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-conferenceFood City Center, Knoxville, TN

Radford

Efficiency #245

2025-26: 16-16 · 9-8 conf

Tennessee

Efficiency #13

2025-26: 25-12 · 12-8 conf

Mon, Nov 9 · TBD

66.1

win 6%

Projected

83.9

win 94%

No line posted yet.

Model: TENN −17.9 · total 150.0 · 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: Tennessee 67.1, Radford 70.6 → 69.3 possessions

+2.1

Tennessee offense vs Radford defense

+6.8

Radford offense vs Tennessee defense

−7.1

Projected total

150.0

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Tennessee offense vs Radford defense

+6.8

Radford offense vs Tennessee defense

+7.1

Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors

+4.0

Tennessee by 17.9

17.9

Radford side ◂▸ Tennessee side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Tennessee.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Radford is the faster team (72.3, #18 of 365) and Tennessee the slower (67.4, #226). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.0

model

Projected team totals

66.1 / 83.9

Radford / Tennessee

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.6#24

Radford

67.1#284

Tennessee

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet

AdvantageTennessee

Where Tennessee scores: the offensive glass

Tennessee rebounds 44.7% of its own misses (#1); Radford lets opponents grab 32.2% of their own misses (#267). Expect about 41.2%, 10.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.6 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageRadford

Where Radford struggles: shooting

Radford shoots an effective 51.3% (#181); Tennessee allows 47.8% (#37). Expect about 49.5%, 1.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.

ClashRadford

Style match: 3-point volume

Radford takes 45.4% of its shots from three; Tennessee lets opponents take 44.8% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.7% — both habits push the same way.

ClashRadford

Style match: ball movement

Radford creates off the dribble (assists on 45.7% of its baskets); Tennessee breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.7% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 44.4% — both habits push the same way.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Tennessee's defense) 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 Radford at about 47.7% of its shots from three, Tennessee about 32.6%.

TurnoversTennessee

Tennessee turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.2% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against Tennessee's offense.

Radford has the ball

OffenseTennessee allowsvs D1 avg

51.3% #181

47.8% #37

-2.5 pt/100

17.1% #208

16.2% #214

+0.3 pt/100

29.8% #207

27.8% #61

-1.0 pt/100

42.4% #25

36.3% #221

+0.5 pt/100

71.0% #236

—

-0.1 pt/100

Radford net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.8 pts/100

Tennessee has the ball

OffenseRadford allowsvs D1 avg

51.4% #174

53.0% #271

+1.4 pt/100

17.3% #227

18.5% #73

-1.8 pt/100

44.7% #1

32.2% #267

+6.6 pt/100

37.4% #115

40.0% #301

+0.5 pt/100

69.1% #296

—

-0.3 pt/100

Tennessee net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.5 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

Radfordoffense vsTennesseedefense

Share of shots by zone

Radford shoots

38.3

3.9

12.8

44.9

Tennessee allows

32.0

7.2

15.9

44.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.8%#246	55.1%#60	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.6%#109	34.1%#45	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#141	41.4%#287	38.0%
Three	33.5%#199	30.5%#21	33.7%

Tennesseeoffense vsRadforddefense

Share of shots by zone

Tennessee shoots

42.9

7.1

18.4

31.6

Radford allows

42.6

7.1

12.5

37.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.5%#140	57.5%#131	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.4%#134	39.8%#190	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.7%#268	42.4%#316	38.0%
Three	33.4%#201	35.5%#279	33.7%

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

Radford

+1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#136 of 365

Off reb %

29.8%

#207

Def reb %

67.8%

#267

Turnover %

17.1%

#208

Forced TO %

18.5%

#73

FT rate

42.4%

#25

FT allowed

40.0%

#301

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers+1.2

Foul shots drawn+1.9

Foul shots allowed−1.2

Tennessee

+5.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#21 of 365

Off reb %

44.7%

Def reb %

72.2%

#61

Turnover %

17.3%

#227

Forced TO %

16.2%

#214

FT rate

37.4%

#115

FT allowed

36.3%

#221

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+4.6

Defensive rebounding+0.9

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers−0.4

Foul shots drawn+0.6

Foul shots allowed−0.3

Tennessee has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.1 (#21 of 365) to Radford’s +1.0 (#136).

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

Radford2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Radford's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Del Jones	G	So	6'3"	32-32	31.8	17.2	3.5	3.5	3.0	46.5%	30.9%	4.3	80.9%	33.8%
11	Dennis Parker Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	32-32	29.3	18.3	5.9	1.3	2.3	55.8%	37.7%	5.0	65.7%	33.9%
3	Jaylon Johnson	G	Sr	6'0"	29-27	31.3	11.9	2.8	3.4	2.1	46.8%	32.4%	7.2	80.0%	24.2%
21	Tyson Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	27.6	6.5	7.3	0.7	1.3	59.4%	0.0%	0.0	43.0%	14.3%
24	Lukas Walls	G	Jr	6'5"	32-26	23.9	7.9	2.5	1.1	1.1	67.6%	45.5%	3.2	75.4%	15.5%
4	Brennan Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	32-3	19.0	4.6	2.3	1.3	0.5	48.1%	27.9%	2.7	75.0%	14.7%
5	Mari Jordan	G	So	6'5"	32-8	13.7	5.3	2.7	0.7	0.6	55.4%	31.8%	1.4	94.6%	19.9%
7	Frederik Erichsen	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	13.2	5.6	2.4	0.7	0.9	54.7%	30.0%	1.6	74.3%	23.5%
6	Louie Jordan	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	10.9	4.1	1.4	0.3	0.4	54.5%	36.0%	3.1	62.5%	20.9%
12	Gabriel Ferreira	C	Fr	6'10"	11-0	8.1	2.6	2.8	0.1	0.2	52.2%	0.0%	0.1	55.6%	18.2%
30	Warren Keel Jr.	G	Fr	6'0"	13-0	6.3	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2	40.6%	20.0%	0.4	—	12.3%
13	Bradley Land	G	Jr	6'6"	9-0	3.9	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	20.2%
31	Diogo Alves	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Zion Walker	G	So	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tennessee2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Bishop Boswell	G	So	6'4"	34-33	26.5	6.2	4.4	3.1	1.6	52.2%	38.5%	2.3	66.7%	16.4%
13	J.P. Estrella	F	So	6'11"	33-13	18.3	10.0	5.4	0.8	0.9	60.4%	40.0%	0.3	63.4%	29.5%
6	DeWayne Brown II	F	Fr	6'8"	35-10	14.6	4.8	3.6	0.9	0.9	58.6%	—	0.0	66.0%	19.4%
1	Amari Evans	G	Fr	6'5"	35-2	14.4	4.1	3.2	0.8	0.6	46.1%	22.0%	1.4	57.5%	20.0%
35	Ethan Burg	G	So	6'3"	30-1	11.1	2.6	0.9	1.2	0.7	56.6%	40.5%	1.2	81.8%	15.6%
77	Amaree Abram	G	Sr	6'3"	25-3	10.6	3.2	1.4	0.7	0.3	50.0%	36.8%	1.5	77.8%	18.0%
24	Troy Henderson	G	Fr	6'1"	26-0	7.4	1.9	0.5	1.1	0.3	46.2%	33.3%	1.7	0.0%	18.0%
12	Cade Phillips	F	Jr	6'9"	10-9	16.8	3.8	4.0	0.4	0.7	65.4%	—	0.0	30.8%	13.3%
4	Clarence Massamba	G	Fr	6'5"	11-0	3.7	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.2	21.4%	14.3%	0.6	50.0%	13.4%
21	Campbell Duncan	G	So	6'6"	1-0	2.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
11	Gavin Paull	G	So	5'11"	1-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	—	56.6%
7	Grant Hurst	G	Sr	6'2"	1-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	2.0	0.0%	70.0%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Radford2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Radford's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Del Jones	G	So	6'3"	32-32	31.8	17.2	3.5	3.5	3.0	46.5%	30.9%	4.3	80.9%	33.8%
11	Dennis Parker Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	32-32	29.3	18.3	5.9	1.3	2.3	55.8%	37.7%	5.0	65.7%	33.9%
3	Jaylon Johnson	G	Sr	6'0"	29-27	31.3	11.9	2.8	3.4	2.1	46.8%	32.4%	7.2	80.0%	24.2%
21	Tyson Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	27.6	6.5	7.3	0.7	1.3	59.4%	0.0%	0.0	43.0%	14.3%
24	Lukas Walls	G	Jr	6'5"	32-26	23.9	7.9	2.5	1.1	1.1	67.6%	45.5%	3.2	75.4%	15.5%
4	Brennan Rigsby Jr.	G	Sr	6'3"	32-3	19.0	4.6	2.3	1.3	0.5	48.1%	27.9%	2.7	75.0%	14.7%
5	Mari Jordan	G	So	6'5"	32-8	13.7	5.3	2.7	0.7	0.6	55.4%	31.8%	1.4	94.6%	19.9%
7	Frederik Erichsen	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	13.2	5.6	2.4	0.7	0.9	54.7%	30.0%	1.6	74.3%	23.5%
6	Louie Jordan	F	Sr	6'9"	29-0	10.9	4.1	1.4	0.3	0.4	54.5%	36.0%	3.1	62.5%	20.9%
12	Gabriel Ferreira	C	Fr	6'10"	11-0	8.1	2.6	2.8	0.1	0.2	52.2%	0.0%	0.1	55.6%	18.2%
30	Warren Keel Jr.	G	Fr	6'0"	13-0	6.3	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2	40.6%	20.0%	0.4	—	12.3%
13	Bradley Land	G	Jr	6'6"	9-0	3.9	0.9	0.7	0.1	0.3	44.4%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	20.2%
31	Diogo Alves	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Zion Walker	G	So	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Radford

Against the spread

Season

14-15

Home

6-8

Road

8-4

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +1.0

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 5 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-13

Home

9-5

Road

5-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.0

Over 2 straightOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	N	L 85–91 OT	−2.0	L−8.0	146.5	O176	106.4	114.0	79.8
Feb 28	LongwoodAdjEM #248	A	L 74–90	+2.0	L−14.0	156.0	O164	100.3	122.0	73.8
Feb 26	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	H	W 71–59	−8.0	W+4.0	153.0	U130	105.4	87.6	67.4
Feb 21	UNC AshevilleAdjEM #226	A	L 73–74 OT	+2.0	W+1.0	149.0	U147	102.9	104.3	71.0
Feb 19	Gardner-WebbAdjEM #363	H	W 82–70	−19.0	L−7.0	162.5	U152	118.8	101.4	69.0
Feb 14	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	H	W 90–80	−4.5	W+5.5	162.0	O170	116.7	103.8	77.1
Feb 7	High PointAdjEM #50	A	L 77–86	+15.0	W+6.0	162.0	O163	96.9	108.3	79.4
Feb 4	WinthropAdjEM #116	H	L 78–80	+4.0	W+2.0	160.5	U158	109.1	111.8	71.5
Jan 31	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	A	W 93–84 2OT	+1.5	W+10.5	152.0	O177	112.9	102.0	82.4
Jan 29	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	A	W 84–75	+1.0	W+10.0	162.5	U159	107.2	95.7	78.4

Tennessee

Against the spread

Season

17-18-2

Home

7-9-1

Road

4-5-1

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −1.1

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

18-19

Home

10-7

Road

3-7

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −1.3

Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 29	#1MichiganAdjEM #1	N	L 62–95	+8.0	L−25.0	146.0	O157	82.3	126.1	75.3
Mar 27	#2Iowa StateAdjEM #7	N	W 76–62	+3.0	W+17.0	139.5	U138	111.8	91.2	68.0
Mar 22	#3VirginiaAdjEM #15	N	W 79–72	−1.0	W+6.0	136.5	O151	120.5	109.8	65.5
Mar 20	#11Miami OHAdjEM #66	N	W 78–56	−12.0	W+10.0	149.0	U134	118.7	85.2	65.7
Mar 13	#22VanderbiltAdjEM #12	N	L 68–75	−2.0	L−9.0	147.0	U143	109.1	120.3	62.4
Mar 12	AuburnAdjEM #41	N	W 72–62	−5.5	W+4.5	145.0	U134	112.8	97.1	63.9
Mar 7	#24VanderbiltAdjEM #12	H	L 82–86	−3.0	L−7.0	145.5	O168	112.2	117.7	73.1
Mar 3	South CarolinaAdjEM #123	A	W 78–59	−11.0	W+8.0	142.0	U137	126.6	95.8	61.6
Feb 28	#17AlabamaAdjEM #18	H	L 69–71	−5.0	L−7.0	162.5	U140	109.5	112.7	63.0
Feb 24	MissouriAdjEM #67	A	L 69–73	−4.0	L−8.0	144.0	U142	105.3	111.4	65.6

Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home

RadfordTennessee

Efficiency

107.2

115.9

110.9

99.5

70.6

67.1

—

Shooting

51.3%

51.4%

52.3%

52.0%

33.5%

33.4%

71.0%

69.1%

42.4%

37.4%

Ball control & glass

17.1%

17.3%

18.5%

16.2%

29.8%

44.7%

32.2%

27.8%

9.7%

10.4%

9.6%

9.4%

Style

45.4%

32.1%

38.3%

48.5%

16.6%

13.7%

45.7%

60.4%

30.0%

31.7%

Roster

3.01

1.84

6'5"

6'5.8"

—

47.2%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

Radford

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Radford'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.)

Tennessee

Returning minutes: 47.2%Returning production: 42.6%

Lost

Ja'Kobi Gillespie 34.8 mpg, 18.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Nate Ament 28.1 mpg, 15.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Felix Okpara 25.5 mpg, 7.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jaylen Carey 18.4 mpg, 7.4 ppg · transferred to Missouri

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 47% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (1 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.