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-conferencePurcell Pavilion, South Bend, IN
Long Island
Efficiency #195
2025-26: 24-11 · 18-3 conf
@
Notre Dame
Efficiency #106
2025-26: 13-18 · 4-14 conf
Tue, Dec 8 · TBD
70.0
win 27%
Projected
77.0
win 73%
No line posted yet.
Model: ND −7.0 · total 146.9 · 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: Notre Dame 67.4, Long Island 68.6 → 67.8 possessions
−1.2
Notre Dame offense vs Long Island defense
+1.5
Long Island offense vs Notre Dame defense
−1.6
Projected total
146.9
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Notre Dame offense vs Long Island defense
+1.5
Long Island offense vs Notre Dame defense
+1.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Notre Dame by 7.0
7.0
Long Island side ◂▸ Notre Dame 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 Notre Dame.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Long Island is the faster team (68.2, #190 of 365) and Notre Dame the slower (66.7, #259). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
146.9
model
Projected team totals
70.0 / 77.0
Long Island / Notre Dame
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.6#152
Long Island
67.4#254
Notre Dame
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetDefenseLong Island
Long Island's shot-blocking
Long Island ranks #16 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.2% of Notre Dame's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageNotre Dame
Where Notre Dame struggles: ball control
Notre Dame turns it over on 17.0% of possessions (#202); Long Island forces turnovers on 18.8% of opponent possessions (#58). Expect about 18.2%, 1.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.7 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageLong Island
Where Long Island scores: shooting
Long Island shoots an effective 52.8% (#112); Notre Dame allows 51.8% (#200). Expect about 52.4%, 1.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions.
ClashLong Island
Style clash: 3-point volume
Long Island rarely shoots threes (29.3% of its shots); Notre Dame lets opponents take 47.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 36.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashNotre Dame
Style clash: 3-point volume
Notre Dame takes 43.5% of its shots from three; Long Island runs teams off the line (32.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 38.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashLong Island
Style clash: paint scoring
Long Island scores 51.9% of its points in the paint; Notre Dame protects the paint (36.7% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 43.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
Long Island has the ball
OffenseNotre Dame allowsvs D1 avg
52.8% #112
51.8% #200
+1.6 pt/100
18.9% #318
14.0% #337
+0.7 pt/100
33.9% #70
26.7% #27
+0.4 pt/100
34.0% #207
36.2% #214
+0.0 pt/100
66.7% #346
—
-0.5 pt/100
Long Island net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.2 pts/100
Notre Dame has the ball
OffenseLong Island allowsvs D1 avg
52.3% #133
50.0% #102
-0.1 pt/100
17.0% #202
18.8% #58
-1.7 pt/100
31.2% #155
33.0% #299
+1.1 pt/100
34.1% #206
34.7% #171
-0.1 pt/100
69.7% #278
—
-0.2 pt/100
Notre Dame net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLong Islandoffense vsNotre Damedefense
Share of shots by zone
Long Island shoots
46.2
8.3
16.6
29.0
Notre Dame allows
28.2
6.7
17.3
47.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.7%#133 | 62.8%#320 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.8%#224 | 45.0%#296 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.7%#162 | 39.9%#237 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.8%#67 | 33.2%#138 | 33.7% |
Notre Dameoffense vsLong Islanddefense
Share of shots by zone
Notre Dame shoots
31.9
4.8
20.0
43.3
Long Island allows
43.8
6.1
16.9
33.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.0%#72 | 55.3%#70 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 28.2%#356 | 49.1%#350 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.3%#211 | 40.4%#256 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#82 | 32.2%#72 | 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 numbersLong Island
+0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#172 of 365
Off reb %
33.9%
#70
Def reb %
67.0%
#299
Turnover %
18.9%
#318
Forced TO %
18.8%
#58
FT rate
34.0%
#207
FT allowed
34.7%
#171
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding−0.8
Ball security−1.5
Forcing turnovers+1.4
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.1
Notre Dame
−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#226 of 365
Off reb %
31.2%
#155
Def reb %
73.3%
#27
Turnover %
17.0%
#202
Forced TO %
14.0%
#337
FT rate
34.1%
#206
FT allowed
36.2%
#214
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers−1.9
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed−0.2
Long Island has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.2 (#172 of 365) to Notre Dame’s −0.9 (#226).
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
Long Island2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Long Island'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Greg Gordon | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 34.1 | 14.0 | 5.5 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 57.2% | 20.7% | 0.8 | 40.7% | 25.1% | |
| 33 | Jamal Fuller | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-33 | 33.6 | 16.2 | 5.5 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 59.6% | 43.0% | 3.8 | 77.1% | 26.4% | |
| 0 | Malachi Davis | G | Sr | 6'4" | 35-34 | 30.9 | 14.0 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 46.1% | 31.4% | 4.0 | 62.1% | 32.9% | |
| 1 | Jomo Goings | G | Jr | 6'5" | 35-34 | 30.8 | 9.8 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 46.5% | 36.3% | 2.9 | 84.2% | 21.9% | |
| 22 | Shadrak Lasu | F | So | 6'8" | 33-33 | 22.9 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 56.9% | 42.9% | 0.6 | 63.8% | 13.6% | |
| 6 | Mason Porter-Brown | F | Jr | 6'6" | 35-6 | 20.0 | 7.8 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 57.1% | 40.4% | 2.7 | 71.3% | 22.2% | |
| 3 | Faheim Meran | G | Jr | 6'6" | 18-0 | 14.6 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 51.0% | 36.7% | 1.7 | 58.3% | 15.4% | |
| 15 | Caleb Johnson | F | Sr | 6'7" | 23-0 | 11.0 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 52.3% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 75.0% | 13.9% | |
| 4 | Tre'shawn Sheppard | G | So | 6'6" | 26-0 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 54.5% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 53.8% | 14.0% | |
| 10 | A.J. Neal Jr. | G | Sr | 6'2" | 15-0 | 7.7 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 52.2% | 50.0% | 0.5 | 66.7% | 17.2% | |
| 7 | Isaiah Miranda | F | Jr | 7'1" | 13-0 | 8.1 | 3.7 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 42.6% | 15.4% | 1.0 | 66.7% | 31.3% | |
| 5 | Max Ndlovu-Fraser | G | Fr | 6'5" | 7-0 | 7.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 35.7% | 33.3% | 0.4 | — | 11.7% | |
| 34 | Xinyi Li | F | Jr | 6'9" | 8-0 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 35.7% | 33.3% | 0.4 | — | 23.4% | |
| 14 | Eddie Munyak | G | So | 6'1" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 0.5 | — | 17.8% | |
| 24 | Gavin Pendergast | G | So | 6'4" | 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.
Notre Dame2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Braeden Shrewsberry | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 53.2% | 40.2% | 7.1 | 77.8% | 21.8% | |
| 23 | Ethan Robertsat Penn | G | Sr | 6'5" | 23-23 | 30.5 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 46.9% | 40.4% | 4.3 | 79.9% | 33.0% | |
| 5 | Devin Brownat Davidson | G | So | 6'6" | 34-27 | 23.4 | 6.4 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 48.3% | 31.0% | 2.6 | 63.2% | 19.1% | |
| 51 | Logan Duncombat Winthrop | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-28 | 24.3 | 18.3 | 8.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 73.5% | 36.9% | |
| 2 | Logan Imes | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-10 | 21.1 | 4.7 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 46.2% | 32.5% | 2.5 | 52.4% | 17.7% | |
| 3 | Braeden Smithat Gonzaga | G | Sr | 6'0" | 35-18 | 17.1 | 5.1 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 52.9% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 80.5% | 18.5% | |
| 6 | Brady Koehler | F | So | 6'10" | 30-13 | 15.9 | 5.6 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 53.6% | 38.2% | 1.8 | 73.9% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Bryce Ruglass Dortchat Rutgers | F | Jr | 6'9" | 31-3 | 14.5 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 61.0% | — | 0.0 | 53.6% | 8.9% | |
| 0 | Brady Stevens | G | Jr | 6'4" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 23.3% | |
| 22 | Luke Devine | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Tommy Ahneman | C | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 44 | Gan-Erdene Solongo | C | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jake Burow | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Jonathan Sanderson | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Nick Shrewsberry | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Yoro Diallo | F | Sr | 6'9" | 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: Devin Brown (from Davidson), Logan Duncomb (from Winthrop), Ethan Roberts (from Penn), Bryce Ruglass Dortch (from Rutgers), Braeden Smith (from Gonzaga)
Long Island2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Long Island'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Greg Gordon | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 34.1 | 14.0 | 5.5 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 57.2% | 20.7% | 0.8 | 40.7% | 25.1% | |
| 33 | Jamal Fuller | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-33 | 33.6 | 16.2 | 5.5 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 59.6% | 43.0% | 3.8 | 77.1% | 26.4% | |
| 0 | Malachi Davis | G | Sr | 6'4" | 35-34 | 30.9 | 14.0 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 46.1% | 31.4% | 4.0 | 62.1% | 32.9% | |
| 1 | Jomo Goings | G | Jr | 6'5" | 35-34 | 30.8 | 9.8 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 46.5% | 36.3% | 2.9 | 84.2% | 21.9% | |
| 22 | Shadrak Lasu | F | So | 6'8" | 33-33 | 22.9 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 56.9% | 42.9% | 0.6 | 63.8% | 13.6% | |
| 6 | Mason Porter-Brown | F | Jr | 6'6" | 35-6 | 20.0 | 7.8 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 57.1% | 40.4% | 2.7 | 71.3% | 22.2% | |
| 3 | Faheim Meran | G | Jr | 6'6" | 18-0 | 14.6 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 51.0% | 36.7% | 1.7 | 58.3% | 15.4% | |
| 15 | Caleb Johnson | F | Sr | 6'7" | 23-0 | 11.0 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 52.3% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 75.0% | 13.9% | |
| 4 | Tre'shawn Sheppard | G | So | 6'6" | 26-0 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 54.5% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 53.8% | 14.0% | |
| 10 | A.J. Neal Jr. | G | Sr | 6'2" | 15-0 | 7.7 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 52.2% | 50.0% | 0.5 | 66.7% | 17.2% | |
| 7 | Isaiah Miranda | F | Jr | 7'1" | 13-0 | 8.1 | 3.7 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 42.6% | 15.4% | 1.0 | 66.7% | 31.3% | |
| 5 | Max Ndlovu-Fraser | G | Fr | 6'5" | 7-0 | 7.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 35.7% | 33.3% | 0.4 | — | 11.7% | |
| 34 | Xinyi Li | F | Jr | 6'9" | 8-0 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 35.7% | 33.3% | 0.4 | — | 23.4% | |
| 14 | Eddie Munyak | G | So | 6'1" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 0.5 | — | 17.8% | |
| 24 | Gavin Pendergast | G | So | 6'4" | 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 2025-26Long Island
Against the spread
Season
18-17
Home
9-6
Road
9-10
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-20
Home
6-9
Road
8-11
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +5.3
Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 9 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #1Arizona | N | L 58–92 | +30.5 | L−3.5 | 148.0 | O150 | 82.0 | 130.1 | 70.7 |
| Mar 10 | Mercyhurst | H | W 79–70 | −5.0 | W+4.0 | 134.0 | O149 | 119.3 | 105.7 | 66.2 |
| Mar 7 | Wagner | H | W 64–56 | −6.5 | W+1.5 | 139.0 | U120 | 100.1 | 87.6 | 63.9 |
| Mar 4 | Chicago St | H | W 79–75 | −11.0 | L−7.0 | 138.0 | O154 | 128.7 | 122.2 | 61.4 |
| Feb 28 | FDU | H | W 74–60 | −9.0 | W+5.0 | 137.5 | U134 | 117.6 | 95.3 | 62.9 |
| Feb 26 | Chicago St | H | W 73–56 | −11.5 | W+5.5 | 140.0 | U129 | 111.9 | 85.8 | 65.3 |
| Feb 21 | Mercyhurst | A | L 83–91 | −3.5 | L−11.5 | 141.0 | O174 | 119.0 | 130.5 | 69.7 |
| Feb 19 | Saint Francis Red Wolves | A | W 91–89 | −9.0 | L−7.0 | 148.0 | O180 | 118.2 | 115.6 | 77.0 |
| Feb 16 | Wagner | H | W 83–65 | −10.5 | W+7.5 | 137.0 | O148 | 130.1 | 101.9 | 63.8 |
| Feb 14 | New Haven | A | L 52–55 | −7.0 | L−10.0 | 129.5 | U107 | 84.1 | 88.9 | 61.8 |
Notre Dame
Against the spread
Season
15-16
Home
8-9
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.9
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
22-9
Home
14-3
Road
8-3
Last 10
9-1
avg vs total +10.1
Over 8 straightOver in 6 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Boston College | A | L 69–77 | −2.5 | L−10.5 | 142.0 | O146 | 91.7 | 102.4 | 75.2 |
| Mar 4 | Stanford | H | L 78–86 | +1.0 | L−7.0 | 147.0 | O164 | 122.9 | 135.5 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | NC State | H | W 96–90 OT | +6.5 | W+12.5 | 155.0 | O186 | 134.5 | 126.1 | 71.4 |
| Feb 24 | #1Duke | H | L 56–100 | +17.0 | L−27.0 | 142.0 | O156 | 78.3 | 139.8 | 71.5 |
| Feb 21 | Pitt | A | L 68–73 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 108.4 | 116.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | Georgia Tech | H | W 89–74 | −6.0 | W+9.0 | 150.0 | O163 | 129.3 | 107.5 | 68.8 |
| Feb 10 | SMU | A | L 81–89 | +10.5 | W+2.5 | 154.0 | O170 | 117.2 | 128.8 | 69.1 |
| Feb 7 | Florida St | H | L 79–82 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 153.0 | O161 | 109.1 | 113.2 | 72.4 |
| Feb 4 | #24Louisville | A | L 65–76 | +18.0 | W+7.0 | 155.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 110.0 | 69.1 |
| Jan 31 | Syracuse | A | L 72–86 | +5.0 | L−9.0 | 147.5 | O158 | 107.1 | 127.9 | 67.2 |
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 homeLong IslandNotre Dame
Efficiency
106.8
111.4
107.8
107.9
68.6
67.4
—
—
Shooting
52.8%
52.3%
52.4%
51.4%
35.8%
35.6%
66.7%
69.7%
34.0%
34.1%
Ball control & glass
18.9%
17.0%
18.8%
14.0%
33.9%
31.2%
33.0%
26.7%
10.4%
9.1%
8.6%
8.8%
Style
29.3%
43.5%
51.9%
40.2%
19.4%
9.8%
50.2%
47.4%
24.1%
31.4%
Roster
3.38
3.45
6'5.5"
6'5.8"
—
34.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLong Island
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Long Island'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.)
Notre Dame
Returning minutes: 34.3%Returning production: 29.4%
Lost
- Cole Certa 26.9 mpg, 12.8 ppg · transferred to Clemson
- Carson Towt 26.0 mpg, 5.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jalen Haralson 23.2 mpg, 14.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Garrett Sundra 17.9 mpg, 3.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sir Mohammed 16.4 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Markus Burton 9.7 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ethan Roberts from Penn · 23.4 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
- Devin Brown from Davidson · 23.4 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
- Logan Duncomb from Winthrop · 22.9 mpg, 17.2 ppg last season
- Braeden Smith from Gonzaga · 17.1 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season
- Bryce Ruglass Dortch from Rutgers · 13.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg last season
- Nick Shrewsberry no D1 minutes last season
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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 last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Mon, Nov 3 | 2025-26 | Long Island 67 – 89 Notre Dame |
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.