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-conferenceKoessler Athletic Center, Buffalo, NY
Mercyhurst
Efficiency #261
2025-26: 17-17 · 12-9 conf
@
Canisius
Efficiency #344
2025-26: 10-21 · 5-15 conf
Sat, Nov 21 · 4:00 PM ET
67.1
win 53%
Projected
66.2
win 47%
No line posted yet.
Model: MERC −0.9 · total 133.3 · 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: Canisius 66.2, Mercyhurst 66.5 → 64.3 possessions
−8.6
Canisius offense vs Mercyhurst defense
−5.5
Mercyhurst offense vs Canisius defense
−0.9
Projected total
133.3
Axis starts at 120 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Canisius offense vs Mercyhurst defense
−5.5
Mercyhurst offense vs Canisius defense
+0.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
Mercyhurst by 0.9
0.9
Mercyhurst side ◂▸ Canisius side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 133.2 against a projected 133.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Canisius.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 64.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Mercyhurst is the faster team (64.6, #338 of 365) and Canisius the slower (64.3, #348). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
64.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
133.3
model
Projected team totals
67.1 / 66.2
Mercyhurst / Canisius
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.5#321
Mercyhurst
66.2#336
Canisius
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Canisius averages 64.3 possessions per 40, Mercyhurst 64.6. 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 63 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageCanisius
Where Canisius struggles: shooting
Canisius shoots an effective 46.3% (#348); Mercyhurst allows 50.1% (#107). Expect about 47.8%, 3.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.9 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversCanisius
Canisius turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 19.6% is worth roughly -3.5 points per 100 possessions against Canisius's offense.
AdvantageMercyhurst
Where Mercyhurst scores: ball control
Mercyhurst turns it over on 14.3% of possessions (#32); Canisius forces turnovers on 16.0% of opponent possessions (#222). Expect about 14.9%, 1.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions.
GlassMercyhurst
Mercyhurst gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Mercyhurst's offense.
ClashMercyhurst
Style clash: 3-point volume
Mercyhurst rarely shoots threes (31.1% of its shots); Canisius lets opponents take 44.0% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 35.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Mercyhurst has the ball
OffenseCanisius allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #269
52.2% #225
-0.8 pt/100
14.3% #32
16.0% #222
+2.3 pt/100
26.4% #312
29.8% #151
-1.9 pt/100
25.6% #361
35.2% #184
-0.6 pt/100
74.1% #129
—
+0.1 pt/100
Mercyhurst net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.8 pts/100
Canisius has the ball
OffenseMercyhurst allowsvs D1 avg
46.3% #348
50.1% #107
-4.9 pt/100
19.6% #341
18.7% #64
-3.5 pt/100
29.3% #226
29.9% #153
-0.6 pt/100
31.4% #271
42.6% #332
+0.3 pt/100
71.9% #212
—
-0.0 pt/100
Canisius 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 numbersMercyhurstoffense vsCanisiusdefense
Share of shots by zone
Mercyhurst shoots
33.8
11.3
23.5
31.3
Canisius allows
38.6
4.0
14.1
43.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.5%#256 | 60.1%#229 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 48.7%#16 | 39.0%#158 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.5%#43 | 40.7%#266 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.1%#276 | 33.0%#124 | 33.7% |
Canisiusoffense vsMercyhurstdefense
Share of shots by zone
Canisius shoots
36.9
6.5
16.8
39.7
Mercyhurst allows
43.4
8.0
14.4
34.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 47.2%#365 | 57.8%#141 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 50.5%#10 | 42.7%#245 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 34.6%#298 | 33.3%#35 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.3%#213 | 32.3%#80 | 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 numbersMercyhurst
−2.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#278 of 365
Off reb %
26.4%
#312
Def reb %
70.1%
#153
Turnover %
14.3%
#32
Forced TO %
18.7%
#64
FT rate
25.6%
#361
FT allowed
42.6%
#332
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.3
Defensive rebounding+0.2
Ball security+1.7
Forcing turnovers+1.3
Foul shots drawn−2.4
Foul shots allowed−1.9
Canisius
−3.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#313 of 365
Off reb %
29.3%
#226
Def reb %
70.2%
#151
Turnover %
19.6%
#341
Forced TO %
16.0%
#222
FT rate
31.4%
#271
FT allowed
35.2%
#184
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security−1.9
Forcing turnovers−0.5
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed0.0
Mercyhurst has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.3 (#278 of 365) to Canisius’s −3.4 (#313).
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
Mercyhurst2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Bernie Blunt III | G | Sr | 5'11" | 34-34 | 30.9 | 17.6 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 49.8% | 35.5% | 5.9 | 86.5% | 34.1% | |
| 11 | Jake Lemelman | G | So | 6'2" | 34-34 | 30.0 | 13.9 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 50.2% | 39.6% | 4.5 | 86.4% | 30.6% | |
| 7 | Deshaun Jackson Jr. | G | So | 6'2" | 34-1 | 22.4 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 65.9% | 20.6% | |
| 10 | Christian Gamble | G | Sr | 6'0" | 34-33 | 21.1 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 44.6% | 28.8% | 2.1 | 73.1% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Mykolas Ivanauskas | F | So | 6'8" | 32-31 | 19.6 | 7.4 | 5.1 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 57.9% | 22.6% | 1.0 | 58.6% | 23.6% | |
| 1 | Sean Lang | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-0 | 13.4 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 26.6% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 62.5% | 6.9% | |
| 3 | Cameron Johnson | F | Jr | 6'5" | 33-4 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 44.9% | 32.1% | 0.8 | 75.0% | 20.8% | |
| 15 | Kaden Fuhrmann | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-0 | 11.6 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 51.6% | 31.3% | 2.5 | 87.5% | 18.6% | |
| 34 | James Thomas | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-0 | 9.6 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 48.8% | — | 0.0 | 27.3% | 12.2% | |
| 23 | Or Faran | G | Fr | 6'5" | 9-0 | 5.2 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 33.3% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 33.3% | 20.8% | |
| 33 | Vladimir Pavlovic | G | Jr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 4.4 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 23.4% | |
| 2 | Brady Conner | G | Fr | 6'6" | 6-0 | 5.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 11.1% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 25.1% | |
| 13 | Chris Leman | F | Fr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 4.3 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 43.8% | 33.3% | 0.5 | 0.0% | 24.3% | |
| 21 | Emilis Butkus | G | Sr | 6'6" | 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.
Canisius2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Preist Ryanat Cleveland St | F | Sr | 6'6" | 31-24 | 22.3 | 7.2 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 45.8% | 30.0% | 0.6 | 69.3% | 20.6% | |
| 1 | Vinny Sigonaat East Texas A&M | G | Sr | 6'0" | 28-6 | 20.0 | 8.1 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 57.8% | 40.1% | 5.6 | 87.5% | 22.9% | |
| 5 | Clinton Efindaat UNC Greensboro | F | Sr | 6'5" | 33-0 | 14.9 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 51.3% | 38.5% | 2.0 | 78.8% | 17.5% | |
| 33 | Michael Wilson Jr.at Bellarmine | G | Jr | 6'6" | 30-4 | 13.5 | 5.7 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 53.2% | 31.6% | 1.3 | 64.3% | 25.5% | |
| 2 | Demarris Wintersat UT Rio Grande | G | So | 6'3" | 21-0 | 7.1 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 61.8% | 39.3% | 1.3 | 60.0% | 17.6% | |
| 7 | Nate Deerat Oakland | F | Sr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 55.6% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 15.9% | |
| 12 | Trevor Augustine | G | Jr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 25.1% | |
| 15 | Nate Foutsat Le Moyne | F | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Will Fowlerat 124947 | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Abu Riak | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Alex Mack | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 95 | Dorsett Mulcahy | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jerry Guerrero | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Will Taylor | F | So | 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: Nate Deer (from Oakland), Clinton Efinda (from UNC Greensboro), Nate Fouts (from Le Moyne), Will Fowler (from 124947), Preist Ryan (from Cleveland St), Vinny Sigona (from East Texas A&M), Michael Wilson Jr. (from Bellarmine), Demarris Winters (from UT Rio Grande)
Mercyhurst2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Bernie Blunt III | G | Sr | 5'11" | 34-34 | 30.9 | 17.6 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 49.8% | 35.5% | 5.9 | 86.5% | 34.1% | |
| 11 | Jake Lemelman | G | So | 6'2" | 34-34 | 30.0 | 13.9 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 50.2% | 39.6% | 4.5 | 86.4% | 30.6% | |
| 7 | Deshaun Jackson Jr. | G | So | 6'2" | 34-1 | 22.4 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 65.9% | 20.6% | |
| 10 | Christian Gamble | G | Sr | 6'0" | 34-33 | 21.1 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 44.6% | 28.8% | 2.1 | 73.1% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Mykolas Ivanauskas | F | So | 6'8" | 32-31 | 19.6 | 7.4 | 5.1 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 57.9% | 22.6% | 1.0 | 58.6% | 23.6% | |
| 1 | Sean Lang | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-0 | 13.4 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 26.6% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 62.5% | 6.9% | |
| 3 | Cameron Johnson | F | Jr | 6'5" | 33-4 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 44.9% | 32.1% | 0.8 | 75.0% | 20.8% | |
| 15 | Kaden Fuhrmann | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-0 | 11.6 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 51.6% | 31.3% | 2.5 | 87.5% | 18.6% | |
| 34 | James Thomas | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-0 | 9.6 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 48.8% | — | 0.0 | 27.3% | 12.2% | |
| 23 | Or Faran | G | Fr | 6'5" | 9-0 | 5.2 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 33.3% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 33.3% | 20.8% | |
| 33 | Vladimir Pavlovic | G | Jr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 4.4 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 23.4% | |
| 2 | Brady Conner | G | Fr | 6'6" | 6-0 | 5.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 11.1% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 25.1% | |
| 13 | Chris Leman | F | Fr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 4.3 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 43.8% | 33.3% | 0.5 | 0.0% | 24.3% | |
| 21 | Emilis Butkus | G | Sr | 6'6" | 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 2025-26Mercyhurst
Against the spread
Season
21-11
Home
9-4
Road
12-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +2.3
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-16
Home
7-6
Road
9-10
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +6.0
Over in the last gameOver 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 10 | Long Island | A | L 70–79 | +5.0 | L−4.0 | 134.0 | O149 | 105.7 | 119.3 | 66.2 |
| Mar 7 | Stonehill | H | W 56–51 | −4.5 | W+0.5 | 135.0 | U107 | 85.4 | 77.8 | 65.6 |
| Mar 4 | FDU | H | W 70–61 | −4.0 | W+5.0 | 132.5 | U131 | 108.0 | 94.2 | 64.8 |
| Feb 28 | Stonehill | A | W 75–72 OT | −2.5 | W+0.5 | 138.5 | O147 | 97.9 | 94.0 | 76.6 |
| Feb 26 | C Connecticut | A | L 78–80 | +4.0 | W+2.0 | 141.0 | O158 | 114.7 | 117.7 | 68.0 |
| Feb 21 | Long Island | H | W 91–83 | +3.5 | W+11.5 | 141.0 | O174 | 130.5 | 119.0 | 69.7 |
| Feb 19 | Wagner | H | L 80–83 OT | −3.5 | L−6.5 | 134.5 | O163 | 107.3 | 111.4 | 74.5 |
| Feb 14 | Saint Francis Red Wolves | A | W 94–79 | −2.0 | W+13.0 | 138.5 | O173 | 137.0 | 115.1 | 68.6 |
| Feb 12 | Le Moyne | A | L 57–58 | +2.5 | W+1.5 | 138.5 | U115 | 82.7 | 84.2 | 68.9 |
| Feb 7 | FDU | A | L 52–55 | +2.5 | L−0.5 | 131.0 | U107 | 95.9 | 101.4 | 54.3 |
Canisius
Against the spread
Season
14-15-1
Home
7-7
Road
7-8-1
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover +0.1
Covered 2 straightCovered 4 of 10 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
9-21
Home
6-8
Road
3-13
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −0.1
Under 3 straightOver in 3 of 10 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1 | Quinnipiac | H | L 63–67 | +8.0 | W+4.0 | 138.5 | U130 | 94.8 | 100.9 | 66.4 |
| Feb 27 | Merrimack | H | W 67–62 | +9.0 | W+14.0 | 130.0 | U129 | 110.3 | 102.1 | 60.7 |
| Feb 22 | Mount St Marys | A | L 47–68 | +7.5 | L−13.5 | 137.5 | U115 | 75.0 | 108.5 | 62.6 |
| Feb 20 | Rider | A | W 72–66 | +1.0 | W+7.0 | 131.0 | O138 | 106.7 | 97.8 | 67.5 |
| Feb 15 | Manhattan | H | L 65–69 | +1.5 | L−2.5 | 141.0 | U134 | 100.4 | 106.5 | 64.8 |
| Feb 13 | Iona | H | L 63–69 | +4.5 | L−1.5 | 138.0 | U132 | 98.0 | 107.3 | 64.3 |
| Feb 5 | Quinnipiac | A | L 60–75 | +15.0 | P0.0 | 142.0 | U135 | 81.8 | 102.2 | 73.3 |
| Feb 3 | Niagara | A | L 56–65 | +2.0 | L−7.0 | 127.0 | U121 | 97.3 | 113.0 | 57.5 |
| Feb 1 | Siena | H | L 63–78 | +8.0 | L−7.0 | 135.0 | O141 | 105.7 | 130.9 | 59.6 |
| Jan 30 | Marist | H | L 86–88 OT | +9.5 | W+7.5 | 130.0 | O174 | 116.5 | 119.2 | 73.8 |
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 homeMercyhurstCanisius
Efficiency
103.8
99.6
108.8
111.8
66.5
66.2
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
46.3%
50.0%
44.0%
32.1%
33.3%
74.1%
71.9%
25.6%
31.4%
Ball control & glass
14.3%
19.6%
18.7%
16.0%
26.4%
29.3%
29.9%
29.8%
7.7%
10.5%
6.3%
9.7%
Style
31.1%
39.5%
46.5%
39.3%
11.3%
11.6%
54.2%
55.4%
34.3%
27.8%
Roster
3.05
3.69
6'2.6"
6'4.2"
84.5%
0.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMercyhurst
Returning minutes: 84.5%Returning production: 78.6%
Lost
- Qadir Martin 31.4 mpg, 11.6 ppg · transferred to Fairfield
Added
- Emilis Butkus no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 85% 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).
Canisius
Returning minutes: 0.2%Returning production: -0.0%
Lost
- Kahlil Singleton 33.7 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Bryan Ndjonga 32.7 mpg, 13.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mike Evbagharu 32.2 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Myles Wilmoth 23.2 mpg, 5.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Javante Edwards 20.0 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chris Kumu 11.2 mpg, 3.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Preist Ryan from Cleveland St · 20.9 mpg, 6.8 ppg last season
- Vinny Sigona from East Texas A&M · 17.5 mpg, 7.1 ppg last season
- Clinton Efinda from UNC Greensboro · 14.5 mpg, 4.3 ppg last season
- Michael Wilson Jr. from Bellarmine · 12.7 mpg, 5.3 ppg last season
- Demarris Winters from UT Rio Grande · 4.5 mpg, 1.5 ppg last season
- Nate Deer from Oakland · 1.4 mpg, 0.3 ppg last season
Returns 0% 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 last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Wed, Nov 12 | 2025-26 | Mercyhurst 55 – 58 Canisius |
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.