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-conferencePurcell Pavilion, South Bend, IN
C Michigan
Efficiency #283
2025-26: 10-21 · 6-12 conf
@
Notre Dame
Efficiency #106
2025-26: 13-18 · 4-14 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · TBD
69.0
win 19%
Projected
79.4
win 81%
No line posted yet.
Model: ND −10.4 · total 148.4 · 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: Notre Dame 67.4, C Michigan 68.1 → 67.3 possessions
−2.3
Notre Dame offense vs C Michigan defense
+4.5
C Michigan offense vs Notre Dame defense
−2.0
Projected total
148.4
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Notre Dame offense vs C Michigan defense
+4.5
C Michigan offense vs Notre Dame defense
+2.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Notre Dame by 10.4
10.4
C Michigan side ◂▸ Notre Dame 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 Notre Dame.
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, C Michigan is the faster team (68.3, #185 of 365) and Notre Dame the slower (66.7, #259). 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
148.4
model
Projected team totals
69.0 / 79.4
C Michigan / Notre Dame
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.1#198
C Michigan
67.4#254
Notre Dame
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageNotre Dame
Where Notre Dame scores: shooting
Notre Dame shoots an effective 52.3% (#133); C Michigan allows 54.0% (#299). Expect about 53.2%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageC Michigan
Where C Michigan struggles: the offensive glass
C Michigan rebounds 29.2% of its own misses (#230); Notre Dame lets opponents grab 26.7% of their own misses (#27). Expect about 27.7%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions.
GlassNotre Dame
Notre Dame owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 32.9% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for Notre Dame's offense.
ClashC Michigan
Style clash: paint scoring
C Michigan scores 47.8% of its points in the paint; Notre Dame protects the paint (36.7% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
ClashC Michigan
Style clash: 3-point volume
C Michigan rarely shoots threes (34.0% of its shots); Notre Dame lets opponents take 47.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.2% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashNotre Dame
Style clash: ball movement
Notre Dame creates off the dribble (assists on 47.4% of its baskets); C Michigan allows assists on 57.9% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 52.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
C Michigan has the ball
OffenseNotre Dame allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #158
51.8% #200
+0.8 pt/100
18.1% #276
14.0% #337
+1.3 pt/100
29.2% #230
26.7% #27
-1.6 pt/100
31.4% #269
36.2% #214
-0.1 pt/100
69.7% #277
—
-0.2 pt/100
C Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.0 pts/100
Notre Dame has the ball
OffenseC Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
52.3% #133
54.0% #299
+2.8 pt/100
17.0% #202
17.0% #156
-0.3 pt/100
31.2% #155
34.3% #323
+1.5 pt/100
34.1% #206
39.0% #284
+0.2 pt/100
69.7% #278
—
-0.2 pt/100
Notre Dame net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersC Michiganoffense vsNotre Damedefense
Share of shots by zone
C Michigan shoots
38.2
10.0
18.5
33.3
Notre Dame allows
28.2
6.7
17.3
47.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.3%#154 | 62.8%#320 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#41 | 45.0%#296 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.4%#99 | 39.9%#237 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#181 | 33.2%#138 | 33.7% |
Notre Dameoffense vsC Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Notre Dame shoots
31.9
4.8
20.0
43.3
C Michigan allows
44.8
6.0
10.8
38.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.0%#72 | 61.1%#270 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 28.2%#356 | 44.2%#270 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.3%#211 | 31.6%#14 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#82 | 35.5%#282 | 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 numbersC Michigan
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#330 of 365
Off reb %
29.2%
#230
Def reb %
65.7%
#323
Turnover %
18.1%
#276
Forced TO %
17.0%
#156
FT rate
31.4%
#269
FT allowed
39.0%
#284
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−0.9
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed−1.0
Notre Dame
−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#226 of 365
Off reb %
31.2%
#155
Def reb %
73.3%
#27
Turnover %
17.0%
#202
Forced TO %
14.0%
#337
FT rate
34.1%
#206
FT allowed
36.2%
#214
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−1.9
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed−0.2
Notre Dame has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.9 (#226 of 365) to C Michigan’s −4.2 (#330).
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
C Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Jayson Pettyat Kansas City | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 49.0% | 33.5% | 5.3 | 83.3% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Phat Phat Brooks | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-27 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 43.2% | 17.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 27.3% | |
| 13 | Keenan Garner | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-18 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 56.1% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 59.2% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Jaxson Whitaker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-6 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.3% | 34.5% | 3.7 | 83.3% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Jalen Kampen | G | So | 6'4" | 20-0 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 49.3% | 31.3% | 1.6 | 68.8% | 18.3% | |
| 4 | Kareem Aburashed | C | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Nsikan Usen | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Uchenna Amene | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Brock Mendoza | C | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Conrad Luczynski | C | Sr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jacob Wrencher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jake Bascom | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jayden Hackett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 40 | Travis Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Tyre Acuff | 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: Jayson Petty (from Kansas City)
Notre Dame2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Braeden Shrewsberry | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 53.2% | 40.2% | 7.1 | 77.8% | 21.8% | |
| 23 | Ethan Robertsat Penn | G | Sr | 6'5" | 23-23 | 30.5 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 46.9% | 40.4% | 4.3 | 79.9% | 33.0% | |
| 5 | Devin Brownat Davidson | G | So | 6'6" | 34-27 | 23.4 | 6.4 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 48.3% | 31.0% | 2.6 | 63.2% | 19.1% | |
| 51 | Logan Duncombat Winthrop | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-28 | 24.3 | 18.3 | 8.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 73.5% | 36.9% | |
| 2 | Logan Imes | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-10 | 21.1 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 46.2% | 32.5% | 2.5 | 52.4% | 17.7% | |
| 3 | Braeden Smithat Gonzaga | G | Sr | 6'0" | 35-18 | 17.1 | 5.1 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 52.9% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 80.5% | 18.5% | |
| 6 | Brady Koehler | F | So | 6'10" | 30-13 | 15.9 | 5.6 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 53.6% | 38.2% | 1.8 | 73.9% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Bryce Ruglass Dortchat Rutgers | F | Jr | 6'9" | 31-3 | 14.5 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 61.0% | — | 0.0 | 53.6% | 8.9% | |
| 0 | Brady Stevens | G | Jr | 6'4" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 23.3% | |
| 22 | Luke Devine | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Tommy Ahneman | C | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 44 | Gan-Erdene Solongo | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jake Burow | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Jonathan Sanderson | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Nick Shrewsberry | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Yoro Diallo | F | Sr | 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: Devin Brown (from Davidson), Logan Duncomb (from Winthrop), Ethan Roberts (from Penn), Bryce Ruglass Dortch (from Rutgers), Braeden Smith (from Gonzaga)
C Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Jayson Pettyat Kansas City | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 49.0% | 33.5% | 5.3 | 83.3% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Phat Phat Brooks | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-27 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 43.2% | 17.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 27.3% | |
| 13 | Keenan Garner | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-18 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 56.1% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 59.2% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Jaxson Whitaker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-6 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.3% | 34.5% | 3.7 | 83.3% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Jalen Kampen | G | So | 6'4" | 20-0 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 49.3% | 31.3% | 1.6 | 68.8% | 18.3% | |
| 4 | Kareem Aburashed | C | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Nsikan Usen | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Uchenna Amene | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Brock Mendoza | C | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Conrad Luczynski | C | Sr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jacob Wrencher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jake Bascom | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jayden Hackett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 40 | Travis Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Tyre Acuff | 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: Jayson Petty (from Kansas City)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26C Michigan
Against the spread
Season
15-13-1
Home
7-3-1
Road
6-10
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +6.0
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-16
Home
5-6
Road
8-8
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +0.5
Over 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 6 | Ball State | A | L 69–85 | +2.0 | L−14.0 | 135.0 | O154 | 102.1 | 125.8 | 67.6 |
| Mar 3 | Akron | H | L 64–77 | +11.5 | L−1.5 | 158.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 113.2 | 68.0 |
| Feb 28 | Buffalo | A | W 75–70 | +6.0 | W+11.0 | 149.5 | U145 | 117.8 | 109.9 | 63.7 |
| Feb 24 | Kent State | A | L 81–83 | +12.0 | W+10.0 | 157.0 | O164 | 121.1 | 124.1 | 66.9 |
| Feb 21 | W Michigan | H | W 83–70 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 151.5 | O153 | 111.5 | 94.0 | 74.5 |
| Feb 17 | E Michigan | A | L 54–66 | +5.0 | L−7.0 | 143.0 | U120 | 81.4 | 99.5 | 66.3 |
| Feb 14 | N Illinois | H | W 88–46 | −4.5 | W+37.5 | 146.0 | U134 | 128.9 | 67.4 | 68.3 |
| Feb 7 | Louisiana | A | L 80–85 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 134.0 | O165 | 125.0 | 132.8 | 64.0 |
| Feb 3 | UMass | A | L 89–95 | +11.5 | W+5.5 | 152.5 | O184 | 127.4 | 136.0 | 69.8 |
| Jan 31 | Bowling Green | H | W 62–59 | +9.0 | W+12.0 | 149.0 | U121 | 88.1 | 83.8 | 70.4 |
Notre Dame
Against the spread
Season
15-16
Home
8-9
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.9
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
22-9
Home
14-3
Road
8-3
Last 10
9-1
avg vs total +10.1
Over 8 straightOver in 6 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Boston College | A | L 69–77 | −2.5 | L−10.5 | 142.0 | O146 | 91.7 | 102.4 | 75.2 |
| Mar 4 | Stanford | H | L 78–86 | +1.0 | L−7.0 | 147.0 | O164 | 122.9 | 135.5 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | NC State | H | W 96–90 OT | +6.5 | W+12.5 | 155.0 | O186 | 134.5 | 126.1 | 71.4 |
| Feb 24 | #1Duke | H | L 56–100 | +17.0 | L−27.0 | 142.0 | O156 | 78.3 | 139.8 | 71.5 |
| Feb 21 | Pitt | A | L 68–73 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 108.4 | 116.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | Georgia Tech | H | W 89–74 | −6.0 | W+9.0 | 150.0 | O163 | 129.3 | 107.5 | 68.8 |
| Feb 10 | SMU | A | L 81–89 | +10.5 | W+2.5 | 154.0 | O170 | 117.2 | 128.8 | 69.1 |
| Feb 7 | Florida St | H | L 79–82 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 153.0 | O161 | 109.1 | 113.2 | 72.4 |
| Feb 4 | #24Louisville | A | L 65–76 | +18.0 | W+7.0 | 155.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 110.0 | 69.1 |
| Jan 31 | Syracuse | A | L 72–86 | +5.0 | L−9.0 | 147.5 | O158 | 107.1 | 127.9 | 67.2 |
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 homeC MichiganNotre Dame
Efficiency
106.1
111.4
112.3
107.9
68.1
67.4
—
—
Shooting
51.8%
52.3%
52.2%
51.4%
33.9%
35.6%
69.7%
69.7%
31.4%
34.1%
Ball control & glass
18.1%
17.0%
17.0%
14.0%
29.2%
31.2%
34.3%
26.7%
11.1%
9.1%
8.8%
8.8%
Style
34.0%
43.5%
47.8%
40.2%
15.0%
9.8%
54.9%
47.4%
31.5%
31.4%
Roster
3.20
3.45
6'4.1"
6'5.8"
39.7%
34.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputC Michigan
Returning minutes: 39.7%Returning production: 34.3%
Lost
- Nathan Claerbaut 29.1 mpg, 12.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tamario Adley 29.0 mpg, 12.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Logan McIntire 23.8 mpg, 10.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nick Mullen 19.0 mpg, 5.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Will Ashford 9.9 mpg, 2.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Rodney Johnson Jr. 5.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jayson Petty from Kansas City · 31.1 mpg, 11.1 ppg last season
- Conrad Luczynski no D1 minutes last season
- Uchenna Amene no D1 minutes last season
- Tyre Acuff no D1 minutes last season
- Jacob Wrencher no D1 minutes last season
- Kareem Aburashed no D1 minutes last season
Returns 40% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).
Notre Dame
Returning minutes: 34.3%Returning production: 29.4%
Lost
- Cole Certa 26.9 mpg, 12.8 ppg · transferred to Clemson
- Carson Towt 26.0 mpg, 5.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jalen Haralson 23.2 mpg, 14.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Garrett Sundra 17.9 mpg, 3.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sir Mohammed 16.4 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Markus Burton 9.7 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ethan Roberts from Penn · 23.4 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
- Devin Brown from Davidson · 23.4 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
- Logan Duncomb from Winthrop · 22.9 mpg, 17.2 ppg last season
- Braeden Smith from Gonzaga · 17.1 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season
- Bryce Ruglass Dortch from Rutgers · 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg last season
- Nick Shrewsberry no D1 minutes last season
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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 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.