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-conferenceStephen C. O'Connell Center, Gainesville, FL
Merrimack
Efficiency #158
2025-26: 23-11 · 19-4 conf
@
Florida
Efficiency #5
2025-26: 27-8 · 17-3 conf
Fri, Nov 13 · TBD
63.5
win 6%
Projected
81.2
win 94%
No line posted yet.
Model: FLA −17.7 · total 144.6 · 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: Florida 70.2, Merrimack 65.8 → 67.7 possessions
−1.3
Florida offense vs Merrimack defense
+5.8
Merrimack offense vs Florida defense
−8.0
Projected total
144.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Florida offense vs Merrimack defense
+5.8
Merrimack offense vs Florida defense
+8.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Florida by 17.7
17.7
Merrimack side ◂▸ Florida side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 144.7 against a projected 144.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Florida.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Florida is the faster team (72.0, #23 of 365) and Merrimack the slower (63.7, #359). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
67.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.6
model
Projected team totals
63.5 / 81.2
Merrimack / Florida
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
65.8#347
Merrimack
70.2#35
Florida

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageFlorida
Where Florida scores: the offensive glass
Florida rebounds 43.3% of its own misses (#2); Merrimack lets opponents grab 39.9% of their own misses (#365). Expect about 44.1%, 13.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +8.3 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageMerrimack
Where Merrimack struggles: shooting
Merrimack shoots an effective 49.1% (#288); Florida allows 46.1% (#10). Expect about 47.4%, 3.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.5 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Florida averages 72.0 possessions per 40, Merrimack 63.7. 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 67 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
GlassMerrimack
Merrimack gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 23.8% is worth roughly -4.0 points per 100 possessions against Merrimack's offense.
TurnoversMerrimack
Merrimack protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.7% is worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions for Merrimack's offense.
TurnoversFlorida
Florida turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.8% is worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions against Florida's offense.
Merrimack has the ball
OffenseFlorida allowsvs D1 avg
49.1% #288
46.1% #10
-5.5 pt/100
14.8% #56
15.3% #269
+2.5 pt/100
24.8% #343
24.8% #7
-4.0 pt/100
38.2% #99
34.0% #153
+0.1 pt/100
78.8% #8
—
+0.6 pt/100
Merrimack net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.3 pts/100
Florida has the ball
OffenseMerrimack allowsvs D1 avg
54.1% #63
46.7% #17
-1.0 pt/100
16.3% #160
20.4% #16
-2.5 pt/100
43.3% #2
39.9% #365
+8.3 pt/100
39.0% #80
37.1% #239
+0.4 pt/100
71.2% #232
—
-0.1 pt/100
Florida net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.1 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Merrimackoffense vsFloridadefense
Share of shots by zone
Merrimack shoots
Florida allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim53.4%#33250.6%#558.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)38.5%#20834.8%#5339.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)33.5%#32134.9%#7338.0%
Three32.7%#24332.1%#6633.7%
Floridaoffense vsMerrimackdefense
Share of shots by zone
Florida shoots
Merrimack allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim64.9%#2451.4%#1158.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)45.9%#5242.9%#24739.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)40.4%#9738.7%#18838.0%
Three31.2%#31530.3%#1233.7%
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
Merrimack
−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#206 of 365
Off reb %
24.8%
#343
Def reb %
60.1%
#365
Turnover %
14.8%
#56
Forced TO %
20.4%
#16
FT rate
38.2%
#99
FT allowed
37.1%
#239
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.8
Defensive rebounding−3.0
Ball security+1.3
Forcing turnovers+2.5
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed−0.5
Florida
+6.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#8 of 365
Off reb %
43.3%
#2
Def reb %
75.2%
#7
Turnover %
16.3%
#160
Forced TO %
15.3%
#269
FT rate
39.0%
#80
FT allowed
34.0%
#153
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+4.2
Defensive rebounding+1.9
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.0
Foul shots drawn+1.0
Foul shots allowed+0.3

Florida has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.7 (#8 of 365) to Merrimack’s −0.6 (#206).

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

Merrimack2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
4Tye DorsetGJr6'3"34-3436.311.73.12.20.949.3%32.2%5.477.3%21.0%
20Todd BrognaFSr6'7"34-3429.26.14.72.41.551.6%35.1%3.970.8%15.5%
2Denver Anglinat IonaGSr6'1"31-2928.19.32.11.91.044.0%29.8%6.179.5%23.0%
5Elijah Wilbornat James MadisonFSr6'8"31-08.52.42.90.30.763.0%—0.025.0%19.2%
0Dylan VeilletteFSo6'7"33-08.21.91.80.20.347.1%9.1%0.368.2%16.4%
7Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbanoat Fresno StGSo6'4"13-29.52.20.50.20.241.4%27.3%1.766.7%16.3%
33AJ Lesburt Jr.at BrownGSr6'5"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
12David MunroFFr6'8"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
14Jacob MooreFFr6'9"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
11Quinn KwasniakGFr6'4"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
24Amare GuerraGFr5'10"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
3Ayden JohnsonGFr5'10"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
1Jeremiah AndersonGSr6'1"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
10JP SkoricFFr6'8"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
13Rocco WestfieldGFr6'2"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.
Transfers in: Denver Anglin (from Iona), AJ Lesburt Jr. (from Brown), Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbano (from Fresno St), Elijah Wilborn (from James Madison)

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
MerrimackFlorida
Efficiency
107.2
119.2
106.3
97.9
65.8
70.2
—
—
Shooting
49.1%
54.1%
49.1%
58.5%
32.7%
31.2%
78.8%
71.2%
38.2%
39.0%
Ball control & glass
14.8%
16.3%
20.4%
15.3%
24.8%
43.3%
39.9%
24.8%
7.2%
9.0%
13.0%
7.0%
Style
46.1%
37.0%
38.0%
50.2%
13.5%
18.2%
56.0%
55.0%
17.6%
27.5%
Roster
3.46
3.71
6'4.3"
6'6.5"
36.3%
78.8%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Merrimack
Returning minutes: 36.3%Returning production: 32.9%
Lost
  • Ernest Shelton 36.9 mpg, 15.9 ppg · transferred to Boston College
  • Kevair Kennedy 36.8 mpg, 18.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Andrés Marrero 27.4 mpg, 7.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • KC Ugwuakazi 17.8 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Jaylen Stinson 3.8 mpg, 0.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Aliou Cisse 2.7 mpg, 0.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Denver Anglin from Iona · 27.2 mpg, 9.0 ppg last season
  • Elijah Wilborn from James Madison · 8.0 mpg, 2.2 ppg last season
  • Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbano from Fresno St · 3.9 mpg, 0.9 ppg last season
  • Rocco Westfield no D1 minutes last season
  • JP Skoric no D1 minutes last season
  • Jacob Moore no D1 minutes last season

Returns 36% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).

Florida
Returning minutes: 78.8%Returning production: 79.0%
Lost
  • Xaivian Lee 27.4 mpg, 11.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Micah Handlogten 14.4 mpg, 4.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Olivier Rioux 0.5 mpg, 0.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Cooper Josefsberg 0.1 mpg, 0.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Denzel Aberdeen from Kentucky · 30.6 mpg, 13.5 ppg last season
  • Jones Lay no D1 minutes last season
  • Arturas Butajevas no D1 minutes last season
  • AJ Brown no D1 minutes last season
  • Domen Petrovic no D1 minutes last season

Returns 79% 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
DateSeasonResult
Fri, Nov 212025-26Merrimack 45 – 80 Florida

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.