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-conferenceNeutral siteThe Palestra, Philadelphia, PACathedral Classic
Buffalo
Efficiency #186
2025-26: 17-15 · 7-12 conf
vs
Towson
Efficiency #149
2025-26: 19-15 · 11-10 conf
Sat, Nov 28 · TBD
70.1
win 46%
Projected
71.3
win 54%
No line posted yet.
Model: TOW −1.2 · total 141.4 · 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: Towson 65.7, Buffalo 67.7 → 65.1 possessions
−6.9
Towson offense vs Buffalo defense
+0.7
Buffalo offense vs Towson defense
−0.5
Projected total
141.4
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Towson offense vs Buffalo defense
+0.7
Buffalo offense vs Towson defense
+0.5
Towson by 1.2
1.2
Buffalo side ◂▸ Towson side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 141.5 against a projected 141.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Towson.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Buffalo is the faster team (67.6, #215 of 365) and Towson the slower (63.8, #358). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
141.4
model
Projected team totals
70.1 / 71.3
Buffalo / Towson
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.7#229
Buffalo
65.7#350
Towson
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Towson averages 63.8 possessions per 40, Buffalo 67.6. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageTowson
Where Towson scores: the offensive glass
Towson rebounds 36.0% of its own misses (#24); Buffalo lets opponents grab 31.1% of their own misses (#209). Expect about 34.7%, 4.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Towson, Buffalo, Towson's defense) 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 Buffalo at about 45.5% of its shots from three, Towson about 37.4%.
AdvantageBuffalo
Where Buffalo struggles: the offensive glass
Buffalo rebounds 27.1% of its own misses (#291); Towson lets opponents grab 29.1% of their own misses (#117). Expect about 27.5%, 2.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversBuffalo
Buffalo protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.4% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Buffalo's offense.
ClashTowson
Style clash: ball movement
Towson creates off the dribble (assists on 38.9% of its baskets); Buffalo allows assists on 58.8% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 47.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
Buffalo has the ball
OffenseTowson allowsvs D1 avg
55.4% #30
48.5% #49
+1.3 pt/100
16.2% #151
15.1% #274
+1.7 pt/100
27.1% #291
29.1% #117
-1.8 pt/100
39.6% #65
29.3% #49
-0.1 pt/100
73.6% #151
—
+0.1 pt/100
Buffalo net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.2 pts/100
Towson has the ball
OffenseBuffalo allowsvs D1 avg
46.5% #345
55.1% #333
-1.2 pt/100
15.9% #129
17.9% #101
-0.2 pt/100
36.0% #24
31.1% #209
+2.6 pt/100
30.4% #299
31.4% #90
-0.5 pt/100
68.9% #300
—
-0.3 pt/100
Towson net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersBuffalooffense vsTowsondefense
Share of shots by zone
Buffalo shoots
38.6
4.0
12.3
45.0
Towson allows
36.8
6.5
16.2
40.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.8%#124 | 56.4%#96 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.9%#124 | 42.1%#232 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.0%#109 | 37.6%#148 | 38.0% |
| Three | 37.9%#20 | 30.9%#33 | 33.7% |
Towsonoffense vsBuffalodefense
Share of shots by zone
Towson shoots
34.7
6.1
24.2
35.0
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 | 54.9%#300 | 62.0%#300 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.4%#166 | 55.6%#365 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.7%#159 | 42.2%#310 | 38.0% |
| Three | 29.4%#349 | 35.1%#252 | 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 numbersBuffalo
+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
Towson
+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#90 of 365
Off reb %
36.0%
#24
Def reb %
70.9%
#117
Turnover %
15.9%
#129
Forced TO %
15.1%
#274
FT rate
30.4%
#299
FT allowed
29.3%
#49
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.8
Defensive rebounding+0.5
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.5
Both teams carry the same grade, +2.2 extra scoring chances per game.
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
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)
Towson2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Towson'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Dylan Williamson | G | Jr | 6'1" | 34-34 | 35.9 | 14.6 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 47.3% | 34.0% | 7.3 | 74.5% | 28.8% | |
| 15 | Tyler Tejada | G | Jr | 6'9" | 32-31 | 35.5 | 17.7 | 5.5 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 48.0% | 29.1% | 4.6 | 88.2% | 31.7% | |
| 21 | Jack Doumbia Jr. | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-6 | 23.9 | 10.7 | 5.6 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 44.7% | 12.2% | 1.3 | 65.4% | 33.7% | |
| 23 | Caleb Embeya | F | So | 6'9" | 34-16 | 20.7 | 3.6 | 5.8 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 59.1% | 12.7% | |
| 3 | Tyler Coleman | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-24 | 19.9 | 5.3 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 51.2% | 35.7% | 0.9 | 72.5% | 17.3% | |
| 24 | Jaquan Womack | G | Fr | 6'6" | 32-10 | 19.3 | 7.1 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 44.9% | 27.6% | 2.7 | 64.8% | 27.0% | |
| 41 | Mor Seck | C | Sr | 7'1" | 34-17 | 14.5 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 54.5% | — | 0.0 | 43.3% | 16.4% | |
| 1 | Tyler Schmidt | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-13 | 14.1 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 48.4% | 27.1% | 1.8 | 85.7% | 14.8% | |
| 13 | Chike Ndefo | G | Fr | 6'7" | 32-9 | 12.6 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 46.7% | 12.5% | 0.3 | 46.9% | 18.2% | |
| 0 | Ryan Conway | G | Sr | 6'1" | 23-9 | 10.1 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 54.3% | 36.4% | 2.9 | 71.4% | 20.6% | |
| 2 | Jaiden Cole | G | Jr | 6'4" | 8-0 | 9.8 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 54.4% | 39.1% | 2.9 | 80.0% | 27.9% | |
| 12 | Abdou Samb | F | Sr | 6'8" | 7-1 | 7.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 8.4% | |
| 22 | Ryan Skerry | G | Jr | 6'4" | 10-0 | 3.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 10.7% | 12.5% | 0.8 | — | 26.8% | |
| 30 | Brandon Holmes | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Jon Barton | 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.
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)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Buffalo
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 |
Towson
Against the spread
Season
14-17-1
Home
5-7
Road
4-8-1
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover +1.2
Covered 2 straightCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
12-20
Home
3-9
Road
5-8
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.7
Over in the last gameOver in 1 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | Hofstra | N | L 65–68 OT | +4.0 | W+1.0 | 131.5 | O133 | 106.8 | 111.7 | 60.9 |
| Mar 8 | Charleston | N | W 81–56 | +2.5 | W+27.5 | 139.0 | U137 | 134.0 | 92.7 | 60.4 |
| Mar 7 | Hampton | N | W 74–68 | −7.5 | L−1.5 | 132.0 | O142 | 108.9 | 100.1 | 67.9 |
| Mar 3 | Stony Brook | A | W 69–57 | −1.0 | W+11.0 | 135.5 | U126 | 112.7 | 93.1 | 61.2 |
| Feb 28 | Campbell | H | W 71–67 | −5.0 | L−1.0 | 141.5 | U138 | 120.0 | 113.2 | 59.2 |
| Feb 26 | Elon | H | W 58–56 | −5.5 | L−3.5 | 144.0 | U114 | 94.1 | 90.9 | 61.6 |
| Feb 22 | Drexel | A | L 62–68 | −2.5 | L−8.5 | 131.0 | U130 | 93.9 | 102.9 | 66.1 |
| Feb 15 | Monmouth | A | L 71–72 | +1.0 | P0.0 | 137.5 | O143 | 109.1 | 110.7 | 65.0 |
| Feb 12 | Stony Brook | H | W 69–57 | −6.5 | W+5.5 | 135.0 | U126 | 108.8 | 89.9 | 63.4 |
| Feb 7 | Hofstra | A | L 49–71 | +4.0 | L−18.0 | 139.0 | U120 | 79.3 | 114.9 | 61.8 |
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 homeBuffaloTowson
Efficiency
111.2
106.1
111.9
104.9
67.7
65.7
—
—
Shooting
55.4%
46.5%
54.1%
47.8%
37.9%
29.4%
73.6%
68.9%
39.6%
30.4%
Ball control & glass
16.2%
15.9%
17.9%
15.1%
27.1%
36.0%
31.1%
29.1%
9.8%
7.4%
8.1%
7.6%
Style
45.5%
34.9%
37.8%
43.4%
14.1%
13.0%
54.4%
38.9%
24.2%
35.0%
Roster
3.67
2.98
6'4.6"
6'6.2"
3.6%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputBuffalo
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).
Towson
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Towson'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.)
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.