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-conferenceConte Forum, Chestnut Hill, MA

Wagner

Efficiency #285

2025-26: 14-17 · 9-11 conf

Boston College

Efficiency #187

2025-26: 11-20 · 4-14 conf

Tue, Nov 3 · TBD

65.1

win 26%

Projected

72.6

win 74%

No line posted yet.

Model: BC −7.5 · total 137.7 · 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: Boston College 67.4, Wagner 67.0 → 66.1 possessions

−4.8

Boston College offense vs Wagner defense

−1.0

Wagner offense vs Boston College defense

−4.7

Projected total

137.7

Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Boston College offense vs Wagner defense

−1.0

Wagner offense vs Boston College defense

+4.7

Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors

+3.8

Boston College by 7.5

7.5

Wagner side ◂▸ Boston College 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 Boston College.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Boston College is the faster team (66.4, #281 of 365) and Wagner the slower (65.3, #323). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

137.7

model

Projected team totals

65.1 / 72.6

Wagner / Boston College

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.0#285

Wagner

67.4#262

Boston College

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet

AdvantageBoston College

Where Boston College struggles: shooting

Boston College shoots an effective 47.0% (#338); Wagner allows 50.4% (#123). Expect about 48.4%, 2.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.2 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Half-court grind

Boston College averages 66.4 possessions per 40, Wagner 65.3. 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.

AdvantageWagner

Where Wagner struggles: shooting

Wagner shoots an effective 49.6% (#262); Boston College allows 48.9% (#62). Expect about 49.1%, 2.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.1 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversBoston College

Boston College protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.8% is worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions for Boston College's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Boston College, Wagner) 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 Wagner at about 36.4% of its shots from three, Boston College about 39.4%.

ClashWagner

Strength vs strength: 3-point shooting

Wagner (#36 in 3-point shooting) against Boston College (#59 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 34.2%. Historically Wagner's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.25 vs 0.16).

Wagner has the ball

OffenseBoston College allowsvs D1 avg

49.6% #262

48.9% #62

-3.1 pt/100

18.5% #301

14.9% #300

+0.2 pt/100

32.8% #96

28.6% #87

+0.5 pt/100

32.3% #252

34.6% #166

-0.2 pt/100

72.6% #184

—

+0.0 pt/100

Wagner net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.6 pts/100

Boston College has the ball

OffenseWagner allowsvs D1 avg

47.0% #338

50.4% #123

-4.2 pt/100

15.4% #95

14.9% #294

+2.4 pt/100

28.3% #254

29.6% #139

-1.1 pt/100

32.4% #251

40.8% #309

+0.3 pt/100

65.3% #358

—

-0.6 pt/100

Boston College net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.3 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

Wagneroffense vsBoston Collegedefense

Share of shots by zone

Wagner shoots

40.3

7.6

16.3

35.8

Boston College allows

38.9

5.3

16.6

39.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	50.3%#359	57.1%#116	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	45.0%#64	35.6%#78	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.0%#109	36.0%#110	38.0%
Three	36.6%#36	31.9%#59	33.7%

Boston Collegeoffense vsWagnerdefense

Share of shots by zone

Boston College shoots

31.0

7.9

18.6

42.6

Wagner allows

41.2

6.9

15.7

36.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.3%#260	53.5%#31	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	45.7%#55	46.5%#326	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.0%#109	37.5%#141	38.0%
Three	29.4%#348	34.3%#202	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 numbers

Wagner

−3.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#312 of 365

Off reb %

32.8%

#96

Def reb %

70.4%

#139

Turnover %

18.5%

#301

Forced TO %

14.9%

#294

FT rate

32.3%

#252

FT allowed

40.8%

#309

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.8

Defensive rebounding+0.3

Ball security−1.2

Forcing turnovers−1.2

Foul shots drawn−0.7

Foul shots allowed−1.4

Boston College

−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#219 of 365

Off reb %

28.3%

#254

Def reb %

71.4%

#87

Turnover %

15.4%

#95

Forced TO %

14.9%

#300

FT rate

32.4%

#251

FT allowed

34.6%

#166

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.6

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers−1.2

Foul shots drawn−0.7

Foul shots allowed+0.2

Boston College has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.8 (#219 of 365) to Wagner’s −3.4 (#312).

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

Wagner2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Wagner'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
0	Nick Jones	G	Jr	6'2"	29-22	32.1	14.9	3.6	2.5	2.7	47.1%	28.3%	3.7	82.6%	31.7%
7	Eddie Placer	G	Jr	6'5"	30-14	25.9	8.5	2.4	1.3	1.1	51.1%	39.0%	4.5	77.8%	21.1%
9	Jaden Baker	G	Sr	6'2"	24-24	31.8	9.3	3.6	3.2	2.1	45.6%	35.4%	4.0	77.8%	22.2%
4	John Awoke	G	Jr	6'3"	29-10	26.2	7.1	3.0	2.0	1.4	48.7%	36.3%	3.5	78.6%	19.6%
22	Binael Basil	F	So	6'7"	30-21	22.7	8.9	6.1	1.1	1.5	57.3%	31.3%	0.5	56.4%	24.5%
10	Bryan Akanmu	F	Jr	6'6"	31-21	20.3	6.2	3.9	1.4	1.5	48.2%	0.0%	0.2	65.9%	23.0%
2	Travis Gray	G	Sr	6'5"	21-12	21.5	8.7	5.6	0.5	0.8	49.3%	34.9%	4.0	76.4%	25.4%
1	Zavier Fitch	F	So	6'7"	18-10	23.2	6.8	6.2	1.1	1.0	55.0%	37.9%	1.6	59.0%	17.9%
5	Michael Cooper	G	Jr	6'6"	31-5	13.4	4.8	2.4	0.6	0.9	48.6%	34.9%	1.4	82.4%	23.6%
15	Makhai Anderson	G	So	6'6"	22-7	9.5	3.4	2.2	0.4	0.4	50.0%	27.3%	0.5	67.6%	21.6%
3	Elijah Brown	G	Fr	6'4"	19-4	6.2	1.7	0.3	0.1	0.3	66.7%	66.7%	0.3	66.7%	14.8%
24	Sam Smith	F	Sr	6'6"	7-2	15.4	9.0	5.1	0.6	0.7	59.4%	33.3%	2.1	100.0%	28.8%
12	Huascar Cuevas	G	Jr	5'11"	5-3	13.4	2.6	1.0	0.6	1.6	55.0%	42.9%	1.4	100.0%	16.3%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Boston College2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Ernest Sheltonat Merrimack	G	Sr	6'5"	34-34	36.9	15.9	3.1	0.9	1.1	51.3%	34.6%	8.4	87.2%	25.2%
5	Armoni Zeiglerat Ball State	G	Sr	6'4"	31-29	32.4	12.5	5.1	3.3	2.7	45.0%	33.0%	3.0	77.9%	28.0%
0	Money Williamsat Montana	G	Sr	6'4"	34-34	31.2	20.6	4.3	4.7	4.1	54.7%	34.0%	4.2	85.5%	37.4%
20	Brandon Benjaminat Fairfield	F	So	6'8"	32-31	31.3	14.2	10.4	1.2	1.8	56.8%	25.0%	0.3	68.6%	26.5%
1	Andrija Bukumirovicat UT Martin	F	Sr	6'7"	32-32	29.3	13.8	7.8	1.0	1.3	59.0%	36.4%	4.0	57.5%	26.5%
11	JB Frankelat Northeastern	G	Sr	6'3"	30-13	20.7	5.9	2.0	1.9	0.9	42.9%	29.7%	3.7	84.0%	20.4%
33	Luke Hungerat G Washington	F	Sr	6'10"	33-13	19.2	8.4	5.1	0.9	1.5	52.9%	31.1%	1.4	81.7%	25.7%
13	Aly Tounkaraat Arkansas St	F	Jr	7'0"	32-21	18.2	4.3	5.5	0.5	1.0	62.9%	—	0.0	36.8%	13.9%
2	Colby Dugganat Charleston	F	Sr	6'7"	19-19	28.0	9.3	2.4	2.3	1.5	47.9%	29.5%	4.1	86.4%	21.4%
7	Jacob Furphyat UConn	G	So	6'5"	14-0	2.5	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.1	42.9%	0.0%	0.1	—	15.7%
12	Jameson O'Tooleat Fordham	G	Sr	6'3"	7-1	3.9	1.0	0.9	0.4	0.3	31.3%	20.0%	0.7	100.0%	23.0%
21	Will Eggemeier	G	Sr	6'3"	1-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	—	61.3%
22	Jack Bailey	F	Fr	6'10"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
24	ak Smrekar	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
14	Jordan Ghee	G	Fr	6'4"	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.

Transfers in: Brandon Benjamin (from Fairfield), Andrija Bukumirovic (from UT Martin), Colby Duggan (from Charleston), JB Frankel (from Northeastern), Jacob Furphy (from UConn), Luke Hunger (from G Washington), Jameson O'Toole (from Fordham), Ernest Shelton (from Merrimack), Aly Tounkara (from Arkansas St), Money Williams (from Montana), Armoni Zeigler (from Ball State)

Wagner2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Wagner'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
0	Nick Jones	G	Jr	6'2"	29-22	32.1	14.9	3.6	2.5	2.7	47.1%	28.3%	3.7	82.6%	31.7%
7	Eddie Placer	G	Jr	6'5"	30-14	25.9	8.5	2.4	1.3	1.1	51.1%	39.0%	4.5	77.8%	21.1%
9	Jaden Baker	G	Sr	6'2"	24-24	31.8	9.3	3.6	3.2	2.1	45.6%	35.4%	4.0	77.8%	22.2%
4	John Awoke	G	Jr	6'3"	29-10	26.2	7.1	3.0	2.0	1.4	48.7%	36.3%	3.5	78.6%	19.6%
22	Binael Basil	F	So	6'7"	30-21	22.7	8.9	6.1	1.1	1.5	57.3%	31.3%	0.5	56.4%	24.5%
10	Bryan Akanmu	F	Jr	6'6"	31-21	20.3	6.2	3.9	1.4	1.5	48.2%	0.0%	0.2	65.9%	23.0%
2	Travis Gray	G	Sr	6'5"	21-12	21.5	8.7	5.6	0.5	0.8	49.3%	34.9%	4.0	76.4%	25.4%
1	Zavier Fitch	F	So	6'7"	18-10	23.2	6.8	6.2	1.1	1.0	55.0%	37.9%	1.6	59.0%	17.9%
5	Michael Cooper	G	Jr	6'6"	31-5	13.4	4.8	2.4	0.6	0.9	48.6%	34.9%	1.4	82.4%	23.6%
15	Makhai Anderson	G	So	6'6"	22-7	9.5	3.4	2.2	0.4	0.4	50.0%	27.3%	0.5	67.6%	21.6%
3	Elijah Brown	G	Fr	6'4"	19-4	6.2	1.7	0.3	0.1	0.3	66.7%	66.7%	0.3	66.7%	14.8%
24	Sam Smith	F	Sr	6'6"	7-2	15.4	9.0	5.1	0.6	0.7	59.4%	33.3%	2.1	100.0%	28.8%
12	Huascar Cuevas	G	Jr	5'11"	5-3	13.4	2.6	1.0	0.6	1.6	55.0%	42.9%	1.4	100.0%	16.3%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Wagner

Against the spread

Season

15-12-1

Home

4-5-1

Road

11-7

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +3.2

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-13

Home

5-5

Road

10-8

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −1.9

Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	Long IslandAdjEM #195	A	L 56–64	+6.5	L−1.5	139.0	U120	87.6	100.1	63.9
Mar 4	C ConnecticutAdjEM #277	A	W 70–60	+3.5	W+13.5	138.5	U130	114.0	97.7	61.4
Feb 28	Chicago StAdjEM #342	H	W 80–61	−5.0	W+14.0	135.5	O141	116.2	88.6	68.9
Feb 26	New HavenAdjEM #326	H	W 65–62	−2.0	W+1.0	131.5	U127	104.3	99.5	62.3
Feb 21	Saint Francis Red Wolves	A	W 65–56	−1.5	W+7.5	152.0	U121	100.0	86.2	65.0
Feb 19	MercyhurstAdjEM #261	A	W 83–80 OT	+3.5	W+6.5	134.5	O163	111.4	107.3	74.5
Feb 16	Long IslandAdjEM #195	A	L 65–83	+10.5	L−7.5	137.0	O148	101.9	130.1	63.8
Feb 14	StonehillAdjEM #320	A	W 68–57	+3.0	W+14.0	129.5	U125	103.2	86.5	65.9
Feb 12	Long IslandAdjEM #195	H	L 57–67	+6.5	L−3.5	135.0	U124	81.2	95.5	70.2
Feb 7	C ConnecticutAdjEM #277	A	L 67–84	+5.0	L−12.0	136.5	O151	102.0	127.9	65.7

Boston College

Against the spread

Season

15-16

Home

9-8

Road

6-5

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +0.8

Covered 2 straightCovered 6 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 5 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

12-19

Home

6-11

Road

4-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −2.1

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 10 as an underdogOver in 2 of 5 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	Notre DameAdjEM #106	H	W 77–69	+2.5	W+10.5	142.0	O146	102.4	91.7	75.2
Mar 3	Virginia TechAdjEM #61	A	L 63–72	+11.5	W+2.5	143.0	U135	95.2	108.8	66.2
Feb 28	MiamiAdjEM #30	A	L 54–76	+16.0	L−6.0	144.5	U130	83.6	117.6	64.6
Feb 25	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	H	W 68–67	+4.0	W+5.0	144.5	U135	106.9	105.3	63.6
Feb 21	SMUAdjEM #44	A	L 70–94	+15.5	L−8.5	150.0	O164	106.6	143.1	65.7
Feb 17	Florida StAdjEM #74	A	L 72–80	+12.0	W+4.0	148.0	O152	107.6	119.6	66.9
Feb 14	CaliforniaAdjEM #79	H	L 75–86	+3.5	L−7.5	141.0	O161	116.1	133.1	64.6
Feb 11	StanfordAdjEM #77	H	L 64–70	+3.0	L−3.0	139.5	U134	93.4	102.2	68.5
Feb 7	MiamiAdjEM #30	H	L 68–74	+8.0	W+2.0	141.5	O142	97.4	106.0	69.8
Feb 3	#4DukeAdjEM #2	A	L 49–67	+26.5	W+8.5	142.0	U116	79.8	109.1	61.4

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 home

WagnerBoston College

Efficiency

105.3

103.8

111.6

104.5

67.0

67.4

—

Shooting

49.6%

47.0%

46.6%

49.1%

36.6%

29.4%

72.6%

65.3%

32.3%

32.4%

Ball control & glass

18.5%

15.4%

14.9%

32.8%

28.3%

29.6%

28.6%

10.7%

9.2%

10.4%

10.0%

Style

36.1%

42.4%

41.6%

40.9%

9.4%

9.5%

48.9%

47.4%

36.5%

30.0%

Roster

2.97

3.65

6'4.4"

6'6.3"

—

0.0%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

Wagner

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Wagner'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.)

Boston College

Returning minutes: 0.0%Returning production: -0.1%

Lost

Fred Payne 34.7 mpg, 15.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Donald Hand Jr. 27.8 mpg, 11.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Boden Kapke 26.8 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Aidan Shaw 25.5 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Chase Forte 23.3 mpg, 6.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jayden Hastings 22.6 mpg, 6.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Ernest Shelton from Merrimack · 36.9 mpg, 15.9 ppg last season
Armoni Zeigler from Ball State · 32.4 mpg, 12.5 ppg last season
Money Williams from Montana · 31.2 mpg, 20.6 ppg last season
Brandon Benjamin from Fairfield · 29.5 mpg, 13.4 ppg last season
Andrija Bukumirovic from UT Martin · 28.4 mpg, 13.3 ppg last season
JB Frankel from Northeastern · 20.0 mpg, 5.7 ppg last season

Returns 0% 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).

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.