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-conferenceMcKenzie Arena, Chattanooga, TN
Alabama A&M
Efficiency #312
2025-26: 18-15 · 11-9 conf
@
Chattanooga
Efficiency #289
2025-26: 13-19 · 7-12 conf
Tue, Dec 1 · 7:00 PM ET
71.2
win 34%
Projected
76.2
win 66%
No line posted yet.
Model: UTC −4.9 · total 147.4 · 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: Chattanooga 68.1, Alabama A&M 66.9 → 66.7 possessions
−3.6
Chattanooga offense vs Alabama A&M defense
+1.9
Alabama A&M offense vs Chattanooga defense
+0.8
Projected total
147.4
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Chattanooga offense vs Alabama A&M defense
+1.9
Alabama A&M offense vs Chattanooga defense
−0.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Chattanooga by 4.9
4.9
Alabama A&M side ◂▸ Chattanooga side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 147.3 against a projected 147.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Chattanooga.
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, Chattanooga is the faster team (67.6, #218 of 365) and Alabama A&M the slower (67.3, #232). 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
147.4
model
Projected team totals
71.2 / 76.2
Alabama A&M / Chattanooga
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.9#296
Alabama A&M
68.1#204
Chattanooga
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageChattanooga
Where Chattanooga struggles: the offensive glass
Chattanooga rebounds 21.8% of its own misses (#358); Alabama A&M lets opponents grab 29.5% of their own misses (#137). Expect about 23.9%, 6.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.9 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageAlabama A&M
Where Alabama A&M scores: ball control
Alabama A&M turns it over on 16.5% of possessions (#165); Chattanooga forces turnovers on 13.2% of opponent possessions (#350). Expect about 14.3%, 2.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversChattanooga
Chattanooga protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.3% is worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions for Chattanooga's offense.
ClashAlabama A&M
Style clash: 3-point volume
Alabama A&M rarely shoots threes (34.0% of its shots); Chattanooga lets opponents take 44.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 38.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Alabama A&M has the ball
OffenseChattanooga allowsvs D1 avg
49.2% #281
51.7% #195
-1.4 pt/100
16.5% #165
13.2% #350
+3.0 pt/100
27.5% #283
31.7% #240
-0.9 pt/100
45.4% #3
42.6% #335
+1.2 pt/100
73.8% #141
—
+0.1 pt/100
Alabama A&M net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.1 pts/100
Chattanooga has the ball
OffenseAlabama A&M allowsvs D1 avg
54.2% #60
52.1% #220
+3.0 pt/100
14.4% #38
16.6% #177
+1.8 pt/100
21.8% #358
29.5% #137
-3.9 pt/100
29.7% #319
38.6% #275
-0.1 pt/100
77.4% #26
—
+0.4 pt/100
Chattanooga net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.2 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersAlabama A&Moffense vsChattanoogadefense
Share of shots by zone
Alabama A&M shoots
39.7
4.9
21.3
34.1
Chattanooga allows
38.0
4.8
13.3
43.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.8%#304 | 58.7%#173 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.5%#236 | 42.9%#247 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 34.4%#304 | 34.6%#63 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#114 | 34.2%#195 | 33.7% |
Chattanoogaoffense vsAlabama A&Mdefense
Share of shots by zone
Chattanooga shoots
28.2
6.1
16.3
49.4
Alabama A&M allows
40.2
5.0
18.2
36.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 61.8%#78 | 62.2%#302 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 52.6%#4 | 32.9%#28 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 47.8%#2 | 32.0%#17 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#116 | 35.4%#272 | 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 numbersAlabama A&M
+1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#126 of 365
Off reb %
27.5%
#283
Def reb %
70.5%
#137
Turnover %
16.5%
#165
Forced TO %
16.6%
#177
FT rate
45.4%
#3
FT allowed
38.6%
#275
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.9
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers−0.1
Foul shots drawn+2.7
Foul shots allowed−0.9
Chattanooga
−7.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#359 of 365
Off reb %
21.8%
#358
Def reb %
68.3%
#240
Turnover %
14.4%
#38
Forced TO %
13.2%
#350
FT rate
29.7%
#319
FT allowed
42.6%
#335
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.8
Defensive rebounding−0.4
Ball security+1.6
Forcing turnovers−2.4
Foul shots drawn−1.4
Foul shots allowed−1.9
Alabama A&M has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.3 (#126 of 365) to Chattanooga’s −7.2 (#359).
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
Alabama A&M2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Alabama A&M'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 00 | Kintavious Dozier | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-33 | 32.3 | 14.7 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 49.3% | 37.1% | 3.8 | 84.0% | 27.3% | |
| 1 | Koron Davis | G | Jr | 6'7" | 33-33 | 29.4 | 14.9 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 49.4% | 32.2% | 3.7 | 82.6% | 30.4% | |
| 3 | Sami Pissis | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-28 | 29.8 | 10.4 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 46.5% | 32.4% | 3.7 | 72.6% | 24.1% | |
| 10 | PJ Eason | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-31 | 26.0 | 7.4 | 6.9 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 53.0% | — | 0.0 | 60.6% | 18.5% | |
| 21 | James Graham III | G | Jr | 6'8" | 27-22 | 25.1 | 10.3 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 54.8% | 39.1% | 2.4 | 76.2% | 24.0% | |
| 24 | Lou Hutchinson | G | Jr | 6'7" | 33-5 | 16.5 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 50.0% | 36.1% | 1.8 | 80.6% | 14.4% | |
| 4 | Gabe Kincy | G | Jr | 6'7" | 21-3 | 19.3 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 48.4% | 35.7% | 1.3 | 75.0% | 14.2% | |
| 2 | Bilal Abdur-Rahman | G | So | 5'11" | 30-3 | 12.4 | 4.7 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 49.5% | 35.3% | 1.1 | 67.6% | 22.1% | |
| 30 | James Flippin | F | Sr | 6'10" | 26-4 | 9.8 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 37.7% | 21.1% | 0.7 | 52.0% | 26.2% | |
| 13 | Angok Anyang | F | Jr | 6'9" | 26-2 | 7.3 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 56.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 60.0% | 10.9% | |
| 5 | Jalen Carruth | G | So | 6'7" | 14-0 | 8.4 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 48.3% | 35.0% | 1.4 | 60.0% | 16.8% | |
| 23 | Samuel Onu | F | Jr | 6'11" | 17-0 | 6.5 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 43.8% | 13.5% | |
| 11 | Tajden Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 20-1 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 44.1% | 20.0% | 0.3 | 71.4% | 15.8% | |
| 8 | Peyton Daniels Sr. | G | Jr | 6'3" | 7-0 | 12.6 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 58.1% | 46.2% | 3.7 | 75.0% | 27.5% | |
| 20 | Isaiah Ramey | G | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Jayden Jackson | G | Fr | 5'10" | 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.
Chattanooga2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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 | Jordan Frison | G | Jr | 6'0" | 32-29 | 29.9 | 16.4 | 3.3 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 62.9% | 45.5% | 3.5 | 82.0% | 28.0% | |
| 0 | Tate Darner | G | Fr | 6'4" | 30-18 | 27.5 | 9.9 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 56.9% | 37.9% | 4.7 | 73.6% | 20.2% | |
| 1 | Brennan Watkins | G | Sr | 6'0" | 32-22 | 25.2 | 10.2 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 62.3% | 45.6% | 4.7 | 88.6% | 20.8% | |
| 11 | Billy Smith | G | Sr | 6'7" | 32-16 | 23.0 | 8.4 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 50.4% | 34.0% | 5.9 | 69.2% | 23.5% | |
| 10 | Teddy Washington Jr. | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-20 | 21.9 | 9.0 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 46.0% | 23.1% | 3.4 | 77.9% | 26.5% | |
| 34 | Makai Richards | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-13 | 13.1 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 58.8% | 33.3% | 0.1 | 76.7% | 16.2% | |
| 21 | Collin Mulholland | F | So | 6'10" | 23-9 | 17.2 | 7.6 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 48.6% | 21.7% | 2.6 | 81.6% | 28.4% | |
| 3 | Jikari Johnson | G | Sr | 6'4" | 29-7 | 13.5 | 6.7 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 54.4% | 35.2% | 3.0 | 78.3% | 26.8% | |
| 55 | Parker Robison | G | So | 6'0" | 27-1 | 10.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 37.5% | 9.5% | 0.8 | 62.5% | 10.1% | |
| 13 | Houston Holland | G | So | 6'3" | 27-4 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 59.8% | 50.0% | 0.8 | 75.0% | 11.5% | |
| 30 | Josh Bowman | F | Fr | 6'9" | 23-8 | 12.0 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 50.8% | 22.2% | 0.4 | 42.9% | 18.7% | |
| 2 | Sebastian Hartmann | G | Jr | 6'6" | 7-6 | 22.4 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 60.0% | 43.5% | 3.3 | 70.0% | 18.1% | |
| 7 | Sean Cusano | G | Jr | 6'9" | 6-4 | 13.7 | 4.2 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 47.9% | 10.0% | 1.7 | 66.7% | 18.2% | |
| 23 | Latif Diouf | F | So | 6'9" | 5-3 | 14.4 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 64.7% | 40.0% | 1.0 | 50.0% | 18.2% | |
| 6 | Ryan Lopez | G | Jr | 5'8" | 5-0 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 62.5% | 50.0% | 2.0 | 50.0% | 30.1% | |
| 20 | Liam Vitters | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 4 | Zach Bleshoy | G | Fr | 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.
Alabama A&M2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Alabama A&M'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 00 | Kintavious Dozier | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-33 | 32.3 | 14.7 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 49.3% | 37.1% | 3.8 | 84.0% | 27.3% | |
| 1 | Koron Davis | G | Jr | 6'7" | 33-33 | 29.4 | 14.9 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 49.4% | 32.2% | 3.7 | 82.6% | 30.4% | |
| 3 | Sami Pissis | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-28 | 29.8 | 10.4 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 46.5% | 32.4% | 3.7 | 72.6% | 24.1% | |
| 10 | PJ Eason | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-31 | 26.0 | 7.4 | 6.9 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 53.0% | — | 0.0 | 60.6% | 18.5% | |
| 21 | James Graham III | G | Jr | 6'8" | 27-22 | 25.1 | 10.3 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 54.8% | 39.1% | 2.4 | 76.2% | 24.0% | |
| 24 | Lou Hutchinson | G | Jr | 6'7" | 33-5 | 16.5 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 50.0% | 36.1% | 1.8 | 80.6% | 14.4% | |
| 4 | Gabe Kincy | G | Jr | 6'7" | 21-3 | 19.3 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 48.4% | 35.7% | 1.3 | 75.0% | 14.2% | |
| 2 | Bilal Abdur-Rahman | G | So | 5'11" | 30-3 | 12.4 | 4.7 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 49.5% | 35.3% | 1.1 | 67.6% | 22.1% | |
| 30 | James Flippin | F | Sr | 6'10" | 26-4 | 9.8 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 37.7% | 21.1% | 0.7 | 52.0% | 26.2% | |
| 13 | Angok Anyang | F | Jr | 6'9" | 26-2 | 7.3 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 56.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 60.0% | 10.9% | |
| 5 | Jalen Carruth | G | So | 6'7" | 14-0 | 8.4 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 48.3% | 35.0% | 1.4 | 60.0% | 16.8% | |
| 23 | Samuel Onu | F | Jr | 6'11" | 17-0 | 6.5 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 43.8% | 13.5% | |
| 11 | Tajden Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 20-1 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 44.1% | 20.0% | 0.3 | 71.4% | 15.8% | |
| 8 | Peyton Daniels Sr. | G | Jr | 6'3" | 7-0 | 12.6 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 58.1% | 46.2% | 3.7 | 75.0% | 27.5% | |
| 20 | Isaiah Ramey | G | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Jayden Jackson | G | Fr | 5'10" | 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 2025-26Alabama A&M
Against the spread
Season
15-14-1
Home
8-6
Road
4-7-1
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +1.1
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-15-1
Home
5-8-1
Road
7-5
Last 10
5-4-1
avg vs total +6.3
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13 | Prairie View | N | L 55–74 | −2.0 | L−21.0 | 140.5 | U129 | 87.1 | 117.2 | 63.1 |
| Mar 12 | Texas Southern | N | W 85–74 OT | −1.5 | W+9.5 | 142.5 | O159 | 111.5 | 97.1 | 76.2 |
| Mar 5 | Southern | H | L 85–88 | +1.0 | L−2.0 | 145.0 | O173 | 117.0 | 121.1 | 72.7 |
| Mar 3 | Grambling | H | W 77–63 | −2.0 | W+12.0 | 140.0 | P140 | 120.8 | 98.8 | 63.8 |
| Feb 28 | Alabama St | H | L 88–89 | −1.0 | L−2.0 | 143.0 | O177 | 131.0 | 132.5 | 67.2 |
| Feb 21 | Bethune | A | L 76–85 | +7.0 | L−2.0 | 143.0 | O161 | 112.3 | 125.6 | 67.7 |
| Feb 19 | Florida A&M | A | W 63–61 | +2.0 | W+4.0 | 139.5 | U124 | 100.0 | 96.8 | 63.0 |
| Feb 16 | AR-Pine Bluff | H | W 82–70 | −3.5 | W+8.5 | 144.0 | O152 | 129.3 | 110.4 | 63.4 |
| Feb 14 | Miss Valley St | H | W 72–65 | −15.5 | L−8.5 | 139.5 | U137 | 112.7 | 101.8 | 63.9 |
| Feb 9 | Grambling | A | W 66–58 | +4.5 | W+12.5 | 135.5 | U124 | 99.1 | 87.1 | 66.6 |
Chattanooga
Against the spread
Season
12-17
Home
4-8
Road
7-8
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.7
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-13
Home
5-7
Road
9-6
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +9.8
Over 6 straightOver in 6 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | The Citadel | N | L 85–88 | −7.5 | L−10.5 | 147.5 | O173 | 133.9 | 138.7 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | VMI | H | W 86–79 | −11.5 | L−4.5 | 155.0 | O165 | 135.7 | 124.6 | 63.4 |
| Feb 26 | UNC Greensboro | H | L 80–85 | −3.5 | L−8.5 | 157.5 | O165 | 104.3 | 110.8 | 76.7 |
| Feb 21 | The Citadel | A | W 93–72 | −4.0 | W+17.0 | 144.0 | O165 | 128.9 | 99.8 | 72.1 |
| Feb 19 | Mercer | A | W 94–90 | +10.0 | W+14.0 | 151.5 | O184 | 144.7 | 138.6 | 65.0 |
| Feb 14 | W Carolina | H | L 76–81 | −2.0 | L−7.0 | 151.5 | O157 | 110.4 | 117.6 | 68.9 |
| Feb 11 | ETSU | A | L 61–73 | +10.0 | L−2.0 | 145.0 | U134 | 92.2 | 110.3 | 66.2 |
| Feb 7 | The Citadel | H | L 71–78 | −9.5 | L−16.5 | 141.0 | O149 | 104.4 | 114.7 | 68.0 |
| Feb 5 | Mercer | H | W 79–75 | +4.5 | W+8.5 | 155.0 | U154 | 109.5 | 104.0 | 72.2 |
| Feb 1 | Furman | A | L 70–75 | +7.5 | W+2.5 | 145.5 | U145 | 106.4 | 114.0 | 65.8 |
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 homeAlabama A&MChattanooga
Efficiency
104.6
106.9
112.9
113.5
66.9
68.1
—
—
Shooting
49.2%
54.2%
47.5%
55.8%
35.0%
35.0%
73.8%
77.4%
45.4%
29.7%
Ball control & glass
16.5%
14.4%
16.6%
13.2%
27.5%
21.8%
29.5%
31.7%
8.9%
8.3%
8.5%
7.7%
Style
34.0%
49.2%
39.1%
36.2%
14.9%
12.7%
48.0%
55.6%
29.7%
39.4%
Roster
3.39
2.97
6'5.6"
6'3.9"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputAlabama A&M
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Alabama A&M'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.)
Chattanooga
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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 last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sun, Dec 21 | 2025-26 | Chattanooga 73 – 66 Alabama A&M |
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.