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-conferenceWintrust Arena, Chicago, IL
SMU
Efficiency #44
2025-26: 20-14 · 9-11 conf
@
DePaul
Efficiency #113
2025-26: 16-16 · 8-13 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
74.8
win 54%
Projected
73.6
win 46%
No line posted yet.
Model: SMU −1.2 · total 148.4 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: DePaul 67.7, SMU 69.1 → 68.5 possessions
+0.4
DePaul offense vs SMU defense
−2.7
SMU offense vs DePaul defense
+2.4
Projected total
148.4
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
DePaul offense vs SMU defense
−2.7
SMU offense vs DePaul defense
−2.4
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
SMU by 1.2
1.2
SMU side ◂▸ DePaul side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 148.3 against a projected 148.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help DePaul.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, SMU is the faster team (70.6, #73 of 365) and DePaul the slower (67.7, #213). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
148.4
model
Projected team totals
74.8 / 73.6
SMU / DePaul
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.1#108
SMU
67.7#236
DePaul
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashDePaul
Style match: ball movement
DePaul assists on 60.9% of its made baskets; SMU allows assists on 60.9% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 63.4% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageSMU
Where SMU scores: the offensive glass
SMU rebounds 35.4% of its own misses (#37); DePaul lets opponents grab 31.1% of their own misses (#205). Expect about 34.2%, 3.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (SMU) 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 SMU at about 33.0% of its shots from three, DePaul about 44.4%.
ClashSMU
Style match: 3-point volume
SMU rarely shoots threes (35.9% of its shots); DePaul runs teams off the line (33.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 33.0% — both habits push the same way.
ClashSMU
Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting
SMU (#48 in 2-point shooting) against DePaul (#36 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 51.7%. Historically SMU's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).
SMU has the ball
OffenseDePaul allowsvs D1 avg
55.6% #26
49.3% #77
+2.1 pt/100
15.7% #116
18.6% #67
-0.7 pt/100
35.4% #37
31.1% #205
+2.3 pt/100
30.4% #301
37.8% #257
-0.1 pt/100
74.3% #117
—
+0.2 pt/100
SMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.8 pts/100
DePaul has the ball
OffenseSMU allowsvs D1 avg
49.8% #243
51.6% #189
-1.0 pt/100
17.8% #256
16.8% #164
-0.7 pt/100
30.0% #197
31.6% #237
+0.2 pt/100
35.3% #169
32.1% #107
-0.2 pt/100
69.2% #295
—
-0.3 pt/100
DePaul net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersSMUoffense vsDePauldefense
Share of shots by zone
SMU shoots
34.6
6.9
23.0
35.4
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 | 64.0%#38 | 53.6%#34 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 48.5%#17 | 35.3%#65 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.1%#25 | 36.2%#117 | 38.0% |
| Three | 37.1%#27 | 35.4%#274 | 33.7% |
DePauloffense vsSMUdefense
Share of shots by zone
DePaul shoots
38.2
5.5
17.5
38.8
SMU allows
31.4
4.3
16.6
47.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.4%#287 | 60.8%#263 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.9%#66 | 37.0%#111 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.4%#255 | 38.3%#169 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.5%#253 | 34.1%#188 | 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 numbersSMU
+1.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#112 of 365
Off reb %
35.4%
#37
Def reb %
68.4%
#237
Turnover %
15.7%
#116
Forced TO %
16.8%
#164
FT rate
30.4%
#301
FT allowed
32.1%
#107
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.6
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+0.7
Forcing turnovers+0.1
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+0.8
DePaul
−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
SMU has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.7 (#112 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
SMU2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Samet Yigitoglu | C | So | 7'2" | 34-34 | 28.9 | 10.7 | 7.9 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 62.8% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 49.5% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Corey Washington | F | Sr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 27.8 | 11.4 | 4.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 56.8% | 38.8% | 3.4 | 76.9% | 21.1% | |
| 10 | Jaden Toombs | C | Fr | 6'10" | 27-5 | 20.0 | 8.3 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 58.6% | 23.1% | 1.0 | 65.8% | 22.8% | |
| 7 | Jermaine O'Neal Jr. | F | Fr | 6'5" | 34-2 | 15.0 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 51.1% | 37.1% | 1.8 | 91.7% | 17.8% | |
| 9 | B.J. Davis-Ray | G | Fr | 6'6" | 32-0 | 7.1 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.1% | 21.7% | 0.7 | 75.0% | 13.9% | |
| 4 | Sam Walters | F | Jr | 6'9" | 24-2 | 9.3 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 52.5% | 34.9% | 1.8 | 0.0% | 17.9% | |
| 13 | Mitchell Holmes | F | Fr | 6'10" | 25-0 | 5.5 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 70.4% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 13.1% | |
| 1 | Chance Puryear | F | Fr | 6'7" | 11-0 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 30.0% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 33.3% | 16.3% | |
| 22 | Nigel Walls | F | Fr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 6.9% | |
| 31 | Trey Utter | G | Sr | 6'0" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 33 | Niccolo Kalischer-Stork | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | — | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 49.3% | |
| 8 | Billy White III | F | Fr | 6'8" | 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.
SMU2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Samet Yigitoglu | C | So | 7'2" | 34-34 | 28.9 | 10.7 | 7.9 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 62.8% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 49.5% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Corey Washington | F | Sr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 27.8 | 11.4 | 4.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 56.8% | 38.8% | 3.4 | 76.9% | 21.1% | |
| 10 | Jaden Toombs | C | Fr | 6'10" | 27-5 | 20.0 | 8.3 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 58.6% | 23.1% | 1.0 | 65.8% | 22.8% | |
| 7 | Jermaine O'Neal Jr. | F | Fr | 6'5" | 34-2 | 15.0 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 51.1% | 37.1% | 1.8 | 91.7% | 17.8% | |
| 9 | B.J. Davis-Ray | G | Fr | 6'6" | 32-0 | 7.1 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.1% | 21.7% | 0.7 | 75.0% | 13.9% | |
| 4 | Sam Walters | F | Jr | 6'9" | 24-2 | 9.3 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 52.5% | 34.9% | 1.8 | 0.0% | 17.9% | |
| 13 | Mitchell Holmes | F | Fr | 6'10" | 25-0 | 5.5 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 70.4% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 13.1% | |
| 1 | Chance Puryear | F | Fr | 6'7" | 11-0 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 30.0% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 33.3% | 16.3% | |
| 22 | Nigel Walls | F | Fr | 6'10" | 9-0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 6.9% | |
| 31 | Trey Utter | G | Sr | 6'0" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 33 | Niccolo Kalischer-Stork | G | Fr | 6'2" | 2-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | — | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 49.3% | |
| 8 | Billy White III | F | Fr | 6'8" | 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 2025-26SMU
Against the spread
Season
14-18-2
Home
7-10-1
Road
4-6-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −3.0
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
19-13-2
Home
10-8
Road
6-4-1
Last 10
5-4-1
avg vs total −1.6
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18 | #11Miami OH | N | L 79–89 | −7.0 | L−17.0 | 160.5 | O168 | 119.2 | 134.3 | 66.3 |
| Mar 11 | #24Louisville | N | L 58–62 | +6.5 | W+2.5 | 163.5 | U120 | 94.4 | 100.9 | 61.5 |
| Mar 10 | Syracuse | N | W 86–69 | −4.0 | W+13.0 | 155.0 | P155 | 130.2 | 104.4 | 66.1 |
| Mar 7 | Florida St | A | L 78–91 | +1.0 | L−12.0 | 158.5 | O169 | 105.8 | 123.4 | 73.7 |
| Mar 4 | #22Miami | H | L 69–77 | −1.5 | L−9.5 | 156.5 | U146 | 99.4 | 111.0 | 69.4 |
| Feb 28 | Stanford | A | L 75–95 | +1.0 | L−19.0 | 154.5 | O170 | 116.6 | 147.6 | 64.3 |
| Feb 25 | California | A | L 69–73 | −4.0 | L−8.0 | 163.0 | U142 | 98.9 | 104.7 | 69.7 |
| Feb 21 | Boston College | H | W 94–70 | −15.5 | W+8.5 | 150.0 | O164 | 143.1 | 106.6 | 65.7 |
| Feb 17 | #21Louisville | H | W 95–85 | +4.0 | W+14.0 | 168.0 | O180 | 124.3 | 111.2 | 76.4 |
| Feb 14 | Syracuse | A | L 78–79 | −2.0 | L−3.0 | 158.0 | U157 | 119.4 | 121.0 | 65.3 |
DePaul
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 |
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 homeSMUDePaul
Efficiency
117.0
106.3
106.7
103.5
69.1
67.7
—
—
Shooting
55.6%
49.8%
55.6%
50.5%
37.1%
32.5%
74.3%
69.2%
30.4%
35.3%
Ball control & glass
15.7%
17.8%
16.8%
18.6%
35.4%
30.0%
31.6%
31.1%
9.3%
10.8%
7.5%
10.7%
Style
35.9%
39.0%
43.7%
42.9%
13.4%
13.1%
54.9%
60.9%
22.4%
35.0%
Roster
2.18
3.13
6'9"
6'5.9"
53.0%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputSMU
Returning minutes: 53.0%Returning production: 45.5%
Lost
- Boopie Miller 34.1 mpg, 18.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jaron Pierre Jr. 33.2 mpg, 17.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- B.J. Edwards 27.4 mpg, 10.5 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma
Added
- Billy White III no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 53% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred).
DePaul
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.)
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.