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 siteAcrisure Arena, Palm Springs, CAAcrisure Series
San Diego
Efficiency #269
2025-26: 12-21 · 6-14 conf
vs
Fordham
Efficiency #170
2025-26: 17-15 · 8-11 conf
Sun, Nov 22 · 2:00 PM ET
68.9
win 37%
Projected
72.7
win 63%
No line posted yet.
Model: FOR −3.8 · total 141.5 · 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: Fordham 66.2, San Diego 68.8 → 66.7 possessions
−3.5
Fordham offense vs San Diego defense
+0.3
San Diego offense vs Fordham defense
−3.5
Projected total
141.5
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Fordham offense vs San Diego defense
+0.3
San Diego offense vs Fordham defense
+3.5
Fordham by 3.8
3.8
San Diego side ◂▸ Fordham side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Fordham.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, San Diego is the faster team (68.8, #159 of 365) and Fordham the slower (64.5, #341). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
141.5
model
Projected team totals
68.9 / 72.7
San Diego / Fordham
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.8#136
San Diego
66.2#334
Fordham
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashSan Diego
Style match: ball movement
San Diego assists on 59.1% of its made baskets; Fordham allows assists on 60.7% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 62.1% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageFordham
Where Fordham scores: the offensive glass
Fordham rebounds 34.1% of its own misses (#64); San Diego lets opponents grab 34.5% of their own misses (#328). Expect about 35.0%, 4.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Fordham averages 64.5 possessions per 40, San Diego 68.8. 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 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageSan Diego
Where San Diego struggles: the offensive glass
San Diego rebounds 28.1% of its own misses (#262); Fordham lets opponents grab 26.8% of their own misses (#29). Expect about 27.1%, 3.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Fordham) 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 San Diego at about 44.7% of its shots from three, Fordham about 38.9%.
TurnoversFordham
Fordham turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.4% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against Fordham's offense.
San Diego has the ball
OffenseFordham allowsvs D1 avg
51.2% #185
49.9% #95
-1.0 pt/100
17.5% #237
17.2% #136
-0.8 pt/100
28.1% #262
26.8% #29
-2.0 pt/100
25.8% #358
30.3% #66
-0.9 pt/100
74.7% #95
—
+0.2 pt/100
San Diego net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.6 pts/100
Fordham has the ball
OffenseSan Diego allowsvs D1 avg
48.6% #300
54.7% #320
+0.3 pt/100
17.2% #218
18.9% #55
-2.0 pt/100
34.1% #64
34.5% #328
+2.8 pt/100
26.4% #354
38.8% #281
-0.2 pt/100
70.2% #265
—
-0.2 pt/100
Fordham 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 numbersSan Diegooffense vsFordhamdefense
Share of shots by zone
San Diego shoots
32.2
6.3
17.0
44.5
Fordham allows
32.3
7.6
17.8
42.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.6%#174 | 57.7%#137 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.9%#270 | 38.1%#137 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.6%#168 | 39.0%#203 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.6%#141 | 33.4%#149 | 33.7% |
Fordhamoffense vsSan Diegodefense
Share of shots by zone
Fordham shoots
37.2
8.9
15.4
38.5
San Diego allows
39.6
6.5
13.9
39.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#225 | 63.2%#328 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.0%#221 | 50.0%#354 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.3%#33 | 47.3%#361 | 38.0% |
| Three | 28.9%#356 | 32.7%#100 | 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 numbersSan Diego
−4.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#334 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#262
Def reb %
65.5%
#328
Turnover %
17.5%
#237
Forced TO %
18.9%
#55
FT rate
25.8%
#358
FT allowed
38.8%
#281
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.3
Ball security−0.5
Forcing turnovers+1.5
Foul shots drawn−2.4
Foul shots allowed−0.9
Fordham
+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#117 of 365
Off reb %
34.1%
#64
Def reb %
73.2%
#29
Turnover %
17.2%
#218
Forced TO %
17.2%
#136
FT rate
26.4%
#354
FT allowed
30.3%
#66
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.2
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn−2.2
Foul shots allowed+1.3
Fordham has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#117 of 365) to San Diego’s −4.3 (#334).
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
San Diego2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted San Diego'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 | Toneari Lane | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-17 | 26.8 | 11.3 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 58.2% | 44.0% | 5.8 | 85.0% | 21.8% | |
| 2 | Adrian McIntyre | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-17 | 24.8 | 9.8 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 57.1% | 32.1% | 2.4 | 73.5% | 23.2% | |
| 4 | Juanse Gorosito | G | Sr | 6'0" | 32-17 | 24.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 51.9% | 38.2% | 5.6 | 83.3% | 26.2% | |
| 34 | Vuk Boskovic | F | Fr | 6'7" | 33-18 | 20.3 | 6.1 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 55.7% | 35.8% | 3.3 | 60.5% | 20.0% | |
| 5 | Ty-Laur Johnson | G | Jr | 6'0" | 23-21 | 28.0 | 14.6 | 2.7 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 47.7% | 30.9% | 3.5 | 82.6% | 33.8% | |
| 7 | Assane Diop | F | Jr | 6'9" | 29-19 | 18.9 | 5.7 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 56.4% | 41.9% | 1.5 | 59.3% | 19.4% | |
| 14 | Dominique Ford | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-17 | 17.3 | 5.6 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 44.6% | 22.9% | 1.5 | 76.4% | 21.1% | |
| 30 | Tim Moore Jr. | F | Sr | 6'6" | 31-10 | 14.9 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 49.7% | 20.0% | 1.8 | 79.7% | 25.0% | |
| 12 | Gavin Ripp | F | Fr | 6'7" | 26-7 | 17.0 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 48.3% | 23.5% | 0.7 | 80.0% | 17.0% | |
| 21 | Alejandro Aviles | F | Fr | 6'10" | 24-8 | 10.8 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 39.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 76.2% | 18.0% | |
| 3 | D'Arrae Goodwin | F | Fr | 6'6" | 14-6 | 14.6 | 4.7 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 53.6% | 33.3% | 2.6 | 66.7% | 20.1% | |
| 22 | Emmanuel Callas | G | Jr | 6'5" | 16-4 | 9.1 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 41.7% | — | 0.0 | 60.0% | 8.3% | |
| 24 | Brandon Benjamin | G | Fr | 6'6" | 19-0 | 7.0 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 53.6% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 70.0% | 25.7% | |
| 23 | Piotr Winkowski | C | Jr | 6'10" | 15-4 | 6.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 56.5% | — | 0.0 | 45.5% | 21.4% | |
| 10 | Neel Beniwal | G | Jr | 6'5" | 9-0 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 21.4% | 16.7% | 0.7 | 80.0% | 17.0% | |
| 9 | Josh Hecht | G | Jr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.8 | — | 35.5% | |
| 15 | Caleb Versher | G | Fr | 6'3" | 3-0 | 6.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 41.7% | 50.0% | 0.7 | — | 27.3% | |
| 53 | Nick Del Bosque | G | So | 6'0" | 5-0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 23.0% | |
| 6 | Boden Grant | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Kjay Bradley Jr. | G | Sr | 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.
Fordham2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Fordham'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Dejour Reaves | G | Sr | 6'0" | 31-30 | 33.9 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 51.0% | 28.7% | 3.7 | 85.8% | 33.6% | |
| 12 | Rikus Schulte | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.0 | 10.7 | 9.1 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 57.5% | 22.2% | 0.8 | 62.0% | 22.4% | |
| 13 | Akira Jacobs | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-30 | 28.5 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 52.0% | 33.3% | 4.1 | 75.8% | 15.5% | |
| 30 | Christian Henry | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-23 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 2.6 | 41.8% | 26.1% | 3.8 | 56.3% | 31.4% | |
| 77 | Louis Lesmond | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-10 | 19.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 35.1% | 20.0% | 2.7 | 42.9% | 17.3% | |
| 0 | Abass Bodija | F | Fr | 6'10" | 27-10 | 19.4 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 52.8% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 78.3% | 23.0% | |
| 4 | Marcus Greene | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-10 | 15.9 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 53.0% | 33.7% | 3.1 | 62.5% | 17.9% | |
| 14 | Roor Akhuar | F | Fr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 19.6 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 56.1% | 37.2% | 3.8 | 45.5% | 19.0% | |
| 3 | Jack Whitbourn | C | So | 6'11" | 11-9 | 23.9 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 47.1% | 20.0% | 0.9 | 85.7% | 24.6% | |
| 10 | Kingston Price | G | So | 6'2" | 21-0 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 55.9% | 31.6% | 0.9 | — | 15.8% | |
| 8 | Ryan Pettis | G | So | 6'4" | 6-0 | 11.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 32.4% | 10.0% | 1.7 | 50.0% | 17.1% | |
| 1 | Zarique Nutter | F | Sr | 6'7" | 3-2 | 16.3 | 12.7 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 44.8% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 75.0% | 48.7% | |
| 25 | Jace Howard | G | Sr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 10.0 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 100.0% | 27.6% | |
| 23 | Max Miller | G | So | 6'0" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.1% | |
| 21 | Aidan Crotty | G | So | 5'11" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 80.0% | 66.7% | 0.6 | — | 27.2% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
San Diego2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted San Diego'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 | Toneari Lane | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-17 | 26.8 | 11.3 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 58.2% | 44.0% | 5.8 | 85.0% | 21.8% | |
| 2 | Adrian McIntyre | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-17 | 24.8 | 9.8 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 57.1% | 32.1% | 2.4 | 73.5% | 23.2% | |
| 4 | Juanse Gorosito | G | Sr | 6'0" | 32-17 | 24.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 51.9% | 38.2% | 5.6 | 83.3% | 26.2% | |
| 34 | Vuk Boskovic | F | Fr | 6'7" | 33-18 | 20.3 | 6.1 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 55.7% | 35.8% | 3.3 | 60.5% | 20.0% | |
| 5 | Ty-Laur Johnson | G | Jr | 6'0" | 23-21 | 28.0 | 14.6 | 2.7 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 47.7% | 30.9% | 3.5 | 82.6% | 33.8% | |
| 7 | Assane Diop | F | Jr | 6'9" | 29-19 | 18.9 | 5.7 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 56.4% | 41.9% | 1.5 | 59.3% | 19.4% | |
| 14 | Dominique Ford | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-17 | 17.3 | 5.6 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 44.6% | 22.9% | 1.5 | 76.4% | 21.1% | |
| 30 | Tim Moore Jr. | F | Sr | 6'6" | 31-10 | 14.9 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 49.7% | 20.0% | 1.8 | 79.7% | 25.0% | |
| 12 | Gavin Ripp | F | Fr | 6'7" | 26-7 | 17.0 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 48.3% | 23.5% | 0.7 | 80.0% | 17.0% | |
| 21 | Alejandro Aviles | F | Fr | 6'10" | 24-8 | 10.8 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 39.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 76.2% | 18.0% | |
| 3 | D'Arrae Goodwin | F | Fr | 6'6" | 14-6 | 14.6 | 4.7 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 53.6% | 33.3% | 2.6 | 66.7% | 20.1% | |
| 22 | Emmanuel Callas | G | Jr | 6'5" | 16-4 | 9.1 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 41.7% | — | 0.0 | 60.0% | 8.3% | |
| 24 | Brandon Benjamin | G | Fr | 6'6" | 19-0 | 7.0 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 53.6% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 70.0% | 25.7% | |
| 23 | Piotr Winkowski | C | Jr | 6'10" | 15-4 | 6.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 56.5% | — | 0.0 | 45.5% | 21.4% | |
| 10 | Neel Beniwal | G | Jr | 6'5" | 9-0 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 21.4% | 16.7% | 0.7 | 80.0% | 17.0% | |
| 9 | Josh Hecht | G | Jr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.8 | — | 35.5% | |
| 15 | Caleb Versher | G | Fr | 6'3" | 3-0 | 6.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 41.7% | 50.0% | 0.7 | — | 27.3% | |
| 53 | Nick Del Bosque | G | So | 6'0" | 5-0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 23.0% | |
| 6 | Boden Grant | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Kjay Bradley Jr. | G | Sr | 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 2025-26San Diego
Against the spread
Season
16-15
Home
10-5
Road
4-9
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −3.1
Covered 2 straightCovered 2 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
12-18-1
Home
6-9
Road
6-6-1
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −1.1
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Seattle U | N | L 56–58 | +8.0 | W+6.0 | 139.0 | U114 | 91.6 | 94.9 | 61.1 |
| Mar 5 | LMU | N | W 66–62 | +5.5 | W+9.5 | 145.5 | U128 | 107.6 | 101.1 | 61.3 |
| Feb 28 | Portland | A | L 74–87 | +3.5 | L−9.5 | 148.5 | O161 | 107.0 | 125.8 | 69.2 |
| Feb 25 | Oregon St | A | L 82–92 OT | +6.5 | L−3.5 | 144.0 | O174 | 110.3 | 123.8 | 74.3 |
| Feb 21 | LMU | H | L 65–77 | +2.5 | L−9.5 | 149.5 | U142 | 104.7 | 124.0 | 62.1 |
| Feb 15 | San Francisco | H | L 79–92 | +5.0 | L−8.0 | 148.0 | O171 | 114.3 | 133.2 | 69.1 |
| Feb 11 | Portland | H | W 71–58 | −2.5 | W+10.5 | 151.5 | U129 | 111.4 | 91.0 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | LMU | A | L 63–83 | +6.0 | L−14.0 | 151.5 | U146 | 99.8 | 131.5 | 63.1 |
| Feb 4 | Saint Mary's | A | L 60–87 | +19.5 | L−7.5 | 149.0 | U147 | 94.0 | 136.3 | 63.8 |
| Jan 31 | Oregon St | H | L 76–78 OT | −3.5 | L−5.5 | 150.5 | O154 | 93.0 | 95.4 | 81.8 |
Fordham
Against the spread
Season
16-12-1
Home
8-8
Road
6-3-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +1.9
Covered 2 straightCovered 5 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
7-22
Home
2-14
Road
4-6
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.2
Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | G Washington | N | L 62–66 | +6.0 | W+2.0 | 141.0 | U128 | 97.2 | 103.5 | 63.8 |
| Mar 7 | Rhode Island | H | W 61–49 | −2.0 | W+10.0 | 135.5 | U110 | 94.4 | 75.8 | 64.6 |
| Mar 4 | La Salle | A | L 84–87 | −2.5 | L−5.5 | 131.5 | O171 | 124.3 | 128.7 | 67.6 |
| Feb 28 | VCU | A | L 63–82 | +12.5 | L−6.5 | 143.5 | O145 | 92.4 | 120.2 | 68.2 |
| Feb 21 | Davidson | H | W 63–59 | +1.0 | W+5.0 | 132.0 | U122 | 105.1 | 98.4 | 60.0 |
| Feb 18 | Loyola Chicago | H | W 62–59 | −8.0 | L−5.0 | 136.5 | U121 | 92.3 | 87.9 | 67.1 |
| Feb 14 | Rhode Island | A | W 70–66 OT | +5.0 | W+9.0 | 132.5 | O136 | 101.2 | 95.5 | 69.1 |
| Feb 10 | Saint Joseph's | A | W 68–64 | +4.0 | W+8.0 | 136.5 | U132 | 106.7 | 100.5 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | St Bonaventure | H | L 67–70 | +1.5 | L−1.5 | 140.0 | U137 | 108.1 | 112.9 | 62.0 |
| Feb 3 | VCU | H | L 59–63 | +7.0 | W+3.0 | 147.5 | U122 | 92.2 | 98.5 | 64.0 |
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 homeSan DiegoFordham
Efficiency
106.6
105.4
112.0
105.1
68.8
66.2
—
—
Shooting
51.2%
48.6%
50.8%
51.9%
34.6%
28.9%
74.7%
70.2%
25.8%
26.4%
Ball control & glass
17.5%
17.2%
18.9%
17.2%
28.1%
34.1%
34.5%
26.8%
10.0%
8.8%
10.1%
8.5%
Style
43.7%
38.3%
39.6%
48.9%
15.1%
11.1%
59.1%
52.4%
39.6%
29.5%
Roster
3.00
3.07
6'4.7"
6'5.8"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputSan Diego
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted San Diego'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.)
Fordham
Returning minutes: 99.6%Returning production: 99.7%
ESPN hasn't posted Fordham'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.