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-conferenceESPNULittlejohn Coliseum, Clemson, SCACC/SEC Men's Challenge
Auburn
Efficiency #41
2025-26: 22-16 · 8-12 conf
@
Clemson
Efficiency #35
2025-26: 24-11 · 14-7 conf
Tue, Dec 1 · 7:00 PM ET
71.6
win 36%
Projected
75.9
win 64%
No line posted yet.
Model: CLEM −4.3 · total 147.5 · 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, Auburn 68.3 → 66.2 possessions
−4.7
Clemson offense vs Auburn defense
+2.2
Auburn offense vs Clemson defense
+1.7
Projected total
147.5
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Clemson offense vs Auburn defense
+2.2
Auburn offense vs Clemson defense
−1.7
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Clemson by 4.3
4.3
Auburn side ◂▸ Clemson side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 147.4 against a projected 147.5. 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: 66.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Auburn is the faster team (69.0, #146 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
66.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
147.5
model
Projected team totals
71.6 / 75.9
Auburn / Clemson
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#179
Auburn
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); Auburn allows 53.7% (#291). Expect about 53.2%, 2.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversClemson
Clemson protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.9% is worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions for Clemson's offense.
ClashAuburn
Style match: ball movement
Auburn creates off the dribble (assists on 47.6% of its baskets); Clemson breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.0% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 45.2% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Auburn'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 Auburn at about 42.4% of its shots from three, Clemson about 42.8%.
AdvantageAuburn
Where Auburn scores: the offensive glass
Auburn rebounds 37.0% of its own misses (#15); Clemson lets opponents grab 26.3% of their own misses (#21). Expect about 33.0%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions.
Auburn has the ball
OffenseClemson allowsvs D1 avg
53.0% #104
48.8% #59
-0.4 pt/100
14.6% #45
17.4% #123
+1.0 pt/100
37.0% #15
26.3% #21
+1.6 pt/100
43.2% #19
33.9% #150
+0.4 pt/100
74.4% #108
—
+0.2 pt/100
Auburn net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.9 pts/100
Clemson has the ball
OffenseAuburn allowsvs D1 avg
52.6% #126
53.7% #291
+2.8 pt/100
14.0% #24
16.3% #199
+2.3 pt/100
28.1% #264
30.9% #196
-0.8 pt/100
36.7% #136
34.3% #161
+0.1 pt/100
72.5% #187
—
+0.0 pt/100
Clemson net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersAuburnoffense vsClemsondefense
Share of shots by zone
Auburn shoots
41.1
4.4
14.2
40.2
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 | 59.5%#142 | 57.6%#133 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.7%#43 | 35.1%#60 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.1%#142 | 37.1%#135 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.4%#147 | 32.4%#88 | 33.7% |
Clemsonoffense vsAuburndefense
Share of shots by zone
Clemson shoots
36.3
6.9
13.7
43.1
Auburn allows
37.6
5.3
16.9
40.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.0%#195 | 59.6%#213 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 52.4%#5 | 38.7%#152 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#81 | 38.5%#181 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.1%#165 | 36.7%#336 | 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 numbersAuburn
+5.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#15 of 365
Off reb %
37.0%
#15
Def reb %
69.1%
#196
Turnover %
14.6%
#45
Forced TO %
16.3%
#199
FT rate
43.2%
#19
FT allowed
34.3%
#161
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.1
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security+1.5
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn+2.1
Foul shots allowed+0.2
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
Auburn has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.6 (#15 of 365) to Clemson’s +3.8 (#40).
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
Auburn2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Thomas Dowdat Troy | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-33 | 36.1 | 14.4 | 10.1 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 52.6% | 33.3% | 5.7 | 80.0% | 23.3% | |
| 24 | Adam Olsenat South Alabama | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-31 | 36.0 | 16.7 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 52.9% | 39.5% | 8.3 | 84.3% | 26.3% | |
| 0 | Tahaad Pettiford | G | Jr | 6'1" | 38-36 | 32.3 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 46.6% | 29.0% | 6.6 | 82.5% | 31.0% | |
| 1 | Kevin Overton | G | Sr | 6'5" | 38-36 | 31.7 | 14.1 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 57.2% | 41.3% | 6.1 | 86.0% | 22.8% | |
| 4 | Kolby Kingat Utah State | G | Sr | 6'1" | 36-0 | 19.3 | 7.5 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 60.8% | 39.3% | 3.3 | 74.7% | 20.4% | |
| 12 | Bukky Oboyeat Santa Clara | C | Sr | 7'1" | 34-34 | 17.8 | 7.9 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 69.1% | 24.2% | 1.0 | 65.6% | 20.9% | |
| 8 | Owen Freemanat Creighton | F | Sr | 6'10" | 26-9 | 11.8 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 60.2% | — | 0.0 | 64.3% | 23.5% | |
| 21 | Blake Muschalek | G | Sr | 6'3" | 26-0 | 5.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 23.8% | 14.3% | 0.5 | 60.0% | 11.6% | |
| 10 | Simon Walker | G | So | 6'5" | 13-0 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 78.6% | 52.9% | 1.3 | — | 20.9% | |
| 7 | Drake Cardwell | G | Jr | 6'5" | 3-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 13 | Bradley Pearson | G | Jr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | George Kimble IIIat Vanderbilt | G | Sr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jeremiah Bowman | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Joah Shay | G | Jr | 5'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Caleb Williams | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 17 | Mantas Rubstavicius | G | — | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 94 | Narcisse Ngoy | C | — | 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: Thomas Dowd (from Troy), Owen Freeman (from Creighton), George Kimble III (from Vanderbilt), Kolby King (from Utah State), Bukky Oboye (from Santa Clara), Adam Olsen (from South Alabama)
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)
Auburn2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Thomas Dowdat Troy | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-33 | 36.1 | 14.4 | 10.1 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 52.6% | 33.3% | 5.7 | 80.0% | 23.3% | |
| 24 | Adam Olsenat South Alabama | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-31 | 36.0 | 16.7 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 52.9% | 39.5% | 8.3 | 84.3% | 26.3% | |
| 0 | Tahaad Pettiford | G | Jr | 6'1" | 38-36 | 32.3 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 46.6% | 29.0% | 6.6 | 82.5% | 31.0% | |
| 1 | Kevin Overton | G | Sr | 6'5" | 38-36 | 31.7 | 14.1 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 57.2% | 41.3% | 6.1 | 86.0% | 22.8% | |
| 4 | Kolby Kingat Utah State | G | Sr | 6'1" | 36-0 | 19.3 | 7.5 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 60.8% | 39.3% | 3.3 | 74.7% | 20.4% | |
| 12 | Bukky Oboyeat Santa Clara | C | Sr | 7'1" | 34-34 | 17.8 | 7.9 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 69.1% | 24.2% | 1.0 | 65.6% | 20.9% | |
| 8 | Owen Freemanat Creighton | F | Sr | 6'10" | 26-9 | 11.8 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 60.2% | — | 0.0 | 64.3% | 23.5% | |
| 21 | Blake Muschalek | G | Sr | 6'3" | 26-0 | 5.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 23.8% | 14.3% | 0.5 | 60.0% | 11.6% | |
| 10 | Simon Walker | G | So | 6'5" | 13-0 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 78.6% | 52.9% | 1.3 | — | 20.9% | |
| 7 | Drake Cardwell | G | Jr | 6'5" | 3-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 13 | Bradley Pearson | G | Jr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | George Kimble IIIat Vanderbilt | G | Sr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jeremiah Bowman | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Joah Shay | G | Jr | 5'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Caleb Williams | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 17 | Mantas Rubstavicius | G | — | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 94 | Narcisse Ngoy | C | — | 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: Thomas Dowd (from Troy), Owen Freeman (from Creighton), George Kimble III (from Vanderbilt), Kolby King (from Utah State), Bukky Oboye (from Santa Clara), Adam Olsen (from South Alabama)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Auburn
Against the spread
Season
16-22
Home
7-11
Road
3-7
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −1.6
Covered 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
23-15
Home
11-7
Road
6-4
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +3.0
Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5 | Tulsa | N | W 92–86 OT | −5.5 | W+0.5 | 159.5 | O178 | 112.5 | 105.2 | 81.8 |
| Apr 2 | Illinois St | N | W 88–66 | −8.0 | W+14.0 | 148.0 | O154 | 136.9 | 102.7 | 64.3 |
| Mar 25 | Nevada | H | W 75–69 | −8.0 | L−2.0 | 153.0 | U144 | 116.5 | 107.2 | 64.4 |
| Mar 22 | Seattle U | H | W 91–85 | −14.0 | L−8.0 | 146.0 | O176 | 125.2 | 116.9 | 72.7 |
| Mar 17 | South Alabama | H | W 78–67 | −18.0 | L−7.0 | 153.0 | U145 | 121.6 | 104.4 | 64.2 |
| Mar 12 | #25Tennessee | N | L 62–72 | +5.5 | L−4.5 | 145.0 | U134 | 97.1 | 112.8 | 63.9 |
| Mar 11 | Mississippi St | N | W 79–61 | −7.5 | W+10.5 | 159.0 | U140 | 110.8 | 85.6 | 71.3 |
| Mar 7 | #16Alabama | A | L 84–96 | +6.0 | L−6.0 | 175.0 | O180 | 118.0 | 134.9 | 71.2 |
| Mar 3 | LSU | H | W 88–74 | −10.5 | W+3.5 | 155.5 | O162 | 130.6 | 109.8 | 67.4 |
| Feb 28 | Ole Miss | H | L 79–85 | −11.0 | L−17.0 | 152.5 | O164 | 118.0 | 127.0 | 67.0 |
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 homeAuburnClemson
Efficiency
118.2
112.9
107.4
101.3
68.3
66.1
—
—
Shooting
53.0%
52.6%
53.9%
53.6%
34.4%
34.1%
74.4%
72.5%
43.2%
36.7%
Ball control & glass
14.6%
14.0%
16.3%
17.4%
37.0%
28.1%
30.9%
26.3%
9.2%
8.4%
12.4%
10.1%
Style
40.2%
43.1%
41.5%
42.2%
14.3%
10.0%
47.6%
50.3%
26.0%
37.6%
Roster
3.79
3.47
6'5.8"
6'7.4"
34.5%
28.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputAuburn
Returning minutes: 34.5%Returning production: 31.9%
Lost
- Keyshawn Hall 31.8 mpg, 18.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sebastian Williams-Adams 27.4 mpg, 7.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Elyjah Freeman 26.9 mpg, 9.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- KeShawn Murphy 19.5 mpg, 8.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Filip Jovic 17.8 mpg, 6.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kaden Magwood 5.6 mpg, 1.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Thomas Dowd from Troy · 36.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg last season
- Adam Olsen from South Alabama · 33.8 mpg, 15.7 ppg last season
- Kolby King from Utah State · 19.3 mpg, 7.5 ppg last season
- Bukky Oboye from Santa Clara · 17.3 mpg, 7.7 ppg last season
- Owen Freeman from Creighton · 9.0 mpg, 3.8 ppg last season
- Narcisse Ngoy no D1 minutes last season
Returns 35% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).
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.