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-conferenceDee Events Center, Ogden, UT
CSU Northridge
Efficiency #196
2025-26: 20-14 · 13-9 conf
@
Weber St
Efficiency #203
2025-26: 16-16 · 10-9 conf
Wed, Nov 25 · 6:00 PM ET
78.9
win 36%
Projected
82.9
win 64%
No line posted yet.
Model: WEB −4.0 · total 161.7 · 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: Weber St 69.1, CSU Northridge 72.4 → 73.2 possessions
+10.5
Weber St offense vs CSU Northridge defense
+1.4
CSU Northridge offense vs Weber St defense
+1.6
Projected total
161.7
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Weber St offense vs CSU Northridge defense
+1.4
CSU Northridge offense vs Weber St defense
−1.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.2
Weber St by 4.0
4.0
CSU Northridge side ◂▸ Weber St 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 Weber St.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 73.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, CSU Northridge is the faster team (75.3, #3 of 365) and Weber St the slower (69.9, #99). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
73.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
161.7
model
Projected team totals
78.9 / 82.9
CSU Northridge / Weber St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
72.4#3
CSU Northridge
69.1#111
Weber St
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Track meet
Weber St averages 69.9 possessions per 40, CSU Northridge 75.3. 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 74 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageCSU Northridge
Where CSU Northridge scores: shooting
CSU Northridge shoots an effective 51.3% (#183); Weber St allows 54.5% (#316). Expect about 52.9%, 1.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions.
ClashCSU Northridge
Style match: paint scoring
CSU Northridge scores 50.4% of its points in the paint; Weber St gives up 46.5% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 45.9% — both habits push the same way.
ClashWeber St
Style clash: paint scoring
Weber St scores 48.0% of its points in the paint; CSU Northridge protects the paint (35.7% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 41.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
ClashWeber St
Style clash: ball movement
Weber St creates off the dribble (assists on 45.9% of its baskets); CSU Northridge allows assists on 57.9% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 51.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
ClashWeber St
Style clash: 3-point volume
Weber St rarely shoots threes (32.8% of its shots); CSU Northridge lets opponents take 48.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
CSU Northridge has the ball
OffenseWeber St allowsvs D1 avg
51.3% #183
54.5% #316
+2.3 pt/100
17.5% #239
16.3% #202
-0.1 pt/100
31.9% #130
27.7% #56
-0.2 pt/100
34.2% #200
36.4% #224
+0.1 pt/100
66.8% #345
—
-0.5 pt/100
CSU Northridge net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.6 pts/100
Weber St has the ball
OffenseCSU Northridge allowsvs D1 avg
51.7% #163
51.6% #191
+0.6 pt/100
15.7% #117
16.4% #191
+1.0 pt/100
31.8% #132
26.6% #26
-0.5 pt/100
39.2% #76
34.3% #162
+0.2 pt/100
72.9% #170
—
+0.0 pt/100
Weber St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersCSU Northridgeoffense vsWeber Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
CSU Northridge shoots
48.7
6.0
12.0
33.3
Weber St allows
40.7
7.2
13.6
38.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.0%#194 | 65.1%#353 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 32.7%#319 | 40.5%#199 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.9%#62 | 40.1%#246 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.4%#260 | 33.5%#160 | 33.7% |
Weber Stoffense vsCSU Northridgedefense
Share of shots by zone
Weber St shoots
50.0
5.1
12.2
32.7
CSU Northridge allows
33.0
4.9
13.1
49.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.4%#257 | 58.4%#162 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.7%#310 | 37.4%#122 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.5%#324 | 40.2%#248 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.5%#143 | 34.4%#210 | 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 numbersCSU Northridge
+1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#133 of 365
Off reb %
31.9%
#130
Def reb %
73.4%
#26
Turnover %
17.5%
#239
Forced TO %
16.4%
#191
FT rate
34.2%
#200
FT allowed
34.3%
#162
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.5
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security−0.5
Forcing turnovers−0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Weber St
+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#72 of 365
Off reb %
31.8%
#132
Def reb %
72.3%
#56
Turnover %
15.7%
#117
Forced TO %
16.3%
#202
FT rate
39.2%
#76
FT allowed
36.4%
#224
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.5
Defensive rebounding+0.9
Ball security+0.7
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn+1.1
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Weber St has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#72 of 365) to CSU Northridge’s +1.1 (#133).
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
CSU Northridge2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Josiah Davis | G | Sr | 6'3" | 34-34 | 33.4 | 15.9 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 4.7 | 46.6% | 16.7% | 1.1 | 70.0% | 31.7% | |
| 2 | Larry Hughes II | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 31.6 | 17.7 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 53.3% | 39.5% | 7.8 | 86.0% | 28.0% | |
| 11 | Mahmoud Fofana | F | Sr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 29.5 | 11.0 | 7.9 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 63.2% | 20.0% | 0.1 | 60.5% | 17.4% | |
| 23 | Jordan Brinson | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-1 | 18.3 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 34.9% | 1.9 | 85.0% | 10.9% | |
| 1 | Davius Loury | F | So | 6'7" | 33-22 | 16.9 | 4.9 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 42.4% | 29.4% | 3.1 | 64.7% | 19.6% | |
| 5 | James Evans Jr. | G | Fr | 6'6" | 34-10 | 15.2 | 6.0 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 44.6% | 33.0% | 2.6 | 58.8% | 25.1% | |
| 21 | Grady Lewis | F | Sr | 6'9" | 31-2 | 9.8 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 65.5% | — | 0.0 | 38.9% | 19.6% | |
| 15 | Jai Chisolm | G | Jr | 6'3" | 33-1 | 8.8 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 42.9% | 20.3% | 1.9 | 60.0% | 22.3% | |
| 13 | Aleks Szymczyk | C | Jr | 6'10" | 26-0 | 8.2 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 53.7% | 18.2% | 0.4 | 58.1% | 19.4% | |
| 24 | Greg Gazarian | G | Fr | 6'0" | 9-0 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 31.3% | |
| 20 | Robert Thibiant | G | Sr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 31.8% | 14.3% | 0.9 | — | 39.3% | |
| 6 | Joseph Barrio | G | Jr | 6'1" | 5-0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 5.7% | |
| 3 | Jalen Barbee | G | Sr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Max Rehl | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Omer Dahan | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Quinton Webb | G | Jr | 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.
Weber St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Weber 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Tijan Saine Jr. | G | Jr | 5'10" | 32-32 | 32.6 | 17.5 | 2.3 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 52.2% | 34.7% | 4.5 | 89.6% | 28.5% | |
| 7 | Malek Gomma | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 25.1 | 8.0 | 6.9 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 54.2% | 40.0% | 0.2 | 47.0% | 19.5% | |
| 8 | Viljami Vartiainen | G | Jr | 6'6" | 26-23 | 30.0 | 12.8 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 61.8% | 42.2% | 6.9 | 78.4% | 20.6% | |
| 5 | Nigel Burris | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-12 | 23.2 | 10.3 | 4.9 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 57.6% | 35.0% | 1.9 | 84.6% | 22.9% | |
| 0 | Edwin Suarez Jr. | F | Jr | 6'6" | 31-20 | 21.6 | 9.2 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 51.8% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 57.6% | 28.0% | |
| 6 | Trevor Hennig | G | So | 6'4" | 26-7 | 24.3 | 10.0 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 52.2% | 30.0% | 2.3 | 65.4% | 24.9% | |
| 24 | Jace Whiting | G | Jr | 6'3" | 20-18 | 30.8 | 11.2 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 51.3% | 36.2% | 3.5 | 82.4% | 21.0% | |
| 12 | ArDarius Grayson | G | Fr | 6'1" | 31-0 | 13.0 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 38.0% | 24.4% | 1.5 | 77.8% | 22.6% | |
| 9 | Duce Paschal | G | Fr | 6'5" | 31-16 | 12.7 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 40.3% | 23.9% | 1.5 | 70.4% | 21.4% | |
| 15 | Declan Cutler | F | So | 6'9" | 27-0 | 7.1 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 63.0% | — | 0.0 | 54.5% | 11.8% | |
| 33 | David Hansen | F | Fr | 6'9" | 23-0 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 53.7% | 37.8% | 1.6 | 100.0% | 20.1% | |
| 11 | Brady Smith | G | Jr | 6'0" | 7-0 | 3.6 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 36.4% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 28.8% | |
| 4 | Anthony Moore | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Tyler Christensen | G | Jr | 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.
CSU Northridge2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Josiah Davis | G | Sr | 6'3" | 34-34 | 33.4 | 15.9 | 4.6 | 7.4 | 4.7 | 46.6% | 16.7% | 1.1 | 70.0% | 31.7% | |
| 2 | Larry Hughes II | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 31.6 | 17.7 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 53.3% | 39.5% | 7.8 | 86.0% | 28.0% | |
| 11 | Mahmoud Fofana | F | Sr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 29.5 | 11.0 | 7.9 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 63.2% | 20.0% | 0.1 | 60.5% | 17.4% | |
| 23 | Jordan Brinson | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-1 | 18.3 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 34.9% | 1.9 | 85.0% | 10.9% | |
| 1 | Davius Loury | F | So | 6'7" | 33-22 | 16.9 | 4.9 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 42.4% | 29.4% | 3.1 | 64.7% | 19.6% | |
| 5 | James Evans Jr. | G | Fr | 6'6" | 34-10 | 15.2 | 6.0 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 44.6% | 33.0% | 2.6 | 58.8% | 25.1% | |
| 21 | Grady Lewis | F | Sr | 6'9" | 31-2 | 9.8 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 65.5% | — | 0.0 | 38.9% | 19.6% | |
| 15 | Jai Chisolm | G | Jr | 6'3" | 33-1 | 8.8 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 42.9% | 20.3% | 1.9 | 60.0% | 22.3% | |
| 13 | Aleks Szymczyk | C | Jr | 6'10" | 26-0 | 8.2 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 53.7% | 18.2% | 0.4 | 58.1% | 19.4% | |
| 24 | Greg Gazarian | G | Fr | 6'0" | 9-0 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 31.3% | |
| 20 | Robert Thibiant | G | Sr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 31.8% | 14.3% | 0.9 | — | 39.3% | |
| 6 | Joseph Barrio | G | Jr | 6'1" | 5-0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 5.7% | |
| 3 | Jalen Barbee | G | Sr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Max Rehl | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Omer Dahan | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Quinton Webb | G | Jr | 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 2025-26CSU Northridge
Against the spread
Season
15-17
Home
9-4
Road
5-10
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
19-13
Home
7-6
Road
11-4
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +0.9
Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13 | UC Irvine | N | L 78–93 | +4.0 | L−11.0 | 153.0 | O171 | 110.4 | 131.7 | 70.6 |
| Mar 12 | UC San Diego | N | W 80–70 | +2.0 | W+12.0 | 153.5 | U150 | 110.2 | 96.4 | 72.6 |
| Mar 7 | Fullerton | H | L 77–90 | −6.0 | L−19.0 | 170.5 | U167 | 93.1 | 108.9 | 82.7 |
| Mar 5 | Bakersfield | A | W 86–84 | −8.0 | L−6.0 | 165.0 | O170 | 108.2 | 105.7 | 79.5 |
| Feb 28 | UC Riverside | A | L 84–95 | −5.5 | L−16.5 | 158.0 | O179 | 105.8 | 119.6 | 79.4 |
| Feb 26 | UC Irvine | H | L 67–68 | −1.0 | L−2.0 | 154.0 | U135 | 91.7 | 93.0 | 73.1 |
| Feb 21 | Long Beach St | A | W 78–76 | −3.5 | L−1.5 | 157.5 | U154 | 108.7 | 105.9 | 71.8 |
| Feb 19 | Santa Barbara | A | W 85–83 OT | +5.5 | W+7.5 | 156.5 | O168 | 102.1 | 99.7 | 83.2 |
| Feb 14 | Hawai'i | H | W 84–60 | +3.0 | W+27.0 | 163.0 | U144 | 117.1 | 83.6 | 71.7 |
| Feb 7 | UC Riverside | H | W 88–74 | −10.5 | W+3.5 | 159.5 | O162 | 120.9 | 101.6 | 72.8 |
Weber St
Against the spread
Season
16-14
Home
8-6
Road
8-7
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-13-2
Home
8-4-2
Road
6-9
Last 10
6-3-1
avg vs total +3.8
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | E Washington | N | L 79–84 | +3.5 | L−1.5 | 154.5 | O163 | 113.9 | 121.1 | 69.3 |
| Mar 2 | Portland St | A | L 60–84 | +5.0 | L−19.0 | 144.5 | U144 | 87.0 | 121.8 | 68.9 |
| Feb 28 | Idaho St | A | W 83–73 | +2.0 | W+12.0 | 153.0 | O156 | 122.0 | 107.3 | 68.1 |
| Feb 21 | Montana | H | W 92–72 | −2.5 | W+17.5 | 152.0 | O164 | 136.2 | 106.6 | 67.5 |
| Feb 19 | Montana St | H | W 82–79 OT | −1.0 | W+2.0 | 148.0 | O161 | 112.7 | 108.5 | 72.8 |
| Feb 14 | E Washington | A | L 66–84 | +3.0 | L−15.0 | 155.0 | U150 | 96.1 | 122.3 | 68.7 |
| Feb 12 | Idaho | A | W 83–72 | +5.5 | W+16.5 | 154.0 | O155 | 129.1 | 112.0 | 64.3 |
| Feb 7 | N Arizona | H | W 72–53 | −7.0 | W+12.0 | 151.0 | U125 | 122.6 | 90.3 | 58.7 |
| Feb 5 | N Colorado | H | L 74–88 | +1.5 | L−12.5 | 162.0 | P162 | 109.5 | 130.2 | 67.6 |
| Feb 2 | Sacramento St | A | L 90–104 | +1.5 | L−12.5 | 162.5 | O194 | 115.3 | 133.3 | 78.0 |
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 homeCSU NorthridgeWeber St
Efficiency
107.8
110.0
108.9
111.3
72.4
69.1
—
—
Shooting
51.3%
51.7%
52.6%
51.6%
32.4%
34.5%
66.8%
72.9%
34.2%
39.2%
Ball control & glass
17.5%
15.7%
16.4%
16.3%
31.9%
31.8%
26.6%
27.7%
10.7%
9.0%
10.1%
11.0%
Style
33.6%
32.8%
50.4%
48.0%
14.8%
15.3%
56.6%
45.9%
26.5%
31.6%
Roster
3.43
2.70
6'4.8"
6'4.3"
83.8%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputCSU Northridge
Returning minutes: 83.8%Returning production: 81.4%
Lost
- Joshua O'Garro 32.5 mpg, 14.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Max Rehl no D1 minutes last season
- Jalen Barbee no D1 minutes last season
- Omer Dahan no D1 minutes last season
- Quinton Webb no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 84% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. 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).
Weber St
Returning minutes: 99.5%Returning production: 99.1%
ESPN hasn't posted Weber St's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 99% 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.