
| Feb 21 | Navy | H | L 63–81 | +7.5 | L−10.5 | 137.5 | O144 | 98.4 | 126.5 | 64.0 |
| Feb 18 | Loyola MD | A | W 87–77 | +4.5 | W+14.5 | 150.0 | O164 | 126.1 | 111.6 | 69.0 |
| Feb 14 | American | A | L 63–75 | +9.5 | L−2.5 | 145.5 | U138 | 95.8 | 114.0 | 65.8 |
| Feb 11 | Boston U | H | L 68–85 | +3.0 | L−14.0 | 140.0 | O153 | 108.8 | 136.1 | 62.5 |
| Feb 7 | Lafayette | H | L 60–63 | +1.0 | L−2.0 | 143.0 | U123 | 89.1 | 93.6 | 67.3 |
| Feb 4 | Colgate | A | L 55–69 | +10.0 | L−4.0 | 149.5 | U124 | 85.6 | 107.3 | 64.3 |
| Jan 31 | Holy Cross | H | W 69–68 | −3.0 | L−2.0 | 144.0 | U137 | 101.8 | 100.3 | 67.8 |
Duke
Against the spread
Season
20-18
Home
7-8
Road
8-3
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 10 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
13-23-2
Home
4-10-1
Road
4-7
Last 10
5-4-1
avg vs total +1.6
Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 10 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 1 of 6 with a line of 10+, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29 | #2UConn | N | L 72–73 | −4.5 | L−5.5 | 135.5 | O145 | 114.7 | 116.3 | 62.8 |
| Mar 27 | #5St John's | N | W 80–75 | −6.5 | L−1.5 | 140.5 | O155 | 124.8 | 117.0 | 64.1 |
| Mar 21 | #9TCU | N | W 81–58 | −12.0 | W+11.0 | 140.5 | U139 | 116.8 | 83.6 | 69.3 |
| Mar 19 | #16Siena | N | W 71–65 | −27.5 | L−21.5 | 136.0 | P136 | 114.7 | 105.0 | 61.9 |
| Mar 14 | #10Virginia | N | W 74–70 | −6.5 | L−2.5 | 139.5 | O144 | 116.4 | 110.1 | 63.5 |
| Mar 13 | Clemson | N | W 73–61 | −10.5 | W+1.5 | 135.0 | U134 | 115.5 | 96.5 | 63.2 |
| Mar 12 | Florida St | N | W 80–79 | −17.0 | L−16.0 | 150.5 | O159 | 119.0 | 117.5 | 67.2 |
| Mar 7 | #17North Carolina | H | W 76–61 | −18.0 | L−3.0 | 147.0 | U137 | 116.9 | 93.8 | 65.0 |
| Mar 2 | NC State | A | W 93–64 | −9.0 | W+20.0 | 150.5 | O157 | 144.3 | 99.3 | 64.5 |
| Feb 28 | #11Virginia | H | W 77–51 | −10.0 | W+16.0 | 143.0 | U128 | 126.4 | 83.7 | 60.9 |
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 homeArmyDuke
Efficiency
103.4
121.1
114.3
95.8
68.2
67.2
—
—
Shooting
49.3%
56.6%
50.7%
60.2%
32.0%
34.7%
71.7%
72.9%
26.8%
38.2%
Ball control & glass
17.2%
15.9%
15.4%
17.3%
29.6%
38.4%
27.7%
25.2%
10.4%
9.7%
11.2%
9.6%
Style
53.3%
43.5%
37.8%
45.5%
9.6%
12.2%
59.0%
58.8%
36.6%
32.2%
Roster
2.33
3.26
6'3.9"
6'6.5"
—
43.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputArmy
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Army'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.)
Duke
Returning minutes: 43.2%Returning production: 36.9%
Lost
- Cameron Boozer 33.5 mpg, 22.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Isaiah Evans 28.3 mpg, 15.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Maliq Brown 20.2 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nikolas Khamenia 19.7 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Darren Harris 9.1 mpg, 3.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Cameron Sheffield 1.2 mpg, 0.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- John Blackwell from Wisconsin · 32.8 mpg, 18.6 ppg last season
- Drew Scharnowski from Belmont · 20.3 mpg, 10.1 ppg last season
- Jacob Theodosiou from Loyola MD · 19.7 mpg, 11.0 ppg last season
- Sebastian Wilkins no D1 minutes last season
- Cameron Williams no D1 minutes last season
- Nick Arnold no D1 minutes last season
Returns 43% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Nov 11 | 2025-26 | Duke 114 – 59 Army |
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.