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
UNC Asheville
Efficiency #226
2025-26: 15-17 · 9-9 conf
@
Florida St
Efficiency #74
2025-26: 18-15 · 11-9 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · TBD
69.6
win 18%
Projected
80.1
win 82%
No line posted yet.
Model: FSU −10.4 · total 149.7 · 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, UNC Asheville 66.6 → 68.8 possessions
+1.1
Florida St offense vs UNC Asheville defense
+3.4
UNC Asheville offense vs Florida St defense
−3.1
Projected total
149.7
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Florida St offense vs UNC Asheville defense
+3.4
UNC Asheville offense vs Florida St defense
+3.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Florida St by 10.4
10.4
UNC Asheville side ◂▸ Florida St side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 149.6 against a projected 149.7, and the margin steps add to +10.5 against +10.4. 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: 68.8, 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 UNC Asheville the slower (67.1, #238). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.7
model
Projected team totals
69.6 / 80.1
UNC Asheville / Florida St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.6#311
UNC Asheville
70.5#26
Florida St
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageUNC Asheville
Where UNC Asheville struggles: ball control
UNC Asheville turns it over on 17.4% of possessions (#231); Florida St forces turnovers on 19.0% of opponent possessions (#52). Expect about 18.5%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageFlorida St
Where Florida St scores: ball control
Florida St turns it over on 15.2% of possessions (#83); UNC Asheville forces turnovers on 15.5% of opponent possessions (#252). Expect about 15.1%, 1.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions.
ClashUNC Asheville
Strength vs strength: shot-blocking exposure
UNC Asheville (#37 in shot-blocking exposure) against Florida St (#60 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 10.2%. Historically Florida St's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.41 vs 0.68).
ClashUNC Asheville
Style clash: 3-point volume
UNC Asheville rarely shoots threes (33.6% of its shots); Florida St lets opponents take 44.9% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 38.2% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashFlorida St
Style clash: paint scoring
Florida St gets only 39.3% of its points in the paint; UNC Asheville gives up 46.2% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 43.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
UNC Asheville has the ball
OffenseFlorida St allowsvs D1 avg
51.0% #194
52.2% #226
+0.4 pt/100
17.4% #231
19.0% #52
-2.2 pt/100
29.8% #211
34.1% #319
+0.8 pt/100
40.0% #60
32.7% #122
+0.1 pt/100
68.4% #317
—
-0.4 pt/100
UNC Asheville net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.1 pts/100
Florida St has the ball
OffenseUNC Asheville allowsvs D1 avg
52.3% #132
51.3% #175
+0.9 pt/100
15.2% #83
15.5% #252
+2.1 pt/100
30.8% #170
31.3% #218
+0.4 pt/100
34.7% #191
38.7% #279
+0.3 pt/100
71.3% #231
—
-0.1 pt/100
Florida St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersUNC Ashevilleoffense vsFlorida Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
UNC Asheville shoots
32.0
10.4
24.2
33.5
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 | 57.1%#232 | 60.2%#236 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#40 | 38.8%#154 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.6%#67 | 38.8%#194 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.1%#110 | 34.6%#228 | 33.7% |
Florida Stoffense vsUNC Ashevilledefense
Share of shots by zone
Florida St shoots
35.5
6.0
8.4
50.1
UNC Asheville allows
44.2
5.6
11.9
38.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.5%#109 | 57.3%#125 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 48.1%#20 | 36.4%#99 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.7%#241 | 40.9%#272 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.1%#226 | 32.6%#93 | 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 numbersUNC Asheville
−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#249 of 365
Off reb %
29.8%
#211
Def reb %
68.7%
#218
Turnover %
17.4%
#231
Forced TO %
15.5%
#252
FT rate
40.0%
#60
FT allowed
38.7%
#279
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.2
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security−0.4
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn+1.3
Foul shots allowed−0.9
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 UNC Asheville’s −1.3 (#249).
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
UNC Asheville2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Toyaz Solomon | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-28 | 33.4 | 16.9 | 7.4 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 50.0% | 36.3% | 2.8 | 68.4% | 32.1% | |
| 55 | Justin Wright | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 33.0 | 17.1 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 53.8% | 37.3% | 3.9 | 78.8% | 30.6% | |
| 8 | DJ Patrick | G | Sr | 6'6" | 29-27 | 33.8 | 9.6 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 53.4% | 39.3% | 6.1 | 73.2% | 17.0% | |
| 5 | Myles Mayfield | F | Fr | 6'8" | 32-15 | 22.9 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 62.5% | 66.7% | 0.1 | 42.1% | 13.0% | |
| 13 | Daniel Thomas | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-19 | 20.2 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 45.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 54.3% | 11.1% | |
| 1 | Julian Clarke | PG | So | 6'1" | 26-0 | 10.3 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 58.1% | 40.6% | 1.2 | 55.6% | 12.0% | |
| 44 | Sage Tolentino | F | Jr | 7'1" | 27-3 | 9.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 57.9% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 80.0% | 7.3% | |
| 24 | Corey Jones | G | Jr | 6'2" | 18-1 | 8.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 33.3% | 14.3% | 0.8 | 0.0% | 7.9% | |
| 11 | Jakel Powell | G | Fr | 6'5" | 10-0 | 12.5 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 40.3% | 28.0% | 2.5 | 77.8% | 17.0% | |
| 23 | David Hermes | F | Sr | 6'10" | 8-4 | 11.5 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 3.9% | |
| 7 | Connor Dubsky | G | Jr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 13.0 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 83.3% | 55.6% | 9.0 | — | 44.6% | |
| 2 | Rasheed Baldwin | G | Sr | 6'5" | 3-1 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 18.8% | 12.5% | 2.7 | — | 51.7% | |
| 10 | Hugo Maton | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 100.0% | 66.7% | 1.5 | — | 24.7% | |
| 14 | Brayden Rivers | SF | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Mitchell Taylor | G | Jr | 6'3" | 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)
UNC Asheville2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Toyaz Solomon | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-28 | 33.4 | 16.9 | 7.4 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 50.0% | 36.3% | 2.8 | 68.4% | 32.1% | |
| 55 | Justin Wright | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 33.0 | 17.1 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 53.8% | 37.3% | 3.9 | 78.8% | 30.6% | |
| 8 | DJ Patrick | G | Sr | 6'6" | 29-27 | 33.8 | 9.6 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 53.4% | 39.3% | 6.1 | 73.2% | 17.0% | |
| 5 | Myles Mayfield | F | Fr | 6'8" | 32-15 | 22.9 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 62.5% | 66.7% | 0.1 | 42.1% | 13.0% | |
| 13 | Daniel Thomas | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-19 | 20.2 | 2.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 45.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 54.3% | 11.1% | |
| 1 | Julian Clarke | PG | So | 6'1" | 26-0 | 10.3 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 58.1% | 40.6% | 1.2 | 55.6% | 12.0% | |
| 44 | Sage Tolentino | F | Jr | 7'1" | 27-3 | 9.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 57.9% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 80.0% | 7.3% | |
| 24 | Corey Jones | G | Jr | 6'2" | 18-1 | 8.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 33.3% | 14.3% | 0.8 | 0.0% | 7.9% | |
| 11 | Jakel Powell | G | Fr | 6'5" | 10-0 | 12.5 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 40.3% | 28.0% | 2.5 | 77.8% | 17.0% | |
| 23 | David Hermes | F | Sr | 6'10" | 8-4 | 11.5 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 3.9% | |
| 7 | Connor Dubsky | G | Jr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 13.0 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 83.3% | 55.6% | 9.0 | — | 44.6% | |
| 2 | Rasheed Baldwin | G | Sr | 6'5" | 3-1 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 18.8% | 12.5% | 2.7 | — | 51.7% | |
| 10 | Hugo Maton | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 100.0% | 66.7% | 1.5 | — | 24.7% | |
| 14 | Brayden Rivers | SF | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Mitchell Taylor | G | Jr | 6'3" | 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 2025-26UNC Asheville
Against the spread
Season
14-15
Home
5-7
Road
6-7
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.5
Covered 2 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdogCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-14
Home
4-8
Road
9-4
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +0.8
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 as an underdogOver 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 7 | High Point | N | L 71–75 | +13.0 | W+9.0 | 147.5 | U146 | 104.6 | 110.5 | 67.9 |
| Mar 6 | Longwood | N | W 85–82 OT | +1.0 | W+4.0 | 141.0 | O167 | 111.0 | 107.1 | 76.5 |
| Feb 28 | Charleston So | H | L 75–92 | −4.0 | L−21.0 | 149.5 | O167 | 105.9 | 129.9 | 70.8 |
| Feb 26 | Gardner-Webb | A | W 77–71 | −12.5 | L−6.5 | 145.5 | O148 | 124.2 | 114.6 | 62.0 |
| Feb 21 | Radford | H | W 74–73 OT | −2.0 | L−1.0 | 149.0 | U147 | 104.3 | 102.9 | 71.0 |
| Feb 19 | High Point | A | L 48–74 | +15.0 | L−11.0 | 152.0 | U122 | 74.6 | 115.0 | 64.4 |
| Feb 14 | Presbyterian | H | L 57–58 | −4.5 | L−5.5 | 136.5 | U115 | 90.5 | 92.1 | 63.0 |
| Feb 12 | Longwood | A | W 79–74 | +2.0 | W+7.0 | 142.5 | O153 | 117.1 | 109.7 | 67.5 |
| Feb 4 | SC Upstate | H | W 76–67 | −6.5 | W+2.5 | 140.5 | O143 | 112.5 | 99.2 | 67.6 |
| Jan 31 | Winthrop | A | L 71–84 | +10.0 | L−3.0 | 150.5 | O155 | 109.5 | 129.5 | 64.8 |
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 homeUNC AshevilleFlorida St
Efficiency
106.1
113.0
108.9
106.4
66.6
70.5
—
—
Shooting
51.0%
52.3%
50.1%
55.1%
35.1%
33.1%
68.4%
71.3%
40.0%
34.7%
Ball control & glass
17.4%
15.2%
15.5%
19.0%
29.8%
30.8%
31.3%
34.1%
9.3%
9.4%
7.7%
12.8%
Style
33.6%
50.6%
44.9%
39.3%
10.4%
12.4%
40.4%
52.5%
24.1%
34.4%
Roster
3.00
3.28
6'6.3"
6'7.4"
82.9%
6.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputUNC Asheville
Returning minutes: 82.9%Returning production: 77.5%
Lost
- Kam Taylor 34.7 mpg, 18.9 ppg · transferred to Florida St
Added
- Brayden Rivers no D1 minutes last season
- Mitchell Taylor no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 83% 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).
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.