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-conferenceMVP Arena, Albany, NY
Princeton
Efficiency #251
2025-26: 9-20 · 5-9 conf
@
Siena
Efficiency #134
2025-26: 23-12 · 16-7 conf
Sun, Nov 8 · 1:00 PM ET
64.8
win 25%
Projected
72.5
win 75%
No line posted yet.
Model: SIE −7.7 · total 137.3 · 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: Siena 66.4, Princeton 66.1 → 64.2 possessions
−9.0
Siena offense vs Princeton defense
+1.0
Princeton offense vs Siena defense
−3.0
Projected total
137.3
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Siena offense vs Princeton defense
+1.0
Princeton offense vs Siena defense
+3.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
Siena by 7.7
7.7
Princeton side ◂▸ Siena side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 137.2 against a projected 137.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Siena.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 64.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Princeton is the faster team (64.5, #342 of 365) and Siena the slower (64.2, #350). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
64.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
137.3
model
Projected team totals
64.8 / 72.5
Princeton / Siena
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.1#341
Princeton
66.4#322
Siena
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Siena averages 64.2 possessions per 40, Princeton 64.5. 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 63 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantagePrinceton
Where Princeton struggles: shooting
Princeton shoots an effective 49.6% (#260); Siena allows 48.5% (#48). Expect about 48.9%, 2.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.4 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageSiena
Where Siena scores: ball control
Siena turns it over on 15.8% of possessions (#126); Princeton forces turnovers on 14.3% of opponent possessions (#327). Expect about 14.6%, 2.1 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 (Siena, Princeton'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 Princeton at about 43.5% of its shots from three, Siena about 34.9%.
GlassPrinceton
Princeton gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.7% is worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions against Princeton's offense.
Princeton has the ball
OffenseSiena allowsvs D1 avg
49.6% #260
48.5% #48
-3.4 pt/100
17.1% #211
17.0% #152
-0.4 pt/100
27.2% #287
29.5% #133
-1.6 pt/100
34.6% #192
27.5% #27
-0.6 pt/100
74.8% #90
—
+0.2 pt/100
Princeton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.8 pts/100
Siena has the ball
OffensePrinceton allowsvs D1 avg
50.4% #222
52.0% #209
-0.2 pt/100
15.8% #126
14.3% #327
+2.6 pt/100
31.8% #133
28.5% #82
+0.0 pt/100
33.4% #226
34.0% #152
-0.2 pt/100
77.1% #32
—
+0.4 pt/100
Siena net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersPrincetonoffense vsSienadefense
Share of shots by zone
Princeton shoots
35.0
4.3
16.2
44.5
Siena allows
36.8
4.8
19.2
39.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.0%#341 | 53.4%#29 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 45.0%#65 | 44.7%#287 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.5%#170 | 39.7%#232 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#177 | 32.3%#82 | 33.7% |
Sienaoffense vsPrincetondefense
Share of shots by zone
Siena shoots
40.8
5.5
22.2
31.6
Princeton allows
41.0
5.0
14.1
39.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.7%#206 | 61.4%#283 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.5%#46 | 45.1%#301 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.1%#23 | 42.3%#313 | 38.0% |
| Three | 30.6%#330 | 31.1%#36 | 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 numbersPrinceton
−2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#268 of 365
Off reb %
27.2%
#287
Def reb %
71.5%
#82
Turnover %
17.1%
#211
Forced TO %
14.3%
#327
FT rate
34.6%
#192
FT allowed
34.0%
#152
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.0
Defensive rebounding+0.7
Ball security−0.2
Forcing turnovers−1.7
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed+0.3
Siena
+3.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#50 of 365
Off reb %
31.8%
#133
Def reb %
70.5%
#133
Turnover %
15.8%
#126
Forced TO %
17.0%
#152
FT rate
33.4%
#226
FT allowed
27.5%
#27
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.5
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.4
Foul shots allowed+2.0
Siena has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.2 (#50 of 365) to Princeton’s −2.0 (#268).
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
Princeton2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Princeton'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | Jackson Hicke | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-29 | 34.0 | 15.4 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 54.3% | 39.8% | 4.2 | 83.2% | 27.7% | |
| 8 | Landon Clark | G | Fr | 6'8" | 29-22 | 28.8 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 52.0% | 35.6% | 3.6 | 73.1% | 14.6% | |
| 7 | Malik Abdullahi | F | So | 6'7" | 27-25 | 28.5 | 9.7 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 56.7% | 9.1% | 0.8 | 72.1% | 20.7% | |
| 21 | Jack Stanton | G | So | 6'2" | 23-22 | 31.0 | 10.9 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 54.8% | 37.7% | 6.6 | 93.8% | 20.0% | |
| 12 | Jacob Huggins | F | Jr | 6'8" | 29-5 | 21.2 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 38.9% | 30.0% | 0.7 | 61.9% | 17.5% | |
| 22 | Dalen Davis | G | Jr | 6'0" | 20-15 | 27.7 | 14.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 45.8% | 39.0% | 4.1 | 89.4% | 35.6% | |
| 4 | CJ Happy | F | So | 6'9" | 25-24 | 18.4 | 6.8 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 48.2% | 30.5% | 3.3 | 36.0% | 28.4% | |
| 23 | Sebastian Whitfield | F | Fr | 6'6" | 29-3 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 43.0% | 27.3% | 1.5 | 60.0% | 22.2% | |
| 24 | Jacob Hammond | F | Fr | 6'6" | 23-0 | 7.1 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 40.2% | 5.6% | 0.8 | 72.2% | 26.3% | |
| 2 | Peyton Seals | G | So | 6'4" | 18-0 | 8.7 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 29.2% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 16.9% | |
| 11 | Jake Sussberg | G | Fr | 6'5" | 19-0 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 53.0% | 34.6% | 1.4 | 72.7% | 19.8% | |
| 15 | Cash McSweeney | F | Fr | 6'8" | 14-0 | 5.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 38.5% | 28.6% | 0.5 | 25.0% | 19.5% | |
| 5 | Zio Kim | G | So | 6'4" | 8-0 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 83.3% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 26.3% | |
| 6 | Ryan Mandes | G | Fr | 6'3" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 8.6% | |
| 0 | Will Kutzler | F | Jr | 6'7" | 4-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 66 | Cooper Mueller | G | Jr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 75.0% | 100.0% | 0.5 | — | 57.8% | |
| 10 | Lucas Denault | G | Jr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 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.
Siena2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Brendan Coyle | G | Sr | 6'7" | 35-35 | 30.5 | 8.7 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 46.8% | 30.0% | 6.8 | 82.1% | 19.8% | |
| 30 | Tan Yildizogluat VMI | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 10.2 | 3.6 | 4.7 | 2.3 | 45.4% | 27.1% | 3.8 | 63.3% | 24.5% | |
| 2 | Isaiah Henderson | G | So | 6'6" | 28-1 | 13.8 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 47.1% | 30.4% | 2.5 | 75.8% | 18.8% | |
| 11 | Owen Schlager | G | So | 6'3" | 5-0 | 10.0 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 31.8% | 14.3% | 1.4 | 70.0% | 27.5% | |
| 33 | Chris Torres | G | Jr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 24.4% | |
| 12 | Reid Ducharme | G | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Andrs Amn | G | Fr | 7'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Angelos Bratakos | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Mana Martin | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Pace Prosser | G | Jr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Parrish Edmond Jr. | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 94 | Paul Lambert | G | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Sei'Mir Roberson | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Tim Ibukunoluwa | G | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Trent Egbiremolen | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 77 | Yannis Steger | G | Fr | 6'10" | 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.
Transfers in: Tan Yildizoglu (from VMI)
Princeton2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Princeton'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | Jackson Hicke | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-29 | 34.0 | 15.4 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 54.3% | 39.8% | 4.2 | 83.2% | 27.7% | |
| 8 | Landon Clark | G | Fr | 6'8" | 29-22 | 28.8 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 52.0% | 35.6% | 3.6 | 73.1% | 14.6% | |
| 7 | Malik Abdullahi | F | So | 6'7" | 27-25 | 28.5 | 9.7 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 56.7% | 9.1% | 0.8 | 72.1% | 20.7% | |
| 21 | Jack Stanton | G | So | 6'2" | 23-22 | 31.0 | 10.9 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 54.8% | 37.7% | 6.6 | 93.8% | 20.0% | |
| 12 | Jacob Huggins | F | Jr | 6'8" | 29-5 | 21.2 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 38.9% | 30.0% | 0.7 | 61.9% | 17.5% | |
| 22 | Dalen Davis | G | Jr | 6'0" | 20-15 | 27.7 | 14.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 45.8% | 39.0% | 4.1 | 89.4% | 35.6% | |
| 4 | CJ Happy | F | So | 6'9" | 25-24 | 18.4 | 6.8 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 48.2% | 30.5% | 3.3 | 36.0% | 28.4% | |
| 23 | Sebastian Whitfield | F | Fr | 6'6" | 29-3 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 43.0% | 27.3% | 1.5 | 60.0% | 22.2% | |
| 24 | Jacob Hammond | F | Fr | 6'6" | 23-0 | 7.1 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 40.2% | 5.6% | 0.8 | 72.2% | 26.3% | |
| 2 | Peyton Seals | G | So | 6'4" | 18-0 | 8.7 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 48.4% | 29.2% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 16.9% | |
| 11 | Jake Sussberg | G | Fr | 6'5" | 19-0 | 6.7 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 53.0% | 34.6% | 1.4 | 72.7% | 19.8% | |
| 15 | Cash McSweeney | F | Fr | 6'8" | 14-0 | 5.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 38.5% | 28.6% | 0.5 | 25.0% | 19.5% | |
| 5 | Zio Kim | G | So | 6'4" | 8-0 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 83.3% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 26.3% | |
| 6 | Ryan Mandes | G | Fr | 6'3" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 8.6% | |
| 0 | Will Kutzler | F | Jr | 6'7" | 4-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 66 | Cooper Mueller | G | Jr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 75.0% | 100.0% | 0.5 | — | 57.8% | |
| 10 | Lucas Denault | G | Jr | 6'3" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 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 2025-26Princeton
Against the spread
Season
15-12-1
Home
7-4
Road
5-7-1
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-15
Home
4-7
Road
6-7
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.7
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Yale | A | L 53–78 | +14.0 | L−11.0 | 137.0 | U131 | 79.6 | 117.2 | 66.6 |
| Feb 28 | Dartmouth | H | W 82–61 | −2.0 | W+19.0 | 141.5 | O143 | 126.9 | 94.4 | 64.6 |
| Feb 27 | Harvard | H | L 56–58 | +4.0 | W+2.0 | 129.5 | U114 | 93.3 | 96.6 | 60.0 |
| Feb 20 | Brown | A | L 71–80 | +3.0 | L−6.0 | 130.0 | O151 | 110.7 | 124.7 | 64.1 |
| Feb 14 | Columbia | H | L 65–75 | +1.5 | L−8.5 | 136.5 | O140 | 115.5 | 133.2 | 56.3 |
| Feb 13 | Cornell | H | L 65–89 | +3.5 | L−20.5 | 154.5 | U154 | 102.7 | 140.6 | 63.3 |
| Feb 7 | Penn | A | L 60–61 | +3.5 | W+2.5 | 145.0 | U121 | 102.8 | 104.5 | 58.4 |
| Jan 31 | Columbia | A | W 80–68 | +5.5 | W+17.5 | 139.0 | O148 | 129.0 | 109.6 | 62.0 |
| Jan 30 | Cornell | A | L 64–87 | +7.0 | L−16.0 | 159.5 | U151 | 104.1 | 141.5 | 61.5 |
| Jan 24 | Brown | H | W 63–53 | −4.5 | W+5.5 | 133.5 | U116 | 98.7 | 83.1 | 63.8 |
Siena
Against the spread
Season
20-14-1
Home
7-6
Road
8-7-1
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +2.2
Covered 5 straightCovered 4 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
11-23-1
Home
4-9
Road
7-9
Last 10
1-8-1
avg vs total −3.4
Over in 0 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19 | #1Duke | N | L 65–71 | +27.5 | W+21.5 | 136.0 | P136 | 105.0 | 114.7 | 61.9 |
| Mar 10 | Merrimack | N | W 64–54 | +1.5 | W+11.5 | 128.5 | U118 | 100.7 | 84.9 | 63.6 |
| Mar 8 | Fairfield | N | W 76–61 | −1.5 | W+13.5 | 138.0 | U137 | 119.0 | 95.5 | 63.9 |
| Mar 7 | Mount St Marys | N | W 63–58 | −3.0 | W+2.0 | 135.0 | U121 | 104.4 | 96.1 | 60.3 |
| Mar 1 | Rider | H | W 76–61 | −14.5 | W+0.5 | 137.5 | U137 | 114.2 | 91.6 | 66.6 |
| Feb 27 | Fairfield | A | L 58–72 | −1.0 | L−15.0 | 142.5 | U130 | 82.9 | 102.9 | 69.9 |
| Feb 22 | Saint Peter's | H | W 72–63 | −6.0 | W+3.0 | 136.0 | U135 | 117.3 | 102.6 | 61.4 |
| Feb 20 | Merrimack | A | L 72–79 OT | +2.5 | L−4.5 | 133.0 | O151 | 113.6 | 124.7 | 63.4 |
| Feb 15 | Marist | A | W 67–63 | +2.0 | W+6.0 | 134.0 | U130 | 102.7 | 96.5 | 65.3 |
| Feb 13 | Quinnipiac | H | L 62–74 | −4.0 | L−16.0 | 144.0 | U136 | 92.8 | 110.8 | 66.8 |
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 homePrincetonSiena
Efficiency
105.7
108.6
109.9
106.7
66.1
66.4
—
—
Shooting
49.6%
50.4%
48.6%
52.5%
33.9%
30.6%
74.8%
77.1%
34.6%
33.4%
Ball control & glass
17.1%
15.8%
14.3%
17.0%
27.2%
31.8%
28.5%
29.5%
10.2%
10.2%
10.3%
9.5%
Style
44.5%
32.2%
36.7%
47.7%
4.4%
7.1%
55.0%
53.2%
27.9%
22.3%
Roster
2.10
3.65
6'5.6"
6'5.6"
—
21.6%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputPrinceton
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Princeton'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.)
Siena
Returning minutes: 21.6%Returning production: 12.4%
Lost
- Gavin Doty 36.7 mpg, 18.0 ppg · transferred to Syracuse
- Justice Shoats 35.6 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Francis Folefac 28.1 mpg, 11.3 ppg · transferred to Syracuse
- Antonio Chandler 18.3 mpg, 6.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Christian Jones 17.0 mpg, 4.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Riley Mulvey 13.4 mpg, 2.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Tan Yildizoglu from VMI · 30.2 mpg, 9.9 ppg last season
- Paul Lambert no D1 minutes last season
- Angelos Bratakos no D1 minutes last season
- Mana Martin no D1 minutes last season
- Yannis Steger no D1 minutes last season
- Tim Ibukunoluwa no D1 minutes last season
Returns 22% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (2 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 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.