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-conferenceLittlejohn Coliseum, Clemson, SC

North Dakota

Efficiency #291

2025-26: 18-17 · 12-7 conf

Clemson

Efficiency #35

2025-26: 24-11 · 14-7 conf

Mon, Nov 9 · TBD

63.6

win 9%

Projected

79.5

win 91%

No line posted yet.

Model: CLEM −15.9 · total 143.1 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Clemson 66.1, North Dakota 68.3 → 66.1 possessions

−4.7

Clemson offense vs North Dakota defense

+5.9

North Dakota offense vs Clemson defense

−6.2

Projected total

143.1

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Clemson offense vs North Dakota defense

+5.9

North Dakota offense vs Clemson defense

+6.2

Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors

+3.8

Clemson by 15.9

15.9

North Dakota side ◂▸ Clemson side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 143.2 against a projected 143.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Clemson.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, North Dakota is the faster team (69.2, #134 of 365) and Clemson the slower (65.1, #330). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

143.1

model

Projected team totals

63.6 / 79.5

North Dakota / Clemson

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.3#181

North Dakota

66.1#338

Clemson

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet

AdvantageClemson

Where Clemson scores: shooting

Clemson shoots an effective 52.6% (#126); North Dakota allows 56.5% (#353). Expect about 54.7%, 3.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.9 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageNorth Dakota

Where North Dakota struggles: shooting

North Dakota shoots an effective 49.4% (#272); Clemson allows 48.8% (#59). Expect about 49.0%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.3 points per 100 possessions.

ClashNorth Dakota

Style match: ball movement

North Dakota creates off the dribble (assists on 42.4% of its baskets); Clemson breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.0% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 41.8% — both habits push the same way.

GlassNorth Dakota

North Dakota gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.3% is worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions against North Dakota's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (North Dakota'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 North Dakota at about 42.8% of its shots from three, Clemson about 44.5%.

ClashClemson

Style match: 3-point volume

Clemson takes 43.1% of its shots from three; North Dakota lets opponents take 42.9% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 44.5% — both habits push the same way.

North Dakota has the ball

OffenseClemson allowsvs D1 avg

49.4% #272

48.8% #59

-3.3 pt/100

14.1% #27

17.4% #123

+1.4 pt/100

27.4% #284

26.3% #21

-2.5 pt/100

37.8% #106

33.9% #150

+0.1 pt/100

69.5% #283

—

-0.3 pt/100

North Dakota net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.6 pts/100

Clemson has the ball

OffenseNorth Dakota allowsvs D1 avg

52.6% #126

56.5% #353

+4.9 pt/100

14.0% #24

19.4% #37

-0.1 pt/100

28.1% #264

32.4% #276

-0.4 pt/100

36.7% #136

43.8% #344

+0.7 pt/100

72.5% #187

—

+0.0 pt/100

Clemson net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.1 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

North Dakotaoffense vsClemsondefense

Share of shots by zone

North Dakota shoots

43.6

3.5

12.6

40.3

Clemson allows

33.0

5.5

17.9

43.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.7%#307	57.6%#133	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.7%#202	35.1%#60	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.7%#334	37.1%#135	38.0%
Three	32.7%#246	32.4%#88	33.7%

Clemsonoffense vsNorth Dakotadefense

Share of shots by zone

Clemson shoots

36.3

6.9

13.7

43.1

North Dakota allows

43.6

4.1

9.6

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.0%#195	61.7%#294	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	52.4%#5	35.3%#65	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.8%#81	40.3%#253	38.0%
Three	34.1%#165	37.1%#345	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 numbers

North Dakota

+0.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#152 of 365

Off reb %

27.4%

#284

Def reb %

67.6%

#276

Turnover %

14.1%

#27

Forced TO %

19.4%

#37

FT rate

37.8%

#106

FT allowed

43.8%

#344

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.0

Defensive rebounding−0.6

Ball security+1.8

Forcing turnovers+1.8

Foul shots drawn+0.7

Foul shots allowed−2.2

Clemson

+3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#40 of 365

Off reb %

28.1%

#264

Def reb %

73.7%

#21

Turnover %

14.0%

#24

Forced TO %

17.4%

#123

FT rate

36.7%

#136

FT allowed

33.9%

#150

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding+1.4

Ball security+1.9

Forcing turnovers+0.5

Foul shots drawn+0.4

Foul shots allowed+0.3

Clemson has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.8 (#40 of 365) to North Dakota’s +0.7 (#152).

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

North Dakota2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted North Dakota'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
2	Eli King	G	Sr	6'3"	35-35	31.7	11.9	5.2	2.0	0.8	48.2%	30.5%	4.3	71.2%	22.4%
3	Greyson Uelmen	G	Fr	6'2"	35-34	27.8	16.8	2.8	2.4	2.6	54.9%	33.9%	3.3	80.6%	33.8%
16	Garrett Anderson	G	Sr	6'6"	32-31	29.2	10.3	4.3	1.3	1.3	45.7%	34.0%	4.9	74.5%	23.5%
1	Zach Kraft	G	So	6'3"	34-25	24.6	8.1	2.1	0.5	0.4	60.3%	39.9%	5.4	80.0%	16.3%
13	George Natsvlishvili	F	So	6'10"	34-14	19.2	8.0	4.9	1.0	1.1	52.3%	20.0%	0.1	57.0%	25.5%
9	Anthony Smith III	G	Fr	6'1"	34-0	17.7	7.8	2.1	2.3	1.2	49.8%	23.4%	1.4	83.8%	26.8%
22	Josh Jones	C	Jr	6'9"	29-21	17.9	2.8	3.3	1.0	1.1	47.1%	0.0%	0.2	40.9%	13.2%
0	Marley Curtis	F	Fr	6'8"	30-8	16.7	6.0	3.6	0.2	0.7	42.4%	30.7%	2.5	65.6%	24.4%
11	Reggie Thomas	G	Sr	6'1"	31-5	14.0	4.5	2.0	0.8	0.3	56.0%	39.3%	1.8	64.3%	17.7%
23	Wylee Delorme	G	So	6'5"	20-0	8.1	1.9	1.1	0.1	0.1	51.6%	29.4%	0.8	45.5%	14.4%
5	Matthew Bothun	F	So	6'9"	19-0	5.2	1.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	1.3	62.5%	23.2%
4	Karson Ouse	F	Fr	6'7"	13-0	6.7	0.7	0.7	0.0	0.2	15.0%	12.5%	0.6	75.0%	10.9%
33	Anthony Doppler	G	So	6'4"	11-1	5.4	1.1	0.5	0.4	0.1	31.3%	0.0%	0.4	40.0%	17.8%
15	Ryan Erikson	F	So	6'10"	9-0	5.0	1.4	1.2	0.2	0.4	30.0%	16.7%	0.7	80.0%	25.8%
10	Micah Curtis	F	Fr	6'8"	3-1	12.0	8.3	2.3	0.3	0.0	57.9%	0.0%	0.3	75.0%	30.2%
—	Anaiyah Fletcher	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Fatima Ibrahim	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Jayla Owen	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Jocelyn Schiller	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Kiera Pemberton	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Kiyah Hurst	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Mataeya Mathern	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Mikayla Aumer	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Miranda VanderWal	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Nevaeh Ferrara Horne	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Paris Bass	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Rakiyah Beal	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Skyler Volmer	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Sydney Piekny	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Walker Demers	NA	—	—	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.

Clemson2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Cole Certaat Notre Dame	G	Jr	6'5"	31-16	26.9	12.8	1.7	0.8	0.7	50.8%	36.7%	7.1	89.2%	26.6%
15	Dylan Faulknerat Samford	F	Sr	6'10"	30-30	26.2	17.2	8.6	1.8	1.4	61.7%	0.0%	0.2	56.3%	34.5%
45	Liutauras Leleviciusat TCU	F	Sr	6'7"	34-22	23.7	8.0	3.4	0.7	0.5	57.4%	38.0%	3.6	88.7%	17.1%
8	David Fuchsat San Francisco	F	Sr	6'9"	29-19	24.0	12.7	7.8	1.4	1.9	53.9%	30.3%	1.1	64.5%	32.3%
21	Ace Buckner	G	Jr	6'3"	35-3	19.5	8.3	2.9	1.8	1.0	49.1%	31.2%	2.7	81.3%	27.6%
22	Carter Welling	F	Sr	6'11"	32-24	20.9	10.2	5.4	1.1	1.3	53.2%	29.3%	1.8	70.1%	29.3%
3	Chase Thompson	F	So	6'8"	35-0	8.9	2.3	1.1	0.3	0.3	62.3%	40.0%	0.7	68.4%	14.4%
5	Zac Foster	G	So	6'4"	12-0	18.6	6.9	2.8	2.5	1.3	38.7%	27.7%	3.9	81.8%	29.1%
11	Dallas Thomas	F	Jr	6'9"	22-0	4.4	2.2	0.4	0.1	0.2	71.0%	57.1%	1.0	62.5%	24.8%
44	Trent Steinour	F	So	6'10"	6-0	2.5	1.0	1.2	0.0	0.2	25.0%	—	0.0	66.7%	30.2%
4	Blake Davidson	F	So	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	Amare James	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
2	Harris Reynolds	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
25	Will Stevens	C	Fr	6'10"	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: Cole Certa (from Notre Dame), Dylan Faulkner (from Samford), David Fuchs (from San Francisco), Liutauras Lelevicius (from TCU)

North Dakota2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted North Dakota'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
2	Eli King	G	Sr	6'3"	35-35	31.7	11.9	5.2	2.0	0.8	48.2%	30.5%	4.3	71.2%	22.4%
3	Greyson Uelmen	G	Fr	6'2"	35-34	27.8	16.8	2.8	2.4	2.6	54.9%	33.9%	3.3	80.6%	33.8%
16	Garrett Anderson	G	Sr	6'6"	32-31	29.2	10.3	4.3	1.3	1.3	45.7%	34.0%	4.9	74.5%	23.5%
1	Zach Kraft	G	So	6'3"	34-25	24.6	8.1	2.1	0.5	0.4	60.3%	39.9%	5.4	80.0%	16.3%
13	George Natsvlishvili	F	So	6'10"	34-14	19.2	8.0	4.9	1.0	1.1	52.3%	20.0%	0.1	57.0%	25.5%
9	Anthony Smith III	G	Fr	6'1"	34-0	17.7	7.8	2.1	2.3	1.2	49.8%	23.4%	1.4	83.8%	26.8%
22	Josh Jones	C	Jr	6'9"	29-21	17.9	2.8	3.3	1.0	1.1	47.1%	0.0%	0.2	40.9%	13.2%
0	Marley Curtis	F	Fr	6'8"	30-8	16.7	6.0	3.6	0.2	0.7	42.4%	30.7%	2.5	65.6%	24.4%
11	Reggie Thomas	G	Sr	6'1"	31-5	14.0	4.5	2.0	0.8	0.3	56.0%	39.3%	1.8	64.3%	17.7%
23	Wylee Delorme	G	So	6'5"	20-0	8.1	1.9	1.1	0.1	0.1	51.6%	29.4%	0.8	45.5%	14.4%
5	Matthew Bothun	F	So	6'9"	19-0	5.2	1.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	1.3	62.5%	23.2%
4	Karson Ouse	F	Fr	6'7"	13-0	6.7	0.7	0.7	0.0	0.2	15.0%	12.5%	0.6	75.0%	10.9%
33	Anthony Doppler	G	So	6'4"	11-1	5.4	1.1	0.5	0.4	0.1	31.3%	0.0%	0.4	40.0%	17.8%
15	Ryan Erikson	F	So	6'10"	9-0	5.0	1.4	1.2	0.2	0.4	30.0%	16.7%	0.7	80.0%	25.8%
10	Micah Curtis	F	Fr	6'8"	3-1	12.0	8.3	2.3	0.3	0.0	57.9%	0.0%	0.3	75.0%	30.2%
—	Anaiyah Fletcher	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Fatima Ibrahim	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Jayla Owen	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Jocelyn Schiller	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Kiera Pemberton	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Kiyah Hurst	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Mataeya Mathern	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Mikayla Aumer	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Miranda VanderWal	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Nevaeh Ferrara Horne	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Paris Bass	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Rakiyah Beal	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Skyler Volmer	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Sydney Piekny	NA	—	—	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
—	Walker Demers	NA	—	—	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 2025-26

North Dakota

Against the spread

Season

20-11-1

Home

7-6

Road

10-4-1

Last 10

6-3-1

avg cover −1.1

Covered 3 straightCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

14-17-1

Home

7-6

Road

7-7-1

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −1.4

Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	N Dakota StAdjEM #90	N	L 62–70	+11.0	W+3.0	148.0	U132	96.0	108.4	64.6
Mar 7	St ThomasAdjEM #84	N	W 67–66	+11.5	W+12.5	153.5	U133	104.0	102.4	64.4
Mar 6	DenverAdjEM #243	N	W 83–67	+3.5	W+19.5	161.0	U150	121.9	98.4	68.1
Feb 28	N Dakota StAdjEM #90	A	L 63–96	+12.0	L−21.0	152.5	O159	86.1	131.1	73.2
Feb 21	S Dakota StAdjEM #197	A	L 83–91	+8.0	P0.0	151.5	O174	126.2	138.3	65.8
Feb 19	Kansas CityAdjEM #359	H	W 85–70	−9.5	W+5.5	150.5	O155	110.2	90.7	77.1
Feb 14	N Dakota StAdjEM #90	H	L 66–83	+5.5	L−11.5	150.5	U149	101.9	128.1	64.8
Feb 11	South DakotaAdjEM #292	A	W 72–71	+1.5	W+2.5	156.5	U143	107.7	106.2	66.8
Feb 7	DenverAdjEM #243	H	L 79–98	−3.5	L−22.5	161.0	O177	117.7	146.0	67.1
Feb 5	OmahaAdjEM #257	H	W 76–73	−2.0	W+1.0	150.0	U149	111.4	107.0	68.3

Clemson

Against the spread

Season

16-17-2

Home

6-8-2

Road

7-4

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −3.7

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-21

Home

6-10

Road

5-6

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +1.2

Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 20	#9IowaAdjEM #22	N	L 61–67	+1.5	L−4.5	131.0	U128	113.6	124.7	53.7
Mar 13	#1DukeAdjEM #2	N	L 61–73	+10.5	L−1.5	135.0	U134	96.5	115.5	63.2
Mar 12	#19North CarolinaAdjEM #29	N	W 80–79	−1.5	L−0.5	140.5	O159	115.9	114.5	69.0
Mar 11	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	N	W 71–62	−5.5	W+3.5	142.0	U133	119.0	103.9	59.6
Mar 7	Georgia TechAdjEM #201	H	W 79–76	−17.5	L−14.5	144.5	O155	119.4	114.9	66.2
Mar 3	#17North CarolinaAdjEM #29	A	L 63–67	+2.5	L−1.5	142.0	U130	96.2	102.3	65.5
Feb 28	#24LouisvilleAdjEM #14	H	W 80–75	+2.0	W+7.0	146.5	O155	114.4	107.3	69.9
Feb 21	Florida StAdjEM #74	H	L 65–70	−8.5	L−13.5	144.5	U135	108.6	116.9	59.9
Feb 18	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	A	L 77–85	−4.0	L−12.0	140.0	O162	115.6	127.6	66.6
Feb 14	#4DukeAdjEM #2	A	L 54–67	+13.5	W+0.5	133.5	U121	87.2	108.2	61.9

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 home

North DakotaClemson

Efficiency

106.2

112.9

101.3

68.3

66.1

—

Shooting

49.4%

52.6%

49.7%

53.6%

32.7%

34.1%

69.5%

72.5%

37.8%

36.7%

Ball control & glass

14.1%

14.0%

19.4%

17.4%

27.4%

28.1%

32.4%

26.3%

7.3%

8.4%

8.3%

10.1%

Style

40.6%

43.1%

43.6%

42.2%

10.3%

10.0%

42.4%

50.3%

34.0%

37.6%

Roster

2.47

3.47

6'4.7"

6'7.4"

—

28.4%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

North Dakota

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted North Dakota'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.)

Clemson

Returning minutes: 28.4%Returning production: 32.0%

Lost

Dillon Hunter 28.6 mpg, 7.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jestin Porter 27.1 mpg, 9.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
RJ Godfrey 25.2 mpg, 12.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Nick Davidson 21.9 mpg, 9.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Butta Johnson 21.1 mpg, 6.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jake Wahlin 20.5 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Cole Certa from Notre Dame · 26.9 mpg, 12.8 ppg last season
Dylan Faulkner from Samford · 24.5 mpg, 16.1 ppg last season
Liutauras Lelevicius from TCU · 23.0 mpg, 7.8 ppg last season
David Fuchs from San Francisco · 21.1 mpg, 11.2 ppg last season
Blake Davidson no D1 minutes last season
Will Stevens no D1 minutes last season

Returns 28% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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 last

No 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.