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-conferenceTucker Center, Tallahassee, FL
Texas A&M-CC
Efficiency #181
2025-26: 18-15 · 14-10 conf
@
Florida St
Efficiency #74
2025-26: 18-15 · 11-9 conf
Fri, Nov 13 · TBD
69.6
win 22%
Projected
78.6
win 78%
No line posted yet.
Model: FSU −9.0 · total 148.2 · 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: Florida St 70.5, Texas A&M-CC 67.4 → 69.6 possessions
+2.7
Florida St offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
+1.1
Texas A&M-CC offense vs Florida St defense
−3.8
Projected total
148.2
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Florida St offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
+1.1
Texas A&M-CC offense vs Florida St defense
+3.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Florida St by 9.0
9.0
Texas A&M-CC side ◂▸ Florida St side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +8.9 against +9.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Florida St.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Florida St is the faster team (71.8, #27 of 365) and Texas A&M-CC the slower (66.6, #264). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
148.2
model
Projected team totals
69.6 / 78.6
Texas A&M-CC / Florida St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.4#260
Texas A&M-CC
70.5#26
Florida St
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageTexas A&M-CC
Where Texas A&M-CC struggles: ball control
Texas A&M-CC turns it over on 19.4% of possessions (#334); Florida St forces turnovers on 19.0% of opponent possessions (#52). Expect about 19.7%, 2.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.6 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Florida St averages 71.8 possessions per 40, Texas A&M-CC 66.6. 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 69 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Texas A&M-CC'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 Texas A&M-CC at about 36.4% of its shots from three, Florida St about 45.4%.
ClashFlorida St
Style clash: 3-point volume
Florida St takes 50.6% of its shots from three; Texas A&M-CC runs teams off the line (34.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 45.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
GlassTexas A&M-CC
Texas A&M-CC owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.1% is worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions for Texas A&M-CC's offense.
ClashTexas A&M-CC
Style clash: 3-point volume
Texas A&M-CC rarely shoots threes (31.4% of its shots); Florida St lets opponents take 44.9% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 36.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Texas A&M-CC has the ball
OffenseFlorida St allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #270
52.2% #226
-0.8 pt/100
19.4% #334
19.0% #52
-3.6 pt/100
31.7% #137
34.1% #319
+1.6 pt/100
41.1% #46
32.7% #122
+0.2 pt/100
67.4% #334
—
-0.4 pt/100
Texas A&M-CC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.0 pts/100
Florida St has the ball
OffenseTexas A&M-CC allowsvs D1 avg
52.3% #132
50.1% #104
-0.0 pt/100
15.2% #83
19.0% #49
-0.7 pt/100
30.8% #170
28.8% #95
-0.3 pt/100
34.7% #191
46.3% #353
+0.8 pt/100
71.3% #231
—
-0.1 pt/100
Florida St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTexas A&M-CCoffense vsFlorida Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas A&M-CC shoots
45.5
8.8
14.3
31.4
Florida St allows
32.9
5.7
15.5
45.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.4%#334 | 60.2%#236 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.2%#75 | 38.8%#154 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.2%#328 | 38.8%#194 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#122 | 34.6%#228 | 33.7% |
Florida Stoffense vsTexas A&M-CCdefense
Share of shots by zone
Florida St shoots
35.5
6.0
8.4
50.1
Texas A&M-CC allows
41.4
8.1
15.8
34.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.5%#109 | 57.9%#144 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 48.1%#20 | 44.7%#289 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.7%#241 | 36.5%#120 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.1%#226 | 31.6%#48 | 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 numbersTexas A&M-CC
−0.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#198 of 365
Off reb %
31.7%
#137
Def reb %
71.2%
#95
Turnover %
19.4%
#334
Forced TO %
19.0%
#49
FT rate
41.1%
#46
FT allowed
46.3%
#353
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security−1.8
Forcing turnovers+1.6
Foul shots drawn+1.6
Foul shots allowed−2.8
Florida St
+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#89 of 365
Off reb %
30.8%
#170
Def reb %
65.9%
#319
Turnover %
15.2%
#83
Forced TO %
19.0%
#52
FT rate
34.7%
#191
FT allowed
32.7%
#122
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.1
Defensive rebounding−1.1
Ball security+1.1
Forcing turnovers+1.6
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed+0.6
Florida St has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.2 (#89 of 365) to Texas A&M-CC’s −0.5 (#198).
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
Texas A&M-CC2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Sheldon Williams | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-30 | 25.4 | 11.8 | 6.9 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 56.5% | 29.7% | 1.1 | 64.3% | 27.0% | |
| 1 | Nick Shogbonyo | G | Sr | 6'1" | 28-26 | 26.9 | 11.9 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 55.0% | 42.5% | 4.0 | 80.7% | 25.6% | |
| 3 | Mason Gibson | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-16 | 21.5 | 9.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 35.9% | 4.4 | 68.5% | 27.2% | |
| 2 | Leo Torbor | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-17 | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.7% | 30.8% | 0.4 | 48.1% | 21.0% | |
| 22 | Franck Yetna | F | Sr | 6'7" | 33-15 | 18.8 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 54.5% | 40.8% | 1.5 | 65.3% | 20.9% | |
| 0 | D'Avian Houston | G | Sr | 6'2" | 27-15 | 20.5 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 49.1% | 37.7% | 2.9 | 65.8% | 29.2% | |
| 99 | Cenker Evran | F | Sr | 6'8" | 26-18 | 21.3 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 56.9% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 16.9% | |
| 10 | Daniel Michelini-Jackson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-12 | 17.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 46.2% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 90.5% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Kam Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 26-8 | 17.3 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.5% | 26.2% | 2.3 | 80.0% | 18.8% | |
| 8 | Bryson Wheatfall | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-5 | 11.3 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 39.5% | 25.0% | 0.5 | 64.3% | 23.4% | |
| 5 | Kobi Pearson | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-0 | 8.8 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 56.8% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Jaden Haire | F | Jr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 53.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 57.1% | 22.4% | |
| 14 | Cedric Horton | G | Fr | 6'5" | 12-0 | 9.4 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 67.3% | 45.5% | 0.9 | 75.0% | 15.4% | |
| 24 | Jamal Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'10" | 14-0 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 80.0% | 16.3% | |
| 13 | Trenton Pane | G | Fr | 5'10" | 4-0 | 8.3 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57.1% | 28.6% | 1.8 | — | 30.0% | |
| 7 | Kayden Crosby | F | Jr | 6'7" | 6-0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | — | 10.7% | |
| 20 | Michael Oaks | F | Jr | 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.
Florida St2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Kam Taylorat UNC Asheville | G | Jr | 6'7" | 32-30 | 34.7 | 18.9 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 49.6% | 28.1% | 4.3 | 70.1% | 34.2% | |
| 2 | Anthony Robinson IIat Missouri | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-19 | 27.0 | 8.9 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 48.3% | 31.4% | 3.2 | 67.0% | 21.9% | |
| 22 | Sebastian Rancikat Colorado | F | Jr | 6'11" | 29-26 | 28.0 | 12.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 48.0% | 33.1% | 4.1 | 86.0% | 25.8% | |
| 31 | Cooper Schwiegerat Wake Forest | F | Sr | 6'10" | 34-11 | 20.3 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 55.0% | 34.3% | 1.0 | 73.7% | 14.8% | |
| 19 | AJ Swinton | F | Jr | 6'6" | 26-1 | 15.8 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 53.6% | 32.8% | 2.2 | 56.5% | 16.6% | |
| 1 | Shon Abaevat Cincinnati | F | So | 6'8" | 24-12 | 16.0 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 41.9% | 25.7% | 4.2 | 64.9% | 30.6% | |
| 15 | Jalen Crawford | G | Jr | 6'0" | 6-0 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.0 | — | 53.4% | |
| 7 | Jasen Lopez | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 00 | Amare Robinson | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 30 | Brandon Bass Jr. | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Collin Paul | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Elise Assui | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | JD Jones | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Marcis Ponder | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Martay Barnes | G | Fr | 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.
Transfers in: Shon Abaev (from Cincinnati), Sebastian Rancik (from Colorado), Anthony Robinson II (from Missouri), Cooper Schwieger (from Wake Forest), Kam Taylor (from UNC Asheville)
Texas A&M-CC2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Sheldon Williams | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-30 | 25.4 | 11.8 | 6.9 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 56.5% | 29.7% | 1.1 | 64.3% | 27.0% | |
| 1 | Nick Shogbonyo | G | Sr | 6'1" | 28-26 | 26.9 | 11.9 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 55.0% | 42.5% | 4.0 | 80.7% | 25.6% | |
| 3 | Mason Gibson | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-16 | 21.5 | 9.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 35.9% | 4.4 | 68.5% | 27.2% | |
| 2 | Leo Torbor | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-17 | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.7% | 30.8% | 0.4 | 48.1% | 21.0% | |
| 22 | Franck Yetna | F | Sr | 6'7" | 33-15 | 18.8 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 54.5% | 40.8% | 1.5 | 65.3% | 20.9% | |
| 0 | D'Avian Houston | G | Sr | 6'2" | 27-15 | 20.5 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 49.1% | 37.7% | 2.9 | 65.8% | 29.2% | |
| 99 | Cenker Evran | F | Sr | 6'8" | 26-18 | 21.3 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 56.9% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 16.9% | |
| 10 | Daniel Michelini-Jackson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-12 | 17.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 46.2% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 90.5% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Kam Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 26-8 | 17.3 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.5% | 26.2% | 2.3 | 80.0% | 18.8% | |
| 8 | Bryson Wheatfall | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-5 | 11.3 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 39.5% | 25.0% | 0.5 | 64.3% | 23.4% | |
| 5 | Kobi Pearson | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-0 | 8.8 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 56.8% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Jaden Haire | F | Jr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 53.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 57.1% | 22.4% | |
| 14 | Cedric Horton | G | Fr | 6'5" | 12-0 | 9.4 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 67.3% | 45.5% | 0.9 | 75.0% | 15.4% | |
| 24 | Jamal Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'10" | 14-0 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 80.0% | 16.3% | |
| 13 | Trenton Pane | G | Fr | 5'10" | 4-0 | 8.3 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57.1% | 28.6% | 1.8 | — | 30.0% | |
| 7 | Kayden Crosby | F | Jr | 6'7" | 6-0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | — | 10.7% | |
| 20 | Michael Oaks | F | Jr | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Texas A&M-CC
Against the spread
Season
16-13
Home
5-6
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +3.3
Covered 5 straightCovered 5 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-14
Home
6-5
Road
9-7
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +2.8
Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | SF Austin | N | L 58–60 | +6.0 | W+4.0 | 134.5 | U118 | 94.7 | 98.0 | 61.3 |
| Mar 9 | LSU N Orleans | N | W 74–61 | −2.0 | W+11.0 | 147.5 | U135 | 127.1 | 104.8 | 58.2 |
| Mar 2 | East Texas A&M | H | W 84–71 | −8.0 | W+5.0 | 137.5 | O155 | 124.9 | 105.6 | 67.2 |
| Feb 28 | N'Western St | H | W 71–59 | −6.0 | W+6.0 | 134.0 | U130 | 117.4 | 97.5 | 60.5 |
| Feb 23 | SE Louisiana | A | W 73–68 | −2.0 | W+3.0 | 130.5 | O141 | 112.9 | 105.2 | 64.7 |
| Feb 21 | McNeese | A | L 54–70 | +14.0 | L−2.0 | 140.5 | U124 | 82.3 | 106.7 | 65.6 |
| Feb 16 | SF Austin | H | L 68–78 | +5.0 | L−5.0 | 136.5 | O146 | 101.5 | 116.4 | 67.0 |
| Feb 14 | Lamar | H | W 76–63 | −2.5 | W+10.5 | 136.0 | O139 | 113.1 | 93.7 | 67.2 |
| Feb 9 | LSU N Orleans | A | L 78–84 OT | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 147.0 | O162 | 89.6 | 96.5 | 87.1 |
| Feb 7 | Nicholls | A | W 83–76 | +1.0 | W+8.0 | 137.0 | O159 | 122.6 | 112.2 | 67.7 |
Florida St
Against the spread
Season
18-14-1
Home
9-7-1
Road
7-4
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +6.7
Covered 3 straightCovered 3 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-16
Home
8-9
Road
5-6
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +1.0
Over 4 straightOver in 4 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | #1Duke | N | L 79–80 | +17.0 | W+16.0 | 150.5 | O159 | 117.5 | 119.0 | 67.2 |
| Mar 11 | California | N | W 95–89 | −3.0 | W+3.0 | 155.0 | O184 | 136.3 | 127.7 | 69.7 |
| Mar 7 | SMU | H | W 91–78 | −1.0 | W+12.0 | 158.5 | O169 | 123.4 | 105.8 | 73.7 |
| Mar 4 | Pitt | A | W 75–74 | −1.5 | L−0.5 | 145.0 | O149 | 114.3 | 112.8 | 65.6 |
| Feb 28 | Georgia Tech | A | W 80–71 | −6.0 | W+3.0 | 159.5 | U151 | 123.7 | 109.8 | 64.7 |
| Feb 24 | Miami | H | L 73–83 | +2.0 | L−8.0 | 153.5 | O156 | 103.1 | 117.2 | 70.8 |
| Feb 21 | Clemson | A | W 70–65 | +8.5 | W+13.5 | 144.5 | U135 | 116.9 | 108.6 | 59.9 |
| Feb 17 | Boston College | H | W 80–72 | −12.0 | L−4.0 | 148.0 | O152 | 119.6 | 107.6 | 66.9 |
| Feb 14 | Virginia Tech | A | W 92–69 | +4.0 | W+27.0 | 156.5 | O161 | 142.4 | 106.8 | 64.6 |
| Feb 10 | #15Virginia | H | L 58–61 | +8.0 | W+5.0 | 154.0 | U119 | 85.1 | 89.5 | 68.1 |
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 homeTexas A&M-CCFlorida St
Efficiency
105.1
113.0
105.5
106.4
67.4
70.5
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
52.3%
48.1%
55.1%
35.0%
33.1%
67.4%
71.3%
41.1%
34.7%
Ball control & glass
19.4%
15.2%
19.0%
19.0%
31.7%
30.8%
28.8%
34.1%
10.6%
9.4%
11.6%
12.8%
Style
31.4%
50.6%
46.8%
39.3%
14.6%
12.4%
50.7%
52.5%
40.6%
34.4%
Roster
3.55
3.28
6'4.4"
6'7.4"
—
6.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputTexas A&M-CC
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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.)
Florida St
Returning minutes: 6.3%Returning production: 4.9%
Lost
- Lajae Jones 29.5 mpg, 12.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Robert McCray V 28.9 mpg, 16.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chauncey Wiggins 27.1 mpg, 12.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Martin Somerville 26.0 mpg, 8.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kobe MaGee 19.8 mpg, 7.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Thomas Bassong 19.3 mpg, 5.9 ppg · transferred to Mississippi St
Added
- Kam Taylor from UNC Asheville · 34.7 mpg, 18.9 ppg last season
- Anthony Robinson II from Missouri · 27.0 mpg, 8.9 ppg last season
- Sebastian Rancik from Colorado · 24.6 mpg, 10.8 ppg last season
- Cooper Schwieger from Wake Forest · 19.7 mpg, 4.9 ppg last season
- Shon Abaev from Cincinnati · 11.6 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season
- Elise Assui no D1 minutes last season
Returns 6% 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.