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-conferenceAvron B. Fogelman Arena in the Devlin Fieldhouse, New Orleans, LA
UT Martin
Efficiency #182
2025-26: 22-11 · 14-8 conf
@
Tulane
Efficiency #239
2025-26: 18-15 · 9-11 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
67.8
win 44%
Projected
69.6
win 56%
No line posted yet.
Model: TULN −1.8 · total 137.4 · 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: Tulane 68.0, UT Martin 66.3 → 66.0 possessions
−5.1
Tulane offense vs UT Martin defense
−3.9
UT Martin offense vs Tulane defense
−1.9
Projected total
137.4
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Tulane offense vs UT Martin defense
−3.9
UT Martin offense vs Tulane defense
+1.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Tulane by 1.8
1.8
UT Martin side ◂▸ Tulane side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 137.3 against a projected 137.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Tulane.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Tulane is the faster team (67.9, #203 of 365) and UT Martin the slower (65.9, #298). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
137.4
model
Projected team totals
67.8 / 69.6
UT Martin / Tulane
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.3#328
UT Martin
68.0#212
Tulane
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageTulane
Where Tulane struggles: shooting
Tulane shoots an effective 49.4% (#275); UT Martin allows 46.1% (#11). Expect about 47.6%, 3.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.3 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageUT Martin
Where UT Martin scores: the offensive glass
UT Martin rebounds 37.0% of its own misses (#17); Tulane lets opponents grab 35.8% of their own misses (#352). Expect about 37.6%, 7.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.4 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversUT Martin
UT Martin turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 19.6% is worth roughly -3.5 points per 100 possessions against UT Martin's offense.
DefenseTulane
Tulane's shot-blocking
Tulane ranks #29 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.4% of UT Martin's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
GlassTulane
Tulane gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.8% is worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions against Tulane's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (UT Martin, UT Martin'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 UT Martin at about 46.2% of its shots from three, Tulane about 43.9%.
UT Martin has the ball
OffenseTulane allowsvs D1 avg
48.7% #297
50.7% #140
-2.5 pt/100
21.4% #358
17.1% #140
-3.5 pt/100
37.0% #17
35.8% #352
+4.4 pt/100
37.4% #118
38.1% #262
+0.4 pt/100
67.7% #330
—
-0.4 pt/100
UT Martin net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.7 pts/100
Tulane has the ball
OffenseUT Martin allowsvs D1 avg
49.4% #275
46.1% #11
-5.3 pt/100
15.4% #97
20.0% #23
-1.6 pt/100
22.8% #352
32.0% #259
-2.8 pt/100
43.5% #14
35.8% #207
+0.6 pt/100
76.7% #40
—
+0.4 pt/100
Tulane net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersUT Martinoffense vsTulanedefense
Share of shots by zone
UT Martin shoots
33.3
9.6
9.4
47.6
Tulane allows
40.6
6.9
12.8
39.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.3%#183 | 54.5%#49 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.2%#285 | 42.4%#236 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.4%#207 | 36.8%#124 | 38.0% |
| Three | 30.3%#337 | 34.5%#216 | 33.7% |
Tulaneoffense vsUT Martindefense
Share of shots by zone
Tulane shoots
37.2
4.0
14.5
44.4
UT Martin allows
31.9
9.3
19.9
38.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.0%#162 | 61.1%#272 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 27.0%#362 | 26.5%#4 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 32.6%#335 | 33.8%#47 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#279 | 30.2%#9 | 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 numbersUT Martin
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#128 of 365
Off reb %
37.0%
#17
Def reb %
68.0%
#259
Turnover %
21.4%
#358
Forced TO %
20.0%
#23
FT rate
37.4%
#118
FT allowed
35.8%
#207
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.1
Defensive rebounding−0.5
Ball security−3.2
Forcing turnovers+2.3
Foul shots drawn+0.6
Foul shots allowed−0.2
Tulane
−1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#255 of 365
Off reb %
22.8%
#352
Def reb %
64.2%
#352
Turnover %
15.4%
#97
Forced TO %
17.1%
#140
FT rate
43.5%
#14
FT allowed
38.1%
#262
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.5
Defensive rebounding−1.7
Ball security+0.9
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn+2.2
Foul shots allowed−0.7
UT Martin has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.2 (#128 of 365) to Tulane’s −1.5 (#255).
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
UT Martin2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44 | Matas Deniusas | F | Fr | 6'9" | 33-33 | 25.9 | 12.5 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 49.7% | 33.6% | 4.2 | 75.2% | 31.0% | |
| 32 | Filip Petkovski | G | Fr | 6'5" | 30-28 | 26.3 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 48.6% | 29.9% | 3.2 | 55.8% | 16.6% | |
| 33 | Filip Radakovic | G | So | 6'7" | 28-26 | 26.3 | 9.4 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 39.7% | 17.3% | 1.9 | 81.6% | 26.8% | |
| 4 | Afan Trnka | G | Jr | 6'2" | 29-11 | 23.9 | 6.5 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 41.5% | 28.7% | 3.7 | 67.6% | 22.0% | |
| 9 | Pedro Santos | G | Fr | 6'7" | 31-12 | 18.4 | 6.9 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 46.9% | 28.2% | 2.5 | 67.7% | 27.4% | |
| 5 | Damien King | G | Fr | 6'4" | 29-8 | 14.4 | 4.6 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 46.5% | 19.6% | 1.6 | 70.7% | 22.2% | |
| 24 | Vladimir Khryapa | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-3 | 13.8 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 41.0% | 24.1% | 1.0 | 45.8% | 16.6% | |
| 77 | Luca Colceag | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-5 | 12.9 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 46.7% | 29.7% | 2.6 | 57.1% | 20.0% | |
| 11 | AJ Hopkins | F | Sr | 6'6" | 30-1 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 52.2% | 36.4% | 2.6 | 72.2% | 19.7% | |
| 34 | Lamine Niang | F | Jr | 6'9" | 25-0 | 9.1 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 55.6% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 21.8% | |
| 7 | Dragos Lungu | G | So | 6'6" | 6-6 | 25.7 | 13.8 | 5.3 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 65.0% | 27.3% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 30.8% | |
| 22 | Ty Price | G | Fr | 5'10" | 17-0 | 6.0 | 2.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 45.1% | 34.4% | 1.9 | 87.5% | 29.6% | |
| 10 | Ama Sow | F | Fr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 68.8% | 100.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 22.0% | |
| 6 | Charlie King | F | Jr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Enrique Moya | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | James Bass | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Lucas Williams | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Will Hopkins | G | So | 6'5" | 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.
Tulane2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Tulane'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Rowan Brumbaugh | G | Jr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 36.1 | 19.2 | 4.9 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 52.8% | 36.0% | 5.3 | 80.4% | 29.9% | |
| 99 | Curtis Williams Jr. | G | Jr | 6'6" | 33-32 | 32.1 | 12.4 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 49.4% | 33.5% | 6.2 | 82.5% | 24.4% | |
| 22 | Asher Woods | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-31 | 30.9 | 12.8 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 45.7% | 27.2% | 3.5 | 85.0% | 25.5% | |
| 5 | Scotty Middleton | F | Jr | 6'6" | 33-19 | 25.7 | 6.9 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 52.7% | 36.9% | 4.3 | 73.9% | 16.5% | |
| 0 | Tyler Ringgold | F | So | 6'8" | 32-32 | 24.8 | 9.4 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 49.3% | 29.9% | 2.4 | 62.8% | 24.4% | |
| 23 | Percy Daniels | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-4 | 16.5 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 62.8% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 72.4% | 8.0% | |
| 9 | KJ Greene | G | So | 6'3" | 32-1 | 15.1 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 40.1% | 22.5% | 1.3 | 78.9% | 20.6% | |
| 1 | Josiah Moore | G | So | 6'4" | 32-2 | 12.6 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 48.4% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 67.5% | 19.3% | |
| 11 | Luke Rasmussen | G | So | 6'8" | 17-11 | 15.1 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 46.6% | 23.3% | 1.8 | 27.3% | 13.6% | |
| 55 | Davion Bradford | C | Sr | 7'0" | 11-0 | 4.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 75.0% | 11.7% | |
| 15 | Robert Moore | G | Fr | 6'6" | 5-0 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.4% | 25.0% | 1.6 | — | 40.0% | |
| 34 | Jake Shapiro | G | Jr | 6'1" | 5-0 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 112.5% | 75.0% | 0.8 | — | 38.9% | |
| 32 | Luke Cronin | F | Jr | 6'8" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 19.9% | |
| 77 | Vasilije Kuridza | F | Fr | 6'9" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 13 | Joseph Teich | G | So | 5'10" | 2-0 | 1.0 | 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.
UT Martin2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44 | Matas Deniusas | F | Fr | 6'9" | 33-33 | 25.9 | 12.5 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 49.7% | 33.6% | 4.2 | 75.2% | 31.0% | |
| 32 | Filip Petkovski | G | Fr | 6'5" | 30-28 | 26.3 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 48.6% | 29.9% | 3.2 | 55.8% | 16.6% | |
| 33 | Filip Radakovic | G | So | 6'7" | 28-26 | 26.3 | 9.4 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 39.7% | 17.3% | 1.9 | 81.6% | 26.8% | |
| 4 | Afan Trnka | G | Jr | 6'2" | 29-11 | 23.9 | 6.5 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 41.5% | 28.7% | 3.7 | 67.6% | 22.0% | |
| 9 | Pedro Santos | G | Fr | 6'7" | 31-12 | 18.4 | 6.9 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 46.9% | 28.2% | 2.5 | 67.7% | 27.4% | |
| 5 | Damien King | G | Fr | 6'4" | 29-8 | 14.4 | 4.6 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 46.5% | 19.6% | 1.6 | 70.7% | 22.2% | |
| 24 | Vladimir Khryapa | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-3 | 13.8 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 41.0% | 24.1% | 1.0 | 45.8% | 16.6% | |
| 77 | Luca Colceag | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-5 | 12.9 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 46.7% | 29.7% | 2.6 | 57.1% | 20.0% | |
| 11 | AJ Hopkins | F | Sr | 6'6" | 30-1 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 52.2% | 36.4% | 2.6 | 72.2% | 19.7% | |
| 34 | Lamine Niang | F | Jr | 6'9" | 25-0 | 9.1 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 55.6% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 21.8% | |
| 7 | Dragos Lungu | G | So | 6'6" | 6-6 | 25.7 | 13.8 | 5.3 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 65.0% | 27.3% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 30.8% | |
| 22 | Ty Price | G | Fr | 5'10" | 17-0 | 6.0 | 2.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 45.1% | 34.4% | 1.9 | 87.5% | 29.6% | |
| 10 | Ama Sow | F | Fr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 68.8% | 100.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 22.0% | |
| 6 | Charlie King | F | Jr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Enrique Moya | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | James Bass | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Lucas Williams | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Will Hopkins | G | So | 6'5" | 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 2025-26UT Martin
Against the spread
Season
14-15-1
Home
5-7
Road
9-4-1
Last 10
3-6-1
avg cover −4.7
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
9-21
Home
0-12
Road
8-6
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −9.2
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Tennessee St | N | L 55–68 | +2.0 | L−11.0 | 137.5 | U123 | 90.1 | 111.4 | 61.1 |
| Mar 5 | E Illinois | N | W 66–63 | −8.0 | L−5.0 | 126.0 | O129 | 106.7 | 101.8 | 61.9 |
| Feb 28 | Tennessee St | H | L 42–67 | −2.5 | L−27.5 | 143.5 | U109 | 63.6 | 101.5 | 66.0 |
| Feb 26 | Tennessee Tech | H | W 64–49 | −7.0 | W+8.0 | 133.5 | U113 | 97.0 | 74.2 | 66.0 |
| Feb 19 | Little Rock | A | L 65–67 | −2.5 | L−4.5 | 136.0 | U132 | 109.0 | 112.3 | 59.6 |
| Feb 17 | SE Missouri | H | L 53–56 OT | −2.5 | L−5.5 | 138.5 | U109 | 74.2 | 78.4 | 71.5 |
| Feb 14 | SIUE | A | W 81–76 | −1.5 | W+3.5 | 130.0 | O157 | 119.7 | 112.3 | 67.7 |
| Feb 12 | Lindenwood | A | L 74–75 | +1.0 | P0.0 | 145.5 | O149 | 106.8 | 108.2 | 69.3 |
| Feb 7 | Morehead St | H | L 55–61 | −9.0 | L−15.0 | 136.0 | U116 | 91.3 | 101.3 | 60.2 |
| Feb 5 | S Indiana | H | W 76–54 | −11.5 | W+10.5 | 132.0 | U130 | 118.3 | 84.0 | 64.3 |
Tulane
Against the spread
Season
15-17
Home
7-10
Road
6-4
Last 10
6-4
avg cover −3.0
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-18
Home
6-11
Road
5-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −0.9
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Charlotte | N | L 60–74 | +1.0 | L−13.0 | 144.5 | U134 | 98.3 | 121.3 | 61.0 |
| Mar 11 | Memphis | N | W 81–69 | +4.5 | W+16.5 | 150.5 | U150 | 114.8 | 97.8 | 70.5 |
| Mar 8 | Memphis | H | L 95–96 OT | +2.5 | W+1.5 | 154.0 | O191 | 122.9 | 124.2 | 77.3 |
| Mar 5 | Temple | A | L 60–89 | +5.0 | L−24.0 | 145.0 | O149 | 89.1 | 132.2 | 67.3 |
| Mar 1 | South Florida | A | L 62–90 | +15.0 | L−13.0 | 154.5 | U152 | 85.1 | 123.5 | 72.8 |
| Feb 25 | Tulsa | H | L 56–90 | +5.5 | L−28.5 | 156.5 | U146 | 84.4 | 135.6 | 66.4 |
| Feb 22 | Rice | H | W 81–75 | −5.0 | W+1.0 | 147.5 | O156 | 118.1 | 109.3 | 68.6 |
| Feb 19 | North Texas | A | W 77–71 | +6.5 | W+12.5 | 137.5 | O148 | 117.4 | 108.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 15 | UAB | A | W 55–54 | +7.0 | W+8.0 | 152.5 | U109 | 87.7 | 86.1 | 62.7 |
| Feb 11 | Temple | H | W 77–66 | −2.0 | W+9.0 | 145.0 | U143 | 113.4 | 97.2 | 67.9 |
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 homeUT MartinTulane
Efficiency
103.8
106.8
104.3
110.2
66.3
68.0
—
—
Shooting
48.7%
49.4%
51.5%
50.5%
30.3%
32.0%
67.7%
76.7%
37.4%
43.5%
Ball control & glass
21.4%
15.4%
20.0%
17.1%
37.0%
22.8%
32.0%
35.8%
13.1%
8.7%
10.9%
10.9%
Style
47.1%
45.0%
41.9%
37.1%
15.9%
10.8%
56.2%
54.8%
34.7%
26.0%
Roster
1.84
2.94
6'6.2"
6'5.5"
85.9%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputUT Martin
Returning minutes: 85.9%Returning production: 79.3%
Lost
- Andrija Bukumirovic 28.4 mpg, 13.3 ppg · transferred to Boston College
Added
- James Bass no D1 minutes last season
- Lucas Williams no D1 minutes last season
- Will Hopkins no D1 minutes last season
- Charlie King no D1 minutes last season
- Enrique Moya no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 86% 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).
Tulane
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Tulane'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.)
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.