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-conferenceSkip Chappelle Court in Memorial Gymnasium, Orono, MEAmerica East-Metro Challenge
Manhattan
Efficiency #328
2025-26: 12-20 · 8-13 conf
@
Maine
Efficiency #335
2025-26: 8-24 · 6-11 conf
Sun, Nov 8 · 2:00 PM ET
69.1
win 39%
Projected
72.4
win 61%
No line posted yet.
Model: ME −3.3 · total 141.5 · 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: Maine 66.6, Manhattan 68.7 → 67.0 possessions
−2.9
Maine offense vs Manhattan defense
−2.2
Manhattan offense vs Maine defense
−1.7
Projected total
141.5
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Maine offense vs Manhattan defense
−2.2
Manhattan offense vs Maine defense
+1.7
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Maine by 3.3
3.3
Manhattan side ◂▸ Maine side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 141.4 against a projected 141.5, and the margin steps add to +3.4 against +3.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Maine.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Manhattan is the faster team (68.1, #195 of 365) and Maine the slower (64.9, #332). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
141.5
model
Projected team totals
69.1 / 72.4
Manhattan / Maine
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.7#143
Manhattan
66.6#315
Maine
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageManhattan
Where Manhattan struggles: shooting
Manhattan shoots an effective 47.9% (#315); Maine allows 50.6% (#136). Expect about 49.0%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.3 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Maine averages 64.9 possessions per 40, Manhattan 68.1. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageMaine
Where Maine struggles: the offensive glass
Maine rebounds 19.7% of its own misses (#364); Manhattan lets opponents grab 37.0% of their own misses (#358). Expect about 26.1%, 4.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Maine's defense, Manhattan'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 Manhattan at about 35.9% of its shots from three, Maine about 36.6%.
TurnoversMaine
Maine turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.0% is worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions against Maine's offense.
ClashManhattan
Strength vs strength: live-ball turnovers
Manhattan (#52 in live-ball turnovers) against Maine (#25 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 10.6%. Historically Maine's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.40 vs 0.65).
Manhattan has the ball
OffenseMaine allowsvs D1 avg
47.9% #315
50.6% #136
-3.3 pt/100
15.6% #111
19.4% #36
-1.3 pt/100
28.6% #247
34.3% #322
+0.4 pt/100
34.0% #208
33.9% #148
-0.1 pt/100
79.6% #3
—
+0.6 pt/100
Manhattan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.7 pts/100
Maine has the ball
OffenseManhattan allowsvs D1 avg
49.6% #263
53.9% #297
+0.5 pt/100
19.1% #325
16.7% #175
-1.5 pt/100
19.7% #364
37.0% #358
-2.6 pt/100
38.4% #93
25.7% #11
-0.5 pt/100
64.3% #363
—
-0.7 pt/100
Maine net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersManhattanoffense vsMainedefense
Share of shots by zone
Manhattan shoots
38.9
6.2
17.8
37.1
Maine allows
41.6
5.6
16.3
36.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 50.2%#360 | 60.5%#251 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.8%#85 | 47.1%#334 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.9%#38 | 42.5%#318 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#280 | 29.3%#4 | 33.7% |
Maineoffense vsManhattandefense
Share of shots by zone
Maine shoots
41.9
3.7
17.1
37.3
Manhattan allows
40.7
5.9
15.2
38.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.2%#263 | 58.5%#166 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.1%#101 | 42.5%#237 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.9%#148 | 42.7%#326 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.2%#314 | 36.6%#332 | 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 numbersManhattan
+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#168 of 365
Off reb %
28.6%
#247
Def reb %
63.0%
#358
Turnover %
15.6%
#111
Forced TO %
16.7%
#175
FT rate
34.0%
#208
FT allowed
25.7%
#11
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.6
Defensive rebounding−2.0
Ball security+0.8
Forcing turnovers0.0
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+2.4
Maine
−3.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#309 of 365
Off reb %
19.7%
#364
Def reb %
65.7%
#322
Turnover %
19.1%
#325
Forced TO %
19.4%
#36
FT rate
38.4%
#93
FT allowed
33.9%
#148
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−3.4
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−1.6
Forcing turnovers+1.8
Foul shots drawn+0.9
Foul shots allowed+0.3
Manhattan has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#168 of 365) to Maine’s −3.2 (#309).
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
Manhattan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Ben Tweedyat Colgate | G | Jr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 29.4 | 9.4 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 55.9% | 38.5% | 3.3 | 70.3% | 19.0% | |
| 12 | Josiah Sabinoat Niagara | G | Sr | 6'4" | 28-10 | 21.0 | 7.1 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 49.3% | 24.5% | 1.8 | 90.9% | 22.6% | |
| 10 | Quron Elliott | G | So | 6'2" | 29-0 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 47.3% | 31.8% | 0.8 | 70.8% | 20.0% | |
| 16 | Ognjen Stankovicat Akron | F | So | 6'8" | 18-0 | 6.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 55.4% | 20.0% | 0.3 | 58.8% | 22.1% | |
| 23 | Jackson Delaney | G | Sr | 6'5" | 18-0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 42.9% | 36.4% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 11.9% | |
| 1 | Kevin Kearneyat Saint Joseph's | F | So | 6'7" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 18.8% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Asier Miguel | G | So | 6'4" | 9-0 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 59.4% | 30.0% | 1.1 | 50.0% | 26.6% | |
| 87 | Liam McChesneyat Creighton | F | Sr | 6'10" | 3-0 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | — | 42.1% | |
| 20 | Jaeden Robley | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Jameson Borodawka | G | Fr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Nick Lukmann | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Anthony Pacciarelli | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | DaSean Lewis | G | Jr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Dusan Eric | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Isaac Johnson | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Jahzar Greene | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Novak Manojlovic | 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.
Transfers in: Kevin Kearney (from Saint Joseph's), Liam McChesney (from Creighton), Josiah Sabino (from Niagara), Ognjen Stankovic (from Akron), Ben Tweedy (from Colgate)
Maine2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Maine'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 | TJ Biel | F | Sr | 6'9" | 30-30 | 32.5 | 11.7 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 50.5% | 33.0% | 3.6 | 68.7% | 23.1% | |
| 3 | Ryan Mabrey | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-29 | 27.9 | 7.4 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 49.3% | 34.3% | 4.7 | 66.7% | 18.9% | |
| 0 | Logan Carey | G | Jr | 6'3" | 32-27 | 25.4 | 9.7 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 54.0% | 35.6% | 1.8 | 64.8% | 25.0% | |
| 11 | Ace Flagg | F | Fr | 6'7" | 32-11 | 24.2 | 6.7 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 50.9% | 35.6% | 1.8 | 69.7% | 19.6% | |
| 24 | Mekhi Gray | G | Sr | 6'4" | 28-23 | 26.5 | 9.7 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 53.8% | 30.2% | 2.3 | 69.2% | 23.8% | |
| 4 | Caleb Crawford | G | So | 6'0" | 32-6 | 19.9 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 42.0% | 26.3% | 1.8 | 65.9% | 18.6% | |
| 25 | Keelan Steele | F | Sr | 6'10" | 24-23 | 20.6 | 8.1 | 4.5 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 60.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 56.3% | 26.0% | |
| 14 | Amare Allen | F | So | 6'7" | 24-5 | 13.8 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 42.9% | 28.1% | 1.3 | 55.9% | 21.9% | |
| 6 | Yanis Bamba | F | Jr | 6'6" | 25-2 | 11.5 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 39.5% | 18.8% | 1.3 | 60.0% | 20.4% | |
| 64 | Bashir N'Galang | G | Fr | 6'3" | 21-4 | 13.0 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 44.6% | 18.2% | 0.5 | 57.9% | 24.4% | |
| 5 | Isaac Bonilla | G | Jr | 6'1" | 22-0 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 60.0% | 40.0% | 1.6 | 0.0% | 16.1% | |
| 12 | Emmitt Byther | F | Fr | 6'6" | 11-0 | 3.0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 1.7% | |
| 10 | Killian Gribben | F | Sr | 6'10" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 58.1% | |
| 8 | Darius Lopes | G | So | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | John Shea | F | Sr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Joshua Ojuri | F | Fr | 6'6" | 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.
Manhattan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Ben Tweedyat Colgate | G | Jr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 29.4 | 9.4 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 55.9% | 38.5% | 3.3 | 70.3% | 19.0% | |
| 12 | Josiah Sabinoat Niagara | G | Sr | 6'4" | 28-10 | 21.0 | 7.1 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 49.3% | 24.5% | 1.8 | 90.9% | 22.6% | |
| 10 | Quron Elliott | G | So | 6'2" | 29-0 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 47.3% | 31.8% | 0.8 | 70.8% | 20.0% | |
| 16 | Ognjen Stankovicat Akron | F | So | 6'8" | 18-0 | 6.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 55.4% | 20.0% | 0.3 | 58.8% | 22.1% | |
| 23 | Jackson Delaney | G | Sr | 6'5" | 18-0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 42.9% | 36.4% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 11.9% | |
| 1 | Kevin Kearneyat Saint Joseph's | F | So | 6'7" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 18.8% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Asier Miguel | G | So | 6'4" | 9-0 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 59.4% | 30.0% | 1.1 | 50.0% | 26.6% | |
| 87 | Liam McChesneyat Creighton | F | Sr | 6'10" | 3-0 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | — | 42.1% | |
| 20 | Jaeden Robley | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Jameson Borodawka | G | Fr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Nick Lukmann | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Anthony Pacciarelli | G | So | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | DaSean Lewis | G | Jr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Dusan Eric | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Isaac Johnson | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Jahzar Greene | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Novak Manojlovic | 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.
Transfers in: Kevin Kearney (from Saint Joseph's), Liam McChesney (from Creighton), Josiah Sabino (from Niagara), Ognjen Stankovic (from Akron), Ben Tweedy (from Colgate)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Manhattan
Against the spread
Season
11-20
Home
6-7
Road
4-11
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-18
Home
6-7
Road
7-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +0.1
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 5 | Fairfield | N | L 60–71 | +4.5 | L−6.5 | 148.0 | U131 | 88.3 | 104.5 | 67.9 |
| Mar 1 | Iona | H | L 65–69 | +2.0 | L−2.0 | 151.5 | U134 | 86.7 | 92.0 | 75.0 |
| Feb 27 | Saint Peter's | A | L 65–75 | +8.0 | L−2.0 | 145.0 | U140 | 103.6 | 119.5 | 62.8 |
| Feb 20 | Marist | H | L 70–84 | +5.0 | L−9.0 | 142.0 | O154 | 109.3 | 131.2 | 64.0 |
| Feb 15 | Canisius | A | W 69–65 | −1.5 | W+2.5 | 141.0 | U134 | 106.5 | 100.4 | 64.8 |
| Feb 13 | Niagara | A | W 76–69 | −2.0 | W+5.0 | 135.0 | O145 | 119.9 | 108.9 | 63.4 |
| Feb 7 | Sacred Heart | H | W 80–68 | +1.5 | W+13.5 | 161.0 | U148 | 112.6 | 95.7 | 71.1 |
| Feb 5 | Saint Peter's | H | L 75–80 | +4.5 | L−0.5 | 145.5 | O155 | 120.1 | 128.1 | 62.5 |
| Feb 1 | Mount St Marys | A | L 65–72 | +6.5 | L−0.5 | 146.5 | U137 | 99.4 | 110.1 | 65.4 |
| Jan 30 | Rider | H | W 95–90 | −6.0 | L−1.0 | 146.0 | O185 | 141.1 | 133.6 | 67.3 |
Maine
Against the spread
Season
13-17-1
Home
3-8
Road
8-9-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −1.1
Covered the last gameCovered 4 of 10 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
11-18-2
Home
3-8
Road
8-8-2
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +0.6
Under 2 straightOver in 5 of 10 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | NJIT | A | L 58–60 | +3.5 | W+1.5 | 133.5 | U118 | 89.5 | 92.5 | 64.8 |
| Mar 3 | UMass Lowell | H | L 56–67 | +1.0 | L−10.0 | 140.5 | U123 | 85.2 | 102.0 | 65.7 |
| Feb 28 | Binghamton | A | L 67–74 | +1.0 | L−6.0 | 134.0 | O141 | 101.8 | 112.4 | 65.8 |
| Feb 26 | UAlbany | A | W 70–59 | +5.5 | W+16.5 | 131.5 | U129 | 116.3 | 98.0 | 60.2 |
| Feb 21 | New Hampshire | A | W 61–58 | +3.5 | W+6.5 | 136.0 | U119 | 93.8 | 89.2 | 65.0 |
| Feb 14 | NJIT | H | L 58–67 | +2.0 | L−7.0 | 137.0 | U125 | 85.7 | 98.9 | 67.7 |
| Feb 12 | UMBC | H | L 62–78 | +3.5 | L−12.5 | 135.5 | O140 | 91.6 | 115.3 | 67.7 |
| Feb 7 | Bryant | A | L 67–73 | +2.5 | L−3.5 | 128.0 | O140 | 98.8 | 107.7 | 67.8 |
| Feb 5 | Vermont | H | W 76–70 | +7.5 | W+13.5 | 130.0 | O146 | 120.7 | 111.2 | 63.0 |
| Jan 31 | UMass Lowell | A | L 77–91 | +4.5 | L−9.5 | 137.5 | O168 | 108.3 | 128.0 | 71.1 |
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 homeManhattanMaine
Efficiency
105.7
98.0
115.7
108.8
68.7
66.6
—
—
Shooting
47.9%
49.6%
47.8%
51.2%
32.0%
31.2%
79.6%
64.3%
34.0%
38.4%
Ball control & glass
15.6%
19.1%
16.7%
19.4%
28.6%
19.7%
37.0%
34.3%
8.2%
9.5%
10.7%
9.0%
Style
37.1%
37.0%
41.4%
45.1%
11.1%
13.6%
49.6%
54.4%
28.1%
32.9%
Roster
3.05
2.99
6'4"
6'5.3"
7.4%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputManhattan
Returning minutes: 7.4%Returning production: 5.3%
Lost
- Jaden Winston 35.3 mpg, 15.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Devin Dinkins 33.6 mpg, 12.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Fraser Roxburgh 30.6 mpg, 11.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Terrance Jones 28.2 mpg, 12.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Anthony Isaac 23.8 mpg, 9.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Marko Ljubicic 20.0 mpg, 5.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Ben Tweedy from Colgate · 29.4 mpg, 9.4 ppg last season
- Josiah Sabino from Niagara · 19.6 mpg, 6.6 ppg last season
- Ognjen Stankovic from Akron · 3.4 mpg, 1.2 ppg last season
- Kevin Kearney from Saint Joseph's · 1.6 mpg, 0.3 ppg last season
- Liam McChesney from Creighton · 0.2 mpg, 0.1 ppg last season
- Jameson Borodawka no D1 minutes last season
Returns 7% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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).
Maine
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Maine'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.