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.
Conference gameLawler Arena, North Andover, MA
Fairfield
Efficiency #230
2025-26: 21-13 · 13-10 conf
@
Merrimack
Efficiency #158
2025-26: 23-11 · 19-4 conf
Sun, Dec 6 · 1:00 PM ET
67.1
win 29%
Projected
73.5
win 71%
No line posted yet.
Model: MRMK −6.3 · total 140.6 · 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: Merrimack 65.8, Fairfield 68.1 → 65.6 possessions
−6.0
Merrimack offense vs Fairfield defense
+0.5
Fairfield offense vs Merrimack defense
−2.1
Projected total
140.6
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Merrimack offense vs Fairfield defense
+0.5
Fairfield offense vs Merrimack defense
+2.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Merrimack by 6.3
6.3
Fairfield side ◂▸ Merrimack side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +6.4 against +6.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Merrimack.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Fairfield is the faster team (67.1, #239 of 365) and Merrimack the slower (63.7, #359). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
140.6
model
Projected team totals
67.1 / 73.5
Fairfield / Merrimack
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.1#203
Fairfield
65.8#347
Merrimack
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageFairfield
Where Fairfield struggles: shooting
Fairfield shoots an effective 48.8% (#294); Merrimack allows 46.7% (#17). Expect about 47.5%, 3.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.4 points per 100 possessions.
GlassFairfield
Fairfield owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 38.8% is worth roughly +5.1 points per 100 possessions for Fairfield's offense.
Pace
Half-court grind
Merrimack averages 63.7 possessions per 40, Fairfield 67.1. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
DefenseMerrimack
Merrimack's shot-blocking
Merrimack ranks #15 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.9% of Fairfield's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageMerrimack
Where Merrimack struggles: the offensive glass
Merrimack rebounds 24.8% of its own misses (#343); Fairfield lets opponents grab 29.1% of their own misses (#116). Expect about 25.9%, 4.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.7 points per 100 possessions.
ClashFairfield
Style match: 3-point volume
Fairfield rarely shoots threes (35.4% of its shots); Merrimack runs teams off the line (32.6% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 31.8% — both habits push the same way.
Fairfield has the ball
OffenseMerrimack allowsvs D1 avg
48.8% #294
46.7% #17
-5.4 pt/100
15.3% #92
20.4% #16
-1.8 pt/100
35.8% #29
39.9% #365
+5.1 pt/100
27.7% #346
37.1% #239
-0.3 pt/100
70.5% #255
—
-0.2 pt/100
Fairfield net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.6 pts/100
Merrimack has the ball
OffenseFairfield allowsvs D1 avg
49.1% #288
51.0% #159
-2.0 pt/100
14.8% #56
16.8% #165
+1.3 pt/100
24.8% #343
29.1% #116
-2.7 pt/100
38.2% #99
30.4% #69
-0.2 pt/100
78.8% #8
—
+0.6 pt/100
Merrimack net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersFairfieldoffense vsMerrimackdefense
Share of shots by zone
Fairfield shoots
41.6
3.5
19.1
35.8
Merrimack allows
41.9
4.9
20.8
32.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 52.7%#343 | 51.4%#11 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.7%#29 | 42.9%#247 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.6%#165 | 38.7%#188 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.2%#216 | 30.3%#12 | 33.7% |
Merrimackoffense vsFairfielddefense
Share of shots by zone
Merrimack shoots
41.7
2.3
9.4
46.6
Fairfield allows
46.9
3.4
14.3
35.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.4%#332 | 55.7%#78 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.5%#208 | 51.7%#358 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.5%#321 | 34.0%#49 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.7%#243 | 34.3%#200 | 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 numbersFairfield
+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#71 of 365
Off reb %
35.8%
#29
Def reb %
70.9%
#116
Turnover %
15.3%
#92
Forced TO %
16.8%
#165
FT rate
27.7%
#346
FT allowed
30.4%
#69
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.7
Defensive rebounding+0.5
Ball security+1.0
Forcing turnovers+0.1
Foul shots drawn−1.9
Foul shots allowed+1.2
Merrimack
−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#206 of 365
Off reb %
24.8%
#343
Def reb %
60.1%
#365
Turnover %
14.8%
#56
Forced TO %
20.4%
#16
FT rate
38.2%
#99
FT allowed
37.1%
#239
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.8
Defensive rebounding−3.0
Ball security+1.3
Forcing turnovers+2.5
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed−0.5
Fairfield has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#71 of 365) to Merrimack’s −0.6 (#206).
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
Fairfield2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44 | Declan Wucherpfennig | G | So | 6'7" | 34-34 | 31.6 | 12.1 | 8.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 55.7% | 31.7% | 1.9 | 65.7% | 22.1% | |
| 12 | Qadir Martinat Mercyhurst | F | Jr | 6'5" | 34-33 | 31.4 | 11.6 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 58.9% | 22.2% | 0.5 | 58.1% | 21.2% | |
| 8 | Tony Williams | G | So | 6'1" | 33-23 | 20.0 | 6.5 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 47.4% | 32.0% | 3.7 | 68.0% | 22.6% | |
| 1 | Eric Mejia | G | Jr | 6'3" | 34-7 | 18.9 | 4.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 38.7% | 30.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 20.0% | |
| 4 | Halon Rawlins | G | So | 6'6" | 33-23 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 39.9% | 25.0% | 2.1 | 60.9% | 19.4% | |
| 15 | Isaac Munkadi | F | Jr | 6'10" | 34-3 | 9.4 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 57.3% | 25.0% | 0.1 | 51.2% | 17.1% | |
| 88 | Marko Radunovicat Boston College | F | So | 6'6" | 18-0 | 9.2 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 30.8% | 23.1% | 1.4 | 70.0% | 25.6% | |
| 5 | Nasir Rodriguez | G | So | 6'4" | 22-0 | 7.2 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 36.4% | 31.6% | 1.7 | 66.7% | 32.8% | |
| 24 | Joe Ganton | G | Sr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 40.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 43.2% | |
| 9 | Tanner Ostop | G | Sr | 6'0" | 3-0 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 33.9% | |
| 13 | Noah Best | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Peyton Smith | F | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 25 | Brayden Jones | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Cole Edelen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Jaden Brown | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Jah Hatchett | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Oesoemana Sacko | 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: Qadir Martin (from Mercyhurst), Marko Radunovic (from Boston College)
Merrimack2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Tye Dorset | G | Jr | 6'3" | 34-34 | 36.3 | 11.7 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 49.3% | 32.2% | 5.4 | 77.3% | 21.0% | |
| 20 | Todd Brogna | F | Sr | 6'7" | 34-34 | 29.2 | 6.1 | 4.7 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 51.6% | 35.1% | 3.9 | 70.8% | 15.5% | |
| 2 | Denver Anglinat Iona | G | Sr | 6'1" | 31-29 | 28.1 | 9.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 44.0% | 29.8% | 6.1 | 79.5% | 23.0% | |
| 5 | Elijah Wilbornat James Madison | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-0 | 8.5 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 63.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 19.2% | |
| 0 | Dylan Veillette | F | So | 6'7" | 33-0 | 8.2 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 47.1% | 9.1% | 0.3 | 68.2% | 16.4% | |
| 7 | Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbanoat Fresno St | G | So | 6'4" | 13-2 | 9.5 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 41.4% | 27.3% | 1.7 | 66.7% | 16.3% | |
| 33 | AJ Lesburt Jr.at Brown | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | David Munro | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jacob Moore | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Quinn Kwasniak | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Amare Guerra | G | Fr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Ayden Johnson | G | Fr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jeremiah Anderson | G | Sr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | JP Skoric | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Rocco Westfield | G | Fr | 6'2" | 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: Denver Anglin (from Iona), AJ Lesburt Jr. (from Brown), Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbano (from Fresno St), Elijah Wilborn (from James Madison)
Fairfield2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44 | Declan Wucherpfennig | G | So | 6'7" | 34-34 | 31.6 | 12.1 | 8.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 55.7% | 31.7% | 1.9 | 65.7% | 22.1% | |
| 12 | Qadir Martinat Mercyhurst | F | Jr | 6'5" | 34-33 | 31.4 | 11.6 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 58.9% | 22.2% | 0.5 | 58.1% | 21.2% | |
| 8 | Tony Williams | G | So | 6'1" | 33-23 | 20.0 | 6.5 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 47.4% | 32.0% | 3.7 | 68.0% | 22.6% | |
| 1 | Eric Mejia | G | Jr | 6'3" | 34-7 | 18.9 | 4.9 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 38.7% | 30.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 20.0% | |
| 4 | Halon Rawlins | G | So | 6'6" | 33-23 | 16.9 | 3.9 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 39.9% | 25.0% | 2.1 | 60.9% | 19.4% | |
| 15 | Isaac Munkadi | F | Jr | 6'10" | 34-3 | 9.4 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 57.3% | 25.0% | 0.1 | 51.2% | 17.1% | |
| 88 | Marko Radunovicat Boston College | F | So | 6'6" | 18-0 | 9.2 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 30.8% | 23.1% | 1.4 | 70.0% | 25.6% | |
| 5 | Nasir Rodriguez | G | So | 6'4" | 22-0 | 7.2 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 36.4% | 31.6% | 1.7 | 66.7% | 32.8% | |
| 24 | Joe Ganton | G | Sr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 40.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 43.2% | |
| 9 | Tanner Ostop | G | Sr | 6'0" | 3-0 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 33.9% | |
| 13 | Noah Best | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Peyton Smith | F | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 25 | Brayden Jones | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Cole Edelen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Jaden Brown | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Jah Hatchett | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Oesoemana Sacko | 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: Qadir Martin (from Mercyhurst), Marko Radunovic (from Boston College)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Fairfield
Against the spread
Season
15-18
Home
5-10
Road
8-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +2.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-20
Home
3-12
Road
10-5
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −4.4
Under 5 straightOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8 | Siena | N | L 61–76 | +1.5 | L−13.5 | 138.0 | U137 | 95.5 | 119.0 | 63.9 |
| Mar 6 | Saint Peter's | N | W 74–55 | +2.5 | W+21.5 | 137.5 | U129 | 114.7 | 85.3 | 64.5 |
| Mar 5 | Manhattan | N | W 71–60 | −4.5 | W+6.5 | 148.0 | U131 | 104.5 | 88.3 | 67.9 |
| Mar 1 | Mount St Marys | H | L 47–69 | −3.5 | L−25.5 | 146.5 | U116 | 70.3 | 103.2 | 66.8 |
| Feb 27 | Siena | H | W 72–58 | +1.0 | W+15.0 | 142.5 | U130 | 102.9 | 82.9 | 69.9 |
| Feb 22 | Quinnipiac | A | W 85–79 | +6.5 | W+12.5 | 150.5 | O164 | 124.3 | 115.5 | 68.4 |
| Feb 20 | Sacred Heart | H | W 78–68 | −5.0 | W+5.0 | 158.0 | U146 | 113.2 | 98.7 | 68.9 |
| Feb 15 | Saint Peter's | A | L 74–83 | +4.0 | L−5.0 | 142.0 | O157 | 107.6 | 120.7 | 68.8 |
| Feb 7 | Marist | H | W 63–60 | +1.0 | W+4.0 | 138.0 | U123 | 103.0 | 98.1 | 61.2 |
| Feb 5 | Sacred Heart | A | W 92–87 | −1.0 | W+4.0 | 155.0 | O179 | 129.1 | 122.1 | 71.2 |
Merrimack
Against the spread
Season
20-14
Home
9-2
Road
9-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +3.8
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 9 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
11-22-1
Home
5-6
Road
6-11
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.0
Under 3 straightOver in 4 of 9 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | Siena | N | L 54–64 | −1.5 | L−11.5 | 128.5 | U118 | 84.9 | 100.7 | 63.6 |
| Mar 8 | Marist | N | W 58–57 | −3.0 | L−2.0 | 128.5 | U115 | 90.7 | 89.2 | 63.9 |
| Mar 6 | Sacred Heart | N | W 70–48 | −7.0 | W+15.0 | 143.0 | U118 | 114.6 | 78.6 | 61.1 |
| Mar 1 | Niagara | A | W 73–66 | −7.5 | L−0.5 | 127.0 | O139 | 120.5 | 108.9 | 60.6 |
| Feb 27 | Canisius | A | L 62–67 | −9.0 | L−14.0 | 130.0 | U129 | 102.1 | 110.3 | 60.7 |
| Feb 22 | Iona | H | W 88–86 2OT | −6.5 | L−4.5 | 137.0 | O174 | 119.0 | 116.3 | 73.9 |
| Feb 20 | Siena | H | W 79–72 OT | −2.5 | W+4.5 | 133.0 | O151 | 124.7 | 113.6 | 63.4 |
| Feb 15 | Quinnipiac | A | W 56–49 | +3.5 | W+10.5 | 142.0 | U105 | 85.8 | 75.1 | 65.3 |
| Feb 12 | Marist | H | W 81–56 | −2.5 | W+22.5 | 129.5 | O137 | 122.2 | 84.5 | 66.3 |
| Feb 7 | Rider | A | W 73–47 | −8.5 | W+17.5 | 137.5 | U120 | 127.1 | 81.8 | 57.5 |
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 homeFairfieldMerrimack
Efficiency
107.4
107.2
110.4
106.3
68.1
65.8
—
—
Shooting
48.8%
49.1%
48.2%
49.1%
33.2%
32.7%
70.5%
78.8%
27.7%
38.2%
Ball control & glass
15.3%
14.8%
16.8%
20.4%
35.8%
24.8%
29.1%
39.9%
8.7%
7.2%
10.5%
13.0%
Style
35.4%
46.1%
44.5%
38.0%
12.8%
13.5%
45.2%
56.0%
31.1%
17.6%
Roster
2.44
3.46
6'5.1"
6'4.3"
50.2%
36.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputFairfield
Returning minutes: 50.2%Returning production: 45.6%
Lost
- Braden Sparks 33.3 mpg, 17.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Brandon Benjamin 29.5 mpg, 13.4 ppg · transferred to Boston College
- Deuce Turner 20.0 mpg, 8.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Ryan Zan 7.0 mpg, 0.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Cam Estevez 6.8 mpg, 2.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Michael Rogan 3.2 mpg, 0.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Qadir Martin from Mercyhurst · 31.4 mpg, 11.6 ppg last season
- Marko Radunovic from Boston College · 5.4 mpg, 1.3 ppg last season
- Cole Edelen no D1 minutes last season
- Jaden Brown no D1 minutes last season
- Jah Hatchett no D1 minutes last season
- Noah Best no D1 minutes last season
Returns 50% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred).
Merrimack
Returning minutes: 36.3%Returning production: 32.9%
Lost
- Ernest Shelton 36.9 mpg, 15.9 ppg · transferred to Boston College
- Kevair Kennedy 36.8 mpg, 18.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Andrés Marrero 27.4 mpg, 7.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- KC Ugwuakazi 17.8 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jaylen Stinson 3.8 mpg, 0.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Aliou Cisse 2.7 mpg, 0.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Denver Anglin from Iona · 27.2 mpg, 9.0 ppg last season
- Elijah Wilborn from James Madison · 8.0 mpg, 2.2 ppg last season
- Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbano from Fresno St · 3.9 mpg, 0.9 ppg last season
- Rocco Westfield no D1 minutes last season
- JP Skoric no D1 minutes last season
- Jacob Moore no D1 minutes last season
Returns 36% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 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 last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sun, Dec 7 | 2025-26 | Fairfield 63 – 74 Merrimack |
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.