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 gameBroadview Arena, Buffalo, NY
Miami OH
Efficiency #66
2025-26: 32-2 · 18-1 conf
@
Buffalo
Efficiency #186
2025-26: 17-15 · 7-12 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
79.7
win 56%
Projected
78.1
win 44%
No line posted yet.
Model: M-OH −1.7 · total 157.8 · 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, Miami OH 69.8 → 69.2 possessions
+2.0
Buffalo offense vs Miami OH defense
+1.0
Miami OH offense vs Buffalo defense
+6.6
Projected total
157.8
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Buffalo offense vs Miami OH defense
+1.0
Miami OH offense vs Buffalo defense
−6.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Miami OH by 1.7
1.7
Miami OH side ◂▸ Buffalo side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −1.6 against −1.7. 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: 69.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Miami OH is the faster team (71.0, #55 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
69.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
157.8
model
Projected team totals
79.7 / 78.1
Miami OH / Buffalo
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.8#62
Miami OH
67.7#229
Buffalo
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageMiami OH
Where Miami OH scores: shooting
Miami OH shoots an effective 58.6% (#6); Buffalo allows 55.1% (#333). Expect about 57.5%, 6.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +8.8 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageBuffalo
Where Buffalo scores: shooting
Buffalo shoots an effective 55.4% (#30); Miami OH allows 51.2% (#167). Expect about 53.6%, 2.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Buffalo, Miami OH) 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 Miami OH at about 46.0% of its shots from three, Buffalo about 42.4%.
GlassBuffalo
Buffalo gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Buffalo's offense.
GlassMiami OH
Miami OH gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Miami OH's offense.
ClashBuffalo
Style clash: paint scoring
Buffalo gets only 37.8% of its points in the paint; Miami OH gives up 46.7% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
Miami OH has the ball
OffenseBuffalo allowsvs D1 avg
58.6% #6
55.1% #333
+8.8 pt/100
14.3% #34
17.9% #101
+0.8 pt/100
25.5% #332
31.1% #209
-1.9 pt/100
39.6% #64
31.4% #90
+0.0 pt/100
74.9% #89
—
+0.2 pt/100
Miami OH net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +8.0 pts/100
Buffalo has the ball
OffenseMiami OH allowsvs D1 avg
55.4% #30
51.2% #167
+3.3 pt/100
16.2% #151
17.4% #125
-0.1 pt/100
27.1% #291
28.7% #92
-1.9 pt/100
39.6% #65
30.2% #63
-0.1 pt/100
73.6% #151
—
+0.1 pt/100
Buffalo net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMiami OHoffense vsBuffalodefense
Share of shots by zone
Miami OH shoots
37.7
4.7
11.1
46.5
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 | 68.9%#2 | 62.0%#300 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.6%#89 | 55.6%#365 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.5%#47 | 42.2%#310 | 38.0% |
| Three | 37.1%#25 | 35.1%#252 | 33.7% |
Buffalooffense vsMiami OHdefense
Share of shots by zone
Buffalo shoots
38.6
4.0
12.3
45.0
Miami OH allows
38.1
8.1
17.1
36.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.8%#124 | 58.8%#183 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.9%#124 | 41.0%#209 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.0%#109 | 40.3%#255 | 38.0% |
| Three | 37.9%#20 | 33.1%#131 | 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 numbersMiami OH
+3.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#42 of 365
Off reb %
25.5%
#332
Def reb %
71.3%
#92
Turnover %
14.3%
#34
Forced TO %
17.4%
#125
FT rate
39.6%
#64
FT allowed
30.2%
#63
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.6
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security+1.7
Forcing turnovers+0.5
Foul shots drawn+1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.3
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
Miami OH has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.7 (#42 of 365) to Buffalo’s +2.2 (#92).
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
Miami OH2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | Brant Byers | G | So | 6'8" | 34-33 | 30.8 | 14.2 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 59.4% | 39.2% | 5.2 | 78.5% | 21.8% | |
| 0 | Eian Elmer | G | Jr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 30.3 | 12.7 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 62.5% | 42.9% | 4.9 | 75.8% | 20.3% | |
| 3 | Luke Skaljac | G | So | 6'2" | 32-21 | 28.0 | 10.3 | 3.0 | 4.7 | 1.8 | 55.1% | 35.3% | 3.6 | 78.7% | 21.3% | |
| 13 | Antwone Woolfolk | F | Sr | 6'9" | 33-33 | 23.3 | 9.8 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 65.7% | 32.4% | 1.1 | 55.2% | 22.1% | |
| 11 | Almar Atlason | F | Jr | 6'8" | 34-1 | 18.8 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 57.8% | 36.4% | 4.9 | 80.8% | 26.3% | |
| 1 | Trey Perry | G | Fr | 6'2" | 32-1 | 13.1 | 5.8 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 59.5% | 38.3% | 1.5 | 74.5% | 22.3% | |
| 12 | Justin Kirby | G | Fr | 6'4" | 21-1 | 17.0 | 6.2 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 63.1% | 40.5% | 2.0 | 81.1% | 17.4% | |
| 2 | Evan Ipsaro | G | Jr | 6'0" | 12-12 | 27.8 | 13.9 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 63.8% | 39.4% | 2.8 | 82.4% | 22.9% | |
| 20 | Tyler Robbins | F | Fr | 6'10" | 25-0 | 6.3 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 61.4% | 26.7% | 0.6 | 68.4% | 25.8% | |
| 25 | Kyle Waltz | F | Fr | 6'7" | 20-0 | 7.8 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 67.1% | 37.5% | 1.2 | 66.7% | 17.5% | |
| 24 | Jackson Kotecki | F | Jr | 6'9" | 4-0 | 7.3 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 66.7% | 15.5% | |
| 4 | Brady Ganley | G | Fr | 6'3" | 6-0 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 112.5% | 100.0% | 0.2 | 100.0% | 21.6% | |
| 8 | Eli Yofan | G | Sr | 6'2" | 2-1 | 7.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 1.0 | — | 7.2% | |
| 7 | Ethan Wright | F | Jr | 6'5" | 5-0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 83.3% | 33.3% | |
| 33 | Blake Anderson | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Leshawn Stowers | 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)
Miami OH2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | Brant Byers | G | So | 6'8" | 34-33 | 30.8 | 14.2 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 59.4% | 39.2% | 5.2 | 78.5% | 21.8% | |
| 0 | Eian Elmer | G | Jr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 30.3 | 12.7 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 62.5% | 42.9% | 4.9 | 75.8% | 20.3% | |
| 3 | Luke Skaljac | G | So | 6'2" | 32-21 | 28.0 | 10.3 | 3.0 | 4.7 | 1.8 | 55.1% | 35.3% | 3.6 | 78.7% | 21.3% | |
| 13 | Antwone Woolfolk | F | Sr | 6'9" | 33-33 | 23.3 | 9.8 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 65.7% | 32.4% | 1.1 | 55.2% | 22.1% | |
| 11 | Almar Atlason | F | Jr | 6'8" | 34-1 | 18.8 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 57.8% | 36.4% | 4.9 | 80.8% | 26.3% | |
| 1 | Trey Perry | G | Fr | 6'2" | 32-1 | 13.1 | 5.8 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 59.5% | 38.3% | 1.5 | 74.5% | 22.3% | |
| 12 | Justin Kirby | G | Fr | 6'4" | 21-1 | 17.0 | 6.2 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 63.1% | 40.5% | 2.0 | 81.1% | 17.4% | |
| 2 | Evan Ipsaro | G | Jr | 6'0" | 12-12 | 27.8 | 13.9 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 63.8% | 39.4% | 2.8 | 82.4% | 22.9% | |
| 20 | Tyler Robbins | F | Fr | 6'10" | 25-0 | 6.3 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 61.4% | 26.7% | 0.6 | 68.4% | 25.8% | |
| 25 | Kyle Waltz | F | Fr | 6'7" | 20-0 | 7.8 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 67.1% | 37.5% | 1.2 | 66.7% | 17.5% | |
| 24 | Jackson Kotecki | F | Jr | 6'9" | 4-0 | 7.3 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 66.7% | 15.5% | |
| 4 | Brady Ganley | G | Fr | 6'3" | 6-0 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 112.5% | 100.0% | 0.2 | 100.0% | 21.6% | |
| 8 | Eli Yofan | G | Sr | 6'2" | 2-1 | 7.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 1.0 | — | 7.2% | |
| 7 | Ethan Wright | F | Jr | 6'5" | 5-0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 83.3% | 33.3% | |
| 33 | Blake Anderson | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Leshawn Stowers | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Miami OH
Against the spread
Season
20-11
Home
8-5
Road
10-4
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
18-13
Home
9-4
Road
6-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +1.2
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #6Tennessee | N | L 56–78 | +12.0 | L−10.0 | 149.0 | U134 | 85.2 | 118.7 | 65.7 |
| Mar 18 | #11SMU | N | W 89–79 | +7.0 | W+17.0 | 160.5 | O168 | 134.3 | 119.2 | 66.3 |
| Mar 12 | UMass | N | L 83–87 | −8.0 | L−12.0 | 163.5 | O170 | 120.2 | 126.0 | 69.0 |
| Mar 6 | Ohio | A | W 110–108 OT | −3.5 | L−1.5 | 160.0 | O218 | 132.3 | 129.8 | 83.2 |
| Mar 3 | Toledo | H | W 74–72 | −8.0 | L−6.0 | 162.5 | U146 | 107.6 | 104.7 | 68.8 |
| Feb 27 | W Michigan | A | W 69–67 | −11.5 | L−9.5 | 163.0 | U136 | 101.2 | 98.3 | 68.2 |
| Feb 24 | E Michigan | A | W 74–64 | −9.0 | W+1.0 | 152.5 | U138 | 103.5 | 89.5 | 71.5 |
| Feb 20 | Bowling Green | H | W 91–77 | −8.0 | W+6.0 | 154.0 | O168 | 123.0 | 104.1 | 74.0 |
| Feb 17 | UMass | A | W 86–77 | −3.0 | W+6.0 | 163.5 | U163 | 121.7 | 109.0 | 70.6 |
| Feb 13 | Ohio | H | W 90–74 | −7.5 | W+8.5 | 164.5 | U164 | 125.2 | 102.9 | 71.9 |
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 homeMiami OHBuffalo
Efficiency
114.6
111.2
107.1
111.9
69.8
67.7
—
—
Shooting
58.6%
55.4%
61.0%
54.1%
37.1%
37.9%
74.9%
73.6%
39.6%
39.6%
Ball control & glass
14.3%
16.2%
17.4%
17.9%
25.5%
27.1%
28.7%
31.1%
8.6%
9.8%
7.7%
8.1%
Style
45.6%
45.5%
40.4%
37.8%
11.0%
14.1%
51.4%
54.4%
29.2%
24.2%
Roster
2.43
3.67
6'5.7"
6'4.6"
85.1%
3.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMiami OH
Returning minutes: 85.1%Returning production: 82.9%
Lost
- Peter Suder 30.2 mpg, 14.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Blake Anderson no D1 minutes last season
- Leshawn Stowers no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 85% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. 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).
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Feb 3 | 2025-26 | Miami OH 73 – 71 Buffalo |
| Sat, Jan 17 | 2025-26 | Buffalo 102 – 105 Miami OH |
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.