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-conferenceAmica Mutual Pavilion, Providence, RI
Sacred Heart
Efficiency #278
2025-26: 14-19 · 10-12 conf
@
Providence
Efficiency #81
2025-26: 15-18 · 8-14 conf
Tue, Nov 17 · TBD
75.8
win 14%
Projected
88.4
win 86%
No line posted yet.
Model: PROV −12.5 · total 164.2 · 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: Providence 70.9, Sacred Heart 69.0 → 71.6 possessions
+7.1
Providence offense vs Sacred Heart defense
+8.7
Sacred Heart offense vs Providence defense
+0.3
Projected total
164.2
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Providence offense vs Sacred Heart defense
+8.7
Sacred Heart offense vs Providence defense
−0.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Providence by 12.5
12.5
Sacred Heart side ◂▸ Providence side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 164.3 against a projected 164.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Providence.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Providence is the faster team (72.3, #21 of 365) and Sacred Heart the slower (68.4, #179). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
71.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
164.2
model
Projected team totals
75.8 / 88.4
Sacred Heart / Providence
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.0#126
Sacred Heart
70.9#18
Providence

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageProvidence
Where Providence scores: shooting
Providence shoots an effective 55.0% (#37); Sacred Heart allows 53.5% (#283). Expect about 54.6%, 3.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.7 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Track meet
Providence averages 72.3 possessions per 40, Sacred Heart 68.4. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageSacred Heart
Where Sacred Heart scores: ball control
Sacred Heart turns it over on 17.7% of possessions (#250); Providence forces turnovers on 13.1% of opponent possessions (#352). Expect about 14.9%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Providence) 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 Sacred Heart at about 47.8% of its shots from three, Providence about 42.9%.
TurnoversProvidence
Providence protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.3% is worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions for Providence's offense.
ClashProvidence
Style clash: ball movement
Providence creates off the dribble (assists on 47.5% of its baskets); Sacred Heart allows assists on 59.8% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 54.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
Sacred Heart has the ball
OffenseProvidence allowsvs D1 avg
52.0% #145
51.4% #179
+0.7 pt/100
17.7% #250
13.1% #352
+2.2 pt/100
28.6% #246
30.8% #195
-0.6 pt/100
31.0% #281
32.7% #125
-0.4 pt/100
78.0% #19
—
+0.5 pt/100
Sacred Heart net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.3 pts/100
Providence has the ball
OffenseSacred Heart allowsvs D1 avg
55.0% #37
53.5% #283
+4.7 pt/100
16.7% #174
14.5% #320
+1.8 pt/100
31.7% #135
30.9% #199
+0.7 pt/100
36.7% #138
27.0% #24
-0.5 pt/100
75.7% #60
—
+0.3 pt/100
Providence net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.0 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Sacred Heartoffense vsProvidencedefense
Share of shots by zone
Sacred Heart shoots
Providence allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim57.1%#22557.2%#12158.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)41.2%#14146.7%#32939.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)35.5%#27737.9%#15438.0%
Three35.7%#7335.3%#26533.7%
Providenceoffense vsSacred Heartdefense
Share of shots by zone
Providence shoots
Sacred Heart allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim61.2%#8860.4%#24658.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)40.7%#15648.2%#34139.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)40.2%#10738.1%#16238.0%
Three36.4%#4534.8%#24133.7%
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
Sacred Heart
−1.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#261 of 365
Off reb %
28.6%
#246
Def reb %
69.1%
#199
Turnover %
17.7%
#250
Forced TO %
14.5%
#320
FT rate
31.0%
#281
FT allowed
27.0%
#24
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.6
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers−1.5
Foul shots drawn−1.0
Foul shots allowed+2.1
Providence
−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#228 of 365
Off reb %
31.7%
#135
Def reb %
69.2%
#195
Turnover %
16.7%
#174
Forced TO %
13.1%
#352
FT rate
36.7%
#138
FT allowed
32.7%
#125
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.4
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security+0.1
Forcing turnovers−2.4
Foul shots drawn+0.4
Foul shots allowed+0.6

Providence has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.9 (#228 of 365) to Sacred Heart’s −1.7 (#261).

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

Sacred Heart2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
0Jaden SlaughterGSr6'5"32-920.75.33.31.10.950.7%35.5%1.079.5%16.4%
6Jo Van Buggenhoutat Indiana StGJr6'3"26-620.86.32.13.11.547.7%28.7%3.164.3%22.2%
13Abdou YaddFSo6'9"26-514.96.22.50.61.346.5%28.9%3.272.7%30.4%
24Jaylen Robinsonat RichmondFJr6'7"31-010.32.71.50.90.561.6%20.0%0.235.9%16.3%
11Samson Reillyat QuinnipiacGJr6'2"27-29.34.50.60.40.263.3%48.1%2.960.0%22.8%
55Malik SheppardGJr5'10"3-01.70.70.00.00.350.0%0.0%0.3—34.8%
8Jeremiah JacobsGSo6'8"1-03.04.01.00.00.0100.0%—0.0—38.5%
1Griffin BarroukGSr6'5"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
21Kevin PikiellGFr6'3"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
3Mooda GittensGFr6'4"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
15DJ BrownGFr6'3"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
23Jojo WallaceGJr6'3"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
10Kedrick CurtisFSr6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
14Landon KrygierFFr6'5"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Transfers in: Samson Reilly (from Quinnipiac), Jaylen Robinson (from Richmond), Jo Van Buggenhout (from Indiana St)

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
Sacred HeartProvidence
Efficiency
107.6
115.4
113.6
109.8
69.0
70.9
—
—
Shooting
52.0%
55.0%
50.4%
55.3%
35.7%
36.4%
78.0%
75.7%
31.0%
36.7%
Ball control & glass
17.7%
16.7%
14.5%
13.1%
28.6%
31.7%
30.9%
30.8%
10.2%
10.4%
9.3%
8.6%
Style
50.7%
40.5%
34.4%
43.4%
11.8%
14.3%
58.6%
47.5%
24.0%
30.8%
Roster
3.12
2.57
6'5.2"
6'6.4"
16.0%
73.6%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Sacred Heart
Returning minutes: 16.0%Returning production: 11.8%
Lost
  • Dashon Gittens 33.0 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Yann Farell 29.8 mpg, 11.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Nyle Ralph-Beyer 28.7 mpg, 13.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Mekhi Conner 27.8 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Anquan Hill 26.6 mpg, 14.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Fallou Gueye 10.8 mpg, 2.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Jo Van Buggenhout from Indiana St · 16.9 mpg, 5.1 ppg last season
  • Jaylen Robinson from Richmond · 10.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg last season
  • Samson Reilly from Quinnipiac · 7.8 mpg, 3.8 ppg last season
  • Kevin Pikiell no D1 minutes last season
  • Griffin Barrouk no D1 minutes last season
  • Landon Krygier no D1 minutes last season

Returns 16% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Providence
Returning minutes: 73.6%Returning production: 69.1%
Lost
  • Jaylin Sellers 30.0 mpg, 18.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Jamier Jones 24.2 mpg, 11.2 ppg · transferred to Missouri
Added
  • Rich Barron no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 74% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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.