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-conferenceHaas Pavilion, Berkeley, CA
Utah Tech
Efficiency #216
2025-26: 19-15 · 12-8 conf
@
California
Efficiency #79
2025-26: 22-12 · 9-10 conf
Sat, Nov 14 · TBD
69.8
win 21%
Projected
79.3
win 79%
No line posted yet.
Model: CAL −9.5 · total 149.1 · 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: California 68.7, Utah Tech 67.7 → 68.1 possessions
−0.4
California offense vs Utah Tech defense
+3.4
Utah Tech offense vs California defense
−2.1
Projected total
149.1
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
California offense vs Utah Tech defense
+3.4
Utah Tech offense vs California defense
+2.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
California by 9.5
9.5
Utah Tech side ◂▸ California side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +9.4 against +9.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help California.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, California is the faster team (69.3, #125 of 365) and Utah Tech the slower (68.0, #199). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.1
model
Projected team totals
69.8 / 79.3
Utah Tech / California
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.7#230
Utah Tech
68.7#141
California
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetWatch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (California, California's defense, Utah Tech'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 Utah Tech at about 39.4% of its shots from three, California about 39.1%.
ClashCalifornia
Style clash: paint scoring
California gets only 35.6% of its points in the paint; Utah Tech gives up 51.0% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 43.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
ClashCalifornia
Strength vs strength: 3-point shooting
California (#30 in 3-point shooting) against Utah Tech (#29 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 34.0%. Historically California's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.25 vs 0.16).
ClashCalifornia
Style clash: 3-point volume
California takes 43.1% of its shots from three; Utah Tech runs teams off the line (34.4% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 39.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Utah Tech has the ball
OffenseCalifornia allowsvs D1 avg
53.3% #90
49.8% #91
+0.6 pt/100
17.6% #244
16.1% #218
-0.1 pt/100
28.1% #261
30.5% #180
-1.0 pt/100
30.6% #290
36.3% #220
-0.2 pt/100
72.6% #183
—
+0.0 pt/100
Utah Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.6 pts/100
California has the ball
OffenseUtah Tech allowsvs D1 avg
52.7% #119
50.9% #151
+0.9 pt/100
15.1% #76
16.9% #160
+1.0 pt/100
26.0% #322
34.5% #326
-0.7 pt/100
36.2% #146
33.0% #132
-0.1 pt/100
77.4% #25
—
+0.4 pt/100
California net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersUtah Techoffense vsCaliforniadefense
Share of shots by zone
Utah Tech shoots
37.5
5.8
18.6
38.1
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 | 59.7%#131 | 60.8%#260 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 49.0%#14 | 35.2%#63 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.5%#30 | 36.7%#123 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#113 | 31.0%#34 | 33.7% |
Californiaoffense vsUtah Techdefense
Share of shots by zone
California shoots
32.3
3.8
20.8
43.0
Utah Tech allows
44.8
5.4
15.2
34.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.8%#202 | 60.9%#265 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 26.9%#363 | 28.9%#11 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.2%#105 | 37.5%#141 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.9%#30 | 30.7%#29 | 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 numbersUtah Tech
−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#301 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#261
Def reb %
65.5%
#326
Turnover %
17.6%
#244
Forced TO %
16.9%
#160
FT rate
30.6%
#290
FT allowed
33.0%
#132
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−1.1
Foul shots allowed+0.6
California
−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
California has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.6 (#208 of 365) to Utah Tech’s −3.0 (#301).
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
Utah Tech2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Utah Tech'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66 | Noah Bolanga | G | So | 6'8" | 34-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 49.7% | 32.6% | 5.3 | 67.5% | 24.4% | |
| 2 | Chance Trujillo | G | So | 6'4" | 33-23 | 32.9 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 52.6% | 35.3% | 6.3 | 81.3% | 22.3% | |
| 35 | Ethan Potter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-34 | 31.2 | 16.8 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 60.2% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 80.1% | 27.3% | |
| 4 | Jusaun Holt | G | Sr | 6'7" | 33-29 | 31.7 | 12.0 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 50.5% | 40.6% | 4.2 | 80.7% | 25.8% | |
| 11 | Tanner Davis | G | Fr | 6'5" | 33-26 | 26.6 | 7.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 55.7% | 23.1% | 1.2 | 52.6% | 16.9% | |
| 13 | Britton Berrett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-17 | 23.0 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 60.0% | 40.4% | 3.1 | 92.3% | 12.4% | |
| 33 | Madiba Owona | G | So | 6'4" | 15-8 | 24.7 | 9.7 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 50.8% | 36.0% | 3.3 | 52.2% | 25.6% | |
| 23 | Samuel Ariyibi | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-2 | 9.9 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 42.7% | 11.1% | 0.3 | 67.6% | 18.9% | |
| 52 | Dario Domingos | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-0 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 63.5% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 61.4% | 39.4% | |
| 3 | Boston Harker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 7-0 | 8.0 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 46.9% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 78.6% | 21.9% | |
| 5 | Dallin Grant | F | So | 6'8" | 10-0 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 62.5% | 16.7% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 21.4% | |
| 14 | Preston Vandermyde | G | So | 6'5" | 8-0 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 42.9% | 50.0% | 0.5 | 100.0% | 19.1% | |
| 1 | Hunter Schenck | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Marvel Allen | G | So | 6'4" | 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)
Utah Tech2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Utah Tech'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66 | Noah Bolanga | G | So | 6'8" | 34-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 49.7% | 32.6% | 5.3 | 67.5% | 24.4% | |
| 2 | Chance Trujillo | G | So | 6'4" | 33-23 | 32.9 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 52.6% | 35.3% | 6.3 | 81.3% | 22.3% | |
| 35 | Ethan Potter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-34 | 31.2 | 16.8 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 60.2% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 80.1% | 27.3% | |
| 4 | Jusaun Holt | G | Sr | 6'7" | 33-29 | 31.7 | 12.0 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 50.5% | 40.6% | 4.2 | 80.7% | 25.8% | |
| 11 | Tanner Davis | G | Fr | 6'5" | 33-26 | 26.6 | 7.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 55.7% | 23.1% | 1.2 | 52.6% | 16.9% | |
| 13 | Britton Berrett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-17 | 23.0 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 60.0% | 40.4% | 3.1 | 92.3% | 12.4% | |
| 33 | Madiba Owona | G | So | 6'4" | 15-8 | 24.7 | 9.7 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 50.8% | 36.0% | 3.3 | 52.2% | 25.6% | |
| 23 | Samuel Ariyibi | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-2 | 9.9 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 42.7% | 11.1% | 0.3 | 67.6% | 18.9% | |
| 52 | Dario Domingos | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-0 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 63.5% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 61.4% | 39.4% | |
| 3 | Boston Harker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 7-0 | 8.0 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 46.9% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 78.6% | 21.9% | |
| 5 | Dallin Grant | F | So | 6'8" | 10-0 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 62.5% | 16.7% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 21.4% | |
| 14 | Preston Vandermyde | G | So | 6'5" | 8-0 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 42.9% | 50.0% | 0.5 | 100.0% | 19.1% | |
| 1 | Hunter Schenck | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Marvel Allen | G | So | 6'4" | 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 2025-26Utah Tech
Against the spread
Season
19-12
Home
9-2
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-14
Home
6-5
Road
8-8
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +11.8
Over 3 straightOver in 3 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13 | CA Baptist | N | L 72–86 | +8.0 | L−6.0 | 143.5 | O158 | 102.3 | 122.2 | 70.4 |
| Mar 12 | Abilene Chrstn | N | W 80–74 | −1.5 | W+4.5 | 141.5 | O154 | 113.6 | 105.1 | 70.4 |
| Mar 7 | Utah Valley | H | L 101–104 2OT | +9.0 | W+6.0 | 148.0 | O205 | 118.6 | 122.1 | 85.2 |
| Feb 28 | Southern Utah | A | L 67–81 | −2.0 | L−16.0 | 156.0 | U148 | 101.0 | 122.1 | 66.3 |
| Feb 26 | Abilene Chrstn | H | W 85–81 | −2.0 | W+2.0 | 139.0 | O166 | 121.7 | 115.9 | 69.9 |
| Feb 21 | Tarleton St | A | W 80–72 | +1.5 | W+9.5 | 141.0 | O152 | 123.4 | 111.1 | 64.8 |
| Feb 19 | UT Arlington | A | L 50–63 | +4.5 | L−8.5 | 140.5 | U113 | 81.7 | 103.0 | 61.2 |
| Feb 14 | CA Baptist | H | W 70–65 | +3.5 | W+8.5 | 143.5 | U135 | 108.9 | 101.1 | 64.3 |
| Feb 12 | Utah Valley | H | W 81–77 | +10.0 | W+14.0 | 149.0 | O158 | 119.8 | 113.9 | 67.6 |
| Feb 5 | UT Arlington | H | W 87–84 2OT | −1.5 | W+1.5 | 140.5 | O171 | 113.9 | 110.0 | 76.4 |
California
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 |
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 homeUtah TechCalifornia
Efficiency
108.9
111.2
110.8
105.0
67.7
68.7
—
—
Shooting
53.3%
52.7%
53.7%
50.6%
35.0%
36.9%
72.6%
77.4%
30.6%
36.2%
Ball control & glass
17.6%
15.1%
16.9%
16.1%
28.1%
26.0%
34.5%
30.5%
10.2%
7.5%
7.3%
11.1%
Style
38.2%
43.1%
42.8%
35.6%
12.0%
12.1%
53.2%
54.1%
25.8%
27.5%
Roster
2.85
2.90
6'6.2"
6'5.2"
—
20.5%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputUtah Tech
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Utah Tech'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.)
California
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).
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.