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-conferenceESPN2Stegeman Coliseum, Athens, GAACC/SEC Men's Challenge
Boston College
Efficiency #187
2025-26: 11-20 · 4-14 conf
@
Georgia
Efficiency #32
2025-26: 22-11 · 10-9 conf
Tue, Dec 1 · 5:00 PM ET
68.8
win 13%
Projected
82.1
win 87%
No line posted yet.
Model: UGA −13.3 · total 150.9 · 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: Georgia 71.5, Boston College 67.4 → 70.6 possessions
+4.9
Georgia offense vs Boston College defense
+3.5
Boston College offense vs Georgia defense
−5.8
Projected total
150.9
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Georgia offense vs Boston College defense
+3.5
Boston College offense vs Georgia defense
+5.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Georgia by 13.3
13.3
Boston College side ◂▸ Georgia side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 150.8 against a projected 150.9, and the margin steps add to +13.4 against +13.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Georgia.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Georgia is the faster team (73.6, #8 of 365) and Boston College the slower (66.4, #281). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
70.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
150.9
model
Projected team totals
68.8 / 82.1
Boston College / Georgia
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.4#262
Boston College
71.5#10
Georgia

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageBoston College
Where Boston College struggles: shooting
Boston College shoots an effective 47.0% (#338); Georgia allows 50.6% (#134). Expect about 48.5%, 2.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.0 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseGeorgia
Georgia's shot-blocking
Georgia ranks #10 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 13.4% of Boston College's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Georgia averages 73.6 possessions per 40, Boston College 66.4. 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 70 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageGeorgia
Where Georgia scores: ball control
Georgia turns it over on 14.3% of possessions (#31); Boston College forces turnovers on 14.9% of opponent possessions (#300). Expect about 14.1%, 2.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.2 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Boston College) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect Boston College at about 40.6% of its shots from three, Georgia about 43.0%.
ClashBoston College
Style match: ball movement
Boston College creates off the dribble (assists on 47.4% of its baskets); Georgia breaks up passing offenses (assists on 48.1% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 46.4% — both habits push the same way.
Boston College has the ball
OffenseGeorgia allowsvs D1 avg
47.0% #338
50.6% #134
-4.0 pt/100
15.4% #95
18.4% #81
-0.3 pt/100
28.3% #254
34.9% #336
+0.4 pt/100
32.4% #251
30.2% #65
-0.5 pt/100
65.3% #358
—
-0.6 pt/100
Boston College net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.0 pts/100
Georgia has the ball
OffenseBoston College allowsvs D1 avg
54.2% #61
48.9% #62
+0.7 pt/100
14.3% #31
14.9% #300
+3.2 pt/100
34.9% #49
28.6% #87
+1.4 pt/100
36.9% #131
34.6% #166
+0.1 pt/100
75.0% #81
—
+0.2 pt/100
Georgia net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.6 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Boston Collegeoffense vsGeorgiadefense
Share of shots by zone
Boston College shoots
Georgia allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim56.3%#26056.7%#10658.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)45.7%#5543.8%#26539.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)40.0%#10938.7%#18638.0%
Three29.4%#34833.6%#16533.7%
Georgiaoffense vsBoston Collegedefense
Share of shots by zone
Georgia shoots
Boston College allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim62.2%#6857.1%#11658.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)46.0%#5135.6%#7839.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)37.1%#21836.0%#11038.0%
Three33.8%#18531.9%#5933.7%
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
Boston College
−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#219 of 365
Off reb %
28.3%
#254
Def reb %
71.4%
#87
Turnover %
15.4%
#95
Forced TO %
14.9%
#300
FT rate
32.4%
#251
FT allowed
34.6%
#166
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security+0.9
Forcing turnovers−1.2
Foul shots drawn−0.7
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Georgia
+4.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#28 of 365
Off reb %
34.9%
#49
Def reb %
65.1%
#336
Turnover %
14.3%
#31
Forced TO %
18.4%
#81
FT rate
36.9%
#131
FT allowed
30.2%
#65
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.5
Defensive rebounding−1.4
Ball security+1.7
Forcing turnovers+1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.5
Foul shots allowed+1.3

Georgia has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.7 (#28 of 365) to Boston College’s −0.8 (#219).

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

Boston College2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
3Ernest Sheltonat MerrimackGSr6'5"34-3436.915.93.10.91.151.3%34.6%8.487.2%25.2%
5Armoni Zeiglerat Ball StateGSr6'4"31-2932.412.55.13.32.745.0%33.0%3.077.9%28.0%
0Money Williamsat MontanaGSr6'4"34-3431.220.64.34.74.154.7%34.0%4.285.5%37.4%
20Brandon Benjaminat FairfieldFSo6'8"32-3131.314.210.41.21.856.8%25.0%0.368.6%26.5%
1Andrija Bukumirovicat UT MartinFSr6'7"32-3229.313.87.81.01.359.0%36.4%4.057.5%26.5%
11JB Frankelat NortheasternGSr6'3"30-1320.75.92.01.90.942.9%29.7%3.784.0%20.4%
33Luke Hungerat G WashingtonFSr6'10"33-1319.28.45.10.91.552.9%31.1%1.481.7%25.7%
13Aly Tounkaraat Arkansas StFJr7'0"32-2118.24.35.50.51.062.9%—0.036.8%13.9%
2Colby Dugganat CharlestonFSr6'7"19-1928.09.32.42.31.547.9%29.5%4.186.4%21.4%
7Jacob Furphyat UConnGSo6'5"14-02.50.40.10.00.142.9%0.0%0.1—15.7%
12Jameson O'Tooleat FordhamGSr6'3"7-13.91.00.90.40.331.3%20.0%0.7100.0%23.0%
21Will EggemeierGSr6'3"1-01.00.00.00.00.00.0%0.0%1.0—61.3%
22Jack BaileyFFr6'10"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
24ak SmrekarGFr6'6"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
14Jordan GheeGFr6'4"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: Brandon Benjamin (from Fairfield), Andrija Bukumirovic (from UT Martin), Colby Duggan (from Charleston), JB Frankel (from Northeastern), Jacob Furphy (from UConn), Luke Hunger (from G Washington), Jameson O'Toole (from Fordham), Ernest Shelton (from Merrimack), Aly Tounkara (from Arkansas St), Money Williams (from Montana), Armoni Zeigler (from Ball State)

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
Boston CollegeGeorgia
Efficiency
103.8
117.4
104.5
105.0
67.4
71.5
—
—
Shooting
47.0%
54.2%
49.1%
57.0%
29.4%
33.8%
65.3%
75.0%
32.4%
36.9%
Ball control & glass
15.4%
14.3%
14.9%
18.4%
28.3%
34.9%
28.6%
34.9%
9.2%
9.4%
10.0%
9.8%
Style
42.4%
44.3%
40.9%
43.2%
9.5%
22.1%
47.4%
48.1%
30.0%
41.6%
Roster
3.65
3.56
6'6.3"
6'6.2"
0.0%
44.2%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Boston College
Returning minutes: 0.0%Returning production: -0.1%
Lost
  • Fred Payne 34.7 mpg, 15.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Donald Hand Jr. 27.8 mpg, 11.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Boden Kapke 26.8 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Aidan Shaw 25.5 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Chase Forte 23.3 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Jayden Hastings 22.6 mpg, 6.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Ernest Shelton from Merrimack · 36.9 mpg, 15.9 ppg last season
  • Armoni Zeigler from Ball State · 32.4 mpg, 12.5 ppg last season
  • Money Williams from Montana · 31.2 mpg, 20.6 ppg last season
  • Brandon Benjamin from Fairfield · 29.5 mpg, 13.4 ppg last season
  • Andrija Bukumirovic from UT Martin · 28.4 mpg, 13.3 ppg last season
  • JB Frankel from Northeastern · 20.0 mpg, 5.7 ppg last season

Returns 0% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Georgia
Returning minutes: 44.2%Returning production: 44.6%
Lost
  • Jeremiah Wilkinson 24.1 mpg, 16.4 ppg · transferred to Arkansas
  • Somto Cyril 21.1 mpg, 9.3 ppg · transferred to Miami
  • Jordan Ross 20.2 mpg, 6.5 ppg · transferred to California
  • Dylan James 15.0 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Justin Bailey 11.8 mpg, 3.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Justin Abson 10.7 mpg, 2.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Freddie Dilione V from Penn State · 27.5 mpg, 14.0 ppg last season
  • James Scott from Ole Miss · 17.9 mpg, 3.9 ppg last season
  • Brady Dunlap from Saint Louis · 16.4 mpg, 6.8 ppg last season
  • Andrew Osasuyi from St Bonaventure · 11.6 mpg, 3.6 ppg last season
  • Mading Kuany no D1 minutes last season
  • Donovan Williams Jr. no D1 minutes last season

Returns 44% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 transferred).

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.