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-conferenceBroadview Arena, Buffalo, NY
Canisius
Efficiency #344
2025-26: 10-21 · 5-15 conf
@
Buffalo
Efficiency #186
2025-26: 17-15 · 7-12 conf
Sun, Nov 15 · 5:30 PM ET
65.7
win 17%
Projected
77.0
win 83%
No line posted yet.
Model: BUF −11.3 · total 142.7 · 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: Buffalo 67.7, Canisius 66.2 → 65.6 possessions
−5.9
Buffalo offense vs Canisius defense
+4.0
Canisius offense vs Buffalo defense
−3.6
Projected total
142.7
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Buffalo offense vs Canisius defense
+4.0
Canisius offense vs Buffalo defense
+3.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Buffalo by 11.3
11.3
Canisius side ◂▸ Buffalo side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +11.4 against +11.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Buffalo.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Buffalo is the faster team (67.6, #215 of 365) and Canisius the slower (64.3, #348). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
142.7
model
Projected team totals
65.7 / 77.0
Canisius / Buffalo
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.2#336
Canisius
67.7#229
Buffalo
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageBuffalo
Where Buffalo scores: shooting
Buffalo shoots an effective 55.4% (#30); Canisius allows 52.2% (#225). Expect about 54.1%, 2.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.0 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Buffalo averages 67.6 possessions per 40, Canisius 64.3. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageCanisius
Where Canisius struggles: ball control
Canisius turns it over on 19.6% of possessions (#341); Buffalo forces turnovers on 17.9% of opponent possessions (#101). Expect about 19.1%, 2.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.
ClashBuffalo
Style match: 3-point volume
Buffalo takes 45.5% of its shots from three; Canisius lets opponents take 44.0% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.2% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Buffalo) 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 Canisius at about 41.1% of its shots from three, Buffalo about 47.2%.
GlassBuffalo
Buffalo gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.8% is worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions against Buffalo's offense.
Canisius has the ball
OffenseBuffalo allowsvs D1 avg
46.3% #348
55.1% #333
-1.3 pt/100
19.6% #341
17.9% #101
-2.9 pt/100
29.3% #226
31.1% #209
-0.3 pt/100
31.4% #271
31.4% #90
-0.5 pt/100
71.9% #212
—
-0.0 pt/100
Canisius net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.0 pts/100
Buffalo has the ball
OffenseCanisius allowsvs D1 avg
55.4% #30
52.2% #225
+4.0 pt/100
16.2% #151
16.0% #222
+1.0 pt/100
27.1% #291
29.8% #151
-1.6 pt/100
39.6% #65
35.2% #184
+0.3 pt/100
73.6% #151
—
+0.1 pt/100
Buffalo net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersCanisiusoffense vsBuffalodefense
Share of shots by zone
Canisius shoots
36.9
6.5
16.8
39.7
Buffalo allows
41.5
3.3
13.8
41.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 47.2%#365 | 62.0%#300 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 50.5%#10 | 55.6%#365 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 34.6%#298 | 42.2%#310 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.3%#213 | 35.1%#252 | 33.7% |
Buffalooffense vsCanisiusdefense
Share of shots by zone
Buffalo shoots
38.6
4.0
12.3
45.0
Canisius allows
38.6
4.0
14.1
43.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.8%#124 | 60.1%#229 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.9%#124 | 39.0%#158 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.0%#109 | 40.7%#266 | 38.0% |
| Three | 37.9%#20 | 33.0%#124 | 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 numbersCanisius
−3.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#313 of 365
Off reb %
29.3%
#226
Def reb %
70.2%
#151
Turnover %
19.6%
#341
Forced TO %
16.0%
#222
FT rate
31.4%
#271
FT allowed
35.2%
#184
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security−1.9
Forcing turnovers−0.5
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed0.0
Buffalo
+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#92 of 365
Off reb %
27.1%
#291
Def reb %
68.9%
#209
Turnover %
16.2%
#151
Forced TO %
17.9%
#101
FT rate
39.6%
#65
FT allowed
31.4%
#90
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.1
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security+0.4
Forcing turnovers+0.8
Foul shots drawn+1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.0
Buffalo has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.2 (#92 of 365) to Canisius’s −3.4 (#313).
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
Canisius2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Preist Ryanat Cleveland St | F | Sr | 6'6" | 31-24 | 22.3 | 7.2 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 45.8% | 30.0% | 0.6 | 69.3% | 20.6% | |
| 1 | Vinny Sigonaat East Texas A&M | G | Sr | 6'0" | 28-6 | 20.0 | 8.1 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 57.8% | 40.1% | 5.6 | 87.5% | 22.9% | |
| 5 | Clinton Efindaat UNC Greensboro | F | Sr | 6'5" | 33-0 | 14.9 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 51.3% | 38.5% | 2.0 | 78.8% | 17.5% | |
| 33 | Michael Wilson Jr.at Bellarmine | G | Jr | 6'6" | 30-4 | 13.5 | 5.7 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 53.2% | 31.6% | 1.3 | 64.3% | 25.5% | |
| 2 | Demarris Wintersat UT Rio Grande | G | So | 6'3" | 21-0 | 7.1 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 61.8% | 39.3% | 1.3 | 60.0% | 17.6% | |
| 7 | Nate Deerat Oakland | F | Sr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 55.6% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 15.9% | |
| 12 | Trevor Augustine | G | Jr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 25.1% | |
| 15 | Nate Foutsat Le Moyne | F | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Will Fowlerat 124947 | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Abu Riak | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Alex Mack | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 95 | Dorsett Mulcahy | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jerry Guerrero | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Will Taylor | F | So | 6'9" | 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: Nate Deer (from Oakland), Clinton Efinda (from UNC Greensboro), Nate Fouts (from Le Moyne), Will Fowler (from 124947), Preist Ryan (from Cleveland St), Vinny Sigona (from East Texas A&M), Michael Wilson Jr. (from Bellarmine), Demarris Winters (from UT Rio Grande)
Buffalo2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Drew Steffeat S Illinois | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-32 | 30.8 | 9.9 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 49.1% | 29.9% | 5.1 | 67.2% | 21.0% | |
| 2 | J.J. Starlingat Syracuse | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-30 | 29.0 | 10.9 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 45.7% | 28.9% | 2.8 | 54.8% | 26.6% | |
| 25 | Dylan Ducommunat N Illinois | G | So | 6'4" | 26-26 | 30.6 | 10.8 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 42.7% | 28.9% | 7.3 | 70.0% | 28.1% | |
| 1 | Jalen Pitreat Tennessee St | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-33 | 24.3 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 62.7% | 16.7% | 0.2 | 83.9% | 13.4% | |
| 9 | Antoine Lorick IIIat Tennessee St | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-24 | 21.5 | 9.8 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 54.7% | 25.6% | 1.2 | 65.7% | 26.2% | |
| 10 | Mikkel Tyneat Richmond | G | Sr | 5'10" | 31-28 | 19.0 | 6.2 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 52.0% | 39.4% | 3.5 | 64.7% | 21.0% | |
| 3 | Tristan Kuskaat 108942 | F | So | 6'9" | 3-3 | 17.3 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 56.7% | 25.0% | 1.3 | — | 20.7% | |
| 7 | Harrison Reedeat Incarnate Word | G | Sr | 6'1" | 25-3 | 10.9 | 5.1 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 78.8% | 53.2% | 3.2 | 66.7% | 17.8% | |
| 12 | Kyle Jones | G | Sr | 6'5" | 18-0 | 10.5 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 66.7% | 12.4% | |
| 0 | Matas Buteliauskas | F | So | 6'7" | 8-0 | 4.9 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 60.0% | 40.0% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 10.1% | |
| 20 | Daniel Shao | G | Sr | 5'10" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 21.9% | |
| 35 | Evan Romano | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | JJ Frakesat Oregon | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Boluwasefe John | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jahrel Vigo | G | Fr | 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.
Transfers in: Dylan Ducommun (from N Illinois), JJ Frakes (from Oregon), Tristan Kuska (from 108942), Antoine Lorick III (from Tennessee St), Jalen Pitre (from Tennessee St), Harrison Reede (from Incarnate Word), J.J. Starling (from Syracuse), Drew Steffe (from S Illinois), Mikkel Tyne (from Richmond)
Canisius2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Preist Ryanat Cleveland St | F | Sr | 6'6" | 31-24 | 22.3 | 7.2 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 45.8% | 30.0% | 0.6 | 69.3% | 20.6% | |
| 1 | Vinny Sigonaat East Texas A&M | G | Sr | 6'0" | 28-6 | 20.0 | 8.1 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 57.8% | 40.1% | 5.6 | 87.5% | 22.9% | |
| 5 | Clinton Efindaat UNC Greensboro | F | Sr | 6'5" | 33-0 | 14.9 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 51.3% | 38.5% | 2.0 | 78.8% | 17.5% | |
| 33 | Michael Wilson Jr.at Bellarmine | G | Jr | 6'6" | 30-4 | 13.5 | 5.7 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 53.2% | 31.6% | 1.3 | 64.3% | 25.5% | |
| 2 | Demarris Wintersat UT Rio Grande | G | So | 6'3" | 21-0 | 7.1 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 61.8% | 39.3% | 1.3 | 60.0% | 17.6% | |
| 7 | Nate Deerat Oakland | F | Sr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 55.6% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 15.9% | |
| 12 | Trevor Augustine | G | Jr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 25.1% | |
| 15 | Nate Foutsat Le Moyne | F | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Will Fowlerat 124947 | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Abu Riak | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Alex Mack | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 95 | Dorsett Mulcahy | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jerry Guerrero | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Will Taylor | F | So | 6'9" | 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: Nate Deer (from Oakland), Clinton Efinda (from UNC Greensboro), Nate Fouts (from Le Moyne), Will Fowler (from 124947), Preist Ryan (from Cleveland St), Vinny Sigona (from East Texas A&M), Michael Wilson Jr. (from Bellarmine), Demarris Winters (from UT Rio Grande)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Canisius
Against the spread
Season
14-15-1
Home
7-7
Road
7-8-1
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover +0.1
Covered 2 straightCovered 4 of 10 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
9-21
Home
6-8
Road
3-13
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −0.1
Under 3 straightOver in 3 of 10 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1 | Quinnipiac | H | L 63–67 | +8.0 | W+4.0 | 138.5 | U130 | 94.8 | 100.9 | 66.4 |
| Feb 27 | Merrimack | H | W 67–62 | +9.0 | W+14.0 | 130.0 | U129 | 110.3 | 102.1 | 60.7 |
| Feb 22 | Mount St Marys | A | L 47–68 | +7.5 | L−13.5 | 137.5 | U115 | 75.0 | 108.5 | 62.6 |
| Feb 20 | Rider | A | W 72–66 | +1.0 | W+7.0 | 131.0 | O138 | 106.7 | 97.8 | 67.5 |
| Feb 15 | Manhattan | H | L 65–69 | +1.5 | L−2.5 | 141.0 | U134 | 100.4 | 106.5 | 64.8 |
| Feb 13 | Iona | H | L 63–69 | +4.5 | L−1.5 | 138.0 | U132 | 98.0 | 107.3 | 64.3 |
| Feb 5 | Quinnipiac | A | L 60–75 | +15.0 | P0.0 | 142.0 | U135 | 81.8 | 102.2 | 73.3 |
| Feb 3 | Niagara | A | L 56–65 | +2.0 | L−7.0 | 127.0 | U121 | 97.3 | 113.0 | 57.5 |
| Feb 1 | Siena | H | L 63–78 | +8.0 | L−7.0 | 135.0 | O141 | 105.7 | 130.9 | 59.6 |
| Jan 30 | Marist | H | L 86–88 OT | +9.5 | W+7.5 | 130.0 | O174 | 116.5 | 119.2 | 73.8 |
Buffalo
Against the spread
Season
16-13-1
Home
5-8
Road
10-4
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.2
Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-14
Home
7-6
Road
9-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −1.1
Under in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Akron | N | L 70–73 | +12.5 | W+9.5 | 158.0 | U143 | 100.7 | 105.0 | 69.5 |
| Mar 6 | Toledo | A | L 78–99 | +5.5 | L−15.5 | 156.5 | O177 | 119.6 | 151.8 | 65.2 |
| Mar 3 | E Michigan | H | W 72–67 | −5.5 | L−0.5 | 143.0 | U139 | 108.2 | 100.7 | 66.5 |
| Feb 28 | C Michigan | H | L 70–75 | −6.0 | L−11.0 | 149.5 | U145 | 109.9 | 117.8 | 63.7 |
| Feb 24 | Akron | A | L 85–99 | +15.0 | W+1.0 | 160.0 | O184 | 106.0 | 123.4 | 80.2 |
| Feb 21 | UMass | A | W 86–82 OT | +7.5 | W+11.5 | 154.0 | O168 | 118.9 | 113.3 | 72.3 |
| Feb 17 | N Illinois | H | L 70–72 | −8.5 | L−10.5 | 147.5 | U142 | 105.1 | 108.1 | 66.6 |
| Feb 11 | Ball State | A | W 63–53 | +1.0 | W+11.0 | 141.0 | U116 | 106.5 | 89.6 | 59.2 |
| Feb 7 | South Alabama | A | L 69–81 | +2.0 | L−10.0 | 145.0 | O150 | 99.1 | 116.3 | 69.6 |
| Feb 3 | #23Miami OH | H | L 71–73 | +4.5 | W+2.5 | 164.5 | U144 | 104.1 | 107.0 | 68.2 |
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 homeCanisiusBuffalo
Efficiency
99.6
111.2
111.8
111.9
66.2
67.7
—
—
Shooting
46.3%
55.4%
44.0%
54.1%
33.3%
37.9%
71.9%
73.6%
31.4%
39.6%
Ball control & glass
19.6%
16.2%
16.0%
17.9%
29.3%
27.1%
29.8%
31.1%
10.5%
9.8%
9.7%
8.1%
Style
39.5%
45.5%
39.3%
37.8%
11.6%
14.1%
55.4%
54.4%
27.8%
24.2%
Roster
3.69
3.67
6'4.2"
6'4.6"
0.2%
3.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputCanisius
Returning minutes: 0.2%Returning production: -0.0%
Lost
- Kahlil Singleton 33.7 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Bryan Ndjonga 32.7 mpg, 13.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mike Evbagharu 32.2 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Myles Wilmoth 23.2 mpg, 5.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Javante Edwards 20.0 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chris Kumu 11.2 mpg, 3.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Preist Ryan from Cleveland St · 20.9 mpg, 6.8 ppg last season
- Vinny Sigona from East Texas A&M · 17.5 mpg, 7.1 ppg last season
- Clinton Efinda from UNC Greensboro · 14.5 mpg, 4.3 ppg last season
- Michael Wilson Jr. from Bellarmine · 12.7 mpg, 5.3 ppg last season
- Demarris Winters from UT Rio Grande · 4.5 mpg, 1.5 ppg last season
- Nate Deer from Oakland · 1.4 mpg, 0.3 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).
Buffalo
Returning minutes: 3.6%Returning production: 2.6%
Lost
- Ryan Sabol 36.2 mpg, 18.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Noah Batchelor 30.8 mpg, 7.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Angelo Brizzi 29.8 mpg, 14.5 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
- Derrick Talton Jr. 26.0 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Daniel Freitag 23.9 mpg, 14.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tim Oboh 21.0 mpg, 8.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Drew Steffe from S Illinois · 30.8 mpg, 9.9 ppg last season
- J.J. Starling from Syracuse · 27.2 mpg, 10.3 ppg last season
- Dylan Ducommun from N Illinois · 26.5 mpg, 9.3 ppg last season
- Jalen Pitre from Tennessee St · 24.3 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
- Antoine Lorick III from Tennessee St · 21.5 mpg, 9.8 ppg last season
- Mikkel Tyne from Richmond · 18.4 mpg, 6.0 ppg last season
Returns 4% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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 last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Nov 29 | 2025-26 | Buffalo 71 – 53 Canisius |
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.