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 siteSanford Pentagon, Sioux Falls, SD
California
Efficiency #79
2025-26: 22-12 · 9-10 conf
vs
Minnesota
Efficiency #94
2025-26: 15-18 · 8-13 conf
Sat, Nov 28 · TBD
70.9
win 54%
Projected
69.7
win 46%
No line posted yet.
Model: CAL −1.2 · total 140.5 · 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: Minnesota 65.1, California 68.7 → 65.5 possessions
−6.1
Minnesota offense vs California defense
−1.4
California offense vs Minnesota defense
−0.2
Projected total
140.5
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Minnesota offense vs California defense
−1.4
California offense vs Minnesota defense
+0.2
California by 1.2
1.2
California side ◂▸ Minnesota 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 Minnesota.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, California is the faster team (69.3, #125 of 365) and Minnesota the slower (62.9, #364). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
140.5
model
Projected team totals
70.9 / 69.7
California / Minnesota
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.7#141
California
65.1#362
Minnesota
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Tempo tug-of-war
Minnesota averages 62.9 possessions per 40, California 69.3. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageCalifornia
Where California struggles: the offensive glass
California rebounds 26.0% of its own misses (#322); Minnesota lets opponents grab 29.5% of their own misses (#137). Expect about 26.9%, 3.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (California, California'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 California at about 43.6% of its shots from three, Minnesota about 46.5%.
AdvantageMinnesota
Where Minnesota struggles: the offensive glass
Minnesota rebounds 26.8% of its own misses (#304); California lets opponents grab 30.5% of their own misses (#180). Expect about 27.9%, 2.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions.
California has the ball
OffenseMinnesota allowsvs D1 avg
52.7% #119
51.9% #207
+1.6 pt/100
15.1% #76
16.9% #162
+1.1 pt/100
26.0% #322
29.5% #137
-2.1 pt/100
36.2% #146
26.9% #21
-0.5 pt/100
77.4% #25
—
+0.4 pt/100
California net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.4 pts/100
Minnesota has the ball
OffenseCalifornia allowsvs D1 avg
53.9% #69
49.8% #91
+1.0 pt/100
16.5% #167
16.1% #218
+0.7 pt/100
26.8% #304
30.5% #180
-1.5 pt/100
35.8% #159
36.3% #220
+0.1 pt/100
69.4% #286
—
-0.3 pt/100
Minnesota net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersCaliforniaoffense vsMinnesotadefense
Share of shots by zone
California shoots
32.3
3.8
20.8
43.0
Minnesota allows
32.6
6.5
19.6
41.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.8%#202 | 60.9%#268 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 26.9%#363 | 48.6%#345 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.2%#105 | 37.6%#150 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.9%#30 | 34.7%#229 | 33.7% |
Minnesotaoffense vsCaliforniadefense
Share of shots by zone
Minnesota shoots
34.7
4.9
12.5
47.9
California allows
40.5
5.1
13.9
40.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.5%#45 | 60.8%#260 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.7%#69 | 35.2%#63 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.5%#202 | 36.7%#123 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.2%#164 | 31.0%#34 | 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 numbersCalifornia
−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#208 of 365
Off reb %
26.0%
#322
Def reb %
69.5%
#180
Turnover %
15.1%
#76
Forced TO %
16.1%
#218
FT rate
36.2%
#146
FT allowed
36.3%
#220
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.4
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+1.1
Forcing turnovers−0.4
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Minnesota
+1.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#111 of 365
Off reb %
26.8%
#304
Def reb %
70.5%
#137
Turnover %
16.5%
#167
Forced TO %
16.9%
#162
FT rate
35.8%
#159
FT allowed
26.9%
#21
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.2
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers+0.1
Foul shots drawn+0.2
Foul shots allowed+2.1
Minnesota has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.8 (#111 of 365) to California’s −0.6 (#208).
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
California2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Nojus Indrusaitisat Pitt | G | Jr | 6'5" | 33-6 | 23.6 | 9.1 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 50.8% | 38.7% | 4.3 | 63.5% | 25.8% | |
| 55 | Michael Cooperat Wright St | G | So | 6'3" | 31-15 | 26.5 | 13.4 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 51.3% | 35.6% | 4.4 | 80.5% | 29.6% | |
| 2 | Jordan Rossat Georgia | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-25 | 20.8 | 6.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 46.3% | 31.0% | 1.3 | 77.9% | 18.2% | |
| 34 | Lee Dort | F | Sr | 6'10" | 27-26 | 23.1 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 59.7% | — | 0.0 | 65.0% | 18.8% | |
| 3 | Semetri Carr | G | So | 6'1" | 32-2 | 16.5 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 40.7% | 25.7% | 1.1 | 74.6% | 15.8% | |
| 21 | Jake Wilkinsat Georgia | F | So | 6'9" | 32-0 | 10.2 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 51.7% | 21.1% | 1.8 | 77.6% | 25.4% | |
| 17 | Mantas Kocanas | C | Jr | 6'11" | 22-0 | 6.9 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 37.5% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 17.5% | |
| 14 | Amier Aliat Mississippi St | F | Jr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 7.3 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 44.7% | 30.8% | 2.2 | 57.1% | 27.2% | |
| 12 | Dhiaukuei Manyiel Dut | F | Jr | 7'0" | 12-0 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 9.5% | |
| 23 | Sammie Yeanay | F | Jr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 40.9% | 25.0% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 18.3% | |
| 26 | BJ Fisher | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 22.1% | |
| 15 | Luke Butler | G | So | 6'4" | 7-0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.0% | |
| 6 | Jorell Clark | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jovani Ruff | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 19 | Dionycius Bakare | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Dominykas Daubaris | C | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 77 | Gabriel Sularski | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Nicolas Mitrovic | C | Fr | 7'0" | 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: Amier Ali (from Mississippi St), Michael Cooper (from Wright St), Nojus Indrusaitis (from Pitt), Jordan Ross (from Georgia), Jake Wilkins (from Georgia)
Minnesota2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Minnesota'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 | Cade Tyson | G | Sr | 6'7" | 32-32 | 36.7 | 19.6 | 5.4 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 59.3% | 41.3% | 5.4 | 82.2% | 29.1% | |
| 1 | Isaac Asuma | G | So | 6'3" | 33-33 | 34.3 | 10.9 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 48.9% | 30.4% | 5.8 | 74.2% | 23.8% | |
| 6 | Langston Reynolds | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-26 | 33.2 | 11.6 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 55.9% | 25.6% | 1.3 | 59.2% | 24.5% | |
| 3 | Bobby Durkin | F | Jr | 6'7" | 33-25 | 32.8 | 10.2 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 58.8% | 39.2% | 6.2 | 87.5% | 17.9% | |
| 5 | Jaylen Crocker-Johnson | F | Jr | 6'8" | 24-24 | 31.5 | 13.4 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 49.3% | 32.3% | 5.4 | 71.8% | 28.9% | |
| 2 | Grayson Grove | F | Fr | 6'9" | 32-12 | 20.6 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 62.0% | 26.3% | 0.6 | 25.0% | 12.6% | |
| 9 | Kai Shinholster | G | Fr | 6'5" | 31-0 | 13.1 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 22.5% | 1.3 | 75.0% | 13.1% | |
| 0 | Chansey Willis Jr. | G | Jr | 6'2" | 7-7 | 26.6 | 6.3 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 2.1 | 43.6% | 18.2% | 1.6 | 45.5% | 21.6% | |
| 22 | Robert Vaihola | F | Sr | 6'8" | 5-5 | 21.4 | 5.0 | 7.6 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 70.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 14.6% | |
| 4 | Nehemiah Turner | F | So | 6'10" | 7-1 | 5.9 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 18.8% | |
| 11 | Maximus Gizzi | G | Sr | 6'1" | 10-0 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 10.3% | |
| 12 | RJ Spencer | G | Sr | 6'3" | 5-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 23.7% | |
| 20 | BJ Omot | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Chance Stephens | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Max Lorenson | G | Fr | 6'2" | 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.
California2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Nojus Indrusaitisat Pitt | G | Jr | 6'5" | 33-6 | 23.6 | 9.1 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 50.8% | 38.7% | 4.3 | 63.5% | 25.8% | |
| 55 | Michael Cooperat Wright St | G | So | 6'3" | 31-15 | 26.5 | 13.4 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 51.3% | 35.6% | 4.4 | 80.5% | 29.6% | |
| 2 | Jordan Rossat Georgia | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-25 | 20.8 | 6.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 46.3% | 31.0% | 1.3 | 77.9% | 18.2% | |
| 34 | Lee Dort | F | Sr | 6'10" | 27-26 | 23.1 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 59.7% | — | 0.0 | 65.0% | 18.8% | |
| 3 | Semetri Carr | G | So | 6'1" | 32-2 | 16.5 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 40.7% | 25.7% | 1.1 | 74.6% | 15.8% | |
| 21 | Jake Wilkinsat Georgia | F | So | 6'9" | 32-0 | 10.2 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 51.7% | 21.1% | 1.8 | 77.6% | 25.4% | |
| 17 | Mantas Kocanas | C | Jr | 6'11" | 22-0 | 6.9 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 37.5% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 17.5% | |
| 14 | Amier Aliat Mississippi St | F | Jr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 7.3 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 44.7% | 30.8% | 2.2 | 57.1% | 27.2% | |
| 12 | Dhiaukuei Manyiel Dut | F | Jr | 7'0" | 12-0 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 9.5% | |
| 23 | Sammie Yeanay | F | Jr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 40.9% | 25.0% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 18.3% | |
| 26 | BJ Fisher | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 22.1% | |
| 15 | Luke Butler | G | So | 6'4" | 7-0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.0% | |
| 6 | Jorell Clark | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jovani Ruff | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 19 | Dionycius Bakare | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Dominykas Daubaris | C | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 77 | Gabriel Sularski | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Nicolas Mitrovic | C | Fr | 7'0" | 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: Amier Ali (from Mississippi St), Michael Cooper (from Wright St), Nojus Indrusaitis (from Pitt), Jordan Ross (from Georgia), Jake Wilkins (from Georgia)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26California
Against the spread
Season
17-16
Home
9-12
Road
7-3
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-19-1
Home
6-14-1
Road
5-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +5.7
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22 | Saint Joseph's | H | L 75–76 | −5.5 | L−6.5 | 151.5 | U151 | 110.4 | 111.9 | 67.9 |
| Mar 18 | UIC | H | W 91–73 | −6.5 | W+11.5 | 151.0 | O164 | 127.9 | 102.6 | 71.2 |
| Mar 11 | Florida St | N | L 89–95 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 155.0 | O184 | 127.7 | 136.3 | 69.7 |
| Mar 7 | Wake Forest | A | L 73–80 | +6.0 | L−1.0 | 154.0 | U153 | 100.1 | 109.6 | 73.0 |
| Mar 4 | Georgia Tech | A | W 76–65 | −2.0 | W+9.0 | 156.0 | U141 | 101.1 | 86.5 | 75.2 |
| Feb 28 | Pitt | H | L 56–72 | −7.5 | L−23.5 | 143.5 | U128 | 83.6 | 107.5 | 67.0 |
| Feb 25 | SMU | H | W 73–69 | +4.0 | W+8.0 | 163.0 | U142 | 104.7 | 98.9 | 69.7 |
| Feb 21 | Stanford | H | W 72–66 | −1.0 | W+5.0 | 148.0 | U138 | 103.8 | 95.2 | 69.3 |
| Feb 14 | Boston College | A | W 86–75 | −3.5 | W+7.5 | 141.0 | O161 | 133.1 | 116.1 | 64.6 |
| Feb 11 | Syracuse | A | L 100–107 2OT | +6.5 | L−0.5 | 149.0 | O207 | 110.6 | 118.3 | 90.4 |
Minnesota
Against the spread
Season
14-18-1
Home
9-8
Road
5-5-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.3
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-20
Home
6-11
Road
4-7
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −7.5
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1 | Baylor | N | L 48–67 | +3.5 | L−15.5 | 146.5 | U115 | 80.7 | 112.7 | 59.5 |
| Mar 11 | Rutgers | N | L 67–72 | −6.0 | L−11.0 | 136.0 | O139 | 104.9 | 112.7 | 63.9 |
| Mar 7 | Northwestern | H | W 67–66 | −4.0 | L−3.0 | 133.5 | U133 | 121.5 | 119.7 | 55.1 |
| Mar 4 | Indiana | A | L 47–77 | +6.5 | L−23.5 | 138.5 | U124 | 76.7 | 125.7 | 61.3 |
| Feb 28 | UCLA | H | W 78–73 | +1.5 | W+6.5 | 135.5 | O151 | 140.4 | 131.4 | 55.6 |
| Feb 24 | #3Michigan | A | L 67–77 | +22.5 | W+12.5 | 146.0 | U144 | 103.7 | 119.2 | 64.6 |
| Feb 21 | Rutgers | H | W 80–61 | −8.5 | W+10.5 | 133.5 | O141 | 136.6 | 104.2 | 58.6 |
| Feb 17 | Oregon | A | W 61–44 | +3.5 | W+20.5 | 134.5 | U105 | 101.9 | 73.5 | 59.9 |
| Feb 14 | Washington | A | L 57–69 | +7.0 | L−5.0 | 138.5 | U126 | 95.1 | 115.1 | 59.9 |
| Feb 8 | Maryland | H | L 62–67 | −10.0 | L−15.0 | 139.0 | U129 | 113.0 | 122.1 | 54.9 |
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 homeCaliforniaMinnesota
Efficiency
111.2
109.8
105.0
105.4
68.7
65.1
—
—
Shooting
52.7%
53.9%
50.6%
56.2%
36.9%
34.2%
77.4%
69.4%
36.2%
35.8%
Ball control & glass
15.1%
16.5%
16.1%
16.9%
26.0%
26.8%
30.5%
29.5%
7.5%
8.8%
11.1%
12.2%
Style
43.1%
47.1%
35.6%
41.6%
12.1%
11.1%
54.1%
71.0%
27.5%
16.4%
Roster
2.90
2.87
6'5.2"
6'5.9"
20.5%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputCalifornia
Returning minutes: 20.5%Returning production: 20.2%
Lost
- Dai Dai Ames 31.9 mpg, 16.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- John Camden 30.6 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Pippen 29.0 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chris Bell 27.8 mpg, 14.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Milos Ilic 17.3 mpg, 3.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- DeJuan Campbell 10.3 mpg, 2.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Nojus Indrusaitis from Pitt · 23.6 mpg, 9.1 ppg last season
- Michael Cooper from Wright St · 23.4 mpg, 11.9 ppg last season
- Jordan Ross from Georgia · 20.2 mpg, 6.5 ppg last season
- Jake Wilkins from Georgia · 9.9 mpg, 4.8 ppg last season
- Amier Ali from Mississippi St · 2.7 mpg, 1.2 ppg last season
- Jorell Clark no D1 minutes last season
Returns 21% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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).
Minnesota
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Minnesota'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.