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-conferenceThe Pit, Albuquerque, NM
Miss Valley St
Efficiency #365
2025-26: 3-30 · 2-17 conf
@
New Mexico
Efficiency #42
2025-26: 26-11 · 14-8 conf
Wed, Nov 25 · TBD
60.6
win 1%
Projected
88.0
win 99%
No line posted yet.
Model: UNM −27.4 · total 148.6 · 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: New Mexico 70.0, Miss Valley St 68.3 → 70.0 possessions
+3.6
New Mexico offense vs Miss Valley St defense
+10.0
Miss Valley St offense vs New Mexico defense
−13.3
Projected total
148.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
New Mexico offense vs Miss Valley St defense
+10.0
Miss Valley St offense vs New Mexico defense
+13.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
New Mexico by 27.4
27.4
Miss Valley St side ◂▸ New Mexico side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 148.5 against a projected 148.6, and the margin steps add to +27.3 against +27.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help New Mexico.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, New Mexico is the faster team (70.7, #67 of 365) and Miss Valley St the slower (69.6, #109). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
148.6
model
Projected team totals
60.6 / 88.0
Miss Valley St / New Mexico
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.3#180
Miss Valley St
70.0#51
New Mexico
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageMiss Valley St
Where Miss Valley St struggles: shooting
Miss Valley St shoots an effective 45.2% (#359); New Mexico allows 49.5% (#84). Expect about 46.9%, 4.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -6.3 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversMiss Valley St
Miss Valley St turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 21.1% is worth roughly -5.3 points per 100 possessions against Miss Valley St's offense.
AdvantageNew Mexico
Where New Mexico scores: shooting
New Mexico shoots an effective 53.5% (#82); Miss Valley St allows 55.5% (#341). Expect about 54.7%, 3.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.9 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Track meet
New Mexico averages 70.7 possessions per 40, Miss Valley St 69.6. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
GlassMiss Valley St
Miss Valley St gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.3% is worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions against Miss Valley St's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Miss Valley St, New Mexico's defense, Miss Valley St'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 Miss Valley St at about 37.6% of its shots from three, New Mexico about 43.3%.
Miss Valley St has the ball
OffenseNew Mexico allowsvs D1 avg
45.2% #359
49.5% #84
-6.3 pt/100
21.9% #362
19.0% #51
-5.3 pt/100
26.4% #313
27.7% #57
-2.5 pt/100
33.9% #215
33.3% #138
-0.2 pt/100
71.6% #217
—
-0.1 pt/100
Miss Valley St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -14.4 pts/100
New Mexico has the ball
OffenseMiss Valley St allowsvs D1 avg
53.5% #82
55.5% #341
+4.9 pt/100
14.9% #58
17.1% #145
+1.1 pt/100
30.6% #176
35.5% #346
+1.6 pt/100
35.8% #160
50.8% #362
+1.2 pt/100
72.9% #176
—
+0.0 pt/100
New Mexico net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +8.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMiss Valley Stoffense vsNew Mexicodefense
Share of shots by zone
Miss Valley St shoots
30.9
6.1
33.2
29.8
New Mexico allows
30.7
4.1
17.3
48.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.6%#309 | 59.1%#196 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.6%#204 | 43.4%#258 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.7%#239 | 43.4%#333 | 38.0% |
| Three | 29.5%#346 | 30.5%#20 | 33.7% |
New Mexicooffense vsMiss Valley Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
New Mexico shoots
42.6
5.3
10.7
41.4
Miss Valley St allows
37.6
5.7
14.6
42.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#225 | 62.7%#318 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.9%#125 | 47.0%#331 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#84 | 37.9%#157 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#83 | 37.2%#346 | 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 numbersMiss Valley St
−10.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#365 of 365
Off reb %
26.4%
#313
Def reb %
64.5%
#346
Turnover %
21.9%
#362
Forced TO %
17.1%
#145
FT rate
33.9%
#215
FT allowed
50.8%
#362
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.3
Defensive rebounding−1.6
Ball security−3.5
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed−4.0
New Mexico
+4.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#30 of 365
Off reb %
30.6%
#176
Def reb %
72.3%
#57
Turnover %
14.9%
#58
Forced TO %
19.0%
#51
FT rate
35.8%
#160
FT allowed
33.3%
#138
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.1
Defensive rebounding+0.9
Ball security+1.3
Forcing turnovers+1.6
Foul shots drawn+0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.5
New Mexico has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.5 (#30 of 365) to Miss Valley St’s −10.4 (#365).
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
Miss Valley St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Miss Valley St'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Michael James | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-31 | 36.8 | 21.4 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 51.2% | 34.0% | 7.5 | 90.4% | 34.3% | |
| 0 | Patrick Punch | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-28 | 30.6 | 8.1 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 36.8% | 25.2% | 3.7 | 72.3% | 21.1% | |
| 22 | Daniel Mayfield | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-28 | 29.5 | 13.4 | 6.1 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 45.7% | 30.0% | 2.1 | 79.1% | 29.9% | |
| 24 | X'Zaevion Barnett | G | Jr | 6'2" | 27-10 | 28.4 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 2.1 | 38.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 53.3% | 15.0% | |
| 20 | Mussa Mzein | C | Jr | 6'10" | 33-15 | 17.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 45.6% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 55.6% | 15.7% | |
| 3 | Lamont Sams | F | Sr | 6'9" | 19-16 | 26.7 | 8.4 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 48.8% | 28.8% | 2.7 | 80.0% | 19.9% | |
| 2 | Delkedric Holmes | G | Jr | 6'2" | 17-13 | 25.2 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 33.2% | 15.8% | 1.1 | 79.2% | 19.9% | |
| 11 | Xzayvion Childress | G | Jr | 6'0" | 13-10 | 30.6 | 8.2 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 46.5% | 29.7% | 2.8 | 87.5% | 19.1% | |
| 13 | Tyrone Iroghama | G | Jr | 6'8" | 29-5 | 11.7 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 49.1% | — | 0.0 | 38.6% | 18.2% | |
| 5 | Chance Sutton | F | Jr | 6'7" | 29-1 | 11.7 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 45.2% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 12.6% | |
| 21 | Samuel Murray | F | Jr | 6'8" | 15-5 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 12.5% | 0.5 | 59.1% | 22.8% | |
| 1 | Antonio Sisk | G | Sr | 6'1" | 4-2 | 20.3 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 35.7% | 25.0% | 2.0 | — | 14.3% | |
| 35 | Jonathan Pace | F | So | 6'10" | 15-1 | 4.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 58.3% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 14.7% | |
| 14 | George Ivory III | G | Sr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 9.5 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 71.4% | 66.7% | 1.5 | — | 25.5% | |
| 33 | PJ McDonald | F | So | 6'5" | 2-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 19.1% | |
| 23 | Derrick Singleton | F | Jr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 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.
New Mexico2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted New Mexico'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Jake Hall | G | Fr | 6'4" | 37-37 | 31.0 | 16.4 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 61.7% | 43.8% | 7.2 | 80.0% | 25.2% | |
| 3 | Luke Haupt | G | Sr | 6'7" | 37-27 | 28.1 | 7.8 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 71.6% | 17.2% | |
| 4 | Uriah Tenette | G | Fr | 5'11" | 36-8 | 27.5 | 10.6 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 47.8% | 32.4% | 3.8 | 83.2% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Tomislav Buljan | F | Fr | 6'9" | 35-35 | 26.0 | 13.1 | 10.3 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 55.3% | 30.8% | 0.7 | 60.7% | 29.0% | |
| 5 | Antonio Chol | F | Jr | 6'9" | 37-32 | 24.2 | 7.7 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 32.3% | 5.0 | 60.0% | 19.3% | |
| 1 | Deyton Albury | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-34 | 24.8 | 11.7 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 55.6% | 37.7% | 1.5 | 77.9% | 26.9% | |
| 2 | Tajavis Miller | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-0 | 16.7 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 50.6% | 34.3% | 3.3 | 66.7% | 20.0% | |
| 35 | JT Rock | C | So | 7'1" | 37-1 | 12.8 | 6.2 | 3.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 61.9% | 39.7% | 1.6 | 64.4% | 24.6% | |
| 8 | Chris Howell | G | Sr | 6'6" | 11-11 | 24.5 | 5.5 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 42.4% | 27.8% | 1.6 | 87.5% | 16.0% | |
| 31 | Milos Vicentic | F | Sr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 7.1 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 40.8% | 20.7% | 1.8 | 100.0% | 27.7% | |
| 0 | Kevin Patton Jr. | G | Jr | 6'8" | 9-0 | 9.7 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 39.6% | 10.0% | 1.1 | 57.1% | 20.0% | |
| 29 | Timeo Pons | G | Fr | 6'8" | 13-0 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 45.0% | 30.4% | 1.8 | 87.5% | 29.5% | |
| 11 | Kallai Patton | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Sir Marius Jones | G | Fr | 6'4" | 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.
Miss Valley St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Miss Valley St'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Michael James | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-31 | 36.8 | 21.4 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 51.2% | 34.0% | 7.5 | 90.4% | 34.3% | |
| 0 | Patrick Punch | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-28 | 30.6 | 8.1 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 36.8% | 25.2% | 3.7 | 72.3% | 21.1% | |
| 22 | Daniel Mayfield | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-28 | 29.5 | 13.4 | 6.1 | 1.3 | 2.0 | 45.7% | 30.0% | 2.1 | 79.1% | 29.9% | |
| 24 | X'Zaevion Barnett | G | Jr | 6'2" | 27-10 | 28.4 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 2.1 | 38.8% | 28.6% | 0.8 | 53.3% | 15.0% | |
| 20 | Mussa Mzein | C | Jr | 6'10" | 33-15 | 17.5 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 45.6% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 55.6% | 15.7% | |
| 3 | Lamont Sams | F | Sr | 6'9" | 19-16 | 26.7 | 8.4 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 48.8% | 28.8% | 2.7 | 80.0% | 19.9% | |
| 2 | Delkedric Holmes | G | Jr | 6'2" | 17-13 | 25.2 | 4.8 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 33.2% | 15.8% | 1.1 | 79.2% | 19.9% | |
| 11 | Xzayvion Childress | G | Jr | 6'0" | 13-10 | 30.6 | 8.2 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 46.5% | 29.7% | 2.8 | 87.5% | 19.1% | |
| 13 | Tyrone Iroghama | G | Jr | 6'8" | 29-5 | 11.7 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 49.1% | — | 0.0 | 38.6% | 18.2% | |
| 5 | Chance Sutton | F | Jr | 6'7" | 29-1 | 11.7 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 45.2% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 12.6% | |
| 21 | Samuel Murray | F | Jr | 6'8" | 15-5 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 12.5% | 0.5 | 59.1% | 22.8% | |
| 1 | Antonio Sisk | G | Sr | 6'1" | 4-2 | 20.3 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 35.7% | 25.0% | 2.0 | — | 14.3% | |
| 35 | Jonathan Pace | F | So | 6'10" | 15-1 | 4.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 58.3% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 14.7% | |
| 14 | George Ivory III | G | Sr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 9.5 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 71.4% | 66.7% | 1.5 | — | 25.5% | |
| 33 | PJ McDonald | F | So | 6'5" | 2-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 19.1% | |
| 23 | Derrick Singleton | F | Jr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 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 2025-26Miss Valley St
Against the spread
Season
15-16-1
Home
2-7-1
Road
11-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 10 as an underdogCovered 4 of 7 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
14-17-1
Home
4-5-1
Road
9-10
Last 10
3-6-1
avg vs total −1.8
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 10 as an underdog, 1 pushOver in 3 of 7 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | Grambling | N | L 52–77 | +13.5 | L−11.5 | 137.0 | U129 | 78.5 | 116.2 | 66.2 |
| Mar 5 | Jackson St | A | L 77–85 | +11.5 | W+3.5 | 145.0 | O162 | 116.7 | 128.8 | 66.0 |
| Mar 3 | Alcorn St | A | L 64–67 | +9.5 | W+6.5 | 139.0 | U131 | 99.1 | 103.7 | 64.6 |
| Feb 28 | AR-Pine Bluff | A | W 70–69 | +14.0 | W+15.0 | 147.5 | U139 | 100.4 | 99.0 | 69.7 |
| Feb 23 | Grambling | A | L 62–83 | +16.0 | L−5.0 | 137.0 | O145 | 78.6 | 105.2 | 78.9 |
| Feb 21 | Texas Southern | H | W 72–71 | +11.5 | W+12.5 | 143.5 | U143 | 105.3 | 103.8 | 68.4 |
| Feb 19 | Prairie View | H | L 62–72 | +9.0 | L−1.0 | 153.5 | U134 | 91.3 | 106.0 | 67.9 |
| Feb 16 | Alabama St | A | L 55–92 | +16.5 | L−20.5 | 143.0 | O147 | 76.1 | 127.3 | 72.3 |
| Feb 14 | Alabama A&M | A | L 65–72 | +15.5 | W+8.5 | 139.5 | U137 | 101.8 | 112.7 | 63.9 |
| Feb 9 | Alcorn St | H | L 66–74 | +5.5 | L−2.5 | 140.0 | P140 | 112.4 | 126.0 | 58.7 |
New Mexico
Against the spread
Season
21-14
Home
11-7
Road
7-5
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
22-12-1
Home
11-6-1
Road
8-4
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −0.1
Under 3 straightOver in 4 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2 | Tulsa | N | L 69–74 | +3.0 | L−2.0 | 162.5 | U143 | 97.1 | 104.2 | 71.0 |
| Mar 24 | Saint Joseph's | H | W 84–69 | −10.5 | W+4.5 | 155.0 | U153 | 113.9 | 93.5 | 73.8 |
| Mar 22 | G Washington | H | W 86–61 | −7.0 | W+18.0 | 161.5 | U147 | 125.8 | 89.2 | 68.4 |
| Mar 18 | Sam Houston | H | W 107–83 | −11.5 | W+12.5 | 163.0 | O190 | 140.7 | 109.2 | 76.0 |
| Mar 13 | San Diego St | N | L 62–64 | +2.5 | W+0.5 | 150.5 | U126 | 93.7 | 96.8 | 66.1 |
| Mar 12 | San José St | N | W 93–77 | −15.5 | W+0.5 | 154.5 | O170 | 135.2 | 111.9 | 68.8 |
| Mar 7 | Utah State | A | L 90–94 | +7.5 | W+3.5 | 156.5 | O184 | 130.0 | 135.8 | 69.2 |
| Mar 4 | Colorado St | H | L 74–82 | −8.0 | L−16.0 | 151.0 | O156 | 101.9 | 112.9 | 72.6 |
| Feb 28 | San Diego St | H | W 81–76 | −1.5 | W+3.5 | 149.0 | O157 | 115.3 | 108.1 | 70.3 |
| Feb 24 | Nevada | A | L 60–67 | −1.0 | L−8.0 | 150.0 | U127 | 84.9 | 94.7 | 70.7 |
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 homeMiss Valley StNew Mexico
Efficiency
95.1
113.5
117.8
102.9
68.3
70.0
—
—
Shooting
45.2%
53.5%
45.6%
53.6%
29.5%
35.6%
71.6%
72.9%
33.9%
35.8%
Ball control & glass
21.9%
14.9%
17.1%
19.0%
26.4%
30.6%
35.5%
27.7%
12.4%
8.6%
9.0%
9.2%
Style
30.2%
41.9%
37.9%
42.8%
15.9%
15.4%
52.9%
52.8%
26.5%
31.5%
Roster
3.34
2.48
6'4.8"
6'5.5"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMiss Valley St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Miss Valley St'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.)
New Mexico
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted New Mexico'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.