App State Mountaineers vs Yale Bulldogs basketball preview & prediction

Tue, Nov 24 · 3:00 PM ET · State Farm Field House, Kissimmee, FL (neutral site)

ESPN Events Invitational - Adventure BracketNeutral siteNon-conferenceESPN+State Farm Field House, Kissimmee, FL
App State
2-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #155
vs
Yale
1-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #90
Tue, Nov 24 · 3:00 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: 61.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Yale is the faster team (67.4, #275 of 365) and App State the slower (59.4, #359). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
61.9
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
64.6#365
App State
67.8#333
Yale

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup
From the four factors
Yale has the ball+1.1
App State has the ball+0.2
Yale has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 47.2% #238 · APP allows 43.9% #66−4.5
✓Wins second chancesOR% 39.5% #52 · APP allows 37.7% #288+3.2
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 18.5% #201 · APP forces 13.5% #302 · ~10 turnovers+2.2
✓Gets to the lineFTR 28.2% #276 · APP allows 30.4% #107 · FT 85.7% #11+0.2
App State has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 43.9% #282 · YALE allows 44.9% #77−5.7
✓Wins second chancesOR% 41.4% #34 · YALE allows 38.2% #296+3.8
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 21.0% #272 · YALE forces 9.6% #350 · ~9 turnovers+2.9
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 34.0% #215 · YALE allows 29.4% #92 · FT 63.9% #272−0.8

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot
App Stateoffense vsYaledefense
Share of shots by zone
App State shoots
Yale allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim65.0%#10448.3%#6258.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)33.3%#18320.0%#5438.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)47.1%#7553.8%#31334.7%
Three25.9%#29024.0%#3832.5%
Yaleoffense vsApp Statedefense
Share of shots by zone
Yale shoots
App State allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim46.7%#30551.4%#9358.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)50.0%#7533.3%#12538.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)40.9%#11612.5%#3434.7%
Three34.7%#13431.0%#14632.5%
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
App State
−2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#223 of 365
Off reb %
41.4%
#34
Def reb %
62.3%
#288
Turnover %
21.0%
#272
Forced TO %
13.5%
#302
FT rate
34.0%
#215
FT allowed
30.4%
#107
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+3.3
Defensive rebounding−2.0
Ball security−2.0
Forcing turnovers−3.3
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed+2.0
Yale
−5.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#264 of 365
Off reb %
39.5%
#52
Def reb %
61.8%
#296
Turnover %
18.5%
#201
Forced TO %
9.6%
#350
FT rate
28.2%
#276
FT allowed
29.4%
#92
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.6
Defensive rebounding−2.2
Ball security−0.2
Forcing turnovers−6.0
Foul shots drawn−2.4
Foul shots allowed+2.2

App State has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.9 (#223 of 365) to Yale’s −5.9 (#264).

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
App State2026-27 numbers · last game: Auburn, Nov 9
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGMin/40, last 8Last 3 vs beforeStatusPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%Usage
9GSr6'2"3-329.038—Started last11.35.32.71.048.5%33.3%10.0100.0%27.5%
5GSr6'0"3-324.730—Started last8.04.01.31.039.7%35.7%4.7100.0%28.8%
4GSr6'3"3-324.732—Started last10.03.02.72.050.0%23.5%5.780.0%30.2%
23FSr6'8"3-318.330—Started last4.04.00.00.750.0%—0.060.0%14.9%
7FFr6'7"3-316.315—Started last5.03.71.71.054.5%0.0%0.375.0%20.8%
6FJr6'6"3-016.023—Bench8.34.31.31.387.5%100.0%0.380.0%23.5%
12CFr7'2"3-013.07—Bench3.34.00.00.775.0%0.0%0.366.7%14.5%
2GFr6'1"2-016.010—Bench6.52.02.01.041.7%40.0%2.575.0%28.8%
21FSo6'6"3-09.76—Bench2.01.30.70.775.0%0.0%0.30.0%14.5%
3GJr6'4"3-09.38—Bench5.01.70.30.350.0%25.0%2.7100.0%30.3%
25GJr6'4"3-06.73—Bench2.01.70.30.350.0%33.3%2.00.0%25.1%
13GFr6'5"2-07.5——Active5.53.51.50.068.8%33.3%1.50.0%32.6%
0GJr6'1"2-07.0——Active1.50.50.50.025.0%16.7%3.0—23.7%
17CFr7'0"1-08.0——Missed last10.05.00.01.083.3%—0.00.0%50.4%
14GJr6'3"1-08.0——Missed last2.02.02.00.00.0%0.0%2.066.7%29.8%
22GFr6'3"1-07.0——Missed last3.00.01.00.0150.0%100.0%1.0—7.7%
32GSr6'3"1-07.0——Missed last3.01.00.00.075.0%100.0%1.0—15.4%
33FSo6'7"1-06.0——Missed last2.01.00.01.033.3%—0.0—36.0%

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
App StateYale
Efficiency
103.7
112.8
103.0
106.0
64.6
67.8
6.5
3.2
Shooting
43.9%
47.2%
50.0%
44.0%
25.9%
34.7%
63.9%
85.7%
34.0%
28.2%
Ball control & glass
21.0%
18.5%
13.5%
9.6%
41.4%
39.5%
37.7%
38.2%
14.3%
13.4%
18.8%
14.7%
Style
54.7%
39.5%
32.8%
34.0%
12.1%
15.0%
59.0%
46.0%
43.5%
21.4%
Roster
2.94
2.73
6'4.5"
6'5.2"
23.1%
36.1%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
App State
Returning minutes: 23.1%Returning production: 17.5%
Lost
  • Kasen Jennings 32.7 mpg, 15.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Alonzo Dodd 31.4 mpg, 13.8 ppg · transferred to East Texas A&M
  • Luke Wilson 28.2 mpg, 10.7 ppg · transferred to Syracuse
  • Jalen Tot 24.3 mpg, 9.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Michael Marcus Jr. 24.0 mpg, 7.8 ppg · transferred to George Mason
  • Jason Clarke Jr. 9.6 mpg, 2.5 ppg · transferred to IU Indy
Added
  • Hermann Koffi from Stonehill · 34.3 mpg, 12.5 ppg last season
  • Rrezon Elezaj from UConn · 0.1 mpg, 0.0 ppg last season
  • Jonathan Moss no D1 minutes last season
  • Ted Neal no D1 minutes last season
  • Da'Mori Lytch no D1 minutes last season
  • Jackson Love no D1 minutes last season

Returns 23% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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).

Yale
Returning minutes: 36.8%Returning production: 33.4%
Lost
  • Nick Townsend 32.4 mpg, 15.7 ppg · transferred to Stanford
  • Isaac Celiscar 31.1 mpg, 13.2 ppg · transferred to Baylor
  • Casey Simmons 26.6 mpg, 10.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Samson Aletan 24.2 mpg, 7.3 ppg · transferred to Providence
  • Devon Arlington 13.7 mpg, 2.7 ppg · transferred to Stonehill
Added
  • Tim Winkler no D1 minutes last season
  • Chris Bolte no D1 minutes last season
  • Jack Louridas no D1 minutes last season
  • Connor May no D1 minutes last season
  • Jonas Oware no D1 minutes last season
  • Brady Wooley no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 37% 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
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.