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-conferenceUNF Arena, Jacksonville, FL
The Citadel
Efficiency #348
2025-26: 11-22 · 8-12 conf
@
North Florida
Efficiency #338
2025-26: 7-25 · 5-14 conf
Sat, Nov 14 · TBD
75.0
win 33%
Projected
80.3
win 67%
No line posted yet.
Model: UNF −5.3 · total 155.3 · 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: North Florida 70.4, The Citadel 66.2 → 68.4 possessions
+0.1
North Florida offense vs The Citadel defense
+4.1
The Citadel offense vs North Florida defense
+2.8
Projected total
155.3
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
North Florida offense vs The Citadel defense
+4.1
The Citadel offense vs North Florida defense
−2.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
North Florida by 5.3
5.3
The Citadel side ◂▸ North Florida side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 155.2 against a projected 155.3, and the margin steps add to +5.2 against +5.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help North Florida.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, North Florida is the faster team (71.9, #26 of 365) and The Citadel the slower (64.7, #335). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
155.3
model
Projected team totals
75.0 / 80.3
The Citadel / North Florida
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.2#333
The Citadel
70.4#29
North Florida
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageNorth Florida
Where North Florida scores: shooting
North Florida shoots an effective 52.9% (#106); The Citadel allows 57.5% (#361). Expect about 55.4%, 4.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.9 points per 100 possessions.
ClashNorth Florida
Style match: 3-point volume
North Florida takes 51.7% of its shots from three; The Citadel lets opponents take 44.1% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 52.2% — both habits push the same way.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
North Florida averages 71.9 possessions per 40, The Citadel 64.7. 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 68 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageThe Citadel
Where The Citadel scores: ball control
The Citadel turns it over on 16.3% of possessions (#157); North Florida forces turnovers on 12.7% of opponent possessions (#362). Expect about 13.9%, 2.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.5 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (The Citadel'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 The Citadel at about 45.9% of its shots from three, North Florida about 52.2%.
GlassNorth Florida
North Florida gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against North Florida's offense.
The Citadel has the ball
OffenseNorth Florida allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #265
56.3% #349
+2.2 pt/100
16.3% #157
12.7% #362
+3.5 pt/100
27.9% #270
37.6% #361
+1.1 pt/100
30.0% #309
31.4% #91
-0.6 pt/100
66.5% #349
—
-0.5 pt/100
The Citadel net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.7 pts/100
North Florida has the ball
OffenseThe Citadel allowsvs D1 avg
52.9% #106
57.5% #361
+5.9 pt/100
17.9% #264
14.7% #307
+0.8 pt/100
25.2% #335
31.5% #227
-1.9 pt/100
28.8% #333
33.3% #136
-0.5 pt/100
77.8% #20
—
+0.5 pt/100
North Florida 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 numbersThe Citadeloffense vsNorth Floridadefense
Share of shots by zone
The Citadel shoots
34.0
7.3
11.4
47.3
North Florida allows
44.5
4.9
12.1
38.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.4%#147 | 62.9%#321 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.4%#167 | 47.1%#334 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.0%#186 | 45.1%#350 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#283 | 35.1%#253 | 33.7% |
North Floridaoffense vsThe Citadeldefense
Share of shots by zone
North Florida shoots
35.7
3.2
9.7
51.4
The Citadel allows
40.5
3.7
11.3
44.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.2%#223 | 65.8%#355 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 30.8%#344 | 42.1%#233 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 46.5%#6 | 43.4%#334 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#117 | 36.6%#335 | 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 numbersThe Citadel
−2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#299 of 365
Off reb %
27.9%
#270
Def reb %
68.5%
#227
Turnover %
16.3%
#157
Forced TO %
14.7%
#307
FT rate
30.0%
#309
FT allowed
33.3%
#136
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.8
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.3
Foul shots allowed+0.5
North Florida
−8.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#362 of 365
Off reb %
25.2%
#335
Def reb %
62.4%
#361
Turnover %
17.9%
#264
Forced TO %
12.7%
#362
FT rate
28.8%
#333
FT allowed
31.4%
#91
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.7
Defensive rebounding−2.3
Ball security−0.7
Forcing turnovers−2.7
Foul shots drawn−1.6
Foul shots allowed+1.0
The Citadel has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.9 (#299 of 365) to North Florida’s −8.0 (#362).
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
The Citadel2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Braxton Williams | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-24 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 49.5% | 34.2% | 7.0 | 77.7% | 32.8% | |
| 8 | Sola Adebisi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 67.1% | 17.3% | |
| 14 | Carter Kingsbury | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-30 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 50.2% | 29.0% | 3.0 | 74.4% | 19.1% | |
| 5 | Eze Wali | G | So | 6'1" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 42.1% | 28.7% | 2.4 | 67.8% | 18.1% | |
| 1 | Christian Moore | F | So | 6'6" | 31-23 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.1% | 38.7% | 5.3 | 67.2% | 27.1% | |
| 4 | Logan Applegate | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-3 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 31.8% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 25.7% | |
| 22 | Keynan Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-8 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 44.7% | 26.5% | 2.6 | 60.3% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Marcos Gonzales | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-0 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 61.9% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Dante Kearse | F | So | 6'4" | 33-0 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 58.4% | 41.5% | 1.6 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 23 | Simeon German | F | Sr | 6'10" | 28-15 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43.6% | — | 0.0 | 16.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | Gabe Hernandez | G | Jr | 5'11" | 18-0 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.5% | |
| 25 | Cassius Bonjasky | F | Jr | 6'7" | 18-0 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 60.7% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 19.5% | |
| 15 | Chase Williams | F | Fr | 6'8" | 8-0 | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Logan Menefee | F | Fr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | — | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Rowan Irelan | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 64.3% | 42.9% | 1.8 | — | 35.2% | |
| 2 | Jameson Heck | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.2% | |
| 12 | Aidan Alexander | F | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 34.9% | |
| 13 | Jack Walter | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 29.1% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
North Florida2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted North Florida'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 | Kamrin Oriol | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-32 | 35.7 | 20.9 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 3.2 | 58.4% | 40.2% | 7.6 | 88.7% | 30.8% | |
| 10 | Kent Jackson | G | So | 6'2" | 32-32 | 31.9 | 14.8 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 51.2% | 34.8% | 9.5 | 92.5% | 27.0% | |
| 1 | BJ Plummer | F | Fr | 6'6" | 32-17 | 26.9 | 7.7 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 51.6% | 32.8% | 4.0 | 65.6% | 17.3% | |
| 2 | Mason Lee | F | So | 6'7" | 32-30 | 26.1 | 8.0 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 64.6% | 37.5% | 2.8 | 69.2% | 16.7% | |
| 21 | Dalton Gayman | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-13 | 23.6 | 10.3 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 52.4% | 36.5% | 2.0 | 76.1% | 24.5% | |
| 24 | Nestor Dyachok | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-18 | 15.2 | 4.3 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 49.5% | 8.0% | 0.8 | 68.0% | 17.0% | |
| 4 | Devin Hines | G | Sr | 6'4" | 27-15 | 17.1 | 5.5 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 45.4% | 24.4% | 1.7 | 71.4% | 20.8% | |
| 5 | Dante Oliver | G | So | 6'5" | 31-0 | 12.8 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 51.6% | 38.9% | 1.2 | 60.0% | 11.1% | |
| 22 | Trey Cady | F | Fr | 6'8" | 29-3 | 11.9 | 6.1 | 2.2 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 48.9% | 33.9% | 1.9 | 74.2% | 28.9% | |
| 3 | Taylor Thompson | G | Fr | 5'11" | 19-0 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 38.5% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 66.7% | 16.0% | |
| 25 | Gabe Jacobs | G | Fr | 6'1" | 9-0 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 57.7% | 30.0% | 1.1 | 100.0% | 22.3% | |
| 13 | Alex Vargo | G | Sr | 6'5" | 1-0 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 12 | Arden Begaj | F | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Mason Watkins | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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.
The Citadel2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Braxton Williams | F | Sr | 6'6" | 33-24 | 29.3 | 14.6 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 49.5% | 34.2% | 7.0 | 77.7% | 32.8% | |
| 8 | Sola Adebisi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.2 | 10.0 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 67.1% | 17.3% | |
| 14 | Carter Kingsbury | G | Jr | 6'5" | 31-30 | 29.1 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 50.2% | 29.0% | 3.0 | 74.4% | 19.1% | |
| 5 | Eze Wali | G | So | 6'1" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 42.1% | 28.7% | 2.4 | 67.8% | 18.1% | |
| 1 | Christian Moore | F | So | 6'6" | 31-23 | 25.0 | 11.2 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 54.1% | 38.7% | 5.3 | 67.2% | 27.1% | |
| 4 | Logan Applegate | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-3 | 15.7 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 31.8% | 4.7 | 77.8% | 25.7% | |
| 22 | Keynan Davis | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-8 | 12.7 | 4.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 44.7% | 26.5% | 2.6 | 60.3% | 26.2% | |
| 3 | Marcos Gonzales | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-0 | 13.2 | 4.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 61.9% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Dante Kearse | F | So | 6'4" | 33-0 | 10.9 | 3.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 58.4% | 41.5% | 1.6 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 23 | Simeon German | F | Sr | 6'10" | 28-15 | 10.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43.6% | — | 0.0 | 16.7% | 16.3% | |
| 7 | Gabe Hernandez | G | Jr | 5'11" | 18-0 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 20.5% | |
| 25 | Cassius Bonjasky | F | Jr | 6'7" | 18-0 | 6.3 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 60.7% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 70.0% | 19.5% | |
| 15 | Chase Williams | F | Fr | 6'8" | 8-0 | 3.9 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 8.6% | |
| 30 | Logan Menefee | F | Fr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 22.2% | — | 0.0 | — | 29.2% | |
| 24 | Rowan Irelan | G | So | 6'3" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 64.3% | 42.9% | 1.8 | — | 35.2% | |
| 2 | Jameson Heck | G | Fr | 5'7" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.2% | |
| 12 | Aidan Alexander | F | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 34.9% | |
| 13 | Jack Walter | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 29.1% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26The Citadel
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
6-6
Road
7-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.2
Covered 3 straightCovered 5 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-14-1
Home
6-5-1
Road
7-8
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +6.0
Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 10 as an underdogOver in 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | ETSU | N | L 76–83 | +15.0 | W+8.0 | 139.0 | O159 | 116.9 | 127.7 | 65.0 |
| Mar 6 | Chattanooga | N | W 88–85 | +7.5 | W+10.5 | 147.5 | O173 | 138.7 | 133.9 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | Wofford | A | W 93–90 OT | +12.0 | W+15.0 | 148.0 | O183 | 126.1 | 122.1 | 73.7 |
| Feb 25 | Furman | A | L 51–72 | +15.5 | L−5.5 | 143.5 | U123 | 85.2 | 120.3 | 59.8 |
| Feb 21 | Chattanooga | H | L 72–93 | +4.0 | L−17.0 | 144.0 | O165 | 99.8 | 128.9 | 72.1 |
| Feb 19 | Samford | H | L 75–78 | +10.5 | W+7.5 | 144.0 | O153 | 105.8 | 110.0 | 70.9 |
| Feb 14 | Mercer | H | L 54–70 | +12.0 | L−4.0 | 147.5 | U124 | 87.6 | 113.6 | 61.6 |
| Feb 11 | W Carolina | A | L 49–87 | +9.5 | L−28.5 | 146.5 | U136 | 78.5 | 139.3 | 62.4 |
| Feb 7 | Chattanooga | A | W 78–71 | +9.5 | W+16.5 | 141.0 | O149 | 114.7 | 104.4 | 68.0 |
| Feb 5 | Samford | A | L 64–78 | +13.5 | L−0.5 | 146.0 | U142 | 98.9 | 120.5 | 64.7 |
North Florida
Against the spread
Season
18-12
Home
7-4
Road
9-7
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +1.3
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 6 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-14-1
Home
4-7
Road
8-7-1
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.3
Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 10 as an underdogOver 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 4 | West Georgia | N | L 85–93 | +4.0 | L−4.0 | 159.0 | O178 | 113.1 | 123.7 | 75.2 |
| Feb 28 | Jacksonville | H | L 61–85 | +1.5 | L−22.5 | 150.0 | U146 | 88.3 | 123.1 | 69.1 |
| Feb 26 | FGCU | H | W 76–70 | +7.0 | W+13.0 | 161.0 | U146 | 109.8 | 101.2 | 69.2 |
| Feb 21 | Stetson | A | L 71–76 | +1.5 | L−3.5 | 160.5 | U147 | 111.1 | 118.9 | 63.9 |
| Feb 19 | Austin Peay | H | L 76–77 | +11.0 | W+10.0 | 165.5 | U153 | 97.5 | 98.7 | 78.0 |
| Feb 14 | Jacksonville | A | L 56–63 | +7.5 | W+0.5 | 153.0 | U119 | 96.1 | 108.2 | 58.3 |
| Feb 11 | FGCU | A | L 81–90 | +12.5 | W+3.5 | 163.5 | O171 | 111.2 | 123.6 | 72.8 |
| Feb 7 | Queens | A | L 72–91 | +15.5 | L−3.5 | 179.5 | U163 | 104.3 | 131.9 | 69.0 |
| Feb 5 | West Georgia | A | W 81–73 | +6.5 | W+14.5 | 166.0 | U154 | 109.0 | 98.2 | 74.3 |
| Jan 31 | Lipscomb | H | L 94–100 | +11.0 | W+5.0 | 166.5 | O194 | 129.0 | 137.2 | 72.9 |
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 homeThe CitadelNorth Florida
Efficiency
102.8
106.9
116.1
118.3
66.2
70.4
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
52.9%
51.0%
53.4%
32.0%
35.0%
66.5%
77.8%
30.0%
28.8%
Ball control & glass
16.3%
17.9%
14.7%
12.7%
27.9%
25.2%
31.5%
37.6%
9.6%
11.2%
10.7%
12.6%
Style
47.8%
51.7%
40.6%
36.0%
10.3%
11.3%
50.6%
50.6%
33.7%
30.3%
Roster
2.98
2.68
6'4.8"
6'5.1"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputThe Citadel
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted The Citadel'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.)
North Florida
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted North Florida'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.