Cyber EuroCup Post-Season Set: Full Round of 16 Matchups and Advance Projections
Cyber EuroCup post-season & the road to the Cyber EuroCup title is now clear.
After an 18-game regular season, 12 teams remain in contention, with four leading performers earning direct passage to the quarterfinals and eight more preparing for a win-or-go-home Round of 16.
Hapoel Jerusalem, Neptunas Klaipeda, Dolomiti Trento and London Lions will wait in the quarterfinals. Defending title holder ratiopharm Ulm, meanwhile, must begin its postseason campaign one round earlier alongside Bahcesehir, U-BT Cluj, BC Vienna, Slask Wroclaw, Chemnitz 99, Buducnost and Reyer Venezia.
Every postseason game will be played under the 4x10-minute format. The Round of 16 and quarterfinals are single-game eliminations, before the competition switches to best-of-three series for both the semifinals and finals.
Cyber EuroCup Post-Season: Round of 16 Matchup Breakdown
The opening round features four cross-group matchups, with the winner of each game advancing immediately to a quarterfinal against one of the regular season’s top-four teams.
The regular-season win percentages below are based on each team’s 18-game record. The projected advance percentages are editorial estimates based on record, point differential and overall regular-season performance. They are not official competition probabilities or betting odds.
Round of 16 A: ratiopharm Ulm vs Slask Wroclaw
ratiopharm Ulm: Plamen Stoynev (BUL)Slask Wroclaw: Tapachan (UKR)
Team | Record | Win percentage | Point differential | Projected advance chance |
ratiopharm Ulm | 11-7 | 61.1% | +25 | 74% |
Slask Wroclaw | 7-11 | 38.9% | -29 | 26% |
The reigning champion faces an immediate elimination test.
Ulm finished fourth in Group B with an 11-7 record. Its overall point differential of plus-25 was relatively modest compared with the other leading qualifiers, but Plamen Stoynev’s team demonstrated consistency by winning five consecutive games to close the regular season.
Slask secured fifth place in Group A despite finishing below .500. Tapachan’s side recorded seven victories and a minus-29 differential, giving it a respectable statistical profile for a lower seed but leaving little room for error against the title holder.
Ulm enters as the clear favorite on the strength of its superior record, recent momentum and championship pedigree. In a single-game format, however, Slask needs only one high-level performance to overturn the bracket.
Winner advances to face Hapoel Jerusalem in Quarterfinal 1.
Round of 16 B: Bahcesehir vs Chemnitz 99
Bahcesehir: Ivan Stoynev (BUL)Chemnitz 99: Phillipp Leimbach (GER)
Team | Record | Win percentage | Point differential | Projected advance chance |
Bahcesehir | 11-7 | 61.1% | +69 | 59% |
Chemnitz 99 | 10-8 | 55.6% | +18 | 41% |
Bahcesehir and Chemnitz meet in a contest that appears significantly closer than the teams’ respective seeds might suggest.
Ivan Stoynev guided Bahcesehir to third place in Group A, finishing 11-7 with a plus-69 differential. The team recovered from an uneven spell to win three of its final regular-season games, securing its place among the competition’s upper group.
Chemnitz was sixth in Group B but remained competitive throughout the campaign. Phillipp Leimbach’s team finished only one victory behind Bahcesehir at 10-8, although its plus-18 differential indicates that its overall advantage over opponents was narrower.
Bahcesehir’s stronger scoring margin makes it the projected favorite, but the difference between the two teams is small enough to make this one of the Round of 16’s most unpredictable games.
Winner advances to face London Lions in Quarterfinal 2.
Round of 16 C: U-BT Cluj vs Buducnost
U-BT Cluj: Nikola Dimic (SRB)Buducnost: Luka Lovrencic (SRB)
Team | Record | Win percentage | Point differential | Projected advance chance |
U-BT Cluj | 11-7 | 61.1% | +126 | 56% |
Buducnost | 10-8 | 55.6% | +119 | 44% |
No Round of 16 matchup is more evenly balanced statistically.
U-BT Cluj finished fourth in Group A with an 11-7 record, but its plus-126 point differential was the best among all eight teams entering the opening playoff round. Nikola Dimic’s side combined a solid winning percentage with the ability to control games decisively.
Buducnost finished fifth in Group B at 10-8 and produced an almost identical scoring profile, ending the regular season at plus-119. Luka Lovrencic’s team suffered several losses late in the campaign, but its overall differential suggests a side capable of performing above its seed.
Cluj receives a narrow projection advantage because of its extra victory and slightly stronger differential. Nevertheless, the numbers identify this as the closest matchup on the bracket.
Winner advances to face Dolomiti Trento in Quarterfinal 3.
Round of 16 D: BC Vienna vs Reyer Venezia
BC Vienna: MrKrab (CHN)Reyer Venezia: Mitko (BUL)
Team | Record | Win percentage | Point differential | Projected advance chance |
BC Vienna | 11-7 | 61.1% | +49 | 78% |
Reyer Venezia | 7-11 | 38.9% | -77 | 22% |
BC Vienna enters the Round of 16 with the largest projected advantage of the four matchups.
MrKrab’s team claimed third place in Group B after an 11-7 campaign and finished with a plus-49 differential. Vienna’s regular-season form was not flawless, but its ability to stay above .600 while competing near the top of the group gives it a strong statistical foundation.
Reyer Venezia qualified from sixth place in Group A. Mitko’s team finished 7-11 with a minus-77 differential and lost its final four regular-season games, making a rapid postseason reset essential.
The single-game format gives Reyer a route to the upset, but Vienna’s stronger record, scoring margin and overall consistency make it the most substantial favorite of the Round of 16.
Winner advances to face Neptunas Klaipeda in Quarterfinal 4.
Four Regular-Season Leaders Await in the Quarterfinals
The direct quarterfinal places were claimed by the top two teams from each regular-season group.
Quarterfinal 1: Hapoel Jerusalem vs winner of Ulm–Slask
Hapoel Jerusalem: Mina Mladenovic (SRB)
Hapoel Jerusalem produced the competition’s defining regular-season performance. Mina Mladenovic’s team completed a perfect 18-0 campaign, finishing first in Group A with a remarkable plus-388 point differential.
Hapoel will face either the defending champion, ratiopharm Ulm, or Slask Wroclaw. Despite its dominant regular season, the single-game quarterfinal format means Hapoel cannot afford a slow start.
Quarterfinal 2: London Lions vs winner of Bahcesehir–Chemnitz
London Lions: Kosta Lucic (SRB)
London Lions finished second in Group B at 12-6, recording a plus-67 differential. Kosta Lucic’s side closed the regular season strongly and earned the benefit of avoiding the opening knockout round.
The Lions will meet either Bahcesehir or Chemnitz, two opponents that combined for 21 regular-season victories and should arrive with the confidence generated by a Round of 16 win.
Quarterfinal 3: Dolomiti Trento vs winner of Cluj–Buducnost
Dolomiti Trento: Uros Drasinover (SRB)
Dolomiti Trento topped Group B with a 15-3 record and a commanding plus-239 differential. Uros Drasinover’s team combined consistent winning form with one of the strongest scoring margins in the competition.
Trento’s reward is a quarterfinal against the winner of arguably the strongest Round of 16 matchup. Both U-BT Cluj and Buducnost finished with point differentials above plus-100, ensuring that the Group B winner will face a dangerous opponent.
Quarterfinal 4: Neptunas Klaipeda vs winner of Vienna–Reyer
Neptunas Klaipeda: Indrius Sirtautas (LTU)
Neptunas Klaipeda secured second place in Group A after a 14-4 season and finished with a plus-272 differential, the second-best mark in the entire competition.
Indrius Sirtautas’s team will face BC Vienna or Reyer Venezia. Neptunas enters the playoffs as one of the principal championship contenders, but its quarterfinal remains a single-game elimination rather than a series.
Semifinal and Finals Format
The competition format changes after the quarterfinals.
The winner of Quarterfinal 1 will face the winner of Quarterfinal 2 in Semifinal A, while the winners of Quarterfinals 3 and 4 will meet in Semifinal B.
Both semifinals will be played as best-of-three series, with the first team to record two victories advancing to the championship round. Every game will retain the standard four-quarter, 4x10-minute format.
The Cyber EuroCup Finals will also be decided through a best-of-three series, giving the two remaining teams up to three games to determine the champion.
Round of 16 Advance Projections at a Glance
Matchup | Projected favorite | Advance chance |
ratiopharm Ulm vs Slask Wroclaw | ratiopharm Ulm | 74%–26% |
Bahcesehir vs Chemnitz 99 | Bahcesehir | 59%–41% |
U-BT Cluj vs Buducnost | U-BT Cluj | 56%–44% |
BC Vienna vs Reyer Venezia | BC Vienna | 78%–22% |
The Cyber EuroCup playoffs bring together an undefeated powerhouse, two dominant group leaders, a defending champion facing an early test and several dangerous challengers carrying strong regular-season numbers.
Hapoel Jerusalem may own the perfect record, but the single-game opening rounds ensure that no position is secure. One performance can transform the bracket, while the later best-of-three series will test depth, consistency and the ability to respond between games.
The regular season has identified the leading contenders. The postseason will decide which of them can finish the job.
