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-conferencePete Maravich Assembly Center, Baton Rouge, LA
Queens
Efficiency #191
2025-26: 21-14 · 16-5 conf
@
LSU
Efficiency #72
2025-26: 15-17 · 3-16 conf
Sat, Nov 21 · TBD
76.2
win 21%
Projected
85.6
win 79%
No line posted yet.
Model: LSU −9.3 · total 161.8 · 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: LSU 67.9, Queens 69.7 → 69.3 possessions
+2.1
LSU offense vs Queens defense
+8.4
Queens offense vs LSU defense
+3.1
Projected total
161.8
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
LSU offense vs Queens defense
+8.4
Queens offense vs LSU defense
−3.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
LSU by 9.3
9.3
Queens side ◂▸ LSU 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 LSU.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Queens is the faster team (70.6, #68 of 365) and LSU the slower (68.6, #168). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
161.8
model
Projected team totals
76.2 / 85.6
Queens / LSU
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.7#68
Queens
67.9#219
LSU
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageQueens
Where Queens scores: shooting
Queens shoots an effective 56.4% (#15); LSU allows 50.9% (#150). Expect about 54.1%, 2.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.0 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageLSU
Where LSU scores: shooting
LSU shoots an effective 52.8% (#111); Queens allows 54.6% (#319). Expect about 53.9%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.7 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversQueens
Queens protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 13.8% is worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions for Queens's offense.
TurnoversLSU
LSU protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.1% is worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions for LSU's offense.
GlassLSU
LSU owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.8% is worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions for LSU's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Queens'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 Queens at about 44.1% of its shots from three, LSU about 35.4%.
Queens has the ball
OffenseLSU allowsvs D1 avg
56.4% #15
50.9% #150
+4.0 pt/100
14.8% #54
13.9% #338
+3.6 pt/100
30.2% #190
31.7% #239
+0.3 pt/100
35.4% #167
37.8% #256
+0.2 pt/100
74.9% #88
—
+0.2 pt/100
Queens net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +8.4 pts/100
LSU has the ball
OffenseQueens allowsvs D1 avg
52.8% #111
54.6% #319
+3.7 pt/100
15.6% #107
15.1% #277
+2.1 pt/100
33.1% #87
33.6% #308
+2.1 pt/100
40.9% #49
38.1% #263
+0.6 pt/100
76.4% #43
—
+0.3 pt/100
LSU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +8.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersQueensoffense vsLSUdefense
Share of shots by zone
Queens shoots
40.4
6.0
7.2
46.4
LSU allows
39.5
6.9
16.5
37.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.2%#32 | 56.4%#98 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#42 | 34.2%#47 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.5%#95 | 39.9%#241 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#74 | 35.4%#271 | 33.7% |
LSUoffense vsQueensdefense
Share of shots by zone
LSU shoots
40.3
9.4
15.8
34.5
Queens allows
42.3
5.5
13.0
39.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.8%#56 | 58.9%#186 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.3%#240 | 50.5%#357 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.8%#115 | 37.8%#153 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.1%#225 | 36.5%#325 | 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 numbersQueens
−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#251 of 365
Off reb %
30.2%
#190
Def reb %
66.4%
#308
Turnover %
14.8%
#54
Forced TO %
15.1%
#277
FT rate
35.4%
#167
FT allowed
38.1%
#263
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding−0.9
Ball security+1.4
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed−0.7
LSU
+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#170 of 365
Off reb %
33.1%
#87
Def reb %
68.3%
#239
Turnover %
15.6%
#107
Forced TO %
13.9%
#338
FT rate
40.9%
#49
FT allowed
37.8%
#256
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.9
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+0.8
Forcing turnovers−1.9
Foul shots drawn+1.5
Foul shots allowed−0.7
LSU has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#170 of 365) to Queens’s −1.3 (#251).
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
Queens2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Chris Ashby | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-35 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 53.5% | 37.5% | 8.5 | 87.8% | 20.5% | |
| 1 | Nasir Mann | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 30.4 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 54.6% | 31.8% | 3.1 | 78.0% | 24.1% | |
| 24 | Yoav Berman | G | So | 6'6" | 35-30 | 29.2 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 48.3% | 29.7% | 4.2 | 78.7% | 25.2% | |
| 22 | Carson Schwieger | F | So | 6'8" | 34-27 | 24.6 | 10.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 60.7% | 40.9% | 6.6 | 69.0% | 20.4% | |
| 6 | Avantae Parker | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 22.1 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 68.2% | 38.5% | 0.4 | 61.7% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | Jordan Watford | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-8 | 20.8 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 61.8% | 37.5% | 0.7 | 77.8% | 29.0% | |
| 9 | Maban Jabriel | F | So | 6'9" | 35-2 | 19.8 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 61.6% | 43.2% | 3.2 | 77.4% | 19.9% | |
| 7 | Gus Larson | F | Sr | 6'10" | 35-1 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 55.3% | 18.8% | 0.5 | 57.4% | 16.8% | |
| 3 | Isaiah Henry | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-0 | 7.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 25.0% | 0.6 | 73.3% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Kam Clark | F | Jr | 6'7" | 26-3 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 35.1% | 11.1% | 1.0 | 78.9% | 19.1% | |
| 4 | Reid Celestin | G | Jr | 6'6" | 15-0 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 25.0% | 12.9% | |
| 12 | Tyler Crider | G | Fr | 6'0" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 22.6% | |
| 25 | Jacob Brandly | G | Fr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 35 | Colby Christiansen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Danzelle Bullock Coles | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jimma James | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Matthew Walter | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Saif-Allah Zatari | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Seamus Wilson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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.
LSU2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Pablo Tamba | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-32 | 28.6 | 7.9 | 7.3 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 64.1% | 32.0% | 0.8 | 60.7% | 14.6% | |
| 2 | Jalen Reece | G | Fr | 6'0" | 32-10 | 23.8 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 42.2% | 29.9% | 2.4 | 72.3% | 18.6% | |
| 1 | Mike Nwoko | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-29 | 21.9 | 13.4 | 5.9 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 61.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 76.1% | 31.9% | |
| 4 | Rashad King | G | Sr | 6'6" | 32-9 | 18.7 | 5.8 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 47.5% | 29.5% | 2.8 | 78.6% | 20.5% | |
| 11 | Dedan Thomas Jr. | G | Jr | 6'1" | 16-15 | 29.4 | 15.3 | 2.7 | 6.5 | 1.6 | 49.4% | 30.2% | 2.7 | 83.3% | 29.5% | |
| 7 | PJ Carter | G | Sr | 6'4" | 25-1 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 49.5% | 33.7% | 3.4 | 85.7% | 23.1% | |
| 0 | Mazi Mosley | G | Fr | 6'5" | 18-0 | 6.7 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 48.6% | 38.5% | 1.4 | 0.0% | 20.0% | |
| 9 | Jalen Reed | F | Jr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 17.8 | 9.5 | 5.7 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 61.4% | 42.9% | 1.2 | 66.7% | 28.5% | |
| 16 | Ron Zipper | G | Fr | 6'5" | 9-0 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 53.6% | 41.7% | 1.3 | 83.3% | 35.5% | |
| 14 | Jaden Bobbett | G | Sr | 6'1" | 6-0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | — | 23.9% | |
| 5 | Marcus Vaughn | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Matt Gilhool | F | Fr | 6'11" | 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.
Queens2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Chris Ashby | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-35 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 53.5% | 37.5% | 8.5 | 87.8% | 20.5% | |
| 1 | Nasir Mann | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 30.4 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 54.6% | 31.8% | 3.1 | 78.0% | 24.1% | |
| 24 | Yoav Berman | G | So | 6'6" | 35-30 | 29.2 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 48.3% | 29.7% | 4.2 | 78.7% | 25.2% | |
| 22 | Carson Schwieger | F | So | 6'8" | 34-27 | 24.6 | 10.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 60.7% | 40.9% | 6.6 | 69.0% | 20.4% | |
| 6 | Avantae Parker | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 22.1 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 68.2% | 38.5% | 0.4 | 61.7% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | Jordan Watford | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-8 | 20.8 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 61.8% | 37.5% | 0.7 | 77.8% | 29.0% | |
| 9 | Maban Jabriel | F | So | 6'9" | 35-2 | 19.8 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 61.6% | 43.2% | 3.2 | 77.4% | 19.9% | |
| 7 | Gus Larson | F | Sr | 6'10" | 35-1 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 55.3% | 18.8% | 0.5 | 57.4% | 16.8% | |
| 3 | Isaiah Henry | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-0 | 7.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 25.0% | 0.6 | 73.3% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Kam Clark | F | Jr | 6'7" | 26-3 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 35.1% | 11.1% | 1.0 | 78.9% | 19.1% | |
| 4 | Reid Celestin | G | Jr | 6'6" | 15-0 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 25.0% | 12.9% | |
| 12 | Tyler Crider | G | Fr | 6'0" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 22.6% | |
| 25 | Jacob Brandly | G | Fr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 35 | Colby Christiansen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Danzelle Bullock Coles | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jimma James | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Matthew Walter | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Saif-Allah Zatari | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Seamus Wilson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Queens
Against the spread
Season
15-17-1
Home
9-4
Road
4-12
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover +0.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
23-9-1
Home
10-3
Road
10-5-1
Last 10
8-1-1
avg vs total +8.2
Over 3 straightOver in 5 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #2Purdue | N | L 71–104 | +25.5 | L−7.5 | 159.5 | O175 | 105.1 | 154.0 | 67.5 |
| Mar 8 | C Arkansas | N | W 98–93 OT | +2.0 | W+7.0 | 157.0 | O191 | 122.3 | 116.0 | 80.2 |
| Mar 7 | Austin Peay | N | W 90–83 | +2.0 | W+9.0 | 161.5 | O173 | 123.8 | 114.1 | 72.7 |
| Mar 6 | West Georgia | N | W 71–63 | −8.0 | P0.0 | 165.5 | U134 | 97.5 | 86.5 | 72.8 |
| Feb 28 | C Arkansas | A | L 79–84 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 163.0 | P163 | 111.3 | 118.4 | 70.9 |
| Feb 25 | E Kentucky | A | W 96–79 | −2.5 | W+14.5 | 165.5 | O175 | 135.8 | 111.8 | 70.7 |
| Feb 21 | West Georgia | H | W 91–84 | −11.0 | L−4.0 | 162.5 | O175 | 126.3 | 116.6 | 72.1 |
| Feb 18 | North Alabama | A | W 85–78 | −8.5 | L−1.5 | 155.5 | O163 | 126.1 | 115.7 | 67.4 |
| Feb 14 | Lipscomb | H | W 87–81 | −3.0 | W+3.0 | 165.5 | O168 | 110.9 | 103.2 | 78.5 |
| Feb 11 | Austin Peay | H | L 87–95 | −2.5 | L−10.5 | 161.0 | O182 | 118.1 | 128.9 | 73.7 |
LSU
Against the spread
Season
18-14
Home
7-10
Road
8-2
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −3.1
Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-15-2
Home
7-8-2
Road
5-5
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +10.2
Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | Kentucky | N | L 82–87 | +9.0 | W+4.0 | 151.5 | O169 | 116.8 | 123.9 | 70.2 |
| Mar 7 | Texas A&M | H | L 91–94 3OT | +2.5 | L−0.5 | 160.5 | O185 | 98.7 | 101.9 | 92.2 |
| Mar 3 | Auburn | A | L 74–88 | +10.5 | L−3.5 | 155.5 | O162 | 109.8 | 130.6 | 67.4 |
| Feb 28 | Oklahoma | H | L 67–83 | −2.0 | L−18.0 | 156.0 | U150 | 102.6 | 127.1 | 65.3 |
| Feb 25 | Ole Miss | A | W 106–99 2OT | +2.0 | W+9.0 | 147.0 | O205 | 125.8 | 117.5 | 84.3 |
| Feb 21 | #25Alabama | H | L 83–90 | +7.5 | W+0.5 | 172.0 | O173 | 116.9 | 126.7 | 71.0 |
| Feb 17 | Texas | A | L 85–88 | +11.0 | W+8.0 | 151.0 | O173 | 123.9 | 128.3 | 68.6 |
| Feb 14 | Tennessee | A | L 63–73 | +14.5 | W+4.5 | 143.5 | U136 | 107.7 | 124.8 | 58.5 |
| Feb 10 | #21Arkansas | H | L 62–91 | +5.0 | L−24.0 | 159.0 | U153 | 83.1 | 122.0 | 74.6 |
| Feb 7 | Georgia | H | L 71–83 | +1.0 | L−11.0 | 161.5 | U154 | 107.7 | 125.9 | 65.9 |
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 homeQueensLSU
Efficiency
113.5
114.7
114.4
107.9
69.7
67.9
—
—
Shooting
56.4%
52.8%
58.9%
54.5%
35.7%
33.1%
74.9%
76.4%
35.4%
40.9%
Ball control & glass
14.8%
15.6%
15.1%
13.9%
30.2%
33.1%
33.6%
31.7%
9.0%
9.5%
9.4%
8.3%
Style
46.5%
34.5%
43.6%
46.3%
13.2%
13.4%
54.9%
52.5%
32.2%
29.8%
Roster
2.73
2.99
6'6.2"
6'5.1"
—
60.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputQueens
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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.)
LSU
Returning minutes: 60.6%Returning production: 60.9%
Lost
- Marquel Sutton 31.4 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Max Mackinnon 30.9 mpg, 15.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Robert Miller III 18.8 mpg, 5.9 ppg · transferred to Miami
Added
- Matt Gilhool no D1 minutes last season
- Marcus Vaughn no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 61% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
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.