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
East Texas A&M
Efficiency #311
2025-26: 11-21 · 6-16 conf
@
California
Efficiency #79
2025-26: 22-12 · 9-10 conf
Thu, Nov 19 · TBD
66.6
win 12%
Projected
80.5
win 88%
No line posted yet.
Model: CAL −13.9 · total 147.1 · 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, East Texas A&M 69.0 → 69.4 possessions
+2.4
California offense vs East Texas A&M defense
+3.2
East Texas A&M offense vs California defense
−6.7
Projected total
147.1
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
California offense vs East Texas A&M defense
+3.2
East Texas A&M offense vs California defense
+6.7
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
California by 13.9
13.9
East Texas A&M side ◂▸ California 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 California.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, California is the faster team (69.3, #125 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
69.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
147.1
model
Projected team totals
66.6 / 80.5
East Texas A&M / California
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.0#123
East Texas A&M
68.7#141
California
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageEast Texas A&M
Where East Texas A&M struggles: shooting
East Texas A&M shoots an effective 49.2% (#282); California allows 49.8% (#91). Expect about 49.3%, 1.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageCalifornia
Where California scores: shooting
California shoots an effective 52.7% (#119); East Texas A&M allows 52.9% (#261). Expect about 52.9%, 1.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (California, California's defense, 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 45.8% of its shots from three, California about 41.4%.
GlassEast Texas A&M
East Texas A&M gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.2% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against East Texas A&M's offense.
East Texas A&M has the ball
OffenseCalifornia allowsvs D1 avg
49.2% #282
49.8% #91
-2.8 pt/100
19.2% #330
16.1% #218
-1.2 pt/100
25.7% #328
30.5% #180
-2.0 pt/100
32.0% #257
36.3% #220
-0.1 pt/100
67.9% #328
—
-0.4 pt/100
East Texas A&M net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.4 pts/100
California has the ball
OffenseEast Texas A&M allowsvs D1 avg
52.7% #119
52.9% #261
+2.3 pt/100
15.1% #76
17.0% #153
+1.0 pt/100
26.0% #322
32.8% #288
-1.2 pt/100
36.2% #146
34.5% #165
+0.0 pt/100
77.4% #25
—
+0.4 pt/100
California net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersEast Texas A&Moffense vsCaliforniadefense
Share of shots by zone
East Texas A&M shoots
36.0
6.1
12.5
45.4
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 | 57.9%#200 | 60.8%#260 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.3%#190 | 35.2%#63 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 32.8%#332 | 36.7%#123 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.3%#313 | 31.0%#34 | 33.7% |
Californiaoffense vsEast Texas A&Mdefense
Share of shots by zone
California shoots
32.3
3.8
20.8
43.0
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 | 57.8%#202 | 55.1%#62 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 26.9%#363 | 40.4%#197 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.2%#105 | 35.4%#85 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.9%#30 | 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
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 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.
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)
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 |
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 homeEast Texas A&MCalifornia
Efficiency
102.4
111.2
110.3
105.0
69.0
68.7
—
—
Shooting
49.2%
52.7%
51.2%
50.6%
31.3%
36.9%
67.9%
77.4%
32.0%
36.2%
Ball control & glass
19.2%
15.1%
17.0%
16.1%
25.7%
26.0%
32.8%
30.5%
10.7%
7.5%
10.7%
11.1%
Style
46.2%
43.1%
41.9%
35.6%
13.4%
12.1%
62.4%
54.1%
32.7%
27.5%
Roster
3.53
2.90
6'5.8"
6'5.2"
91.3%
20.5%
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).
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.