Arkansas State Red Wolves vs Southern Utah Thunderbirds basketball preview & prediction

Mon, Nov 23 · 3:30 PM ET · Ocean Bank Convocation Center, Miami, FL (neutral site)

Florida International MTENeutral siteNon-conferenceESPN+Ocean Bank Convocation Center, Miami, FL

Arkansas St

1-1 · 0-0 conf

Efficiency #130

Southern Utah

2025-26: 10-22 · 6-13 conf

Efficiency #278

Mon, Nov 23 · 3:30 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: 77.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Arkansas St is the faster team (80.4, #14 of 365) and Southern Utah the slower (70.9, #59). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

77.4

per team, 40 min

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

75.4#8

Arkansas St

72.5#69

Southern Utah

How this game plays

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

From the four factors

Southern Utah has the ball−3.2

Arkansas St has the ball+0.9

Southern Utah has the ball

✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 50.7% #200 · ARST allows 44.6% #74−2.9

✗Coughs it upTO% 20.3% #352 · ARST forces 18.6% #145 · ~15 turnovers−1.4

✓Wins second chancesOR% 28.8% #239 · ARST allows 41.2% #323+1.3

✗Few trips to the lineFTR 33.1% #235 · ARST allows 34.2% #154 · FT 71.5% #221−0.3

Arkansas St has the ball

✗Few trips to the lineFTR 26.7% #292 · SUU allows 29.8% #55 · FT 43.6% #358−2.7

✓Takes care of the ballTO% 18.0% #181 · SUU forces 14.8% #303 · ~12 turnovers+2.2

✓Wins second chancesOR% 34.0% #127 · SUU allows 33.6% #309+1.3

✓Shoots it welleFG% 47.9% #223 · SUU allows 53.2% #276+0.2

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

Arkansas Stoffense vsSouthern Utahdefense

Share of shots by zone

Arkansas St shoots

41.7

4.5

3.0

50.8

Southern Utah allows

46.3

5.6

19.0

29.2

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	45.5%#315	57.5%#132	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	16.7%#299	35.1%#60	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	75.0%#12	42.7%#324	34.7%
Three	34.2%#143	38.0%#358	32.5%

Southern Utahoffense vsArkansas Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Southern Utah shoots

41.8

6.9

15.9

35.4

Arkansas St allows

28.1

6.5

13.7

51.8

D-I average

37.8

8.0

12.4

41.8

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.3%#113	51.3%#92	58.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.1%#219	44.4%#222	38.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.0%#291	47.4%#281	34.7%
Three	33.0%#231	27.3%#82	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 · 2025-26 numbers

Arkansas St

−3.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#235 of 365

Off reb %

34.0%

#127

Def reb %

58.8%

#323

Turnover %

18.0%

#181

Forced TO %

18.6%

#145

FT rate

26.7%

#292

FT allowed

34.2%

#154

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.8

Defensive rebounding−3.2

Ball security+0.2

Forcing turnovers+0.4

Foul shots drawn−2.8

Foul shots allowed+1.0

Southern Utah

−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#333 of 365

Off reb %

28.8%

#239

Def reb %

66.4%

#309

Turnover %

20.3%

#352

Forced TO %

14.8%

#303

FT rate

33.1%

#235

FT allowed

29.8%

#55

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.5

Defensive rebounding−1.0

Ball security−2.4

Forcing turnovers−1.3

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed+1.4

Arkansas St has more extra scoring chances per game: −3.6 (#235 of 365) to Southern Utah’s −4.2 (#333).

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

Arkansas St2026-27 numbers · last game: Alabama, Nov 6

#	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
33	G	Jr	5'11"	2-2	32.5	37	—	Started last	16.5	4.5	5.0	0.5	62.0%	43.8%	8.0	100.0%	20.7%
3	G	So	6'3"	2-2	24.5	28	—	Started last	5.0	4.0	5.0	2.5	21.7%	16.7%	6.0	0.0%	30.6%
14	F	Jr	7'0"	2-2	23.0	20	—	Started last	8.0	9.5	0.0	1.5	41.7%	37.5%	4.0	14.3%	26.8%
7	G	So	6'7"	2-0	20.5	20	—	Bench	11.5	7.0	1.5	1.5	75.0%	60.0%	2.5	33.3%	24.5%
0	G	Jr	6'3"	2-1	19.5	25	—	Started last	8.0	4.0	0.5	1.5	36.1%	23.1%	6.5	60.0%	29.7%
4	F	Sr	6'8"	2-2	18.0	21	—	Started last	4.5	3.0	1.0	1.0	33.3%	0.0%	2.5	75.0%	18.1%
1	G	Fr	6'3"	2-0	16.0	17	—	Bench	10.5	1.5	1.0	2.0	52.9%	44.4%	4.5	60.0%	36.8%
2	G	Jr	6'4"	1-1	32.0	0	—	Missed last game	20.0	7.0	3.0	0.0	95.0%	60.0%	5.0	25.0%	20.4%
34	F	So	6'8"	2-0	12.0	12	—	Bench	2.0	3.5	0.5	1.0	16.7%	—	0.0	100.0%	19.0%
6	F	So	6'8"	2-0	7.0	10	—	Bench	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
5	G	So	6'5"	1-0	9.0	8	—	Bench	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	20.7%
11	F	Fr	6'11"	1-0	6.0	—	—	Active	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	2.0	—	15.5%
13	G	Fr	5'11"	1-0	4.0	—	—	Active	2.0	1.0	1.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	11.6%
10	G	Fr	6'6"	1-0	2.0	—	—	Active	3.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	150.0%	100.0%	1.0	—	23.2%

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

Arkansas St

Against the spread

Season

1-1

Home

0-1

Road

1-0

Last 10

1-1

avg cover +4.2

Covered the last game

Over / under

Season

1-1

Home

0-1

Road

1-0

Last 10

1-1

avg vs total −8.0

Over in the last game

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 6	#20AlabamaAdjEM #15	A	L 86–101	+26.0	W+11.0	178.0	O187	100.6	118.1	85.5
Nov 2	ToledoAdjEM #124	H	W 71–70	−3.5	L−2.5	166.0	U141	94.2	92.9	75.4
Mar 5	GA SouthernAdjEM #207	N	L 77–80	−7.5	L−10.5	166.0	U157	112.0	116.4	68.7
Feb 27	LouisianaAdjEM #313	H	W 81–58	−14.0	W+9.0	146.5	U139	107.1	76.7	75.7
Feb 24	Southern MissAdjEM #219	H	W 89–84	−9.0	L−4.0	158.0	O173	112.8	106.4	78.9
Feb 21	UL MonroeAdjEM #350	A	W 102–94	−15.5	L−7.5	164.0	O196	131.2	120.9	77.8
Feb 19	LouisianaAdjEM #313	A	W 79–62	−9.0	W+8.0	145.0	U141	114.9	90.2	68.8
Feb 14	South AlabamaAdjEM #216	H	L 88–92 OT	−7.5	L−11.5	150.0	O180	115.3	120.6	76.3
Feb 11	UL MonroeAdjEM #350	H	W 103–70	−21.0	W+12.0	163.0	O173	139.2	94.6	74.0
Feb 7	Bowling GreenAdjEM #127	H	W 91–54	−3.5	W+33.5	155.0	U145	121.0	71.8	75.2

Southern Utah

Against the spread

Season

15-13-1

Home

5-5

Road

9-7-1

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +3.2

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 6 of 9 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-12

Home

6-4

Road

11-6

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +4.0

Under in the last gameOver in 7 of 9 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Nov 7	Bethesda Flames	H	W 143–49	—	—	—	—	179.2	61.4	79.8
Nov 5	Grace University Lancers	H	W 97–53	—	—	—	—	131.3	71.7	73.9
Nov 2	West Coast Baptist Eagles	H	W 134–69	—	—	—	—	162.4	83.6	82.5
Mar 12	UT ArlingtonAdjEM #164	N	L 63–69	+5.0	L−1.0	141.5	U132	88.3	96.7	71.3
Mar 7	CA BaptistAdjEM #239	H	L 75–82	+6.5	L−0.5	149.0	O157	107.2	117.2	69.9
Mar 5	Utah ValleyAdjEM #94	H	L 88–92	+10.0	W+6.0	150.0	O180	123.5	129.1	71.3
Feb 28	Utah TechAdjEM #255	H	W 81–67	+2.0	W+16.0	156.0	U148	122.1	101.0	66.3
Feb 21	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #301	A	L 83–87	+8.0	W+4.0	143.5	O170	110.6	115.9	75.1
Feb 19	Tarleton StAdjEM #224	A	L 74–78	+5.0	W+1.0	145.0	O152	110.5	116.5	67.0
Feb 14	UT ArlingtonAdjEM #164	A	W 78–73	+8.5	W+13.5	144.5	O151	111.7	104.5	69.8

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

Arkansas StSouthern Utah

Efficiency

105.8

103.0

103.4

109.9

75.4

72.5

11.4

—

Shooting

47.9%

50.7%

44.3%

51.4%

34.2%

33.0%

43.6%

71.5%

26.7%

33.1%

Ball control & glass

18.0%

20.3%

18.6%

14.8%

34.0%

28.8%

41.2%

33.6%

9.3%

12.4%

11.4%

10.2%

Style

52.1%

35.5%

36.9%

48.0%

22.9%

13.2%

59.6%

49.6%

37.1%

32.1%

Roster

2.53

3.20

6'4.9"

6'8.5"

5.5%

24.2%

Offseason

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

Arkansas St

Returning minutes: 5.5%Returning production: 4.6%

Lost

Christian Harmon 27.5 mpg, 12.8 ppg · transferred to Virginia
Chandler Jackson 26.9 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jalen Hampton 24.6 mpg, 7.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jaxon Ellingsworth 22.7 mpg, 9.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Matt Hayman 22.0 mpg, 11.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
T.J. Caldwell 20.2 mpg, 9.4 ppg · transferred to UAB

Added

Layne Taylor from Murray St · 23.2 mpg, 7.5 ppg last season
Jordan Pyke from Incarnate Word · 22.1 mpg, 11.0 ppg last season
Amadou Doumbia from NC A&T · 12.6 mpg, 3.0 ppg last season
Tameron Ferguson no D1 minutes last season
Grayson Bennett no D1 minutes last season
Rho Omed no D1 minutes last season

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

Southern Utah

Returning minutes: 24.2%Returning production: 28.7%

Lost

Tanner Hayhurst 28.3 mpg, 10.0 ppg · transferred to W Michigan
Elijah Duval 25.6 mpg, 14.8 ppg · transferred to UAB
Isaiah Cottrell 25.5 mpg, 8.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Dylan Jones 23.2 mpg, 7.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Kai Burdick 13.7 mpg, 4.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Lorenzo Abellar 11.2 mpg, 2.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

JaJuan Nicholls from Tennessee Tech · 17.9 mpg, 11.2 ppg last season
Chase Degraffenried no D1 minutes last season
Jalik Nicholls no D1 minutes last season
Rashaad Davis no D1 minutes last season
Mikhail Protsenko no D1 minutes last season
Dezhon Hall no D1 minutes last season

Returns 24% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

No meetings the last two seasons.

More games on Mon, Nov 23

Northern Iowa vs Davidson · 11:00 AM ET
St Bonaventure vs App State · 11:00 AM ET
Long Beach St at FIU · 1:00 PM ET
Charlotte vs FGCU · 1:30 PM ET
Akron vs Wright St · 1:30 PM ET
Tulsa vs Oregon St · 2:00 PM ET
Ole Miss vs Clemson · 2:30 PM ET
William & Mary vs IU Indy · 3:30 PM ET
Tulane vs Georgia St · 4:00 PM ET
Yale vs Belmont · 4:00 PM ET
Nevada vs San Francisco · 4:30 PM ET
Washington vs BYU · 5:00 PM ET
MD Eastern at Youngstown St · 6:30 PM ET
Illinois St vs Santa Clara · 7:00 PM ET
C Arkansas at North Florida · 7:00 PM ET
FDU at Iona · 7:00 PM ET
GA Southern at N Kentucky · 7:00 PM ET
NC A&T at SC State · 7:00 PM ET
Texas A&M-CC at Wichita St · 7:30 PM ET
Denver at Kansas · 8:00 PM ET
Monmouth at North Carolina · 8:00 PM ET
Winthrop at Illinois · 8:00 PM ET
VCU vs Providence · 9:00 PM ET
Alabama St at California · 10:00 PM ET
E Washington at UNLV · 10:00 PM ET
Colorado St vs Arizona · 11:30 PM ET
UNC Greensboro at Pepperdine · TBD

← Sun, Nov 22 · Tue, Nov 24 → · 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.