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-conferenceFord Center, Evansville, IN
Chicago St
Efficiency #342
2025-26: 7-25 · 5-14 conf
@
Evansville
Efficiency #327
2025-26: 7-25 · 3-18 conf
Mon, Nov 30 · TBD
69.2
win 32%
Projected
74.5
win 68%
No line posted yet.
Model: EVAN −5.3 · total 143.6 · 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: Evansville 68.1, Chicago St 67.2 → 67.0 possessions
−3.0
Evansville offense vs Chicago St defense
−0.1
Chicago St offense vs Evansville defense
−1.6
Projected total
143.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Evansville offense vs Chicago St defense
−0.1
Chicago St offense vs Evansville defense
+1.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Evansville by 5.3
5.3
Chicago St side ◂▸ Evansville side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 143.5 against a projected 143.6, and the margin steps add to +5.4 against +5.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Evansville.
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, Evansville is the faster team (67.4, #228 of 365) and Chicago St the slower (65.8, #304). 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
143.6
model
Projected team totals
69.2 / 74.5
Chicago St / Evansville
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.2#272
Chicago St
68.1#206
Evansville
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageEvansville
Where Evansville struggles: ball control
Evansville turns it over on 19.1% of possessions (#323); Chicago St forces turnovers on 20.1% of opponent possessions (#20). Expect about 20.2%, 3.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.2 points per 100 possessions.
ClashEvansville
Style match: 3-point volume
Evansville takes 43.1% of its shots from three; Chicago St lets opponents take 50.8% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 49.7% — both habits push the same way.
Pace
Half-court grind
Evansville averages 67.4 possessions per 40, Chicago St 65.8. 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 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
DefenseChicago St
Chicago St's ball-hawking
Chicago St ranks #19 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.0% of Evansville's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
GlassEvansville
Evansville gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.8% is worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions against Evansville's offense.
AdvantageChicago St
Where Chicago St struggles: shooting
Chicago St shoots an effective 45.3% (#358); Evansville allows 55.1% (#332). Expect about 49.8%, 1.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions.
Chicago St has the ball
OffenseEvansville allowsvs D1 avg
45.3% #358
55.1% #332
-2.2 pt/100
15.6% #113
15.4% #259
+1.9 pt/100
28.3% #255
30.2% #170
-1.0 pt/100
30.0% #311
31.4% #93
-0.6 pt/100
75.0% #84
—
+0.2 pt/100
Chicago St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.6 pts/100
Evansville has the ball
OffenseChicago St allowsvs D1 avg
49.3% #280
56.7% #354
+2.3 pt/100
19.1% #323
20.1% #20
-4.2 pt/100
22.0% #355
35.0% #339
-2.2 pt/100
29.8% #315
38.0% #261
-0.1 pt/100
73.6% #149
—
+0.1 pt/100
Evansville net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersChicago Stoffense vsEvansvilledefense
Share of shots by zone
Chicago St shoots
33.6
8.8
26.8
30.7
Evansville allows
33.7
8.5
15.0
42.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 49.8%#361 | 61.4%#282 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.0%#195 | 39.6%#178 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.8%#232 | 42.2%#311 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.1%#275 | 37.6%#351 | 33.7% |
Evansvilleoffense vsChicago Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Evansville shoots
29.0
9.9
17.9
43.1
Chicago St allows
37.0
4.0
8.8
50.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.7%#170 | 64.9%#350 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.5%#208 | 31.0%#19 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.8%#191 | 44.1%#341 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.2%#268 | 35.6%#290 | 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 numbersChicago St
−1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#232 of 365
Off reb %
28.3%
#255
Def reb %
65.0%
#339
Turnover %
15.6%
#113
Forced TO %
20.1%
#20
FT rate
30.0%
#311
FT allowed
38.0%
#261
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.4
Ball security+0.8
Forcing turnovers+2.3
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed−0.7
Evansville
−5.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#349 of 365
Off reb %
22.0%
#355
Def reb %
69.8%
#170
Turnover %
19.1%
#323
Forced TO %
15.4%
#259
FT rate
29.8%
#315
FT allowed
31.4%
#93
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.7
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security−1.6
Forcing turnovers−0.9
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed+1.0
Chicago St has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.0 (#232 of 365) to Evansville’s −5.4 (#349).
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
Chicago St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Chicago 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | CJ Ray | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-27 | 31.1 | 13.5 | 4.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 47.8% | 37.2% | 3.5 | 85.2% | 28.3% | |
| 4 | Marcus Tankersley | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-29 | 30.6 | 13.0 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 46.5% | 23.3% | 1.0 | 65.6% | 29.9% | |
| 3 | Doyel Cockrill III | G | Jr | 6'2" | 28-9 | 24.4 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 49.4% | 36.4% | 5.8 | 83.3% | 29.7% | |
| 21 | Braelon Bush | G | Sr | 5'9" | 26-9 | 25.9 | 8.5 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 45.6% | 27.7% | 3.9 | 91.9% | 23.3% | |
| 10 | Corey Sands | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-20 | 17.4 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 39.4% | 25.8% | 2.1 | 73.3% | 13.1% | |
| 8 | Stephen Byard | F | Sr | 6'8" | 22-9 | 22.6 | 9.8 | 4.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 48.3% | 41.7% | 0.5 | 73.4% | 28.7% | |
| 9 | Malek Robinson | G | Fr | 5'11" | 32-22 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 36.5% | 31.8% | 0.7 | 70.4% | 15.8% | |
| 22 | Dailliss Cox | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-21 | 15.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 69.2% | 14.0% | |
| 15 | Joseph Owens | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-2 | 11.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 53.7% | — | 0.0 | 62.5% | 13.5% | |
| 11 | Lionel Larvadain III | G | So | 6'0" | 21-1 | 11.2 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 31.6% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 71.4% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | Chauncey Gibson | G | Jr | 6'7" | 15-4 | 15.5 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 37.8% | 26.4% | 3.5 | 42.9% | 30.0% | |
| 6 | Daniel Zatsepin | F | Jr | 6'4" | 25-2 | 8.7 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 35.2% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 10.1% | |
| 25 | Dakari Thomas | G | So | 6'1" | 19-0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 42.9% | — | 0.0 | 63.6% | 8.3% | |
| 20 | CJ Delancy | F | Sr | 6'9" | 6-2 | 9.2 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 44.4% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 12.4% | |
| 1 | Deshawn Jean-Charles | G | Sr | 6'7" | 4-3 | 8.5 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 7.7% | |
| 12 | DaJuan Bates | G | Jr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Greg Spate | G | Jr | 6'7" | 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.
Evansville2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Evansville'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 | Leif Moeller | G | Fr | 6'7" | 32-32 | 32.5 | 10.8 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 2.8 | 48.8% | 36.6% | 4.1 | 77.1% | 23.8% | |
| 23 | AJ Casey | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-20 | 29.7 | 13.5 | 5.9 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 54.5% | 33.9% | 1.9 | 73.8% | 27.2% | |
| 11 | Joshua Hughes | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 27.6 | 9.3 | 4.7 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 58.2% | 36.4% | 3.7 | 75.0% | 19.0% | |
| 0 | Bryce Quinet | G | Fr | 6'3" | 32-19 | 26.9 | 8.7 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 45.8% | 30.3% | 2.4 | 71.4% | 23.2% | |
| 12 | Alex Hemenway | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-32 | 25.9 | 6.7 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 45.4% | 31.7% | 5.1 | 81.8% | 17.3% | |
| 45 | Trent Hundley | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-1 | 17.6 | 5.3 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 54.6% | 37.1% | 3.3 | 89.3% | 16.9% | |
| 1 | Keishon Porter | G | Sr | 6'5" | 16-10 | 22.0 | 6.9 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 38.4% | 15.2% | 2.1 | 65.9% | 24.9% | |
| 9 | Kaia Berridge | G | So | 6'4" | 27-0 | 12.5 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 41.4% | 26.7% | 1.7 | 57.1% | 14.5% | |
| 22 | Connor Turnbull | F | Sr | 6'10" | 16-14 | 20.1 | 11.5 | 6.1 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 48.4% | 22.2% | 1.1 | 66.7% | 38.6% | |
| 2 | James Dyson-Merwe | F | Fr | 6'11" | 21-0 | 13.1 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 64.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 15.1% | |
| 40 | Weston Aigner | G | Jr | 6'3" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 23.4% | |
| 5 | Marlon Barnes Jr. | F | So | 6'6" | 3-0 | 4.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 37.5% | 33.3% | 2.0 | — | 42.3% | |
| 13 | Leo Amari IV | G | Jr | 6'2" | 5-0 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 0.4 | — | 23.4% | |
| 33 | Aaron Gutman | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 32 | Dakota Candler | F | Jr | 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.
Chicago St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Chicago 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | CJ Ray | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-27 | 31.1 | 13.5 | 4.7 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 47.8% | 37.2% | 3.5 | 85.2% | 28.3% | |
| 4 | Marcus Tankersley | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-29 | 30.6 | 13.0 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 46.5% | 23.3% | 1.0 | 65.6% | 29.9% | |
| 3 | Doyel Cockrill III | G | Jr | 6'2" | 28-9 | 24.4 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 49.4% | 36.4% | 5.8 | 83.3% | 29.7% | |
| 21 | Braelon Bush | G | Sr | 5'9" | 26-9 | 25.9 | 8.5 | 1.9 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 45.6% | 27.7% | 3.9 | 91.9% | 23.3% | |
| 10 | Corey Sands | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-20 | 17.4 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 39.4% | 25.8% | 2.1 | 73.3% | 13.1% | |
| 8 | Stephen Byard | F | Sr | 6'8" | 22-9 | 22.6 | 9.8 | 4.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 48.3% | 41.7% | 0.5 | 73.4% | 28.7% | |
| 9 | Malek Robinson | G | Fr | 5'11" | 32-22 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 36.5% | 31.8% | 0.7 | 70.4% | 15.8% | |
| 22 | Dailliss Cox | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-21 | 15.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 69.2% | 14.0% | |
| 15 | Joseph Owens | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-2 | 11.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 53.7% | — | 0.0 | 62.5% | 13.5% | |
| 11 | Lionel Larvadain III | G | So | 6'0" | 21-1 | 11.2 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 31.6% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 71.4% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | Chauncey Gibson | G | Jr | 6'7" | 15-4 | 15.5 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 37.8% | 26.4% | 3.5 | 42.9% | 30.0% | |
| 6 | Daniel Zatsepin | F | Jr | 6'4" | 25-2 | 8.7 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 35.2% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 10.1% | |
| 25 | Dakari Thomas | G | So | 6'1" | 19-0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 42.9% | — | 0.0 | 63.6% | 8.3% | |
| 20 | CJ Delancy | F | Sr | 6'9" | 6-2 | 9.2 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 44.4% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 12.4% | |
| 1 | Deshawn Jean-Charles | G | Sr | 6'7" | 4-3 | 8.5 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 7.7% | |
| 12 | DaJuan Bates | G | Jr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Greg Spate | G | Jr | 6'7" | 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 2025-26Chicago St
Against the spread
Season
14-16-1
Home
6-4
Road
8-12-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +2.5
Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-16
Home
3-7
Road
12-9
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −2.1
Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4 | Long Island | A | L 75–79 | +11.0 | W+7.0 | 138.0 | O154 | 122.2 | 128.7 | 61.4 |
| Feb 28 | Wagner | A | L 61–80 | +5.0 | L−14.0 | 135.5 | O141 | 88.6 | 116.2 | 68.9 |
| Feb 26 | Long Island | A | L 56–73 | +11.5 | L−5.5 | 140.0 | U129 | 85.8 | 111.9 | 65.3 |
| Feb 21 | C Connecticut | H | W 70–51 | +3.0 | W+22.0 | 138.5 | U121 | 113.1 | 82.4 | 61.9 |
| Feb 19 | FDU | H | L 59–60 | +2.0 | W+1.0 | 132.0 | U119 | 111.6 | 113.5 | 52.9 |
| Feb 14 | Le Moyne | A | L 63–81 | +7.0 | L−11.0 | 146.0 | U144 | 91.5 | 117.6 | 68.9 |
| Feb 12 | Stonehill | H | W 68–55 | +1.5 | W+14.5 | 132.5 | U123 | 121.5 | 98.3 | 56.0 |
| Feb 9 | Saint Francis Red Wolves | H | W 80–75 | −3.0 | W+2.0 | 145.5 | O155 | 112.7 | 105.7 | 71.0 |
| Feb 7 | New Haven | A | W 63–57 | +5.5 | W+11.5 | 127.5 | U120 | 106.9 | 96.8 | 58.9 |
| Feb 5 | C Connecticut | A | L 67–78 | +9.0 | L−2.0 | 137.0 | O145 | 107.5 | 125.1 | 62.3 |
Evansville
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
6-7
Road
7-6
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −5.2
Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
16-13-1
Home
8-5
Road
7-6
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +7.0
Under in the last gameOver in 7 of 10 as an underdogOver in 4 of 5 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5 | Northern Iowa | N | L 59–68 | +15.0 | W+6.0 | 128.5 | U127 | 94.0 | 108.3 | 62.8 |
| Mar 1 | S Illinois | H | L 67–81 | +9.0 | L−5.0 | 139.5 | O148 | 104.9 | 126.8 | 63.9 |
| Feb 28 | Valparaiso | H | W 80–79 | +5.0 | W+6.0 | 138.0 | O159 | 117.9 | 116.4 | 67.9 |
| Feb 25 | Belmont | A | L 64–98 | +18.5 | L−15.5 | 152.0 | O162 | 94.8 | 145.2 | 67.5 |
| Feb 21 | Murray St | A | L 75–88 | +14.0 | W+1.0 | 153.0 | O163 | 104.0 | 122.1 | 72.1 |
| Feb 18 | UIC | H | L 46–84 | +8.0 | L−30.0 | 140.0 | U130 | 71.2 | 130.1 | 64.6 |
| Feb 12 | S Illinois | A | L 60–86 | +12.0 | L−14.0 | 142.5 | O146 | 88.2 | 126.4 | 68.1 |
| Feb 9 | Illinois St | H | W 88–80 | +10.5 | W+18.5 | 138.0 | O168 | 132.7 | 120.6 | 66.3 |
| Feb 6 | Valparaiso | A | L 63–70 OT | +8.5 | W+1.5 | 136.5 | U133 | 91.1 | 101.2 | 69.2 |
| Feb 3 | Indiana St | H | L 63–84 | +1.0 | L−20.0 | 145.0 | O147 | 100.5 | 134.0 | 62.7 |
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 homeChicago StEvansville
Efficiency
102.4
102.4
114.4
112.2
67.2
68.1
—
—
Shooting
45.3%
49.3%
44.0%
49.9%
32.1%
32.2%
75.0%
73.6%
30.0%
29.8%
Ball control & glass
15.6%
19.1%
20.1%
15.4%
28.3%
22.0%
35.0%
30.2%
8.4%
11.1%
8.7%
7.1%
Style
30.9%
43.1%
41.8%
40.3%
11.7%
7.5%
50.3%
54.3%
39.8%
30.0%
Roster
3.49
2.74
6'3.7"
6'6.7"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputChicago St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Chicago 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.)
Evansville
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Evansville'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.