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-conferenceStroh Center, Bowling Green, OH
Gardner-Webb
Efficiency #363
2025-26: 4-29 · 2-16 conf
@
Bowling Green
Efficiency #114
2025-26: 18-14 · 9-10 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · TBD
65.4
win 5%
Projected
84.0
win 95%
No line posted yet.
Model: BGSU −18.7 · total 149.4 · 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: Bowling Green 68.9, Gardner-Webb 69.8 → 70.4 possessions
+4.5
Bowling Green offense vs Gardner-Webb defense
+5.6
Gardner-Webb offense vs Bowling Green defense
−9.0
Projected total
149.4
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Bowling Green offense vs Gardner-Webb defense
+5.6
Gardner-Webb offense vs Bowling Green defense
+9.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Bowling Green by 18.7
18.7
Gardner-Webb side ◂▸ Bowling Green side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 149.3 against a projected 149.4, and the margin steps add to +18.6 against +18.7. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Bowling Green.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Gardner-Webb is the faster team (70.8, #62 of 365) and Bowling Green the slower (70.2, #86). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.4
model
Projected team totals
65.4 / 84.0
Gardner-Webb / Bowling Green
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.8#64
Gardner-Webb
68.9#128
Bowling Green
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageBowling Green
Where Bowling Green scores: shooting
Bowling Green shoots an effective 51.8% (#153); Gardner-Webb allows 56.9% (#356). Expect about 54.5%, 3.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.6 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageGardner-Webb
Where Gardner-Webb struggles: the offensive glass
Gardner-Webb rebounds 23.2% of its own misses (#350); Bowling Green lets opponents grab 26.9% of their own misses (#31). Expect about 23.6%, 6.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.1 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversGardner-Webb
Gardner-Webb turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 19.5% is worth roughly -3.4 points per 100 possessions against Gardner-Webb's offense.
Pace
Track meet
Bowling Green averages 70.2 possessions per 40, Gardner-Webb 70.8. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
DefenseBowling Green
Bowling Green's ball-hawking
Bowling Green ranks #31 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.8% of Gardner-Webb's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Gardner-Webb) 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 Gardner-Webb at about 40.9% of its shots from three, Bowling Green about 36.2%.
Gardner-Webb has the ball
OffenseBowling Green allowsvs D1 avg
47.8% #317
51.0% #163
-3.1 pt/100
19.8% #344
18.4% #80
-3.4 pt/100
23.2% #350
26.9% #31
-4.1 pt/100
30.3% #302
37.2% #243
-0.1 pt/100
68.5% #313
—
-0.3 pt/100
Gardner-Webb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -11.1 pts/100
Bowling Green has the ball
OffenseGardner-Webb allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #153
56.9% #356
+4.6 pt/100
16.5% #166
15.3% #264
+1.3 pt/100
28.7% #244
36.6% #355
+1.1 pt/100
37.0% #129
35.2% #185
+0.1 pt/100
72.3% #196
—
-0.0 pt/100
Bowling Green net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersGardner-Webboffense vsBowling Greendefense
Share of shots by zone
Gardner-Webb shoots
42.6
5.3
13.4
38.7
Bowling Green allows
36.2
10.8
11.8
41.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.3%#315 | 55.8%#81 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 27.4%#361 | 46.3%#323 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 34.1%#311 | 40.2%#251 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.0%#320 | 33.5%#161 | 33.7% |
Bowling Greenoffense vsGardner-Webbdefense
Share of shots by zone
Bowling Green shoots
49.9
8.9
8.1
33.1
Gardner-Webb allows
41.8
5.5
11.5
41.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.4%#214 | 65.9%#357 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.8%#306 | 44.7%#287 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.5%#274 | 37.3%#139 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.4%#148 | 36.0%#300 | 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 numbersGardner-Webb
−8.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#364 of 365
Off reb %
23.2%
#350
Def reb %
63.4%
#355
Turnover %
19.8%
#344
Forced TO %
15.3%
#264
FT rate
30.3%
#302
FT allowed
35.2%
#185
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.3
Defensive rebounding−1.9
Ball security−2.1
Forcing turnovers−0.9
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed0.0
Bowling Green
+2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#98 of 365
Off reb %
28.7%
#244
Def reb %
73.1%
#31
Turnover %
16.5%
#166
Forced TO %
18.4%
#80
FT rate
37.0%
#129
FT allowed
37.2%
#243
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.6
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers+1.2
Foul shots drawn+0.5
Foul shots allowed−0.5
Bowling Green has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.0 (#98 of 365) to Gardner-Webb’s −8.5 (#364).
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
Gardner-Webb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Gardner-Webb'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Colin Hawkins | G | So | 6'3" | 31-31 | 27.2 | 8.2 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 46.0% | 23.8% | 1.4 | 59.0% | 22.0% | |
| 5 | Jacob Hogarth | F | So | 6'9" | 33-30 | 25.0 | 10.7 | 7.1 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 53.8% | 40.0% | 0.5 | 70.6% | 26.3% | |
| 25 | Ace Talbert | G | Jr | 6'0" | 32-29 | 25.3 | 6.9 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 44.3% | 26.1% | 4.4 | 61.7% | 18.6% | |
| 6 | Jacob Hudson | G | So | 6'2" | 29-17 | 27.1 | 10.7 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 48.8% | 25.0% | 1.8 | 65.1% | 24.7% | |
| 1 | Spence Sims | G | Fr | 6'1" | 32-15 | 24.5 | 9.9 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 59.6% | 43.0% | 5.2 | 75.8% | 22.6% | |
| 10 | Curtis Williams III | G | Jr | 6'7" | 26-22 | 21.3 | 6.6 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 43.7% | 27.4% | 2.8 | 70.2% | 20.5% | |
| 0 | Jamias Ferere | G | Fr | 6'6" | 32-8 | 17.0 | 6.3 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 44.0% | 23.7% | 1.2 | 77.0% | 25.6% | |
| 4 | DJ Jefferson | G | Jr | 6'4" | 27-3 | 16.7 | 7.6 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 51.1% | 35.1% | 3.5 | 62.9% | 29.0% | |
| 11 | NaVuan Peterson | F | Sr | 6'6" | 27-4 | 13.2 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 43.5% | 26.7% | 2.2 | 84.6% | 16.2% | |
| 7 | Riek Riek | F | Sr | 6'9" | 27-0 | 10.4 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 47.2% | 26.1% | 0.9 | 66.7% | 12.0% | |
| 35 | Bo Barber | G | Sr | 5'10" | 17-0 | 8.2 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 28.6% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 90.9% | 13.1% | |
| 3 | Julius Clark | G | Jr | 6'7" | 8-4 | 17.0 | 7.3 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 52.7% | 23.1% | 1.6 | 73.1% | 21.9% | |
| 21 | Ahmadou Ndiaye | G | Jr | 6'8" | 10-0 | 4.7 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 30.0% | 50.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 16.2% | |
| 12 | Cameron Gales | G | So | 6'0" | 10-0 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 21.4% | 25.0% | 0.4 | — | 26.1% | |
| 9 | Paul Lindberg | G | Jr | 6'4" | 8-1 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 35.7% | 50.0% | 0.3 | — | 26.2% | |
| 2 | Isaiah Hicks | G | Jr | 6'0" | 5-1 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.6 | — | 34.3% | |
| 8 | Ashton King | 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.
Bowling Green2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Jayden Johnsonat SC State | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-29 | 27.4 | 13.4 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 48.8% | 37.0% | 3.1 | 72.6% | 31.5% | |
| 8 | Juan Cranford Jr.at E Kentucky | G | Jr | 6'4" | 32-29 | 25.9 | 12.1 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 53.3% | 36.3% | 7.0 | 79.6% | 27.2% | |
| 4 | Josiah Shackelford | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-14 | 22.8 | 11.3 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 52.0% | 35.3% | 3.6 | 74.7% | 27.2% | |
| 3 | Makhi Leach | G | So | 6'2" | 25-0 | 8.8 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 47.5% | 11.1% | 0.7 | 75.0% | 21.9% | |
| 34 | Aiden Goins | F | Sr | 6'9" | 25-0 | 8.5 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 48.3% | 25.0% | 0.8 | 87.9% | 29.6% | |
| 22 | Christ Essandokoat South Carolina | F | Sr | 7'1" | 21-4 | 7.5 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 38.6% | 37.5% | 0.8 | 50.0% | 23.1% | |
| 0 | Tristan Beckfordat South Florida | G | So | 6'7" | 19-1 | 7.9 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 52.7% | 23.1% | 0.7 | 72.7% | 19.2% | |
| 15 | Camden Karel | F | So | 6'9" | 19-0 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 64.6% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 18.0% | |
| 13 | Preston Squire | F | Jr | 6'11" | 4-0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 10.0% | |
| 5 | Christian Dedivanaj | G | So | 6'3" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 4.0% | |
| 2 | KJ Torbert | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 35 | Leek Ateny | F | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Talan Staley | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Trey Simmons | G | Jr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Zach Howell | G | Sr | 6'5" | 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: Tristan Beckford (from South Florida), Juan Cranford Jr. (from E Kentucky), Christ Essandoko (from South Carolina), Jayden Johnson (from SC State)
Gardner-Webb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Gardner-Webb'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Colin Hawkins | G | So | 6'3" | 31-31 | 27.2 | 8.2 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 46.0% | 23.8% | 1.4 | 59.0% | 22.0% | |
| 5 | Jacob Hogarth | F | So | 6'9" | 33-30 | 25.0 | 10.7 | 7.1 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 53.8% | 40.0% | 0.5 | 70.6% | 26.3% | |
| 25 | Ace Talbert | G | Jr | 6'0" | 32-29 | 25.3 | 6.9 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 44.3% | 26.1% | 4.4 | 61.7% | 18.6% | |
| 6 | Jacob Hudson | G | So | 6'2" | 29-17 | 27.1 | 10.7 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 48.8% | 25.0% | 1.8 | 65.1% | 24.7% | |
| 1 | Spence Sims | G | Fr | 6'1" | 32-15 | 24.5 | 9.9 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 59.6% | 43.0% | 5.2 | 75.8% | 22.6% | |
| 10 | Curtis Williams III | G | Jr | 6'7" | 26-22 | 21.3 | 6.6 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 43.7% | 27.4% | 2.8 | 70.2% | 20.5% | |
| 0 | Jamias Ferere | G | Fr | 6'6" | 32-8 | 17.0 | 6.3 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 44.0% | 23.7% | 1.2 | 77.0% | 25.6% | |
| 4 | DJ Jefferson | G | Jr | 6'4" | 27-3 | 16.7 | 7.6 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 51.1% | 35.1% | 3.5 | 62.9% | 29.0% | |
| 11 | NaVuan Peterson | F | Sr | 6'6" | 27-4 | 13.2 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 43.5% | 26.7% | 2.2 | 84.6% | 16.2% | |
| 7 | Riek Riek | F | Sr | 6'9" | 27-0 | 10.4 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 47.2% | 26.1% | 0.9 | 66.7% | 12.0% | |
| 35 | Bo Barber | G | Sr | 5'10" | 17-0 | 8.2 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 28.6% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 90.9% | 13.1% | |
| 3 | Julius Clark | G | Jr | 6'7" | 8-4 | 17.0 | 7.3 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 52.7% | 23.1% | 1.6 | 73.1% | 21.9% | |
| 21 | Ahmadou Ndiaye | G | Jr | 6'8" | 10-0 | 4.7 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 30.0% | 50.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 16.2% | |
| 12 | Cameron Gales | G | So | 6'0" | 10-0 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 21.4% | 25.0% | 0.4 | — | 26.1% | |
| 9 | Paul Lindberg | G | Jr | 6'4" | 8-1 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 35.7% | 50.0% | 0.3 | — | 26.2% | |
| 2 | Isaiah Hicks | G | Jr | 6'0" | 5-1 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.6 | — | 34.3% | |
| 8 | Ashton King | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Gardner-Webb
Against the spread
Season
15-14-1
Home
7-3
Road
6-9-1
Last 10
9-1
avg cover +5.0
Covered 9 straightCovered 9 of 10 as an underdogCovered 9 of 10 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
16-13-1
Home
8-2
Road
7-8-1
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −1.5
Under 3 straightOver in 4 of 10 as an underdogOver in 4 of 10 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | High Point | N | L 59–81 | +27.5 | W+5.5 | 156.5 | U140 | 84.0 | 115.3 | 70.3 |
| Mar 4 | SC Upstate | N | W 65–64 | +11.0 | W+12.0 | 144.0 | U129 | 100.7 | 99.1 | 64.6 |
| Feb 28 | SC Upstate | A | L 61–71 | +13.5 | W+3.5 | 146.5 | U132 | 86.8 | 101.0 | 70.3 |
| Feb 26 | UNC Asheville | H | L 71–77 | +12.5 | W+6.5 | 145.5 | O148 | 114.6 | 124.2 | 62.0 |
| Feb 19 | Radford | A | L 70–82 | +19.0 | W+7.0 | 162.5 | U152 | 101.4 | 118.8 | 69.0 |
| Feb 17 | Charleston So | A | L 66–75 | +17.5 | W+8.5 | 160.5 | U141 | 88.8 | 100.9 | 74.4 |
| Feb 14 | High Point | H | L 87–112 | +25.5 | W+0.5 | 162.0 | O199 | 111.4 | 143.5 | 78.1 |
| Feb 12 | Winthrop | H | L 85–103 | +20.5 | W+2.5 | 155.0 | O188 | 110.9 | 134.4 | 76.7 |
| Feb 7 | Presbyterian | A | L 62–68 | +17.5 | W+11.5 | 145.5 | U130 | 97.9 | 107.4 | 63.3 |
| Feb 4 | Longwood | H | L 66–86 | +12.5 | L−7.5 | 148.0 | O152 | 93.0 | 121.1 | 71.0 |
Bowling Green
Against the spread
Season
14-14-1
Home
5-8-1
Road
7-5
Last 10
6-4
avg cover −2.3
Covered 3 straightCovered 5 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
11-17-1
Home
5-8-1
Road
5-7
Last 10
4-5-1
avg vs total −1.9
Over 2 straightOver in 2 of 7 as a favorite, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Toledo | N | L 76–77 | +1.5 | W+0.5 | 152.0 | O153 | 111.6 | 113.1 | 68.1 |
| Mar 6 | E Michigan | A | W 77–69 | −5.0 | W+3.0 | 143.0 | O146 | 108.2 | 96.9 | 71.2 |
| Feb 28 | UMass | H | W 81–62 | −4.0 | W+15.0 | 151.5 | U143 | 123.5 | 94.5 | 65.6 |
| Feb 24 | W Michigan | H | L 79–88 | −12.0 | L−21.0 | 149.0 | O167 | 108.3 | 120.6 | 73.0 |
| Feb 20 | #22Miami OH | A | L 77–91 | +8.0 | L−6.0 | 154.0 | O168 | 104.1 | 123.0 | 74.0 |
| Feb 17 | Kent State | H | L 71–78 | −2.5 | L−9.5 | 151.5 | U149 | 97.9 | 107.5 | 72.5 |
| Feb 14 | Toledo | H | W 80–70 | −4.0 | W+6.0 | 150.0 | P150 | 122.0 | 106.7 | 65.6 |
| Feb 11 | N Illinois | A | W 68–52 | −7.5 | W+8.5 | 145.0 | U120 | 97.6 | 74.6 | 69.7 |
| Feb 7 | Arkansas St | A | L 54–91 | +3.5 | L−33.5 | 155.0 | U145 | 71.8 | 121.0 | 75.2 |
| Feb 3 | Ball State | H | W 77–52 | −11.0 | W+14.0 | 138.0 | U129 | 123.0 | 83.1 | 62.6 |
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 homeGardner-WebbBowling Green
Efficiency
99.1
107.8
117.1
105.1
69.8
68.9
—
—
Shooting
47.8%
51.8%
48.6%
51.9%
31.0%
34.4%
68.5%
72.3%
30.3%
37.0%
Ball control & glass
19.8%
16.5%
15.3%
18.4%
23.2%
28.7%
36.6%
26.9%
11.7%
9.0%
10.4%
9.8%
Style
39.8%
34.2%
46.5%
48.7%
14.3%
19.8%
41.0%
48.5%
36.5%
28.7%
Roster
2.34
2.96
6'4.1"
6'4.4"
—
20.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputGardner-Webb
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Gardner-Webb'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.)
Bowling Green
Returning minutes: 20.3%Returning production: 18.4%
Lost
- Javontae Campbell 34.1 mpg, 18.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sam Towns 32.0 mpg, 11.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Thomas 24.3 mpg, 5.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Troy Glover II 22.9 mpg, 7.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Javon Ruffin 22.8 mpg, 7.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mayar Wol 20.0 mpg, 10.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jayden Johnson from SC State · 27.4 mpg, 13.4 ppg last season
- Juan Cranford Jr. from E Kentucky · 25.9 mpg, 12.1 ppg last season
- Christ Essandoko from South Carolina · 4.9 mpg, 1.3 ppg last season
- Tristan Beckford from South Florida · 4.4 mpg, 1.6 ppg last season
- Zach Howell no D1 minutes last season
- Talan Staley no D1 minutes last season
Returns 20% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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.