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-conferenceDetrick Gymnasium, New Britain, CT
Quinnipiac
Efficiency #190
2025-26: 19-13 · 12-9 conf
@
C Connecticut
Efficiency #277
2025-26: 18-12 · 12-7 conf
Sun, Nov 15 · TBD
73.4
win 49%
Projected
73.8
win 51%
No line posted yet.
Model: CCSU −0.4 · total 147.2 · 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: C Connecticut 66.7, Quinnipiac 70.1 → 68.4 possessions
+0.2
C Connecticut offense vs Quinnipiac defense
−2.4
Quinnipiac offense vs C Connecticut defense
+1.1
Projected total
147.2
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
C Connecticut offense vs Quinnipiac defense
−2.4
Quinnipiac offense vs C Connecticut defense
−1.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
C Connecticut by 0.4
0.4
Quinnipiac side ◂▸ C Connecticut side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 147.1 against a projected 147.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help C Connecticut.
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, Quinnipiac is the faster team (69.7, #101 of 365) and C Connecticut the slower (65.2, #325). 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
147.2
model
Projected team totals
73.4 / 73.8
Quinnipiac / C Connecticut
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.1#45
Quinnipiac
66.7#308
C Connecticut
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); C Connecticut allows 50.2% (#113). Expect about 48.9%, 2.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.4 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversQuinnipiac
Quinnipiac protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.5% is worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions for Quinnipiac's offense.
ClashC Connecticut
Style match: 3-point volume
C Connecticut rarely shoots threes (34.9% of its shots); Quinnipiac runs teams off the line (35.4% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 33.2% — both habits push the same way.
GlassQuinnipiac
Quinnipiac owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.0% is worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions for Quinnipiac's offense.
Quinnipiac has the ball
OffenseC Connecticut allowsvs D1 avg
48.2% #310
50.2% #113
-3.4 pt/100
15.9% #130
14.0% #336
+2.8 pt/100
34.1% #65
30.4% #179
+1.6 pt/100
33.8% #217
26.9% #22
-0.7 pt/100
69.1% #297
—
-0.3 pt/100
Quinnipiac net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.1 pts/100
C Connecticut has the ball
OffenseQuinnipiac allowsvs D1 avg
51.6% #165
48.9% #65
-1.4 pt/100
16.2% #153
17.4% #127
-0.1 pt/100
27.5% #281
32.0% #253
-0.8 pt/100
31.2% #276
30.6% #75
-0.6 pt/100
76.7% #38
—
+0.4 pt/100
C Connecticut net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersQuinnipiacoffense vsC Connecticutdefense
Share of shots by zone
Quinnipiac shoots
44.1
2.8
20.0
33.1
C Connecticut allows
41.3
7.1
12.7
38.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.9%#301 | 54.5%#50 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 30.0%#349 | 47.7%#338 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 31.1%#346 | 42.0%#302 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.0%#171 | 33.4%#146 | 33.7% |
C Connecticutoffense vsQuinnipiacdefense
Share of shots by zone
C Connecticut shoots
34.6
6.0
24.9
34.5
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 | 59.0%#163 | 52.6%#20 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 54.1%#2 | 35.1%#60 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.8%#231 | 35.1%#81 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.8%#69 | 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
C Connecticut
−1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#243 of 365
Off reb %
27.5%
#281
Def reb %
69.6%
#179
Turnover %
16.2%
#153
Forced TO %
14.0%
#336
FT rate
31.2%
#276
FT allowed
26.9%
#22
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.9
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+0.4
Forcing turnovers−1.9
Foul shots drawn−1.0
Foul shots allowed+2.1
Quinnipiac has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.7 (#66 of 365) to C Connecticut’s −1.2 (#243).
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)
C Connecticut2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted C Connecticut'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Darin Smith Jr. | F | So | 6'7" | 30-30 | 32.7 | 20.7 | 5.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 51.9% | 37.6% | 5.0 | 89.8% | 35.9% | |
| 1 | Jay Rodgers | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-28 | 29.2 | 11.0 | 2.2 | 6.9 | 2.7 | 48.9% | 36.2% | 3.1 | 81.7% | 27.0% | |
| 34 | Max Frazier | F | Jr | 6'9" | 30-30 | 28.2 | 12.0 | 7.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 65.8% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 60.0% | 22.7% | |
| 24 | James Jones | G | So | 6'6" | 26-23 | 28.8 | 4.2 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 42.5% | 28.6% | 1.1 | 59.1% | 11.8% | |
| 6 | Melo Sanchez | G | Sr | 6'4" | 29-26 | 24.8 | 9.6 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 59.7% | 42.8% | 4.8 | 80.0% | 21.5% | |
| 0 | Elijah Parker | G | Fr | 6'3" | 29-2 | 14.6 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 45.5% | 26.9% | 0.9 | 42.1% | 14.1% | |
| 22 | Daniel James | F | So | 6'8" | 28-5 | 12.6 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 56.3% | 31.8% | 0.8 | 73.9% | 16.2% | |
| 3 | Roddy Jones | G | Fr | 6'1" | 23-0 | 10.7 | 4.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 56.3% | 38.8% | 3.5 | 100.0% | 22.7% | |
| 13 | Ashton Reynolds | G | Fr | 6'4" | 23-1 | 10.1 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.8% | 31.6% | 0.8 | 81.5% | 21.6% | |
| 2 | Nico Ashley | F | Sr | 6'7" | 18-1 | 9.8 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 58.0% | 25.0% | 0.7 | 69.2% | 19.6% | |
| 12 | Gabe Spinelli | G | Sr | 6'3" | 11-0 | 14.7 | 4.7 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 53.7% | 44.4% | 0.8 | 100.0% | 19.3% | |
| 10 | Ja'Kobe Williams | G | Sr | 6'3" | 7-4 | 18.1 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 28.6% | 20.0% | 1.4 | 70.0% | 17.9% | |
| 11 | Jayden Mott | F | So | 6'8" | 14-0 | 8.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 47.9% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 40.0% | 18.7% | |
| 15 | Adam Fox | G | Fr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | — | 14.0% | |
| 20 | Corsley Edwards Jr. | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Rashawn Tibby | 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.
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 |
C Connecticut
Against the spread
Season
14-14
Home
3-9
Road
11-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −4.0
Missed the spread 5 straightCovered 4 of 9 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
16-12
Home
9-3
Road
7-9
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.2
Under 2 straightOver in 5 of 9 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4 | Wagner | H | L 60–70 | −3.5 | L−13.5 | 138.5 | U130 | 97.7 | 114.0 | 61.4 |
| Feb 28 | Saint Francis Red Wolves | H | W 69–64 | −8.0 | L−3.0 | 153.0 | U133 | 106.3 | 98.6 | 64.9 |
| Feb 26 | Mercyhurst | H | W 80–78 | −4.0 | L−2.0 | 141.0 | O158 | 117.7 | 114.7 | 68.0 |
| Feb 21 | Chicago St | A | L 51–70 | −3.0 | L−22.0 | 138.5 | U121 | 82.4 | 113.1 | 61.9 |
| Feb 19 | Le Moyne | H | W 78–77 | −3.5 | L−2.5 | 146.5 | O155 | 110.2 | 108.8 | 70.8 |
| Feb 14 | FDU | A | W 63–57 | −1.0 | W+5.0 | 134.0 | U120 | 111.5 | 100.9 | 56.5 |
| Feb 12 | New Haven | A | W 81–76 | −3.0 | W+2.0 | 129.0 | O157 | 117.5 | 110.2 | 69.0 |
| Feb 7 | Wagner | H | W 84–67 | −5.0 | W+12.0 | 136.5 | O151 | 127.9 | 102.0 | 65.7 |
| Feb 5 | Chicago St | H | W 78–67 | −9.0 | W+2.0 | 137.0 | O145 | 125.1 | 107.5 | 62.3 |
| Jan 31 | Long Island | H | L 59–80 | +2.5 | L−18.5 | 143.0 | U139 | 89.1 | 120.8 | 66.2 |
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 homeQuinnipiacC Connecticut
Efficiency
106.0
106.6
106.8
112.6
70.1
66.7
—
—
Shooting
48.2%
51.6%
46.7%
50.5%
34.0%
35.8%
69.1%
76.7%
33.8%
31.2%
Ball control & glass
15.9%
16.2%
17.4%
14.0%
34.1%
27.5%
32.0%
30.4%
9.4%
9.6%
11.2%
6.5%
Style
33.7%
34.9%
43.5%
42.0%
15.7%
9.6%
49.4%
50.9%
29.9%
29.0%
Roster
1.99
2.67
6'5.8"
6'5.5"
25.8%
—
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).
C Connecticut
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted C Connecticut'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 last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Thu, Nov 6 | 2025-26 | C Connecticut 49 – 71 Quinnipiac |
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.