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-conferenceThe Sobrato Center, San Francisco, CA
South Dakota
Efficiency #292
2025-26: 16-16 · 8-9 conf
@
San Francisco
Efficiency #148
2025-26: 17-16 · 9-11 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
71.7
win 21%
Projected
81.2
win 79%
No line posted yet.
Model: SF −9.5 · total 152.8 · 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: San Francisco 67.4, South Dakota 70.0 → 69.1 possessions
+1.7
San Francisco offense vs South Dakota defense
+4.2
South Dakota offense vs San Francisco defense
−1.3
Projected total
152.8
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
San Francisco offense vs South Dakota defense
+4.2
South Dakota offense vs San Francisco defense
+1.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
San Francisco by 9.5
9.5
South Dakota side ◂▸ San Francisco 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 San Francisco.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, South Dakota is the faster team (71.4, #36 of 365) and San Francisco the slower (66.7, #256). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
152.8
model
Projected team totals
71.7 / 81.2
South Dakota / San Francisco
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.0#47
South Dakota
67.4#261
San Francisco
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageSan Francisco
Where San Francisco scores: shooting
San Francisco shoots an effective 51.2% (#184); South Dakota allows 54.5% (#318). Expect about 52.9%, 1.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageSouth Dakota
Where South Dakota scores: ball control
South Dakota turns it over on 16.6% of possessions (#172); San Francisco forces turnovers on 14.1% of opponent possessions (#330). Expect about 15.0%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.
ClashSouth Dakota
Style match: 3-point volume
South Dakota rarely shoots threes (35.9% of its shots); San Francisco runs teams off the line (35.8% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 34.3% — both habits push the same way.
ClashSan Francisco
Style clash: paint scoring
San Francisco gets only 36.9% of its points in the paint; South Dakota gives up 52.9% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 44.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
ClashSan Francisco
Style clash: 3-point volume
San Francisco takes 46.1% of its shots from three; South Dakota runs teams off the line (30.0% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 38.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashSouth Dakota
Strength vs strength: free-throw rate
South Dakota (#4 in free-throw rate) against San Francisco (#51 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 36.8%. Historically San Francisco's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.50 vs 0.61).
South Dakota has the ball
OffenseSan Francisco allowsvs D1 avg
49.9% #239
50.8% #143
-1.5 pt/100
16.6% #172
14.1% #330
+2.2 pt/100
28.7% #242
29.0% #105
-1.1 pt/100
45.2% #4
29.6% #51
+0.2 pt/100
74.2% #123
—
+0.2 pt/100
South Dakota net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.0 pts/100
San Francisco has the ball
OffenseSouth Dakota allowsvs D1 avg
51.2% #184
54.5% #318
+2.3 pt/100
15.8% #125
15.9% #227
+1.4 pt/100
31.3% #148
30.3% #172
+0.4 pt/100
40.1% #59
31.0% #83
+0.0 pt/100
70.9% #242
—
-0.1 pt/100
San Francisco net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersSouth Dakotaoffense vsSan Franciscodefense
Share of shots by zone
South Dakota shoots
44.5
4.7
14.6
36.2
San Francisco allows
37.7
8.4
18.3
35.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.5%#212 | 59.3%#205 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 32.4%#324 | 45.5%#312 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.8%#236 | 35.0%#78 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.3%#264 | 34.1%#187 | 33.7% |
San Franciscooffense vsSouth Dakotadefense
Share of shots by zone
San Francisco shoots
34.3
4.9
14.3
46.5
South Dakota allows
48.5
6.5
14.9
30.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#229 | 61.5%#286 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.5%#132 | 44.8%#290 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.4%#278 | 40.2%#252 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.6%#140 | 34.5%#219 | 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 numbersSouth Dakota
+2.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#60 of 365
Off reb %
28.7%
#242
Def reb %
69.7%
#172
Turnover %
16.6%
#172
Forced TO %
15.9%
#227
FT rate
45.2%
#4
FT allowed
31.0%
#83
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.6
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+0.1
Forcing turnovers−0.6
Foul shots drawn+2.6
Foul shots allowed+1.1
San Francisco
+2.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#78 of 365
Off reb %
31.3%
#148
Def reb %
71.0%
#105
Turnover %
15.8%
#125
Forced TO %
14.1%
#330
FT rate
40.1%
#59
FT allowed
29.6%
#51
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding+0.5
Ball security+0.7
Forcing turnovers−1.8
Foul shots drawn+1.3
Foul shots allowed+1.5
South Dakota has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.8 (#60 of 365) to San Francisco’s +2.5 (#78).
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
South Dakota2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uzziah Buntyn | G | Fr | 6'1" | 31-25 | 30.3 | 12.1 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 44.6% | 27.7% | 3.6 | 84.4% | 24.5% | |
| 12 | Isaac Bruns | G | Jr | 6'5" | 20-20 | 30.9 | 20.8 | 5.1 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 49.5% | 39.2% | 3.7 | 84.3% | 36.2% | |
| 4 | Vince Buzelis | G | Fr | 6'4" | 25-9 | 22.7 | 7.1 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 55.7% | 28.6% | 1.1 | 75.8% | 18.7% | |
| 21 | Ethan Kizer | F | So | 6'5" | 32-3 | 15.2 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 51.4% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 50.0% | 15.6% | |
| 13 | Silas Bennion | G | Sr | 6'1" | 16-10 | 28.9 | 4.8 | 2.7 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 41.2% | 27.5% | 2.5 | 80.0% | 12.7% | |
| 10 | Evan Anderson | G | Fr | 6'4" | 27-21 | 15.5 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 58.8% | 38.1% | 0.8 | 75.0% | 10.4% | |
| 11 | Jesse McIntosh | G | Fr | 6'7" | 20-1 | 17.6 | 7.5 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 48.4% | 29.8% | 2.9 | 82.4% | 25.1% | |
| 34 | Jake Brack | F | Jr | 6'9" | 25-1 | 13.6 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 57.1% | — | 0.0 | 56.0% | 9.6% | |
| 2 | Shey Eberwein | G | So | 6'5" | 13-6 | 18.8 | 7.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 48.5% | 26.7% | 1.2 | 70.6% | 24.6% | |
| 2 | Trent Hudgens | G | Sr | 6'0" | 14-0 | 11.9 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 38.4% | 21.4% | 1.0 | 90.0% | 21.2% | |
| 35 | Caleb Kizer | F | Sr | 6'7" | 9-0 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 45.5% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 18.3% | |
| 32 | Ashton Smith | F | Sr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 13.6% | |
| 23 | Porter Ihnen | G | Fr | 6'6" | 4-0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 3.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 105.6% | 100.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 24.1% | |
| 25 | Jalen Hayes | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jonah Funk | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Josiah Dotzler | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Luke Bruns | G | Fr | 6'2" | 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.
San Francisco2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Ryan Beasley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 31-31 | 33.2 | 13.6 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 48.4% | 32.7% | 4.8 | 82.7% | 25.3% | |
| 5 | Tyrone Riley IV | G | So | 6'6" | 31-31 | 31.8 | 12.2 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 54.2% | 36.8% | 3.7 | 70.7% | 22.1% | |
| 7 | Vukasin Masic | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-21 | 21.7 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 47.1% | 29.1% | 3.3 | 69.6% | 18.0% | |
| 13 | Legend Smiley | G | Fr | 6'5" | 33-14 | 21.3 | 8.1 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 59.8% | 42.0% | 4.0 | 87.5% | 20.2% | |
| 35 | Junjie Wang | F | Jr | 6'9" | 33-24 | 20.2 | 8.5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 51.7% | 34.2% | 3.4 | 75.3% | 25.7% | |
| 1 | Mookie Cook | F | Jr | 6'6" | 25-5 | 20.8 | 7.6 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 52.4% | 39.7% | 2.3 | 71.4% | 24.4% | |
| 14 | Veniamin Abosi | G | So | 6'6" | 24-1 | 17.6 | 5.0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 52.8% | 40.4% | 2.2 | 68.3% | 19.4% | |
| 10 | Saba Gigiberia | C | Sr | 7'2" | 26-0 | 6.3 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 44.6% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 34.8% | 28.8% | |
| 2 | Aidan Braccia | G | Jr | 6'1" | 15-0 | 6.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 23.5% | 13.3% | 1.0 | 66.7% | 14.0% | |
| 23 | Weilun Zhao | G | Fr | 6'0" | 14-0 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 26.3% | 0.0% | 0.9 | 72.7% | 25.0% | |
| 21 | Sean Blakely Drummond | G | Fr | 6'4" | 5-0 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 0.0% | 26.8% | |
| 12 | Isa Silva | G | Sr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Ndewedo Newbury | F | Sr | 6'7" | 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.
South Dakota2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uzziah Buntyn | G | Fr | 6'1" | 31-25 | 30.3 | 12.1 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 44.6% | 27.7% | 3.6 | 84.4% | 24.5% | |
| 12 | Isaac Bruns | G | Jr | 6'5" | 20-20 | 30.9 | 20.8 | 5.1 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 49.5% | 39.2% | 3.7 | 84.3% | 36.2% | |
| 4 | Vince Buzelis | G | Fr | 6'4" | 25-9 | 22.7 | 7.1 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 55.7% | 28.6% | 1.1 | 75.8% | 18.7% | |
| 21 | Ethan Kizer | F | So | 6'5" | 32-3 | 15.2 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 51.4% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 50.0% | 15.6% | |
| 13 | Silas Bennion | G | Sr | 6'1" | 16-10 | 28.9 | 4.8 | 2.7 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 41.2% | 27.5% | 2.5 | 80.0% | 12.7% | |
| 10 | Evan Anderson | G | Fr | 6'4" | 27-21 | 15.5 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 58.8% | 38.1% | 0.8 | 75.0% | 10.4% | |
| 11 | Jesse McIntosh | G | Fr | 6'7" | 20-1 | 17.6 | 7.5 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 48.4% | 29.8% | 2.9 | 82.4% | 25.1% | |
| 34 | Jake Brack | F | Jr | 6'9" | 25-1 | 13.6 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 57.1% | — | 0.0 | 56.0% | 9.6% | |
| 2 | Shey Eberwein | G | So | 6'5" | 13-6 | 18.8 | 7.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 48.5% | 26.7% | 1.2 | 70.6% | 24.6% | |
| 2 | Trent Hudgens | G | Sr | 6'0" | 14-0 | 11.9 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 38.4% | 21.4% | 1.0 | 90.0% | 21.2% | |
| 35 | Caleb Kizer | F | Sr | 6'7" | 9-0 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 45.5% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 18.3% | |
| 32 | Ashton Smith | F | Sr | 6'9" | 6-0 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 13.6% | |
| 23 | Porter Ihnen | G | Fr | 6'6" | 4-0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 3.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 105.6% | 100.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 24.1% | |
| 25 | Jalen Hayes | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jonah Funk | F | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Josiah Dotzler | G | So | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Luke Bruns | G | Fr | 6'2" | 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 2025-26South Dakota
Against the spread
Season
16-13
Home
9-5
Road
6-7
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +1.9
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
12-17
Home
6-8
Road
6-7
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −6.0
Under 2 straightOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Omaha | N | L 62–76 | +2.0 | L−12.0 | 151.5 | U138 | 95.8 | 117.4 | 64.7 |
| Feb 28 | S Dakota St | H | W 75–70 | +3.0 | W+8.0 | 151.0 | U145 | 108.0 | 100.8 | 69.4 |
| Feb 25 | Omaha | H | W 89–72 | +1.5 | W+18.5 | 153.5 | O161 | 121.5 | 98.3 | 73.3 |
| Feb 21 | Oral Roberts | A | L 62–67 | −1.0 | L−6.0 | 151.5 | U129 | 85.4 | 92.2 | 72.6 |
| Feb 19 | Denver | A | L 70–90 | +6.0 | L−14.0 | 162.5 | U160 | 107.3 | 137.9 | 65.3 |
| Feb 11 | North Dakota | H | L 71–72 | −1.5 | L−2.5 | 156.5 | U143 | 106.2 | 107.7 | 66.8 |
| Feb 7 | S Dakota St | A | W 68–67 | +11.5 | W+12.5 | 157.5 | U135 | 97.6 | 96.1 | 69.7 |
| Feb 4 | Kansas City | A | W 82–75 OT | −2.0 | W+5.0 | 156.0 | O157 | 102.0 | 93.3 | 80.4 |
| Jan 31 | N Dakota St | H | L 84–89 OT | +9.0 | W+4.0 | 152.5 | O173 | 113.4 | 120.1 | 74.1 |
| Jan 29 | Oral Roberts | H | W 77–69 | −3.0 | W+5.0 | 154.5 | U146 | 108.7 | 97.4 | 70.8 |
San Francisco
Against the spread
Season
14-18
Home
5-10
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −5.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
18-14
Home
9-6
Road
5-6
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +6.7
Over 2 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 8 | Oregon St | N | L 77–78 | −3.5 | L−4.5 | 145.5 | O155 | 116.6 | 118.1 | 66.0 |
| Mar 7 | Portland | N | W 82–65 | −7.0 | W+10.0 | 144.5 | O147 | 122.3 | 97.0 | 67.0 |
| Feb 28 | Pacific | A | W 72–61 | +4.5 | W+15.5 | 143.5 | U133 | 111.7 | 94.6 | 64.5 |
| Feb 21 | Santa Clara | H | L 73–94 | +6.5 | L−14.5 | 159.0 | O167 | 97.8 | 125.9 | 74.7 |
| Feb 18 | #11Gonzaga | H | L 59–80 | +15.5 | L−5.5 | 151.0 | U139 | 87.9 | 119.2 | 67.1 |
| Feb 15 | San Diego | A | W 92–79 | −5.0 | W+8.0 | 148.0 | O171 | 133.2 | 114.3 | 69.1 |
| Feb 12 | Oregon St | H | L 63–90 | −9.0 | L−36.0 | 141.0 | O153 | 103.8 | 148.3 | 60.7 |
| Feb 7 | Saint Mary's | A | L 54–79 | +11.5 | L−13.5 | 143.0 | U133 | 84.1 | 123.1 | 64.2 |
| Feb 4 | LMU | H | L 75–84 | −8.0 | L−17.0 | 146.0 | O159 | 108.8 | 121.8 | 69.0 |
| Jan 31 | Pacific | H | W 87–82 | −4.0 | W+1.0 | 138.0 | O169 | 128.4 | 121.1 | 67.7 |
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 homeSouth DakotaSan Francisco
Efficiency
105.9
110.5
112.6
109.2
70.0
67.4
—
—
Shooting
49.9%
51.2%
50.7%
50.7%
32.3%
34.6%
74.2%
70.9%
45.2%
40.1%
Ball control & glass
16.6%
15.8%
15.9%
14.1%
28.7%
31.3%
30.3%
29.0%
9.9%
9.2%
9.4%
8.7%
Style
35.9%
46.1%
43.6%
36.9%
9.8%
10.1%
46.1%
55.6%
31.4%
34.2%
Roster
2.01
2.61
6'3.9"
6'4.8"
72.2%
81.0%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputSouth Dakota
Returning minutes: 72.2%Returning production: 64.9%
Lost
- Jordan Crawford 31.2 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to Missouri
- Cameron Fens 25.3 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
Added
- Josiah Dotzler no D1 minutes last season
- Luke Bruns no D1 minutes last season
- Jalen Hayes no D1 minutes last season
- Jonah Funk no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 72% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 transferred). 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).
San Francisco
Returning minutes: 81.0%Returning production: 76.4%
Lost
- David Fuchs 21.1 mpg, 11.2 ppg · transferred to Clemson
- Guillermo Diaz Graham 17.2 mpg, 5.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ndewedo Newbury no D1 minutes last season
- Isa Silva no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 81% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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.