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-conferenceWorthington Arena, Bozeman, MT
Cal Poly
Efficiency #240
2025-26: 14-19 · 10-11 conf
@
Montana St
Efficiency #130
2025-26: 18-14 · 12-7 conf
Sun, Nov 15 · 6:00 PM ET
74.8
win 24%
Projected
83.0
win 76%
No line posted yet.
Model: MTST −8.2 · total 157.8 · 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: Montana St 67.4, Cal Poly 72.8 → 71.8 possessions
+7.6
Montana St offense vs Cal Poly defense
+3.0
Cal Poly offense vs Montana St defense
−1.1
Projected total
157.8
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Montana St offense vs Cal Poly defense
+3.0
Cal Poly offense vs Montana St defense
+1.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Montana St by 8.2
8.2
Cal Poly side ◂▸ Montana St side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 157.7 against a projected 157.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Montana St.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 71.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Cal Poly is the faster team (76.1, #1 of 365) and Montana St the slower (67.4, #229). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
71.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
157.8
model
Projected team totals
74.8 / 83.0
Cal Poly / Montana St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
72.8#1
Cal Poly
67.4#264
Montana St
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Tempo tug-of-war
Montana St averages 67.4 possessions per 40, Cal Poly 76.1. 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 73 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageMontana St
Where Montana St scores: shooting
Montana St shoots an effective 53.6% (#80); Cal Poly allows 53.8% (#292). Expect about 53.9%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.8 points per 100 possessions.
ClashCal Poly
Style clash: 3-point volume
Cal Poly takes 52.6% of its shots from three; Montana St runs teams off the line (34.3% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 46.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
TurnoversMontana St
Montana St protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.2% is worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions for Montana St's offense.
GlassMontana St
Montana St gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.7% is worth roughly -1.7 points per 100 possessions against Montana St's offense.
ClashCal Poly
Style clash: paint scoring
Cal Poly gets only 38.5% of its points in the paint; Montana St gives up 48.3% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 43.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
Cal Poly has the ball
OffenseMontana St allowsvs D1 avg
51.5% #170
51.7% #193
+0.5 pt/100
19.9% #346
15.7% #238
-1.3 pt/100
30.0% #202
28.2% #75
-0.8 pt/100
34.9% #182
29.6% #52
-0.4 pt/100
78.5% #12
—
+0.5 pt/100
Cal Poly net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.6 pts/100
Montana St has the ball
OffenseCal Poly allowsvs D1 avg
53.6% #80
53.8% #292
+3.8 pt/100
14.7% #53
16.2% #209
+1.9 pt/100
27.0% #292
29.6% #141
-1.7 pt/100
30.2% #303
34.1% #154
-0.4 pt/100
74.0% #132
—
+0.1 pt/100
Montana St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersCal Polyoffense vsMontana Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Cal Poly shoots
38.2
3.5
4.4
53.9
Montana St allows
47.2
5.1
13.8
33.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.7%#209 | 54.6%#54 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.0%#148 | 49.4%#352 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.5%#357 | 41.2%#279 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.0%#228 | 34.3%#198 | 33.7% |
Montana Stoffense vsCal Polydefense
Share of shots by zone
Montana St shoots
31.3
7.0
17.2
44.4
Cal Poly allows
41.3
5.9
12.5
40.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.7%#134 | 61.5%#284 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.4%#137 | 35.5%#72 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 45.3%#12 | 41.2%#282 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.1%#52 | 34.7%#231 | 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 numbersCal Poly
−2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#270 of 365
Off reb %
30.0%
#202
Def reb %
70.4%
#141
Turnover %
19.9%
#346
Forced TO %
16.2%
#209
FT rate
34.9%
#182
FT allowed
34.1%
#154
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security−2.1
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed+0.3
Montana St
+0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#154 of 365
Off reb %
27.0%
#292
Def reb %
71.8%
#75
Turnover %
14.7%
#53
Forced TO %
15.7%
#238
FT rate
30.2%
#303
FT allowed
29.6%
#52
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security+1.4
Forcing turnovers−0.7
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.4
Montana St has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.6 (#154 of 365) to Cal Poly’s −2.0 (#270).
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
Cal Poly2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Cal Poly'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Hamad Mousa | G | So | 6'8" | 32-30 | 31.4 | 20.4 | 6.3 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 53.9% | 37.2% | 7.1 | 87.8% | 32.2% | |
| 9 | Peter Bandelj | G | So | 6'4" | 32-32 | 30.8 | 13.0 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 2.4 | 50.8% | 34.7% | 5.2 | 85.2% | 23.5% | |
| 14 | Cayden Ward | G | So | 6'5" | 33-31 | 29.4 | 14.5 | 6.3 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 53.5% | 31.0% | 5.2 | 75.3% | 27.6% | |
| 5 | Guzman Vasilic | G | So | 6'4" | 30-17 | 23.2 | 7.6 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 54.2% | 37.1% | 5.0 | 77.8% | 17.4% | |
| 3 | Jake Davis | G | Jr | 6'4" | 32-18 | 21.1 | 5.4 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 41.8% | 26.0% | 3.3 | 72.5% | 18.1% | |
| 11 | Austin Goode | F | Fr | 6'7" | 32-16 | 16.3 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 51.4% | 30.9% | 2.5 | 73.7% | 18.1% | |
| 7 | Ali Assran | F | Fr | 6'9" | 31-5 | 12.7 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 46.6% | 21.4% | 0.9 | 59.6% | 19.5% | |
| 13 | Troy Plumtree | F | Fr | 6'6" | 30-2 | 12.2 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 57.5% | 22.6% | 1.0 | 66.7% | 22.4% | |
| 4 | Kieran Elliott | G | Jr | 6'6" | 18-10 | 16.9 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 54.8% | 35.0% | 1.1 | 82.6% | 14.5% | |
| 8 | Jackson Mosley | PG | Jr | 5'10" | 17-0 | 12.5 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 47.6% | 29.2% | 2.8 | 70.8% | 24.7% | |
| 21 | Luka Tarlac | G | Sr | 6'7" | 12-3 | 15.1 | 3.0 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 46.7% | 18.2% | 0.9 | 53.3% | 16.3% | |
| 15 | Aaron Price Jr. | PF | Sr | 6'8" | 21-1 | 6.1 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 59.1% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 17.0% | |
| 1 | Jess Esso Essis | G | Fr | 6'10" | 7-0 | 17.4 | 8.6 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 61.9% | 41.4% | 4.1 | 88.9% | 25.5% | |
| 0 | Jason Scott | G | Fr | 6'4" | 8-0 | 5.6 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 50.0% | 57.1% | 0.9 | 62.5% | 23.5% | |
| 22 | Eric Brown | F | Jr | 6'8" | 5-0 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 21.1% | |
| 2 | Braden Freeman | F | Fr | 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.
Montana St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Montana 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Jed Miller | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 34.5 | 14.9 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 59.4% | 40.6% | 6.8 | 80.0% | 22.7% | |
| 1 | Patrick McMahon | G | Sr | 6'7" | 29-29 | 29.2 | 13.7 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 48.1% | 25.5% | 1.9 | 71.5% | 29.4% | |
| 5 | Jeremiah Davis | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-24 | 24.7 | 9.1 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 60.2% | 40.0% | 2.7 | 76.7% | 20.1% | |
| 7 | Christian King | F | So | 6'8" | 28-19 | 27.3 | 12.6 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 50.2% | 36.4% | 5.5 | 80.6% | 28.9% | |
| 21 | Chris Hodges | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 23.3 | 5.5 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 57.7% | — | 0.0 | 48.2% | 15.5% | |
| 0 | Davian Brown | G | Sr | 6'3" | 21-14 | 25.0 | 12.7 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 59.8% | 43.0% | 5.8 | 83.7% | 26.9% | |
| 12 | Seth Amunrud | G | Jr | 6'3" | 24-2 | 21.5 | 7.3 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 57.7% | 40.0% | 3.3 | 100.0% | 18.2% | |
| 44 | Jaden Steppe | F | So | 6'8" | 32-0 | 15.7 | 5.6 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 59.6% | 31.0% | 1.3 | 59.4% | 21.7% | |
| 2 | Howie Keene | G | Fr | 6'7" | 24-0 | 12.7 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 44.0% | 27.1% | 2.0 | 100.0% | 13.3% | |
| 4 | Cavin Holden | G | Jr | 6'2" | 8-8 | 25.9 | 8.4 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 48.4% | 31.0% | 5.3 | 80.0% | 20.8% | |
| 35 | Waka Mbatch | F | So | 6'10" | 11-0 | 12.4 | 4.7 | 3.0 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 58.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 76.2% | 21.9% | |
| 22 | Calum Rutherfurd | F | So | 6'11" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 19.1% | |
| 15 | Grayson Gaddis | F | Fr | 6'7" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 38.9% | 14.3% | 1.4 | 100.0% | 42.2% | |
| 3 | CJ Purdie | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | James Steward | F | Fr | 6'8" | 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.
Cal Poly2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Cal Poly'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Hamad Mousa | G | So | 6'8" | 32-30 | 31.4 | 20.4 | 6.3 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 53.9% | 37.2% | 7.1 | 87.8% | 32.2% | |
| 9 | Peter Bandelj | G | So | 6'4" | 32-32 | 30.8 | 13.0 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 2.4 | 50.8% | 34.7% | 5.2 | 85.2% | 23.5% | |
| 14 | Cayden Ward | G | So | 6'5" | 33-31 | 29.4 | 14.5 | 6.3 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 53.5% | 31.0% | 5.2 | 75.3% | 27.6% | |
| 5 | Guzman Vasilic | G | So | 6'4" | 30-17 | 23.2 | 7.6 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 54.2% | 37.1% | 5.0 | 77.8% | 17.4% | |
| 3 | Jake Davis | G | Jr | 6'4" | 32-18 | 21.1 | 5.4 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 41.8% | 26.0% | 3.3 | 72.5% | 18.1% | |
| 11 | Austin Goode | F | Fr | 6'7" | 32-16 | 16.3 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 51.4% | 30.9% | 2.5 | 73.7% | 18.1% | |
| 7 | Ali Assran | F | Fr | 6'9" | 31-5 | 12.7 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 46.6% | 21.4% | 0.9 | 59.6% | 19.5% | |
| 13 | Troy Plumtree | F | Fr | 6'6" | 30-2 | 12.2 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 57.5% | 22.6% | 1.0 | 66.7% | 22.4% | |
| 4 | Kieran Elliott | G | Jr | 6'6" | 18-10 | 16.9 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 54.8% | 35.0% | 1.1 | 82.6% | 14.5% | |
| 8 | Jackson Mosley | PG | Jr | 5'10" | 17-0 | 12.5 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 47.6% | 29.2% | 2.8 | 70.8% | 24.7% | |
| 21 | Luka Tarlac | G | Sr | 6'7" | 12-3 | 15.1 | 3.0 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 46.7% | 18.2% | 0.9 | 53.3% | 16.3% | |
| 15 | Aaron Price Jr. | PF | Sr | 6'8" | 21-1 | 6.1 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 59.1% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 17.0% | |
| 1 | Jess Esso Essis | G | Fr | 6'10" | 7-0 | 17.4 | 8.6 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 61.9% | 41.4% | 4.1 | 88.9% | 25.5% | |
| 0 | Jason Scott | G | Fr | 6'4" | 8-0 | 5.6 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 50.0% | 57.1% | 0.9 | 62.5% | 23.5% | |
| 22 | Eric Brown | F | Jr | 6'8" | 5-0 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 21.1% | |
| 2 | Braden Freeman | F | Fr | 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 2025-26Cal Poly
Against the spread
Season
17-13-1
Home
7-4-1
Road
9-8
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +5.5
Covered 2 straightCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-13-1
Home
6-6
Road
11-5-1
Last 10
5-4-1
avg vs total +0.3
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | UC San Diego | N | L 69–72 | +4.5 | W+1.5 | 163.0 | U141 | 94.2 | 98.3 | 73.2 |
| Mar 7 | Bakersfield | H | W 108–76 | −9.0 | W+23.0 | 173.0 | O184 | 131.0 | 92.2 | 82.5 |
| Mar 5 | UC Irvine | A | L 85–107 | +9.5 | L−12.5 | 160.5 | O192 | 108.1 | 136.1 | 78.6 |
| Feb 28 | UC San Diego | A | L 64–80 | +7.5 | L−8.5 | 164.0 | U144 | 91.2 | 114.0 | 70.2 |
| Feb 26 | Long Beach St | H | W 102–92 | −5.5 | W+4.5 | 161.5 | O194 | 127.1 | 114.6 | 80.3 |
| Feb 19 | Hawai'i | A | W 86–75 | +11.0 | W+22.0 | 161.0 | P161 | 104.3 | 91.0 | 82.4 |
| Feb 14 | Santa Barbara | H | W 89–79 | +4.5 | W+14.5 | 159.0 | O168 | 133.5 | 118.5 | 66.7 |
| Feb 12 | UC Irvine | H | W 79–73 | +5.5 | W+11.5 | 161.0 | U152 | 99.2 | 91.7 | 79.6 |
| Feb 7 | UC Davis | A | L 58–67 | +6.0 | L−3.0 | 169.0 | U125 | 83.6 | 96.6 | 69.4 |
| Feb 5 | CSU Northridge | H | L 96–97 | +2.5 | W+1.5 | 178.5 | O193 | 120.5 | 121.7 | 79.7 |
Montana St
Against the spread
Season
16-12-1
Home
7-4
Road
9-7-1
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +1.4
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
16-13
Home
6-5
Road
9-8
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.1
Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8 | Idaho | N | L 74–78 | −1.0 | L−5.0 | 143.0 | O152 | 109.8 | 115.7 | 67.4 |
| Mar 2 | N Arizona | A | W 76–65 | −6.0 | W+5.0 | 143.5 | U141 | 124.6 | 106.6 | 61.0 |
| Feb 28 | Sacramento St | H | W 82–61 | −7.0 | W+14.0 | 158.5 | U143 | 123.5 | 91.9 | 66.4 |
| Feb 26 | Portland St | H | W 84–69 | −1.5 | W+13.5 | 140.5 | O153 | 119.3 | 98.0 | 70.4 |
| Feb 21 | Idaho St | A | L 76–91 | −2.5 | L−17.5 | 144.5 | O167 | 104.9 | 125.6 | 72.5 |
| Feb 19 | Weber St | A | L 79–82 OT | +1.0 | L−2.0 | 148.0 | O161 | 108.5 | 112.7 | 72.8 |
| Feb 14 | Montana | A | W 82–71 | +2.0 | W+13.0 | 146.0 | O153 | 124.2 | 107.5 | 66.0 |
| Feb 7 | E Washington | H | L 71–72 | −5.0 | L−6.0 | 148.0 | U143 | 109.5 | 111.0 | 64.9 |
| Feb 5 | Idaho | H | W 73–66 | −2.5 | W+4.5 | 147.0 | U139 | 100.3 | 90.7 | 72.8 |
| Jan 31 | Portland St | A | L 54–63 | +4.0 | L−5.0 | 139.0 | U117 | 87.9 | 102.5 | 61.4 |
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 homeCal PolyMontana St
Efficiency
108.0
109.7
111.4
107.5
72.8
67.4
—
—
Shooting
51.5%
53.6%
53.7%
53.1%
33.0%
36.1%
78.5%
74.0%
34.9%
30.2%
Ball control & glass
19.9%
14.7%
16.2%
15.7%
30.0%
27.0%
29.6%
28.2%
9.5%
7.9%
11.4%
7.5%
Style
52.6%
44.7%
38.5%
37.6%
16.1%
12.1%
49.6%
39.9%
32.1%
29.5%
Roster
2.06
3.18
6'5.6"
6'5.5"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputCal Poly
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Cal Poly'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.)
Montana St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Montana 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 last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Dec 16 | 2025-26 | Montana St 83 – 80 Cal Poly |
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.