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-conferenceGentile Arena, Chicago, IL
The Citadel
Efficiency #348
2025-26: 11-22 · 8-12 conf
@
Loyola Chicago
Efficiency #309
2025-26: 9-24 · 5-15 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
67.6
win 27%
Projected
74.8
win 73%
No line posted yet.
Model: LUC −7.2 · total 142.4 · 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: Loyola Chicago 67.2, The Citadel 66.2 → 65.1 possessions
−6.9
Loyola Chicago offense vs The Citadel defense
+2.2
The Citadel offense vs Loyola Chicago defense
−1.2
Projected total
142.4
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Loyola Chicago offense vs The Citadel defense
+2.2
The Citadel offense vs Loyola Chicago defense
+1.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
Loyola Chicago by 7.2
7.2
The Citadel side ◂▸ Loyola Chicago side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 142.3 against a projected 142.4, and the margin steps add to +7.1 against +7.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Loyola Chicago.
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, Loyola Chicago is the faster team (65.9, #299 of 365) and The Citadel the slower (64.7, #335). 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
142.4
model
Projected team totals
67.6 / 74.8
The Citadel / Loyola Chicago
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.2#333
The Citadel
67.2#271
Loyola Chicago
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Loyola Chicago averages 65.9 possessions per 40, The Citadel 64.7. 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.
AdvantageLoyola Chicago
Where Loyola Chicago scores: shooting
Loyola Chicago shoots an effective 49.8% (#246); The Citadel allows 57.5% (#361). Expect about 53.6%, 2.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageThe Citadel
Where The Citadel scores: ball control
The Citadel turns it over on 16.3% of possessions (#157); Loyola Chicago forces turnovers on 12.9% of opponent possessions (#357). Expect about 14.1%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.
ClashThe Citadel
Style match: 3-point volume
The Citadel takes 47.8% of its shots from three; Loyola Chicago lets opponents take 44.3% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 49.3% — both habits push the same way.
ClashLoyola Chicago
Style match: 3-point volume
Loyola Chicago takes 47.7% of its shots from three; The Citadel lets opponents take 44.1% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 49.0% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Loyola Chicago's defense, The Citadel'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 The Citadel at about 49.3% of its shots from three, Loyola Chicago about 49.0%.
The Citadel has the ball
OffenseLoyola Chicago allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #265
52.0% #214
-0.9 pt/100
16.3% #157
12.9% #357
+3.3 pt/100
27.9% #270
29.7% #146
-1.3 pt/100
30.0% #309
33.6% #143
-0.4 pt/100
66.5% #349
—
-0.5 pt/100
The Citadel net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.3 pts/100
Loyola Chicago has the ball
OffenseThe Citadel allowsvs D1 avg
49.8% #246
57.5% #361
+3.3 pt/100
19.8% #343
14.7% #307
-0.5 pt/100
30.5% #179
31.5% #227
+0.3 pt/100
34.8% #188
33.3% #136
-0.1 pt/100
67.3% #340
—
-0.5 pt/100
Loyola Chicago net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersThe Citadeloffense vsLoyola Chicagodefense
Share of shots by zone
The Citadel shoots
34.0
7.3
11.4
47.3
Loyola Chicago allows
34.6
6.4
14.6
44.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.4%#147 | 54.2%#43 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.4%#167 | 42.5%#239 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.0%#186 | 39.3%#212 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#283 | 36.8%#342 | 33.7% |
Loyola Chicagooffense vsThe Citadeldefense
Share of shots by zone
Loyola Chicago shoots
37.2
6.5
9.6
46.7
The Citadel allows
40.5
3.7
11.3
44.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.0%#199 | 65.8%#355 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.2%#284 | 42.1%#233 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.6%#130 | 43.4%#334 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.7%#296 | 36.6%#335 | 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 numbersThe Citadel
−2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#299 of 365
Off reb %
27.9%
#270
Def reb %
68.5%
#227
Turnover %
16.3%
#157
Forced TO %
14.7%
#307
FT rate
30.0%
#309
FT allowed
33.3%
#136
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.8
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed+0.5
Loyola Chicago
−3.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#329 of 365
Off reb %
30.5%
#179
Def reb %
70.3%
#146
Turnover %
19.8%
#343
Forced TO %
12.9%
#357
FT rate
34.8%
#188
FT allowed
33.6%
#143
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding0.0
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security−2.0
Forcing turnovers−2.6
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed+0.4
The Citadel has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.9 (#299 of 365) to Loyola Chicago’s −3.9 (#329).
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
The Citadel2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Braxton Williams | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-24 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 49.5% | 34.2% | 7.0 | 77.7% | 32.8% | |
| 8 | Sola Adebisi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 67.1% | 17.3% | |
| 14 | Carter Kingsbury | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-30 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 50.2% | 29.0% | 3.0 | 74.4% | 19.1% | |
| 5 | Eze Wali | G | So | 6'1" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 42.1% | 28.7% | 2.4 | 67.8% | 18.1% | |
| 1 | Christian Moore | F | So | 6'6" | 31-23 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.1% | 38.7% | 5.3 | 67.2% | 27.1% | |
| 4 | Logan Applegate | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-3 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 31.8% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 25.7% | |
| 22 | Keynan Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-8 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 44.7% | 26.5% | 2.6 | 60.3% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Marcos Gonzales | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-0 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 61.9% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Dante Kearse | F | So | 6'4" | 33-0 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 58.4% | 41.5% | 1.6 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 23 | Simeon German | F | Sr | 6'10" | 28-15 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43.6% | — | 0.0 | 16.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | Gabe Hernandez | G | Jr | 5'11" | 18-0 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.5% | |
| 25 | Cassius Bonjasky | F | Jr | 6'7" | 18-0 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 60.7% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 19.5% | |
| 15 | Chase Williams | F | Fr | 6'8" | 8-0 | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Logan Menefee | F | Fr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | — | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Rowan Irelan | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 64.3% | 42.9% | 1.8 | — | 35.2% | |
| 2 | Jameson Heck | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.2% | |
| 12 | Aidan Alexander | F | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 34.9% | |
| 13 | Jack Walter | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 29.1% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Loyola Chicago2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Loyola Chicago'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Miles Rubin | C | Jr | 6'10" | 33-33 | 29.7 | 11.3 | 7.1 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 58.5% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 54.3% | 23.9% | |
| 0 | Deywilk Tavarez | G | Jr | 6'2" | 33-17 | 22.9 | 8.9 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 46.2% | 31.4% | 6.4 | 88.6% | 28.0% | |
| 4 | Kayde Dotson | G | So | 6'1" | 28-21 | 26.6 | 10.5 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 53.0% | 38.0% | 5.8 | 77.0% | 25.2% | |
| 1 | Justin Moore | G | Jr | 6'3" | 22-22 | 30.0 | 10.9 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 45.8% | 29.8% | 3.8 | 74.0% | 27.8% | |
| 2 | Joshua Ola-Joseph | F | Sr | 6'7" | 29-9 | 21.5 | 7.6 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 47.7% | 28.4% | 3.3 | 75.3% | 22.6% | |
| 28 | Kymany Houinsou | G | Sr | 6'7" | 20-20 | 25.4 | 6.0 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 55.3% | 41.7% | 0.6 | 64.9% | 17.3% | |
| 13 | Xavier Amos | F | Sr | 6'8" | 19-18 | 26.2 | 11.1 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 47.5% | 30.3% | 4.7 | 73.3% | 27.4% | |
| 8 | Nic Anderson | G | Fr | 6'4" | 27-5 | 17.3 | 5.1 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 42.1% | 27.7% | 2.4 | 57.8% | 22.6% | |
| 9 | Alexander Richardson | C | Sr | 6'9" | 30-5 | 12.9 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 57.7% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 47.4% | 17.5% | |
| 5 | Daniil Glazkov | G | So | 6'6" | 26-2 | 12.7 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 52.6% | 37.5% | 1.5 | 50.0% | 14.8% | |
| 10 | Chuck Love | G | Fr | 6'7" | 13-7 | 24.8 | 7.2 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 52.7% | 32.8% | 4.5 | 78.9% | 17.9% | |
| 14 | Caleb Reese | G | Sr | 5'11" | 18-4 | 12.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 30.9% | 15.8% | 1.1 | 52.9% | 15.8% | |
| 30 | Brayden Young | F | Fr | 6'9" | 11-0 | 4.7 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 9.8% | |
| 7 | Dominick Harris | G | Sr | 6'3" | 7-2 | 6.4 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 28.1% | 21.4% | 2.0 | 50.0% | 25.3% | |
| 31 | Zachary Royster | F | Sr | 6'7" | 7-0 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 50.0% | 25.0% | 0.6 | — | 18.9% | |
| 22 | Sam Yurasek | G | Jr | 6'3" | 3-0 | 1.0 | 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.
The Citadel2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Braxton Williams | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-24 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 49.5% | 34.2% | 7.0 | 77.7% | 32.8% | |
| 8 | Sola Adebisi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 67.1% | 17.3% | |
| 14 | Carter Kingsbury | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-30 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 50.2% | 29.0% | 3.0 | 74.4% | 19.1% | |
| 5 | Eze Wali | G | So | 6'1" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 42.1% | 28.7% | 2.4 | 67.8% | 18.1% | |
| 1 | Christian Moore | F | So | 6'6" | 31-23 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.1% | 38.7% | 5.3 | 67.2% | 27.1% | |
| 4 | Logan Applegate | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-3 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 31.8% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 25.7% | |
| 22 | Keynan Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-8 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 44.7% | 26.5% | 2.6 | 60.3% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Marcos Gonzales | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-0 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 61.9% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Dante Kearse | F | So | 6'4" | 33-0 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 58.4% | 41.5% | 1.6 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 23 | Simeon German | F | Sr | 6'10" | 28-15 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43.6% | — | 0.0 | 16.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | Gabe Hernandez | G | Jr | 5'11" | 18-0 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.5% | |
| 25 | Cassius Bonjasky | F | Jr | 6'7" | 18-0 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 60.7% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 19.5% | |
| 15 | Chase Williams | F | Fr | 6'8" | 8-0 | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Logan Menefee | F | Fr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | — | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Rowan Irelan | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 64.3% | 42.9% | 1.8 | — | 35.2% | |
| 2 | Jameson Heck | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.2% | |
| 12 | Aidan Alexander | F | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 34.9% | |
| 13 | Jack Walter | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 29.1% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26The Citadel
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
6-6
Road
7-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.2
Covered 3 straightCovered 5 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-14-1
Home
6-5-1
Road
7-8
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +6.0
Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 10 as an underdogOver in 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | ETSU | N | L 76–83 | +15.0 | W+8.0 | 139.0 | O159 | 116.9 | 127.7 | 65.0 |
| Mar 6 | Chattanooga | N | W 88–85 | +7.5 | W+10.5 | 147.5 | O173 | 138.7 | 133.9 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | Wofford | A | W 93–90 OT | +12.0 | W+15.0 | 148.0 | O183 | 126.1 | 122.1 | 73.7 |
| Feb 25 | Furman | A | L 51–72 | +15.5 | L−5.5 | 143.5 | U123 | 85.2 | 120.3 | 59.8 |
| Feb 21 | Chattanooga | H | L 72–93 | +4.0 | L−17.0 | 144.0 | O165 | 99.8 | 128.9 | 72.1 |
| Feb 19 | Samford | H | L 75–78 | +10.5 | W+7.5 | 144.0 | O153 | 105.8 | 110.0 | 70.9 |
| Feb 14 | Mercer | H | L 54–70 | +12.0 | L−4.0 | 147.5 | U124 | 87.6 | 113.6 | 61.6 |
| Feb 11 | W Carolina | A | L 49–87 | +9.5 | L−28.5 | 146.5 | U136 | 78.5 | 139.3 | 62.4 |
| Feb 7 | Chattanooga | A | W 78–71 | +9.5 | W+16.5 | 141.0 | O149 | 114.7 | 104.4 | 68.0 |
| Feb 5 | Samford | A | L 64–78 | +13.5 | L−0.5 | 146.0 | U142 | 98.9 | 120.5 | 64.7 |
Loyola Chicago
Against the spread
Season
13-20
Home
6-10
Road
4-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +3.0
Covered 5 straightCovered 6 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-18
Home
7-9
Road
6-5
Last 10
2-8
avg vs total −8.2
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Davidson | N | L 59–64 OT | +5.5 | W+0.5 | 132.5 | U123 | 89.0 | 96.6 | 66.3 |
| Mar 11 | Richmond | N | W 75–67 | +4.5 | W+12.5 | 141.5 | O142 | 120.0 | 107.2 | 62.5 |
| Mar 7 | G Washington | H | W 68–62 | +9.5 | W+15.5 | 148.0 | U130 | 106.8 | 97.4 | 63.7 |
| Mar 4 | #25Saint Louis | A | L 65–79 | +21.5 | W+7.5 | 155.0 | U144 | 109.4 | 132.9 | 59.4 |
| Feb 28 | Richmond | H | W 69–66 | +2.5 | W+5.5 | 146.5 | U135 | 95.9 | 91.7 | 72.0 |
| Feb 21 | Saint Joseph's | A | L 61–75 | +9.5 | L−4.5 | 142.0 | U136 | 92.6 | 113.9 | 65.9 |
| Feb 18 | Fordham | A | L 59–62 | +8.0 | W+5.0 | 136.5 | U121 | 87.9 | 92.3 | 67.1 |
| Feb 13 | #18Saint Louis | H | L 59–86 | +18.0 | L−9.0 | 156.0 | U145 | 81.2 | 118.3 | 72.7 |
| Feb 6 | Davidson | A | L 64–84 | +10.0 | L−10.0 | 140.5 | O148 | 101.8 | 133.6 | 62.9 |
| Feb 3 | La Salle | H | W 71–61 | −2.5 | W+7.5 | 139.0 | U132 | 104.5 | 89.8 | 68.0 |
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 homeThe CitadelLoyola Chicago
Efficiency
102.8
104.3
116.1
112.3
66.2
67.2
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
49.8%
51.0%
51.9%
32.0%
31.7%
66.5%
67.3%
30.0%
34.8%
Ball control & glass
16.3%
19.8%
14.7%
12.9%
27.9%
30.5%
31.5%
29.7%
9.6%
10.9%
10.7%
13.9%
Style
47.8%
47.7%
40.6%
41.0%
10.3%
10.2%
50.6%
60.8%
33.7%
30.4%
Roster
2.98
2.93
6'4.8"
6'5.4"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputThe Citadel
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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.)
Loyola Chicago
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Loyola Chicago'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.