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-conferenceGersten Pavilion, Los Angeles, CA
Queens
Efficiency #191
2025-26: 21-14 · 16-5 conf
@
LMU
Efficiency #183
2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf
Wed, Nov 4 · 10:00 PM ET
75.7
win 36%
Projected
79.9
win 64%
No line posted yet.
Model: LMU −4.2 · total 155.7 · 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: LMU 68.2, Queens 69.7 → 69.7 possessions
+2.9
LMU offense vs Queens defense
+2.4
Queens offense vs LMU defense
+2.2
Projected total
155.7
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
LMU offense vs Queens defense
+2.4
Queens offense vs LMU defense
−2.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
LMU by 4.2
4.2
Queens side ◂▸ LMU 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 LMU.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Queens is the faster team (70.6, #68 of 365) and LMU the slower (68.1, #197). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
155.7
model
Projected team totals
75.7 / 79.9
Queens / LMU
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.7#68
Queens
68.2#189
LMU
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageLMU
Where LMU scores: shooting
LMU shoots an effective 51.8% (#152); Queens allows 54.6% (#319). Expect about 53.3%, 2.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.9 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageQueens
Where Queens scores: shooting
Queens shoots an effective 56.4% (#15); LMU allows 48.9% (#60). 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 (Queens'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 Queens at about 43.0% of its shots from three, LMU about 40.2%.
ClashQueens
Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting
Queens (#13 in 2-point shooting) against LMU (#31 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 53.6%. Historically Queens's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).
TurnoversQueens
Queens protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions for Queens's offense.
ClashQueens
Style clash: 3-point volume
Queens takes 46.5% of its shots from three; LMU runs teams off the line (36.2% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 43.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Queens has the ball
OffenseLMU allowsvs D1 avg
56.4% #15
48.9% #60
+2.5 pt/100
14.8% #54
16.6% #181
+1.6 pt/100
30.2% #190
32.0% #258
+0.4 pt/100
35.4% #167
32.5% #114
-0.2 pt/100
74.9% #88
—
+0.2 pt/100
Queens net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.5 pts/100
LMU has the ball
OffenseQueens allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #152
54.6% #319
+2.9 pt/100
17.5% #238
15.1% #277
+0.8 pt/100
26.7% #307
33.6% #308
-0.7 pt/100
31.1% #280
38.1% #263
-0.0 pt/100
69.5% #280
—
-0.2 pt/100
LMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersQueensoffense vsLMUdefense
Share of shots by zone
Queens shoots
40.4
6.0
7.2
46.4
LMU allows
37.1
7.4
18.9
36.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.2%#32 | 53.3%#27 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#42 | 35.8%#88 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.5%#95 | 39.0%#200 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#74 | 34.6%#225 | 33.7% |
LMUoffense vsQueensdefense
Share of shots by zone
LMU shoots
32.8
8.4
19.0
39.8
Queens allows
42.3
5.5
13.0
39.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.2%#156 | 58.9%#186 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.0%#195 | 50.5%#357 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.6%#68 | 37.8%#153 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.8%#130 | 36.5%#325 | 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 numbersQueens
−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#251 of 365
Off reb %
30.2%
#190
Def reb %
66.4%
#308
Turnover %
14.8%
#54
Forced TO %
15.1%
#277
FT rate
35.4%
#167
FT allowed
38.1%
#263
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding−0.9
Ball security+1.4
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed−0.7
LMU
−2.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#287 of 365
Off reb %
26.7%
#307
Def reb %
68.0%
#258
Turnover %
17.5%
#238
Forced TO %
16.6%
#181
FT rate
31.1%
#280
FT allowed
32.5%
#114
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.2
Defensive rebounding−0.5
Ball security−0.5
Forcing turnovers−0.1
Foul shots drawn−1.0
Foul shots allowed+0.7
Queens has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.3 (#251 of 365) to LMU’s −2.5 (#287).
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
Queens2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Chris Ashby | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-35 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 53.5% | 37.5% | 8.5 | 87.8% | 20.5% | |
| 1 | Nasir Mann | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 30.4 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 54.6% | 31.8% | 3.1 | 78.0% | 24.1% | |
| 24 | Yoav Berman | G | So | 6'6" | 35-30 | 29.2 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 48.3% | 29.7% | 4.2 | 78.7% | 25.2% | |
| 22 | Carson Schwieger | F | So | 6'8" | 34-27 | 24.6 | 10.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 60.7% | 40.9% | 6.6 | 69.0% | 20.4% | |
| 6 | Avantae Parker | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 22.1 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 68.2% | 38.5% | 0.4 | 61.7% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | Jordan Watford | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-8 | 20.8 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 61.8% | 37.5% | 0.7 | 77.8% | 29.0% | |
| 9 | Maban Jabriel | F | So | 6'9" | 35-2 | 19.8 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 61.6% | 43.2% | 3.2 | 77.4% | 19.9% | |
| 7 | Gus Larson | F | Sr | 6'10" | 35-1 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 55.3% | 18.8% | 0.5 | 57.4% | 16.8% | |
| 3 | Isaiah Henry | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-0 | 7.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 25.0% | 0.6 | 73.3% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Kam Clark | F | Jr | 6'7" | 26-3 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 35.1% | 11.1% | 1.0 | 78.9% | 19.1% | |
| 4 | Reid Celestin | G | Jr | 6'6" | 15-0 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 25.0% | 12.9% | |
| 12 | Tyler Crider | G | Fr | 6'0" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 22.6% | |
| 25 | Jacob Brandly | G | Fr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 35 | Colby Christiansen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Danzelle Bullock Coles | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jimma James | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Matthew Walter | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Saif-Allah Zatari | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Seamus Wilson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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.
LMU2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted LMU'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 | Rodney Brown Jr. | G | Jr | 6'6" | 31-30 | 32.4 | 14.0 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 54.8% | 38.2% | 7.4 | 83.0% | 24.9% | |
| 5 | Myron Amey Jr. | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-17 | 30.5 | 14.8 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 52.7% | 35.3% | 7.3 | 77.1% | 28.0% | |
| 16 | Aaron McBride | F | Jr | 6'6" | 31-24 | 27.2 | 7.6 | 5.6 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 58.1% | 35.0% | 1.3 | 75.5% | 16.1% | |
| 1 | Jalen Shelley | F | So | 6'8" | 25-25 | 31.2 | 13.7 | 6.6 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 50.6% | 28.7% | 3.5 | 70.4% | 27.5% | |
| 7 | Jan Vide | G | Jr | 6'6" | 27-27 | 28.8 | 12.1 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 2.3 | 47.0% | 32.3% | 1.1 | 75.3% | 29.0% | |
| 22 | Rick Issanza | C | Sr | 7'1" | 30-17 | 16.3 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 66.7% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 34.4% | 10.3% | |
| 4 | AJ Thomas | G | Fr | 6'4" | 32-4 | 13.5 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 44.7% | 29.2% | 0.8 | 66.0% | 26.6% | |
| 35 | Rokas Jocius | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-15 | 12.5 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 59.1% | 43.8% | 0.5 | 52.2% | 15.9% | |
| 6 | Josh Dalton | F | Fr | 6'10" | 29-0 | 12.9 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 55.5% | 33.3% | 1.8 | 72.2% | 15.9% | |
| 0 | Nakyel Shelton | G | Sr | 6'3" | 27-0 | 9.1 | 2.9 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 55.6% | 38.5% | 1.0 | 85.0% | 17.4% | |
| 24 | Jael Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 17-1 | 7.4 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 61.4% | 20.0% | 0.3 | 62.5% | 12.0% | |
| 42 | George Tupy | F | Jr | 6'6" | 4-0 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 4.8% | |
| 41 | Kevin Carney | G | Sr | 5'11" | 2-0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.5 | 0.0% | 32.3% | |
| 40 | Cooper Smith | G | Fr | 6'2" | 3-0 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 7.0% | |
| 3 | Marley Zeller | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Tanner Thomas | G | Sr | 6'6" | 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.
Queens2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Chris Ashby | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-35 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 53.5% | 37.5% | 8.5 | 87.8% | 20.5% | |
| 1 | Nasir Mann | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 30.4 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 54.6% | 31.8% | 3.1 | 78.0% | 24.1% | |
| 24 | Yoav Berman | G | So | 6'6" | 35-30 | 29.2 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 48.3% | 29.7% | 4.2 | 78.7% | 25.2% | |
| 22 | Carson Schwieger | F | So | 6'8" | 34-27 | 24.6 | 10.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 60.7% | 40.9% | 6.6 | 69.0% | 20.4% | |
| 6 | Avantae Parker | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 22.1 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 68.2% | 38.5% | 0.4 | 61.7% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | Jordan Watford | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-8 | 20.8 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 61.8% | 37.5% | 0.7 | 77.8% | 29.0% | |
| 9 | Maban Jabriel | F | So | 6'9" | 35-2 | 19.8 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 61.6% | 43.2% | 3.2 | 77.4% | 19.9% | |
| 7 | Gus Larson | F | Sr | 6'10" | 35-1 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 55.3% | 18.8% | 0.5 | 57.4% | 16.8% | |
| 3 | Isaiah Henry | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-0 | 7.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 25.0% | 0.6 | 73.3% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Kam Clark | F | Jr | 6'7" | 26-3 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 35.1% | 11.1% | 1.0 | 78.9% | 19.1% | |
| 4 | Reid Celestin | G | Jr | 6'6" | 15-0 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 25.0% | 12.9% | |
| 12 | Tyler Crider | G | Fr | 6'0" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 22.6% | |
| 25 | Jacob Brandly | G | Fr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 35 | Colby Christiansen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Danzelle Bullock Coles | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jimma James | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Matthew Walter | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Saif-Allah Zatari | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Seamus Wilson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Queens
Against the spread
Season
15-17-1
Home
9-4
Road
4-12
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover +0.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
23-9-1
Home
10-3
Road
10-5-1
Last 10
8-1-1
avg vs total +8.2
Over 3 straightOver in 5 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #2Purdue | N | L 71–104 | +25.5 | L−7.5 | 159.5 | O175 | 105.1 | 154.0 | 67.5 |
| Mar 8 | C Arkansas | N | W 98–93 OT | +2.0 | W+7.0 | 157.0 | O191 | 122.3 | 116.0 | 80.2 |
| Mar 7 | Austin Peay | N | W 90–83 | +2.0 | W+9.0 | 161.5 | O173 | 123.8 | 114.1 | 72.7 |
| Mar 6 | West Georgia | N | W 71–63 | −8.0 | P0.0 | 165.5 | U134 | 97.5 | 86.5 | 72.8 |
| Feb 28 | C Arkansas | A | L 79–84 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 163.0 | P163 | 111.3 | 118.4 | 70.9 |
| Feb 25 | E Kentucky | A | W 96–79 | −2.5 | W+14.5 | 165.5 | O175 | 135.8 | 111.8 | 70.7 |
| Feb 21 | West Georgia | H | W 91–84 | −11.0 | L−4.0 | 162.5 | O175 | 126.3 | 116.6 | 72.1 |
| Feb 18 | North Alabama | A | W 85–78 | −8.5 | L−1.5 | 155.5 | O163 | 126.1 | 115.7 | 67.4 |
| Feb 14 | Lipscomb | H | W 87–81 | −3.0 | W+3.0 | 165.5 | O168 | 110.9 | 103.2 | 78.5 |
| Feb 11 | Austin Peay | H | L 87–95 | −2.5 | L−10.5 | 161.0 | O182 | 118.1 | 128.9 | 73.7 |
LMU
Against the spread
Season
14-16-1
Home
8-9
Road
5-5-1
Last 10
3-6-1
avg cover −1.4
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 2 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
15-16
Home
9-8
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +0.3
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5 | San Diego | N | L 62–66 | −5.5 | L−9.5 | 145.5 | U128 | 101.1 | 107.6 | 61.3 |
| Feb 28 | Seattle U | H | L 66–71 | −1.0 | L−6.0 | 136.0 | O137 | 104.8 | 112.8 | 63.0 |
| Feb 25 | Washington St | H | W 67–66 | −2.0 | L−1.0 | 148.0 | U133 | 98.6 | 97.1 | 68.0 |
| Feb 21 | San Diego | A | W 77–65 | −2.5 | W+9.5 | 149.5 | U142 | 124.0 | 104.7 | 62.1 |
| Feb 14 | Pepperdine | A | L 89–90 | −6.0 | L−7.0 | 148.5 | O179 | 125.0 | 126.4 | 71.2 |
| Feb 11 | Pacific | A | L 59–65 | +6.0 | P0.0 | 141.5 | U124 | 93.7 | 103.2 | 63.0 |
| Feb 7 | San Diego | H | W 83–63 | −6.0 | W+14.0 | 151.5 | U146 | 131.5 | 99.8 | 63.1 |
| Feb 4 | San Francisco | A | W 84–75 | +8.0 | W+17.0 | 146.0 | O159 | 121.8 | 108.8 | 69.0 |
| Jan 31 | Santa Clara | H | L 73–104 | +9.0 | L−22.0 | 154.5 | O177 | 94.1 | 134.1 | 77.5 |
| Jan 28 | Oregon St | H | L 69–72 | −6.0 | L−9.0 | 142.0 | U141 | 104.6 | 109.2 | 65.9 |
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 homeQueensLMU
Efficiency
113.5
106.0
114.4
106.6
69.7
68.2
—
—
Shooting
56.4%
51.8%
58.9%
51.6%
35.7%
34.8%
74.9%
69.5%
35.4%
31.1%
Ball control & glass
14.8%
17.5%
15.1%
16.6%
30.2%
26.7%
33.6%
32.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.4%
7.3%
Style
46.5%
40.4%
43.6%
43.4%
13.2%
14.5%
54.9%
49.3%
32.2%
32.4%
Roster
2.73
2.92
6'6.2"
6'6.4"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputQueens
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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.)
LMU
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted LMU'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.