Texas State Bobcats vs UTSA Roadrunners basketball preview & prediction

Sun, Nov 15 · 8:00 PM ET · UTSA Convocation Center, San Antonio, TX

Non-conferenceESPN2UTSA Convocation Center, San Antonio, TX

Texas St

2-0 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #190

UTSA

1-1 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #347

Sun, Nov 15 · 8:00 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: 68.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, UTSA is the faster team (71.9, #138 of 365) and Texas St the slower (62.8, #349). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.7

per team, 40 min

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.2#317

Texas St

71.0#149

UTSA

How this game plays

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

From the four factors

UTSA has the ball−8.1

Texas St has the ball+3.7

UTSA has the ball

✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 49.6% #189 · TXST allows 44.1% #68−3.5

✗Coughs it upTO% 16.0% #113 · TXST forces 23.9% #42 · ~14 turnovers−2.0

✗Few trips to the lineFTR 19.2% #347 · TXST allows 27.5% #68 · FT 60.0% #306−1.8

✗Few second chancesOR% 25.9% #273 · TXST allows 35.7% #262−0.8

Texas St has the ball

✗Coughs it upTO% 19.1% #218 · UTSA forces 27.1% #16 · ~17 turnovers−5.2

✓Shoots it welleFG% 53.1% #137 · UTSA allows 56.3% #286+4.6

✓Wins second chancesOR% 32.0% #172 · UTSA allows 49.2% #355+3.7

✓Gets to the lineFTR 42.9% #105 · UTSA allows 42.9% #240 · FT 71.4% #151+0.6

Shot diet

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

Texas Stoffense vsUTSAdefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas St shoots

48.9

14.9

10.6

25.5

UTSA allows

40.6

5.9

8.9

44.6

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	47.8%#291	70.7%#314	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	57.1%#53	50.0%#243	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	80.0%#9	22.2%#71	34.7%
Three	30.8%#213	32.0%#167	32.5%

UTSAoffense vsTexas Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

UTSA shoots

25.5

18.2

6.4

50.0

Texas St allows

41.7

4.2

22.9

31.3

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	50.0%#261	55.0%#134	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	55.0%#68	50.0%#243	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.9%#94	45.5%#265	34.7%
Three	29.7%#224	17.6%#6	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

Texas St

+6.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#87 of 365

Off reb %

32.0%

#172

Def reb %

64.3%

#262

Turnover %

19.1%

#218

Forced TO %

23.9%

#42

FT rate

42.9%

#105

FT allowed

27.5%

#68

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.2

Defensive rebounding−1.4

Ball security−0.6

Forcing turnovers+4.1

Foul shots drawn+1.4

Foul shots allowed+2.7

UTSA

−5.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#259 of 365

Off reb %

25.9%

#273

Def reb %

50.8%

#355

Turnover %

16.0%

#113

Forced TO %

27.1%

#16

FT rate

19.2%

#347

FT allowed

42.9%

#240

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.9

Defensive rebounding−5.9

Ball security+1.6

Forcing turnovers+6.4

Foul shots drawn−4.7

Foul shots allowed−1.3

Texas St has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.5 (#87 of 365) to UTSA’s −5.7 (#259).

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

Texas St2026-27 numbers

#	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage	Status
10	F	Sr	6'7"	2-2	24.5	14.5	5.0	3.5	0.5	67.6%	33.3%	4.5	85.7%	22.9%	Active
0	F	So	6'7"	2-2	22.5	15.5	6.0	2.5	0.5	58.7%	42.9%	3.5	66.7%	33.9%	Active
2	G	Jr	6'3"	2-2	20.5	4.0	1.0	0.0	1.5	36.4%	0.0%	1.5	—	19.0%	Active
11	G	Sr	6'2"	2-2	20.5	3.5	4.0	4.0	1.5	33.3%	0.0%	1.0	60.0%	15.3%	Active
3	C	So	6'9"	2-2	20.5	13.5	4.5	0.5	1.5	83.3%	—	0.0	58.3%	28.9%	Active
4	G	Jr	6'0"	2-0	16.0	7.5	1.5	2.0	2.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.5	71.4%	29.5%	Active
23	G	So	6'4"	2-0	13.0	10.0	1.5	0.5	1.5	66.7%	66.7%	3.0	100.0%	32.9%	Active
14	F	Fr	6'9"	2-0	11.0	1.0	3.0	1.0	0.5	0.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	10.9%	Active
5	F	Fr	6'6"	2-0	11.0	2.5	2.5	0.5	0.5	40.0%	0.0%	0.5	33.3%	16.5%	Active
1	G	Jr	6'3"	2-0	10.0	5.0	2.5	0.0	0.5	100.0%	100.0%	1.0	100.0%	13.7%	Active
30	G	So	6'5"	2-0	9.5	8.0	1.5	1.5	0.5	92.9%	60.0%	2.5	100.0%	23.8%	Active
21	F	Sr	6'8"	2-0	8.5	9.5	4.5	0.0	1.0	87.5%	—	0.0	71.4%	35.8%	Active
8	G	Fr	6'1"	1-0	14.0	3.0	1.0	4.0	0.0	33.3%	0.0%	1.0	100.0%	10.9%	Active
22	F	Fr	6'8"	1-0	11.0	10.0	4.0	1.0	1.0	60.0%	0.0%	1.0	66.7%	35.4%	Active

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

Texas St

Against the spread

Season

1-0

Home

1-0

Road

0-0

Last 10

1-0

avg cover +1.5

Covered the last game

Over / under

Season

0-1

Home

0-1

Road

0-0

Last 10

0-1

avg vs total −20.5

Under in the last game

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 10	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #134	A	W 72–65	−5.5	W+1.5	138.0	U137	—	—	—
Nov 5	Howard Payne Yellow Jackets	H	W 135–66	—	—	—	—	147.9	72.3	91.3
Nov 2	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #183	H	W 67–55	−10.5	W+1.5	142.5	U122	106.7	87.6	62.8
Mar 6	Southern MissAdjEM #219	N	L 77–81	−1.5	L−5.5	140.0	O158	111.5	117.3	69.0
Feb 27	App StateAdjEM #155	H	W 60–57	+1.0	W+4.0	135.0	U117	98.7	93.8	60.8
Feb 21	LouisianaAdjEM #313	A	L 54–67	−3.0	L−16.0	134.0	U121	90.3	112.1	59.8
Feb 19	South AlabamaAdjEM #216	A	W 90–82 OT	+4.0	W+12.0	137.5	O172	123.5	112.6	72.8
Feb 14	UL MonroeAdjEM #350	H	W 95–84	−14.0	L−3.0	149.0	O179	148.1	131.0	64.1
Feb 11	TroyAdjEM #210	H	W 74–62	+5.0	W+17.0	140.5	U136	116.2	97.4	63.7
Feb 7	W MichiganAdjEM #233	H	W 77–61	−6.5	W+9.5	146.5	U138	119.8	94.9	64.3

UTSA

Against the spread

Season

0-2

Home

0-1

Road

0-1

Last 10

0-2

avg cover −8.2

Missed the spread 2 straight

Over / under

Season

1-1

Home

0-1

Road

1-0

Last 10

1-1

avg vs total −6.2

Under in the last game

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 7	VMIAdjEM #346	H	W 70–68	−5.5	L−3.5	163.5	U138	100.7	97.8	69.5
Nov 2	San José StAdjEM #238	A	L 74–95	+8.0	L−13.0	156.0	O169	99.6	127.8	74.3
Mar 8	RiceAdjEM #264	A	L 71–80	+12.0	W+3.0	150.0	O151	103.2	116.3	68.8
Mar 1	Wichita StAdjEM #95	H	L 67–84	+15.5	L−1.5	150.5	O151	96.1	120.5	69.7
Feb 25	East CarolinaAdjEM #242	H	L 81–82	+4.5	W+3.5	153.5	O163	119.9	121.4	67.5
Feb 22	TulsaAdjEM #57	A	L 74–100	+22.0	L−4.0	159.5	O174	103.4	139.8	71.5
Feb 18	FAUAdjEM #162	H	L 52–60	+11.5	W+3.5	157.5	U112	76.9	88.7	67.6
Feb 15	CharlotteAdjEM #146	A	W 88–79	+14.0	W+23.0	148.0	O167	133.7	120.0	65.8
Feb 11	East CarolinaAdjEM #242	A	L 72–88	+10.5	L−5.5	149.5	O160	101.3	123.9	71.0
Feb 7	North TexasAdjEM #122	H	L 58–81	+10.0	L−13.0	138.5	O139	83.2	116.1	69.7

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

Texas StUTSA

Efficiency

103.2

97.4

105.0

113.4

68.2

71.0

-1.6

-10.3

Shooting

53.1%

49.6%

55.6%

54.5%

30.8%

29.7%

71.4%

60.0%

42.9%

19.2%

Ball control & glass

19.1%

16.0%

23.9%

27.1%

32.0%

25.9%

35.7%

49.2%

8.0%

11.1%

8.3%

1.5%

Style

26.5%

49.2%

44.8%

45.8%

11.9%

9.7%

54.2%

49.1%

45.8%

51.1%

Roster

2.60

2.99

6'5.1"

6'4.6"

40.1%

13.1%

Offseason

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

Texas St

Returning minutes: 54.2%Returning production: 61.6%

Lost

Kyndall Davis 22.0 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Franck Emmou 21.8 mpg, 7.0 ppg · transferred to Tarleton St
Jalen Bolden 16.3 mpg, 5.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Tay Knox 14.1 mpg, 2.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Makai Willis 12.8 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jaelyn Lee 4.3 mpg, 1.5 ppg · transferred to Prairie View

Added

KJ Younger from UNC Greensboro · 28.5 mpg, 15.1 ppg last season
Quel'Ron House from S Illinois · 28.2 mpg, 14.2 ppg last season
Ronald Jessamy from Bakersfield · 25.2 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
Paul Djobet from Omaha · 18.1 mpg, 10.6 ppg last season
Caleb Steger from Boston College · 11.3 mpg, 3.3 ppg last season
King Sanders no D1 minutes last season

Returns 54% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (1 transferred).

UTSA

Returning minutes: 13.1%Returning production: 8.6%

Lost

Jamir Simpson 34.6 mpg, 16.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Brent Moss 25.9 mpg, 9.3 ppg · transferred to Tulsa
Baboucarr Njie 24.7 mpg, 9.1 ppg · transferred to Temple
Austin Nunez 20.9 mpg, 7.2 ppg · transferred to LSU
Matheo Coffi 19.0 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to NJIT
Kaidon Rayfield 17.3 mpg, 5.8 ppg · transferred to N Colorado

Added

JJ Kelly from Ohio · 25.8 mpg, 8.3 ppg last season
Demari Williams from Hou Christian · 19.9 mpg, 8.8 ppg last season
Preston Turner from E Illinois · 19.6 mpg, 7.2 ppg last season
Isaiah Coleman from Oklahoma St · 18.1 mpg, 6.0 ppg last season
Josiah LeGree from Morehead St · 17.6 mpg, 7.5 ppg last season
KJ Tenner from Murray St · 16.5 mpg, 6.0 ppg last season

Returns 13% 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
Wed, Nov 12	2025-26	UTSA 69 – 80 Texas St

More games on Sun, Nov 15

Niagara at Iowa State · 1:00 PM ET
Harvard at American · 1:00 PM ET
Louisville at Memphis · 1:00 PM ET
Dartmouth at Boston U · 1:00 PM ET
Colgate at Delaware · 1:00 PM ET
Quinnipiac at C Connecticut · 1:00 PM ET
Norfolk St at Georgia St · 1:00 PM ET
Boise St vs Nebraska · 1:00 PM ET
New Hampshire at Boston College · 1:30 PM ET
William & Mary at Michigan · 2:00 PM ET
Princeton at Rhode Island · 2:00 PM ET
Bakersfield at N Dakota St · 2:00 PM ET
UAlbany at Holy Cross · 2:00 PM ET
Temple at La Salle · 2:00 PM ET
SC State at Charleston · 2:00 PM ET
Missouri vs Marquette · 2:30 PM ET
Baylor vs Texas · 3:00 PM ET
Creighton vs Iowa · 3:00 PM ET
High Point at Saint Louis · 3:00 PM ET
Cleveland St at Alabama A&M · 3:00 PM ET
Purdue FW at E Illinois · 3:00 PM ET
Chicago St at LMU · 4:00 PM ET
Mercyhurst at James Madison · 4:00 PM ET
New Mexico St vs San Diego St · 4:00 PM ET
New Haven at Penn State · 4:30 PM ET
W Michigan at S Indiana · 4:30 PM ET
Pepperdine at Oregon · 5:00 PM ET
Canisius at Buffalo · 5:30 PM ET
Cal Poly at Montana St · 6:00 PM ET
Syracuse at St John's · 7:00 PM ET
AR-Pine Bluff at USC · 7:00 PM ET
Coastal at Wisconsin · 8:00 PM ET
Florida A&M at UTEP · 8:00 PM ET
Alabama St at San José St · 9:00 PM ET

← Sat, Nov 14 · Mon, Nov 16 → · 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.