Teams › Big South · Compare High Point with another team

High Point
High Point returns 29% of last season's minutes and rates #38 on offense and #55 on defense of 365 teams. 80% range: +6.2 to +20.7.
Why we have them here
High Point's preseason projection of +13.5 (No. 40 of 365) starts from the roster: its players' ratings, weighted by projected minutes, add up to a roll-up worth +8.8, about the +8.6 typical of teams ranked near it. Last season's rating (No. 39 at the end of 2025-26) adds +2.6, about its neighbours' +2.5; the program's level two and three seasons back and the roster's experience and shape add +2.8. A stretch at the top of the scale adds +0.6, because a straight-line calibration shrinks elite teams. It returns 29% of last season's minutes, about the same as teams ranked near it (33%). The projection leans most on Jason Rivera-Torres (+4.8), Cam'Ron Fletcher (+2.4) and Filip Brankovic (+2.4); the newcomer who matters most is Jason Rivera-Torres, a transfer from Monmouth, at +4.8. Its 80% range, +6.2 to +20.7, is about as wide as that of teams ranked near it.
Generated from the published projection's own terms, not written by hand. "Teams ranked near it" are the thirty nearest in the preseason order. Preseason projection frozen 2026-10-23; how the projection is built.
Roster
Returning 27% · Transfer 66% · Freshman 3% · Other newcomer 4%
| Rank | Player | Pos | Ht | D1 yrs | Group | From | MPG | Rating | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69 | Jason Rivera-Torres | F | 6-7 | 3 | Transfer | Monmouth | 27 | +7.2 | +4.8 |
| 259 | Cam'Ron Fletcher | F | 6-7 | 6 | Returning | High Point | 18 | +5.4 | +2.4 |
| 267 | Filip Brankovic | F | 6-8 | 1 | Transfer | UT Rio Grande Valley | 18 | +5.4 | +2.4 |
| 371 | CJ Brown | G | 6-2 | 2 | Transfer | South Florida | 19 | +4.5 | +2.1 |
| 539 | Frankquon Sherman | F | 6-7 | 3 | Transfer | Kennesaw State | 18 | +3.5 | +1.5 |
| 568 | Conrad Martinez | G | 6-0 | 3 | Returning | High Point | 17 | +3.4 | +1.5 |
| 665 | Isaac Garrett | F | 6-8 | 1 | Transfer | Oakland | 19 | +2.8 | +1.3 |
| 835 | Braden Hausen | F | 6-7 | 2 | Returning | High Point | 14 | +2.4 | +0.8 |
| 925 | Liam Campbell | G | 6-4 | 1 | Transfer | Saint Mary's | 10 | +2.4 | +0.6 |
| 1463 | Caden Miller | F | 6-9 | 1 | Returning | High Point | 6 | +0.5 | +0.1 |
| 1742 | Kasen Krueger | F | 6-1 | 0 | Other newcomer | 2 | -0.4 | +0.0 | |
| 1790 | Mavrick Miller | F | 6-4 | 0 | Other newcomer | 2 | -0.5 | +0.0 | |
| 1796 | Jared Grey | G | 6-0 | 0 | Other newcomer | 2 | -0.6 | +0.0 | |
| 1901 | Alexandros Alexakis | F | 6-8 | 0 | Other newcomer | 2 | -0.8 | +0.0 | |
| 2015 | Trey Pearson | G | 6-2 | 0 | Freshman | High school | 6 | -0.7 | -0.1 |
| 2602 | Curtis Williams Jr. | G | 6-6 | 3 | Transfer | Tulane | 19 | -0.8 | -0.4 |
| 2677 | Seamus McDermott | G | 6-2 | 3 | Transfer | Duquesne | 2 | -2.4 | -0.1 |
A player's rating is points per 100 possessions better than an average Division I player while he is on the floor. Contribution weights it by the share of a rotation slot he is projected to play, so a star on the bench and a role player who never sits both read right. Rank is among all 5,249 rated players. MPG is the projected share of a rotation slot times 40. "From" is last season's team. The bars are contribution, the player's rating times his projected share; their sum is the roll-up the projection starts from.
Schedule
| Date | Opponent | Proj. margin | Win prob. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun Nov 01 | N | +8.5 | 76% | ||
| Wed Nov 04 | vs | +24.7 | 98% | ||
| Sat Nov 07 | vs | +16.1 | 90% | ||
| Thu Nov 12 | vs | +21.5 | 96% | ||
| Sun Nov 15 | at | -4.8 | 35% | ||
| Thu Nov 19 | vs | +14.8 | 89% | ||
| Tue Nov 24 | N | +9.4 | 77% | ||
| Sat Nov 28 | vs | +23.5 | 97% | ||
| Wed Dec 02 | vs | +12.8 | 85% | ||
| Fri Dec 04 | vs | +20.6 | 95% | ||
| Sat Dec 12 | vs | +12.4 | 84% | ||
| Tue Dec 15 | vs | +24.9 | 98% | ||
| Fri Dec 18 | at | -5.9 | 32% | ||
| Mon Dec 21 | vs | +24.2 | 97% | ||
| Sun Jan 03 | vs | conf | +16.9 | 91% | |
| Wed Jan 06 | at | conf | +9.6 | 78% | |
| Sat Jan 09 | at | conf | +10.2 | 79% | |
| Wed Jan 13 | vs | conf | +23.9 | 97% | |
| Sat Jan 16 | at | conf | +11.9 | 83% | |
| Wed Jan 20 | at | conf | +7.8 | 73% | |
| Sat Jan 23 | vs | conf | +14.6 | 88% | |
| Thu Jan 28 | vs | conf | +15.3 | 89% | |
| Sat Jan 30 | at | conf | +11.2 | 82% | |
| Sat Feb 06 | vs | conf | +17.9 | 92% | |
| Thu Feb 11 | at | conf | +9.2 | 77% | |
| Sat Feb 13 | at | conf | +18.8 | 94% | |
| Thu Feb 18 | vs | conf | +13.8 | 87% | |
| Sat Feb 20 | vs | conf | +15.2 | 89% | |
| Thu Feb 25 | at | conf | +8.7 | 76% | |
| Sat Feb 27 | vs | conf | +16.3 | 90% |
Projected margin is from High Point's side, with home court where the game is not neutral (N). Games are the schedule as posted; tournaments and late additions appear as they are listed. Predictions are as of 2026-10-26 and reflect the roster as the model has it on that date.