South Dakota Coyotes vs Utah Tech Trailblazers basketball preview & prediction

Sun, Nov 22 · 2:00 PM ET · Sanford Pentagon, Sioux Falls, SD (neutral site)

Neutral siteNon-conferenceSanford Pentagon, Sioux Falls, SD

South Dakota

1-2 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #293

Utah Tech

1-1 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #255

Sun, Nov 22 · 2:00 PM ET

Our projected score shows once the market opens.

No line posted yet.

Our play

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 75.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, South Dakota is the faster team (80.4, #15 of 365) and Utah Tech the slower (76.5, #47). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

75.0

per team, 40 min

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

74.0#30

South Dakota

71.5#119

Utah Tech

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup

From the four factors

Utah Tech has the ball−6.3

South Dakota has the ball+11.4

Utah Tech has the ball

✗Few second chancesOR% 17.1% #350 · SDAK allows 22.2% #30−6.7

✓Shoots it welleFG% 41.8% #310 · SDAK allows 62.4% #338+1.4

✗Few trips to the lineFTR 23.0% #324 · SDAK allows 36.8% #185 · FT 64.3% #267−1.0

✓Takes care of the ballTO% 19.6% #232 · SDAK forces 16.8% #214 · ~14 turnovers+0.1

South Dakota has the ball

✓Shoots it welleFG% 55.7% #94 · UTU allows 67.5% #353+12.8

✗Few second chancesOR% 28.6% #233 · UTU allows 29.6% #151−1.4

✗Coughs it upTO% 19.9% #248 · UTU forces 18.3% #159 · ~14 turnovers−0.9

✓Gets to the lineFTR 47.5% #68 · UTU allows 40.0% #214 · FT 74.1% #117+0.9

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot

South Dakotaoffense vsUtah Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

South Dakota shoots

48.6

7.2

1.8

42.3

Utah Tech allows

46.5

2.3

16.3

34.9

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.3%#163	80.0%#354	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	62.5%#42	100.0%#348	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	0.0%#327	42.9%#240	34.7%
Three	31.4%#199	44.0%#332	32.5%

Utah Techoffense vsSouth Dakotadefense

Share of shots by zone

Utah Tech shoots

24.4

9.8

14.6

51.2

South Dakota allows

39.0

9.8

12.2

39.0

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	50.0%#261	62.5%#229	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	50.0%#75	25.0%#76	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	66.7%#16	33.3%#155	34.7%
Three	21.2%#344	54.2%#357	32.5%

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

South Dakota

+3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#135 of 365

Off reb %

28.6%

#233

Def reb %

77.8%

#30

Turnover %

19.9%

#248

Forced TO %

16.8%

#214

FT rate

47.5%

#68

FT allowed

36.8%

#185

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.0

Defensive rebounding+3.1

Ball security−1.2

Forcing turnovers−0.9

Foul shots drawn+2.6

Foul shots allowed+0.3

Utah Tech

−9.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#304 of 365

Off reb %

17.1%

#350

Def reb %

70.4%

#151

Turnover %

19.6%

#232

Forced TO %

18.3%

#159

FT rate

23.0%

#324

FT allowed

40.0%

#214

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−4.8

Defensive rebounding+0.7

Ball security−1.0

Forcing turnovers+0.2

Foul shots drawn−3.8

Foul shots allowed−0.5

South Dakota has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.0 (#135 of 365) to Utah Tech’s −9.2 (#304).

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

Who has been playing, and who has not

South Dakota2026-27 numbers · last game: Fullerton, Nov 7

#	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	Min/40, last 8	Last 3 vs before	Status	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	G	So	6'4"	3-3	27.7	32	—	Started last	20.0	6.3	3.3	2.3	75.0%	50.0%	0.7	77.8%	27.8%
2	G	Sr	6'1"	3-3	27.0	31	—	Started last	5.0	1.7	1.7	1.0	40.0%	18.2%	3.7	75.0%	12.4%
44	G	Sr	6'6"	3-3	24.3	24	—	Started last	17.0	3.0	0.3	1.7	57.6%	36.4%	7.3	100.0%	30.6%
13	G	Jr	6'3"	3-2	23.0	23	—	Bench	10.7	4.0	1.7	2.0	36.7%	20.0%	3.3	76.9%	30.9%
9	G	Sr	6'2"	3-1	22.0	27	—	Started last	11.7	3.0	3.0	2.0	62.5%	42.9%	2.3	76.9%	24.6%
15	C	Jr	6'10"	3-3	19.0	17	—	Started last	10.7	6.0	0.7	2.7	76.5%	—	0.0	54.5%	26.9%
21	F	Jr	6'5"	3-0	15.7	18	—	Bench	6.7	2.7	0.3	0.3	75.0%	50.0%	4.0	50.0%	16.0%
8	F	Jr	6'10"	3-0	12.0	13	—	Bench	3.7	2.7	0.7	1.3	100.0%	—	0.0	83.3%	13.9%
19	G	So	6'5"	2-0	12.0	12	—	Bench	2.0	1.0	0.5	1.0	20.0%	0.0%	1.0	66.7%	17.8%
34	F	Sr	6'9"	3-0	8.0	1	—	Bench	1.3	1.0	0.3	0.7	66.7%	—	0.0	0.0%	14.0%
6	G	Sr	6'4"	2-0	8.0	2	—	Bench	2.5	1.5	0.5	0.0	50.0%	25.0%	2.0	—	16.5%
3	G	Fr	6'2"	1-0	13.0	—	—	Missed last	0.0	6.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	4.0	—	16.4%
0	G	Fr	6'0"	1-0	8.0	—	—	Missed last	5.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	2.0	100.0%	19.7%
22	F	So	6'7"	1-0	2.0	—	—	Missed last	0.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%

Competitive minutes leave out garbage time (provisional rule: a second-half lead of 25+ inside 15:00, 20+ inside 10:00, 15+ inside 5:00 or 10+ inside 2:00, held to the end) and are shown per 40 minutes. Status says only whether a player appeared; the reason is not published.

Trends

Results against the closing spread and total, last ten games

South Dakota

Against the spread

Season

0-2

Home

0-2

Road

0-0

Last 10

0-2

avg cover −4.2

Missed the spread 2 straight

Over / under

Season

1-1

Home

1-1

Road

0-0

Last 10

1-1

avg vs total +14.8

Under in the last game

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 7	FullertonAdjEM #197	H	L 85–87	−1.0	L−3.0	176.0	U172	102.9	105.3	82.6
Nov 4	N KentuckyAdjEM #171	H	L 94–102	+2.5	L−5.5	162.5	O196	120.4	130.6	78.1
Nov 2	Mount Marty Lancers	H	W 95–57	—	—	—	—	125.7	75.4	75.6
Mar 6	OmahaAdjEM #308	N	L 62–76	+2.0	L−12.0	151.5	U138	95.8	117.4	64.7
Feb 28	S Dakota StAdjEM #156	H	W 75–70	+3.0	W+8.0	151.0	U145	108.0	100.8	69.4
Feb 25	OmahaAdjEM #308	H	W 89–72	+1.5	W+18.5	153.5	O161	121.5	98.3	73.3
Feb 21	Oral RobertsAdjEM #328	A	L 62–67	−1.0	L−6.0	151.5	U129	85.4	92.2	72.6
Feb 19	DenverAdjEM #198	A	L 70–90	+6.0	L−14.0	162.5	U160	107.3	137.9	65.3
Feb 11	North DakotaAdjEM #289	H	L 71–72	−1.5	L−2.5	156.5	U143	106.2	107.7	66.8
Feb 7	S Dakota StAdjEM #156	A	W 68–67	+11.5	W+12.5	157.5	U135	97.6	96.1	69.7

Utah Tech

Against the spread

Season

0-1

Home

0-0

Road

0-1

Last 10

0-1

avg cover −16.5

Missed the spread in the last game

Over / under

Season

1-0

Home

0-0

Road

1-0

Last 10

1-0

avg vs total +0.5

Over in the last game

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 4	Grace University Lancers	H	W 103–52	—	—	—	—	140.8	71.1	73.2
Nov 2	New MexicoAdjEM #32	A	L 60–100	+23.5	L−16.5	159.5	O160	78.4	130.7	76.5
Mar 13	CA BaptistAdjEM #239	N	L 72–86	+8.0	L−6.0	143.5	O158	102.3	122.2	70.4
Mar 12	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #301	N	W 80–74	−1.5	W+4.5	141.5	O154	113.6	105.1	70.4
Mar 7	Utah ValleyAdjEM #94	H	L 101–104 2OT	+9.0	W+6.0	148.0	O205	118.6	122.1	85.2
Feb 28	Southern UtahAdjEM #278	A	L 67–81	−2.0	L−16.0	156.0	U148	101.0	122.1	66.3
Feb 26	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #301	H	W 85–81	−2.0	W+2.0	139.0	O166	121.7	115.9	69.9
Feb 21	Tarleton StAdjEM #224	A	W 80–72	+1.5	W+9.5	141.0	O152	123.4	111.1	64.8
Feb 19	UT ArlingtonAdjEM #164	A	L 50–63	+4.5	L−8.5	140.5	U113	81.7	103.0	61.2
Feb 14	CA BaptistAdjEM #239	H	W 70–65	+3.5	W+8.5	143.5	U135	108.9	101.1	64.3

Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.

Team comparison

national rank toned left for away, right for home

South DakotaUtah Tech

Efficiency

104.1

103.9

112.6

109.8

74.0

71.5

-1.7

16.4

Shooting

55.7%

41.8%

62.0%

53.6%

31.4%

21.2%

74.1%

64.3%

47.5%

23.0%

Ball control & glass

19.9%

19.6%

16.8%

18.3%

28.6%

17.1%

22.2%

29.6%

10.0%

13.1%

9.9%

7.1%

Style

41.8%

54.1%

49.2%

30.0%

12.8%

8.3%

41.7%

50.0%

38.7%

38.3%

Roster

3.18

2.80

6'4.7"

6'5.1"

21.4%

21.9%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

South Dakota

Returning minutes: 21.4%Returning production: 15.6%

Lost

Jordan Crawford 31.2 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to Missouri
Uzziah Buntyn 29.4 mpg, 11.7 ppg · transferred to N Illinois
Cameron Fens 25.3 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
Isaac Bruns 19.3 mpg, 13.0 ppg · transferred to USC
Silas Bennion 14.4 mpg, 2.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Evan Anderson 13.1 mpg, 2.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Jahni Summers from Sacramento St · 25.8 mpg, 9.9 ppg last season
Melo Sanchez from C Connecticut · 23.9 mpg, 9.2 ppg last season
Kajus Kublickas from Pacific · 20.2 mpg, 5.6 ppg last season
Stef van Bussel from Duquesne · 3.0 mpg, 0.7 ppg last season
Cade Kelderman from Iowa State · 1.8 mpg, 0.4 ppg last season
Josh Townley-Thomas from Creighton · 0.1 mpg, 0.2 ppg last season

Returns 21% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (4 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Utah Tech

Returning minutes: 21.9%Returning production: 30.7%

Lost

Noah Bolanga 32.7 mpg, 11.9 ppg · transferred to Abilene Chrstn
Chance Trujillo 31.9 mpg, 11.9 ppg · transferred to Hawai'i
Jusaun Holt 30.8 mpg, 11.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Tanner Davis 25.9 mpg, 7.2 ppg · transferred to Utah Valley
Britton Berrett 23.0 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Madiba Owona 10.9 mpg, 4.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Rex Sunderland from Stonehill · 26.9 mpg, 4.7 ppg last season
Alex Dupre from Portland St · 14.9 mpg, 3.1 ppg last season
Mark Brown Jr. from Valparaiso · 9.4 mpg, 2.0 ppg last season
Kyle Lemke no D1 minutes last season
Jax Clark no D1 minutes last season
Aris Rodriguez no D1 minutes last season

Returns 22% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (3 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Mon, Nov 3	2025-26	Utah Tech 81 – 79 South Dakota

More games on Sun, Nov 22

Miami OH vs UIC · 12:00 PM ET
Butler vs Nebraska · 1:00 PM ET
Chicago St at Marquette · 1:00 PM ET
Towson at American · 1:00 PM ET
Fairfield at Long Island · 1:00 PM ET
Dayton vs Northwestern · 1:00 PM ET
W Illinois at Canisius · 1:00 PM ET
San Diego vs Fordham · 2:00 PM ET
William & Mary at Youngstown St · 2:00 PM ET
Evansville at Memphis · 2:00 PM ET
Wyoming vs Duquesne · 2:00 PM ET
UMass Lowell at Cincinnati · 2:00 PM ET
G Washington vs Western KY · 2:00 PM ET
Robert Morris vs New Mexico St · 2:30 PM ET
S Indiana at Texas · 3:00 PM ET
West Florida at South Alabama · 3:00 PM ET
Troy vs Nicholls · 3:00 PM ET
Virginia Tech vs Oklahoma St · 3:30 PM ET
UAlbany vs Mercyhurst · 3:30 PM ET
McNeese at Texas St · 3:30 PM ET
UC Irvine vs LMU · 4:30 PM ET
IU Indy vs MD Eastern · 4:30 PM ET
Richmond vs Liberty · 4:30 PM ET
NJIT at Boston College · 5:00 PM ET
Fullerton at Portland St · 5:00 PM ET
UNC Asheville at Samford · 5:00 PM ET
Rice vs Lamar · 5:00 PM ET
Utah vs Minnesota · 6:00 PM ET
Southern Miss vs Valparaiso · 6:00 PM ET
CA Baptist vs Portland · 7:00 PM ET
Rhode Island vs UAB · 7:00 PM ET
Delaware at UCLA · 7:00 PM ET
Louisiana at USC · 8:00 PM ET
Seattle U vs UC San Diego · 9:30 PM ET
San José St vs Loyola Chicago · 11:59 PM ET

← Sat, Nov 21 · Mon, Nov 23 → · Full season schedule

The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — the market spread and total (the median across books when no market line is up). 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, from our line: the same view our bets are made from.

What these numbers mean: line shopping.