Southern Utah Thunderbirds vs Florida International Panthers basketball preview & prediction

Tue, Nov 24 · 1:00 PM ET · Ocean Bank Convocation Center, Miami, FL

Florida International MTENon-conferenceESPN+Ocean Bank Convocation Center, Miami, FL
Southern Utah
2025-26: 10-22 · 6-13 conf
Efficiency #278
@
FIU
2-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #191
Tue, Nov 24 · 1:00 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: 75.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, FIU is the faster team (76.1, #52 of 365) and Southern Utah the slower (70.9, #59). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
75.9
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
72.5#69
Southern Utah
73.9#34
FIU

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup
From the four factors
FIU has the ball+5.0
Southern Utah has the ball−5.9
FIU has the ball
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 15.8% #109 · SUU forces 14.8% #303 · ~11 turnovers+3.3
✓Gets to the lineFTR 43.5% #101 · SUU allows 29.8% #55 · FT 92.6% #1+1.4
✓Shoots it welleFG% 48.4% #206 · SUU allows 53.2% #276+0.4
✗Few second chancesOR% 29.7% #216 · SUU allows 33.6% #309−0.1
Southern Utah has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 50.7% #200 · FIU allows 35.6% #8−7.8
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 20.3% #352 · FIU forces 14.5% #285 · ~13 turnovers+1.1
✓Wins second chancesOR% 28.8% #239 · FIU allows 38.9% #303+0.8
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 33.1% #235 · FIU allows 38.4% #197 · FT 71.5% #2210.0

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot
Southern Utahoffense vsFIUdefense
Share of shots by zone
Southern Utah shoots
FIU allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim60.3%#11341.4%#1858.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)38.1%#21920.0%#5438.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)35.0%#29121.4%#6634.7%
Three33.0%#23126.1%#6132.5%
FIUoffense vsSouthern Utahdefense
Share of shots by zone
FIU shoots
Southern Utah allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim66.7%#8357.5%#13258.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)0.0%#32335.1%#6038.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)20.0%#27942.7%#32434.7%
Three29.4%#22638.0%#35832.5%
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
Southern Utah
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#333 of 365
Off reb %
28.8%
#239
Def reb %
66.4%
#309
Turnover %
20.3%
#352
Forced TO %
14.8%
#303
FT rate
33.1%
#235
FT allowed
29.8%
#55
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.5
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security−2.4
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−0.5
Foul shots allowed+1.4
FIU
−2.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#214 of 365
Off reb %
29.7%
#216
Def reb %
61.1%
#303
Turnover %
15.8%
#109
Forced TO %
14.5%
#285
FT rate
43.5%
#101
FT allowed
38.4%
#197
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.6
Defensive rebounding−2.4
Ball security+1.8
Forcing turnovers−2.6
Foul shots drawn+1.6
Foul shots allowed−0.1

FIU has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.3 (#214 of 365) to Southern Utah’s −4.2 (#333).

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

Southern Utah2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%Usage
3GFr5'10"3-015.76.02.04.30.353.6%20.0%1.760.0%18.6%
35FSr6'9"3-315.09.04.71.30.392.9%57.1%2.350.0%18.0%
6FFr6'10"3-014.39.77.02.00.367.5%33.3%1.0100.0%25.7%
2GFr6'3"3-014.012.73.71.30.769.4%50.0%0.786.7%32.7%
22GSo6'2"3-013.715.73.73.00.372.4%50.0%5.362.5%41.5%
0GJr6'1"3-013.71.71.71.30.325.0%25.0%1.3100.0%9.7%
33GSo6'4"3-313.76.74.02.00.057.1%44.4%3.0100.0%19.5%
11FJr6'8"3-013.76.35.02.30.344.7%33.3%1.066.7%26.5%
7FJr6'9"3-313.314.05.01.31.085.7%—0.066.7%35.8%
4GSo6'7"3-013.31.03.70.70.730.0%33.3%1.0—8.8%
10GSo6'1"3-013.08.34.03.30.352.4%30.8%4.3100.0%30.5%
5GJr6'4"3-312.78.70.71.00.063.2%36.4%3.7100.0%26.6%
24FSo6'8"3-312.08.73.74.30.091.7%0.0%0.380.0%20.2%
1FSo6'6"3-011.08.32.72.01.075.0%50.0%2.750.0%30.2%
32CFr7'1"3-010.78.02.00.30.3100.0%—0.050.0%21.8%

Team comparison

national rank toned left for away, right for home
Southern UtahFIU
Efficiency
103.0
104.8
109.9
106.7
72.5
73.9
—
-13.8
Shooting
50.7%
48.4%
51.4%
53.6%
33.0%
29.4%
71.5%
92.6%
33.1%
43.5%
Ball control & glass
20.3%
15.8%
14.8%
14.5%
28.8%
29.7%
33.6%
38.9%
12.4%
10.5%
10.2%
10.7%
Style
35.5%
54.8%
48.0%
35.3%
13.2%
21.2%
49.6%
60.0%
32.1%
38.7%
Roster
3.20
2.73
6'8.5"
6'3.9"
24.2%
0.0%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Southern Utah
Returning minutes: 24.2%Returning production: 28.7%
Lost
  • Tanner Hayhurst 28.3 mpg, 10.0 ppg · transferred to W Michigan
  • Elijah Duval 25.6 mpg, 14.8 ppg · transferred to UAB
  • Isaiah Cottrell 25.5 mpg, 8.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Dylan Jones 23.2 mpg, 7.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Kai Burdick 13.7 mpg, 4.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Lorenzo Abellar 11.2 mpg, 2.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • JaJuan Nicholls from Tennessee Tech · 17.9 mpg, 11.2 ppg last season
  • Chase Degraffenried no D1 minutes last season
  • Jalik Nicholls no D1 minutes last season
  • Rashaad Davis no D1 minutes last season
  • Mikhail Protsenko no D1 minutes last season
  • Dezhon Hall no D1 minutes last season

Returns 24% 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).

FIU
Returning minutes: 0.0%Returning production: 0.0%
Lost
  • Corey Stephenson 30.2 mpg, 17.5 ppg · transferred to Ole Miss
  • Zawdie Jackson 28.2 mpg, 11.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Eric Dibami 27.2 mpg, 8.7 ppg · transferred to Santa Barbara
  • Hamed Olayinka 23.7 mpg, 10.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Julian Mackey 21.3 mpg, 11.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Brit Harris 18.7 mpg, 5.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Tijan Saine Jr. from Weber St · 32.6 mpg, 17.5 ppg last season
  • Corey Caulker from East Carolina · 30.7 mpg, 7.9 ppg last season
  • Jerald Colonel from SF Austin · 25.1 mpg, 5.0 ppg last season
  • Ramone Seals from Kennesaw St · 11.2 mpg, 4.8 ppg last season
  • Jaylin Payne from Longwood · 7.3 mpg, 1.7 ppg last season
  • Huascar Cuevas from Wagner · 2.2 mpg, 0.4 ppg last season

Returns 0% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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 Tue, Nov 24

← Mon, Nov 23 · Wed, Nov 25 → · 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.