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
Chicago St
Efficiency #342
2025-26: 7-25 · 5-14 conf
@
LMU
Efficiency #183
2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf
Sun, Nov 15 · 4:00 PM ET
65.6
win 16%
Projected
77.1
win 84%
No line posted yet.
Model: LMU −11.5 · total 142.6 · 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, Chicago St 67.2 → 67.1 possessions
−2.6
LMU offense vs Chicago St defense
+2.3
Chicago St offense vs LMU defense
−5.3
Projected total
142.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
LMU offense vs Chicago St defense
+2.3
Chicago St offense vs LMU defense
+5.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
LMU by 11.5
11.5
Chicago St 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: 67.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, LMU is the faster team (68.1, #197 of 365) and Chicago St the slower (65.8, #304). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
142.6
model
Projected team totals
65.6 / 77.1
Chicago St / LMU
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.2#272
Chicago St
68.2#189
LMU
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageChicago St
Where Chicago St struggles: shooting
Chicago St shoots an effective 45.3% (#358); LMU allows 48.9% (#60). Expect about 46.6%, 4.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -6.7 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageLMU
Where LMU scores: shooting
LMU shoots an effective 51.8% (#152); Chicago St allows 56.7% (#354). Expect about 54.4%, 3.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.4 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversLMU
LMU turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 19.3% is worth roughly -3.1 points per 100 possessions against LMU's offense.
ClashChicago St
Style match: 3-point volume
Chicago St rarely shoots threes (30.9% of its shots); LMU runs teams off the line (36.2% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 30.5% — both habits push the same way.
DefenseChicago St
Chicago St's ball-hawking
Chicago St ranks #19 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.2% of LMU's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
Chicago St has the ball
OffenseLMU allowsvs D1 avg
45.3% #358
48.9% #60
-6.7 pt/100
15.6% #113
16.6% #181
+1.0 pt/100
28.3% #255
32.0% #258
-0.4 pt/100
30.0% #311
32.5% #114
-0.5 pt/100
75.0% #84
—
+0.2 pt/100
Chicago St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.4 pts/100
LMU has the ball
OffenseChicago St allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #152
56.7% #354
+4.4 pt/100
17.5% #238
20.1% #20
-3.1 pt/100
26.7% #307
35.0% #339
-0.2 pt/100
31.1% #280
38.0% #261
-0.0 pt/100
69.5% #280
—
-0.2 pt/100
LMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersChicago Stoffense vsLMUdefense
Share of shots by zone
Chicago St shoots
33.6
8.8
26.8
30.7
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 | 49.8%#361 | 53.3%#27 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.0%#195 | 35.8%#88 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.8%#232 | 39.0%#200 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.1%#275 | 34.6%#225 | 33.7% |
LMUoffense vsChicago Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
LMU shoots
32.8
8.4
19.0
39.8
Chicago St allows
37.0
4.0
8.8
50.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.2%#156 | 64.9%#350 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.0%#195 | 31.0%#19 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.6%#68 | 44.1%#341 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.8%#130 | 35.6%#290 | 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 numbersChicago St
−1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#232 of 365
Off reb %
28.3%
#255
Def reb %
65.0%
#339
Turnover %
15.6%
#113
Forced TO %
20.1%
#20
FT rate
30.0%
#311
FT allowed
38.0%
#261
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.4
Ball security+0.8
Forcing turnovers+2.3
Foul shots drawn−1.3
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
Chicago St has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.0 (#232 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
Chicago St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Chicago St'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 | CJ Ray | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-27 | 31.1 | 13.5 | 4.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 47.8% | 37.2% | 3.5 | 85.2% | 28.3% | |
| 4 | Marcus Tankersley | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-29 | 30.6 | 13.0 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 46.5% | 23.3% | 1.0 | 65.6% | 29.9% | |
| 3 | Doyel Cockrill III | G | Jr | 6'2" | 28-9 | 24.4 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 49.4% | 36.4% | 5.8 | 83.3% | 29.7% | |
| 21 | Braelon Bush | G | Sr | 5'9" | 26-9 | 25.9 | 8.5 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 45.6% | 27.7% | 3.9 | 91.9% | 23.3% | |
| 10 | Corey Sands | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-20 | 17.4 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 39.4% | 25.8% | 2.1 | 73.3% | 13.1% | |
| 8 | Stephen Byard | F | Sr | 6'8" | 22-9 | 22.6 | 9.8 | 4.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 48.3% | 41.7% | 0.5 | 73.4% | 28.7% | |
| 9 | Malek Robinson | G | Fr | 5'11" | 32-22 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 36.5% | 31.8% | 0.7 | 70.4% | 15.8% | |
| 22 | Dailliss Cox | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-21 | 15.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 69.2% | 14.0% | |
| 15 | Joseph Owens | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-2 | 11.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 53.7% | — | 0.0 | 62.5% | 13.5% | |
| 11 | Lionel Larvadain III | G | So | 6'0" | 21-1 | 11.2 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 31.6% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 71.4% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | Chauncey Gibson | G | Jr | 6'7" | 15-4 | 15.5 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 37.8% | 26.4% | 3.5 | 42.9% | 30.0% | |
| 6 | Daniel Zatsepin | F | Jr | 6'4" | 25-2 | 8.7 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 35.2% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 10.1% | |
| 25 | Dakari Thomas | G | So | 6'1" | 19-0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 42.9% | — | 0.0 | 63.6% | 8.3% | |
| 20 | CJ Delancy | F | Sr | 6'9" | 6-2 | 9.2 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 44.4% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 12.4% | |
| 1 | Deshawn Jean-Charles | G | Sr | 6'7" | 4-3 | 8.5 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 7.7% | |
| 12 | DaJuan Bates | G | Jr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Greg Spate | G | Jr | 6'7" | 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.
Chicago St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Chicago St'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 | CJ Ray | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-27 | 31.1 | 13.5 | 4.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 47.8% | 37.2% | 3.5 | 85.2% | 28.3% | |
| 4 | Marcus Tankersley | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-29 | 30.6 | 13.0 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 46.5% | 23.3% | 1.0 | 65.6% | 29.9% | |
| 3 | Doyel Cockrill III | G | Jr | 6'2" | 28-9 | 24.4 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 49.4% | 36.4% | 5.8 | 83.3% | 29.7% | |
| 21 | Braelon Bush | G | Sr | 5'9" | 26-9 | 25.9 | 8.5 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 45.6% | 27.7% | 3.9 | 91.9% | 23.3% | |
| 10 | Corey Sands | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-20 | 17.4 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 39.4% | 25.8% | 2.1 | 73.3% | 13.1% | |
| 8 | Stephen Byard | F | Sr | 6'8" | 22-9 | 22.6 | 9.8 | 4.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 48.3% | 41.7% | 0.5 | 73.4% | 28.7% | |
| 9 | Malek Robinson | G | Fr | 5'11" | 32-22 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 36.5% | 31.8% | 0.7 | 70.4% | 15.8% | |
| 22 | Dailliss Cox | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-21 | 15.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 69.2% | 14.0% | |
| 15 | Joseph Owens | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-2 | 11.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 53.7% | — | 0.0 | 62.5% | 13.5% | |
| 11 | Lionel Larvadain III | G | So | 6'0" | 21-1 | 11.2 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 31.6% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 71.4% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | Chauncey Gibson | G | Jr | 6'7" | 15-4 | 15.5 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 37.8% | 26.4% | 3.5 | 42.9% | 30.0% | |
| 6 | Daniel Zatsepin | F | Jr | 6'4" | 25-2 | 8.7 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 35.2% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 10.1% | |
| 25 | Dakari Thomas | G | So | 6'1" | 19-0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 42.9% | — | 0.0 | 63.6% | 8.3% | |
| 20 | CJ Delancy | F | Sr | 6'9" | 6-2 | 9.2 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 44.4% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 12.4% | |
| 1 | Deshawn Jean-Charles | G | Sr | 6'7" | 4-3 | 8.5 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 7.7% | |
| 12 | DaJuan Bates | G | Jr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Greg Spate | G | Jr | 6'7" | 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 2025-26Chicago St
Against the spread
Season
14-16-1
Home
6-4
Road
8-12-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +2.5
Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-16
Home
3-7
Road
12-9
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −2.1
Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4 | Long Island | A | L 75–79 | +11.0 | W+7.0 | 138.0 | O154 | 122.2 | 128.7 | 61.4 |
| Feb 28 | Wagner | A | L 61–80 | +5.0 | L−14.0 | 135.5 | O141 | 88.6 | 116.2 | 68.9 |
| Feb 26 | Long Island | A | L 56–73 | +11.5 | L−5.5 | 140.0 | U129 | 85.8 | 111.9 | 65.3 |
| Feb 21 | C Connecticut | H | W 70–51 | +3.0 | W+22.0 | 138.5 | U121 | 113.1 | 82.4 | 61.9 |
| Feb 19 | FDU | H | L 59–60 | +2.0 | W+1.0 | 132.0 | U119 | 111.6 | 113.5 | 52.9 |
| Feb 14 | Le Moyne | A | L 63–81 | +7.0 | L−11.0 | 146.0 | U144 | 91.5 | 117.6 | 68.9 |
| Feb 12 | Stonehill | H | W 68–55 | +1.5 | W+14.5 | 132.5 | U123 | 121.5 | 98.3 | 56.0 |
| Feb 9 | Saint Francis Red Wolves | H | W 80–75 | −3.0 | W+2.0 | 145.5 | O155 | 112.7 | 105.7 | 71.0 |
| Feb 7 | New Haven | A | W 63–57 | +5.5 | W+11.5 | 127.5 | U120 | 106.9 | 96.8 | 58.9 |
| Feb 5 | C Connecticut | A | L 67–78 | +9.0 | L−2.0 | 137.0 | O145 | 107.5 | 125.1 | 62.3 |
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 homeChicago StLMU
Efficiency
102.4
106.0
114.4
106.6
67.2
68.2
—
—
Shooting
45.3%
51.8%
44.0%
51.6%
32.1%
34.8%
75.0%
69.5%
30.0%
31.1%
Ball control & glass
15.6%
17.5%
20.1%
16.6%
28.3%
26.7%
35.0%
32.0%
8.4%
9.0%
8.7%
7.3%
Style
30.9%
40.4%
41.8%
43.4%
11.7%
14.5%
50.3%
49.3%
39.8%
32.4%
Roster
3.49
2.92
6'3.7"
6'6.4"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputChicago St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Chicago St'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.