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-conferenceChiles Center, Portland, OR
East Texas A&M
Efficiency #311
2025-26: 11-21 · 6-16 conf
@
Portland
Efficiency #259
2025-26: 15-19 · 8-13 conf
Fri, Nov 13 · 10:00 PM ET
70.4
win 30%
Projected
76.5
win 70%
No line posted yet.
Model: PORT −6.1 · total 146.9 · 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: Portland 69.1, East Texas A&M 69.0 → 69.8 possessions
+3.2
Portland offense vs East Texas A&M defense
−1.2
East Texas A&M offense vs Portland defense
−3.3
Projected total
146.9
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Portland offense vs East Texas A&M defense
−1.2
East Texas A&M offense vs Portland defense
+3.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Portland by 6.1
6.1
East Texas A&M side ◂▸ Portland 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 Portland.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Portland is the faster team (69.7, #105 of 365) and East Texas A&M the slower (68.5, #171). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
146.9
model
Projected team totals
70.4 / 76.5
East Texas A&M / Portland
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.0#123
East Texas A&M
69.1#114
Portland
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashEast Texas A&M
Style match: ball movement
East Texas A&M assists on 62.4% of its made baskets; Portland allows assists on 66.7% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 68.2% — both habits push the same way.
ClashEast Texas A&M
Style match: 3-point volume
East Texas A&M takes 46.2% of its shots from three; Portland lets opponents take 45.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 48.9% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantagePortland
Where Portland struggles: ball control
Portland turns it over on 19.7% of possessions (#342); East Texas A&M forces turnovers on 17.0% of opponent possessions (#153). Expect about 18.6%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Portland, East Texas A&M'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 East Texas A&M at about 48.9% of its shots from three, Portland about 35.2%.
AdvantageEast Texas A&M
Where East Texas A&M struggles: ball control
East Texas A&M turns it over on 19.2% of possessions (#330); Portland forces turnovers on 17.0% of opponent possessions (#151). Expect about 18.3%, 1.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions.
East Texas A&M has the ball
OffensePortland allowsvs D1 avg
49.2% #282
52.7% #255
-0.7 pt/100
19.2% #330
17.0% #151
-1.9 pt/100
25.7% #328
32.5% #281
-1.4 pt/100
32.0% #257
32.6% #118
-0.4 pt/100
67.9% #328
—
-0.4 pt/100
East Texas A&M net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.7 pts/100
Portland has the ball
OffenseEast Texas A&M allowsvs D1 avg
51.2% #188
52.9% #261
+1.1 pt/100
19.7% #342
17.0% #153
-2.2 pt/100
28.1% #266
32.8% #288
-0.3 pt/100
34.4% #197
34.5% #165
-0.1 pt/100
74.0% #131
—
+0.1 pt/100
Portland net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersEast Texas A&Moffense vsPortlanddefense
Share of shots by zone
East Texas A&M shoots
36.0
6.1
12.5
45.4
Portland allows
35.3
5.5
13.9
45.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.9%#200 | 59.2%#200 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.3%#190 | 29.5%#14 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 32.8%#332 | 37.2%#136 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.3%#313 | 36.1%#308 | 33.7% |
Portlandoffense vsEast Texas A&Mdefense
Share of shots by zone
Portland shoots
41.7
8.2
15.3
34.8
East Texas A&M allows
43.6
6.1
12.6
37.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.9%#53 | 55.1%#62 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.3%#74 | 40.4%#197 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.4%#208 | 35.4%#85 | 38.0% |
| Three | 29.9%#344 | 37.3%#347 | 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 numbersEast Texas A&M
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#332 of 365
Off reb %
25.7%
#328
Def reb %
67.2%
#288
Turnover %
19.2%
#330
Forced TO %
17.0%
#153
FT rate
32.0%
#257
FT allowed
34.5%
#165
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.5
Defensive rebounding−0.7
Ball security−1.7
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.8
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Portland
−2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#290 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#266
Def reb %
67.5%
#281
Turnover %
19.7%
#342
Forced TO %
17.0%
#151
FT rate
34.4%
#197
FT allowed
32.6%
#118
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−0.6
Ball security−2.0
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.7
Portland has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.6 (#290 of 365) to East Texas A&M’s −4.2 (#332).
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
East Texas A&M2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Gianni Hunt | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-32 | 30.9 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 46.5% | 31.3% | 4.0 | 76.4% | 23.9% | |
| 0 | Ronnie Harrison | F | Jr | 6'8" | 30-28 | 29.5 | 14.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 52.3% | 29.6% | 3.6 | 65.5% | 31.1% | |
| 13 | Noah Pagotto | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-22 | 26.1 | 10.4 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 59.3% | 37.3% | 1.6 | 76.8% | 21.0% | |
| 8 | Damian Garcia | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-24 | 26.0 | 10.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 49.8% | 33.3% | 5.0 | 57.1% | 26.7% | |
| 10 | Josh Taylor | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-12 | 16.8 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 53.4% | 31.0% | 0.9 | 55.3% | 19.5% | |
| 5 | Tay Mosher | F | Sr | 6'7" | 27-12 | 16.6 | 4.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 50.4% | 31.9% | 3.5 | 60.0% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Evan Phelps | G | Jr | 6'0" | 30-8 | 14.6 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 29.0% | 20.5% | 1.3 | 26.7% | 13.9% | |
| 6 | London Fields | G | Jr | 6'5" | 24-10 | 15.3 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 43.3% | 25.4% | 2.5 | 70.6% | 16.0% | |
| 7 | Michael Folarin | F | Sr | 6'10" | 20-4 | 13.4 | 5.2 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 52.2% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 63.5% | 23.2% | |
| 30 | Alex McCray | G | Jr | 6'1" | 20-2 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 41.2% | 22.2% | 0.9 | 81.8% | 15.3% | |
| 20 | Parker Whisenhunt | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 20.9% | |
| 3 | Mykol Sanchez-Vega | G | Sr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 6.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 25.0% | 20.0% | 2.5 | — | 28.3% | |
| 4 | Chris Adlam | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Kamren Robinson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Kollin Tolbert | G | Jr | 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.
Portland2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Portland'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Joel Foxwell | G | Fr | 6'1" | 34-34 | 35.7 | 15.6 | 4.3 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 46.8% | 31.9% | 6.4 | 80.7% | 29.3% | |
| 10 | Garrett Nuckolls | G | Jr | 6'6" | 34-19 | 25.9 | 6.7 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 41.5% | 17.8% | 2.1 | 82.6% | 20.9% | |
| 14 | James O'Donnell | F | So | 6'10" | 34-23 | 22.5 | 10.0 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 65.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 60.5% | 24.2% | |
| 35 | Cameron Williams | F | Jr | 6'8" | 31-28 | 23.9 | 10.6 | 4.6 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 52.6% | 26.8% | 1.3 | 79.8% | 24.7% | |
| 44 | Mikah Ballew | G | So | 6'5" | 31-15 | 23.6 | 8.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 45.8% | 33.6% | 4.8 | 81.3% | 23.0% | |
| 5 | Dante Censori-Hercules | G | Fr | 6'7" | 33-12 | 20.5 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 53.2% | 14.3% | 0.4 | 58.5% | 10.0% | |
| 1 | Jermaine Ballisager Webb | C | Sr | 7'1" | 34-17 | 19.8 | 8.9 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 57.4% | 35.5% | 1.8 | 71.0% | 24.7% | |
| 7 | Matus Hronsky | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-21 | 18.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 30.8% | 2.9 | 90.5% | 19.3% | |
| 3 | Timo George | F | Fr | 6'8" | 15-1 | 19.9 | 12.5 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 70.5% | 18.2% | 0.7 | 71.4% | 28.3% | |
| 21 | NaVaughn Long | G | Fr | 6'6" | 13-0 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 62.5% | 55.6% | 0.7 | 50.0% | 12.1% | |
| 12 | Kelson Gebbers | G | So | 6'7" | 15-0 | 5.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.2% | 0.6 | 50.0% | 13.1% | |
| 2 | Sam Noland | G | Sr | 6'1" | 13-0 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 83.3% | 7.7% | |
| 11 | Riley Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 1-0 | 19.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 80.0% | 13.4% | |
| 8 | Preston Lee | G | Fr | 5'11" | 6-0 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 87.5% | 100.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 18.4% | |
| 9 | Carlin Briggs | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Marchelo Moreira | G | So | 6'3" | 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.
East Texas A&M2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Gianni Hunt | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-32 | 30.9 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 46.5% | 31.3% | 4.0 | 76.4% | 23.9% | |
| 0 | Ronnie Harrison | F | Jr | 6'8" | 30-28 | 29.5 | 14.7 | 6.1 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 52.3% | 29.6% | 3.6 | 65.5% | 31.1% | |
| 13 | Noah Pagotto | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-22 | 26.1 | 10.4 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 59.3% | 37.3% | 1.6 | 76.8% | 21.0% | |
| 8 | Damian Garcia | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-24 | 26.0 | 10.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 49.8% | 33.3% | 5.0 | 57.1% | 26.7% | |
| 10 | Josh Taylor | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-12 | 16.8 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 53.4% | 31.0% | 0.9 | 55.3% | 19.5% | |
| 5 | Tay Mosher | F | Sr | 6'7" | 27-12 | 16.6 | 4.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 50.4% | 31.9% | 3.5 | 60.0% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Evan Phelps | G | Jr | 6'0" | 30-8 | 14.6 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 29.0% | 20.5% | 1.3 | 26.7% | 13.9% | |
| 6 | London Fields | G | Jr | 6'5" | 24-10 | 15.3 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 43.3% | 25.4% | 2.5 | 70.6% | 16.0% | |
| 7 | Michael Folarin | F | Sr | 6'10" | 20-4 | 13.4 | 5.2 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 52.2% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 63.5% | 23.2% | |
| 30 | Alex McCray | G | Jr | 6'1" | 20-2 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 41.2% | 22.2% | 0.9 | 81.8% | 15.3% | |
| 20 | Parker Whisenhunt | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 20.9% | |
| 3 | Mykol Sanchez-Vega | G | Sr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 6.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 25.0% | 20.0% | 2.5 | — | 28.3% | |
| 4 | Chris Adlam | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Kamren Robinson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Kollin Tolbert | G | Jr | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26East Texas A&M
Against the spread
Season
13-15
Home
4-8
Road
8-7
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
12-15-1
Home
4-8
Road
7-7-1
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −2.6
Over in the last gameOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2 | Texas A&M-CC | A | L 71–84 | +8.0 | L−5.0 | 137.5 | O155 | 105.6 | 124.9 | 67.2 |
| Feb 28 | UT Rio Grande | A | L 55–63 | +10.0 | W+2.0 | 147.5 | U118 | 95.5 | 109.4 | 57.6 |
| Feb 23 | Hou Christian | H | L 68–69 | −2.0 | L−3.0 | 139.5 | U137 | 106.1 | 107.6 | 64.1 |
| Feb 21 | Incarnate Word | H | L 73–82 | −4.0 | L−13.0 | 146.5 | O155 | 127.6 | 143.4 | 57.2 |
| Feb 16 | SE Louisiana | H | W 70–53 | −1.5 | W+15.5 | 136.5 | U123 | 103.3 | 78.2 | 67.7 |
| Feb 14 | McNeese | H | L 54–97 | +13.5 | L−29.5 | 142.5 | O151 | 79.3 | 142.4 | 68.1 |
| Feb 9 | SF Austin | A | L 70–74 | +15.0 | W+11.0 | 144.5 | U144 | 104.7 | 110.7 | 66.8 |
| Feb 7 | N'Western St | H | W 52–48 | −2.0 | W+2.0 | 141.5 | U100 | 78.1 | 72.1 | 66.5 |
| Feb 4 | N'Western St | A | W 74–68 | +3.0 | W+9.0 | 143.0 | U142 | 117.1 | 107.6 | 63.2 |
| Feb 2 | LSU N Orleans | H | L 85–94 | +2.0 | L−7.0 | 151.0 | O179 | 108.5 | 120.0 | 78.3 |
Portland
Against the spread
Season
15-17
Home
11-5
Road
2-11
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-18
Home
10-6
Road
3-10
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.8
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | San Francisco | N | L 65–82 | +7.0 | L−10.0 | 144.5 | O147 | 97.0 | 122.3 | 67.0 |
| Mar 6 | Washington St | N | W 74–68 | +5.5 | W+11.5 | 150.0 | U142 | 106.3 | 97.7 | 69.6 |
| Mar 5 | Pepperdine | N | W 77–68 | −3.5 | W+5.5 | 154.0 | U145 | 111.2 | 98.2 | 69.3 |
| Feb 28 | San Diego | H | W 87–74 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 148.5 | O161 | 125.8 | 107.0 | 69.2 |
| Feb 25 | #9Gonzaga | A | L 48–89 | +27.0 | L−14.0 | 150.0 | U137 | 71.2 | 131.9 | 67.5 |
| Feb 21 | Seattle U | A | L 59–71 | +6.5 | L−5.5 | 140.0 | U130 | 86.0 | 103.5 | 68.6 |
| Feb 18 | Pepperdine | H | L 87–95 | −7.0 | L−15.0 | 151.0 | O182 | 124.8 | 136.2 | 69.7 |
| Feb 11 | San Diego | A | L 58–71 | +2.5 | L−10.5 | 151.5 | U129 | 91.0 | 111.4 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | Seattle U | H | W 54–53 | +3.5 | W+4.5 | 143.0 | U107 | 86.5 | 84.9 | 62.5 |
| Feb 4 | #6Gonzaga | H | W 87–80 | +22.0 | W+29.0 | 152.5 | O167 | 117.7 | 108.2 | 73.9 |
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 homeEast Texas A&MPortland
Efficiency
102.4
104.9
110.3
109.9
69.0
69.1
—
—
Shooting
49.2%
51.2%
51.2%
54.7%
31.3%
29.9%
67.9%
74.0%
32.0%
34.4%
Ball control & glass
19.2%
19.7%
17.0%
17.0%
25.7%
28.1%
32.8%
32.5%
10.7%
10.7%
10.7%
6.4%
Style
46.2%
35.4%
41.9%
49.2%
13.4%
10.6%
62.4%
61.6%
32.7%
31.8%
Roster
3.53
2.28
6'5.8"
6'6.7"
91.3%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputEast Texas A&M
Returning minutes: 91.3%Returning production: 91.8%
Lost
- Vinny Sigona 17.5 mpg, 7.1 ppg · transferred to Canisius
Added
- Kollin Tolbert no D1 minutes last season
- Kamren Robinson no D1 minutes last season
- Chris Adlam no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 91% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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).
Portland
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Portland'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.