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-conferenceNeville Arena, Auburn, AL
Lipscomb
Efficiency #179
2025-26: 19-13 · 12-7 conf
@
Auburn
Efficiency #41
2025-26: 22-16 · 8-12 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · TBD
72.4
win 15%
Projected
84.2
win 85%
No line posted yet.
Model: AUB −11.8 · total 156.6 · 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: Auburn 68.3, Lipscomb 69.7 → 69.7 possessions
+3.1
Auburn offense vs Lipscomb defense
+6.6
Lipscomb offense vs Auburn defense
−1.2
Projected total
156.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Auburn offense vs Lipscomb defense
+6.6
Lipscomb offense vs Auburn defense
+1.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Auburn by 11.8
11.8
Lipscomb side ◂▸ Auburn side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 156.7 against a projected 156.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Auburn.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Lipscomb is the faster team (70.5, #76 of 365) and Auburn the slower (69.0, #146). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
156.6
model
Projected team totals
72.4 / 84.2
Lipscomb / Auburn
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.7#69
Lipscomb
68.3#179
Auburn
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageLipscomb
Where Lipscomb scores: shooting
Lipscomb shoots an effective 54.1% (#67); Auburn allows 53.7% (#291). Expect about 54.1%, 2.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.0 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageAuburn
Where Auburn scores: the offensive glass
Auburn rebounds 37.0% of its own misses (#15); Lipscomb lets opponents grab 30.2% of their own misses (#171). Expect about 35.0%, 4.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
ClashAuburn
Style match: ball movement
Auburn creates off the dribble (assists on 47.6% of its baskets); Lipscomb breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.2% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 45.3% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Auburn'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 Lipscomb at about 46.6% of its shots from three, Auburn about 40.5%.
GlassLipscomb
Lipscomb gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.4% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against Lipscomb's offense.
ClashAuburn
Strength vs strength: free-throw rate
Auburn (#19 in free-throw rate) against Lipscomb (#45 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 35.4%. Historically Lipscomb's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.50 vs 0.61).
Lipscomb has the ball
OffenseAuburn allowsvs D1 avg
54.1% #67
53.7% #291
+4.0 pt/100
16.0% #142
16.3% #199
+0.9 pt/100
25.8% #327
30.9% #196
-1.8 pt/100
26.0% #357
34.3% #161
-0.6 pt/100
74.9% #85
—
+0.2 pt/100
Lipscomb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.7 pts/100
Auburn has the ball
OffenseLipscomb allowsvs D1 avg
53.0% #104
53.2% #273
+2.8 pt/100
14.6% #45
17.7% #112
+0.8 pt/100
37.0% #15
30.2% #171
+2.8 pt/100
43.2% #19
29.0% #45
+0.0 pt/100
74.4% #108
—
+0.2 pt/100
Auburn net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLipscomboffense vsAuburndefense
Share of shots by zone
Lipscomb shoots
39.4
5.7
7.1
47.8
Auburn allows
37.6
5.3
16.9
40.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.2%#114 | 59.6%#213 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.8%#246 | 38.7%#152 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.1%#361 | 38.5%#181 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#75 | 36.7%#336 | 33.7% |
Auburnoffense vsLipscombdefense
Share of shots by zone
Auburn shoots
41.1
4.4
14.2
40.2
Lipscomb allows
36.4
9.7
13.7
40.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.5%#142 | 62.9%#322 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.7%#43 | 43.8%#264 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.1%#142 | 35.8%#102 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.4%#147 | 34.3%#207 | 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 numbersLipscomb
−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#220 of 365
Off reb %
25.8%
#327
Def reb %
69.8%
#171
Turnover %
16.0%
#142
Forced TO %
17.7%
#112
FT rate
26.0%
#357
FT allowed
29.0%
#45
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.5
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+0.5
Forcing turnovers+0.7
Foul shots drawn−2.3
Foul shots allowed+1.6
Auburn
+5.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#15 of 365
Off reb %
37.0%
#15
Def reb %
69.1%
#196
Turnover %
14.6%
#45
Forced TO %
16.3%
#199
FT rate
43.2%
#19
FT allowed
34.3%
#161
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.1
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security+1.5
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn+2.1
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Auburn has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.6 (#15 of 365) to Lipscomb’s −0.8 (#220).
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
Lipscomb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mateo Esmeraldo | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 1.6 | 53.2% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 82.9% | 19.0% | |
| 35 | Grant Asman | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 27.8 | 14.3 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 60.8% | 36.2% | 5.1 | 76.8% | 26.3% | |
| 26 | Titas Sargiunas | F | Jr | 6'4" | 32-20 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 51.8% | 34.0% | 4.4 | 73.3% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Ross Candelino | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-13 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 62.4% | 42.6% | 5.5 | 69.8% | 22.3% | |
| 33 | Charlie Williams | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 21.3 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.2% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 79.2% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Ethan Duncan | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-7 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 55.7% | 36.7% | 5.7 | 92.3% | 26.0% | |
| 6 | Or Ashkenazi | F | Fr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 39.4% | 1.1 | 75.0% | 9.4% | |
| 3 | Kennedy Okpara | F | Fr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 50.4% | 30.2% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 23.3% | |
| 23 | Kellan Boylan | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-0 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 47.0% | 6.3% | 0.5 | 67.3% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Cole Middleton | F | Sr | 6'6" | 29-0 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 26.5% | |
| 12 | Luke Carter | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.2% | 71.4% | 1.0 | — | 23.1% | |
| 2 | Devyn Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Josh Scott | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Logan Suber | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Luke Jack | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Miles White | 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.
Auburn2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Thomas Dowdat Troy | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-33 | 36.1 | 14.4 | 10.1 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 52.6% | 33.3% | 5.7 | 80.0% | 23.3% | |
| 24 | Adam Olsenat South Alabama | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-31 | 36.0 | 16.7 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 52.9% | 39.5% | 8.3 | 84.3% | 26.3% | |
| 0 | Tahaad Pettiford | G | Jr | 6'1" | 38-36 | 32.3 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 46.6% | 29.0% | 6.6 | 82.5% | 31.0% | |
| 1 | Kevin Overton | G | Sr | 6'5" | 38-36 | 31.7 | 14.1 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 57.2% | 41.3% | 6.1 | 86.0% | 22.8% | |
| 4 | Kolby Kingat Utah State | G | Sr | 6'1" | 36-0 | 19.3 | 7.5 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 60.8% | 39.3% | 3.3 | 74.7% | 20.4% | |
| 12 | Bukky Oboyeat Santa Clara | C | Sr | 7'1" | 34-34 | 17.8 | 7.9 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 69.1% | 24.2% | 1.0 | 65.6% | 20.9% | |
| 8 | Owen Freemanat Creighton | F | Sr | 6'10" | 26-9 | 11.8 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 60.2% | — | 0.0 | 64.3% | 23.5% | |
| 21 | Blake Muschalek | G | Sr | 6'3" | 26-0 | 5.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 23.8% | 14.3% | 0.5 | 60.0% | 11.6% | |
| 10 | Simon Walker | G | So | 6'5" | 13-0 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 78.6% | 52.9% | 1.3 | — | 20.9% | |
| 7 | Drake Cardwell | G | Jr | 6'5" | 3-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 13 | Bradley Pearson | G | Jr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | George Kimble IIIat Vanderbilt | G | Sr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jeremiah Bowman | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Joah Shay | G | Jr | 5'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Caleb Williams | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 17 | Mantas Rubstavicius | G | — | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 94 | Narcisse Ngoy | C | — | 7'0" | 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: Thomas Dowd (from Troy), Owen Freeman (from Creighton), George Kimble III (from Vanderbilt), Kolby King (from Utah State), Bukky Oboye (from Santa Clara), Adam Olsen (from South Alabama)
Lipscomb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mateo Esmeraldo | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 1.6 | 53.2% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 82.9% | 19.0% | |
| 35 | Grant Asman | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 27.8 | 14.3 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 60.8% | 36.2% | 5.1 | 76.8% | 26.3% | |
| 26 | Titas Sargiunas | F | Jr | 6'4" | 32-20 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 51.8% | 34.0% | 4.4 | 73.3% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Ross Candelino | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-13 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 62.4% | 42.6% | 5.5 | 69.8% | 22.3% | |
| 33 | Charlie Williams | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 21.3 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.2% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 79.2% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Ethan Duncan | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-7 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 55.7% | 36.7% | 5.7 | 92.3% | 26.0% | |
| 6 | Or Ashkenazi | F | Fr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 39.4% | 1.1 | 75.0% | 9.4% | |
| 3 | Kennedy Okpara | F | Fr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 50.4% | 30.2% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 23.3% | |
| 23 | Kellan Boylan | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-0 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 47.0% | 6.3% | 0.5 | 67.3% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Cole Middleton | F | Sr | 6'6" | 29-0 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 26.5% | |
| 12 | Luke Carter | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.2% | 71.4% | 1.0 | — | 23.1% | |
| 2 | Devyn Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Josh Scott | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Logan Suber | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Luke Jack | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Miles White | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Lipscomb
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
8-4
Road
7-10
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −4.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
16-14
Home
5-7
Road
11-6
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −2.8
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | FGCU | N | L 53–77 | −4.5 | L−28.5 | 150.0 | U130 | 84.1 | 122.2 | 63.0 |
| Feb 28 | E Kentucky | A | W 80–77 | −2.5 | W+0.5 | 159.0 | U157 | 122.3 | 117.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 25 | West Georgia | A | L 78–84 | −5.5 | L−11.5 | 153.0 | O162 | 110.6 | 119.1 | 70.5 |
| Feb 21 | North Alabama | H | W 73–51 | −12.0 | W+10.0 | 149.5 | U124 | 116.8 | 81.6 | 62.5 |
| Feb 18 | Bellarmine | A | W 75–72 | −3.5 | L−0.5 | 155.5 | U147 | 117.2 | 112.5 | 64.0 |
| Feb 14 | Queens | A | L 81–87 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 165.5 | O168 | 103.2 | 110.9 | 78.5 |
| Feb 11 | E Kentucky | H | W 75–61 | −6.0 | W+8.0 | 161.0 | U136 | 114.6 | 93.2 | 65.5 |
| Feb 7 | C Arkansas | H | L 78–86 | −4.0 | L−12.0 | 155.5 | O164 | 107.3 | 118.3 | 72.7 |
| Feb 4 | Austin Peay | A | L 76–87 | +4.5 | L−6.5 | 157.0 | O163 | 105.6 | 120.9 | 71.9 |
| Jan 31 | North Florida | A | W 100–94 | −11.0 | L−5.0 | 166.5 | O194 | 137.2 | 129.0 | 72.9 |
Auburn
Against the spread
Season
16-22
Home
7-11
Road
3-7
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −1.6
Covered 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
23-15
Home
11-7
Road
6-4
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +3.0
Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5 | Tulsa | N | W 92–86 OT | −5.5 | W+0.5 | 159.5 | O178 | 112.5 | 105.2 | 81.8 |
| Apr 2 | Illinois St | N | W 88–66 | −8.0 | W+14.0 | 148.0 | O154 | 136.9 | 102.7 | 64.3 |
| Mar 25 | Nevada | H | W 75–69 | −8.0 | L−2.0 | 153.0 | U144 | 116.5 | 107.2 | 64.4 |
| Mar 22 | Seattle U | H | W 91–85 | −14.0 | L−8.0 | 146.0 | O176 | 125.2 | 116.9 | 72.7 |
| Mar 17 | South Alabama | H | W 78–67 | −18.0 | L−7.0 | 153.0 | U145 | 121.6 | 104.4 | 64.2 |
| Mar 12 | #25Tennessee | N | L 62–72 | +5.5 | L−4.5 | 145.0 | U134 | 97.1 | 112.8 | 63.9 |
| Mar 11 | Mississippi St | N | W 79–61 | −7.5 | W+10.5 | 159.0 | U140 | 110.8 | 85.6 | 71.3 |
| Mar 7 | #16Alabama | A | L 84–96 | +6.0 | L−6.0 | 175.0 | O180 | 118.0 | 134.9 | 71.2 |
| Mar 3 | LSU | H | W 88–74 | −10.5 | W+3.5 | 155.5 | O162 | 130.6 | 109.8 | 67.4 |
| Feb 28 | Ole Miss | H | L 79–85 | −11.0 | L−17.0 | 152.5 | O164 | 118.0 | 127.0 | 67.0 |
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 homeLipscombAuburn
Efficiency
107.8
118.2
108.1
107.4
69.7
68.3
—
—
Shooting
54.1%
53.0%
54.5%
53.9%
35.7%
34.4%
74.9%
74.4%
26.0%
43.2%
Ball control & glass
16.0%
14.6%
17.7%
16.3%
25.8%
37.0%
30.2%
30.9%
9.3%
9.2%
10.1%
12.4%
Style
47.9%
40.2%
42.5%
41.5%
16.2%
14.3%
62.3%
47.6%
36.9%
26.0%
Roster
3.04
3.79
6'5.4"
6'5.8"
—
34.5%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLipscomb
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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.)
Auburn
Returning minutes: 34.5%Returning production: 31.9%
Lost
- Keyshawn Hall 31.8 mpg, 18.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sebastian Williams-Adams 27.4 mpg, 7.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Elyjah Freeman 26.9 mpg, 9.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- KeShawn Murphy 19.5 mpg, 8.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Filip Jovic 17.8 mpg, 6.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Kaden Magwood 5.6 mpg, 1.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Thomas Dowd from Troy · 36.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg last season
- Adam Olsen from South Alabama · 33.8 mpg, 15.7 ppg last season
- Kolby King from Utah State · 19.3 mpg, 7.5 ppg last season
- Bukky Oboye from Santa Clara · 17.3 mpg, 7.7 ppg last season
- Owen Freeman from Creighton · 9.0 mpg, 3.8 ppg last season
- Narcisse Ngoy no D1 minutes last season
Returns 35% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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.