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 siteTrask Coliseum, Wilmington, NCSeahawk Classic
Princeton
Efficiency #251
2025-26: 9-20 · 5-9 conf
vs
St Thomas
Efficiency #84
2025-26: 24-10 · 13-5 conf
Sat, Nov 28 · TBD
69.5
win 30%
Projected
75.7
win 70%
No line posted yet.
Model: STMN −6.1 · total 145.2 · 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: St Thomas 69.0, Princeton 66.1 → 66.7 possessions
−3.4
St Thomas offense vs Princeton defense
+3.3
Princeton offense vs St Thomas defense
−2.9
Projected total
145.2
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
St Thomas offense vs Princeton defense
+3.3
Princeton offense vs St Thomas defense
+2.9
St Thomas by 6.1
6.1
Princeton side ◂▸ St Thomas side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +6.2 against +6.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help St Thomas.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, St Thomas is the faster team (69.7, #104 of 365) and Princeton the slower (64.5, #342). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
145.2
model
Projected team totals
69.5 / 75.7
Princeton / St Thomas
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.1#341
Princeton
69.0#122
St Thomas
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageSt Thomas
Where St Thomas scores: shooting
St Thomas shoots an effective 58.9% (#5); Princeton allows 52.0% (#209). Expect about 56.1%, 4.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.8 points per 100 possessions.
GlassSt Thomas
St Thomas gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 24.0% is worth roughly -3.9 points per 100 possessions against St Thomas's offense.
TurnoversSt Thomas
St Thomas protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 13.8% is worth roughly +3.7 points per 100 possessions for St Thomas's offense.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
St Thomas averages 69.7 possessions per 40, Princeton 64.5. 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 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantagePrinceton
Where Princeton struggles: the offensive glass
Princeton rebounds 27.2% of its own misses (#287); St Thomas lets opponents grab 26.6% of their own misses (#25). Expect about 26.3%, 4.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Princeton'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 Princeton at about 44.5% of its shots from three, St Thomas about 46.2%.
Princeton has the ball
OffenseSt Thomas allowsvs D1 avg
49.6% #260
50.7% #139
-1.8 pt/100
17.1% #211
17.0% #149
-0.4 pt/100
27.2% #287
26.6% #25
-2.5 pt/100
34.6% #192
30.7% #78
-0.3 pt/100
74.8% #90
—
+0.2 pt/100
Princeton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.8 pts/100
St Thomas has the ball
OffensePrinceton allowsvs D1 avg
58.9% #5
52.0% #209
+6.8 pt/100
14.3% #36
14.3% #327
+3.7 pt/100
22.6% #353
28.5% #82
-3.9 pt/100
33.8% #220
34.0% #152
-0.2 pt/100
68.7% #305
—
-0.3 pt/100
St Thomas net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersPrincetonoffense vsSt Thomasdefense
Share of shots by zone
Princeton shoots
35.0
4.3
16.2
44.5
St Thomas allows
39.8
4.7
14.0
41.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.0%#341 | 58.4%#158 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 45.0%#65 | 33.8%#41 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.5%#170 | 37.9%#156 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#177 | 31.7%#52 | 33.7% |
St Thomasoffense vsPrincetondefense
Share of shots by zone
St Thomas shoots
44.3
3.7
5.5
46.5
Princeton allows
41.0
5.0
14.1
39.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 68.5%#3 | 61.4%#283 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.6%#44 | 45.1%#301 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.8%#234 | 42.3%#313 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.0%#57 | 31.1%#36 | 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 numbersPrinceton
−2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#268 of 365
Off reb %
27.2%
#287
Def reb %
71.5%
#82
Turnover %
17.1%
#211
Forced TO %
14.3%
#327
FT rate
34.6%
#192
FT allowed
34.0%
#152
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.0
Defensive rebounding+0.7
Ball security−0.2
Forcing turnovers−1.7
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed+0.3
St Thomas
+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#120 of 365
Off reb %
22.6%
#353
Def reb %
73.4%
#25
Turnover %
14.3%
#36
Forced TO %
17.0%
#149
FT rate
33.8%
#220
FT allowed
30.7%
#78
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.5
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security+1.7
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed+1.2
St Thomas has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#120 of 365) to Princeton’s −2.0 (#268).
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
Princeton2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Princeton'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | Jackson Hicke | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-29 | 34.0 | 15.4 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 54.3% | 39.8% | 4.2 | 83.2% | 27.7% | |
| 8 | Landon Clark | G | Fr | 6'8" | 29-22 | 28.8 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 52.0% | 35.6% | 3.6 | 73.1% | 14.6% | |
| 7 | Malik Abdullahi | F | So | 6'7" | 27-25 | 28.5 | 9.7 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 56.7% | 9.1% | 0.8 | 72.1% | 20.7% | |
| 21 | Jack Stanton | G | So | 6'2" | 23-22 | 31.0 | 10.9 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 54.8% | 37.7% | 6.6 | 93.8% | 20.0% | |
| 12 | Jacob Huggins | F | Jr | 6'8" | 29-5 | 21.2 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 38.9% | 30.0% | 0.7 | 61.9% | 17.5% | |
| 22 | Dalen Davis | G | Jr | 6'0" | 20-15 | 27.7 | 14.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 45.8% | 39.0% | 4.1 | 89.4% | 35.6% | |
| 4 | CJ Happy | F | So | 6'9" | 25-24 | 18.4 | 6.8 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 48.2% | 30.5% | 3.3 | 36.0% | 28.4% | |
| 23 | Sebastian Whitfield | F | Fr | 6'6" | 29-3 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 43.0% | 27.3% | 1.5 | 60.0% | 22.2% | |
| 24 | Jacob Hammond | F | Fr | 6'6" | 23-0 | 7.1 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 40.2% | 5.6% | 0.8 | 72.2% | 26.3% | |
| 2 | Peyton Seals | G | So | 6'4" | 18-0 | 8.7 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 29.2% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 16.9% | |
| 11 | Jake Sussberg | G | Fr | 6'5" | 19-0 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 53.0% | 34.6% | 1.4 | 72.7% | 19.8% | |
| 15 | Cash McSweeney | F | Fr | 6'8" | 14-0 | 5.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 38.5% | 28.6% | 0.5 | 25.0% | 19.5% | |
| 5 | Zio Kim | G | So | 6'4" | 8-0 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 83.3% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 26.3% | |
| 6 | Ryan Mandes | G | Fr | 6'3" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 8.6% | |
| 0 | Will Kutzler | F | Jr | 6'7" | 4-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 66 | Cooper Mueller | G | Jr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 75.0% | 100.0% | 0.5 | — | 57.8% | |
| 10 | Lucas Denault | G | Jr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 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.
St Thomas2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted St Thomas'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Nick Janowski | G | Fr | 6'4" | 34-34 | 31.5 | 16.1 | 5.1 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 57.0% | 33.9% | 5.4 | 64.1% | 27.6% | |
| 4 | Nolan Minessale | G | So | 6'5" | 34-34 | 31.0 | 19.8 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 2.2 | 55.4% | 30.6% | 4.2 | 75.0% | 34.7% | |
| 32 | Carter Bjerke | F | Jr | 6'9" | 34-34 | 24.9 | 9.4 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 67.3% | 44.9% | 5.2 | 58.8% | 17.9% | |
| 34 | Ben Oosterbaan | F | So | 6'6" | 34-34 | 24.0 | 7.6 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 59.5% | 36.8% | 3.1 | 69.2% | 16.9% | |
| 0 | Isaiah Johnson-Arigu | F | So | 6'7" | 33-0 | 21.4 | 10.5 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 60.0% | 32.5% | 2.4 | 66.7% | 26.2% | |
| 11 | Austin Herro | G | So | 6'3" | 27-24 | 23.9 | 5.5 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 60.2% | 37.8% | 1.4 | 72.0% | 13.8% | |
| 12 | Ryan Dufault | G | Sr | 6'0" | 33-9 | 17.7 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 68.9% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 66.0% | 15.6% | |
| 2 | Jermaine Coleman | G | So | 6'7" | 34-0 | 13.9 | 4.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 54.7% | 34.0% | 3.0 | 64.7% | 17.7% | |
| 1 | Hayden Tibbits | G | So | 5'11" | 26-1 | 11.0 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 53.9% | 34.1% | 1.7 | 52.4% | 16.2% | |
| 3 | Ryan Lafferty | G | So | 6'5" | 11-0 | 13.5 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 45.8% | 20.0% | 0.5 | 0.0% | 9.5% | |
| 5 | Tim Franks | G | Fr | 6'5" | 16-0 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 66.7% | 60.0% | 0.6 | 71.4% | 22.6% | |
| 10 | Tommy Humphries Jr. | G | So | 6'5" | 9-0 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 34.6% | 25.0% | 0.4 | 33.3% | 20.4% | |
| 15 | Adam Tauer | G | So | 6'3" | 12-0 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 11.3% | |
| 20 | Jack Tauer | G | Sr | 6'2" | 11-0 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 75.0% | 100.0% | 0.1 | 0.0% | 9.9% | |
| 24 | Kyle Counts | F | Fr | 6'7" | 5-0 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 83.3% | 50.0% | 0.4 | — | 12.3% | |
| 13 | Luka Momcilovic | F | Fr | 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.
Princeton2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Princeton'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | Jackson Hicke | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-29 | 34.0 | 15.4 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 54.3% | 39.8% | 4.2 | 83.2% | 27.7% | |
| 8 | Landon Clark | G | Fr | 6'8" | 29-22 | 28.8 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 52.0% | 35.6% | 3.6 | 73.1% | 14.6% | |
| 7 | Malik Abdullahi | F | So | 6'7" | 27-25 | 28.5 | 9.7 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 56.7% | 9.1% | 0.8 | 72.1% | 20.7% | |
| 21 | Jack Stanton | G | So | 6'2" | 23-22 | 31.0 | 10.9 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 54.8% | 37.7% | 6.6 | 93.8% | 20.0% | |
| 12 | Jacob Huggins | F | Jr | 6'8" | 29-5 | 21.2 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 38.9% | 30.0% | 0.7 | 61.9% | 17.5% | |
| 22 | Dalen Davis | G | Jr | 6'0" | 20-15 | 27.7 | 14.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 45.8% | 39.0% | 4.1 | 89.4% | 35.6% | |
| 4 | CJ Happy | F | So | 6'9" | 25-24 | 18.4 | 6.8 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 48.2% | 30.5% | 3.3 | 36.0% | 28.4% | |
| 23 | Sebastian Whitfield | F | Fr | 6'6" | 29-3 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 43.0% | 27.3% | 1.5 | 60.0% | 22.2% | |
| 24 | Jacob Hammond | F | Fr | 6'6" | 23-0 | 7.1 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 40.2% | 5.6% | 0.8 | 72.2% | 26.3% | |
| 2 | Peyton Seals | G | So | 6'4" | 18-0 | 8.7 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 29.2% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 16.9% | |
| 11 | Jake Sussberg | G | Fr | 6'5" | 19-0 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 53.0% | 34.6% | 1.4 | 72.7% | 19.8% | |
| 15 | Cash McSweeney | F | Fr | 6'8" | 14-0 | 5.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 38.5% | 28.6% | 0.5 | 25.0% | 19.5% | |
| 5 | Zio Kim | G | So | 6'4" | 8-0 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 83.3% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 26.3% | |
| 6 | Ryan Mandes | G | Fr | 6'3" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 8.6% | |
| 0 | Will Kutzler | F | Jr | 6'7" | 4-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 66 | Cooper Mueller | G | Jr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 75.0% | 100.0% | 0.5 | — | 57.8% | |
| 10 | Lucas Denault | G | Jr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 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 2025-26Princeton
Against the spread
Season
15-12-1
Home
7-4
Road
5-7-1
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-15
Home
4-7
Road
6-7
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.7
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Yale | A | L 53–78 | +14.0 | L−11.0 | 137.0 | U131 | 79.6 | 117.2 | 66.6 |
| Feb 28 | Dartmouth | H | W 82–61 | −2.0 | W+19.0 | 141.5 | O143 | 126.9 | 94.4 | 64.6 |
| Feb 27 | Harvard | H | L 56–58 | +4.0 | W+2.0 | 129.5 | U114 | 93.3 | 96.6 | 60.0 |
| Feb 20 | Brown | A | L 71–80 | +3.0 | L−6.0 | 130.0 | O151 | 110.7 | 124.7 | 64.1 |
| Feb 14 | Columbia | H | L 65–75 | +1.5 | L−8.5 | 136.5 | O140 | 115.5 | 133.2 | 56.3 |
| Feb 13 | Cornell | H | L 65–89 | +3.5 | L−20.5 | 154.5 | U154 | 102.7 | 140.6 | 63.3 |
| Feb 7 | Penn | A | L 60–61 | +3.5 | W+2.5 | 145.0 | U121 | 102.8 | 104.5 | 58.4 |
| Jan 31 | Columbia | A | W 80–68 | +5.5 | W+17.5 | 139.0 | O148 | 129.0 | 109.6 | 62.0 |
| Jan 30 | Cornell | A | L 64–87 | +7.0 | L−16.0 | 159.5 | U151 | 104.1 | 141.5 | 61.5 |
| Jan 24 | Brown | H | W 63–53 | −4.5 | W+5.5 | 133.5 | U116 | 98.7 | 83.1 | 63.8 |
St Thomas
Against the spread
Season
15-16
Home
6-6
Road
8-7
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +3.5
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 5 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-15-1
Home
7-5
Road
7-7-1
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.8
Under 6 straightOver in 3 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17 | Seattle U | A | L 52–67 | +2.0 | L−13.0 | 145.5 | U119 | 74.2 | 95.5 | 70.1 |
| Mar 7 | North Dakota | N | L 66–67 | −11.5 | L−12.5 | 153.5 | U133 | 102.4 | 104.0 | 64.4 |
| Mar 5 | S Dakota St | N | W 80–67 | −5.0 | W+8.0 | 150.0 | U147 | 124.5 | 104.3 | 64.3 |
| Feb 28 | Omaha | H | W 68–53 | −11.5 | W+3.5 | 159.5 | U121 | 104.3 | 81.3 | 65.2 |
| Feb 26 | N Dakota St | H | W 84–62 | −3.0 | W+19.0 | 155.5 | U146 | 128.8 | 95.1 | 65.2 |
| Feb 21 | Denver | A | L 80–82 | −4.0 | L−6.0 | 168.5 | U162 | 116.8 | 119.7 | 68.5 |
| Feb 14 | Kansas City | A | W 104–64 | −13.0 | W+27.0 | 153.5 | O168 | 142.9 | 87.9 | 72.8 |
| Feb 12 | Omaha | A | L 94–98 | −4.5 | L−8.5 | 156.5 | O192 | 127.1 | 132.5 | 74.0 |
| Feb 7 | Oral Roberts | H | W 92–75 | −15.5 | W+1.5 | 152.0 | O167 | 122.6 | 99.9 | 75.1 |
| Feb 4 | S Dakota St | A | W 77–62 | +1.0 | W+16.0 | 157.0 | U139 | 123.4 | 99.3 | 62.4 |
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 homePrincetonSt Thomas
Efficiency
105.7
111.9
109.9
107.0
66.1
69.0
—
—
Shooting
49.6%
58.9%
48.6%
63.0%
33.9%
36.0%
74.8%
68.7%
34.6%
33.8%
Ball control & glass
17.1%
14.3%
14.3%
17.0%
27.2%
22.6%
28.5%
26.6%
10.2%
7.7%
10.3%
8.3%
Style
44.5%
46.3%
36.7%
46.5%
4.4%
12.6%
55.0%
56.7%
27.9%
32.7%
Roster
2.10
2.13
6'5.6"
6'4.9"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputPrinceton
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Princeton'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.)
St Thomas
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted St Thomas'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.