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-conferenceHumphrey Coliseum, Starkville, MS
Alabama A&M
Efficiency #312
2025-26: 18-15 · 11-9 conf
@
Mississippi St
Efficiency #144
2025-26: 13-19 · 5-14 conf
Mon, Dec 7 · TBD
69.1
win 18%
Projected
79.8
win 82%
No line posted yet.
Model: MSST −10.7 · total 148.8 · 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: Mississippi St 69.8, Alabama A&M 66.9 → 68.4 possessions
+0.1
Mississippi St offense vs Alabama A&M defense
+3.6
Alabama A&M offense vs Mississippi St defense
−3.1
Projected total
148.8
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Mississippi St offense vs Alabama A&M defense
+3.6
Alabama A&M offense vs Mississippi St defense
+3.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Mississippi St by 10.7
10.7
Alabama A&M side ◂▸ Mississippi St side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +10.6 against +10.7. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Mississippi St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Mississippi St is the faster team (71.5, #32 of 365) and Alabama A&M the slower (67.3, #232). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
68.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
148.8
model
Projected team totals
69.1 / 79.8
Alabama A&M / Mississippi St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.9#296
Alabama A&M
69.8#66
Mississippi St

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageAlabama A&M
Where Alabama A&M scores: ball control
Alabama A&M turns it over on 16.5% of possessions (#165); Mississippi St forces turnovers on 12.8% of opponent possessions (#358). Expect about 14.1%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.
Alabama A&M has the ball
OffenseMississippi St allowsvs D1 avg
49.2% #281
50.9% #154
-1.9 pt/100
16.5% #165
12.8% #358
+3.3 pt/100
27.5% #283
30.7% #190
-1.2 pt/100
45.4% #3
32.3% #112
+0.4 pt/100
73.8% #141
—
+0.1 pt/100
Alabama A&M net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.7 pts/100
Mississippi St has the ball
OffenseAlabama A&M allowsvs D1 avg
51.5% #172
52.1% #220
+0.8 pt/100
16.1% #146
16.6% #177
+0.6 pt/100
29.8% #210
29.5% #137
-0.5 pt/100
30.7% #288
38.6% #275
-0.0 pt/100
66.0% #353
—
-0.6 pt/100
Mississippi St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.3 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Alabama A&Moffense vsMississippi Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Alabama A&M shoots
Mississippi St allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim54.8%#30459.3%#20758.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)37.5%#23649.0%#34839.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)34.4%#30437.0%#13138.0%
Three35.0%#11433.9%#17933.7%
Mississippi Stoffense vsAlabama A&Mdefense
Share of shots by zone
Mississippi St shoots
Alabama A&M allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim63.2%#4962.2%#30258.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)46.3%#4832.9%#2839.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)38.1%#18232.0%#1738.0%
Three32.4%#26235.4%#27233.7%
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
Alabama A&M
+1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#126 of 365
Off reb %
27.5%
#283
Def reb %
70.5%
#137
Turnover %
16.5%
#165
Forced TO %
16.6%
#177
FT rate
45.4%
#3
FT allowed
38.6%
#275
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.9
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers−0.1
Foul shots drawn+2.7
Foul shots allowed−0.9
Mississippi St
−2.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#294 of 365
Off reb %
29.8%
#210
Def reb %
69.3%
#190
Turnover %
16.1%
#146
Forced TO %
12.8%
#358
FT rate
30.7%
#288
FT allowed
32.3%
#112
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.2
Defensive rebounding0.0
Ball security+0.5
Forcing turnovers−2.7
Foul shots drawn−1.1
Foul shots allowed+0.8

Alabama A&M has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.3 (#126 of 365) to Mississippi St’s −2.8 (#294).

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

Alabama A&M2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Alabama A&M's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
00Kintavious DozierGSr6'1"33-3332.314.73.92.21.749.3%37.1%3.884.0%27.3%
1Koron DavisGJr6'7"33-3329.414.95.20.81.949.4%32.2%3.782.6%30.4%
3Sami PissisGSr6'3"30-2829.810.43.24.01.846.5%32.4%3.772.6%24.1%
10PJ EasonFSr6'9"32-3126.07.46.91.11.653.0%—0.060.6%18.5%
21James Graham IIIGJr6'8"27-2225.110.34.00.81.454.8%39.1%2.476.2%24.0%
24Lou HutchinsonGJr6'7"33-516.54.01.70.70.450.0%36.1%1.880.6%14.4%
4Gabe KincyGJr6'7"21-319.34.32.90.60.948.4%35.7%1.375.0%14.2%
2Bilal Abdur-RahmanGSo5'11"30-312.44.71.21.50.349.5%35.3%1.167.6%22.1%
30James FlippinFSr6'10"26-49.82.72.00.70.937.7%21.1%0.752.0%26.2%
13Angok AnyangFJr6'9"26-27.31.21.40.20.356.5%0.0%0.160.0%10.9%
5Jalen CarruthGSo6'7"14-08.42.31.00.10.148.3%35.0%1.460.0%16.8%
23Samuel OnuFJr6'11"17-06.51.00.90.10.450.0%0.0%0.143.8%13.5%
11Tajden DavisGJr6'5"20-15.11.00.80.10.344.1%20.0%0.371.4%15.8%
8Peyton Daniels Sr.GJr6'3"7-012.65.62.00.61.358.1%46.2%3.775.0%27.5%
20Isaiah RameyGJr6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
7Jayden JacksonGFr5'10"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
Alabama A&MMississippi St
Efficiency
104.6
109.4
112.9
107.8
66.9
69.8
—
—
Shooting
49.2%
51.5%
47.5%
53.4%
35.0%
32.4%
73.8%
66.0%
45.4%
30.7%
Ball control & glass
16.5%
16.1%
16.6%
12.8%
27.5%
29.8%
29.5%
30.7%
8.9%
9.5%
8.5%
11.0%
Style
34.0%
40.1%
39.1%
44.5%
14.9%
14.1%
48.0%
45.1%
29.7%
37.3%
Roster
3.39
3.30
6'5.6"
6'5.2"
—
21.0%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Alabama A&M
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Alabama A&M's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 100% of last season's minutes. 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)

Mississippi St
Returning minutes: 21.0%Returning production: 26.2%
Lost
  • Jayden Epps 25.5 mpg, 12.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Shawn Jones Jr. 25.2 mpg, 5.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Ja'Borri McGhee 22.1 mpg, 8.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Jamarion Davis-Fleming 20.3 mpg, 3.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Quincy Ballard 20.2 mpg, 6.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Achor Achor 17.7 mpg, 6.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • RJ Johnson from Kennesaw St · 27.3 mpg, 14.1 ppg last season
  • Tajuan Simpkins from Seton Hall · 25.1 mpg, 9.7 ppg last season
  • ND Okafor from Washington St · 23.2 mpg, 11.0 ppg last season
  • Kendyl Sanders from Utah · 20.1 mpg, 5.2 ppg last season
  • Thomas Bassong from Florida St · 19.3 mpg, 5.9 ppg last season
  • Ashton Magee from Southern · 10.3 mpg, 2.7 ppg last season

Returns 21% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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).

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.