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
The Citadel
Efficiency #348
2025-26: 11-22 · 8-12 conf
@
Clemson
Efficiency #35
2025-26: 24-11 · 14-7 conf
Mon, Nov 16 · TBD
59.4
win 5%
Projected
79.0
win 95%
No line posted yet.
Model: CLEM −19.6 · total 138.5 · 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: Clemson 66.1, The Citadel 66.2 → 64.1 possessions
−9.3
Clemson offense vs The Citadel defense
+7.7
The Citadel offense vs Clemson defense
−8.2
Projected total
138.5
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Clemson offense vs The Citadel defense
+7.7
The Citadel offense vs Clemson defense
+8.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
Clemson by 19.6
19.6
The Citadel side ◂▸ Clemson side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 138.4 against a projected 138.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Clemson.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 64.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Clemson is the faster team (65.1, #330 of 365) and The Citadel the slower (64.7, #335). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
64.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
138.5
model
Projected team totals
59.4 / 79.0
The Citadel / Clemson
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.2#333
The Citadel
66.1#338
Clemson
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageClemson
Where Clemson scores: shooting
Clemson shoots an effective 52.6% (#126); The Citadel allows 57.5% (#361). Expect about 55.2%, 3.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.6 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Clemson averages 65.1 possessions per 40, The Citadel 64.7. 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 63 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
TurnoversClemson
Clemson protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 13.9% is worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions for Clemson's offense.
AdvantageThe Citadel
Where The Citadel struggles: shooting
The Citadel shoots an effective 49.5% (#265); Clemson allows 48.8% (#59). Expect about 49.0%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.2 points per 100 possessions.
ClashThe Citadel
Style match: 3-point volume
The Citadel takes 47.8% of its shots from three; Clemson lets opponents take 43.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 48.6% — both habits push the same way.
GlassThe Citadel
The Citadel gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.7% is worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions against The Citadel's offense.
The Citadel has the ball
OffenseClemson allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #265
48.8% #59
-3.2 pt/100
16.3% #157
17.4% #123
-0.2 pt/100
27.9% #270
26.3% #21
-2.3 pt/100
30.0% #309
33.9% #150
-0.4 pt/100
66.5% #349
—
-0.5 pt/100
The Citadel net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.6 pts/100
Clemson has the ball
OffenseThe Citadel allowsvs D1 avg
52.6% #126
57.5% #361
+5.6 pt/100
14.0% #24
14.7% #307
+3.5 pt/100
28.1% #264
31.5% #227
-0.7 pt/100
36.7% #136
33.3% #136
-0.0 pt/100
72.5% #187
—
+0.0 pt/100
Clemson net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +8.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersThe Citadeloffense vsClemsondefense
Share of shots by zone
The Citadel shoots
34.0
7.3
11.4
47.3
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 | 59.4%#147 | 57.6%#133 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.4%#167 | 35.1%#60 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.0%#186 | 37.1%#135 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#283 | 32.4%#88 | 33.7% |
Clemsonoffense vsThe Citadeldefense
Share of shots by zone
Clemson shoots
36.3
6.9
13.7
43.1
The Citadel allows
40.5
3.7
11.3
44.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.0%#195 | 65.8%#355 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 52.4%#5 | 42.1%#233 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#81 | 43.4%#334 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.1%#165 | 36.6%#335 | 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 numbersThe Citadel
−2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#299 of 365
Off reb %
27.9%
#270
Def reb %
68.5%
#227
Turnover %
16.3%
#157
Forced TO %
14.7%
#307
FT rate
30.0%
#309
FT allowed
33.3%
#136
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.8
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed+0.5
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 The Citadel’s −2.9 (#299).
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
The Citadel2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Braxton Williams | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-24 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 49.5% | 34.2% | 7.0 | 77.7% | 32.8% | |
| 8 | Sola Adebisi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 67.1% | 17.3% | |
| 14 | Carter Kingsbury | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-30 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 50.2% | 29.0% | 3.0 | 74.4% | 19.1% | |
| 5 | Eze Wali | G | So | 6'1" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 42.1% | 28.7% | 2.4 | 67.8% | 18.1% | |
| 1 | Christian Moore | F | So | 6'6" | 31-23 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.1% | 38.7% | 5.3 | 67.2% | 27.1% | |
| 4 | Logan Applegate | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-3 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 31.8% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 25.7% | |
| 22 | Keynan Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-8 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 44.7% | 26.5% | 2.6 | 60.3% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Marcos Gonzales | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-0 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 61.9% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Dante Kearse | F | So | 6'4" | 33-0 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 58.4% | 41.5% | 1.6 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 23 | Simeon German | F | Sr | 6'10" | 28-15 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43.6% | — | 0.0 | 16.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | Gabe Hernandez | G | Jr | 5'11" | 18-0 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.5% | |
| 25 | Cassius Bonjasky | F | Jr | 6'7" | 18-0 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 60.7% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 19.5% | |
| 15 | Chase Williams | F | Fr | 6'8" | 8-0 | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Logan Menefee | F | Fr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | — | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Rowan Irelan | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 64.3% | 42.9% | 1.8 | — | 35.2% | |
| 2 | Jameson Heck | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.2% | |
| 12 | Aidan Alexander | F | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 34.9% | |
| 13 | Jack Walter | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 29.1% |
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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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)
The Citadel2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Braxton Williams | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-24 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 49.5% | 34.2% | 7.0 | 77.7% | 32.8% | |
| 8 | Sola Adebisi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 67.1% | 17.3% | |
| 14 | Carter Kingsbury | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-30 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 50.2% | 29.0% | 3.0 | 74.4% | 19.1% | |
| 5 | Eze Wali | G | So | 6'1" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 42.1% | 28.7% | 2.4 | 67.8% | 18.1% | |
| 1 | Christian Moore | F | So | 6'6" | 31-23 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.1% | 38.7% | 5.3 | 67.2% | 27.1% | |
| 4 | Logan Applegate | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-3 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 31.8% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 25.7% | |
| 22 | Keynan Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-8 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 44.7% | 26.5% | 2.6 | 60.3% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Marcos Gonzales | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-0 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 61.9% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Dante Kearse | F | So | 6'4" | 33-0 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 58.4% | 41.5% | 1.6 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 23 | Simeon German | F | Sr | 6'10" | 28-15 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43.6% | — | 0.0 | 16.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | Gabe Hernandez | G | Jr | 5'11" | 18-0 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.5% | |
| 25 | Cassius Bonjasky | F | Jr | 6'7" | 18-0 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 60.7% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 19.5% | |
| 15 | Chase Williams | F | Fr | 6'8" | 8-0 | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Logan Menefee | F | Fr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | — | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Rowan Irelan | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 64.3% | 42.9% | 1.8 | — | 35.2% | |
| 2 | Jameson Heck | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.2% | |
| 12 | Aidan Alexander | F | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 34.9% | |
| 13 | Jack Walter | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 29.1% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26The Citadel
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
6-6
Road
7-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.2
Covered 3 straightCovered 5 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-14-1
Home
6-5-1
Road
7-8
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +6.0
Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 10 as an underdogOver in 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | ETSU | N | L 76–83 | +15.0 | W+8.0 | 139.0 | O159 | 116.9 | 127.7 | 65.0 |
| Mar 6 | Chattanooga | N | W 88–85 | +7.5 | W+10.5 | 147.5 | O173 | 138.7 | 133.9 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | Wofford | A | W 93–90 OT | +12.0 | W+15.0 | 148.0 | O183 | 126.1 | 122.1 | 73.7 |
| Feb 25 | Furman | A | L 51–72 | +15.5 | L−5.5 | 143.5 | U123 | 85.2 | 120.3 | 59.8 |
| Feb 21 | Chattanooga | H | L 72–93 | +4.0 | L−17.0 | 144.0 | O165 | 99.8 | 128.9 | 72.1 |
| Feb 19 | Samford | H | L 75–78 | +10.5 | W+7.5 | 144.0 | O153 | 105.8 | 110.0 | 70.9 |
| Feb 14 | Mercer | H | L 54–70 | +12.0 | L−4.0 | 147.5 | U124 | 87.6 | 113.6 | 61.6 |
| Feb 11 | W Carolina | A | L 49–87 | +9.5 | L−28.5 | 146.5 | U136 | 78.5 | 139.3 | 62.4 |
| Feb 7 | Chattanooga | A | W 78–71 | +9.5 | W+16.5 | 141.0 | O149 | 114.7 | 104.4 | 68.0 |
| Feb 5 | Samford | A | L 64–78 | +13.5 | L−0.5 | 146.0 | U142 | 98.9 | 120.5 | 64.7 |
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 | #9Iowa | N | L 61–67 | +1.5 | L−4.5 | 131.0 | U128 | 113.6 | 124.7 | 53.7 |
| Mar 13 | #1Duke | N | L 61–73 | +10.5 | L−1.5 | 135.0 | U134 | 96.5 | 115.5 | 63.2 |
| Mar 12 | #19North Carolina | N | W 80–79 | −1.5 | L−0.5 | 140.5 | O159 | 115.9 | 114.5 | 69.0 |
| Mar 11 | Wake Forest | N | W 71–62 | −5.5 | W+3.5 | 142.0 | U133 | 119.0 | 103.9 | 59.6 |
| Mar 7 | Georgia Tech | H | W 79–76 | −17.5 | L−14.5 | 144.5 | O155 | 119.4 | 114.9 | 66.2 |
| Mar 3 | #17North Carolina | A | L 63–67 | +2.5 | L−1.5 | 142.0 | U130 | 96.2 | 102.3 | 65.5 |
| Feb 28 | #24Louisville | H | W 80–75 | +2.0 | W+7.0 | 146.5 | O155 | 114.4 | 107.3 | 69.9 |
| Feb 21 | Florida St | H | L 65–70 | −8.5 | L−13.5 | 144.5 | U135 | 108.6 | 116.9 | 59.9 |
| Feb 18 | Wake Forest | A | L 77–85 | −4.0 | L−12.0 | 140.0 | O162 | 115.6 | 127.6 | 66.6 |
| Feb 14 | #4Duke | 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 homeThe CitadelClemson
Efficiency
102.8
112.9
116.1
101.3
66.2
66.1
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
52.6%
51.0%
53.6%
32.0%
34.1%
66.5%
72.5%
30.0%
36.7%
Ball control & glass
16.3%
14.0%
14.7%
17.4%
27.9%
28.1%
31.5%
26.3%
9.6%
8.4%
10.7%
10.1%
Style
47.8%
43.1%
40.6%
42.2%
10.3%
10.0%
50.6%
50.3%
33.7%
37.6%
Roster
2.98
3.47
6'4.8"
6'7.4"
—
28.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputThe Citadel
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 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.