Florida A&M Rattlers vs UTSA Roadrunners basketball preview & prediction

Wed, Nov 18 · 8:00 PM ET · UTSA Convocation Center, San Antonio, TX

Non-conferenceESPN+UTSA Convocation Center, San Antonio, TX
Florida A&M
0-3 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #344
@
UTSA
1-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #347
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: 72.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Florida A&M is the faster team (76.0, #54 of 365) and UTSA the slower (71.9, #138). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
72.9
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
72.4#73
Florida A&M
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+6.9
Florida A&M has the ball−5.0
UTSA has the ball
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 16.0% #113 · FAMU forces 9.9% #349 · ~8 turnovers+5.9
✓Shoots it welleFG% 49.6% #189 · FAMU allows 54.8% #257+2.0
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 19.2% #347 · FAMU allows 37.7% #191 · FT 60.0% #306−1.4
✓Wins second chancesOR% 25.9% #273 · FAMU allows 41.5% #325+0.4
Florida A&M has the ball
✗Coughs it upTO% 19.7% #239 · UTSA forces 27.1% #16 · ~18 turnovers−5.8
✓Shoots it welleFG% 48.3% #210 · UTSA allows 56.3% #286+2.0
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 32.2% #229 · UTSA allows 42.9% #240 · FT 50.0% #350−1.2
✓Wins second chancesOR% 19.5% #336 · UTSA allows 49.2% #355+0.1

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot
Florida A&Moffense vsUTSAdefense
Share of shots by zone
Florida A&M shoots
UTSA allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim58.8%#17070.7%#31458.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)16.7%#29950.0%#24338.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)47.1%#7522.2%#7134.7%
Three32.7%#17332.0%#16732.5%
UTSAoffense vsFlorida A&Mdefense
Share of shots by zone
UTSA shoots
Florida A&M allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim50.0%#26152.4%#10358.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)55.0%#6822.2%#7038.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)42.9%#9438.5%#20234.7%
Three29.7%#22441.7%#31432.5%
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
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

UTSA has more extra scoring chances per game: −5.7 (#259 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
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGMin/40, last 8Last 3 vs beforeStatusPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%Usage
11GSr6'3"3-334.336—Started last24.05.02.01.760.4%37.5%5.353.8%34.0%
8FJr6'7"3-331.334—Started last17.33.30.32.055.4%40.9%7.368.8%28.8%
1GSr6'3"2-234.50—Missed last game9.56.03.06.047.1%0.0%1.560.0%24.2%
00GJr6'7"3-119.018—Started last3.32.31.32.041.7%50.0%1.3—16.9%
3GFr6'2"2-127.533—Started last6.51.52.03.075.0%57.1%3.525.0%15.9%
2GJr6'6"3-017.323—Bench2.31.31.00.729.2%12.5%2.7—14.4%
45FFr6'9"3-216.014—Bench2.33.70.30.730.0%0.0%0.7100.0%14.0%
21CFr6'10"3-211.312—Started last2.72.70.00.044.4%—0.00.0%15.7%
55FSr7'0"3-111.08—Bench0.70.70.31.30.0%—0.050.0%17.5%
15FJr7'1"3-09.03—Bench3.03.30.01.043.8%20.0%1.733.3%27.4%
22CJr7'3"3-08.320—Bench1.31.30.01.066.7%—0.00.0%17.0%
12GSo6'3"1-02.0——Active0.01.01.00.0——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.

Team comparison

national rank toned left for away, right for home
Florida A&MUTSA
Efficiency
96.4
97.4
112.0
113.4
72.4
71.0
7.2
-10.3
Shooting
48.3%
49.6%
47.8%
54.5%
32.7%
29.7%
50.0%
60.0%
32.2%
19.2%
Ball control & glass
19.7%
16.0%
9.9%
27.1%
19.5%
25.9%
41.5%
49.2%
12.5%
11.1%
7.2%
1.5%
Style
41.5%
49.2%
37.6%
45.8%
10.5%
9.7%
40.8%
49.1%
36.6%
51.1%
Roster
2.88
2.99
6'6.5"
6'4.6"
12.9%
13.1%

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).

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
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.