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-conferenceFifth Third Arena, Cincinnati, OHCrosstown Shootout
Xavier
Efficiency #129
2025-26: 15-18 · 7-15 conf
@
Cincinnati
Efficiency #52
2025-26: 18-15 · 10-10 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
70.2
win 22%
Projected
79.1
win 78%
No line posted yet.
Model: CIN −8.9 · total 149.3 · 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: Cincinnati 68.5, Xavier 70.3 → 70.5 possessions
+4.7
Cincinnati offense vs Xavier defense
+0.6
Xavier offense vs Cincinnati defense
−4.2
Projected total
149.3
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Cincinnati offense vs Xavier defense
+0.6
Xavier offense vs Cincinnati defense
+4.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Cincinnati by 8.9
8.9
Xavier side ◂▸ Cincinnati side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Cincinnati.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Xavier is the faster team (71.2, #44 of 365) and Cincinnati the slower (69.2, #136). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
70.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.3
model
Projected team totals
70.2 / 79.1
Xavier / Cincinnati
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.3#33
Xavier
68.5#163
Cincinnati

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
ClashCincinnati
Style match: ball movement
Cincinnati assists on 63.7% of its made baskets; Xavier allows assists on 63.3% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 66.8% — both habits push the same way.
Pace
Track meet
Cincinnati averages 69.2 possessions per 40, Xavier 71.2. 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.
AdvantageXavier
Where Xavier struggles: the offensive glass
Xavier rebounds 26.5% of its own misses (#311); Cincinnati lets opponents grab 27.3% of their own misses (#45). Expect about 26.2%, 4.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Xavier, Cincinnati'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 Xavier at about 40.6% of its shots from three, Cincinnati about 41.2%.
ClashXavier
Strength vs strength: 3-point shooting
Xavier (#39 in 3-point shooting) against Cincinnati (#35 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 34.0%. Historically Xavier's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.25 vs 0.16).
ClashCincinnati
Style clash: paint scoring
Cincinnati gets only 36.8% of its points in the paint; Xavier gives up 47.0% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
Xavier has the ball
OffenseCincinnati allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #155
47.3% #27
-2.4 pt/100
13.9% #21
18.2% #89
+0.9 pt/100
26.5% #311
27.3% #45
-2.6 pt/100
28.1% #341
30.0% #58
-0.8 pt/100
72.9% #174
—
+0.0 pt/100
Xavier net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.9 pts/100
Cincinnati has the ball
OffenseXavier allowsvs D1 avg
50.5% #213
54.1% #302
+1.5 pt/100
17.0% #203
15.5% #248
+0.8 pt/100
30.6% #174
29.5% #136
-0.2 pt/100
29.4% #323
32.6% #119
-0.5 pt/100
68.1% #325
—
-0.4 pt/100
Cincinnati net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.3 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Xavieroffense vsCincinnatidefense
Share of shots by zone
Xavier shoots
Cincinnati allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim58.2%#19053.7%#3558.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)45.2%#6139.4%#17039.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)37.6%#19941.9%#29838.0%
Three36.5%#3931.0%#3533.7%
Cincinnatioffense vsXavierdefense
Share of shots by zone
Cincinnati shoots
Xavier allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim59.9%#12062.0%#30158.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)40.0%#17136.5%#10039.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)38.4%#17340.6%#26138.0%
Three33.9%#17534.8%#23733.7%
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
Xavier
−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#223 of 365
Off reb %
26.5%
#311
Def reb %
70.5%
#136
Turnover %
13.9%
#21
Forced TO %
15.5%
#248
FT rate
28.1%
#341
FT allowed
32.6%
#119
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.2
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security+1.9
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn−1.8
Foul shots allowed+0.7
Cincinnati
+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#100 of 365
Off reb %
30.6%
#174
Def reb %
72.7%
#45
Turnover %
17.0%
#203
Forced TO %
18.2%
#89
FT rate
29.4%
#323
FT allowed
30.0%
#58
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.1
Defensive rebounding+1.1
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers+1.0
Foul shots drawn−1.4
Foul shots allowed+1.3

Cincinnati has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#100 of 365) to Xavier’s −0.9 (#223).

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

Xavier2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
1Malik Messina-MooreGSr6'5"33-3333.210.93.03.81.546.7%31.8%4.880.0%20.4%
4Filip BorovicaninFSr6'9"33-3231.210.87.44.21.849.3%34.9%3.287.3%21.7%
24Jovan MilicevicFSo6'10"33-3126.112.43.91.41.354.9%42.9%4.772.8%26.0%
0Roddie Anderson IIIGSr6'3"33-523.810.93.32.21.345.7%31.4%3.772.2%29.3%
3All WrightGSo6'3"33-2822.27.51.62.00.656.5%42.2%2.784.1%17.4%
7Isaiah WalkerGSr6'5"32-117.04.72.70.70.357.6%41.1%1.880.0%14.0%
22Pape N'DiayeFSo7'0"29-09.32.02.30.20.256.4%42.9%0.755.6%11.7%
21Anthony RobinsonFSo6'10"26-310.02.32.40.30.654.3%—0.043.4%16.5%
9Mier PanoamGJr6'2"7-05.60.90.90.70.425.0%0.0%0.140.0%18.8%
31Ian SabourinFSr6'4"6-01.21.20.20.00.0150.0%100.0%0.350.0%23.5%
20Henry TholeFSo6'7"5-01.20.60.00.00.0100.0%—0.050.0%17.8%
25Michael WolfGSr6'1"4-01.50.00.30.30.00.0%0.0%0.3—8.9%
2Gabriel PozzatoFSo6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
15Kason WestphalCFr7'0"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
8Luke NaserGSo6'2"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.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
XavierCincinnati
Efficiency
111.7
108.5
109.4
99.2
70.3
68.5
—
—
Shooting
51.8%
50.5%
49.8%
50.2%
36.5%
33.9%
72.9%
68.1%
28.1%
29.4%
Ball control & glass
13.9%
17.0%
15.5%
18.2%
26.5%
30.6%
29.5%
27.3%
8.2%
8.3%
10.2%
6.8%
Style
40.6%
43.8%
38.8%
36.8%
17.2%
15.3%
62.2%
63.7%
27.4%
29.1%
Roster
3.23
2.24
6'6.5"
6'7"
84.8%
44.8%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Xavier
Returning minutes: 84.8%Returning production: 79.8%
Lost
  • Tre Carroll 30.7 mpg, 17.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Gabriel Pozzato no D1 minutes last season
  • Kason Westphal no D1 minutes last season
  • Luke Naser no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 85% 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).

Cincinnati
Returning minutes: 44.8%Returning production: 40.2%
Lost
  • Day Day Thomas 30.4 mpg, 11.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Baba Miller 29.9 mpg, 12.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Jalen Celestine 23.1 mpg, 8.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Sencire Harris 15.9 mpg, 5.4 ppg · transferred to E Michigan
  • Shon Abaev 11.6 mpg, 5.1 ppg · transferred to Florida St
Added
  • Jalen Haynes no D1 minutes last season
  • Bryson Buckingham no D1 minutes last season
  • Lucas Atauri no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 45% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5.

Head-to-head

this season and last
DateSeasonResult
Fri, Dec 52025-26Cincinnati 74 – 79 Xavier

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.