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-conferenceMcCamish Pavilion, Atlanta, GA
Samford
Efficiency #202
2025-26: 18-14 · 11-8 conf
@
Georgia Tech
Efficiency #201
2025-26: 11-20 · 2-16 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · TBD
74.3
win 36%
Projected
78.4
win 64%
No line posted yet.
Model: GT −4.1 · total 152.6 · 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: Georgia Tech 70.6, Samford 68.3 → 70.6 possessions
+5.0
Georgia Tech offense vs Samford defense
−0.3
Samford offense vs Georgia Tech defense
−0.3
Projected total
152.6
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Georgia Tech offense vs Samford defense
−0.3
Samford offense vs Georgia Tech defense
+0.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Georgia Tech by 4.1
4.1
Samford side ◂▸ Georgia Tech 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 Georgia Tech.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Georgia Tech is the faster team (71.6, #30 of 365) and Samford the slower (68.4, #176). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
152.6
model
Projected team totals
74.3 / 78.4
Samford / Georgia Tech
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#182
Samford
70.6#23
Georgia Tech
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageSamford
Where Samford scores: ball control
Samford turns it over on 13.4% of possessions (#11); Georgia Tech forces turnovers on 15.6% of opponent possessions (#245). Expect about 14.1%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.
ClashSamford
Style match: 3-point volume
Samford takes 45.7% of its shots from three; Georgia Tech lets opponents take 44.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.6% — both habits push the same way.
ClashGeorgia Tech
Style match: 3-point volume
Georgia Tech rarely shoots threes (33.2% of its shots); Samford runs teams off the line (35.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 32.1% — both habits push the same way.
GlassSamford
Samford gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.9% is worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions against Samford's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Samford's defense) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect Samford at about 47.6% of its shots from three, Georgia Tech about 32.1%.
AdvantageGeorgia Tech
Where Georgia Tech scores: ball control
Georgia Tech turns it over on 18.6% of possessions (#306); Samford forces turnovers on 13.0% of opponent possessions (#354). Expect about 15.4%, 1.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions.
Samford has the ball
OffenseGeorgia Tech allowsvs D1 avg
53.1% #101
49.9% #94
+0.5 pt/100
13.4% #11
15.6% #245
+3.3 pt/100
25.3% #333
30.7% #189
-2.1 pt/100
41.9% #32
34.2% #156
+0.4 pt/100
69.2% #293
—
-0.3 pt/100
Samford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.8 pts/100
Georgia Tech has the ball
OffenseSamford allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #234
51.9% #206
-0.6 pt/100
18.6% #306
13.0% #354
+1.7 pt/100
29.9% #203
25.7% #17
-1.6 pt/100
33.3% #229
32.9% #128
-0.3 pt/100
71.1% #235
—
-0.1 pt/100
Georgia Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersSamfordoffense vsGeorgia Techdefense
Share of shots by zone
Samford shoots
35.0
4.3
14.4
46.3
Georgia Tech allows
33.7
5.6
16.9
43.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.5%#63 | 56.8%#108 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 27.5%#359 | 38.1%#140 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.4%#136 | 37.1%#133 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#84 | 33.1%#134 | 33.7% |
Georgia Techoffense vsSamforddefense
Share of shots by zone
Georgia Tech shoots
40.1
6.8
20.3
32.8
Samford allows
34.3
9.2
21.2
35.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#237 | 57.1%#114 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.3%#312 | 37.5%#124 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.6%#270 | 42.7%#325 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.1%#109 | 36.5%#326 | 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 numbersSamford
+2.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#94 of 365
Off reb %
25.3%
#333
Def reb %
74.3%
#17
Turnover %
13.4%
#11
Forced TO %
13.0%
#354
FT rate
41.9%
#32
FT allowed
32.9%
#128
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.6
Defensive rebounding+1.6
Ball security+2.3
Forcing turnovers−2.5
Foul shots drawn+1.8
Foul shots allowed+0.6
Georgia Tech
−2.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#280 of 365
Off reb %
29.9%
#203
Def reb %
69.3%
#189
Turnover %
18.6%
#306
Forced TO %
15.6%
#245
FT rate
33.3%
#229
FT allowed
34.2%
#156
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding0.0
Ball security−1.3
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn−0.4
Foul shots allowed+0.3
Samford has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.1 (#94 of 365) to Georgia Tech’s −2.4 (#280).
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
Samford2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Jadin Booth | G | Sr | 6'2" | 30-30 | 36.5 | 21.6 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 60.3% | 43.6% | 9.7 | 86.9% | 29.2% | |
| 5 | Cade Norris | G | So | 6'4" | 32-31 | 30.7 | 8.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 56.2% | 40.4% | 3.4 | 76.3% | 15.7% | |
| 3 | Keaton Norris | G | Sr | 6'0" | 28-28 | 32.9 | 10.0 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 47.4% | 31.1% | 4.7 | 83.6% | 20.0% | |
| 0 | Isaiah Campbell-Finch | G | Fr | 6'0" | 29-19 | 23.4 | 7.4 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 49.5% | 32.1% | 2.9 | 51.6% | 20.0% | |
| 10 | Kam Martin | G | So | 6'4" | 32-8 | 16.6 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 32.6% | 2.8 | 85.1% | 19.6% | |
| 8 | Zion Wilburn | G | So | 6'5" | 30-5 | 17.0 | 4.6 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 45.5% | 29.6% | 1.8 | 60.7% | 19.6% | |
| 22 | Jaxon Pollard | F | Sr | 6'7" | 25-8 | 13.0 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 37.4% | 19.6% | 2.0 | 60.0% | 19.4% | |
| 35 | Will Shaver | C | So | 6'10" | 30-0 | 9.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 50.8% | 33.3% | 0.4 | 59.3% | 22.0% | |
| 4 | Judson Bjornstad | F | So | 6'8" | 24-1 | 8.8 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 41.3% | 28.6% | 0.9 | 72.7% | 17.1% | |
| 23 | Caleb Harrison | F | Fr | 6'9" | 12-0 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 15.1% | |
| 33 | Zach Lamey | G | So | 6'3" | 5-0 | 8.2 | 4.6 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 68.8% | 46.2% | 2.6 | 50.0% | 26.5% | |
| 21 | Corey Brown | G | So | 6'4" | 5-0 | 6.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 100.0% | 10.1% | |
| 11 | Cooper Davenport | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | DaJion Humphrey | G | Sr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | JD Gossett | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 31 | Joshua Hughes | F | Sr | 6'5" | 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.
Georgia Tech2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Nasir Whitlockat Lehigh | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-35 | 35.0 | 20.5 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 54.2% | 43.3% | 5.1 | 78.8% | 34.4% | |
| 0 | Colby Garlandat San José St | G | Sr | 6'1" | 29-27 | 35.1 | 20.3 | 3.3 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 53.0% | 37.2% | 3.2 | 84.8% | 33.3% | |
| 12 | Kam Craft | G | Sr | 6'6" | 29-14 | 21.3 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 49.5% | 36.4% | 4.4 | 76.5% | 20.3% | |
| 8 | Cole Kirouac | C | So | 7'0" | 23-0 | 11.5 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 63.3% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Courtland Muldrewat Washington | G | So | 6'3" | 18-1 | 14.1 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 45.8% | 21.1% | 1.1 | 55.0% | 17.9% | |
| 7 | Jackson Fieldsat West Virginia | F | Sr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 14.2 | 4.3 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 57.1% | 25.0% | 0.9 | 70.0% | 17.7% | |
| 14 | Jackson McVeyat Georgia | C | So | 7'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Tylis Jordanat Ole Miss | F | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 35 | Cody Cross | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Haiden Harper | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Ilja Kurucs | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Kaiden Bailey | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Kayden Allen | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Moustapha Diop | F | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Vctor Valds | F | Sr | 6'7" | 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: Jackson Fields (from West Virginia), Colby Garland (from San José St), Tylis Jordan (from Ole Miss), Jackson McVey (from Georgia), Courtland Muldrew (from Washington), Nasir Whitlock (from Lehigh)
Samford2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Jadin Booth | G | Sr | 6'2" | 30-30 | 36.5 | 21.6 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 60.3% | 43.6% | 9.7 | 86.9% | 29.2% | |
| 5 | Cade Norris | G | So | 6'4" | 32-31 | 30.7 | 8.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 56.2% | 40.4% | 3.4 | 76.3% | 15.7% | |
| 3 | Keaton Norris | G | Sr | 6'0" | 28-28 | 32.9 | 10.0 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 47.4% | 31.1% | 4.7 | 83.6% | 20.0% | |
| 0 | Isaiah Campbell-Finch | G | Fr | 6'0" | 29-19 | 23.4 | 7.4 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 49.5% | 32.1% | 2.9 | 51.6% | 20.0% | |
| 10 | Kam Martin | G | So | 6'4" | 32-8 | 16.6 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 32.6% | 2.8 | 85.1% | 19.6% | |
| 8 | Zion Wilburn | G | So | 6'5" | 30-5 | 17.0 | 4.6 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 45.5% | 29.6% | 1.8 | 60.7% | 19.6% | |
| 22 | Jaxon Pollard | F | Sr | 6'7" | 25-8 | 13.0 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 37.4% | 19.6% | 2.0 | 60.0% | 19.4% | |
| 35 | Will Shaver | C | So | 6'10" | 30-0 | 9.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 50.8% | 33.3% | 0.4 | 59.3% | 22.0% | |
| 4 | Judson Bjornstad | F | So | 6'8" | 24-1 | 8.8 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 41.3% | 28.6% | 0.9 | 72.7% | 17.1% | |
| 23 | Caleb Harrison | F | Fr | 6'9" | 12-0 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 15.1% | |
| 33 | Zach Lamey | G | So | 6'3" | 5-0 | 8.2 | 4.6 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 68.8% | 46.2% | 2.6 | 50.0% | 26.5% | |
| 21 | Corey Brown | G | So | 6'4" | 5-0 | 6.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 100.0% | 10.1% | |
| 11 | Cooper Davenport | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | DaJion Humphrey | G | Sr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | JD Gossett | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 31 | Joshua Hughes | F | Sr | 6'5" | 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 2025-26Samford
Against the spread
Season
14-14-2
Home
7-5
Road
6-7-2
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +5.0
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
18-10-2
Home
5-5-2
Road
12-3
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +3.7
Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Furman | N | L 81–86 | −1.5 | L−6.5 | 145.5 | O167 | 117.4 | 124.6 | 69.0 |
| Feb 28 | UNC Greensboro | H | W 87–78 | −9.5 | L−0.5 | 157.0 | O165 | 119.8 | 107.4 | 72.6 |
| Feb 26 | VMI | H | W 80–61 | −17.0 | W+2.0 | 156.0 | U141 | 122.0 | 93.0 | 65.6 |
| Feb 21 | Mercer | A | L 86–89 | +3.5 | W+0.5 | 156.5 | O175 | 122.2 | 126.4 | 70.4 |
| Feb 19 | The Citadel | A | W 78–75 | −10.5 | L−7.5 | 144.0 | O153 | 110.0 | 105.8 | 70.9 |
| Feb 14 | ETSU | A | W 82–72 OT | +6.0 | W+16.0 | 145.5 | O154 | 109.0 | 95.7 | 75.2 |
| Feb 11 | Wofford | H | W 97–80 | −6.0 | W+11.0 | 151.0 | O177 | 133.0 | 109.7 | 72.9 |
| Feb 7 | Mercer | H | W 69–49 | +2.0 | W+22.0 | 161.0 | U118 | 104.9 | 74.5 | 65.8 |
| Feb 5 | The Citadel | H | W 78–64 | −13.5 | W+0.5 | 146.0 | U142 | 120.5 | 98.9 | 64.7 |
| Feb 1 | W Carolina | A | W 88–74 | −1.5 | W+12.5 | 154.5 | O162 | 121.5 | 102.2 | 72.4 |
Georgia Tech
Against the spread
Season
13-18
Home
5-14
Road
8-2
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −4.2
Covered the last gameCovered 3 of 10 as an underdogCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
18-13
Home
10-9
Road
7-3
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +4.0
Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 10 as an underdogOver 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 7 | Clemson | A | L 76–79 | +17.5 | W+14.5 | 144.5 | O155 | 114.9 | 119.4 | 66.2 |
| Mar 4 | California | H | L 65–76 | +2.0 | L−9.0 | 156.0 | U141 | 86.5 | 101.1 | 75.2 |
| Feb 28 | Florida St | H | L 71–80 | +6.0 | L−3.0 | 159.5 | U151 | 109.8 | 123.7 | 64.7 |
| Feb 21 | #21Louisville | A | L 70–87 | +23.5 | W+6.5 | 166.5 | U157 | 95.1 | 118.2 | 73.6 |
| Feb 18 | #14Virginia | H | L 68–94 | +13.5 | L−12.5 | 149.5 | O162 | 86.0 | 118.8 | 79.1 |
| Feb 14 | Notre Dame | A | L 74–89 | +6.0 | L−9.0 | 150.0 | O163 | 107.5 | 129.3 | 68.8 |
| Feb 11 | Wake Forest | H | L 67–83 | +3.5 | L−12.5 | 158.0 | U150 | 102.5 | 127.0 | 65.4 |
| Feb 7 | Stanford | A | L 72–95 | +8.5 | L−14.5 | 151.5 | O167 | 99.2 | 130.9 | 72.6 |
| Feb 4 | California | A | L 85–90 | +8.5 | W+3.5 | 152.0 | O175 | 110.3 | 116.8 | 77.1 |
| Jan 31 | #16North Carolina | H | L 75–91 | +10.0 | L−6.0 | 160.0 | O166 | 104.3 | 126.6 | 71.9 |
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 homeSamfordGeorgia Tech
Efficiency
109.1
106.1
110.4
107.4
68.3
70.6
—
—
Shooting
53.1%
50.0%
52.8%
48.7%
35.6%
35.1%
69.2%
71.1%
41.9%
33.3%
Ball control & glass
13.4%
18.6%
13.0%
15.6%
25.3%
29.9%
25.7%
30.7%
7.6%
11.3%
10.2%
10.8%
Style
45.7%
33.2%
37.7%
45.7%
10.8%
12.2%
55.2%
59.9%
28.1%
31.5%
Roster
2.69
3.70
6'3.3"
6'3.5"
87.9%
14.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputSamford
Returning minutes: 87.9%Returning production: 77.5%
Lost
- Dylan Faulkner 24.5 mpg, 16.1 ppg · transferred to Clemson
Added
- JD Gossett no D1 minutes last season
- Cooper Davenport no D1 minutes last season
- DaJion Humphrey no D1 minutes last season
- Joshua Hughes no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 88% 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).
Georgia Tech
Returning minutes: 14.2%Returning production: 10.3%
Lost
- Kowacie Reeves Jr. 28.3 mpg, 14.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Lamar Washington 26.6 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jaeden Mustaf 26.0 mpg, 9.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Akai Fleming 24.7 mpg, 10.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Baye Ndongo 23.7 mpg, 10.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chas Kelley III 16.1 mpg, 4.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Nasir Whitlock from Lehigh · 35.0 mpg, 20.5 ppg last season
- Colby Garland from San José St · 30.9 mpg, 17.8 ppg last season
- Courtland Muldrew from Washington · 7.7 mpg, 2.0 ppg last season
- Jackson Fields from West Virginia · 3.7 mpg, 1.1 ppg last season
- Haiden Harper no D1 minutes last season
- Vctor Valds no D1 minutes last season
Returns 14% 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 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.