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-conferenceNeutral siteHard Rock Hotel Riviera Maya, Cancun, MexicoCancun Challenge - Mayan Division
North Dakota
Efficiency #291
2025-26: 18-17 · 12-7 conf
vs
Detroit Mercy
Efficiency #224
2025-26: 17-15 · 14-9 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · 3:00 PM ET
75.0
win 41%
Projected
77.7
win 59%
No line posted yet.
Model: DETM −2.8 · total 152.7 · 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: Detroit Mercy 69.2, North Dakota 68.3 → 69.2 possessions
+2.0
Detroit Mercy offense vs North Dakota defense
+2.6
North Dakota offense vs Detroit Mercy defense
−0.1
Projected total
152.7
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Detroit Mercy offense vs North Dakota defense
+2.6
North Dakota offense vs Detroit Mercy defense
+0.1
Detroit Mercy by 2.8
2.8
North Dakota side ◂▸ Detroit Mercy side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +2.7 against +2.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Detroit Mercy.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Detroit Mercy is the faster team (69.7, #103 of 365) and North Dakota the slower (69.2, #134). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
152.7
model
Projected team totals
75.0 / 77.7
North Dakota / Detroit Mercy
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#181
North Dakota
69.2#106
Detroit Mercy
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageNorth Dakota
Where North Dakota scores: ball control
North Dakota turns it over on 14.1% of possessions (#27); Detroit Mercy forces turnovers on 14.4% of opponent possessions (#324). Expect about 13.7%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.8 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageDetroit Mercy
Where Detroit Mercy scores: shooting
Detroit Mercy shoots an effective 49.5% (#267); North Dakota allows 56.5% (#353). Expect about 52.9%, 1.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (North Dakota'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 North Dakota at about 42.4% of its shots from three, Detroit Mercy about 34.7%.
GlassDetroit Mercy
Detroit Mercy owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.4% is worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions for Detroit Mercy's offense.
ClashDetroit Mercy
Style clash: 3-point volume
Detroit Mercy rarely shoots threes (30.7% of its shots); North Dakota lets opponents take 42.9% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 34.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashNorth Dakota
Style clash: ball movement
North Dakota creates off the dribble (assists on 42.4% of its baskets); Detroit Mercy allows assists on 58.3% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 49.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
North Dakota has the ball
OffenseDetroit Mercy allowsvs D1 avg
49.4% #272
52.2% #223
-0.9 pt/100
14.1% #27
14.4% #324
+3.8 pt/100
27.4% #284
30.8% #193
-1.2 pt/100
37.8% #106
37.6% #254
+0.4 pt/100
69.5% #283
—
-0.3 pt/100
North Dakota net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.9 pts/100
Detroit Mercy has the ball
OffenseNorth Dakota allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #267
56.5% #353
+2.3 pt/100
16.0% #143
19.4% #37
-1.5 pt/100
33.3% #81
32.4% #276
+1.8 pt/100
32.6% #247
43.8% #344
+0.5 pt/100
78.9% #4
—
+0.6 pt/100
Detroit Mercy net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersNorth Dakotaoffense vsDetroit Mercydefense
Share of shots by zone
North Dakota shoots
43.6
3.5
12.6
40.3
Detroit Mercy allows
41.5
5.1
11.5
41.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.7%#307 | 59.0%#191 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.7%#202 | 46.4%#325 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 32.7%#334 | 34.4%#59 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.7%#246 | 33.3%#140 | 33.7% |
Detroit Mercyoffense vsNorth Dakotadefense
Share of shots by zone
Detroit Mercy shoots
33.5
7.0
29.5
30.1
North Dakota allows
43.6
4.1
9.6
42.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.2%#294 | 61.7%#294 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.7%#157 | 35.3%#65 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.4%#96 | 40.3%#253 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.1%#108 | 37.1%#345 | 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 numbersNorth Dakota
+0.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#152 of 365
Off reb %
27.4%
#284
Def reb %
67.6%
#276
Turnover %
14.1%
#27
Forced TO %
19.4%
#37
FT rate
37.8%
#106
FT allowed
43.8%
#344
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.0
Defensive rebounding−0.6
Ball security+1.8
Forcing turnovers+1.8
Foul shots drawn+0.7
Foul shots allowed−2.2
Detroit Mercy
−1.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#254 of 365
Off reb %
33.3%
#81
Def reb %
69.2%
#193
Turnover %
16.0%
#143
Forced TO %
14.4%
#324
FT rate
32.6%
#247
FT allowed
37.6%
#254
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.9
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security+0.5
Forcing turnovers−1.6
Foul shots drawn−0.6
Foul shots allowed−0.6
North Dakota has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.7 (#152 of 365) to Detroit Mercy’s −1.4 (#254).
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
North Dakota2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted North Dakota'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Eli King | G | Sr | 6'3" | 35-35 | 31.7 | 11.9 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 48.2% | 30.5% | 4.3 | 71.2% | 22.4% | |
| 3 | Greyson Uelmen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 35-34 | 27.8 | 16.8 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 54.9% | 33.9% | 3.3 | 80.6% | 33.8% | |
| 16 | Garrett Anderson | G | Sr | 6'6" | 32-31 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 4.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 45.7% | 34.0% | 4.9 | 74.5% | 23.5% | |
| 1 | Zach Kraft | G | So | 6'3" | 34-25 | 24.6 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 60.3% | 39.9% | 5.4 | 80.0% | 16.3% | |
| 13 | George Natsvlishvili | F | So | 6'10" | 34-14 | 19.2 | 8.0 | 4.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 52.3% | 20.0% | 0.1 | 57.0% | 25.5% | |
| 9 | Anthony Smith III | G | Fr | 6'1" | 34-0 | 17.7 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 49.8% | 23.4% | 1.4 | 83.8% | 26.8% | |
| 22 | Josh Jones | C | Jr | 6'9" | 29-21 | 17.9 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 47.1% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 40.9% | 13.2% | |
| 0 | Marley Curtis | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-8 | 16.7 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 42.4% | 30.7% | 2.5 | 65.6% | 24.4% | |
| 11 | Reggie Thomas | G | Sr | 6'1" | 31-5 | 14.0 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 56.0% | 39.3% | 1.8 | 64.3% | 17.7% | |
| 23 | Wylee Delorme | G | So | 6'5" | 20-0 | 8.1 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 51.6% | 29.4% | 0.8 | 45.5% | 14.4% | |
| 5 | Matthew Bothun | F | So | 6'9" | 19-0 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.3 | 62.5% | 23.2% | |
| 4 | Karson Ouse | F | Fr | 6'7" | 13-0 | 6.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 15.0% | 12.5% | 0.6 | 75.0% | 10.9% | |
| 33 | Anthony Doppler | G | So | 6'4" | 11-1 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 31.3% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 17.8% | |
| 15 | Ryan Erikson | F | So | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 30.0% | 16.7% | 0.7 | 80.0% | 25.8% | |
| 10 | Micah Curtis | F | Fr | 6'8" | 3-1 | 12.0 | 8.3 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 57.9% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 75.0% | 30.2% | |
| — | Anaiyah Fletcher | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Fatima Ibrahim | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Jayla Owen | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Jocelyn Schiller | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Kiera Pemberton | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Kiyah Hurst | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Mataeya Mathern | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Mikayla Aumer | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Miranda VanderWal | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Nevaeh Ferrara Horne | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Paris Bass | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Rakiyah Beal | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Skyler Volmer | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Sydney Piekny | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Walker Demers | NA | — | — | 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.
Detroit Mercy2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Detroit Mercy'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Orlando Lovejoy | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.0 | 15.8 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 45.1% | 14.8% | 0.9 | 89.2% | 31.3% | |
| 33 | TJ Nadeau | G | So | 6'5" | 31-31 | 26.5 | 13.8 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 60.9% | 46.7% | 4.8 | 86.3% | 25.2% | |
| 1 | Tyler Spratt | G | Fr | 6'5" | 32-28 | 24.8 | 9.9 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 52.2% | 38.5% | 4.5 | 78.1% | 22.6% | |
| 23 | Legend Geeter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 29-25 | 25.6 | 8.3 | 6.4 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 51.1% | 29.4% | 1.2 | 69.0% | 20.5% | |
| 11 | Lance Stone | G | Fr | 5'8" | 32-1 | 20.8 | 6.8 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 41.0% | 33.0% | 3.1 | 87.3% | 22.9% | |
| 30 | Ryan Kalambay | F | So | 6'9" | 31-18 | 20.6 | 4.2 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 57.5% | — | 0.0 | 71.4% | 11.5% | |
| 20 | London Maiden | F | Jr | 6'8" | 31-9 | 15.5 | 6.3 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 54.5% | — | 0.0 | 64.3% | 24.5% | |
| 10 | Nate Johnson | G | So | 6'7" | 26-4 | 10.3 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 34.2% | 16.7% | 0.9 | 58.1% | 22.2% | |
| 13 | Jared Lary | G | Sr | 6'6" | 26-0 | 9.7 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 35.7% | 24.0% | 1.0 | 73.3% | 21.5% | |
| 4 | Keshawn Fisher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 20-1 | 11.4 | 5.5 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 49.0% | 27.5% | 2.0 | 82.4% | 31.0% | |
| 2 | Je'kel Cotton | G | Fr | 6'6" | 27-0 | 7.4 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 44.4% | 29.3% | 1.5 | 50.0% | 20.5% | |
| 7 | Ayden Carter | G | Jr | 6'5" | 9-5 | 20.6 | 12.2 | 4.3 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 57.7% | 22.2% | 2.0 | 76.9% | 32.5% | |
| 6 | Xavier Istomin-Monroe | C | Fr | 7'1" | 19-7 | 8.3 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 55.2% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 16.5% | |
| 25 | Zak Abdalla | G | Fr | 6'2" | 3-0 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 75.0% | 100.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 21.9% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
North Dakota2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted North Dakota'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Eli King | G | Sr | 6'3" | 35-35 | 31.7 | 11.9 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 48.2% | 30.5% | 4.3 | 71.2% | 22.4% | |
| 3 | Greyson Uelmen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 35-34 | 27.8 | 16.8 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 54.9% | 33.9% | 3.3 | 80.6% | 33.8% | |
| 16 | Garrett Anderson | G | Sr | 6'6" | 32-31 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 4.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 45.7% | 34.0% | 4.9 | 74.5% | 23.5% | |
| 1 | Zach Kraft | G | So | 6'3" | 34-25 | 24.6 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 60.3% | 39.9% | 5.4 | 80.0% | 16.3% | |
| 13 | George Natsvlishvili | F | So | 6'10" | 34-14 | 19.2 | 8.0 | 4.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 52.3% | 20.0% | 0.1 | 57.0% | 25.5% | |
| 9 | Anthony Smith III | G | Fr | 6'1" | 34-0 | 17.7 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 49.8% | 23.4% | 1.4 | 83.8% | 26.8% | |
| 22 | Josh Jones | C | Jr | 6'9" | 29-21 | 17.9 | 2.8 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 47.1% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 40.9% | 13.2% | |
| 0 | Marley Curtis | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-8 | 16.7 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 42.4% | 30.7% | 2.5 | 65.6% | 24.4% | |
| 11 | Reggie Thomas | G | Sr | 6'1" | 31-5 | 14.0 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 56.0% | 39.3% | 1.8 | 64.3% | 17.7% | |
| 23 | Wylee Delorme | G | So | 6'5" | 20-0 | 8.1 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 51.6% | 29.4% | 0.8 | 45.5% | 14.4% | |
| 5 | Matthew Bothun | F | So | 6'9" | 19-0 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.3 | 62.5% | 23.2% | |
| 4 | Karson Ouse | F | Fr | 6'7" | 13-0 | 6.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 15.0% | 12.5% | 0.6 | 75.0% | 10.9% | |
| 33 | Anthony Doppler | G | So | 6'4" | 11-1 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 31.3% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 17.8% | |
| 15 | Ryan Erikson | F | So | 6'10" | 9-0 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 30.0% | 16.7% | 0.7 | 80.0% | 25.8% | |
| 10 | Micah Curtis | F | Fr | 6'8" | 3-1 | 12.0 | 8.3 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 57.9% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 75.0% | 30.2% | |
| — | Anaiyah Fletcher | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Fatima Ibrahim | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Jayla Owen | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Jocelyn Schiller | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Kiera Pemberton | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Kiyah Hurst | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Mataeya Mathern | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Mikayla Aumer | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Miranda VanderWal | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Nevaeh Ferrara Horne | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Paris Bass | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Rakiyah Beal | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Skyler Volmer | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Sydney Piekny | NA | — | — | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| — | Walker Demers | NA | — | — | 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 2025-26North Dakota
Against the spread
Season
20-11-1
Home
7-6
Road
10-4-1
Last 10
6-3-1
avg cover −1.1
Covered 3 straightCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
14-17-1
Home
7-6
Road
7-7-1
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −1.4
Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8 | N Dakota St | N | L 62–70 | +11.0 | W+3.0 | 148.0 | U132 | 96.0 | 108.4 | 64.6 |
| Mar 7 | St Thomas | N | W 67–66 | +11.5 | W+12.5 | 153.5 | U133 | 104.0 | 102.4 | 64.4 |
| Mar 6 | Denver | N | W 83–67 | +3.5 | W+19.5 | 161.0 | U150 | 121.9 | 98.4 | 68.1 |
| Feb 28 | N Dakota St | A | L 63–96 | +12.0 | L−21.0 | 152.5 | O159 | 86.1 | 131.1 | 73.2 |
| Feb 21 | S Dakota St | A | L 83–91 | +8.0 | P0.0 | 151.5 | O174 | 126.2 | 138.3 | 65.8 |
| Feb 19 | Kansas City | H | W 85–70 | −9.5 | W+5.5 | 150.5 | O155 | 110.2 | 90.7 | 77.1 |
| Feb 14 | N Dakota St | H | L 66–83 | +5.5 | L−11.5 | 150.5 | U149 | 101.9 | 128.1 | 64.8 |
| Feb 11 | South Dakota | A | W 72–71 | +1.5 | W+2.5 | 156.5 | U143 | 107.7 | 106.2 | 66.8 |
| Feb 7 | Denver | H | L 79–98 | −3.5 | L−22.5 | 161.0 | O177 | 117.7 | 146.0 | 67.1 |
| Feb 5 | Omaha | H | W 76–73 | −2.0 | W+1.0 | 150.0 | U149 | 111.4 | 107.0 | 68.3 |
Detroit Mercy
Against the spread
Season
21-9
Home
8-4
Road
11-5
Last 10
8-2
avg cover +6.7
Covered 4 straightCovered 6 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-16
Home
7-5
Road
7-9
Last 10
2-8
avg vs total −3.0
Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | Wright St | N | L 63–66 | +5.0 | W+2.0 | 153.5 | U129 | 92.4 | 96.8 | 68.2 |
| Mar 9 | Robert Morris | N | W 70–64 | +4.0 | W+10.0 | 146.5 | U134 | 111.1 | 101.5 | 63.0 |
| Mar 4 | Milwaukee | H | W 84–63 | −1.0 | W+20.0 | 151.5 | U147 | 124.9 | 93.7 | 67.2 |
| Feb 28 | Oakland | A | W 95–89 | +8.0 | W+14.0 | 161.5 | O184 | 131.7 | 123.4 | 72.1 |
| Feb 25 | Robert Morris | A | L 62–73 | +8.0 | L−3.0 | 150.5 | U135 | 97.5 | 114.8 | 63.6 |
| Feb 22 | Green Bay | H | W 74–70 | −1.0 | W+3.0 | 147.5 | U144 | 107.2 | 101.4 | 69.0 |
| Feb 20 | Milwaukee | H | W 91–86 | +1.0 | W+6.0 | 153.0 | O177 | 129.7 | 122.5 | 70.2 |
| Feb 15 | Youngstown St | H | W 76–70 | +3.0 | W+9.0 | 150.5 | U146 | 106.3 | 97.9 | 71.5 |
| Feb 12 | Wright St | A | W 77–74 | +11.5 | W+14.5 | 153.0 | U151 | 116.4 | 111.9 | 66.2 |
| Feb 7 | Green Bay | A | L 63–76 | +4.0 | L−9.0 | 148.0 | U139 | 94.7 | 114.3 | 66.5 |
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 homeNorth DakotaDetroit Mercy
Efficiency
106.2
107.9
112.9
110.6
68.3
69.2
—
—
Shooting
49.4%
49.5%
49.7%
48.1%
32.7%
35.1%
69.5%
78.9%
37.8%
32.6%
Ball control & glass
14.1%
16.0%
19.4%
14.4%
27.4%
33.3%
32.4%
30.8%
7.3%
8.9%
8.3%
7.9%
Style
40.6%
30.7%
43.6%
41.3%
10.3%
14.9%
42.4%
48.5%
34.0%
35.6%
Roster
2.47
2.40
6'4.7"
6'5.2"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputNorth Dakota
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted North Dakota'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.)
Detroit Mercy
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Detroit Mercy'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.