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-conferenceCHI Health Center Omaha, Omaha, NE

Le Moyne

Efficiency #270

2025-26: 15-17 · 10-9 conf

Creighton

Efficiency #92

2025-26: 16-18 · 9-12 conf

Thu, Nov 5 · TBD

70.2

win 17%

Projected

81.2

win 83%

No line posted yet.

Model: CREI −11.0 · total 151.4 · 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: Creighton 68.5, Le Moyne 69.6 → 69.8 possessions

+3.3

Creighton offense vs Le Moyne defense

+3.4

Le Moyne offense vs Creighton defense

−3.5

Projected total

151.4

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Creighton offense vs Le Moyne defense

+3.4

Le Moyne offense vs Creighton defense

+3.5

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

+4.0

Creighton by 11.0

11.0

Le Moyne side ◂▸ Creighton side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +10.9 against +11.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Creighton.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Le Moyne is the faster team (69.2, #133 of 365) and Creighton the slower (68.6, #165). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

151.4

model

Projected team totals

70.2 / 81.2

Le Moyne / Creighton

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.6#76

Le Moyne

68.5#165

Creighton

How this game plays

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

AdvantageLe Moyne

Where Le Moyne struggles: the offensive glass

Le Moyne rebounds 25.2% of its own misses (#337); Creighton lets opponents grab 29.5% of their own misses (#132). Expect about 26.3%, 4.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageCreighton

Where Creighton struggles: the offensive glass

Creighton rebounds 26.9% of its own misses (#301); Le Moyne lets opponents grab 29.1% of their own misses (#107). Expect about 27.3%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversCreighton

Creighton protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.4% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Creighton's offense.

Le Moyne has the ball

OffenseCreighton allowsvs D1 avg

52.7% #118

51.1% #165

+1.0 pt/100

19.1% #327

13.7% #341

+0.8 pt/100

25.2% #337

29.5% #132

-2.5 pt/100

39.5% #68

24.8% #5

-0.5 pt/100

71.8% #214

—

-0.1 pt/100

Le Moyne net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.3 pts/100

Creighton has the ball

OffenseLe Moyne allowsvs D1 avg

53.0% #103

49.3% #75

-0.0 pt/100

16.3% #161

15.0% #289

+1.7 pt/100

26.9% #301

29.1% #107

-1.9 pt/100

28.3% #340

32.7% #121

-0.6 pt/100

76.4% #44

—

+0.3 pt/100

Creighton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Le Moyneoffense vsCreightondefense

Share of shots by zone

Le Moyne shoots

42.6

4.8

12.5

40.1

Creighton allows

40.7

6.1

21.8

31.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.4%#149	59.1%#197	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.0%#269	41.4%#220	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.8%#194	33.1%#31	38.0%
Three	34.3%#152	35.1%#256	33.7%

Creightonoffense vsLe Moynedefense

Share of shots by zone

Creighton shoots

31.2

5.3

15.6

47.9

Le Moyne allows

36.2

7.4

16.5

39.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.2%#33	56.5%#100	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	32.6%#322	37.7%#131	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.8%#152	27.3%#1	38.0%
Three	34.1%#167	36.0%#303	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

Le Moyne

−2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#276 of 365

Off reb %

25.2%

#337

Def reb %

70.9%

#107

Turnover %

19.1%

#327

Forced TO %

15.0%

#289

FT rate

39.5%

#68

FT allowed

32.7%

#121

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.7

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security−1.6

Forcing turnovers−1.2

Foul shots drawn+1.1

Foul shots allowed+0.7

Creighton

−1.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#257 of 365

Off reb %

26.9%

#301

Def reb %

70.5%

#132

Turnover %

16.3%

#161

Forced TO %

13.7%

#341

FT rate

28.3%

#340

FT allowed

24.8%

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.1

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security+0.3

Forcing turnovers−2.0

Foul shots drawn−1.7

Foul shots allowed+2.7

Creighton has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.6 (#257 of 365) to Le Moyne’s −2.2 (#276).

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

Le Moyne2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Le Moyne'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
7	Trent Mosquera	G	Jr	6'5"	32-30	31.8	13.5	5.8	2.3	2.0	51.1%	35.2%	6.8	73.6%	26.4%
13	Deng Garang	G	So	6'6"	32-32	30.1	10.8	5.2	1.0	1.5	53.2%	33.9%	4.0	71.4%	21.4%
2	Jakai Sanders	G	So	6'3"	29-21	29.9	10.7	3.4	4.3	2.4	46.0%	36.5%	2.6	74.5%	24.0%
4	Shilo Jackson	F	Sr	6'9"	27-26	30.8	15.8	8.0	2.1	2.5	63.3%	50.0%	0.1	72.7%	27.0%
1	Tennessee Rainwater	G	Jr	6'6"	32-7	24.5	9.8	4.3	1.7	1.8	63.9%	50.0%	1.3	67.2%	21.7%
10	Jakob Blakley	G	So	6'0"	32-28	16.1	4.2	1.2	0.6	0.4	45.9%	31.4%	2.7	87.5%	16.5%
12	Samuel Hincapie	G	Jr	6'5"	30-0	15.6	4.9	2.1	0.7	0.6	48.9%	26.9%	1.7	57.1%	20.6%
3	Eli Greenberg	G	Fr	6'4"	31-8	14.0	2.6	1.2	1.6	1.1	42.0%	28.9%	1.5	78.3%	15.7%
32	Isaac Nyakundi	F	So	6'9"	24-6	9.8	2.1	1.8	0.3	0.5	51.1%	25.0%	0.5	54.5%	14.9%
5	Trevor Roe	F	So	6'9"	17-0	7.3	2.9	1.4	0.2	0.2	52.3%	32.3%	1.8	100.0%	23.0%
11	Josiah Lee	G	Fr	6'2"	15-0	5.3	1.5	0.5	0.3	0.1	58.3%	33.3%	1.0	100.0%	14.5%
0	Ametri Moss	G	Sr	6'0"	2-2	27.5	7.5	5.0	4.5	1.0	40.0%	0.0%	1.5	100.0%	18.5%
33	Sam Donnelly	G	Sr	6'2"	5-0	2.4	0.6	0.2	0.0	0.2	33.3%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	22.6%
22	Kaelin Thomas	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	3.3	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.3	25.0%	—	0.0	—	27.7%

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

Creighton2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Jasen Green	F	Jr	6'8"	33-30	28.4	10.5	6.3	2.4	1.4	58.5%	35.1%	1.7	66.7%	20.8%
5	Nik Graves	G	Sr	6'2"	34-22	26.7	10.9	3.0	4.4	1.6	45.4%	28.4%	3.9	84.4%	25.9%
1	Austin Swartz	G	So	6'4"	30-14	21.6	10.9	2.8	1.4	1.2	56.2%	38.3%	5.6	70.8%	29.1%
41	Isaac Traudt	F	Jr	6'10"	34-23	18.9	6.5	2.5	0.4	0.4	56.0%	37.5%	4.7	85.0%	18.6%
2	Blake Harper	G	So	6'7"	34-14	18.4	7.7	3.6	1.2	1.3	52.0%	36.4%	1.6	77.6%	25.2%
7	Fedor Zugic	G	Jr	6'6"	34-8	16.2	5.2	2.0	0.9	0.8	48.6%	30.5%	2.8	82.5%	20.2%
9	Ty Davis	G	So	6'4"	33-12	11.3	1.2	1.6	1.2	0.8	35.1%	20.0%	0.6	78.9%	11.4%
10	Hudson Greer	G	Fr	6'7"	22-0	13.7	4.7	2.0	0.4	0.8	56.0%	40.4%	2.1	62.5%	21.0%
17	Kerem Konan	F	Fr	6'9"	30-0	8.4	2.6	1.8	0.4	0.6	60.0%	—	0.0	65.5%	18.7%
23	Jackson McAndrew	F	So	6'10"	4-4	20.5	6.8	4.5	0.5	0.3	41.4%	28.6%	5.3	50.0%	23.1%
12	Shane Thomas	G	So	6'3"	18-0	3.4	0.8	0.7	0.2	0.2	46.2%	0.0%	0.2	37.5%	19.4%
53	Josh Townley-Thomas	F	Jr	6'10"	1-0	5.0	6.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	75.0%	—	0.0	—	54.6%
27	Aleksa Dimitrijevic	C	Fr	7'0"	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.

Le Moyne2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Le Moyne'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
7	Trent Mosquera	G	Jr	6'5"	32-30	31.8	13.5	5.8	2.3	2.0	51.1%	35.2%	6.8	73.6%	26.4%
13	Deng Garang	G	So	6'6"	32-32	30.1	10.8	5.2	1.0	1.5	53.2%	33.9%	4.0	71.4%	21.4%
2	Jakai Sanders	G	So	6'3"	29-21	29.9	10.7	3.4	4.3	2.4	46.0%	36.5%	2.6	74.5%	24.0%
4	Shilo Jackson	F	Sr	6'9"	27-26	30.8	15.8	8.0	2.1	2.5	63.3%	50.0%	0.1	72.7%	27.0%
1	Tennessee Rainwater	G	Jr	6'6"	32-7	24.5	9.8	4.3	1.7	1.8	63.9%	50.0%	1.3	67.2%	21.7%
10	Jakob Blakley	G	So	6'0"	32-28	16.1	4.2	1.2	0.6	0.4	45.9%	31.4%	2.7	87.5%	16.5%
12	Samuel Hincapie	G	Jr	6'5"	30-0	15.6	4.9	2.1	0.7	0.6	48.9%	26.9%	1.7	57.1%	20.6%
3	Eli Greenberg	G	Fr	6'4"	31-8	14.0	2.6	1.2	1.6	1.1	42.0%	28.9%	1.5	78.3%	15.7%
32	Isaac Nyakundi	F	So	6'9"	24-6	9.8	2.1	1.8	0.3	0.5	51.1%	25.0%	0.5	54.5%	14.9%
5	Trevor Roe	F	So	6'9"	17-0	7.3	2.9	1.4	0.2	0.2	52.3%	32.3%	1.8	100.0%	23.0%
11	Josiah Lee	G	Fr	6'2"	15-0	5.3	1.5	0.5	0.3	0.1	58.3%	33.3%	1.0	100.0%	14.5%
0	Ametri Moss	G	Sr	6'0"	2-2	27.5	7.5	5.0	4.5	1.0	40.0%	0.0%	1.5	100.0%	18.5%
33	Sam Donnelly	G	Sr	6'2"	5-0	2.4	0.6	0.2	0.0	0.2	33.3%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	22.6%
22	Kaelin Thomas	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	3.3	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.3	25.0%	—	0.0	—	27.7%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Le Moyne

Against the spread

Season

16-14-1

Home

5-7

Road

10-6-1

Last 10

3-6-1

avg cover −3.2

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

13-18

Home

5-7

Road

6-11

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −0.1

Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 4	StonehillAdjEM #320	H	L 71–81	−4.5	L−14.5	140.0	O152	100.6	114.8	70.5
Feb 28	New HavenAdjEM #326	A	L 59–66	−2.0	L−9.0	136.0	U125	86.5	96.8	68.2
Feb 26	FDUAdjEM #332	H	W 76–59	−4.5	W+12.5	139.5	U135	118.7	92.2	64.0
Feb 21	StonehillAdjEM #320	A	L 68–77	−2.0	L−11.0	137.0	O145	96.6	109.4	70.4
Feb 19	C ConnecticutAdjEM #277	A	L 77–78	+3.5	W+2.5	146.5	O155	108.8	110.2	70.8
Feb 14	Chicago StAdjEM #342	H	W 81–63	−7.0	W+11.0	146.0	U144	117.6	91.5	68.9
Feb 12	MercyhurstAdjEM #261	H	W 58–57	−2.5	L−1.5	138.5	U115	84.2	82.7	68.9
Feb 7	Saint Francis Red Wolves	H	W 86–84	−8.5	L−6.5	154.0	O170	112.0	109.4	76.8
Feb 5	WagnerAdjEM #285	A	L 78–79	+1.0	P0.0	140.0	O157	113.9	115.3	68.5
Jan 31	StonehillAdjEM #320	H	L 54–65	−4.5	L−15.5	140.5	U119	75.7	91.1	71.4

Creighton

Against the spread

Season

11-23

Home

4-12

Road

5-7

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −1.3

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-18

Home

9-7

Road

5-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −0.1

Over in the last gameOver 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
Apr 4	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	N	L 70–87	+1.5	L−15.5	137.0	O157	103.6	128.7	67.6
Apr 2	RutgersAdjEM #192	N	W 82–69	−5.0	W+8.0	151.5	U151	110.3	92.8	74.4
Mar 12	Seton HallAdjEM #56	N	L 61–72	+3.0	L−8.0	135.5	U133	88.5	104.4	68.9
Mar 4	ButlerAdjEM #87	A	W 76–59	+2.5	W+19.5	155.5	U135	107.4	83.4	70.8
Feb 28	ProvidenceAdjEM #81	H	L 76–79	−4.0	L−7.0	167.0	U155	111.9	116.3	67.9
Feb 25	DePaulAdjEM #113	H	L 71–72	−4.5	L−5.5	142.5	O143	109.3	110.8	65.0
Feb 21	#17St John'sAdjEM #16	A	L 52–81	+12.5	L−16.5	155.5	U133	69.6	108.4	74.7
Feb 18	#5UConnAdjEM #10	A	W 91–84	+15.5	W+22.5	143.0	O175	120.7	111.4	75.4
Feb 14	VillanovaAdjEM #40	H	L 69–80	+2.5	L−8.5	146.0	O149	99.5	115.3	69.4
Feb 11	DePaulAdjEM #113	A	L 71–72	−1.0	L−2.0	141.0	O143	114.8	116.4	61.9

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

Le MoyneCreighton

Efficiency

104.7

111.6

110.2

107.2

69.6

68.5

—

Shooting

52.7%

53.0%

53.5%

54.7%

34.3%

34.1%

71.8%

76.4%

39.5%

28.3%

Ball control & glass

19.1%

16.3%

15.0%

13.7%

25.2%

26.9%

29.1%

29.5%

11.1%

9.9%

9.5%

10.4%

Style

40.8%

48.2%

42.6%

39.3%

14.2%

15.1%

56.5%

58.4%

31.9%

35.3%

Roster

2.56

2.63

6'5.2"

6'6.1"

—

79.0%

Offseason

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

Le Moyne

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Le Moyne'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.)

Creighton

Returning minutes: 79.0%Returning production: 76.2%

Lost

Josh Dix 32.9 mpg, 13.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Owen Freeman 9.0 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to Auburn
Liam McChesney 0.2 mpg, 0.1 ppg · transferred to Manhattan

Added

Aleksa Dimitrijevic no D1 minutes last season

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

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

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.