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 gameLakefront Arena, New Orleans, LA
Texas A&M-CC
Efficiency #181
2025-26: 18-15 · 14-10 conf
@
LSU N Orleans
Efficiency #221
2025-26: 15-18 · 13-11 conf
Mon, Dec 7 · TBD
71.8
win 41%
Projected
74.5
win 59%
No line posted yet.
Model: NOLA −2.7 · total 146.3 · 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: LSU N Orleans 69.8, Texas A&M-CC 67.4 → 68.9 possessions
+1.3
LSU N Orleans offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
−2.3
Texas A&M-CC offense vs LSU N Orleans defense
−1.0
Projected total
146.3
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
LSU N Orleans offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
−2.3
Texas A&M-CC offense vs LSU N Orleans defense
+1.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
LSU N Orleans by 2.7
2.7
Texas A&M-CC side ◂▸ LSU N Orleans side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 146.2 against a projected 146.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help LSU N Orleans.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, LSU N Orleans is the faster team (69.7, #107 of 365) and Texas A&M-CC the slower (66.6, #264). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.9
per team, 40 min
Projected total
146.3
model
Projected team totals
71.8 / 74.5
Texas A&M-CC / LSU N Orleans
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.4#260
Texas A&M-CC
69.8#61
LSU N Orleans
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageLSU N Orleans
Where LSU N Orleans struggles: ball control
LSU N Orleans turns it over on 20.5% of possessions (#353); Texas A&M-CC forces turnovers on 19.0% of opponent possessions (#49). Expect about 20.3%, 3.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.4 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageTexas A&M-CC
Where Texas A&M-CC struggles: shooting
Texas A&M-CC shoots an effective 49.5% (#270); LSU N Orleans allows 49.0% (#71). Expect about 49.1%, 2.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.1 points per 100 possessions.
ClashLSU N Orleans
Style match: 3-point volume
LSU N Orleans rarely shoots threes (33.7% of its shots); Texas A&M-CC runs teams off the line (34.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 31.9% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Texas A&M-CC'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 Texas A&M-CC at about 33.4% of its shots from three, LSU N Orleans about 31.9%.
GlassTexas A&M-CC
Texas A&M-CC owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.3% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Texas A&M-CC's offense.
GlassLSU N Orleans
LSU N Orleans owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.3% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for LSU N Orleans's offense.
Texas A&M-CC has the ball
OffenseLSU N Orleans allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #270
49.0% #71
-3.1 pt/100
19.4% #334
14.9% #302
-0.3 pt/100
31.7% #137
34.5% #325
+1.7 pt/100
41.1% #46
39.5% #296
+0.7 pt/100
67.4% #334
—
-0.4 pt/100
Texas A&M-CC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.5 pts/100
LSU N Orleans has the ball
OffenseTexas A&M-CC allowsvs D1 avg
49.6% #258
50.1% #104
-2.2 pt/100
20.5% #353
19.0% #49
-4.4 pt/100
35.6% #34
28.8% #95
+1.7 pt/100
46.4% #1
46.3% #353
+1.5 pt/100
74.3% #114
—
+0.2 pt/100
LSU N Orleans net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.2 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTexas A&M-CCoffense vsLSU N Orleansdefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas A&M-CC shoots
45.5
8.8
14.3
31.4
LSU N Orleans allows
37.6
5.7
17.1
39.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.4%#334 | 54.3%#46 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.2%#75 | 36.9%#108 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.2%#328 | 41.2%#280 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#122 | 32.4%#86 | 33.7% |
LSU N Orleansoffense vsTexas A&M-CCdefense
Share of shots by zone
LSU N Orleans shoots
41.8
5.8
19.2
33.2
Texas A&M-CC allows
41.4
8.1
15.8
34.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.9%#244 | 57.9%#144 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.8%#86 | 44.7%#289 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.4%#177 | 36.5%#120 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.8%#287 | 31.6%#48 | 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 numbersTexas A&M-CC
−0.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#198 of 365
Off reb %
31.7%
#137
Def reb %
71.2%
#95
Turnover %
19.4%
#334
Forced TO %
19.0%
#49
FT rate
41.1%
#46
FT allowed
46.3%
#353
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security−1.8
Forcing turnovers+1.6
Foul shots drawn+1.6
Foul shots allowed−2.8
LSU N Orleans
−1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#256 of 365
Off reb %
35.6%
#34
Def reb %
65.5%
#325
Turnover %
20.5%
#353
Forced TO %
14.9%
#302
FT rate
46.4%
#1
FT allowed
39.5%
#296
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.7
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−2.5
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn+2.9
Foul shots allowed−1.1
Texas A&M-CC has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.5 (#198 of 365) to LSU N Orleans’s −1.5 (#256).
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
Texas A&M-CC2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Sheldon Williams | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-30 | 25.4 | 11.8 | 6.9 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 56.5% | 29.7% | 1.1 | 64.3% | 27.0% | |
| 1 | Nick Shogbonyo | G | Sr | 6'1" | 28-26 | 26.9 | 11.9 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 55.0% | 42.5% | 4.0 | 80.7% | 25.6% | |
| 3 | Mason Gibson | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-16 | 21.5 | 9.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 35.9% | 4.4 | 68.5% | 27.2% | |
| 2 | Leo Torbor | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-17 | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.7% | 30.8% | 0.4 | 48.1% | 21.0% | |
| 22 | Franck Yetna | F | Sr | 6'7" | 33-15 | 18.8 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 54.5% | 40.8% | 1.5 | 65.3% | 20.9% | |
| 0 | D'Avian Houston | G | Sr | 6'2" | 27-15 | 20.5 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 49.1% | 37.7% | 2.9 | 65.8% | 29.2% | |
| 99 | Cenker Evran | F | Sr | 6'8" | 26-18 | 21.3 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 56.9% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 16.9% | |
| 10 | Daniel Michelini-Jackson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-12 | 17.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 46.2% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 90.5% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Kam Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 26-8 | 17.3 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.5% | 26.2% | 2.3 | 80.0% | 18.8% | |
| 8 | Bryson Wheatfall | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-5 | 11.3 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 39.5% | 25.0% | 0.5 | 64.3% | 23.4% | |
| 5 | Kobi Pearson | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-0 | 8.8 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 56.8% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Jaden Haire | F | Jr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 53.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 57.1% | 22.4% | |
| 14 | Cedric Horton | G | Fr | 6'5" | 12-0 | 9.4 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 67.3% | 45.5% | 0.9 | 75.0% | 15.4% | |
| 24 | Jamal Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'10" | 14-0 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 80.0% | 16.3% | |
| 13 | Trenton Pane | G | Fr | 5'10" | 4-0 | 8.3 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57.1% | 28.6% | 1.8 | — | 30.0% | |
| 7 | Kayden Crosby | F | Jr | 6'7" | 6-0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | — | 10.7% | |
| 20 | Michael Oaks | F | Jr | 6'10" | 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.
LSU N Orleans2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted LSU N Orleans'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | Coleton Benson | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-33 | 34.3 | 16.2 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 51.0% | 35.9% | 7.5 | 92.8% | 26.5% | |
| 5 | Jakevion Buckley | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-29 | 33.9 | 13.8 | 4.7 | 5.6 | 4.1 | 43.2% | 31.2% | 2.9 | 77.1% | 30.1% | |
| 23 | MJ Thomas | F | So | 6'8" | 32-30 | 26.8 | 10.8 | 8.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 53.6% | 66.7% | 0.1 | 73.3% | 23.7% | |
| 6 | TJ Cope | G | Jr | 6'7" | 32-20 | 21.3 | 8.3 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 57.5% | 24.1% | 0.9 | 68.7% | 21.5% | |
| 9 | Churchill Abass | C | Jr | 6'10" | 33-27 | 20.1 | 8.4 | 5.7 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 63.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 56.7% | 23.9% | |
| 25 | Enzo Boudouma | F | Fr | 6'9" | 32-6 | 18.3 | 5.3 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 45.2% | 27.0% | 2.3 | 72.3% | 18.9% | |
| 21 | Kedrick Osby | F | Jr | 6'7" | 32-7 | 17.2 | 4.9 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 50.8% | 40.0% | 1.7 | 75.8% | 16.9% | |
| 99 | Panagiotis Pagonis | F | Fr | 6'9" | 30-7 | 17.6 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 39.8% | 24.5% | 1.6 | 72.0% | 16.6% | |
| 3 | Irish Coquia | G | Jr | 6'2" | 25-3 | 9.6 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 45.9% | 34.1% | 1.6 | 84.6% | 20.8% | |
| 15 | Jamal Chretien II | G | Fr | 6'6" | 14-3 | 9.1 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 36.4% | 15.4% | 0.9 | 75.0% | 12.1% | |
| 11 | Mathok Majok | C | Jr | 7'4" | 16-0 | 4.9 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 73.7% | — | 0.0 | 53.8% | 20.8% | |
| 0 | Hercy Miller | G | Sr | 6'3" | 9-0 | 5.6 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 26.9% | 0.0% | 0.9 | 0.0% | 36.3% | |
| 7 | Grant Kemp | G | Sr | 5'9" | 7-0 | 4.9 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 18.2% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 71.4% | 29.1% | |
| 20 | William Patterson | C | So | 7'2" | 7-0 | 4.3 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 20.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 13.0% | |
| 13 | Vieux Sanneh | F | Fr | 6'5" | 2-0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 14.6% | |
| 10 | Eze Nwakamma | 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.
Texas A&M-CC2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Sheldon Williams | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-30 | 25.4 | 11.8 | 6.9 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 56.5% | 29.7% | 1.1 | 64.3% | 27.0% | |
| 1 | Nick Shogbonyo | G | Sr | 6'1" | 28-26 | 26.9 | 11.9 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 55.0% | 42.5% | 4.0 | 80.7% | 25.6% | |
| 3 | Mason Gibson | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-16 | 21.5 | 9.4 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 35.9% | 4.4 | 68.5% | 27.2% | |
| 2 | Leo Torbor | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-17 | 19.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 46.7% | 30.8% | 0.4 | 48.1% | 21.0% | |
| 22 | Franck Yetna | F | Sr | 6'7" | 33-15 | 18.8 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 54.5% | 40.8% | 1.5 | 65.3% | 20.9% | |
| 0 | D'Avian Houston | G | Sr | 6'2" | 27-15 | 20.5 | 8.2 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 49.1% | 37.7% | 2.9 | 65.8% | 29.2% | |
| 99 | Cenker Evran | F | Sr | 6'8" | 26-18 | 21.3 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 56.9% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 16.9% | |
| 10 | Daniel Michelini-Jackson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 29-12 | 17.5 | 5.5 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 46.2% | 33.3% | 2.3 | 90.5% | 21.2% | |
| 4 | Kam Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 26-8 | 17.3 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 42.5% | 26.2% | 2.3 | 80.0% | 18.8% | |
| 8 | Bryson Wheatfall | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-5 | 11.3 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 39.5% | 25.0% | 0.5 | 64.3% | 23.4% | |
| 5 | Kobi Pearson | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-0 | 8.8 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 56.8% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 11 | Jaden Haire | F | Jr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 53.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 57.1% | 22.4% | |
| 14 | Cedric Horton | G | Fr | 6'5" | 12-0 | 9.4 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 67.3% | 45.5% | 0.9 | 75.0% | 15.4% | |
| 24 | Jamal Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'10" | 14-0 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 80.0% | 16.3% | |
| 13 | Trenton Pane | G | Fr | 5'10" | 4-0 | 8.3 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 57.1% | 28.6% | 1.8 | — | 30.0% | |
| 7 | Kayden Crosby | F | Jr | 6'7" | 6-0 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | — | 10.7% | |
| 20 | Michael Oaks | F | Jr | 6'10" | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Texas A&M-CC
Against the spread
Season
16-13
Home
5-6
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +3.3
Covered 5 straightCovered 5 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-14
Home
6-5
Road
9-7
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +2.8
Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | SF Austin | N | L 58–60 | +6.0 | W+4.0 | 134.5 | U118 | 94.7 | 98.0 | 61.3 |
| Mar 9 | LSU N Orleans | N | W 74–61 | −2.0 | W+11.0 | 147.5 | U135 | 127.1 | 104.8 | 58.2 |
| Mar 2 | East Texas A&M | H | W 84–71 | −8.0 | W+5.0 | 137.5 | O155 | 124.9 | 105.6 | 67.2 |
| Feb 28 | N'Western St | H | W 71–59 | −6.0 | W+6.0 | 134.0 | U130 | 117.4 | 97.5 | 60.5 |
| Feb 23 | SE Louisiana | A | W 73–68 | −2.0 | W+3.0 | 130.5 | O141 | 112.9 | 105.2 | 64.7 |
| Feb 21 | McNeese | A | L 54–70 | +14.0 | L−2.0 | 140.5 | U124 | 82.3 | 106.7 | 65.6 |
| Feb 16 | SF Austin | H | L 68–78 | +5.0 | L−5.0 | 136.5 | O146 | 101.5 | 116.4 | 67.0 |
| Feb 14 | Lamar | H | W 76–63 | −2.5 | W+10.5 | 136.0 | O139 | 113.1 | 93.7 | 67.2 |
| Feb 9 | LSU N Orleans | A | L 78–84 OT | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 147.0 | O162 | 89.6 | 96.5 | 87.1 |
| Feb 7 | Nicholls | A | W 83–76 | +1.0 | W+8.0 | 137.0 | O159 | 122.6 | 112.2 | 67.7 |
LSU N Orleans
Against the spread
Season
18-14-1
Home
7-4
Road
10-9-1
Last 10
6-3-1
avg cover +2.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
19-14
Home
9-2
Road
10-10
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.3
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | Texas A&M-CC | N | L 61–74 | +2.0 | L−11.0 | 147.5 | U135 | 104.8 | 127.1 | 58.2 |
| Mar 8 | Hou Christian | N | W 73–60 | −4.0 | W+9.0 | 143.0 | U133 | 103.3 | 84.9 | 70.7 |
| Mar 2 | SE Louisiana | H | L 78–82 | −7.0 | L−11.0 | 144.0 | O160 | 104.8 | 110.2 | 74.4 |
| Feb 28 | McNeese | H | L 63–66 | +10.0 | W+7.0 | 150.5 | U129 | 97.5 | 102.1 | 64.6 |
| Feb 23 | SF Austin | A | W 77–73 | +11.5 | W+15.5 | 152.0 | U150 | 113.4 | 107.5 | 67.9 |
| Feb 21 | Lamar | A | W 77–71 | +5.5 | W+11.5 | 146.5 | O148 | 109.8 | 101.3 | 70.1 |
| Feb 16 | Incarnate Word | A | W 78–64 | +2.0 | W+16.0 | 153.5 | U142 | 120.9 | 99.2 | 64.5 |
| Feb 14 | Hou Christian | A | L 60–61 | +1.0 | P0.0 | 149.0 | U121 | 96.6 | 98.2 | 62.1 |
| Feb 9 | Texas A&M-CC | H | W 84–78 OT | +1.5 | W+7.5 | 147.0 | O162 | 96.5 | 89.6 | 87.1 |
| Feb 7 | UT Rio Grande | H | L 76–95 | +1.5 | L−17.5 | 151.0 | O171 | 102.0 | 127.5 | 74.5 |
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 homeTexas A&M-CCLSU N Orleans
Efficiency
105.1
108.2
105.5
110.5
67.4
69.8
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
49.6%
48.1%
50.6%
35.0%
31.8%
67.4%
74.3%
41.1%
46.4%
Ball control & glass
19.4%
20.5%
19.0%
14.9%
31.7%
35.6%
28.8%
34.5%
10.6%
11.1%
11.6%
9.7%
Style
31.4%
33.7%
46.8%
42.7%
14.6%
12.4%
50.7%
52.5%
40.6%
31.8%
Roster
3.55
2.84
6'4.4"
6'5.9"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputTexas A&M-CC
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Texas A&M-CC'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.)
LSU N Orleans
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted LSU N Orleans'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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mon, Mar 9 | 2025-26 | LSU N Orleans 61 – 74 Texas A&M-CC(N) |
| Mon, Feb 9 | 2025-26 | Texas A&M-CC 78 – 84 LSU N Orleans |
| Wed, Dec 31 | 2025-26 | LSU N Orleans 69 – 83 Texas A&M-CC |
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.