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-conferenceNeutral siteSuncoast Credit Union Arena, Fort Myers, FLFort Myers Tip-Off - Beach Division
DePaul
Efficiency #113
2025-26: 16-16 · 8-13 conf
vs
Pitt
Efficiency #120
2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf
Thu, Nov 26 · 7:00 PM ET
68.8
win 50%
Projected
68.7
win 50%
No line posted yet.
Model: DEP −0.1 · total 137.5 · 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: Pitt 65.9, DePaul 67.7 → 65.2 possessions
−6.7
Pitt offense vs DePaul defense
−2.1
DePaul offense vs Pitt defense
−2.0
Projected total
137.5
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Pitt offense vs DePaul defense
−2.1
DePaul offense vs Pitt defense
+2.0
DePaul by 0.1
0.1
DePaul side ◂▸ Pitt side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 137.4 against a projected 137.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Pitt.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, DePaul is the faster team (67.7, #213 of 365) and Pitt the slower (64.5, #340). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
137.5
model
Projected team totals
68.8 / 68.7
DePaul / Pitt
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.7#236
DePaul
65.9#346
Pitt
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Pitt averages 64.5 possessions per 40, DePaul 67.7. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantagePitt
Where Pitt struggles: ball control
Pitt turns it over on 17.3% of possessions (#225); DePaul forces turnovers on 18.6% of opponent possessions (#67). Expect about 18.3%, 1.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions.
GlassPitt
Pitt owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.1% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Pitt's offense.
DePaul has the ball
OffensePitt allowsvs D1 avg
49.8% #243
53.4% #279
+0.3 pt/100
17.8% #256
16.2% #208
-0.3 pt/100
30.0% #197
28.1% #68
-0.8 pt/100
35.3% #169
30.9% #82
-0.3 pt/100
69.2% #295
—
-0.3 pt/100
DePaul net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.3 pts/100
Pitt has the ball
OffenseDePaul allowsvs D1 avg
51.0% #193
49.3% #77
-1.6 pt/100
17.3% #225
18.6% #67
-1.8 pt/100
33.9% #72
31.1% #205
+1.7 pt/100
30.4% #300
37.8% #257
-0.1 pt/100
67.4% #336
—
-0.4 pt/100
Pitt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersDePauloffense vsPittdefense
Share of shots by zone
DePaul shoots
38.2
5.5
17.5
38.8
Pitt allows
40.2
6.4
12.8
40.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.4%#287 | 60.0%#225 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.9%#66 | 44.3%#278 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.4%#255 | 38.8%#193 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.5%#253 | 35.2%#263 | 33.7% |
Pittoffense vsDePauldefense
Share of shots by zone
Pitt shoots
37.1
5.6
14.8
42.5
DePaul allows
39.4
6.5
21.2
33.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.3%#217 | 53.6%#34 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.4%#281 | 35.3%#65 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.1%#35 | 36.2%#117 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.4%#206 | 35.4%#274 | 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 numbersDePaul
−0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#188 of 365
Off reb %
30.0%
#197
Def reb %
68.9%
#205
Turnover %
17.8%
#256
Forced TO %
18.6%
#67
FT rate
35.3%
#169
FT allowed
37.8%
#257
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security−0.7
Forcing turnovers+1.3
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed−0.7
Pitt
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#131 of 365
Off reb %
33.9%
#72
Def reb %
71.9%
#68
Turnover %
17.3%
#225
Forced TO %
16.2%
#208
FT rate
30.4%
#300
FT allowed
30.9%
#82
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.1
Pitt has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.2 (#131 of 365) to DePaul’s −0.2 (#188).
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
DePaul2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted DePaul'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Layden Blocker | G | Jr | 6'2" | 32-29 | 29.1 | 11.1 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 41.7% | 31.8% | 3.4 | 82.8% | 27.3% | |
| 11 | CJ Gunn | G | Sr | 6'7" | 32-23 | 27.7 | 13.1 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 47.3% | 32.7% | 5.3 | 72.5% | 32.1% | |
| 5 | RJ Smith | G | Jr | 6'3" | 32-23 | 27.7 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 46.1% | 30.8% | 3.8 | 75.0% | 16.7% | |
| 35 | NJ Benson | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-31 | 25.9 | 11.7 | 7.6 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 63.6% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.5% | 24.6% | |
| 0 | Brandon Maclin | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-16 | 27.6 | 10.5 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 48.5% | 30.6% | 2.5 | 69.5% | 25.2% | |
| 22 | Kruz McClure | G | Fr | 6'6" | 28-4 | 18.6 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 41.6% | 29.9% | 2.8 | 74.1% | 20.7% | |
| 1 | Kaleb Banks | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-11 | 16.2 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 54.0% | 35.5% | 2.0 | 74.1% | 19.5% | |
| 21 | Theo Pierre-Justin | F | So | 6'10" | 30-22 | 15.5 | 4.0 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 54.5% | 39.7% | 2.1 | 61.1% | 15.7% | |
| 15 | Fabian Flores | C | Fr | 7'2" | 28-1 | 10.5 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 68.1% | — | 0.0 | 64.0% | 13.8% | |
| 10 | Ilija Milijasevic | G | Jr | 6'2" | 15-0 | 7.9 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 53.6% | 35.7% | 1.9 | 75.0% | 16.4% | |
| 32 | Jeremy Lorenz | F | Jr | 6'8" | 9-0 | 10.4 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 15.4% | |
| 14 | Khaman Maker | C | So | 7'1" | 12-0 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 16.1% | |
| 3 | Nate Kasher | G | Fr | 6'1" | 5-0 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 18.7% | |
| 52 | Amsal Delalic | G | So | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Isaiah Medina | F | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Jonas Johnson | F | Fr | 6'7" | 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.
Pitt2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Damarco Minor | G | Sr | 6'0" | 33-32 | 32.1 | 8.5 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 48.3% | 31.6% | 5.3 | 88.3% | 18.4% | |
| 8 | Omari Witherspoon | G | Fr | 6'4" | 33-25 | 27.8 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 43.2% | 28.7% | 2.6 | 64.5% | 23.6% | |
| 13 | Roman Siulepa | F | Fr | 6'6" | 33-33 | 26.7 | 10.0 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 51.5% | 29.6% | 3.0 | 50.0% | 24.7% | |
| 3 | Brandin Cummings | G | So | 6'3" | 19-9 | 26.3 | 12.5 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 50.5% | 32.6% | 4.8 | 71.8% | 29.5% | |
| 21 | Macari Moore | G | Fr | 6'3" | 21-0 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 46.0% | 75.0% | 0.2 | 87.5% | 20.6% | |
| 4 | Papa Amadou Kante | F | So | 6'10" | 8-0 | 14.3 | 2.8 | 5.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 45.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 44.4% | 14.3% | |
| 12 | Kieran Mullen | C | Fr | 7'0" | 18-0 | 6.0 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 100.0% | 11.0% | |
| 0 | Amdy Ndiaye | F | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 35 | Benjamin Mayhew | F | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Dishon Jackson | C | Sr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Henry Lau | F | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 44 | Jajuan Nelson | F | Jr | 6'7" | 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.
DePaul2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted DePaul'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Layden Blocker | G | Jr | 6'2" | 32-29 | 29.1 | 11.1 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 41.7% | 31.8% | 3.4 | 82.8% | 27.3% | |
| 11 | CJ Gunn | G | Sr | 6'7" | 32-23 | 27.7 | 13.1 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 47.3% | 32.7% | 5.3 | 72.5% | 32.1% | |
| 5 | RJ Smith | G | Jr | 6'3" | 32-23 | 27.7 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 46.1% | 30.8% | 3.8 | 75.0% | 16.7% | |
| 35 | NJ Benson | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-31 | 25.9 | 11.7 | 7.6 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 63.6% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.5% | 24.6% | |
| 0 | Brandon Maclin | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-16 | 27.6 | 10.5 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 48.5% | 30.6% | 2.5 | 69.5% | 25.2% | |
| 22 | Kruz McClure | G | Fr | 6'6" | 28-4 | 18.6 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 41.6% | 29.9% | 2.8 | 74.1% | 20.7% | |
| 1 | Kaleb Banks | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-11 | 16.2 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 54.0% | 35.5% | 2.0 | 74.1% | 19.5% | |
| 21 | Theo Pierre-Justin | F | So | 6'10" | 30-22 | 15.5 | 4.0 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 54.5% | 39.7% | 2.1 | 61.1% | 15.7% | |
| 15 | Fabian Flores | C | Fr | 7'2" | 28-1 | 10.5 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 68.1% | — | 0.0 | 64.0% | 13.8% | |
| 10 | Ilija Milijasevic | G | Jr | 6'2" | 15-0 | 7.9 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 53.6% | 35.7% | 1.9 | 75.0% | 16.4% | |
| 32 | Jeremy Lorenz | F | Jr | 6'8" | 9-0 | 10.4 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 15.4% | |
| 14 | Khaman Maker | C | So | 7'1" | 12-0 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 16.1% | |
| 3 | Nate Kasher | G | Fr | 6'1" | 5-0 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 18.7% | |
| 52 | Amsal Delalic | G | So | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Isaiah Medina | F | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Jonas Johnson | F | Fr | 6'7" | 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 2025-26DePaul
Against the spread
Season
18-13-1
Home
9-9
Road
8-2-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.2
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
11-20-1
Home
7-10-1
Road
3-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −5.8
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | Georgetown | N | L 56–63 | −5.0 | L−12.0 | 130.0 | U119 | 89.0 | 100.2 | 62.9 |
| Mar 7 | Butler | H | L 71–81 | −4.0 | L−14.0 | 142.5 | O152 | 96.8 | 110.4 | 73.4 |
| Mar 4 | Villanova | H | L 57–76 | +2.0 | L−17.0 | 136.5 | U133 | 81.1 | 108.2 | 70.3 |
| Mar 1 | Marquette | A | W 62–51 | +4.5 | W+15.5 | 139.5 | U113 | 98.0 | 80.6 | 63.2 |
| Feb 25 | Creighton | A | W 72–71 | +4.5 | W+5.5 | 142.5 | O143 | 110.8 | 109.3 | 65.0 |
| Feb 21 | Providence | H | L 68–71 | −3.0 | L−6.0 | 152.5 | U139 | 101.2 | 105.7 | 67.2 |
| Feb 18 | Seton Hall | A | W 69–57 | +7.0 | W+19.0 | 129.0 | U126 | 106.6 | 88.0 | 64.7 |
| Feb 11 | Creighton | H | W 72–71 | +1.0 | W+2.0 | 141.0 | O143 | 116.4 | 114.8 | 61.9 |
| Feb 7 | Providence | A | L 72–90 | +5.0 | L−13.0 | 153.5 | O162 | 100.6 | 125.8 | 71.5 |
| Feb 3 | #22St John's | H | L 56–68 | +9.5 | L−2.5 | 145.0 | U124 | 85.3 | 103.6 | 65.6 |
Pitt
Against the spread
Season
15-16-2
Home
9-9
Road
4-5-2
Last 10
6-3-1
avg cover +2.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
18-15
Home
13-5
Road
4-7
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.6
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | NC State | N | L 88–98 | +9.0 | L−1.0 | 144.5 | O186 | 133.6 | 148.8 | 65.8 |
| Mar 10 | Stanford | N | W 64–63 | +5.0 | W+6.0 | 136.5 | U127 | 109.3 | 107.6 | 58.6 |
| Mar 7 | Syracuse | A | W 71–69 OT | +6.5 | W+8.5 | 142.0 | U140 | 104.0 | 101.0 | 68.3 |
| Mar 4 | Florida St | H | L 74–75 | +1.5 | W+0.5 | 145.0 | O149 | 112.8 | 114.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 28 | California | A | W 72–56 | +7.5 | W+23.5 | 143.5 | U128 | 107.5 | 83.6 | 67.0 |
| Feb 25 | Stanford | A | L 67–75 | +8.0 | P0.0 | 138.5 | O142 | 109.1 | 122.1 | 61.4 |
| Feb 21 | Notre Dame | H | W 73–68 | −2.5 | W+2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 116.4 | 108.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | #11North Carolina | A | L 65–79 | +11.5 | L−2.5 | 145.0 | U144 | 99.3 | 120.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 10 | #4Duke | H | L 54–70 | +17.5 | W+1.5 | 136.5 | U124 | 88.1 | 114.2 | 61.3 |
| Feb 7 | SMU | H | L 67–86 | +4.5 | L−14.5 | 147.5 | O153 | 101.4 | 130.2 | 66.1 |
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 homeDePaulPitt
Efficiency
106.3
110.2
103.5
107.6
67.7
65.9
—
—
Shooting
49.8%
51.0%
50.5%
51.7%
32.5%
33.4%
69.2%
67.4%
35.3%
30.4%
Ball control & glass
17.8%
17.3%
18.6%
16.2%
30.0%
33.9%
31.1%
28.1%
10.8%
9.5%
10.7%
9.2%
Style
39.0%
42.6%
42.9%
41.5%
13.1%
12.6%
60.9%
52.3%
35.0%
22.7%
Roster
3.13
2.02
6'5.9"
6'3.6"
—
55.7%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputDePaul
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted DePaul'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.)
Pitt
Returning minutes: 55.7%Returning production: 50.3%
Lost
- Cameron Corhen 33.8 mpg, 13.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Barry Dunning Jr. 31.8 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nojus Indrusaitis 23.6 mpg, 9.1 ppg · transferred to California
Added
- Benjamin Mayhew no D1 minutes last season
- Henry Lau no D1 minutes last season
- Jajuan Nelson no D1 minutes last season
- Amdy Ndiaye no D1 minutes last season
- Dishon Jackson no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 56% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo 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.