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-conferenceTrask Coliseum, Wilmington, NCSeahawk Classic
Princeton
Efficiency #251
2025-26: 9-20 · 5-9 conf
@
UNC Wilmington
Efficiency #86
2025-26: 27-7 · 15-4 conf
Fri, Nov 27 · TBD
64.5
win 20%
Projected
74.1
win 80%
No line posted yet.
Model: UNCW −9.6 · total 138.7 · 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: UNC Wilmington 66.7, Princeton 66.1 → 64.5 possessions
−8.4
UNC Wilmington offense vs Princeton defense
+2.4
Princeton offense vs UNC Wilmington defense
−3.5
Projected total
138.7
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
UNC Wilmington offense vs Princeton defense
+2.4
Princeton offense vs UNC Wilmington defense
+3.5
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
UNC Wilmington by 9.6
9.6
Princeton side ◂▸ UNC Wilmington 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 UNC Wilmington.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 64.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UNC Wilmington is the faster team (66.1, #291 of 365) and Princeton the slower (64.5, #342). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
64.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
138.7
model
Projected team totals
64.5 / 74.1
Princeton / UNC Wilmington
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.1#341
Princeton
66.7#307
UNC Wilmington
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
UNC Wilmington averages 66.1 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 64 — 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); UNC Wilmington allows 47.5% (#30). Expect about 48.4%, 2.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.1 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageUNC Wilmington
Where UNC Wilmington scores: ball control
UNC Wilmington turns it over on 14.8% of possessions (#57); Princeton forces turnovers on 14.3% of opponent possessions (#327). Expect about 14.1%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.
GlassPrinceton
Princeton gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.8% is worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions against Princeton's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (UNC Wilmington's defense, 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 45.5% of its shots from three, UNC Wilmington about 40.2%.
GlassUNC Wilmington
UNC Wilmington owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 32.9% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for UNC Wilmington's offense.
Princeton has the ball
OffenseUNC Wilmington allowsvs D1 avg
49.6% #260
47.5% #30
-4.1 pt/100
17.1% #211
14.9% #295
+1.2 pt/100
27.2% #287
27.6% #51
-2.2 pt/100
34.6% #192
31.7% #99
-0.3 pt/100
74.8% #90
—
+0.2 pt/100
Princeton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.2 pts/100
UNC Wilmington has the ball
OffensePrinceton allowsvs D1 avg
50.4% #220
52.0% #209
-0.2 pt/100
14.8% #57
14.3% #327
+3.3 pt/100
35.3% #40
28.5% #82
+1.5 pt/100
40.4% #54
34.0% #152
+0.3 pt/100
68.7% #306
—
-0.3 pt/100
UNC Wilmington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersPrincetonoffense vsUNC Wilmingtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Princeton shoots
35.0
4.3
16.2
44.5
UNC Wilmington allows
31.4
8.2
18.0
42.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.0%#341 | 58.8%#182 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 45.0%#65 | 32.6%#25 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.5%#170 | 39.3%#215 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#177 | 29.7%#6 | 33.7% |
UNC Wilmingtonoffense vsPrincetondefense
Share of shots by zone
UNC Wilmington shoots
35.7
9.4
16.2
38.7
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 | 59.5%#145 | 61.4%#283 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 32.1%#327 | 45.1%#301 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 34.2%#308 | 42.3%#313 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#124 | 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
UNC Wilmington
+5.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#23 of 365
Off reb %
35.3%
#40
Def reb %
72.4%
#51
Turnover %
14.8%
#57
Forced TO %
14.9%
#295
FT rate
40.4%
#54
FT allowed
31.7%
#99
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.6
Defensive rebounding+1.0
Ball security+1.3
Forcing turnovers−1.2
Foul shots drawn+1.4
Foul shots allowed+0.9
UNC Wilmington has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.0 (#23 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.
UNC Wilmington2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted UNC Wilmington'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Nolan Hodge | G | Sr | 6'7" | 34-34 | 32.3 | 14.2 | 4.6 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 52.7% | 39.3% | 6.9 | 76.8% | 25.1% | |
| 7 | Greedy Williams | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-34 | 30.6 | 9.1 | 2.7 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 49.3% | 34.3% | 2.1 | 77.4% | 19.3% | |
| 5 | Noah Ross | G | Sr | 6'7" | 34-34 | 29.2 | 9.4 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 47.0% | 25.6% | 2.3 | 69.4% | 21.1% | |
| 8 | Christian May | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-31 | 29.6 | 10.6 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 51.3% | 35.2% | 5.5 | 64.7% | 23.9% | |
| 2 | Patrick Wessler | F | Jr | 7'1" | 34-34 | 26.7 | 13.6 | 9.5 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 59.9% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 55.8% | 28.6% | |
| 1 | Madison Durr | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-0 | 21.6 | 10.3 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 42.6% | 31.9% | 2.0 | 75.4% | 30.1% | |
| 22 | Gavin Walsh | F | Jr | 6'8" | 15-3 | 26.0 | 9.5 | 6.5 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 49.2% | 32.6% | 3.1 | 45.8% | 24.0% | |
| 13 | Makoi Mabor Makoi | F | So | 6'11" | 33-0 | 8.7 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 48.8% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 80.0% | 13.7% | |
| 0 | Jahnathan Lamothe | G | Jr | 6'4" | 19-0 | 15.0 | 5.4 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 54.6% | 40.3% | 3.5 | 53.3% | 21.9% | |
| 10 | Grady Whitt | G | So | 6'3" | 7-0 | 4.4 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 50.0% | 13.9% | |
| 12 | Makel Smith | G | So | 6'1" | 8-0 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 66.7% | 40.0% | 1.3 | 0.0% | 27.7% | |
| 14 | JoJo Fullwood | G | Sr | 6'2" | 8-0 | 3.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 15.9% | |
| 35 | Adam Tokpah | F | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | CJ Luster II | G | Sr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Matija Prodanovic | 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.
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 |
UNC Wilmington
Against the spread
Season
16-15-1
Home
8-8-1
Road
8-6
Last 10
7-3
avg cover −0.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 6 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
18-14
Home
8-9
Road
9-5
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −4.2
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21 | Dayton | H | L 61–80 | +3.5 | L−15.5 | 138.5 | O141 | 95.9 | 125.8 | 63.6 |
| Mar 17 | Yale | A | W 68–67 | +4.5 | W+5.5 | 148.5 | U135 | 104.5 | 103.0 | 65.1 |
| Mar 8 | Campbell | N | L 70–85 | −7.5 | L−22.5 | 149.0 | O155 | 97.8 | 118.7 | 71.6 |
| Mar 3 | Elon | A | W 76–57 | −5.0 | W+14.0 | 145.5 | U133 | 113.6 | 85.2 | 66.9 |
| Mar 1 | Charleston | H | L 76–79 | −5.0 | L−8.0 | 147.0 | O155 | 117.9 | 122.6 | 64.5 |
| Feb 26 | NC A&T | H | W 88–65 | −13.5 | W+9.5 | 147.5 | O153 | 136.2 | 100.6 | 64.6 |
| Feb 21 | Campbell | A | W 73–68 | −2.5 | W+2.5 | 150.5 | U141 | 106.8 | 99.5 | 68.3 |
| Feb 19 | Monmouth | H | W 79–69 | −7.5 | W+2.5 | 145.0 | O148 | 109.7 | 95.8 | 72.0 |
| Feb 14 | Hofstra | H | W 70–66 | −2.5 | W+1.5 | 137.5 | U136 | 114.7 | 108.2 | 61.0 |
| Feb 12 | Elon | H | W 65–54 | −8.0 | W+3.0 | 149.5 | U119 | 108.0 | 89.7 | 60.2 |
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 homePrincetonUNC Wilmington
Efficiency
105.7
110.7
109.9
105.8
66.1
66.7
—
—
Shooting
49.6%
50.4%
48.6%
49.1%
33.9%
35.0%
74.8%
68.7%
34.6%
40.4%
Ball control & glass
17.1%
14.8%
14.3%
14.9%
27.2%
35.3%
28.5%
27.6%
10.2%
7.8%
10.3%
7.9%
Style
44.5%
38.8%
36.7%
40.4%
4.4%
10.0%
55.0%
51.7%
27.9%
25.5%
Roster
2.10
3.66
6'5.6"
6'7"
—
—
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.)
UNC Wilmington
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted UNC Wilmington'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.