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-conferenceQubein Center, High Point, NC
Southern Utah
Efficiency #293
2025-26: 10-22 · 6-13 conf
@
High Point
Efficiency #50
2025-26: 31-5 · 18-1 conf
Thu, Nov 12 · 7:00 PM ET
72.0
win 8%
Projected
87.9
win 92%
No line posted yet.
Model: HPU −16.0 · total 159.9 · 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: High Point 70.1, Southern Utah 70.3 → 72.0 possessions
+8.0
High Point offense vs Southern Utah defense
+7.8
Southern Utah offense vs High Point defense
−4.1
Projected total
159.9
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
High Point offense vs Southern Utah defense
+7.8
Southern Utah offense vs High Point defense
+4.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
High Point by 16.0
16.0
Southern Utah side ◂▸ High Point 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 High Point.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 72.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, High Point is the faster team (71.2, #45 of 365) and Southern Utah the slower (70.9, #59). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
72.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
159.9
model
Projected team totals
72.0 / 87.9
Southern Utah / High Point
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.3#34
Southern Utah
70.1#43
High Point
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageSouthern Utah
Where Southern Utah struggles: ball control
Southern Utah turns it over on 20.3% of possessions (#352); High Point forces turnovers on 21.3% of opponent possessions (#8). Expect about 21.6%, 4.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -6.0 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageHigh Point
Where High Point scores: ball control
High Point turns it over on 12.8% of possessions (#5); Southern Utah forces turnovers on 14.8% of opponent possessions (#303). Expect about 13.3%, 3.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.3 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseHigh Point
High Point's ball-hawking
High Point ranks #2 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 13.6% of Southern Utah's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
Pace
Track meet
High Point averages 71.2 possessions per 40, Southern Utah 70.9. 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 72 — 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 (Southern Utah'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 Southern Utah at about 37.0% of its shots from three, High Point about 36.4%.
GlassHigh Point
High Point owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 32.9% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for High Point's offense.
Southern Utah has the ball
OffenseHigh Point allowsvs D1 avg
50.7% #200
50.5% #126
-1.0 pt/100
20.3% #352
21.3% #8
-6.0 pt/100
28.8% #239
31.1% #207
-0.5 pt/100
33.1% #235
35.5% #199
-0.1 pt/100
71.5% #221
—
-0.1 pt/100
Southern Utah net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -7.6 pts/100
High Point has the ball
OffenseSouthern Utah allowsvs D1 avg
54.5% #51
53.2% #276
+4.1 pt/100
12.8% #5
14.8% #303
+4.3 pt/100
31.8% #131
33.6% #309
+1.5 pt/100
40.8% #50
29.8% #55
-0.0 pt/100
74.3% #112
—
+0.2 pt/100
High Point net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +10.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersSouthern Utahoffense vsHigh Pointdefense
Share of shots by zone
Southern Utah shoots
41.8
6.9
15.9
35.4
High Point allows
41.2
5.0
13.1
40.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.3%#113 | 57.7%#138 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.1%#219 | 40.5%#198 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.0%#291 | 35.3%#83 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.0%#231 | 32.6%#97 | 33.7% |
High Pointoffense vsSouthern Utahdefense
Share of shots by zone
High Point shoots
44.7
4.2
7.4
43.7
Southern Utah allows
46.3
5.6
19.0
29.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.0%#50 | 57.5%#132 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.8%#308 | 35.1%#60 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.6%#320 | 42.7%#324 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.2%#161 | 38.0%#358 | 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 numbersSouthern Utah
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#333 of 365
Off reb %
28.8%
#239
Def reb %
66.4%
#309
Turnover %
20.3%
#352
Forced TO %
14.8%
#303
FT rate
33.1%
#235
FT allowed
29.8%
#55
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.5
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security−2.4
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−0.5
Foul shots allowed+1.4
High Point
+7.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#4 of 365
Off reb %
31.8%
#131
Def reb %
68.9%
#207
Turnover %
12.8%
#5
Forced TO %
21.3%
#8
FT rate
40.8%
#50
FT allowed
35.5%
#199
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.5
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security+2.7
Forcing turnovers+3.1
Foul shots drawn+1.5
Foul shots allowed−0.1
High Point has more extra scoring chances per game: +7.5 (#4 of 365) to Southern Utah’s −4.2 (#333).
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
Southern Utah2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Southern Utah'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35 | Jaiden Feroah | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 29.9 | 13.5 | 6.7 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 62.3% | 41.5% | 2.9 | 86.5% | 23.3% | |
| 3 | Tanner Hayhurst | G | Jr | 6'6" | 31-26 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 60.9% | 46.1% | 3.7 | 87.7% | 17.2% | |
| 1 | Elijah Duval | G | Fr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 26.4 | 15.3 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 51.2% | 31.9% | 3.0 | 62.6% | 38.0% | |
| 0 | Isaiah Cottrell | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-31 | 25.5 | 8.8 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 44.9% | 20.4% | 1.7 | 70.7% | 22.5% | |
| 20 | Dylan Jones | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-14 | 24.8 | 8.1 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 56.4% | 36.5% | 4.9 | 82.4% | 17.6% | |
| 24 | Cale Barclay | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-8 | 15.5 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 45.3% | 13.2% | 1.2 | 68.5% | 20.3% | |
| 25 | Kai Burdick | C | Sr | 7'0" | 32-9 | 13.7 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 66.7% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 40.0% | 16.1% | |
| 4 | Lorenzo Abellar | G | Sr | 5'10" | 31-4 | 11.5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 36.5% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 78.0% | 19.6% | |
| 9 | Jalen Lee | G | So | 6'7" | 24-3 | 14.3 | 5.5 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 48.2% | 35.2% | 2.3 | 71.0% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Zach Bell | G | Jr | 6'2" | 10-2 | 20.8 | 7.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 44.4% | 21.1% | 1.9 | 77.8% | 26.5% | |
| 2 | Logan Stephens | G | Sr | 6'3" | 20-0 | 9.1 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 38.7% | 24.0% | 1.3 | 74.1% | 34.1% | |
| 13 | Brayden Johnson | G | So | 6'1" | 11-0 | 5.3 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 30.8% | 33.3% | 0.5 | 50.0% | 15.0% | |
| 7 | Zeplin Kidd | G | Fr | 6'7" | 11-0 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 46.2% | 25.0% | 0.7 | 40.0% | 15.7% | |
| 23 | Chuks Isitua | F | So | 6'10" | 7-0 | 5.6 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 28.6% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 14.4% | |
| 10 | Langston Binns | G | Sr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 6.3 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 38.5% | 22.2% | 2.3 | 0.0% | 29.9% | |
| 11 | Juok Riak | F | So | 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.
High Point2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Rob Martin | G | Sr | 5'10" | 35-35 | 27.3 | 16.0 | 2.0 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 48.2% | 30.2% | 4.5 | 83.9% | 32.6% | |
| 8 | Owen Aquino | F | Sr | 6'8" | 36-36 | 26.5 | 9.3 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 57.9% | 44.4% | 1.0 | 65.3% | 19.8% | |
| 9 | Conrad Martinez | G | Jr | 6'0" | 36-1 | 21.8 | 8.8 | 1.4 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 54.0% | 32.8% | 3.3 | 84.4% | 21.8% | |
| 15 | Braden Hausen | F | So | 6'7" | 36-25 | 20.3 | 6.7 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 54.2% | 35.8% | 4.4 | 79.2% | 17.7% | |
| 12 | Scotty Washington | G | Sr | 6'4" | 36-29 | 18.8 | 8.2 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 57.3% | 37.9% | 2.9 | 77.3% | 21.0% | |
| 11 | Cam'Ron Fletcher | F | Sr | 6'7" | 27-11 | 22.2 | 13.2 | 7.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 61.1% | 36.2% | 3.5 | 71.6% | 28.8% | |
| 99 | Chase Johnston | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-11 | 13.8 | 6.6 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 71.2% | 48.6% | 4.4 | 100.0% | 19.3% | |
| 2 | Vincent Brady II | G | Sr | 6'3" | 25-0 | 16.4 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 44.7% | 24.2% | 2.6 | 80.6% | 19.7% | |
| 24 | Youssouf Singare | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-0 | 7.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 68.2% | — | 0.0 | 55.0% | 9.9% | |
| 7 | Caden Miller | F | Fr | 6'9" | 25-0 | 7.4 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 74.4% | — | 0.0 | 28.6% | 18.6% | |
| 4 | Babacar Diallo | G | Sr | 6'6" | 16-0 | 7.9 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 72.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 43.8% | 15.2% | |
| 19 | Josh Ibukunoluwa | F | So | 6'10" | 16-0 | 6.5 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 63.0% | — | 0.0 | 68.8% | 18.1% | |
| 35 | David Fonville | G | So | 6'3" | 11-0 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 16.6% | |
| 14 | Birgir Irving | F | So | 6'7" | 10-0 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 42.9% | 36.4% | |
| 10 | Dorian Grosber | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Kasen Krueger | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 16 | Liam Carney | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Mavrick Miller | G | So | 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.
Southern Utah2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Southern Utah'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35 | Jaiden Feroah | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 29.9 | 13.5 | 6.7 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 62.3% | 41.5% | 2.9 | 86.5% | 23.3% | |
| 3 | Tanner Hayhurst | G | Jr | 6'6" | 31-26 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 60.9% | 46.1% | 3.7 | 87.7% | 17.2% | |
| 1 | Elijah Duval | G | Fr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 26.4 | 15.3 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 51.2% | 31.9% | 3.0 | 62.6% | 38.0% | |
| 0 | Isaiah Cottrell | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-31 | 25.5 | 8.8 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 44.9% | 20.4% | 1.7 | 70.7% | 22.5% | |
| 20 | Dylan Jones | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-14 | 24.8 | 8.1 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 56.4% | 36.5% | 4.9 | 82.4% | 17.6% | |
| 24 | Cale Barclay | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-8 | 15.5 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 45.3% | 13.2% | 1.2 | 68.5% | 20.3% | |
| 25 | Kai Burdick | C | Sr | 7'0" | 32-9 | 13.7 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 66.7% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 40.0% | 16.1% | |
| 4 | Lorenzo Abellar | G | Sr | 5'10" | 31-4 | 11.5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 36.5% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 78.0% | 19.6% | |
| 9 | Jalen Lee | G | So | 6'7" | 24-3 | 14.3 | 5.5 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 48.2% | 35.2% | 2.3 | 71.0% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Zach Bell | G | Jr | 6'2" | 10-2 | 20.8 | 7.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 44.4% | 21.1% | 1.9 | 77.8% | 26.5% | |
| 2 | Logan Stephens | G | Sr | 6'3" | 20-0 | 9.1 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 38.7% | 24.0% | 1.3 | 74.1% | 34.1% | |
| 13 | Brayden Johnson | G | So | 6'1" | 11-0 | 5.3 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 30.8% | 33.3% | 0.5 | 50.0% | 15.0% | |
| 7 | Zeplin Kidd | G | Fr | 6'7" | 11-0 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 46.2% | 25.0% | 0.7 | 40.0% | 15.7% | |
| 23 | Chuks Isitua | F | So | 6'10" | 7-0 | 5.6 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 28.6% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 14.4% | |
| 10 | Langston Binns | G | Sr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 6.3 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 38.5% | 22.2% | 2.3 | 0.0% | 29.9% | |
| 11 | Juok Riak | F | So | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Southern Utah
Against the spread
Season
15-13-1
Home
5-5
Road
9-7-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +3.2
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 6 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-12
Home
6-4
Road
11-6
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +4.0
Under in the last gameOver in 7 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | UT Arlington | N | L 63–69 | +5.0 | L−1.0 | 141.5 | U132 | 88.3 | 96.7 | 71.3 |
| Mar 7 | CA Baptist | H | L 75–82 | +6.5 | L−0.5 | 149.0 | O157 | 107.2 | 117.2 | 69.9 |
| Mar 5 | Utah Valley | H | L 88–92 | +10.0 | W+6.0 | 150.0 | O180 | 123.5 | 129.1 | 71.3 |
| Feb 28 | Utah Tech | H | W 81–67 | +2.0 | W+16.0 | 156.0 | U148 | 122.1 | 101.0 | 66.3 |
| Feb 21 | Abilene Chrstn | A | L 83–87 | +8.0 | W+4.0 | 143.5 | O170 | 110.6 | 115.9 | 75.1 |
| Feb 19 | Tarleton St | A | L 74–78 | +5.0 | W+1.0 | 145.0 | O152 | 110.5 | 116.5 | 67.0 |
| Feb 14 | UT Arlington | A | W 78–73 | +8.5 | W+13.5 | 144.5 | O151 | 111.7 | 104.5 | 69.8 |
| Feb 12 | CA Baptist | H | L 66–83 | +5.5 | L−11.5 | 147.0 | O149 | 97.6 | 122.7 | 67.7 |
| Feb 7 | Tarleton St | H | L 59–62 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 146.5 | U121 | 85.8 | 90.2 | 68.8 |
| Jan 31 | Abilene Chrstn | A | W 79–76 | +6.0 | W+9.0 | 152.0 | O155 | 115.6 | 111.2 | 68.3 |
High Point
Against the spread
Season
17-16
Home
8-7
Road
4-5
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +1.9
Covered 3 straightCovered 3 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 8 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
22-11
Home
8-7
Road
7-2
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +3.4
Over 3 straightOver in 5 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 5 of 8 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21 | #4Arkansas | N | L 88–94 | +12.0 | W+6.0 | 170.5 | O182 | 113.8 | 121.5 | 77.4 |
| Mar 19 | #5Wisconsin | N | W 83–82 | +10.0 | W+11.0 | 161.5 | O165 | 113.7 | 112.3 | 73.0 |
| Mar 8 | Winthrop | N | W 91–76 | −7.0 | W+8.0 | 157.5 | O167 | 116.0 | 96.9 | 78.5 |
| Mar 7 | UNC Asheville | N | W 75–71 | −13.0 | L−9.0 | 147.5 | U146 | 110.5 | 104.6 | 67.9 |
| Mar 6 | Gardner-Webb | N | W 81–59 | −27.5 | L−5.5 | 156.5 | U140 | 115.3 | 84.0 | 70.3 |
| Feb 26 | Presbyterian | A | W 79–73 | −11.5 | L−5.5 | 151.5 | O152 | 115.6 | 106.8 | 68.3 |
| Feb 21 | Winthrop | H | W 89–87 | −9.5 | L−7.5 | 166.5 | O176 | 120.5 | 117.8 | 73.9 |
| Feb 19 | UNC Asheville | H | W 74–48 | −15.0 | W+11.0 | 152.0 | U122 | 115.0 | 74.6 | 64.4 |
| Feb 14 | Gardner-Webb | A | W 112–87 | −25.5 | L−0.5 | 162.0 | O199 | 143.5 | 111.4 | 78.1 |
| Feb 12 | SC Upstate | A | W 95–70 | −14.0 | W+11.0 | 154.5 | O165 | 126.6 | 93.3 | 75.1 |
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 homeSouthern UtahHigh Point
Efficiency
105.5
115.4
112.4
105.8
70.3
70.1
—
—
Shooting
50.7%
54.5%
51.4%
57.0%
33.0%
34.2%
71.5%
74.3%
33.1%
40.8%
Ball control & glass
20.3%
12.8%
14.8%
21.3%
28.8%
31.8%
33.6%
31.1%
12.4%
6.8%
10.2%
10.7%
Style
35.5%
43.6%
48.0%
43.6%
13.2%
18.9%
49.6%
52.8%
32.1%
38.5%
Roster
3.06
3.47
6'6.5"
6'4.2"
—
86.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputSouthern Utah
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Southern Utah'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.)
High Point
Returning minutes: 86.6%Returning production: 82.8%
Lost
- Terry Anderson 26.9 mpg, 16.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Kasen Krueger no D1 minutes last season
- Mavrick Miller no D1 minutes last season
- Dorian Grosber no D1 minutes last season
- Liam Carney no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 87% 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).
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.