Florida A&M Rattlers vs UTEP Miners basketball preview & prediction

Sun, Nov 15 · 8:00 PM ET · Don Haskins Center, El Paso, TX

Non-conferenceMW+Don Haskins Center, El Paso, TX

Florida A&M

0-3 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #344

UTEP

1-1 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #243

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: 70.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Florida A&M is the faster team (76.0, #54 of 365) and UTEP the slower (69.8, #212). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.6

per team, 40 min

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

72.4#73

Florida A&M

68.7#301

UTEP

How this game plays

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

From the four factors

UTEP has the ball+11.6

Florida A&M has the ball−8.8

UTEP has the ball

✓Takes care of the ballTO% 12.2% #28 · FAMU forces 9.9% #349 · ~7 turnovers+7.6

✓Shoots it welleFG% 51.6% #159 · FAMU allows 54.8% #257+3.1

✓Wins second chancesOR% 30.8% #194 · FAMU allows 41.5% #325+1.9

✗Few trips to the lineFTR 33.1% #222 · FAMU allows 37.7% #191 · FT 57.1% #332−0.9

Florida A&M has the ball

✗Few second chancesOR% 19.5% #336 · UTEP allows 27.0% #105−4.6

✗Coughs it upTO% 19.7% #239 · UTEP forces 20.8% #91 · ~15 turnovers−2.2

✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 48.3% #210 · UTEP allows 50.0% #163−1.3

✗Few trips to the lineFTR 32.2% #229 · UTEP allows 49.5% #295 · FT 50.0% #350−0.8

Shot diet

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

Florida A&Moffense vsUTEPdefense

Share of shots by zone

Florida A&M shoots

21.5

15.2

21.5

41.8

UTEP allows

28.0

11.0

14.0

47.0

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.8%#170	75.0%#340	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	16.7%#299	63.6%#320	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	47.1%#75	50.0%#285	34.7%
Three	32.7%#173	22.9%#29	32.5%

UTEPoffense vsFlorida A&Mdefense

Share of shots by zone

UTEP shoots

39.3

5.1

9.4

46.2

Florida A&M allows

42.0

9.0

13.0

36.0

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.7%#175	52.4%#103	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	33.3%#183	22.2%#70	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.4%#151	38.5%#202	34.7%
Three	32.2%#177	41.7%#314	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

Florida A&M

−15.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#348 of 365

Off reb %

19.5%

#336

Def reb %

58.5%

#325

Turnover %

19.7%

#239

Forced TO %

9.9%

#349

FT rate

32.2%

#229

FT allowed

37.7%

#191

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−4.0

Defensive rebounding−3.3

Ball security−1.1

Forcing turnovers−5.8

Foul shots drawn−1.3

Foul shots allowed+0.1

UTEP

+3.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#128 of 365

Off reb %

30.8%

#194

Def reb %

73.0%

#105

Turnover %

12.2%

#28

Forced TO %

20.8%

#91

FT rate

33.1%

#222

FT allowed

49.5%

#295

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.3

Defensive rebounding+1.5

Ball security+4.3

Forcing turnovers+1.9

Foul shots drawn−1.1

Foul shots allowed−3.0

UTEP has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.4 (#128 of 365) to Florida A&M’s −15.4 (#348).

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

Florida A&M2026-27 numbers · last game: UAB, Nov 9

#	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	Min/40, last 8	Last 3 vs before	Status	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	G	Sr	6'3"	3-3	34.3	36	—	Started last	24.0	5.0	2.0	1.7	60.4%	37.5%	5.3	53.8%	34.0%
8	F	Jr	6'7"	3-3	31.3	34	—	Started last	17.3	3.3	0.3	2.0	55.4%	40.9%	7.3	68.8%	28.8%
1	G	Sr	6'3"	2-2	34.5	0	—	Missed last game	9.5	6.0	3.0	6.0	47.1%	0.0%	1.5	60.0%	24.2%
00	G	Jr	6'7"	3-1	19.0	18	—	Started last	3.3	2.3	1.3	2.0	41.7%	50.0%	1.3	—	16.9%
3	G	Fr	6'2"	2-1	27.5	33	—	Started last	6.5	1.5	2.0	3.0	75.0%	57.1%	3.5	25.0%	15.9%
2	G	Jr	6'6"	3-0	17.3	23	—	Bench	2.3	1.3	1.0	0.7	29.2%	12.5%	2.7	—	14.4%
45	F	Fr	6'9"	3-2	16.0	14	—	Bench	2.3	3.7	0.3	0.7	30.0%	0.0%	0.7	100.0%	14.0%
21	C	Fr	6'10"	3-2	11.3	12	—	Started last	2.7	2.7	0.0	0.0	44.4%	—	0.0	0.0%	15.7%
55	F	Sr	7'0"	3-1	11.0	8	—	Bench	0.7	0.7	0.3	1.3	0.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	17.5%
15	F	Jr	7'1"	3-0	9.0	3	—	Bench	3.0	3.3	0.0	1.0	43.8%	20.0%	1.7	33.3%	27.4%
22	C	Jr	7'3"	3-0	8.3	20	—	Bench	1.3	1.3	0.0	1.0	66.7%	—	0.0	0.0%	17.0%
12	G	So	6'3"	1-0	2.0	—	—	Active	0.0	1.0	1.0	0.0	—	—	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.

Trends

Results against the closing spread and total, last ten games

Florida A&M

Against the spread

Season

0-2

Home

0-0

Road

0-1

Last 10

0-2

avg cover −40.2

Missed the spread 2 straight

Over / under

Season

2-0

Home

0-0

Road

1-0

Last 10

2-0

avg vs total +12.5

Over 2 straight

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 9	UABAdjEM #143	A	L 64–92	+18.5	L−9.5	154.5	O156	87.1	125.3	73.4
Nov 5	Fort Valley State Wildcats	H	L 70–75	—	—	—	—	96.1	102.9	72.9
Nov 2	Florida StAdjEM #47	N	L 69–112	+28.0	L−15.0	157.5	O181	87.7	142.4	78.6
Mar 13	SouthernAdjEM #307	N	L 70–73	+2.0	L−1.0	140.5	O143	97.7	101.9	71.6
Mar 11	Jackson StAdjEM #354	N	W 70–60	−6.5	W+3.5	142.5	U130	100.0	85.7	70.0
Mar 5	BethuneAdjEM #253	H	W 81–77	+2.5	W+6.5	145.5	O158	112.9	107.3	71.8
Feb 28	GramblingAdjEM #282	A	W 66–59	+5.0	W+12.0	141.0	U125	97.9	87.5	67.4
Feb 26	SouthernAdjEM #307	A	W 82–71	+9.0	W+20.0	146.5	O153	116.6	100.9	70.3
Feb 21	Alabama StAdjEM #305	H	W 76–63	+1.5	W+14.5	144.5	U139	108.8	90.2	69.8
Feb 19	Alabama A&MAdjEM #332	H	L 61–63	−2.0	L−4.0	139.5	U124	96.8	100.0	63.0

UTEP

Against the spread

Season

1-1

Home

1-0

Road

0-0

Last 10

1-1

avg cover −3.2

Covered the last game

Over / under

Season

1-1

Home

0-1

Road

0-0

Last 10

1-1

avg vs total +3.2

Under in the last game

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 8	Incarnate WordAdjEM #337	H	W 79–60	−13.5	W+5.5	142.5	U139	119.6	90.8	66.0
Nov 2	N KentuckyAdjEM #171	N	L 76–84	−4.0	L−12.0	150.0	O160	103.3	114.2	73.5
Mar 7	Jax StateAdjEM #189	H	L 61–64	−1.0	L−4.0	139.0	U125	91.1	95.6	67.0
Mar 5	Kennesaw StAdjEM #153	H	W 78–71	+3.5	W+10.5	149.0	P149	104.1	94.7	74.9
Feb 28	Western KYAdjEM #131	A	L 65–97	+9.0	L−23.0	146.5	O162	90.2	134.7	72.0
Feb 26	MTSUAdjEM #241	A	L 67–77	+8.5	L−1.5	139.5	O144	98.2	112.8	68.3
Feb 21	New Mexico StAdjEM #231	A	L 63–67	+7.0	W+3.0	143.0	U130	108.2	115.0	58.3
Feb 14	LibertyAdjEM #145	H	L 64–73	+6.5	L−2.5	138.5	U137	104.3	118.9	61.4
Feb 11	Jax StateAdjEM #189	A	W 69–64	+6.5	W+11.5	135.5	U133	115.3	107.0	59.8
Feb 7	New Mexico StAdjEM #231	H	W 91–88 OT	+1.5	W+4.5	138.0	O179	111.7	108.0	81.5

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

Florida A&MUTEP

Efficiency

96.4

102.0

112.0

106.8

72.4

68.7

7.2

-7.0

Shooting

48.3%

51.6%

47.8%

54.4%

32.7%

32.2%

50.0%

57.1%

32.2%

33.1%

Ball control & glass

19.7%

12.2%

9.9%

20.8%

19.5%

30.8%

41.5%

27.0%

12.5%

5.0%

7.2%

4.4%

Style

41.5%

46.5%

37.6%

42.6%

10.5%

11.0%

40.8%

58.9%

36.6%

29.3%

Roster

2.88

2.53

6'6.5"

6'6.8"

12.9%

0.0%

Offseason

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

Florida A&M

Returning minutes: 28.2%Returning production: 30.1%

Lost

Tyler Shirley 30.5 mpg, 12.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jordan Chatman 26.5 mpg, 9.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Micah Octave 23.1 mpg, 7.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Kaleb Washington 18.5 mpg, 7.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Miles Ndalama 18.5 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Anquan Boldin Jr. 12.8 mpg, 4.1 ppg · transferred to Stonehill

Added

Jaden Kempson from UAlbany · 23.2 mpg, 7.6 ppg last season
Ralph Martino Jr. new to D1 · 13.5 mpg, 4.1 ppg last season
Ashton Williams new to D1 · 10.7 mpg, 7.0 ppg last season
Daisean Williford from Oregon St · 1.9 mpg, 0.7 ppg last season
Assane Mbaye from Seton Hall · 0.1 mpg, 0.0 ppg last season
Jayden Joseph no D1 minutes last season

Returns 28% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

UTEP

Returning minutes: 0.0%Returning production: 0.0%

Lost

Kaseem Watson 31.4 mpg, 12.5 ppg · transferred to East Carolina
Jamal West Jr. 31.1 mpg, 14.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
KJ Thomas 28.5 mpg, 5.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Elijah Jones 28.1 mpg, 13.1 ppg · transferred to George Mason
Caleb Blackwell 27.5 mpg, 9.5 ppg · transferred to Tarleton St
Cassius Brooks 13.3 mpg, 2.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Leif Moeller from Evansville · 32.5 mpg, 10.8 ppg last season
Reese Miller from William & Mary · 22.9 mpg, 11.3 ppg last season
Jace Whiting from Weber St · 19.2 mpg, 7.0 ppg last season
Ryan Jackson Jr. from William & Mary · 18.1 mpg, 6.8 ppg last season
Reid Cason from East Carolina · 15.2 mpg, 3.9 ppg last season
Augusto Cassia from Ole Miss · 9.2 mpg, 1.9 ppg last season

Returns 0% 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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

No meetings the last two seasons.

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
Texas St at UTSA · 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.