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-conferenceLionTree Arena, San Diego, CA
Texas Southern
Efficiency #321
2025-26: 12-18 · 10-9 conf
@
UC San Diego
Efficiency #121
2025-26: 23-11 · 13-9 conf
Mon, Nov 16 · 10:00 PM ET
67.0
win 15%
Projected
79.1
win 85%
No line posted yet.
Model: UCSD −12.1 · total 146.1 · 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: UC San Diego 68.2, Texas Southern 69.2 → 69.1 possessions
+1.8
UC San Diego offense vs Texas Southern defense
+2.1
Texas Southern offense vs UC San Diego defense
−6.0
Projected total
146.1
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
UC San Diego offense vs Texas Southern defense
+2.1
Texas Southern offense vs UC San Diego defense
+6.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
UC San Diego by 12.1
12.1
Texas Southern side ◂▸ UC San Diego 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 UC San Diego.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Texas Southern is the faster team (70.6, #72 of 365) and UC San Diego the slower (69.7, #102). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
146.1
model
Projected team totals
67.0 / 79.1
Texas Southern / UC San Diego
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.2#104
Texas Southern
68.2#190
UC San Diego
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageTexas Southern
Where Texas Southern struggles: shooting
Texas Southern shoots an effective 49.7% (#251); UC San Diego allows 48.4% (#45). Expect about 48.9%, 2.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.3 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Track meet
UC San Diego averages 69.7 possessions per 40, Texas Southern 70.6. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (UC San Diego'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 Texas Southern at about 36.7% of its shots from three, UC San Diego about 44.1%.
AdvantageUC San Diego
Where UC San Diego scores: shooting
UC San Diego shoots an effective 52.6% (#124); Texas Southern allows 52.5% (#240). Expect about 52.7%, 1.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions.
GlassTexas Southern
Texas Southern gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.6% is worth roughly -1.7 points per 100 possessions against Texas Southern's offense.
GlassUC San Diego
UC San Diego gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.7% is worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions against UC San Diego's offense.
Texas Southern has the ball
OffenseUC San Diego allowsvs D1 avg
49.7% #251
48.4% #45
-3.3 pt/100
18.5% #299
16.8% #168
-1.3 pt/100
28.8% #237
27.0% #38
-1.7 pt/100
38.2% #96
29.3% #48
-0.2 pt/100
71.9% #211
—
-0.0 pt/100
Texas Southern net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.6 pts/100
UC San Diego has the ball
OffenseTexas Southern allowsvs D1 avg
52.6% #124
52.5% #240
+2.0 pt/100
16.5% #164
16.5% #187
+0.4 pt/100
26.1% #320
31.2% #211
-1.6 pt/100
31.2% #277
44.0% #345
+0.4 pt/100
69.3% #290
—
-0.3 pt/100
UC San Diego 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 numbersTexas Southernoffense vsUC San Diegodefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas Southern shoots
43.1
6.9
18.7
31.3
UC San Diego allows
36.3
5.4
14.2
44.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.0%#196 | 54.6%#53 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.4%#135 | 35.1%#59 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.1%#260 | 39.5%#218 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.1%#224 | 31.5%#45 | 33.7% |
UC San Diegooffense vsTexas Southerndefense
Share of shots by zone
UC San Diego shoots
42.6
6.6
8.4
42.4
Texas Southern allows
37.5
4.8
14.7
43.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.3%#112 | 58.7%#175 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 42.6%#110 | 43.7%#261 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.1%#183 | 39.5%#222 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.8%#241 | 34.1%#190 | 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 numbersTexas Southern
−3.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#314 of 365
Off reb %
28.8%
#237
Def reb %
68.8%
#211
Turnover %
18.5%
#299
Forced TO %
16.5%
#187
FT rate
38.2%
#96
FT allowed
44.0%
#345
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.5
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security−1.2
Forcing turnovers−0.2
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed−2.3
UC San Diego
+0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#159 of 365
Off reb %
26.1%
#320
Def reb %
73.0%
#38
Turnover %
16.5%
#164
Forced TO %
16.8%
#168
FT rate
31.2%
#277
FT allowed
29.3%
#48
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.4
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers+0.1
Foul shots drawn−1.0
Foul shots allowed+1.5
UC San Diego has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.6 (#159 of 365) to Texas Southern’s −3.5 (#314).
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
Texas Southern2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas Southern'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Zaire Hayes | G | Sr | 6'2" | 28-27 | 27.3 | 9.6 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 51.1% | 37.1% | 3.8 | 84.9% | 20.9% | |
| 2 | Troy Hupstead | F | Sr | 6'7" | 25-24 | 29.5 | 14.6 | 9.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 54.1% | 30.5% | 2.4 | 68.5% | 27.4% | |
| 6 | Bryce Roberts | G | Sr | 6'1" | 25-24 | 29.5 | 11.3 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 51.8% | 36.8% | 5.8 | 82.9% | 22.2% | |
| 8 | Alex Anderson | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-7 | 23.5 | 9.8 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 52.4% | 20.0% | 0.5 | 71.9% | 23.6% | |
| 5 | Jaylen Wysinger | G | Sr | 6'0" | 28-14 | 22.5 | 9.8 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 48.7% | 34.0% | 3.7 | 80.3% | 28.1% | |
| 12 | Zytarious Mortle | G | Sr | 6'2" | 28-9 | 19.5 | 8.0 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 45.3% | 25.0% | 2.4 | 68.3% | 28.4% | |
| 23 | Duane Posey | G | Sr | 6'7" | 26-7 | 20.5 | 8.7 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 51.3% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 75.9% | 23.9% | |
| 34 | Jordan Gorecki | C | Sr | 6'10" | 26-18 | 17.3 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 58.5% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 9.4% | |
| 8 | Anthony Andrews | F | Fr | 6'7" | 25-5 | 13.5 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 44.1% | 37.5% | 0.6 | 60.0% | 15.0% | |
| 35 | Josh Akpovwa | F | Jr | 6'9" | 24-9 | 8.7 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 46.2% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 51.7% | 18.7% | |
| 9 | Ahmed Nedal Abdelrahman | G | Fr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 12.7 | 3.8 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 54.2% | 34.6% | 2.2 | 53.8% | 16.6% | |
| 3 | Oumar Koureissi | F | Sr | 6'11" | 8-2 | 17.5 | 4.9 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 35.7% | 0.0% | 1.1 | 60.0% | 23.9% | |
| 11 | Cameron Patterson | G | Fr | 6'5" | 8-1 | 16.5 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 60.6% | 50.0% | 0.8 | 83.3% | 24.4% | |
| 14 | Kolby Granger | G | Sr | 6'5" | 4-3 | 14.3 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 31.3% | 20.0% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 16.4% | |
| 24 | Jordan Hamilton | G | Sr | 6'6" | 2-0 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 32.2% | |
| 4 | Josh Farmer | F | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 32 | Kehlin Farooq | 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.
UC San Diego2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted UC San Diego'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Tom Beattie | G | Jr | 6'5" | 34-34 | 31.2 | 10.6 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 53.6% | 32.1% | 3.9 | 57.5% | 20.5% | |
| 8 | Leo Beath | F | Jr | 6'8" | 34-33 | 30.1 | 12.2 | 5.1 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 50.0% | 32.9% | 4.4 | 74.0% | 24.5% | |
| 10 | Alex Chaikin | G | So | 6'5" | 34-17 | 25.0 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 54.3% | 39.2% | 5.7 | 80.3% | 22.1% | |
| 7 | Bol Dengdit | F | Jr | 6'11" | 34-34 | 23.4 | 10.7 | 5.2 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 52.7% | 29.4% | 2.5 | 64.3% | 28.3% | |
| 0 | Hudson Mayes | G | Fr | 6'5" | 33-12 | 23.9 | 11.1 | 5.7 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 56.8% | 35.5% | 0.9 | 79.8% | 24.4% | |
| 20 | Aidan Burke | G | Jr | 6'3" | 34-17 | 21.7 | 6.2 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 54.4% | 31.9% | 3.4 | 75.0% | 16.4% | |
| 5 | Emanuel Prospere II | G | Sr | 6'5" | 28-22 | 22.1 | 8.0 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 51.4% | 20.6% | 1.2 | 60.9% | 24.7% | |
| 13 | Jaden Vance | F | Fr | 6'6" | 24-0 | 13.5 | 5.0 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 52.1% | 36.1% | 1.5 | 74.1% | 23.6% | |
| 23 | Trap Johnson | G | Fr | 6'6" | 24-0 | 9.2 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 48.1% | 30.6% | 1.5 | 66.7% | 17.6% | |
| 33 | Dimitrije Vukicevic | C | Fr | 7'0" | 25-0 | 7.2 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 50.0% | 23.0% | |
| 4 | Cade Pendleton | F | Jr | 6'10" | 19-1 | 7.7 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 41.3% | 27.0% | 1.9 | 66.7% | 18.7% | |
| 1 | Ryder Elisaldez | G | So | 6'3" | 10-0 | 4.3 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 62.5% | 50.0% | 0.2 | 100.0% | 10.1% | |
| 2 | Christopher Cox | G | Fr | 6'8" | 5-0 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.4 | 0.0% | 31.0% | |
| 22 | Yaqub Mir | G | So | 6'2" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 59.8% | |
| 11 | Jasen Brooks | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Tyson Dunn | G | Sr | 6'3" | 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.
Texas Southern2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas Southern'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Zaire Hayes | G | Sr | 6'2" | 28-27 | 27.3 | 9.6 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 51.1% | 37.1% | 3.8 | 84.9% | 20.9% | |
| 2 | Troy Hupstead | F | Sr | 6'7" | 25-24 | 29.5 | 14.6 | 9.3 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 54.1% | 30.5% | 2.4 | 68.5% | 27.4% | |
| 6 | Bryce Roberts | G | Sr | 6'1" | 25-24 | 29.5 | 11.3 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 51.8% | 36.8% | 5.8 | 82.9% | 22.2% | |
| 8 | Alex Anderson | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-7 | 23.5 | 9.8 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 52.4% | 20.0% | 0.5 | 71.9% | 23.6% | |
| 5 | Jaylen Wysinger | G | Sr | 6'0" | 28-14 | 22.5 | 9.8 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 48.7% | 34.0% | 3.7 | 80.3% | 28.1% | |
| 12 | Zytarious Mortle | G | Sr | 6'2" | 28-9 | 19.5 | 8.0 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 45.3% | 25.0% | 2.4 | 68.3% | 28.4% | |
| 23 | Duane Posey | G | Sr | 6'7" | 26-7 | 20.5 | 8.7 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 51.3% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 75.9% | 23.9% | |
| 34 | Jordan Gorecki | C | Sr | 6'10" | 26-18 | 17.3 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 58.5% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 9.4% | |
| 8 | Anthony Andrews | F | Fr | 6'7" | 25-5 | 13.5 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 44.1% | 37.5% | 0.6 | 60.0% | 15.0% | |
| 35 | Josh Akpovwa | F | Jr | 6'9" | 24-9 | 8.7 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 46.2% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 51.7% | 18.7% | |
| 9 | Ahmed Nedal Abdelrahman | G | Fr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 12.7 | 3.8 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 54.2% | 34.6% | 2.2 | 53.8% | 16.6% | |
| 3 | Oumar Koureissi | F | Sr | 6'11" | 8-2 | 17.5 | 4.9 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 35.7% | 0.0% | 1.1 | 60.0% | 23.9% | |
| 11 | Cameron Patterson | G | Fr | 6'5" | 8-1 | 16.5 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 60.6% | 50.0% | 0.8 | 83.3% | 24.4% | |
| 14 | Kolby Granger | G | Sr | 6'5" | 4-3 | 14.3 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 31.3% | 20.0% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 16.4% | |
| 24 | Jordan Hamilton | G | Sr | 6'6" | 2-0 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 32.2% | |
| 4 | Josh Farmer | F | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 32 | Kehlin Farooq | 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 2025-26Texas Southern
Against the spread
Season
9-19
Home
6-6
Road
3-12
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-14
Home
6-6
Road
7-8
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −0.8
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Alabama A&M | N | L 74–85 OT | +1.5 | L−9.5 | 142.5 | O159 | 97.1 | 111.5 | 76.2 |
| Mar 5 | Prairie View | H | L 59–70 | −1.5 | L−12.5 | 153.0 | U129 | 88.0 | 104.4 | 67.0 |
| Feb 28 | Jackson St | H | W 82–57 | −6.0 | W+19.0 | 152.0 | U139 | 115.5 | 80.3 | 71.0 |
| Feb 26 | Alcorn St | H | W 92–87 OT | −6.5 | L−1.5 | 145.0 | O179 | 115.6 | 109.3 | 79.6 |
| Feb 21 | Miss Valley St | A | L 71–72 | −11.5 | L−12.5 | 143.5 | U143 | 103.8 | 105.3 | 68.4 |
| Feb 19 | AR-Pine Bluff | A | W 83–64 | +1.0 | W+20.0 | 152.5 | U147 | 121.5 | 93.7 | 68.3 |
| Feb 16 | Southern | H | W 74–73 | +5.0 | W+6.0 | 152.0 | U147 | 101.6 | 100.2 | 72.8 |
| Feb 14 | Grambling | H | W 82–79 | −1.0 | W+2.0 | 140.0 | O161 | 116.5 | 112.3 | 70.4 |
| Feb 9 | Bethune | A | L 69–79 OT | +8.5 | L−1.5 | 152.0 | U148 | 93.0 | 106.5 | 74.2 |
| Feb 7 | Florida A&M | A | W 62–57 | +1.5 | W+6.5 | 146.5 | U119 | 97.1 | 89.3 | 63.9 |
UC San Diego
Against the spread
Season
16-16
Home
5-8
Road
7-6
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.2
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
12-20
Home
5-8
Road
3-10
Last 10
1-9
avg vs total −11.8
Under 5 straightOver in 1 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | CSU Northridge | N | L 70–80 | −2.0 | L−12.0 | 153.5 | U150 | 96.4 | 110.2 | 72.6 |
| Mar 11 | Cal Poly | N | W 72–69 | −4.5 | L−1.5 | 163.0 | U141 | 98.3 | 94.2 | 73.2 |
| Mar 7 | Santa Barbara | A | W 64–63 | +2.0 | W+3.0 | 142.0 | U127 | 102.5 | 100.9 | 62.4 |
| Mar 5 | Fullerton | A | L 71–75 | −3.0 | L−7.0 | 157.0 | U146 | 101.6 | 107.4 | 69.8 |
| Feb 28 | Cal Poly | H | W 80–64 | −7.5 | W+8.5 | 164.0 | U144 | 114.0 | 91.2 | 70.2 |
| Feb 26 | Bakersfield | H | W 84–72 | −14.5 | L−2.5 | 149.0 | O156 | 117.6 | 100.8 | 71.4 |
| Feb 21 | UC Irvine | A | W 71–69 | +4.5 | W+6.5 | 143.5 | U140 | 112.2 | 109.0 | 63.3 |
| Feb 14 | UC Riverside | H | W 72–66 | −11.0 | L−5.0 | 147.5 | U138 | 101.3 | 92.9 | 71.0 |
| Feb 12 | UC Davis | H | W 68–51 | −6.0 | W+11.0 | 150.5 | U119 | 96.7 | 72.5 | 70.3 |
| Feb 7 | Hawai'i | A | L 67–72 | +6.5 | W+1.5 | 148.5 | U139 | 90.3 | 97.0 | 74.2 |
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 homeTexas SouthernUC San Diego
Efficiency
103.4
107.3
112.7
104.8
69.2
68.2
—
—
Shooting
49.7%
52.6%
49.8%
55.0%
33.1%
32.8%
71.9%
69.3%
38.2%
31.2%
Ball control & glass
18.5%
16.5%
16.5%
16.8%
28.8%
26.1%
31.2%
27.0%
10.6%
8.7%
7.7%
10.2%
Style
32.5%
42.3%
44.5%
47.7%
17.7%
15.9%
43.2%
55.5%
37.5%
30.4%
Roster
3.66
2.51
6'4.7"
6'6.3"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputTexas Southern
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Texas Southern'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.)
UC San Diego
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted UC San Diego'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 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.