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.
Conference gameUniversity Arena (MI), Kalamazoo, MI
Buffalo
Efficiency #186
2025-26: 17-15 · 7-12 conf
@
W Michigan
Efficiency #276
2025-26: 10-21 · 4-14 conf
Wed, Dec 2 · TBD
77.0
win 49%
Projected
77.3
win 51%
No line posted yet.
Model: WMU −0.3 · total 154.4 · 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: W Michigan 68.6, Buffalo 67.7 → 68.1 possessions
−0.5
W Michigan offense vs Buffalo defense
+1.5
Buffalo offense vs W Michigan defense
+5.2
Projected total
154.4
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
W Michigan offense vs Buffalo defense
+1.5
Buffalo offense vs W Michigan defense
−5.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
W Michigan by 0.3
0.3
Buffalo side ◂▸ W Michigan side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +0.2 against +0.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help W Michigan.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, W Michigan is the faster team (69.0, #148 of 365) and Buffalo the slower (67.6, #215). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
154.4
model
Projected team totals
77.0 / 77.3
Buffalo / W Michigan
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.7#229
Buffalo
68.6#153
W Michigan
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); W Michigan allows 54.4% (#310). Expect about 55.2%, 3.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.6 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversBuffalo
Buffalo protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.3% is worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions for Buffalo's offense.
ClashBuffalo
Style match: 3-point volume
Buffalo takes 45.5% of its shots from three; W Michigan lets opponents take 43.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.1% — 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 Buffalo at about 47.1% of its shots from three, W Michigan about 38.4%.
GlassBuffalo
Buffalo gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.5% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against Buffalo's offense.
AdvantageW Michigan
Where W Michigan scores: shooting
W Michigan shoots an effective 49.9% (#241); Buffalo allows 55.1% (#333). Expect about 52.4%, 1.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions.
Buffalo has the ball
OffenseW Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
55.4% #30
54.4% #310
+5.6 pt/100
16.2% #151
13.4% #346
+3.1 pt/100
27.1% #291
29.1% #110
-1.8 pt/100
39.6% #65
37.5% #251
+0.5 pt/100
73.6% #151
—
+0.1 pt/100
Buffalo net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.4 pts/100
W Michigan has the ball
OffenseBuffalo allowsvs D1 avg
49.9% #241
55.1% #333
+1.6 pt/100
16.9% #198
17.9% #101
-1.0 pt/100
30.5% #177
31.1% #209
+0.3 pt/100
32.8% #241
31.4% #90
-0.4 pt/100
74.4% #104
—
+0.2 pt/100
W Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersBuffalooffense vsW Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Buffalo shoots
38.6
4.0
12.3
45.0
W Michigan allows
38.9
4.9
12.8
43.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.8%#124 | 60.5%#250 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.9%#124 | 48.1%#340 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.0%#109 | 37.0%#130 | 38.0% |
| Three | 37.9%#20 | 36.1%#307 | 33.7% |
W Michiganoffense vsBuffalodefense
Share of shots by zone
W Michigan shoots
39.5
5.4
19.6
35.5
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 | 53.2%#338 | 62.0%#300 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.0%#171 | 55.6%#365 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.2%#180 | 42.2%#310 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.3%#95 | 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
W Michigan
−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#302 of 365
Off reb %
30.5%
#177
Def reb %
70.9%
#110
Turnover %
16.9%
#198
Forced TO %
13.4%
#346
FT rate
32.8%
#241
FT allowed
37.5%
#251
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding0.0
Defensive rebounding+0.5
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−2.3
Foul shots drawn−0.6
Foul shots allowed−0.6
Buffalo has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.2 (#92 of 365) to W Michigan’s −3.0 (#302).
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)
W Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | EJ Ryans | G | So | 6'3" | 31-31 | 27.3 | 7.5 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 46.8% | 31.2% | 3.0 | 89.1% | 17.9% | |
| 12 | Jayden Brewer | G | Sr | 6'6" | 31-28 | 25.4 | 13.3 | 7.0 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 47.5% | 31.6% | 1.2 | 70.8% | 32.4% | |
| 2 | Jalen Griffith | G | Jr | 5'10" | 27-17 | 22.9 | 11.9 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 55.3% | 41.2% | 4.2 | 81.5% | 29.5% | |
| 11 | Justice Williams | G | Sr | 6'4" | 18-14 | 30.1 | 15.1 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 50.2% | 36.4% | 4.9 | 85.1% | 29.6% | |
| 4 | Brady Swartz | G | Fr | 6'7" | 25-17 | 20.6 | 7.7 | 4.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 50.3% | 34.1% | 3.4 | 69.6% | 21.2% | |
| 7 | Carson Vis | G | Fr | 6'3" | 31-0 | 14.8 | 5.8 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 48.6% | 30.6% | 1.6 | 60.7% | 24.6% | |
| 0 | Sharod Barnes | G | Fr | 6'2" | 27-0 | 12.4 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 34.6% | 11.1% | 0.3 | 82.4% | 22.1% | |
| 24 | Michael Sulaka | F | So | 6'9" | 24-1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 52.8% | 33.3% | 0.1 | 70.6% | 15.4% | |
| 22 | Declan Peterson | C | Sr | 6'11" | 27-0 | 9.1 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 60.5% | — | 0.0 | 54.5% | 16.8% | |
| 8 | Hudson Ward | F | So | 6'7" | 13-6 | 18.6 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 54.6% | 33.3% | 2.1 | 0.0% | 13.8% | |
| 52 | Junior Sileu | F | Fr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 6.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 80.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 6.3% | |
| 9 | Nicholas Errica | G | Fr | 6'3" | 6-0 | 5.0 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 43.8% | 16.7% | 1.0 | — | 19.7% | |
| 23 | Camden Thompson | G | Fr | 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.
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 |
W Michigan
Against the spread
Season
15-13-1
Home
8-5
Road
7-8-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover +1.6
Covered the last gameCovered 4 of 9 as an underdogCovered 3 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
18-11
Home
7-6
Road
11-5
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +1.6
Over 2 straightOver in 6 of 9 as an underdogOver in 4 of 5 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Kent State | A | L 78–86 | +13.5 | W+5.5 | 157.5 | O164 | 111.1 | 122.5 | 70.2 |
| Mar 3 | Ball State | H | L 71–74 OT | −2.0 | L−5.0 | 138.5 | O145 | 99.0 | 103.2 | 71.7 |
| Feb 27 | #21Miami OH | H | L 67–69 | +11.5 | W+9.5 | 163.0 | U136 | 98.3 | 101.2 | 68.2 |
| Feb 24 | Bowling Green | A | W 88–79 | +12.0 | W+21.0 | 149.0 | O167 | 120.6 | 108.3 | 73.0 |
| Feb 21 | C Michigan | A | L 70–83 | +3.5 | L−9.5 | 151.5 | O153 | 94.0 | 111.5 | 74.5 |
| Feb 17 | Akron | H | L 73–90 | +14.0 | L−3.0 | 159.0 | O163 | 107.5 | 132.6 | 67.9 |
| Feb 14 | E Michigan | A | W 76–62 | +6.5 | W+20.5 | 144.0 | U138 | 117.6 | 96.0 | 64.6 |
| Feb 11 | Toledo | H | L 79–90 | +6.5 | L−4.5 | 154.5 | O169 | 115.0 | 131.0 | 68.7 |
| Feb 7 | Texas St | A | L 61–77 | +6.5 | L−9.5 | 146.5 | U138 | 94.9 | 119.8 | 64.3 |
| Feb 3 | Ohio | A | L 71–91 | +10.5 | L−9.5 | 156.0 | O162 | 102.7 | 131.6 | 69.2 |
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 homeBuffaloW Michigan
Efficiency
111.2
107.3
111.9
113.3
67.7
68.6
—
—
Shooting
55.4%
49.9%
54.1%
48.1%
37.9%
35.3%
73.6%
74.4%
39.6%
32.8%
Ball control & glass
16.2%
16.9%
17.9%
13.4%
27.1%
30.5%
31.1%
29.1%
9.8%
9.5%
8.1%
11.9%
Style
45.5%
36.1%
37.8%
40.7%
14.1%
14.5%
54.4%
48.1%
24.2%
37.5%
Roster
3.67
2.48
6'4.6"
6'4.3"
3.6%
79.4%
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).
W Michigan
Returning minutes: 79.4%Returning production: 81.4%
Lost
- Max Burton 23.8 mpg, 5.7 ppg · transferred to Akron
- Trey Lewis 17.6 mpg, 7.7 ppg · transferred to Ball State
Added
- Camden Thompson no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 79% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 transferred). 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).
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Dec 20 | 2025-26 | Buffalo 88 – 71 W Michigan |
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.