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-conferenceStrahan Arena at the University Events Center, San Marcos, TX
Texas A&M-CC
Efficiency #181
2025-26: 18-15 · 14-10 conf
@
Texas St
Efficiency #249
2025-26: 19-13 · 11-8 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
68.5
win 45%
Projected
69.9
win 55%
No line posted yet.
Model: TXST −1.4 · total 138.5 · 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: Texas St 67.6, Texas A&M-CC 67.4 → 66.6 possessions
−3.7
Texas St offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
−4.3
Texas A&M-CC offense vs Texas St defense
−1.8
Projected total
138.5
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Texas St offense vs Texas A&M-CC defense
−4.3
Texas A&M-CC offense vs Texas St defense
+1.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Texas St by 1.4
1.4
Texas A&M-CC side ◂▸ Texas St side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 138.4 against a projected 138.5, and the margin steps add to +1.3 against +1.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Texas St.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Texas St is the faster team (67.3, #231 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
66.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
138.5
model
Projected team totals
68.5 / 69.9
Texas A&M-CC / Texas St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.4#260
Texas A&M-CC
67.6#245
Texas St
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashTexas St
Style match: 3-point volume
Texas St rarely shoots threes (24.6% 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 24.6% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageTexas A&M-CC
Where Texas A&M-CC struggles: ball control
Texas A&M-CC turns it over on 19.4% of possessions (#334); Texas St forces turnovers on 18.5% of opponent possessions (#72). Expect about 19.4%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.2 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageTexas St
Where Texas St struggles: ball control
Texas St turns it over on 18.6% of possessions (#307); Texas A&M-CC forces turnovers on 19.0% of opponent possessions (#49). Expect about 19.3%, 2.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.1 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 31.7% of its shots from three, Texas St about 24.6%.
DefenseTexas St
Texas St's ball-hawking
Texas St ranks #32 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.3% of Texas A&M-CC's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
Texas A&M-CC has the ball
OffenseTexas St allowsvs D1 avg
49.5% #270
52.0% #210
-1.0 pt/100
19.4% #334
18.5% #72
-3.2 pt/100
31.7% #137
28.4% #81
-0.0 pt/100
41.1% #46
39.1% #288
+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: -4.0 pts/100
Texas St has the ball
OffenseTexas A&M-CC allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #238
50.1% #104
-2.0 pt/100
18.6% #307
19.0% #49
-3.1 pt/100
33.9% #68
28.8% #95
+1.0 pt/100
34.0% #211
46.3% #353
+0.8 pt/100
76.2% #49
—
+0.3 pt/100
Texas St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTexas A&M-CCoffense vsTexas Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas A&M-CC shoots
45.5
8.8
14.3
31.4
Texas St allows
42.6
5.6
14.6
37.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.4%#334 | 57.8%#140 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.2%#75 | 40.0%#191 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.2%#328 | 32.7%#24 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#122 | 35.7%#293 | 33.7% |
Texas Stoffense vsTexas A&M-CCdefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas St shoots
45.1
5.2
25.2
24.5
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 | 57.2%#224 | 57.9%#144 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.2%#141 | 44.7%#289 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.2%#75 | 36.5%#120 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.2%#271 | 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
Texas St
+0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#157 of 365
Off reb %
33.9%
#68
Def reb %
71.6%
#81
Turnover %
18.6%
#307
Forced TO %
18.5%
#72
FT rate
34.0%
#211
FT allowed
39.1%
#288
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.7
Ball security−1.3
Forcing turnovers+1.3
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed−1.0
Texas St has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.6 (#157 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.
Texas St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | DJ Hall | F | Fr | 6'7" | 32-31 | 30.0 | 15.6 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 55.0% | 35.3% | 0.5 | 78.9% | 29.6% | |
| 4 | Mark Drone | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-30 | 30.5 | 14.2 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 47.2% | 28.4% | 3.2 | 83.2% | 31.8% | |
| 11 | Kaden Gumbs | G | Jr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 28.3 | 8.7 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 52.6% | 42.2% | 1.4 | 82.6% | 20.4% | |
| 9 | Kyndall Davis | G | Sr | 6'5" | 29-23 | 24.2 | 5.9 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 42.6% | 24.7% | 2.8 | 71.7% | 18.2% | |
| 2 | Franck Emmou | G | So | 6'5" | 31-10 | 22.5 | 7.2 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 53.7% | 42.0% | 2.6 | 87.2% | 18.6% | |
| 5 | Jalen Bolden | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-2 | 16.3 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 50.3% | 35.3% | 2.1 | 54.5% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Robert Fields | C | Fr | 6'9" | 30-0 | 15.6 | 5.0 | 3.7 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 52.4% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 69.2% | 18.3% | |
| 24 | Tay Knox | C | Sr | 6'9" | 32-18 | 14.1 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 55.9% | — | 0.0 | 53.7% | 13.5% | |
| 22 | Makai Willis | C | Sr | 6'8" | 32-14 | 12.8 | 6.0 | 3.1 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 51.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 79.6% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Dimp Pernell | G | Jr | 6'3" | 11-0 | 21.2 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 55.9% | 40.6% | 2.9 | 66.7% | 24.4% | |
| 10 | Jaelyn Lee | G | Jr | 6'6" | 19-0 | 7.2 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 48.9% | 27.3% | 1.2 | 75.0% | 24.0% | |
| 1 | Ky Pernell | G | Jr | 6'3" | 3-0 | 10.3 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 38.9% | 25.0% | 1.3 | 100.0% | 21.9% | |
| 6 | Cameron Simpson | G | Fr | 6'7" | 4-0 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.8 | — | 15.3% | |
| 23 | Isaiah Barganier | F | Jr | 6'7" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 75.0% | 33.3% | |
| 21 | Deke Thompson | G | Fr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 70.0% | 50.0% | 0.7 | — | 23.0% |
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 |
Texas St
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
10-5
Road
5-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +5.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 6 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-14
Home
6-9
Road
8-4
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +3.0
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Southern Miss | N | L 77–81 | −1.5 | L−5.5 | 140.0 | O158 | 111.5 | 117.3 | 69.0 |
| Feb 27 | App State | H | W 60–57 | +1.0 | W+4.0 | 135.0 | U117 | 98.7 | 93.8 | 60.8 |
| Feb 21 | Louisiana | A | L 54–67 | −3.0 | L−16.0 | 134.0 | U121 | 90.3 | 112.1 | 59.8 |
| Feb 19 | South Alabama | A | W 90–82 OT | +4.0 | W+12.0 | 137.5 | O172 | 123.5 | 112.6 | 72.8 |
| Feb 14 | UL Monroe | H | W 95–84 | −14.0 | L−3.0 | 149.0 | O179 | 148.1 | 131.0 | 64.1 |
| Feb 11 | Troy | H | W 74–62 | +5.0 | W+17.0 | 140.5 | U136 | 116.2 | 97.4 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | W Michigan | H | W 77–61 | −6.5 | W+9.5 | 146.5 | U138 | 119.8 | 94.9 | 64.3 |
| Feb 4 | GA Southern | A | W 77–71 | +4.5 | W+10.5 | 151.0 | U148 | 110.9 | 102.2 | 69.5 |
| Jan 31 | Old Dominion | H | W 81–64 | +1.0 | W+18.0 | 143.5 | O145 | 117.1 | 92.5 | 69.2 |
| Jan 28 | Marshall | H | W 72–68 | +4.0 | W+8.0 | 147.5 | U140 | 104.6 | 98.7 | 68.9 |
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-CCTexas St
Efficiency
105.1
105.0
105.5
109.1
67.4
67.6
—
—
Shooting
49.5%
50.0%
48.1%
50.5%
35.0%
32.2%
67.4%
76.2%
41.1%
34.0%
Ball control & glass
19.4%
18.6%
19.0%
18.5%
31.7%
33.9%
28.8%
28.4%
10.6%
11.6%
11.6%
10.1%
Style
31.4%
24.6%
46.8%
48.9%
14.6%
15.8%
50.7%
48.2%
40.6%
36.1%
Roster
3.55
2.91
6'4.4"
6'4.9"
—
—
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.)
Texas St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Texas 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.)
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.