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-conferenceCharles Koch Arena, Wichita, KS
Texas A&M-CC
Efficiency #181
2025-26: 18-15 · 14-10 conf
@
Wichita St
Efficiency #60
2025-26: 24-12 · 14-6 conf
Mon, Nov 23 · TBD
65.0
win 21%
Projected
74.4
win 79%
No line posted yet.
Model: WICH −9.4 · total 139.4 · 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: Wichita St 67.9, Texas A&M-CC 67.4 → 67.0 possessions
−2.9
Wichita St offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
−0.2
Texas A&M-CC offense vs Wichita St defense
−5.7
Projected total
139.4
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Wichita St offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
−0.2
Texas A&M-CC offense vs Wichita St defense
+5.7
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Wichita St by 9.4
9.4
Texas A&M-CC side ◂▸ Wichita St 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 Wichita St.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Wichita St is the faster team (67.8, #211 of 365) and Texas A&M-CC the slower (66.6, #264). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
139.4
model
Projected team totals
65.0 / 74.4
Texas A&M-CC / Wichita St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.4#260
Texas A&M-CC
67.9#218
Wichita St
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageTexas A&M-CC
Where Texas A&M-CC struggles: shooting
Texas A&M-CC shoots an effective 49.5% (#270); Wichita St allows 47.2% (#24). Expect about 48.2%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.4 points per 100 possessions.
ClashTexas A&M-CC
Style match: 3-point volume
Texas A&M-CC rarely shoots threes (31.4% of its shots); Wichita St runs teams off the line (34.3% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 29.6% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageWichita St
Where Wichita St scores: the offensive glass
Wichita St rebounds 38.0% of its own misses (#8); Texas A&M-CC lets opponents grab 28.8% of their own misses (#95). Expect about 34.9%, 4.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
ClashWichita St
Style match: 3-point volume
Wichita St rarely shoots threes (33.8% of its shots); Texas A&M-CC runs teams off the line (34.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 32.0% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Wichita St's defense, Texas A&M-CC'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 Texas A&M-CC at about 29.6% of its shots from three, Wichita St about 32.0%.
ClashWichita St
Strength vs strength: turnover rate
Wichita St (#60 in turnover rate) against Texas A&M-CC (#49 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 17.2%. Historically Texas A&M-CC's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.57 vs 0.64).
Texas A&M-CC has the ball
OffenseWichita St allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #270
47.2% #24
-4.4 pt/100
19.4% #334
15.7% #235
-1.0 pt/100
31.7% #137
28.8% #93
+0.1 pt/100
41.1% #46
34.3% #158
+0.3 pt/100
67.4% #334
—
-0.4 pt/100
Texas A&M-CC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.5 pts/100
Wichita St has the ball
OffenseTexas A&M-CC allowsvs D1 avg
49.4% #274
50.1% #104
-2.4 pt/100
14.9% #60
19.0% #49
-0.5 pt/100
38.0% #8
28.8% #95
+2.8 pt/100
36.0% #149
46.3% #353
+0.9 pt/100
69.2% #291
—
-0.3 pt/100
Wichita St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTexas A&M-CCoffense vsWichita Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas A&M-CC shoots
45.5
8.8
14.3
31.4
Wichita St allows
35.7
9.5
20.8
34.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.4%#334 | 53.9%#39 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.2%#75 | 35.5%#73 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.2%#328 | 39.8%#235 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#122 | 31.5%#44 | 33.7% |
Wichita Stoffense vsTexas A&M-CCdefense
Share of shots by zone
Wichita St shoots
39.0
11.0
16.9
33.1
Texas A&M-CC allows
41.4
8.1
15.8
34.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.4%#288 | 57.9%#144 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.9%#177 | 44.7%#289 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.4%#174 | 36.5%#120 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.5%#195 | 31.6%#48 | 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 numbersTexas A&M-CC
−0.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#198 of 365
Off reb %
31.7%
#137
Def reb %
71.2%
#95
Turnover %
19.4%
#334
Forced TO %
19.0%
#49
FT rate
41.1%
#46
FT allowed
46.3%
#353
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security−1.8
Forcing turnovers+1.6
Foul shots drawn+1.6
Foul shots allowed−2.8
Wichita St
+4.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#34 of 365
Off reb %
38.0%
#8
Def reb %
71.2%
#93
Turnover %
14.9%
#60
Forced TO %
15.7%
#235
FT rate
36.0%
#149
FT allowed
34.3%
#158
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.5
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security+1.3
Forcing turnovers−0.7
Foul shots drawn+0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Wichita St has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.1 (#34 of 365) to Texas A&M-CC’s −0.5 (#198).
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
Texas A&M-CC2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Sheldon Williams | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-30 | 25.4 | 11.8 | 6.9 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 56.5% | 29.7% | 1.1 | 64.3% | 27.0% | |
| 1 | Nick Shogbonyo | G | Sr | 6'1" | 28-26 | 26.9 | 11.9 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 55.0% | 42.5% | 4.0 | 80.7% | 25.6% | |
| 3 | Mason Gibson | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-16 | 21.5 | 9.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 35.9% | 4.4 | 68.5% | 27.2% | |
| 2 | Leo Torbor | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-17 | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.7% | 30.8% | 0.4 | 48.1% | 21.0% | |
| 22 | Franck Yetna | F | Sr | 6'7" | 33-15 | 18.8 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 54.5% | 40.8% | 1.5 | 65.3% | 20.9% | |
| 0 | D'Avian Houston | G | Sr | 6'2" | 27-15 | 20.5 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 49.1% | 37.7% | 2.9 | 65.8% | 29.2% | |
| 99 | Cenker Evran | F | Sr | 6'8" | 26-18 | 21.3 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 56.9% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 16.9% | |
| 10 | Daniel Michelini-Jackson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-12 | 17.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 46.2% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 90.5% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Kam Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 26-8 | 17.3 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.5% | 26.2% | 2.3 | 80.0% | 18.8% | |
| 8 | Bryson Wheatfall | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-5 | 11.3 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 39.5% | 25.0% | 0.5 | 64.3% | 23.4% | |
| 5 | Kobi Pearson | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-0 | 8.8 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 56.8% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Jaden Haire | F | Jr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 53.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 57.1% | 22.4% | |
| 14 | Cedric Horton | G | Fr | 6'5" | 12-0 | 9.4 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 67.3% | 45.5% | 0.9 | 75.0% | 15.4% | |
| 24 | Jamal Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'10" | 14-0 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 80.0% | 16.3% | |
| 13 | Trenton Pane | G | Fr | 5'10" | 4-0 | 8.3 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57.1% | 28.6% | 1.8 | — | 30.0% | |
| 7 | Kayden Crosby | F | Jr | 6'7" | 6-0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | — | 10.7% | |
| 20 | Michael Oaks | F | Jr | 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.
Wichita St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Wichita St'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kenyon Giles | G | Sr | 5'10" | 36-36 | 36.3 | 19.1 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 51.2% | 37.8% | 9.2 | 83.1% | 31.5% | |
| 0 | Karon Boyd | F | Sr | 6'6" | 36-36 | 33.8 | 10.9 | 5.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 49.2% | 35.1% | 3.6 | 63.8% | 21.2% | |
| 9 | Michael Gray Jr. | G | Sr | 6'1" | 36-36 | 26.9 | 8.2 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 43.0% | 31.1% | 4.6 | 85.9% | 21.8% | |
| 4 | TJ Williams | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-16 | 22.0 | 8.7 | 5.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 46.8% | 8.3% | 0.3 | 68.3% | 26.4% | |
| 44 | Will Berg | C | Jr | 7'2" | 35-10 | 21.9 | 8.8 | 8.1 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 55.9% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 69.0% | 22.5% | |
| 3 | Dre Kindell | G | Jr | 5'11" | 36-0 | 17.3 | 5.9 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 49.4% | 34.3% | 1.0 | 80.0% | 21.8% | |
| 20 | Emmanuel Okorafor | F | Sr | 6'10" | 36-26 | 16.9 | 6.3 | 5.2 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 57.0% | — | 0.0 | 67.2% | 22.6% | |
| 8 | Dillon Battie | F | So | 6'8" | 31-20 | 17.4 | 7.6 | 4.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 56.9% | 18.8% | 0.5 | 61.4% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | Brian Amuneke | G | So | 6'5" | 36-0 | 7.9 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 43.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 50.0% | 21.7% | |
| 2 | Jaret Valencia | F | Jr | 6'8" | 11-0 | 13.2 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 33.9% | 27.3% | 1.0 | 58.8% | 18.5% | |
| 22 | Noah Hill | F | Fr | 6'7" | 19-0 | 5.1 | 1.7 | 2.6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 28.6% | 19.9% | |
| 21 | Henry Thengvall | F | Jr | 6'6" | 11-0 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 12.5% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 50.0% | 23.2% | |
| 12 | Joy Ighovodja | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Pierre Couisnard | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Tyrus Rathan-Mayes | G | Fr | 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.
Texas A&M-CC2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Sheldon Williams | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-30 | 25.4 | 11.8 | 6.9 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 56.5% | 29.7% | 1.1 | 64.3% | 27.0% | |
| 1 | Nick Shogbonyo | G | Sr | 6'1" | 28-26 | 26.9 | 11.9 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 55.0% | 42.5% | 4.0 | 80.7% | 25.6% | |
| 3 | Mason Gibson | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-16 | 21.5 | 9.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 35.9% | 4.4 | 68.5% | 27.2% | |
| 2 | Leo Torbor | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-17 | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.7% | 30.8% | 0.4 | 48.1% | 21.0% | |
| 22 | Franck Yetna | F | Sr | 6'7" | 33-15 | 18.8 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 54.5% | 40.8% | 1.5 | 65.3% | 20.9% | |
| 0 | D'Avian Houston | G | Sr | 6'2" | 27-15 | 20.5 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 49.1% | 37.7% | 2.9 | 65.8% | 29.2% | |
| 99 | Cenker Evran | F | Sr | 6'8" | 26-18 | 21.3 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 56.9% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 16.9% | |
| 10 | Daniel Michelini-Jackson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-12 | 17.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 46.2% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 90.5% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Kam Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 26-8 | 17.3 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.5% | 26.2% | 2.3 | 80.0% | 18.8% | |
| 8 | Bryson Wheatfall | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-5 | 11.3 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 39.5% | 25.0% | 0.5 | 64.3% | 23.4% | |
| 5 | Kobi Pearson | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-0 | 8.8 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 56.8% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Jaden Haire | F | Jr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 53.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 57.1% | 22.4% | |
| 14 | Cedric Horton | G | Fr | 6'5" | 12-0 | 9.4 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 67.3% | 45.5% | 0.9 | 75.0% | 15.4% | |
| 24 | Jamal Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'10" | 14-0 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 80.0% | 16.3% | |
| 13 | Trenton Pane | G | Fr | 5'10" | 4-0 | 8.3 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57.1% | 28.6% | 1.8 | — | 30.0% | |
| 7 | Kayden Crosby | F | Jr | 6'7" | 6-0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | — | 10.7% | |
| 20 | Michael Oaks | F | Jr | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Texas A&M-CC
Against the spread
Season
16-13
Home
5-6
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +3.3
Covered 5 straightCovered 5 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-14
Home
6-5
Road
9-7
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +2.8
Under 2 straightOver in 4 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 10 | SF Austin | N | L 58–60 | +6.0 | W+4.0 | 134.5 | U118 | 94.7 | 98.0 | 61.3 |
| Mar 9 | LSU N Orleans | N | W 74–61 | −2.0 | W+11.0 | 147.5 | U135 | 127.1 | 104.8 | 58.2 |
| Mar 2 | East Texas A&M | H | W 84–71 | −8.0 | W+5.0 | 137.5 | O155 | 124.9 | 105.6 | 67.2 |
| Feb 28 | N'Western St | H | W 71–59 | −6.0 | W+6.0 | 134.0 | U130 | 117.4 | 97.5 | 60.5 |
| Feb 23 | SE Louisiana | A | W 73–68 | −2.0 | W+3.0 | 130.5 | O141 | 112.9 | 105.2 | 64.7 |
| Feb 21 | McNeese | A | L 54–70 | +14.0 | L−2.0 | 140.5 | U124 | 82.3 | 106.7 | 65.6 |
| Feb 16 | SF Austin | H | L 68–78 | +5.0 | L−5.0 | 136.5 | O146 | 101.5 | 116.4 | 67.0 |
| Feb 14 | Lamar | H | W 76–63 | −2.5 | W+10.5 | 136.0 | O139 | 113.1 | 93.7 | 67.2 |
| Feb 9 | LSU N Orleans | A | L 78–84 OT | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 147.0 | O162 | 89.6 | 96.5 | 87.1 |
| Feb 7 | Nicholls | A | W 83–76 | +1.0 | W+8.0 | 137.0 | O159 | 122.6 | 112.2 | 67.7 |
Wichita St
Against the spread
Season
23-12
Home
12-5
Road
9-4
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +5.0
Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-19
Home
6-11
Road
9-4
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +2.2
Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24 | Tulsa | A | L 79–83 | +4.5 | W+0.5 | 154.0 | O162 | 105.2 | 110.6 | 75.1 |
| Mar 22 | Oklahoma St | A | W 96–70 | +2.5 | W+28.5 | 163.0 | O166 | 130.5 | 95.1 | 73.6 |
| Mar 17 | Wyoming | H | W 74–70 | −5.5 | L−1.5 | 148.0 | U144 | 99.0 | 93.7 | 74.7 |
| Mar 15 | South Florida | N | L 55–70 | +6.0 | L−9.0 | 150.5 | U125 | 80.6 | 102.6 | 68.2 |
| Mar 14 | Tulsa | N | W 81–68 | +1.5 | W+14.5 | 152.0 | U149 | 124.9 | 104.9 | 64.8 |
| Mar 7 | FAU | H | W 88–70 | −8.0 | W+10.0 | 149.0 | O158 | 125.5 | 99.9 | 70.1 |
| Mar 1 | UTSA | A | W 84–67 | −15.5 | W+1.5 | 150.5 | O151 | 120.5 | 96.1 | 69.7 |
| Feb 26 | Memphis | A | W 88–82 | +1.0 | W+7.0 | 149.5 | O170 | 122.4 | 114.1 | 71.9 |
| Feb 21 | Temple | H | W 69–57 | −8.5 | W+3.5 | 143.5 | U126 | 112.4 | 92.8 | 61.4 |
| Feb 18 | East Carolina | A | W 92–89 2OT | −8.0 | L−5.0 | 149.5 | O181 | 104.4 | 101.0 | 88.1 |
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 homeTexas A&M-CCWichita St
Efficiency
105.1
111.1
105.5
103.4
67.4
67.9
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
49.4%
48.1%
49.0%
35.0%
33.5%
67.4%
69.2%
41.1%
36.0%
Ball control & glass
19.4%
14.9%
19.0%
15.7%
31.7%
38.0%
28.8%
28.8%
10.6%
8.7%
11.6%
8.3%
Style
31.4%
33.8%
46.8%
45.1%
14.6%
9.5%
50.7%
41.3%
40.6%
32.4%
Roster
3.55
3.21
6'4.4"
6'4.5"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputTexas A&M-CC
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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.)
Wichita St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Wichita St'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.