CBB Matchups

Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.

College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.
Non-conferenceHinkle Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
Pitt
Efficiency #120
2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf
@
Butler
Efficiency #87
2025-26: 16-16 · 7-14 conf
Fri, Nov 13 · TBD
71.1
win 32%
Projected
76.4
win 68%
No line posted yet.
Model: BTLR −5.3 · total 147.5 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.

How the projection is built

each step, from an average D-I game to this one
Projected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Butler 69.3, Pitt 65.9 → 66.9 possessions
−3.1
Butler offense vs Pitt defense
+1.9
Pitt offense vs Butler defense
+0.5
Projected total
147.5
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Butler offense vs Pitt defense
+1.9
Pitt offense vs Butler defense
−0.5
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Butler by 5.3
5.3
Pitt side ◂▸ Butler side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +5.2 against +5.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Butler.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Butler is the faster team (70.0, #95 of 365) and Pitt the slower (64.5, #340). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
66.9
per team, 40 min
Projected total
147.5
model
Projected team totals
71.1 / 76.4
Pitt / Butler
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
65.9#346
Pitt
69.3#97
Butler

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Butler averages 70.0 possessions per 40, Pitt 64.5. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
Pitt has the ball
OffenseButler allowsvs D1 avg
51.0% #193
51.9% #208
+0.3 pt/100
17.3% #225
15.1% #275
+0.9 pt/100
33.9% #72
30.0% #163
+1.4 pt/100
30.4% #300
24.9% #6
-1.0 pt/100
67.4% #336
—
-0.4 pt/100
Pitt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.1 pts/100
Butler has the ball
OffensePitt allowsvs D1 avg
50.9% #199
53.4% #279
+1.2 pt/100
15.9% #132
16.2% #208
+1.0 pt/100
34.6% #58
28.1% #68
+1.1 pt/100
42.1% #29
30.9% #82
+0.1 pt/100
71.9% #210
—
-0.0 pt/100
Butler net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.4 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Pittoffense vsButlerdefense
Share of shots by zone
Pitt shoots
Butler allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim57.3%#21762.3%#30558.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)35.4%#28147.7%#33739.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)43.1%#3533.6%#3938.0%
Three33.4%#20633.3%#14133.7%
Butleroffense vsPittdefense
Share of shots by zone
Butler shoots
Pitt allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim57.3%#21660.0%#22558.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)36.2%#26544.3%#27839.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)36.9%#22538.8%#19338.0%
Three32.7%#24235.2%#26333.7%
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
Pitt
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#131 of 365
Off reb %
33.9%
#72
Def reb %
71.9%
#68
Turnover %
17.3%
#225
Forced TO %
16.2%
#208
FT rate
30.4%
#300
FT allowed
30.9%
#82
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.1
Butler
+5.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#16 of 365
Off reb %
34.6%
#58
Def reb %
70.0%
#163
Turnover %
15.9%
#132
Forced TO %
15.1%
#275
FT rate
42.1%
#29
FT allowed
24.9%
#6
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.3
Defensive rebounding+0.2
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn+1.8
Foul shots allowed+2.7

Butler has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.5 (#16 of 365) to Pitt’s +1.2 (#131).

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

Pitt2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
7Damarco MinorGSr6'0"33-3232.18.53.83.41.548.3%31.6%5.388.3%18.4%
8Omari WitherspoonGFr6'4"33-2527.87.53.02.52.443.2%28.7%2.664.5%23.6%
13Roman SiulepaFFr6'6"33-3326.710.05.50.91.051.5%29.6%3.050.0%24.7%
3Brandin CummingsGSo6'3"19-926.312.51.52.11.250.5%32.6%4.871.8%29.5%
21Macari MooreGFr6'3"21-06.11.40.90.80.746.0%75.0%0.287.5%20.6%
4Papa Amadou KanteFSo6'10"8-014.32.85.40.90.445.0%0.0%0.344.4%14.3%
12Kieran MullenCFr7'0"18-06.00.81.20.10.341.7%0.0%0.1100.0%11.0%
0Amdy NdiayeFSo6'10"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
35Benjamin MayhewFJr6'4"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
1Dishon JacksonCSr6'11"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
6Henry LauFFr6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
44Jajuan NelsonFJr6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
PittButler
Efficiency
110.2
112.2
107.6
107.4
65.9
69.3
—
—
Shooting
51.0%
50.9%
51.7%
51.9%
33.4%
32.7%
67.4%
71.9%
30.4%
42.1%
Ball control & glass
17.3%
15.9%
16.2%
15.1%
33.9%
34.6%
28.1%
30.0%
9.5%
9.5%
9.2%
11.9%
Style
42.6%
34.9%
41.5%
46.6%
12.6%
15.0%
52.3%
57.2%
22.7%
32.1%
Roster
2.02
2.54
6'3.6"
6'6.1"
55.7%
83.4%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Pitt
Returning minutes: 55.7%Returning production: 50.3%
Lost
  • Cameron Corhen 33.8 mpg, 13.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Barry Dunning Jr. 31.8 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Nojus Indrusaitis 23.6 mpg, 9.1 ppg · transferred to California
Added
  • Benjamin Mayhew no D1 minutes last season
  • Henry Lau no D1 minutes last season
  • Jajuan Nelson no D1 minutes last season
  • Amdy Ndiaye no D1 minutes last season
  • Dishon Jackson no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 56% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.

Butler
Returning minutes: 83.4%Returning production: 78.3%
Lost
  • Michael Ajayi 33.6 mpg, 16.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Bryson Cardinal no D1 minutes last season
  • Kevin Ndzie no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 83% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Head-to-head

this season and last
No meetings the last two seasons.

The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). 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, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.

What these numbers mean: line shopping.