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
Nebraska
Efficiency #17
2025-26: 28-7 · 15-6 conf
@
Creighton
Efficiency #92
2025-26: 16-18 · 9-12 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
74.7
win 63%
Projected
70.9
win 37%
No line posted yet.
Model: NEB −3.8 · total 145.6 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Creighton 68.5, Nebraska 67.7 → 68.0 possessions
−0.8
Creighton offense vs Nebraska defense
−4.8
Nebraska offense vs Creighton defense
+3.0
Projected total
145.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Creighton offense vs Nebraska defense
−4.8
Nebraska offense vs Creighton defense
−3.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Nebraska by 3.8
3.8
Nebraska side ◂▸ Creighton side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −3.9 against −3.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Creighton.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Creighton is the faster team (68.6, #165 of 365) and Nebraska the slower (66.8, #252). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
145.6
model
Projected team totals
74.7 / 70.9
Nebraska / Creighton
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.7#228
Nebraska
68.5#165
Creighton
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashCreighton
Style match: 3-point volume
Creighton takes 48.2% of its shots from three; Nebraska lets opponents take 50.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 53.3% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageNebraska
Where Nebraska scores: ball control
Nebraska turns it over on 14.4% of possessions (#40); Creighton forces turnovers on 13.7% of opponent possessions (#341). Expect about 13.5%, 3.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.0 points per 100 possessions.
ClashCreighton
Style match: ball movement
Creighton assists on 58.4% of its made baskets; Nebraska allows assists on 61.1% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 62.0% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageCreighton
Where Creighton struggles: the offensive glass
Creighton rebounds 26.9% of its own misses (#301); Nebraska lets opponents grab 27.4% of their own misses (#47). Expect about 26.5%, 3.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.4 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Nebraska'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 Nebraska at about 44.0% of its shots from three, Creighton about 53.3%.
GlassNebraska
Nebraska gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.3% is worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions against Nebraska's offense.
Nebraska has the ball
OffenseCreighton allowsvs D1 avg
55.5% #28
51.1% #165
+3.4 pt/100
14.4% #40
13.7% #341
+4.0 pt/100
26.7% #306
29.5% #132
-1.9 pt/100
26.2% #356
24.8% #5
-1.3 pt/100
75.5% #64
—
+0.3 pt/100
Nebraska net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.5 pts/100
Creighton has the ball
OffenseNebraska allowsvs D1 avg
53.0% #103
48.1% #40
-0.9 pt/100
16.3% #161
18.9% #54
-1.4 pt/100
26.9% #301
27.4% #47
-2.4 pt/100
28.3% #340
25.1% #7
-1.1 pt/100
76.4% #44
—
+0.3 pt/100
Creighton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersNebraskaoffense vsCreightondefense
Share of shots by zone
Nebraska shoots
31.8
5.5
11.3
51.3
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 | 68.2%#4 | 59.1%#197 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.6%#253 | 41.4%#220 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.1%#288 | 33.1%#31 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.5%#91 | 35.1%#256 | 33.7% |
Creightonoffense vsNebraskadefense
Share of shots by zone
Creighton shoots
31.2
5.3
15.6
47.9
Nebraska allows
23.8
5.7
19.3
51.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.2%#33 | 64.2%#342 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 32.6%#322 | 40.6%#202 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.8%#152 | 35.0%#76 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.1%#167 | 30.5%#19 | 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 numbersNebraska
+3.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#49 of 365
Off reb %
26.7%
#306
Def reb %
72.6%
#47
Turnover %
14.4%
#40
Forced TO %
18.9%
#54
FT rate
26.2%
#356
FT allowed
25.1%
#7
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.2
Defensive rebounding+1.0
Ball security+1.6
Forcing turnovers+1.5
Foul shots drawn−2.3
Foul shots allowed+2.6
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%
#5
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
Nebraska has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.3 (#49 of 365) to Creighton’s −1.6 (#257).
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
Nebraska2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Pryce Sandfort | F | Jr | 6'7" | 35-35 | 33.6 | 18.1 | 4.9 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 62.1% | 41.6% | 8.9 | 85.5% | 26.5% | |
| 10 | Jamarques Lawrence | G | Sr | 6'3" | 35-35 | 27.9 | 9.8 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 52.2% | 35.5% | 4.4 | 75.6% | 23.2% | |
| 9 | Berke Buyuktuncel | F | Jr | 6'10" | 33-33 | 24.3 | 6.5 | 5.6 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 50.6% | 24.1% | 1.6 | 61.2% | 18.3% | |
| 5 | Braden Frager | F | Fr | 6'7" | 33-2 | 23.7 | 11.8 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 59.1% | 35.2% | 4.9 | 80.5% | 26.8% | |
| 31 | Cale Jacobsen | G | Jr | 6'4" | 35-1 | 19.7 | 4.6 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 58.5% | 36.6% | 1.2 | 59.5% | 13.9% | |
| 15 | Jared Garcia | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-0 | 8.3 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 39.2% | 24.4% | 1.5 | 77.8% | 28.7% | |
| 0 | Connor Essegian | G | Sr | 6'4" | 7-0 | 13.9 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 40.9% | 25.8% | 4.4 | 50.0% | 28.9% | |
| 2 | Kendall Blue | G | Sr | 6'6" | 19-0 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 42.3% | 37.5% | 0.4 | 100.0% | 18.6% | |
| 33 | Leo Curtis | F | Fr | 7'1" | 15-0 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 58.8% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 87.5% | 24.0% | |
| 7 | Justin Bolis | F | So | 6'8" | 14-0 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 13.9% | |
| 13 | Ugnius Jarusevicius | F | Sr | 6'11" | 1-0 | 11.0 | 7.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 116.7% | 100.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 28.6% | |
| 35 | Henry Burt | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Quentin Rhymes | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Will Cooper | F | So | 6'6" | 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.
Creighton2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Nebraska2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Pryce Sandfort | F | Jr | 6'7" | 35-35 | 33.6 | 18.1 | 4.9 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 62.1% | 41.6% | 8.9 | 85.5% | 26.5% | |
| 10 | Jamarques Lawrence | G | Sr | 6'3" | 35-35 | 27.9 | 9.8 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 52.2% | 35.5% | 4.4 | 75.6% | 23.2% | |
| 9 | Berke Buyuktuncel | F | Jr | 6'10" | 33-33 | 24.3 | 6.5 | 5.6 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 50.6% | 24.1% | 1.6 | 61.2% | 18.3% | |
| 5 | Braden Frager | F | Fr | 6'7" | 33-2 | 23.7 | 11.8 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 59.1% | 35.2% | 4.9 | 80.5% | 26.8% | |
| 31 | Cale Jacobsen | G | Jr | 6'4" | 35-1 | 19.7 | 4.6 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 58.5% | 36.6% | 1.2 | 59.5% | 13.9% | |
| 15 | Jared Garcia | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-0 | 8.3 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 39.2% | 24.4% | 1.5 | 77.8% | 28.7% | |
| 0 | Connor Essegian | G | Sr | 6'4" | 7-0 | 13.9 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 40.9% | 25.8% | 4.4 | 50.0% | 28.9% | |
| 2 | Kendall Blue | G | Sr | 6'6" | 19-0 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 42.3% | 37.5% | 0.4 | 100.0% | 18.6% | |
| 33 | Leo Curtis | F | Fr | 7'1" | 15-0 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 58.8% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 87.5% | 24.0% | |
| 7 | Justin Bolis | F | So | 6'8" | 14-0 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 13.9% | |
| 13 | Ugnius Jarusevicius | F | Sr | 6'11" | 1-0 | 11.0 | 7.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 116.7% | 100.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 28.6% | |
| 35 | Henry Burt | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Quentin Rhymes | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Will Cooper | F | So | 6'6" | 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 2025-26Nebraska
Against the spread
Season
19-15-1
Home
8-9-1
Road
7-3
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −0.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
12-23
Home
4-14
Road
4-6
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −4.5
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26 | #9Iowa | N | L 71–77 | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 131.0 | O148 | 117.4 | 127.4 | 60.5 |
| Mar 21 | #5Vanderbilt | N | W 74–72 | +2.0 | W+4.0 | 147.5 | U146 | 115.8 | 112.7 | 63.9 |
| Mar 19 | #13Troy | N | W 76–47 | −13.0 | W+16.0 | 139.5 | U123 | 125.1 | 77.4 | 60.8 |
| Mar 13 | #18Purdue | N | L 58–74 | +4.5 | L−11.5 | 146.0 | U132 | 95.9 | 122.4 | 60.5 |
| Mar 8 | Iowa | H | W 84–75 OT | −5.0 | W+4.0 | 136.5 | O159 | 112.8 | 100.7 | 74.5 |
| Mar 3 | UCLA | A | L 52–72 | −1.0 | L−21.0 | 144.5 | U124 | 85.7 | 118.7 | 60.6 |
| Feb 28 | USC | A | W 82–67 | −5.0 | W+10.0 | 148.5 | O149 | 119.1 | 97.3 | 68.8 |
| Feb 25 | Maryland | H | W 74–61 | −16.5 | L−3.5 | 141.0 | U135 | 116.4 | 95.9 | 63.6 |
| Feb 21 | Penn State | H | W 87–64 | −17.5 | W+5.5 | 147.5 | O151 | 125.4 | 92.2 | 69.4 |
| Feb 17 | Iowa | A | L 52–57 | +1.0 | L−4.0 | 139.5 | U109 | 86.5 | 94.8 | 60.1 |
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 Virginia | N | L 70–87 | +1.5 | L−15.5 | 137.0 | O157 | 103.6 | 128.7 | 67.6 |
| Apr 2 | Rutgers | N | W 82–69 | −5.0 | W+8.0 | 151.5 | U151 | 110.3 | 92.8 | 74.4 |
| Mar 12 | Seton Hall | N | L 61–72 | +3.0 | L−8.0 | 135.5 | U133 | 88.5 | 104.4 | 68.9 |
| Mar 4 | Butler | A | W 76–59 | +2.5 | W+19.5 | 155.5 | U135 | 107.4 | 83.4 | 70.8 |
| Feb 28 | Providence | H | L 76–79 | −4.0 | L−7.0 | 167.0 | U155 | 111.9 | 116.3 | 67.9 |
| Feb 25 | DePaul | H | L 71–72 | −4.5 | L−5.5 | 142.5 | O143 | 109.3 | 110.8 | 65.0 |
| Feb 21 | #17St John's | A | L 52–81 | +12.5 | L−16.5 | 155.5 | U133 | 69.6 | 108.4 | 74.7 |
| Feb 18 | #5UConn | A | W 91–84 | +15.5 | W+22.5 | 143.0 | O175 | 120.7 | 111.4 | 75.4 |
| Feb 14 | Villanova | H | L 69–80 | +2.5 | L−8.5 | 146.0 | O149 | 99.5 | 115.3 | 69.4 |
| Feb 11 | DePaul | 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 homeNebraskaCreighton
Efficiency
114.2
111.6
98.3
107.2
67.7
68.5
—
—
Shooting
55.5%
53.0%
58.0%
54.7%
35.5%
34.1%
75.5%
76.4%
26.2%
28.3%
Ball control & glass
14.4%
16.3%
18.9%
13.7%
26.7%
26.9%
27.4%
29.5%
7.6%
9.9%
9.1%
10.4%
Style
51.1%
48.2%
40.1%
39.3%
8.1%
15.1%
65.9%
58.4%
26.7%
35.3%
Roster
2.93
2.63
6'6.3"
6'6.1"
69.8%
79.0%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputNebraska
Returning minutes: 69.8%Returning production: 67.0%
Lost
- Sam Hoiberg 32.3 mpg, 9.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Rienk Mast 28.5 mpg, 12.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Quentin Rhymes no D1 minutes last season
- Henry Burt no D1 minutes last season
- Will Cooper no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 70% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).
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| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sun, Dec 7 | 2025-26 | Creighton 50 – 71 Nebraska |
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.