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-conferencePetersen Events Center, Pittsburgh, PA
Tarleton St
Efficiency #238
2025-26: 14-18 · 5-14 conf
@
Pitt
Efficiency #120
2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
68.1
win 25%
Projected
76.0
win 75%
No line posted yet.
Model: PITT −7.9 · total 144.1 · 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: Pitt 65.9, Tarleton St 69.7 → 67.3 possessions
−2.3
Pitt offense vs Tarleton St defense
+1.1
Tarleton St offense vs Pitt defense
−2.9
Projected total
144.1
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Pitt offense vs Tarleton St defense
+1.1
Tarleton St offense vs Pitt defense
+2.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Pitt by 7.9
7.9
Tarleton St side ◂▸ Pitt side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Pitt.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Tarleton St is the faster team (70.2, #84 of 365) and Pitt the slower (64.5, #340). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.1
model
Projected team totals
68.1 / 76.0
Tarleton St / Pitt
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.7#72
Tarleton St
65.9#346
Pitt
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantagePitt
Where Pitt struggles: ball control
Pitt turns it over on 17.3% of possessions (#225); Tarleton St forces turnovers on 23.4% of opponent possessions (#3). Expect about 21.3%, 4.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.5 points per 100 possessions.
GlassPitt
Pitt owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 35.1% is worth roughly +2.9 points per 100 possessions for Pitt's offense.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Pitt averages 64.5 possessions per 40, Tarleton St 70.2. 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 67 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
DefenseTarleton St
Tarleton St's ball-hawking
Tarleton St ranks #5 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.2% of Pitt's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
AdvantageTarleton St
Where Tarleton St struggles: ball control
Tarleton St turns it over on 20.0% of possessions (#348); Pitt forces turnovers on 16.2% of opponent possessions (#208). Expect about 18.3%, 1.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions.
Tarleton St has the ball
OffensePitt allowsvs D1 avg
48.3% #306
53.4% #279
-0.9 pt/100
20.0% #348
16.2% #208
-1.8 pt/100
31.5% #141
28.1% #68
-0.2 pt/100
41.9% #33
30.9% #82
+0.1 pt/100
74.2% #121
—
+0.2 pt/100
Tarleton St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.7 pts/100
Pitt has the ball
OffenseTarleton St allowsvs D1 avg
51.0% #193
53.6% #285
+1.5 pt/100
17.3% #225
23.4% #3
-5.5 pt/100
33.9% #72
35.1% #340
+2.9 pt/100
30.4% #300
47.7% #359
+0.7 pt/100
67.4% #336
—
-0.4 pt/100
Pitt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTarleton Stoffense vsPittdefense
Share of shots by zone
Tarleton St shoots
44.9
6.9
24.2
24.0
Pitt allows
40.2
6.4
12.8
40.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.4%#333 | 60.0%#225 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.5%#31 | 44.3%#278 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.5%#201 | 38.8%#193 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.5%#256 | 35.2%#263 | 33.7% |
Pittoffense vsTarleton Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Pitt shoots
37.1
5.6
14.8
42.5
Tarleton St allows
38.0
6.5
14.8
40.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.3%#217 | 58.6%#170 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.4%#281 | 45.1%#300 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.1%#35 | 45.7%#354 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.4%#206 | 34.9%#244 | 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 numbersTarleton St
−0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#185 of 365
Off reb %
31.5%
#141
Def reb %
64.9%
#340
Turnover %
20.0%
#348
Forced TO %
23.4%
#3
FT rate
41.9%
#33
FT allowed
47.7%
#359
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.4
Defensive rebounding−1.5
Ball security−2.2
Forcing turnovers+4.6
Foul shots drawn+1.8
Foul shots allowed−3.2
Pitt
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#131 of 365
Off reb %
33.9%
#72
Def reb %
71.9%
#68
Turnover %
17.3%
#225
Forced TO %
16.2%
#208
FT rate
30.4%
#300
FT allowed
30.9%
#82
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.1
Pitt has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.2 (#131 of 365) to Tarleton St’s −0.2 (#185).
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
Tarleton St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Tarleton St'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jordan Mizell | G | So | 6'1" | 32-31 | 27.6 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 42.7% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 71.9% | 14.9% | |
| 6 | Kaia Isaac | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-31 | 25.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 49.1% | 35.6% | 2.7 | 85.2% | 15.3% | |
| 2 | Freddy Hicks | G | Sr | 6'5" | 26-17 | 27.0 | 8.9 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 40.9% | 26.9% | 1.0 | 69.4% | 22.4% | |
| 7 | Dior Johnson | G | Jr | 6'3" | 20-2 | 26.2 | 24.0 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 56.7% | 53.8% | 2.6 | 84.9% | 43.8% | |
| 24 | Ocypher Owens | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-14 | 17.2 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 39.6% | 28.1% | 1.1 | 68.1% | 20.0% | |
| 55 | Cam McDowell | G | Sr | 6'5" | 21-7 | 24.0 | 13.9 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 52.6% | 33.8% | 3.1 | 87.8% | 31.6% | |
| 13 | Kade Douglas | G | Jr | 6'0" | 32-6 | 15.3 | 5.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 48.0% | 33.3% | 2.4 | 82.4% | 22.6% | |
| 4 | Leroy Kelly IV | G | Fr | 6'2" | 22-20 | 21.6 | 5.8 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 47.7% | 27.5% | 2.3 | 71.0% | 16.2% | |
| 23 | Chris Mpaka | F | Sr | 6'6" | 24-20 | 17.9 | 8.1 | 5.4 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 52.1% | — | 0.0 | 65.2% | 29.1% | |
| 97 | Andy Sigiscar | F | Fr | 6'9" | 26-10 | 15.3 | 7.2 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 63.7% | — | 0.0 | 56.0% | 23.9% | |
| 3 | DJ Dormu | G | So | 5'9" | 20-2 | 18.9 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 38.3% | 17.1% | 1.8 | 61.5% | 24.8% | |
| 10 | Damion Porter Jr. | G | Fr | 6'2" | 16-0 | 7.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 31.3% | 16.7% | 0.4 | 55.6% | 16.4% | |
| 30 | Cameron Thomas | G | Fr | 6'3" | 14-0 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 43.8% | 11.1% | 0.6 | 83.3% | 27.4% | |
| 25 | Matyas Vrabel | F | So | 6'10" | 14-0 | 5.9 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 17.8% | |
| 1 | AJ Dent Jr. | F | Jr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 12.5 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 60.0% | 40.0% | 2.5 | — | 26.0% | |
| 5 | Malek Archie | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 10.5 | 7.0 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 70.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 26.5% | |
| 8 | Joseph Martinez | G | So | 6'3" | 7-0 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 100.0% | 13.3% | |
| 14 | Roy Marom | G | So | 5'8" | 5-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 14.8% | |
| 22 | Jaden Jinks | F | Fr | 6'8" | 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.
Pitt2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Damarco Minor | G | Sr | 6'0" | 33-32 | 32.1 | 8.5 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 48.3% | 31.6% | 5.3 | 88.3% | 18.4% | |
| 8 | Omari Witherspoon | G | Fr | 6'4" | 33-25 | 27.8 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 43.2% | 28.7% | 2.6 | 64.5% | 23.6% | |
| 13 | Roman Siulepa | F | Fr | 6'6" | 33-33 | 26.7 | 10.0 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 51.5% | 29.6% | 3.0 | 50.0% | 24.7% | |
| 3 | Brandin Cummings | G | So | 6'3" | 19-9 | 26.3 | 12.5 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 50.5% | 32.6% | 4.8 | 71.8% | 29.5% | |
| 21 | Macari Moore | G | Fr | 6'3" | 21-0 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 46.0% | 75.0% | 0.2 | 87.5% | 20.6% | |
| 4 | Papa Amadou Kante | F | So | 6'10" | 8-0 | 14.3 | 2.8 | 5.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 45.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 44.4% | 14.3% | |
| 12 | Kieran Mullen | C | Fr | 7'0" | 18-0 | 6.0 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 100.0% | 11.0% | |
| 0 | Amdy Ndiaye | F | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 35 | Benjamin Mayhew | F | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Dishon Jackson | C | Sr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Henry Lau | F | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 44 | Jajuan Nelson | F | Jr | 6'7" | 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.
Tarleton St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Tarleton St'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jordan Mizell | G | So | 6'1" | 32-31 | 27.6 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 42.7% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 71.9% | 14.9% | |
| 6 | Kaia Isaac | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-31 | 25.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 49.1% | 35.6% | 2.7 | 85.2% | 15.3% | |
| 2 | Freddy Hicks | G | Sr | 6'5" | 26-17 | 27.0 | 8.9 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 40.9% | 26.9% | 1.0 | 69.4% | 22.4% | |
| 7 | Dior Johnson | G | Jr | 6'3" | 20-2 | 26.2 | 24.0 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 56.7% | 53.8% | 2.6 | 84.9% | 43.8% | |
| 24 | Ocypher Owens | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-14 | 17.2 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 39.6% | 28.1% | 1.1 | 68.1% | 20.0% | |
| 55 | Cam McDowell | G | Sr | 6'5" | 21-7 | 24.0 | 13.9 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 52.6% | 33.8% | 3.1 | 87.8% | 31.6% | |
| 13 | Kade Douglas | G | Jr | 6'0" | 32-6 | 15.3 | 5.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 48.0% | 33.3% | 2.4 | 82.4% | 22.6% | |
| 4 | Leroy Kelly IV | G | Fr | 6'2" | 22-20 | 21.6 | 5.8 | 3.2 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 47.7% | 27.5% | 2.3 | 71.0% | 16.2% | |
| 23 | Chris Mpaka | F | Sr | 6'6" | 24-20 | 17.9 | 8.1 | 5.4 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 52.1% | — | 0.0 | 65.2% | 29.1% | |
| 97 | Andy Sigiscar | F | Fr | 6'9" | 26-10 | 15.3 | 7.2 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 63.7% | — | 0.0 | 56.0% | 23.9% | |
| 3 | DJ Dormu | G | So | 5'9" | 20-2 | 18.9 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 38.3% | 17.1% | 1.8 | 61.5% | 24.8% | |
| 10 | Damion Porter Jr. | G | Fr | 6'2" | 16-0 | 7.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 31.3% | 16.7% | 0.4 | 55.6% | 16.4% | |
| 30 | Cameron Thomas | G | Fr | 6'3" | 14-0 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 43.8% | 11.1% | 0.6 | 83.3% | 27.4% | |
| 25 | Matyas Vrabel | F | So | 6'10" | 14-0 | 5.9 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 17.8% | |
| 1 | AJ Dent Jr. | F | Jr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 12.5 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 60.0% | 40.0% | 2.5 | — | 26.0% | |
| 5 | Malek Archie | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 10.5 | 7.0 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 70.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 26.5% | |
| 8 | Joseph Martinez | G | So | 6'3" | 7-0 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 100.0% | 13.3% | |
| 14 | Roy Marom | G | So | 5'8" | 5-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 14.8% | |
| 22 | Jaden Jinks | F | Fr | 6'8" | 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 2025-26Tarleton St
Against the spread
Season
14-14
Home
5-7
Road
9-6
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −1.2
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-13
Home
6-6
Road
8-7
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −1.0
Over 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 11 | Abilene Chrstn | N | L 78–84 | +1.0 | L−5.0 | 135.0 | O162 | 102.0 | 109.8 | 76.5 |
| Mar 5 | UT Arlington | H | L 60–65 | −1.0 | L−6.0 | 136.0 | U125 | 99.2 | 107.4 | 60.5 |
| Feb 28 | CA Baptist | A | L 67–82 | +7.5 | L−7.5 | 139.0 | O149 | 100.2 | 122.7 | 66.8 |
| Feb 26 | Utah Valley | A | L 72–79 | +17.0 | W+10.0 | 141.5 | O151 | 103.7 | 113.8 | 69.4 |
| Feb 21 | Utah Tech | H | L 72–80 | −1.5 | L−9.5 | 141.0 | O152 | 111.1 | 123.4 | 64.8 |
| Feb 19 | Southern Utah | H | W 78–74 | −5.0 | L−1.0 | 145.0 | O152 | 116.5 | 110.5 | 67.0 |
| Feb 16 | Abilene Chrstn | H | W 65–62 OT | +1.0 | W+4.0 | 133.5 | U127 | 85.8 | 81.8 | 75.8 |
| Feb 14 | Abilene Chrstn | A | L 59–73 | +3.0 | L−11.0 | 135.5 | U132 | 84.2 | 104.1 | 70.1 |
| Feb 7 | Southern Utah | A | W 62–59 | +1.0 | W+4.0 | 146.5 | U121 | 90.2 | 85.8 | 68.8 |
| Feb 5 | CA Baptist | A | L 55–56 | +10.5 | W+9.5 | 139.0 | U111 | 83.7 | 85.3 | 65.7 |
Pitt
Against the spread
Season
15-16-2
Home
9-9
Road
4-5-2
Last 10
6-3-1
avg cover +2.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
18-15
Home
13-5
Road
4-7
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.6
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | NC State | N | L 88–98 | +9.0 | L−1.0 | 144.5 | O186 | 133.6 | 148.8 | 65.8 |
| Mar 10 | Stanford | N | W 64–63 | +5.0 | W+6.0 | 136.5 | U127 | 109.3 | 107.6 | 58.6 |
| Mar 7 | Syracuse | A | W 71–69 OT | +6.5 | W+8.5 | 142.0 | U140 | 104.0 | 101.0 | 68.3 |
| Mar 4 | Florida St | H | L 74–75 | +1.5 | W+0.5 | 145.0 | O149 | 112.8 | 114.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 28 | California | A | W 72–56 | +7.5 | W+23.5 | 143.5 | U128 | 107.5 | 83.6 | 67.0 |
| Feb 25 | Stanford | A | L 67–75 | +8.0 | P0.0 | 138.5 | O142 | 109.1 | 122.1 | 61.4 |
| Feb 21 | Notre Dame | H | W 73–68 | −2.5 | W+2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 116.4 | 108.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | #11North Carolina | A | L 65–79 | +11.5 | L−2.5 | 145.0 | U144 | 99.3 | 120.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 10 | #4Duke | H | L 54–70 | +17.5 | W+1.5 | 136.5 | U124 | 88.1 | 114.2 | 61.3 |
| Feb 7 | SMU | H | L 67–86 | +4.5 | L−14.5 | 147.5 | O153 | 101.4 | 130.2 | 66.1 |
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 homeTarleton StPitt
Efficiency
105.0
110.2
108.4
107.6
69.7
65.9
—
—
Shooting
48.3%
51.0%
48.2%
51.7%
32.5%
33.4%
74.2%
67.4%
41.9%
30.4%
Ball control & glass
20.0%
17.3%
23.4%
16.2%
31.5%
33.9%
35.1%
28.1%
10.0%
9.5%
9.6%
9.2%
Style
24.2%
42.6%
47.2%
41.5%
18.1%
12.6%
41.7%
52.3%
39.8%
22.7%
Roster
2.90
2.02
6'3.5"
6'3.6"
—
55.7%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputTarleton St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Tarleton St'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.)
Pitt
Returning minutes: 55.7%Returning production: 50.3%
Lost
- Cameron Corhen 33.8 mpg, 13.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Barry Dunning Jr. 31.8 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nojus Indrusaitis 23.6 mpg, 9.1 ppg · transferred to California
Added
- Benjamin Mayhew no D1 minutes last season
- Henry Lau no D1 minutes last season
- Jajuan Nelson no D1 minutes last season
- Amdy Ndiaye no D1 minutes last season
- Dishon Jackson no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 56% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
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.