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 gameDavid R. Stopher Gymnasium, Thibodaux, LA
Texas A&M-CC
Efficiency #181
2025-26: 18-15 · 14-10 conf
@
Nicholls
Efficiency #250
2025-26: 14-19 · 13-11 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
70.6
win 45%
Projected
72.0
win 55%
No line posted yet.
Model: NICH −1.4 · total 142.6 · 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: Nicholls 68.9, Texas A&M-CC 67.4 → 67.9 possessions
−0.9
Nicholls offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
−3.6
Texas A&M-CC offense vs Nicholls defense
−1.1
Projected total
142.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Nicholls offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
−3.6
Texas A&M-CC offense vs Nicholls defense
+1.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Nicholls by 1.4
1.4
Texas A&M-CC side ◂▸ Nicholls side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Nicholls.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Nicholls is the faster team (68.3, #180 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
67.9
per team, 40 min
Projected total
142.6
model
Projected team totals
70.6 / 72.0
Texas A&M-CC / Nicholls
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.4#260
Texas A&M-CC
68.9#131
Nicholls
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageTexas A&M-CC
Where Texas A&M-CC struggles: ball control
Texas A&M-CC turns it over on 19.4% of possessions (#334); Nicholls forces turnovers on 20.5% of opponent possessions (#15). Expect about 20.6%, 3.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.7 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseNicholls
Nicholls's ball-hawking
Nicholls ranks #13 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.0% of Texas A&M-CC's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
AdvantageNicholls
Where Nicholls struggles: ball control
Nicholls turns it over on 17.4% of possessions (#232); Texas A&M-CC forces turnovers on 19.0% of opponent possessions (#49). Expect about 18.6%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions.
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 32.5% of its shots from three, Nicholls about 40.1%.
GlassTexas A&M-CC
Texas A&M-CC owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 32.9% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for Texas A&M-CC's offense.
ClashNicholls
Style clash: 3-point volume
Nicholls takes 43.9% of its shots from three; Texas A&M-CC runs teams off the line (34.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Texas A&M-CC has the ball
OffenseNicholls allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #270
54.4% #311
+0.7 pt/100
19.4% #334
20.5% #15
-4.7 pt/100
31.7% #137
33.7% #314
+1.5 pt/100
41.1% #46
37.9% #259
+0.6 pt/100
67.4% #334
—
-0.4 pt/100
Texas A&M-CC net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.3 pts/100
Nicholls has the ball
OffenseTexas A&M-CC allowsvs D1 avg
50.6% #205
50.1% #104
-1.4 pt/100
17.4% #232
19.0% #49
-2.2 pt/100
28.1% #263
28.8% #95
-1.5 pt/100
34.5% #195
46.3% #353
+0.8 pt/100
66.2% #350
—
-0.5 pt/100
Nicholls net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTexas A&M-CCoffense vsNichollsdefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas A&M-CC shoots
45.5
8.8
14.3
31.4
Nicholls allows
41.8
6.2
12.8
39.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.4%#334 | 62.3%#304 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.2%#75 | 48.5%#343 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.2%#328 | 36.9%#128 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#122 | 34.6%#224 | 33.7% |
Nichollsoffense vsTexas A&M-CCdefense
Share of shots by zone
Nicholls shoots
41.5
2.7
12.2
43.6
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 | 57.8%#203 | 57.9%#144 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.8%#225 | 44.7%#289 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.1%#360 | 36.5%#120 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.3%#215 | 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
Nicholls
−0.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#195 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#263
Def reb %
66.3%
#314
Turnover %
17.4%
#232
Forced TO %
20.5%
#15
FT rate
34.5%
#195
FT allowed
37.9%
#259
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security−0.4
Forcing turnovers+2.6
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed−0.7
Nicholls has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.4 (#195 of 365) to Texas A&M-CC’s −0.5 (#198).
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.
Nicholls2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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 | Sincere Malone | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 32.7 | 11.4 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 53.9% | 30.9% | 1.7 | 79.7% | 21.4% | |
| 1 | Trae English | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-25 | 30.8 | 11.5 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 44.8% | 29.6% | 4.2 | 81.1% | 25.4% | |
| 22 | Jalik Dunkley | G | So | 6'7" | 30-27 | 28.5 | 12.4 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 58.5% | 34.2% | 1.3 | 52.0% | 25.1% | |
| 3 | Jaylen Searles | G | Sr | 6'8" | 32-25 | 25.6 | 11.8 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 50.6% | 35.5% | 5.3 | 66.7% | 29.1% | |
| 2 | Christian Winborne | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-17 | 22.7 | 7.9 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 49.5% | 34.8% | 5.3 | 64.7% | 21.6% | |
| 24 | Zee Hamoda | G | Sr | 6'7" | 29-13 | 20.9 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 54.4% | 38.3% | 5.1 | 79.3% | 26.3% | |
| 0 | Jalin Rice | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-12 | 17.0 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 45.4% | 21.2% | 1.1 | 62.1% | 22.0% | |
| 7 | Grant Sanders | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-6 | 15.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 58.1% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 45.9% | 14.5% | |
| 21 | Nick Krass | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-6 | 11.9 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 48.8% | 30.4% | 0.8 | 78.6% | 10.2% | |
| 9 | Zaiden Cross | G | Sr | 6'7" | 16-2 | 11.8 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 37.2% | 25.4% | 3.7 | 66.7% | 28.4% | |
| 8 | Kevin Pazmino | G | Jr | 6'4" | 17-0 | 6.2 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 60.9% | 41.9% | 1.8 | — | 17.6% | |
| 25 | Domanic Betancourt | F | Jr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 11.3% | |
| 6 | Jordan Matthews | G | Fr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 2 | Chaydon Stone | G | Sr | 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.
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 |
Nicholls
Against the spread
Season
15-16-1
Home
4-6-1
Road
10-9
Last 10
5-4-1
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
17-15
Home
5-6
Road
11-8
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total −0.1
Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | UT Rio Grande | N | L 68–86 | +5.5 | L−12.5 | 143.5 | O154 | 101.7 | 128.6 | 66.9 |
| Mar 8 | N'Western St | N | W 61–47 | −2.0 | W+12.0 | 139.0 | U108 | 103.5 | 79.8 | 58.9 |
| Mar 2 | McNeese | H | L 65–75 | +10.0 | P0.0 | 145.0 | U140 | 96.6 | 111.5 | 67.3 |
| Feb 28 | SE Louisiana | H | W 68–60 | −4.5 | W+3.5 | 140.0 | U128 | 104.0 | 91.8 | 65.4 |
| Feb 23 | Lamar | A | W 53–52 | +3.5 | W+4.5 | 143.5 | U105 | 81.8 | 80.3 | 64.8 |
| Feb 21 | SF Austin | A | L 78–81 | +12.0 | W+9.0 | 148.5 | O159 | 117.5 | 122.0 | 66.4 |
| Feb 16 | Hou Christian | A | L 68–72 | +2.0 | L−2.0 | 138.5 | O140 | 100.9 | 106.9 | 67.4 |
| Feb 14 | Incarnate Word | A | W 91–83 | +1.5 | W+9.5 | 149.0 | O174 | 138.7 | 126.5 | 65.6 |
| Feb 9 | UT Rio Grande | H | L 72–92 | +3.0 | L−17.0 | 147.5 | O164 | 104.4 | 133.4 | 69.0 |
| Feb 7 | Texas A&M-CC | H | L 76–83 | −1.0 | L−8.0 | 137.0 | O159 | 112.2 | 122.6 | 67.7 |
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 homeTexas A&M-CCNicholls
Efficiency
105.1
106.1
105.5
110.3
67.4
68.9
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
50.6%
48.1%
51.2%
35.0%
33.3%
67.4%
66.2%
41.1%
34.5%
Ball control & glass
19.4%
17.4%
19.0%
20.5%
31.7%
28.1%
28.8%
33.7%
10.6%
9.2%
11.6%
9.9%
Style
31.4%
43.9%
46.8%
41.2%
14.6%
16.6%
50.7%
52.1%
40.6%
30.5%
Roster
3.55
3.67
6'4.4"
6'5.6"
—
—
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.)
Nicholls
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Feb 7 | 2025-26 | Texas A&M-CC 83 – 76 Nicholls |
| Mon, Dec 29 | 2025-26 | Nicholls 76 – 71 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.