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 gameMcGuirk Arena, Mount Pleasant, MI
Kent State
Efficiency #157
2025-26: 24-10 · 15-5 conf
@
C Michigan
Efficiency #283
2025-26: 10-21 · 6-12 conf
Wed, Dec 9 · TBD
77.7
win 53%
Projected
76.8
win 47%
No line posted yet.
Model: KENT −0.9 · total 154.6 · 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: C Michigan 68.1, Kent State 70.4 → 70.2 possessions
+4.2
C Michigan offense vs Kent State defense
−1.4
Kent State offense vs C Michigan defense
+3.6
Projected total
154.6
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
C Michigan offense vs Kent State defense
−1.4
Kent State offense vs C Michigan defense
−3.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Kent State by 0.9
0.9
Kent State side ◂▸ C Michigan side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −1.0 against −0.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help C Michigan.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Kent State is the faster team (71.9, #25 of 365) and C Michigan the slower (68.3, #185). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
154.6
model
Projected team totals
77.7 / 76.8
Kent State / C Michigan
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.4#30
Kent State
68.1#198
C Michigan
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageKent State
Where Kent State scores: the offensive glass
Kent State rebounds 35.3% of its own misses (#39); C Michigan lets opponents grab 34.3% of their own misses (#323). Expect about 35.7%, 5.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.2 points per 100 possessions.
ClashKent State
Style match: ball movement
Kent State assists on 57.1% of its made baskets; C Michigan allows assists on 57.9% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 59.0% — both habits push the same way.
ClashC Michigan
Style clash: 3-point volume
C Michigan rarely shoots threes (34.0% of its shots); Kent State lets opponents take 43.1% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 37.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashC Michigan
Style clash: paint scoring
C Michigan scores 47.8% of its points in the paint; Kent State protects the paint (38.4% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
Kent State has the ball
OffenseC Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
51.4% #175
54.0% #299
+2.1 pt/100
18.0% #269
17.0% #156
-1.0 pt/100
35.3% #39
34.3% #323
+3.2 pt/100
43.5% #15
39.0% #284
+0.8 pt/100
74.4% #105
—
+0.2 pt/100
Kent State net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.3 pts/100
C Michigan has the ball
OffenseKent State allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #158
52.1% #219
+1.0 pt/100
18.1% #276
16.1% #220
-0.4 pt/100
29.2% #230
29.3% #124
-0.8 pt/100
31.4% #269
39.5% #294
+0.1 pt/100
69.7% #277
—
-0.2 pt/100
C Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersKent Stateoffense vsC Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Kent State shoots
36.6
6.0
12.4
45.0
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 | 57.6%#210 | 61.1%#270 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.7%#250 | 44.2%#270 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.4%#206 | 31.6%#14 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#118 | 35.5%#282 | 33.7% |
C Michiganoffense vsKent Statedefense
Share of shots by zone
C Michigan shoots
38.2
10.0
18.5
33.3
Kent State allows
37.0
6.3
13.8
42.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.3%#154 | 58.7%#172 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#41 | 40.0%#191 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.4%#99 | 38.2%#167 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#181 | 35.0%#246 | 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 numbersKent State
+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#109 of 365
Off reb %
35.3%
#39
Def reb %
70.7%
#124
Turnover %
18.0%
#269
Forced TO %
16.1%
#220
FT rate
43.5%
#15
FT allowed
39.5%
#294
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.6
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security−0.8
Forcing turnovers−0.4
Foul shots drawn+2.2
Foul shots allowed−1.1
C 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
Kent State has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#109 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
Kent State2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Kent State'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cian Medley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 33-32 | 33.4 | 10.5 | 2.3 | 6.4 | 3.1 | 43.9% | 32.1% | 5.1 | 74.4% | 22.7% | |
| 23 | Delrecco Gillespie | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-34 | 32.2 | 17.7 | 11.3 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 52.9% | 27.0% | 1.9 | 78.9% | 30.6% | |
| 8 | Morgan Safford | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-32 | 31.2 | 14.3 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 51.3% | 34.9% | 6.1 | 80.1% | 25.1% | |
| 25 | Jahari Williamson | G | Jr | 6'1" | 34-34 | 25.1 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 61.8% | 44.5% | 5.4 | 82.6% | 18.3% | |
| 2 | Rob Whaley Jr. | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-27 | 23.7 | 11.7 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 52.9% | 28.6% | 0.9 | 62.3% | 29.5% | |
| 6 | Quinn Woidke | G | Fr | 6'0" | 34-0 | 19.4 | 9.0 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 58.9% | 40.4% | 4.9 | 80.0% | 23.2% | |
| 0 | Rayvon Griffith | F | So | 6'8" | 33-2 | 13.8 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 50.0% | 29.0% | 1.9 | 53.6% | 18.7% | |
| 14 | Magnus Entenmann | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-5 | 12.0 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 28.0% | 0.8 | 83.8% | 13.2% | |
| 11 | Dezmon Briscoe | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-2 | 8.6 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 54.9% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 56.7% | 17.4% | |
| 54 | Omer Hamama | G | Fr | 6'2" | 23-2 | 7.5 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 40.0% | 15.4% | 0.6 | 83.3% | 18.9% | |
| 5 | Brenden Moss | G | Jr | 6'4" | 14-0 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 40.0% | 23.5% | 1.2 | 100.0% | 23.6% | |
| 7 | Landon Vanderwarker | F | Fr | 6'8" | 10-0 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 55.0% | 36.4% | 1.1 | 37.5% | 23.4% | |
| 21 | Deandre Jones | F | Fr | 6'11" | 7-0 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 2.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 26.6% | |
| 51 | Drew Huffman | F | Fr | 6'6" | 3-0 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 26.4% | |
| 22 | Jaymen Townsend | F | Fr | 6'5" | 1-0 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 15.5% | |
| 32 | Dylan Lakatos | G | Fr | 5'11" | 2-0 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 2.0 | — | 33.8% | |
| 4 | Jamal Sumlin | G | Jr | 6'1" | 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.
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)
Kent State2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Kent State'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cian Medley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 33-32 | 33.4 | 10.5 | 2.3 | 6.4 | 3.1 | 43.9% | 32.1% | 5.1 | 74.4% | 22.7% | |
| 23 | Delrecco Gillespie | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-34 | 32.2 | 17.7 | 11.3 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 52.9% | 27.0% | 1.9 | 78.9% | 30.6% | |
| 8 | Morgan Safford | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-32 | 31.2 | 14.3 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 51.3% | 34.9% | 6.1 | 80.1% | 25.1% | |
| 25 | Jahari Williamson | G | Jr | 6'1" | 34-34 | 25.1 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 61.8% | 44.5% | 5.4 | 82.6% | 18.3% | |
| 2 | Rob Whaley Jr. | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-27 | 23.7 | 11.7 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 52.9% | 28.6% | 0.9 | 62.3% | 29.5% | |
| 6 | Quinn Woidke | G | Fr | 6'0" | 34-0 | 19.4 | 9.0 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 58.9% | 40.4% | 4.9 | 80.0% | 23.2% | |
| 0 | Rayvon Griffith | F | So | 6'8" | 33-2 | 13.8 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 50.0% | 29.0% | 1.9 | 53.6% | 18.7% | |
| 14 | Magnus Entenmann | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-5 | 12.0 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 28.0% | 0.8 | 83.8% | 13.2% | |
| 11 | Dezmon Briscoe | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-2 | 8.6 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 54.9% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 56.7% | 17.4% | |
| 54 | Omer Hamama | G | Fr | 6'2" | 23-2 | 7.5 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 40.0% | 15.4% | 0.6 | 83.3% | 18.9% | |
| 5 | Brenden Moss | G | Jr | 6'4" | 14-0 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 40.0% | 23.5% | 1.2 | 100.0% | 23.6% | |
| 7 | Landon Vanderwarker | F | Fr | 6'8" | 10-0 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 55.0% | 36.4% | 1.1 | 37.5% | 23.4% | |
| 21 | Deandre Jones | F | Fr | 6'11" | 7-0 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 2.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 26.6% | |
| 51 | Drew Huffman | F | Fr | 6'6" | 3-0 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 26.4% | |
| 22 | Jaymen Townsend | F | Fr | 6'5" | 1-0 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 15.5% | |
| 32 | Dylan Lakatos | G | Fr | 5'11" | 2-0 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 2.0 | — | 33.8% | |
| 4 | Jamal Sumlin | G | Jr | 6'1" | 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 2025-26Kent State
Against the spread
Season
12-19-1
Home
6-9
Road
5-8
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −2.5
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 as an underdogCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
18-13-1
Home
11-4
Road
5-7-1
Last 10
5-4-1
avg vs total +4.1
Under 2 straightOver in 5 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 0 of 4 as an underdogOver in 4 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18 | Illinois St | A | L 58–79 | +4.5 | L−16.5 | 154.5 | U137 | 83.9 | 114.3 | 69.1 |
| Mar 13 | Akron | N | L 68–75 | +6.5 | L−0.5 | 163.0 | U143 | 99.5 | 109.7 | 68.3 |
| Mar 12 | Ohio | N | W 86–75 | −3.5 | W+7.5 | 160.5 | O161 | 121.1 | 105.7 | 71.0 |
| Mar 6 | W Michigan | H | W 86–78 | −13.5 | L−5.5 | 157.5 | O164 | 122.5 | 111.1 | 70.2 |
| Mar 3 | N Illinois | A | W 102–76 | −10.0 | W+16.0 | 149.5 | O178 | 134.5 | 100.2 | 75.9 |
| Feb 27 | Akron | H | L 70–92 | +3.5 | L−18.5 | 165.0 | U162 | 99.4 | 130.7 | 70.4 |
| Feb 24 | C Michigan | H | W 83–81 | −12.0 | L−10.0 | 157.0 | O164 | 124.1 | 121.1 | 66.9 |
| Feb 17 | Bowling Green | A | W 78–71 | +2.5 | W+9.5 | 151.5 | U149 | 107.5 | 97.9 | 72.5 |
| Feb 14 | Ball State | A | W 75–68 | −8.0 | L−1.0 | 143.0 | P143 | 103.3 | 93.7 | 72.6 |
| Feb 11 | E Michigan | H | W 95–91 | −10.0 | L−6.0 | 144.5 | O186 | 135.3 | 129.6 | 70.2 |
C 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 |
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 homeKent StateC Michigan
Efficiency
109.8
106.1
108.9
112.3
70.4
68.1
—
—
Shooting
51.4%
51.8%
50.6%
52.2%
35.0%
33.9%
74.4%
69.7%
43.5%
31.4%
Ball control & glass
18.0%
18.1%
16.1%
17.0%
35.3%
29.2%
29.3%
34.3%
9.8%
11.1%
9.6%
8.8%
Style
44.9%
34.0%
36.6%
47.8%
13.1%
15.0%
57.1%
54.9%
29.8%
31.5%
Roster
3.05
3.20
6'4.1"
6'4.1"
—
39.7%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputKent State
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Kent State'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.)
C 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).
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Feb 24 | 2025-26 | C Michigan 81 – 83 Kent State |
| Sat, Jan 10 | 2025-26 | Kent State 85 – 87 C 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.