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.
Conference gameKoessler Athletic Center, Buffalo, NY
Mount St Marys
Efficiency #265
2025-26: 15-17 · 11-10 conf
@
Canisius
Efficiency #344
2025-26: 10-21 · 5-15 conf
Sun, Dec 6 · 1:00 PM ET
68.3
win 53%
Projected
67.6
win 47%
No line posted yet.
Model: MSM −0.7 · total 135.9 · 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: Canisius 66.2, Mount St Marys 68.5 → 66.4 possessions
−4.2
Canisius offense vs Mount St Marys defense
−6.4
Mount St Marys offense vs Canisius defense
−1.8
Projected total
135.9
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Canisius offense vs Mount St Marys defense
−6.4
Mount St Marys offense vs Canisius defense
+1.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Mount St Marys by 0.7
0.7
Mount St Marys side ◂▸ Canisius side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 135.8 against a projected 135.9, and the margin steps add to −0.8 against −0.7. 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: 66.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Mount St Marys is the faster team (67.7, #214 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
66.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
135.9
model
Projected team totals
68.3 / 67.6
Mount St Marys / Canisius
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.5#164
Mount St Marys
66.2#336
Canisius
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageCanisius
Where Canisius struggles: shooting
Canisius shoots an effective 46.3% (#348); Mount St Marys allows 47.2% (#23). Expect about 46.3%, 4.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -7.0 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Canisius averages 64.3 possessions per 40, Mount St Marys 67.7. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageMount St Marys
Where Mount St Marys struggles: ball control
Mount St Marys turns it over on 22.4% of possessions (#364); Canisius forces turnovers on 16.0% of opponent possessions (#222). Expect about 19.5%, 2.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.3 points per 100 possessions.
ClashCanisius
Style match: paint scoring
Canisius gets only 39.3% of its points in the paint; Mount St Marys protects the paint (33.2% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 38.7% — both habits push the same way.
Mount St Marys has the ball
OffenseCanisius allowsvs D1 avg
50.6% #208
52.2% #225
+0.1 pt/100
22.4% #364
16.0% #222
-3.3 pt/100
32.3% #115
29.8% #151
+0.6 pt/100
33.3% #230
35.2% #184
-0.1 pt/100
67.4% #337
—
-0.4 pt/100
Mount St Marys net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.1 pts/100
Canisius has the ball
OffenseMount St Marys allowsvs D1 avg
46.3% #348
47.2% #23
-7.0 pt/100
19.6% #341
15.3% #261
-0.9 pt/100
29.3% #226
29.1% #114
-0.8 pt/100
31.4% #271
37.3% #247
-0.0 pt/100
71.9% #212
—
-0.0 pt/100
Canisius net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMount St Marysoffense vsCanisiusdefense
Share of shots by zone
Mount St Marys shoots
42.3
4.1
10.9
42.8
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 | 58.2%#188 | 60.1%#229 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.6%#158 | 39.0%#158 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.2%#359 | 40.7%#266 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.7%#244 | 33.0%#124 | 33.7% |
Canisiusoffense vsMount St Marysdefense
Share of shots by zone
Canisius shoots
36.9
6.5
16.8
39.7
Mount St Marys allows
32.9
3.1
19.0
45.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 47.2%#365 | 49.4%#4 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 50.5%#10 | 38.5%#145 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 34.6%#298 | 38.1%#162 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.3%#213 | 32.3%#81 | 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 numbersMount St Marys
−4.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#343 of 365
Off reb %
32.3%
#115
Def reb %
70.9%
#114
Turnover %
22.4%
#364
Forced TO %
15.3%
#261
FT rate
33.3%
#230
FT allowed
37.3%
#247
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.6
Defensive rebounding+0.5
Ball security−3.8
Forcing turnovers−0.9
Foul shots drawn−0.4
Foul shots allowed−0.5
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
Canisius has more extra scoring chances per game: −3.4 (#313 of 365) to Mount St Marys’s −4.7 (#343).
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
Mount St Marys2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Redd Thompson Jr.at Longwood | G | Jr | 5'11" | 32-1 | 22.1 | 10.3 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 49.2% | 32.9% | 4.6 | 88.0% | 28.9% | |
| 4 | Mason So | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-16 | 18.2 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 51.5% | 35.5% | 2.0 | 78.9% | 17.4% | |
| 9 | Abdou Khadre Kebe | G | Jr | 6'7" | 22-13 | 21.9 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 47.3% | 27.8% | 3.6 | 69.0% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Anthony Arrington Jr. | G | Sr | 6'3" | 22-2 | 19.0 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 37.8% | 21.7% | 2.7 | 50.0% | 28.3% | |
| 1 | Anastasios Rozakeas | G | Jr | 6'8" | 24-8 | 14.4 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 45.7% | 32.9% | 2.9 | 83.3% | 18.4% | |
| 7 | Wilguens Jr. Exacteat Drake | F | Sr | 6'6" | 18-13 | 19.4 | 7.3 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 45.2% | 22.2% | 2.5 | 68.3% | 27.3% | |
| 23 | Yakhya Diop | F | So | 7'0" | 31-0 | 8.8 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 64.7% | 16.1% | |
| 10 | Cade Ornessat Gonzaga | G | So | 6'4" | 8-0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 20.0% | 20.2% | |
| 5 | Noah Rogers | G | Jr | 5'11" | 3-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 10.1% | |
| 6 | Jaxon Hartman | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 16 | Crue Gard | F | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Julien Smith | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Liam Joyce | F | Sr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Miquel Llompart | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Noah Limol | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Ryan Brzezanski | 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.
Transfers in: Wilguens Jr. Exacte (from Drake), Cade Orness (from Gonzaga), Redd Thompson Jr. (from Longwood)
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)
Mount St Marys2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Redd Thompson Jr.at Longwood | G | Jr | 5'11" | 32-1 | 22.1 | 10.3 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 49.2% | 32.9% | 4.6 | 88.0% | 28.9% | |
| 4 | Mason So | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-16 | 18.2 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 51.5% | 35.5% | 2.0 | 78.9% | 17.4% | |
| 9 | Abdou Khadre Kebe | G | Jr | 6'7" | 22-13 | 21.9 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 47.3% | 27.8% | 3.6 | 69.0% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Anthony Arrington Jr. | G | Sr | 6'3" | 22-2 | 19.0 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 37.8% | 21.7% | 2.7 | 50.0% | 28.3% | |
| 1 | Anastasios Rozakeas | G | Jr | 6'8" | 24-8 | 14.4 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 45.7% | 32.9% | 2.9 | 83.3% | 18.4% | |
| 7 | Wilguens Jr. Exacteat Drake | F | Sr | 6'6" | 18-13 | 19.4 | 7.3 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 45.2% | 22.2% | 2.5 | 68.3% | 27.3% | |
| 23 | Yakhya Diop | F | So | 7'0" | 31-0 | 8.8 | 1.8 | 2.8 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 64.7% | 16.1% | |
| 10 | Cade Ornessat Gonzaga | G | So | 6'4" | 8-0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 20.0% | 20.2% | |
| 5 | Noah Rogers | G | Jr | 5'11" | 3-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 10.1% | |
| 6 | Jaxon Hartman | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 16 | Crue Gard | F | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Julien Smith | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Liam Joyce | F | Sr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Miquel Llompart | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Noah Limol | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Ryan Brzezanski | 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.
Transfers in: Wilguens Jr. Exacte (from Drake), Cade Orness (from Gonzaga), Redd Thompson Jr. (from Longwood)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Mount St Marys
Against the spread
Season
17-13-1
Home
7-5
Road
10-7-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +3.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
10-21
Home
4-8
Road
6-12
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −6.7
Under 4 straightOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Siena | N | L 58–63 | +3.0 | L−2.0 | 135.0 | U121 | 96.1 | 104.4 | 60.3 |
| Mar 1 | Fairfield | A | W 69–47 | +3.5 | W+25.5 | 146.5 | U116 | 103.2 | 70.3 | 66.8 |
| Feb 27 | Sacred Heart | A | L 69–77 | +2.5 | L−5.5 | 150.5 | U146 | 104.7 | 116.9 | 65.9 |
| Feb 22 | Canisius | H | W 68–47 | −7.5 | W+13.5 | 137.5 | U115 | 108.5 | 75.0 | 62.6 |
| Feb 20 | Niagara | H | W 76–63 | −7.5 | W+5.5 | 131.0 | O139 | 108.6 | 90.1 | 69.9 |
| Feb 13 | Rider | A | W 65–55 | −5.0 | W+5.0 | 138.5 | U120 | 100.1 | 84.7 | 64.9 |
| Feb 7 | Iona | A | W 83–76 | +4.0 | W+11.0 | 141.0 | O159 | 131.1 | 120.0 | 63.3 |
| Feb 5 | Merrimack | H | L 70–87 | +2.0 | L−15.0 | 135.0 | O157 | 98.8 | 122.8 | 70.8 |
| Feb 1 | Manhattan | H | W 72–65 | −6.5 | W+0.5 | 146.5 | U137 | 110.1 | 99.4 | 65.4 |
| Jan 30 | Saint Peter's | A | L 58–66 | +6.0 | L−2.0 | 139.5 | U124 | 94.3 | 107.3 | 61.5 |
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 homeMount St MarysCanisius
Efficiency
102.5
99.6
107.8
111.8
68.5
66.2
—
—
Shooting
50.6%
46.3%
51.8%
44.0%
32.7%
33.3%
67.4%
71.9%
33.3%
31.4%
Ball control & glass
22.4%
19.6%
15.3%
16.0%
32.3%
29.3%
29.1%
29.8%
12.8%
10.5%
8.5%
9.7%
Style
42.6%
39.5%
44.8%
39.3%
12.0%
11.6%
55.2%
55.4%
31.3%
27.8%
Roster
3.33
3.69
6'4.2"
6'4.2"
32.5%
0.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMount St Marys
Returning minutes: 32.5%Returning production: 25.0%
Lost
- Xavier Lipscomb 31.7 mpg, 9.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Arlandus Keyes 27.7 mpg, 11.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Luke McEldon 24.0 mpg, 11.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Trey Deveaux 23.4 mpg, 9.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Amadi 19.8 mpg, 6.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Patrick Haigh 6.5 mpg, 2.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Redd Thompson Jr. from Longwood · 22.1 mpg, 10.3 ppg last season
- Wilguens Jr. Exacte from Drake · 10.3 mpg, 3.9 ppg last season
- Cade Orness from Gonzaga · 0.6 mpg, 0.1 ppg last season
- Liam Joyce no D1 minutes last season
- Crue Gard no D1 minutes last season
- Miquel Llompart no D1 minutes last season
Returns 33% 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).
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sun, Feb 22 | 2025-26 | Canisius 47 – 68 Mount St Marys |
| Sat, Jan 17 | 2025-26 | Mount St Marys 78 – 68 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.