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-conferenceAlex G. Spanos Center, Stockton, CA
Air Force
Efficiency #360
2025-26: 3-29 · 0-21 conf
@
Pacific
Efficiency #126
2025-26: 18-15 · 9-11 conf
Sat, Nov 14 · TBD
61.0
win 8%
Projected
77.1
win 92%
No line posted yet.
Model: PAC −16.2 · total 138.1 · 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: Pacific 66.4, Air Force 67.6 → 65.7 possessions
−5.7
Pacific offense vs Air Force defense
+4.0
Air Force offense vs Pacific defense
−8.4
Projected total
138.1
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Pacific offense vs Air Force defense
+4.0
Air Force offense vs Pacific defense
+8.4
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Pacific by 16.2
16.2
Air Force side ◂▸ Pacific 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 Pacific.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.7, 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 Pacific the slower (65.8, #300). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
138.1
model
Projected team totals
61.0 / 77.1
Air Force / Pacific
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.6#242
Air Force
66.4#325
Pacific
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); Pacific lets opponents grab 25.0% of their own misses (#8). Expect about 21.5%, 8.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.4 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantagePacific
Where Pacific scores: shooting
Pacific shoots an effective 52.2% (#140); Air Force allows 56.4% (#350). Expect about 54.4%, 3.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.4 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Pacific averages 65.8 possessions per 40, Air Force 67.4. 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.
GlassPacific
Pacific owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.2% is worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions for Pacific's offense.
TurnoversAir Force
Air Force turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.6% is worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions against Air Force's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Air Force, Air Force'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 Air Force at about 43.5% of its shots from three, Pacific about 35.7%.
Air Force has the ball
OffensePacific allowsvs D1 avg
48.9% #292
50.0% #101
-2.9 pt/100
21.9% #361
15.1% #273
-2.3 pt/100
21.4% #360
25.0% #8
-5.4 pt/100
35.1% #174
36.3% #219
+0.1 pt/100
64.1% #364
—
-0.7 pt/100
Air Force net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -11.2 pts/100
Pacific has the ball
OffenseAir Force allowsvs D1 avg
52.2% #140
56.4% #350
+4.4 pt/100
20.1% #349
15.1% #281
-1.0 pt/100
35.3% #42
31.3% #215
+2.3 pt/100
30.5% #297
36.6% #227
-0.2 pt/100
75.5% #66
—
+0.3 pt/100
Pacific net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersAir Forceoffense vsPacificdefense
Share of shots by zone
Air Force shoots
38.6
7.1
12.7
41.6
Pacific allows
30.2
8.3
19.3
42.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.3%#152 | 57.0%#113 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 29.5%#351 | 39.7%#183 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.9%#314 | 37.7%#151 | 38.0% |
| Three | 30.6%#332 | 34.7%#233 | 33.7% |
Pacificoffense vsAir Forcedefense
Share of shots by zone
Pacific shoots
41.8
8.8
14.6
34.7
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 | 54.6%#311 | 62.7%#319 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 45.4%#57 | 45.5%#309 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.9%#16 | 42.1%#309 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.8%#65 | 37.6%#352 | 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 numbersAir 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
Pacific
−1.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#252 of 365
Off reb %
35.3%
#42
Def reb %
75.0%
#8
Turnover %
20.1%
#349
Forced TO %
15.1%
#273
FT rate
30.5%
#297
FT allowed
36.3%
#219
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.6
Defensive rebounding+1.8
Ball security−2.2
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Pacific has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.4 (#252 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
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.
Pacific2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | TJ Wainwright | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-33 | 31.9 | 13.0 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 52.0% | 38.8% | 5.5 | 92.0% | 24.9% | |
| 6 | Jaden Clayton | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-24 | 30.4 | 7.9 | 3.3 | 6.4 | 2.5 | 44.0% | 30.2% | 3.5 | 75.0% | 21.7% | |
| 1 | Justin Rochelin | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-33 | 27.2 | 9.1 | 6.4 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 52.3% | 38.1% | 2.5 | 79.8% | 22.0% | |
| 14 | Isaac Jack | F | Sr | 6'11" | 33-33 | 21.6 | 9.1 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 67.4% | — | 0.0 | 59.7% | 21.5% | |
| 9 | Kajus Kublickas | G | Jr | 6'2" | 33-9 | 20.2 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 1.9 | 42.1% | 27.8% | 2.4 | 71.4% | 23.7% | |
| 15 | Jaion Pitt | F | Fr | 6'7" | 33-0 | 17.3 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 68.8% | 66.7% | 0.2 | 63.4% | 13.0% | |
| 24 | KC Ibekwe | C | Sr | 6'11" | 32-0 | 9.3 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 59.6% | — | 0.0 | 29.6% | 26.9% | |
| 0 | Alexis Marmolejos | G | Sr | 6'2" | 24-0 | 9.5 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 45.1% | 30.2% | 2.2 | 84.2% | 26.8% | |
| 11 | Emmanuel Manyuon | G | Jr | 6'2" | 13-0 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 58.3% | 33.3% | 0.2 | — | 11.6% | |
| 17 | Eyal Harel | G | Fr | 6'7" | 3-0 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 0.7 | — | 11.4% | |
| 3 | Carlsheon Young | G | Fr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 40.8% | |
| 13 | Kellen Hampton | F | Fr | 6'7" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 7 | Augustas Brazdeikis | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Clayton Mpiana | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 4 | Dominic Capriotti | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Kris Keinys | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Noah Budu | G | So | 6'1" | 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.
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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Air 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 |
Pacific
Against the spread
Season
15-14-2
Home
4-6-2
Road
7-8
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover −0.2
Covered 2 straightCovered 2 of 4 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 2 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
11-20
Home
2-10
Road
9-6
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −2.7
Under 4 straightOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8 | Santa Clara | N | L 68–76 | +9.5 | W+1.5 | 148.0 | U144 | 114.9 | 128.4 | 59.2 |
| Mar 7 | Seattle U | N | W 61–58 | −1.0 | W+2.0 | 129.5 | U119 | 94.5 | 89.9 | 64.6 |
| Feb 28 | San Francisco | H | L 61–72 | −4.5 | L−15.5 | 143.5 | U133 | 94.6 | 111.7 | 64.5 |
| Feb 21 | #11Gonzaga | A | L 62–71 | +21.5 | W+12.5 | 143.5 | U133 | 101.3 | 116.0 | 61.2 |
| Feb 18 | Washington St | A | L 70–87 | +2.5 | L−14.5 | 143.5 | O157 | 106.8 | 132.8 | 65.5 |
| Feb 14 | Saint Mary's | H | L 61–72 | +7.0 | L−4.0 | 135.5 | U133 | 96.2 | 113.5 | 63.4 |
| Feb 11 | LMU | H | W 65–59 | −6.0 | P0.0 | 141.5 | U124 | 103.2 | 93.7 | 63.0 |
| Feb 7 | Pepperdine | A | W 92–59 | −7.5 | W+25.5 | 142.5 | O151 | 126.8 | 81.3 | 72.5 |
| Feb 4 | Santa Clara | H | L 56–71 | +6.0 | L−9.0 | 151.5 | U127 | 87.4 | 110.9 | 64.1 |
| Jan 31 | San Francisco | A | L 82–87 | +4.0 | L−1.0 | 138.0 | O169 | 121.1 | 128.4 | 67.7 |
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 homeAir ForcePacific
Efficiency
97.8
108.8
114.2
106.4
67.6
66.4
—
—
Shooting
48.9%
52.2%
51.1%
51.3%
30.6%
35.8%
64.1%
75.5%
35.1%
30.5%
Ball control & glass
21.9%
20.1%
15.1%
15.1%
21.4%
35.3%
31.3%
25.0%
11.8%
9.9%
11.9%
10.6%
Style
41.8%
35.3%
46.5%
45.9%
10.5%
9.7%
55.9%
58.0%
32.1%
27.8%
Roster
1.73
3.55
6'6.2"
6'4.7"
—
82.8%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputAir 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.)
Pacific
Returning minutes: 82.8%Returning production: 78.1%
Lost
- Elias Ralph 34.6 mpg, 16.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Kris Keinys no D1 minutes last season
- Noah Budu no D1 minutes last season
- Dominic Capriotti no D1 minutes last season
- Augustas Brazdeikis no D1 minutes last season
- Clayton Mpiana no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 83% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. 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).
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Wed, Dec 3 | 2025-26 | Pacific 80 – 65 Air Force |
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.