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-conferenceClune Arena, Colorado Springs, CO
Loyola Chicago
Efficiency #309
2025-26: 9-24 · 5-15 conf
@
Air Force
Efficiency #360
2025-26: 3-29 · 0-21 conf
Wed, Nov 11 · 3:00 PM ET
71.3
win 56%
Projected
69.5
win 44%
No line posted yet.
Model: LUC −1.8 · total 140.8 · 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: Air Force 67.6, Loyola Chicago 67.2 → 66.5 possessions
−3.9
Air Force offense vs Loyola Chicago defense
−4.6
Loyola Chicago offense vs Air Force defense
+1.0
Projected total
140.8
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Air Force offense vs Loyola Chicago defense
−4.6
Loyola Chicago offense vs Air Force defense
−1.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Loyola Chicago by 1.8
1.8
Loyola Chicago side ◂▸ Air Force side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 140.7 against a projected 140.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Air Force.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Air Force is the faster team (67.4, #227 of 365) and Loyola Chicago the slower (65.9, #299). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
140.8
model
Projected team totals
71.3 / 69.5
Loyola Chicago / Air Force
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.2#271
Loyola Chicago
67.6#242
Air Force
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageAir Force
Where Air Force struggles: the offensive glass
Air Force rebounds 21.4% of its own misses (#360); Loyola Chicago lets opponents grab 29.7% of their own misses (#146). Expect about 23.8%, 6.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.0 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Air Force averages 67.4 possessions per 40, Loyola Chicago 65.9. 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.
AdvantageLoyola Chicago
Where Loyola Chicago scores: shooting
Loyola Chicago shoots an effective 49.8% (#246); Air Force allows 56.4% (#350). Expect about 53.0%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Air Force, Air Force's defense, Loyola Chicago'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 Loyola Chicago at about 45.7% of its shots from three, Air Force about 44.4%.
ClashAir Force
Style clash: paint scoring
Air Force scores 46.5% of its points in the paint; Loyola Chicago protects the paint (36.6% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 41.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
Loyola Chicago has the ball
OffenseAir Force allowsvs D1 avg
49.8% #246
56.4% #350
+2.5 pt/100
19.8% #343
15.1% #281
-0.8 pt/100
30.5% #179
31.3% #215
+0.3 pt/100
34.8% #188
36.6% #227
+0.1 pt/100
67.3% #340
—
-0.5 pt/100
Loyola Chicago net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.7 pts/100
Air Force has the ball
OffenseLoyola Chicago allowsvs D1 avg
48.9% #292
52.0% #214
-1.4 pt/100
21.9% #361
12.9% #357
-0.6 pt/100
21.4% #360
29.7% #146
-4.0 pt/100
35.1% #174
33.6% #143
-0.1 pt/100
64.1% #364
—
-0.7 pt/100
Air Force net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLoyola Chicagooffense vsAir Forcedefense
Share of shots by zone
Loyola Chicago shoots
37.2
6.5
9.6
46.7
Air Force allows
38.1
6.5
16.8
38.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.0%#199 | 62.7%#319 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.2%#284 | 45.5%#309 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.6%#130 | 42.1%#309 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.7%#296 | 37.6%#352 | 33.7% |
Air Forceoffense vsLoyola Chicagodefense
Share of shots by zone
Air Force shoots
38.6
7.1
12.7
41.6
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 | 59.3%#152 | 54.2%#43 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 29.5%#351 | 42.5%#239 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.9%#314 | 39.3%#212 | 38.0% |
| Three | 30.6%#332 | 36.8%#342 | 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 numbersLoyola 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
Air Force
−8.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#363 of 365
Off reb %
21.4%
#360
Def reb %
68.7%
#215
Turnover %
21.9%
#361
Forced TO %
15.1%
#281
FT rate
35.1%
#174
FT allowed
36.6%
#227
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.9
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security−3.5
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Loyola Chicago has more extra scoring chances per game: −3.9 (#329 of 365) to Air Force’s −8.0 (#363).
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
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.
Air Force2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Air Force'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Kam Sanders | G | Fr | 6'3" | 32-32 | 29.9 | 12.5 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 45.3% | 36.0% | 3.6 | 73.0% | 28.8% | |
| 24 | Lucas Hobin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 32-25 | 29.0 | 11.4 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 47.5% | 31.8% | 6.9 | 83.3% | 24.8% | |
| 30 | Eli Robinson | F | So | 6'6" | 31-31 | 28.0 | 7.8 | 5.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 52.2% | 35.9% | 1.3 | 65.8% | 19.2% | |
| 21 | Ethan Greenberg | G | Fr | 6'4" | 32-29 | 26.9 | 6.6 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 49.2% | 34.2% | 4.8 | 65.2% | 16.9% | |
| 51 | Wesley Celichowski | C | Jr | 7'0" | 32-29 | 20.7 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 43.5% | 16.4% | 1.9 | 53.3% | 18.2% | |
| 10 | Caleb Walker | F | Jr | 6'9" | 24-6 | 21.6 | 10.4 | 5.0 | 0.8 | 2.0 | 66.9% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 46.4% | 28.6% | |
| 2 | A.J. Patterson | G | So | 6'3" | 29-0 | 14.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 42.7% | 14.3% | 0.2 | 60.7% | 16.9% | |
| 32 | Kolby Gilles | F | Jr | 6'5" | 32-5 | 12.8 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 47.0% | 13.6% | 0.7 | 57.1% | 22.5% | |
| 15 | Justin Hinds | G | Fr | 6'5" | 29-3 | 11.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 30.0% | 16.1% | 1.1 | 58.3% | 14.4% | |
| 5 | Riley Dering | F | Fr | 6'9" | 14-0 | 13.5 | 5.4 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 62.7% | 66.7% | 0.2 | 66.7% | 20.0% | |
| 35 | Kyle Marshall | G | So | 6'4" | 4-0 | 16.5 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 41.2% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 0.0% | 17.2% | |
| 11 | Brendan Martin | F | Fr | 6'6" | 12-0 | 5.4 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 52.4% | 26.7% | 1.3 | 0.0% | 21.4% | |
| 0 | Josh Gatete | F | Jr | 6'9" | 14-0 | 4.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 21.4% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 18.0% | |
| 33 | Sam Imade | F | Fr | 6'7" | 10-0 | 3.4 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.0% | 50.0% | 0.4 | — | 17.7% | |
| 7 | Elliott Taite | G | So | 6'4" | 11-0 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 69.2% | 57.1% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 42.2% | |
| 25 | Chris Catchings | G | Fr | 6'4" | 5-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 24.2% | |
| 8 | Keaton Frisch | F | Fr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 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.
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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Loyola 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 |
Air Force
Against the spread
Season
10-20-2
Home
4-12-2
Road
6-6
Last 10
2-7-1
avg cover −4.0
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 10 as an underdog, 1 pushCovered 2 of 9 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
19-12-1
Home
13-5
Road
6-5-1
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +3.5
Under 2 straightOver in 7 of 10 as an underdogOver in 6 of 9 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | Nevada | N | L 45–80 | +19.0 | L−16.0 | 141.0 | U125 | 63.2 | 112.3 | 71.2 |
| Mar 7 | Nevada | A | L 59–74 | +25.5 | W+10.5 | 145.0 | U133 | 91.1 | 114.2 | 64.8 |
| Mar 3 | Grand Canyon | H | L 60–86 | +19.0 | L−7.0 | 143.0 | O146 | 87.4 | 125.3 | 68.7 |
| Feb 28 | Wyoming | A | L 62–66 | +21.5 | W+17.5 | 146.5 | U128 | 95.0 | 101.1 | 65.3 |
| Feb 24 | San José St | H | L 80–86 | +6.0 | P0.0 | 145.0 | O166 | 120.8 | 129.8 | 66.2 |
| Feb 21 | UNLV | H | L 66–91 | +16.5 | L−8.5 | 153.0 | O157 | 95.7 | 132.0 | 69.0 |
| Feb 17 | New Mexico | A | L 61–98 | +28.0 | L−9.0 | 148.5 | O159 | 86.3 | 138.6 | 70.7 |
| Feb 14 | Fresno St | A | L 63–93 | +15.0 | L−15.0 | 142.0 | O156 | 86.4 | 127.5 | 72.9 |
| Feb 10 | Colorado St | H | L 74–91 | +16.5 | L−0.5 | 137.5 | O165 | 113.4 | 139.4 | 65.3 |
| Feb 7 | San Diego St | H | L 54–88 | +21.5 | L−12.5 | 140.0 | O142 | 77.0 | 125.4 | 70.2 |
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 homeLoyola ChicagoAir Force
Efficiency
104.3
97.8
112.3
114.2
67.2
67.6
—
—
Shooting
49.8%
48.9%
51.9%
51.1%
31.7%
30.6%
67.3%
64.1%
34.8%
35.1%
Ball control & glass
19.8%
21.9%
12.9%
15.1%
30.5%
21.4%
29.7%
31.3%
10.9%
11.8%
13.9%
11.9%
Style
47.7%
41.8%
41.0%
46.5%
10.2%
10.5%
60.8%
55.9%
30.4%
32.1%
Roster
2.93
1.73
6'5.4"
6'6.2"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLoyola 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.)
Air Force
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Air Force'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.