Incarnate Word Cardinals vs Texas State Bobcats basketball preview & prediction

Wed, Nov 18 · 8:00 PM ET · Strahan Arena at the University Events Center, San Marcos, TX

Non-conferenceStrahan Arena at the University Events Center, San Marcos, TX
Incarnate Word
0-3 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #337
@
Texas St
2-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #190
Wed, Nov 18 · 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: 68.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Incarnate Word is the faster team (71.9, #141 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
68.0
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.3#206
Incarnate Word
68.2#317
Texas St

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup
From the four factors
Texas St has the ball+3.7
Incarnate Word has the ball−16.6
Texas St has the ball
✓Shoots it welleFG% 53.1% #137 · UIW allows 53.1% #225+2.9
✓Wins second chancesOR% 32.0% #172 · UIW allows 35.8% #266+1.0
✗Coughs it upTO% 19.1% #218 · UIW forces 18.6% #149 · ~13 turnovers−0.6
✓Gets to the lineFTR 42.9% #105 · UIW allows 38.2% #194 · FT 71.4% #151+0.4
Incarnate Word has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 41.7% #313 · TXST allows 44.1% #68−7.9
✗Coughs it upTO% 25.5% #338 · TXST forces 23.9% #42 · ~18 turnovers−6.5
✗Few second chancesOR% 22.9% #311 · TXST allows 35.7% #262−1.6
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 42.7% #110 · TXST allows 27.5% #68 · FT 64.2% #270−0.6

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot
Incarnate Wordoffense vsTexas Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Incarnate Word shoots
Texas St allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim50.0%#26155.0%#13458.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)26.7%#24850.0%#24338.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)42.9%#9445.5%#26534.7%
Three25.0%#29917.6%#632.5%
Texas Stoffense vsIncarnate Worddefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas St shoots
Incarnate Word allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim47.8%#29155.6%#13758.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)57.1%#5350.0%#24338.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)80.0%#956.3%#31834.7%
Three30.8%#21333.3%#18532.5%
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
Incarnate Word
−7.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#284 of 365
Off reb %
22.9%
#311
Def reb %
64.2%
#266
Turnover %
25.5%
#338
Forced TO %
18.6%
#149
FT rate
42.7%
#110
FT allowed
38.2%
#194
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.9
Defensive rebounding−1.4
Ball security−5.2
Forcing turnovers+0.4
Foul shots drawn+1.4
Foul shots allowed−0.1
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

Texas St has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.5 (#87 of 365) to Incarnate Word’s −7.8 (#284).

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
Incarnate Word2026-27 numbers · last game: UTEP, Nov 8
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGMin/40, last 8Last 3 vs beforeStatusPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%Usage
24GSr6'3"3-332.735—Started last9.01.01.72.750.0%33.3%5.075.0%18.4%
5GSr6'0"3-229.732—Bench9.72.02.31.030.4%18.8%5.380.0%23.6%
21FJr6'9"3-329.327—Started last12.36.30.32.758.6%—0.033.3%25.6%
0FSo6'7"3-328.037—Started last7.35.30.71.335.2%25.0%4.050.0%22.4%
3GJr6'1"2-233.00—Missed last game11.52.54.05.028.9%23.1%6.575.0%29.1%
1GFr6'4"3-016.717—Bench4.03.70.31.750.0%37.5%2.750.0%18.6%
8FFr6'6"3-112.311—Started last2.03.31.01.3100.0%—0.040.0%12.5%
35CFr7'0"3-012.013—Bench2.72.30.00.042.9%—0.066.7%12.9%
6GJr6'5"2-112.024—Started last3.01.51.01.033.3%0.0%2.0—27.0%
10GJr6'1"3-05.72—Bench0.70.00.01.325.0%—0.0—25.1%
7FJr6'8"3-03.72—Bench0.70.30.00.3——0.066.7%11.9%
Into the starting lineup: Krisnan-Cole Ioane.Into the starting lineup: Jayden Thomas.Out of the starting lineup: Ismail Habib.Out of the starting lineup: Mekhi Conner.

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
Incarnate WordTexas St
Efficiency
97.6
103.2
111.0
105.0
70.3
68.2
-2.7
-1.6
Shooting
41.7%
53.1%
44.9%
55.6%
25.0%
30.8%
64.2%
71.4%
42.7%
42.9%
Ball control & glass
25.5%
19.1%
18.6%
23.9%
22.9%
32.0%
35.8%
35.7%
13.9%
8.0%
16.9%
8.3%
Style
43.3%
26.5%
40.2%
44.8%
20.1%
11.9%
50.9%
54.2%
29.0%
45.8%
Roster
2.76
2.60
6'4.7"
6'5.1"
0.0%
40.1%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Incarnate Word
Returning minutes: 0.5%Returning production: 0.6%
Lost
  • Tahj Staveskie 35.3 mpg, 17.3 ppg · transferred to Akron
  • Davion Bailey 34.4 mpg, 18.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Harold Woods 30.3 mpg, 8.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Jordan Pyke 22.1 mpg, 11.0 ppg · transferred to Arkansas St
  • Love Bettis 16.5 mpg, 4.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Marcus Glover 15.4 mpg, 3.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Ismail Habib from S Indiana · 29.1 mpg, 13.3 ppg last season
  • Jayden Thomas new to D1 · 28.0 mpg, 4.0 ppg last season
  • Mekhi Conner from Sacred Heart · 27.8 mpg, 7.2 ppg last season
  • Brandon McCreesh from Bucknell · 6.7 mpg, 1.8 ppg last season
  • D'Arrae Goodwin from San Diego · 6.2 mpg, 2.0 ppg last season
  • Godswill Erheriene from Seton Hall · 1.4 mpg, 0.2 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).

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).

Head-to-head

this season and last
No meetings the last two seasons.

More games on Wed, Nov 18

← Tue, Nov 17 · Thu, Nov 19 → · 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.