Southeast Missouri State Redhawks vs Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders basketball preview & prediction

Fri, Nov 13 · 7:30 PM ET · Murphy Center, Murfreesboro, TN

Non-conferenceESPN+Murphy Center, Murfreesboro, TN
SE Missouri
2-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #180
@
MTSU
1-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #241
Fri, Nov 13 · 7:30 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: 71.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, SE Missouri is the faster team (74.3, #79 of 365) and MTSU the slower (69.9, #209). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
71.5
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
73.1#54
SE Missouri
69.0#285
MTSU

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup
From the four factors
MTSU has the ball−16.5
SE Missouri has the ball+10.3
MTSU has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 30.1% #357 · SEMO allows 49.1% #152−12.5
✗Coughs it upTO% 22.9% #311 · SEMO forces 20.2% #102 · ~16 turnovers−3.5
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 13.2% #357 · SEMO allows 60.7% #341 · FT 44.4% #356−1.4
✓Wins second chancesOR% 36.0% #96 · SEMO allows 29.2% #146+0.9
SE Missouri has the ball
✓Shoots it welleFG% 52.8% #139 · MTSU allows 68.8% #355+11.1
✗Few second chancesOR% 22.9% #312 · MTSU allows 34.6% #244−2.0
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 16.2% #122 · MTSU forces 17.2% #205 · ~12 turnovers+1.6
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 25.6% #304 · MTSU allows 39.3% #206 · FT 68.8% #202−0.5

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot
SE Missourioffense vsMTSUdefense
Share of shots by zone
SE Missouri shoots
MTSU allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim45.6%#31372.2%#32558.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)44.4%#13166.7%#32238.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)47.6%#7150.0%#28534.7%
Three47.1%#1036.8%#27932.5%
MTSUoffense vsSE Missouridefense
Share of shots by zone
MTSU shoots
SE Missouri allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim50.0%#26150.9%#8958.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)30.0%#22833.3%#12538.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)18.2%#29314.3%#4034.7%
Three25.9%#28736.1%#26132.5%
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
SE Missouri
−8.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#289 of 365
Off reb %
22.9%
#312
Def reb %
70.8%
#146
Turnover %
16.2%
#122
Forced TO %
20.2%
#102
FT rate
25.6%
#304
FT allowed
60.7%
#341
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.9
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security+1.5
Forcing turnovers+1.5
Foul shots drawn−3.1
Foul shots allowed−5.9
MTSU
−10.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#314 of 365
Off reb %
36.0%
#96
Def reb %
65.4%
#244
Turnover %
22.9%
#311
Forced TO %
17.2%
#205
FT rate
13.2%
#357
FT allowed
39.3%
#206
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.5
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security−3.3
Forcing turnovers−0.6
Foul shots drawn−6.3
Foul shots allowed−0.3

SE Missouri has more extra scoring chances per game: −8.1 (#289 of 365) to MTSU’s −10.1 (#314).

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
SE Missouri2026-27 numbers · last game: South Carolina, Nov 8
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGMin/40, last 8Last 3 vs beforeStatusPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%Usage
23GSr6'2"3-328.730—Started last13.74.03.71.754.5%50.0%4.062.5%24.5%
55GSr6'3"3-328.329—Started last13.06.72.72.346.6%50.0%0.770.6%26.2%
10FJr6'9"3-320.720—Started last7.34.00.71.750.0%0.0%0.3100.0%20.2%
7GJr6'5"3-320.326—Started last8.32.30.31.750.0%22.2%3.033.3%25.6%
1GSo6'0"3-020.020—Bench5.73.02.71.043.8%25.0%2.750.0%18.5%
2GSo6'0"3-018.717—Bench10.32.02.00.760.5%50.0%2.066.7%24.1%
33FSr6'9"3-317.723—Started last6.07.00.71.352.9%—0.00.0%21.1%
11FSo6'8"3-016.717—Bench9.04.01.00.365.8%45.5%3.766.7%21.9%
0GJr6'4"3-014.715—Bench5.71.01.31.368.2%60.0%1.740.0%20.4%
5FFr6'7"3-012.35—Bench2.30.30.30.342.9%0.0%0.350.0%11.8%
3FSo7'0"2-03.50—Missed last game0.00.50.00.0——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.

Team comparison

national rank toned left for away, right for home
SE MissouriMTSU
Efficiency
103.1
102.7
104.5
107.4
73.1
69.0
1.5
21.2
Shooting
52.8%
30.1%
46.2%
24.4%
47.1%
25.9%
68.8%
44.4%
25.6%
13.2%
Ball control & glass
16.2%
22.9%
20.2%
17.2%
22.9%
36.0%
29.2%
34.6%
6.1%
10.0%
8.8%
17.1%
Style
27.2%
39.7%
40.3%
35.6%
15.6%
6.7%
41.4%
58.8%
42.3%
41.3%
Roster
2.96
3.05
6'4.5"
6'5.4"
25.1%
24.7%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
SE Missouri
Returning minutes: 25.1%Returning production: 26.5%
Lost
  • BJ Ward 30.2 mpg, 10.9 ppg · transferred to ETSU
  • Braxton Stacker 28.2 mpg, 11.8 ppg · transferred to UNC Greensboro
  • Luke Almodovar 27.0 mpg, 14.1 ppg · transferred to Memphis
  • Brendan Terry 25.1 mpg, 11.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Troy Cole Jr. 13.5 mpg, 4.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • David Idada 10.7 mpg, 1.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Kycen Pruett new to D1 · 22.0 mpg, 10.0 ppg last season
  • Darrion Sutton from Missouri St · 13.7 mpg, 4.6 ppg last season
  • Alonzo Clawson-Smith no D1 minutes last season
  • Axton Perry no D1 minutes last season
  • Clayton Jewell no D1 minutes last season
  • Drew Cooper no D1 minutes last season

Returns 25% 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).

MTSU
Returning minutes: 24.7%Returning production: 23.7%
Lost
  • Torey Alston 29.3 mpg, 13.1 ppg · transferred to VCU
  • Kamari Lands 29.2 mpg, 13.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Chris Loofe 24.9 mpg, 7.3 ppg · transferred to Tulsa
  • Sean Smith 23.2 mpg, 9.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Alec Oglesby 22.5 mpg, 7.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Tre Green 18.1 mpg, 6.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Kevin de Kovachich from North Alabama · 31.2 mpg, 11.8 ppg last season
  • Ofri Naveh from Oral Roberts · 28.0 mpg, 10.8 ppg last season
  • Eli Rice from Penn State · 17.9 mpg, 6.1 ppg last season
  • Kaleb Siler no D1 minutes last season
  • Landyn Colyer no D1 minutes last season
  • Aiden Bolden no D1 minutes last season

Returns 25% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (2 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
No meetings the last two seasons.

More games on Fri, Nov 13

← Thu, Nov 12 · Sat, Nov 14 → · 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.