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-conferenceBreslin Center, East Lansing, MI
Quinnipiac
Efficiency #190
2025-26: 19-13 · 12-9 conf
@
Michigan St
Efficiency #11
2025-26: 27-8 · 15-6 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
65.0
win 8%
Projected
81.5
win 92%
No line posted yet.
Model: MSU −16.5 · total 146.5 · 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: Michigan St 67.5, Quinnipiac 70.1 → 69.3 possessions
+2.0
Michigan St offense vs Quinnipiac defense
+4.4
Quinnipiac offense vs Michigan St defense
−8.2
Projected total
146.5
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Michigan St offense vs Quinnipiac defense
+4.4
Quinnipiac offense vs Michigan St defense
+8.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Michigan St by 16.5
16.5
Quinnipiac side ◂▸ Michigan St side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 146.4 against a projected 146.5, and the margin steps add to +16.6 against +16.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Michigan St.
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, Quinnipiac is the faster team (69.7, #101 of 365) and Michigan St the slower (66.8, #249). 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
146.5
model
Projected team totals
65.0 / 81.5
Quinnipiac / Michigan St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.1#45
Quinnipiac
67.5#249
Michigan St
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageQuinnipiac
Where Quinnipiac struggles: shooting
Quinnipiac shoots an effective 48.2% (#310); Michigan St allows 48.9% (#61). Expect about 48.2%, 3.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.3 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageMichigan St
Where Michigan St scores: the offensive glass
Michigan St rebounds 37.8% of its own misses (#10); Quinnipiac lets opponents grab 32.0% of their own misses (#253). Expect about 36.3%, 5.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseMichigan St
Michigan St's shot-blocking
Michigan St ranks #19 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 13.0% of Quinnipiac's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
TurnoversQuinnipiac
Quinnipiac protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.1% is worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions for Quinnipiac's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Michigan St) 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 Quinnipiac at about 39.2% of its shots from three, Michigan St about 34.4%.
ClashQuinnipiac
Style clash: 3-point volume
Quinnipiac rarely shoots threes (33.7% of its shots); Michigan St lets opponents take 46.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 39.2% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Quinnipiac has the ball
OffenseMichigan St allowsvs D1 avg
48.2% #310
48.9% #61
-4.3 pt/100
15.9% #130
14.9% #298
+2.1 pt/100
34.1% #65
22.4% #1
-0.8 pt/100
33.8% #217
30.2% #64
-0.4 pt/100
69.1% #297
—
-0.3 pt/100
Quinnipiac net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.8 pts/100
Michigan St has the ball
OffenseQuinnipiac allowsvs D1 avg
53.8% #72
48.9% #65
+0.4 pt/100
17.2% #219
17.4% #127
-0.8 pt/100
37.8% #10
32.0% #253
+3.6 pt/100
35.9% #157
30.6% #75
-0.3 pt/100
76.4% #41
—
+0.4 pt/100
Michigan St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersQuinnipiacoffense vsMichigan Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Quinnipiac shoots
44.1
2.8
20.0
33.1
Michigan St allows
28.2
10.0
15.9
46.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.9%#301 | 59.8%#218 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 30.0%#349 | 36.6%#102 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 31.1%#346 | 33.2%#34 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.0%#171 | 33.0%#119 | 33.7% |
Michigan Stoffense vsQuinnipiacdefense
Share of shots by zone
Michigan St shoots
33.3
6.9
23.5
36.3
Quinnipiac allows
43.0
5.5
16.5
35.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 66.3%#13 | 52.6%#20 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.1%#145 | 35.1%#60 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.8%#155 | 35.1%#81 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.3%#47 | 34.9%#242 | 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 numbersQuinnipiac
+2.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#66 of 365
Off reb %
34.1%
#65
Def reb %
68.0%
#253
Turnover %
15.9%
#130
Forced TO %
17.4%
#127
FT rate
33.8%
#217
FT allowed
30.6%
#75
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.2
Defensive rebounding−0.4
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.5
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed+1.2
Michigan St
+5.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#22 of 365
Off reb %
37.8%
#10
Def reb %
77.6%
#1
Turnover %
17.2%
#219
Forced TO %
14.9%
#298
FT rate
35.9%
#157
FT allowed
30.2%
#64
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.4
Defensive rebounding+2.7
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.2
Foul shots drawn+0.2
Foul shots allowed+1.3
Michigan St has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.0 (#22 of 365) to Quinnipiac’s +2.7 (#66).
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
Quinnipiac2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Keith McKnight | F | So | 6'7" | 32-4 | 24.8 | 11.0 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 55.4% | 26.7% | 0.5 | 62.5% | 24.9% | |
| 12 | Holden Pierre-Louisat Cleveland St | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-21 | 15.6 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 56.4% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 38.7% | 16.0% | |
| 9 | Nate Guerengomba | G | Jr | 6'4" | 29-4 | 14.1 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 37.2% | 17.6% | 0.6 | 60.0% | 14.3% | |
| 4 | Tai Turnage | G | So | 6'0" | 30-0 | 12.6 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 38.2% | 33.3% | 1.8 | 81.1% | 20.1% | |
| 3 | Nas Hartat La Salle | F | So | 6'10" | 20-3 | 10.6 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 37.2% | — | 0.0 | 61.9% | 16.1% | |
| 13 | Braylan Ritvo | F | So | 6'8" | 8-0 | 6.5 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 40.0% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 0.0% | 16.9% | |
| 34 | Akintola Akinniyi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 5-0 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 13.9% | |
| 10 | Christopher Skenderi | F | So | 6'7" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 92.9% | 75.0% | 1.0 | — | 36.8% | |
| 1 | Jayden Reid | F | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Ali Diouf | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Lucas Sekasi | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Malik Fields | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Mike Parrotta | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 17 | Nedas Cholevinskas | F | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Tayeshawn Cunningham-Pemberton | G | Sr | 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.
Transfers in: Nas Hart (from La Salle), Holden Pierre-Louis (from Cleveland St)
Michigan St2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jeremy Fears Jr. | G | So | 6'2" | 35-35 | 32.4 | 15.2 | 2.4 | 9.4 | 2.4 | 47.9% | 32.1% | 3.1 | 88.5% | 28.9% | |
| 55 | Coen Carr | F | Jr | 6'6" | 35-35 | 29.3 | 12.0 | 5.4 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 55.4% | 27.6% | 2.2 | 62.9% | 24.2% | |
| 6 | Jordan Scott | F | Fr | 6'7" | 35-13 | 20.8 | 5.8 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 52.5% | 37.0% | 2.9 | 70.2% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Kur Teng | G | So | 6'4" | 35-4 | 17.5 | 7.3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 49.6% | 38.1% | 4.2 | 81.0% | 27.1% | |
| 3 | Cam Ward | F | Fr | 6'8" | 34-0 | 15.3 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 58.9% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 51.0% | 20.4% | |
| 99 | Divine Ugochukwu | G | So | 6'3" | 22-12 | 16.0 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 62.0% | 44.2% | 2.0 | 55.6% | 17.9% | |
| 9 | Trey Fort | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-6 | 10.2 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 46.2% | 34.5% | 2.5 | 88.9% | 27.9% | |
| 35 | Jesse McCulloch | F | Fr | 6'10" | 28-0 | 7.4 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 57.3% | 50.0% | 0.6 | 92.9% | 18.1% | |
| 10 | Denham Wojcik | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-0 | 5.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 28.6% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 13.2% | |
| 20 | Nick Sanders | G | Sr | 5'10" | 14-0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.3 | — | 14.4% | |
| 40 | Brennan Walton | F | Fr | 6'7" | 12-0 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 62.5% | 50.0% | 0.2 | — | 17.1% | |
| 43 | Colin Walton | F | Fr | 6'7" | 12-0 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 0.1 | — | 3.4% | |
| 8 | Kaleb Glenn | F | Jr | 6'7" | 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.
Quinnipiac2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Keith McKnight | F | So | 6'7" | 32-4 | 24.8 | 11.0 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 55.4% | 26.7% | 0.5 | 62.5% | 24.9% | |
| 12 | Holden Pierre-Louisat Cleveland St | F | Fr | 6'8" | 30-21 | 15.6 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 56.4% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 38.7% | 16.0% | |
| 9 | Nate Guerengomba | G | Jr | 6'4" | 29-4 | 14.1 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 37.2% | 17.6% | 0.6 | 60.0% | 14.3% | |
| 4 | Tai Turnage | G | So | 6'0" | 30-0 | 12.6 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 38.2% | 33.3% | 1.8 | 81.1% | 20.1% | |
| 3 | Nas Hartat La Salle | F | So | 6'10" | 20-3 | 10.6 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 37.2% | — | 0.0 | 61.9% | 16.1% | |
| 13 | Braylan Ritvo | F | So | 6'8" | 8-0 | 6.5 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 40.0% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 0.0% | 16.9% | |
| 34 | Akintola Akinniyi | F | Sr | 6'7" | 5-0 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 13.9% | |
| 10 | Christopher Skenderi | F | So | 6'7" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 92.9% | 75.0% | 1.0 | — | 36.8% | |
| 1 | Jayden Reid | F | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Ali Diouf | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Lucas Sekasi | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Malik Fields | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Mike Parrotta | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 17 | Nedas Cholevinskas | F | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Tayeshawn Cunningham-Pemberton | G | Sr | 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.
Transfers in: Nas Hart (from La Salle), Holden Pierre-Louis (from Cleveland St)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Quinnipiac
Against the spread
Season
12-18-1
Home
3-10-1
Road
9-7
Last 10
2-7-1
avg cover −4.9
Missed the spread 5 straightCovered 1 of 9 as a favorite, 1 push
Over / under
Season
12-19
Home
5-9
Road
6-10
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −2.4
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 9 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Marist | N | L 75–77 | −2.0 | L−4.0 | 134.5 | O152 | 102.6 | 105.4 | 73.1 |
| Mar 1 | Canisius | A | W 67–63 | −8.0 | L−4.0 | 138.5 | U130 | 100.9 | 94.8 | 66.4 |
| Feb 27 | Niagara | A | L 76–78 OT | −8.5 | L−10.5 | 136.0 | O154 | 110.9 | 113.8 | 68.6 |
| Feb 22 | Fairfield | H | L 79–85 | −6.5 | L−12.5 | 150.5 | O164 | 115.5 | 124.3 | 68.4 |
| Feb 15 | Merrimack | H | L 49–56 | −3.5 | L−10.5 | 142.0 | U105 | 75.1 | 85.8 | 65.3 |
| Feb 13 | Siena | A | W 74–62 | +4.0 | W+16.0 | 144.0 | U136 | 110.8 | 92.8 | 66.8 |
| Feb 7 | Niagara | H | W 56–55 | −13.5 | L−12.5 | 137.5 | U111 | 94.6 | 92.9 | 59.2 |
| Feb 5 | Canisius | H | W 75–60 | −15.0 | P0.0 | 142.0 | U135 | 102.2 | 81.8 | 73.3 |
| Feb 1 | Fairfield | A | W 72–65 | −2.0 | W+5.0 | 155.0 | U137 | 104.8 | 94.6 | 68.7 |
| Jan 30 | Sacred Heart | H | L 91–98 | −9.0 | L−16.0 | 156.5 | O189 | 120.4 | 129.7 | 75.6 |
Michigan St
Against the spread
Season
17-17-1
Home
7-10
Road
5-4-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
16-19
Home
7-10
Road
6-4
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +7.3
Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 7 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27 | #2UConn | N | L 63–67 | +2.0 | L−2.0 | 136.0 | U130 | 99.1 | 105.4 | 63.6 |
| Mar 21 | #6Louisville | N | W 77–69 | −5.0 | W+3.0 | 151.0 | U146 | 115.0 | 103.1 | 66.9 |
| Mar 19 | #14N Dakota St | N | W 92–67 | −16.0 | W+9.0 | 144.5 | O159 | 126.4 | 92.0 | 72.8 |
| Mar 13 | UCLA | N | L 84–88 | −5.0 | L−9.0 | 141.5 | O172 | 125.9 | 131.9 | 66.7 |
| Mar 8 | #3Michigan | A | L 80–90 | +10.5 | W+0.5 | 152.0 | O170 | 112.5 | 126.5 | 71.1 |
| Mar 5 | Rutgers | H | W 91–87 | −19.5 | L−15.5 | 142.0 | O178 | 126.1 | 120.6 | 72.1 |
| Mar 1 | Indiana | A | W 77–64 | −3.0 | W+10.0 | 144.0 | U141 | 128.1 | 106.5 | 60.1 |
| Feb 26 | #8Purdue | A | W 76–74 | +7.0 | W+9.0 | 143.0 | O150 | 121.7 | 118.5 | 62.4 |
| Feb 22 | Ohio State | H | W 66–60 | −10.0 | L−4.0 | 147.0 | U126 | 108.2 | 98.4 | 61.0 |
| Feb 17 | UCLA | H | W 82–59 | −8.0 | W+15.0 | 139.0 | O141 | 125.3 | 90.1 | 65.5 |
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 homeQuinnipiacMichigan St
Efficiency
106.0
116.5
106.8
99.2
70.1
67.5
—
—
Shooting
48.2%
53.8%
46.7%
53.4%
34.0%
36.3%
69.1%
76.4%
33.8%
35.9%
Ball control & glass
15.9%
17.2%
17.4%
14.9%
34.1%
37.8%
32.0%
22.4%
9.4%
9.7%
11.2%
8.2%
Style
33.7%
36.4%
43.5%
41.3%
15.7%
19.7%
49.4%
67.6%
29.9%
31.5%
Roster
1.99
2.12
6'5.8"
6'4.9"
25.8%
73.0%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputQuinnipiac
Returning minutes: 25.8%Returning production: 25.9%
Lost
- Grant Randall 31.7 mpg, 11.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Amarri Monroe 31.3 mpg, 14.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Asim Jones 28.8 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jaden Zimmerman 26.3 mpg, 12.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Spence Wewe 16.5 mpg, 2.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Samson Reilly 7.8 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to Sacred Heart
Added
- Holden Pierre-Louis from Cleveland St · 14.2 mpg, 3.0 ppg last season
- Nas Hart from La Salle · 6.6 mpg, 1.4 ppg last season
- Ali Diouf no D1 minutes last season
- Jayden Reid no D1 minutes last season
- Nedas Cholevinskas no D1 minutes last season
- Mike Parrotta no D1 minutes last season
Returns 26% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Michigan St
Returning minutes: 73.0%Returning production: 67.2%
Lost
- Jaxon Kohler 27.7 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Carson Cooper 26.7 mpg, 11.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Kaleb Glenn no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 73% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5. 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).
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.