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
NJIT
Efficiency #331
2025-26: 16-17 · 11-7 conf
@
Boston College
Efficiency #187
2025-26: 11-20 · 4-14 conf
Sun, Nov 22 · TBD
63.5
win 19%
Projected
73.8
win 81%
No line posted yet.
Model: BC −10.3 · total 137.3 · 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: Boston College 67.4, NJIT 68.7 → 67.8 possessions
−1.2
Boston College offense vs NJIT defense
−1.7
NJIT offense vs Boston College defense
−8.1
Projected total
137.3
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Boston College offense vs NJIT defense
−1.7
NJIT offense vs Boston College defense
+8.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Boston College by 10.3
10.3
NJIT side ◂▸ Boston College side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 137.2 against a projected 137.3. 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: 67.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, NJIT is the faster team (67.9, #204 of 365) and Boston College the slower (66.4, #281). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
67.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
137.3
model
Projected team totals
63.5 / 73.8
NJIT / Boston College
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.7#140
NJIT
67.4#262
Boston College

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageNJIT
Where NJIT struggles: shooting
NJIT shoots an effective 46.7% (#342); Boston College allows 48.9% (#62). Expect about 47.4%, 3.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.5 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageBoston College
Where Boston College struggles: shooting
Boston College shoots an effective 47.0% (#338); NJIT allows 50.0% (#99). Expect about 48.2%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.4 points per 100 possessions.
GlassNJIT
NJIT gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.6% is worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions against NJIT's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Boston College, NJIT) 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 NJIT at about 39.7% of its shots from three, Boston College about 42.6%.
NJIT has the ball
OffenseBoston College allowsvs D1 avg
46.7% #342
48.9% #62
-5.5 pt/100
17.1% #210
14.9% #300
+1.3 pt/100
26.2% #316
28.6% #87
-2.3 pt/100
33.2% #233
34.6% #166
-0.1 pt/100
70.5% #253
—
-0.2 pt/100
NJIT net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.8 pts/100
Boston College has the ball
OffenseNJIT allowsvs D1 avg
47.0% #338
50.0% #99
-4.4 pt/100
15.4% #95
16.2% #210
+1.4 pt/100
28.3% #254
32.1% #264
-0.4 pt/100
32.4% #251
37.9% #258
+0.1 pt/100
65.3% #358
—
-0.6 pt/100
Boston College net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.0 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
NJIToffense vsBoston Collegedefense
Share of shots by zone
NJIT shoots
Boston College allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim53.7%#32457.1%#11658.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)40.7%#15235.6%#7839.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)38.4%#17536.0%#11038.0%
Three30.4%#33631.9%#5933.7%
Boston Collegeoffense vsNJITdefense
Share of shots by zone
Boston College shoots
NJIT allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim56.3%#26057.8%#14258.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)45.7%#5543.7%#26139.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)40.0%#10930.7%#738.0%
Three29.4%#34832.3%#7933.7%
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
NJIT
−3.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#316 of 365
Off reb %
26.2%
#316
Def reb %
67.9%
#264
Turnover %
17.1%
#210
Forced TO %
16.2%
#210
FT rate
33.2%
#233
FT allowed
37.9%
#258
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.3
Defensive rebounding−0.5
Ball security−0.2
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn−0.5
Foul shots allowed−0.7
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 NJIT’s −3.5 (#316).

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

NJIT2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted NJIT's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
1David BoldenGFr6'0"33-3329.811.82.82.82.041.9%31.8%6.780.2%28.6%
24Ari FultonGSo6'7"33-3228.310.96.21.21.547.1%26.2%3.278.9%24.2%
3Jordan RogersFSo6'6"33-3326.65.85.22.21.554.7%33.3%1.866.7%14.7%
0Sebastian RobinsonGJr6'3"30-1527.414.83.02.21.946.8%24.0%1.770.1%35.7%
11Melvyn EbonkoliFSr6'8"21-1826.17.35.70.61.751.6%—0.052.4%20.1%
25John KellyFSo6'8"33-015.64.32.50.40.647.1%34.2%1.268.8%17.6%
14Quentin DuncanGSo6'4"33-413.64.41.70.50.350.8%37.6%2.652.0%19.9%
44Rocco AwadGFr6'1"33-112.83.11.30.30.639.2%26.4%2.676.9%19.7%
32Malachi ArringtonCSo6'11"29-1514.23.93.70.00.759.7%—0.055.3%16.4%
2Jeremy ClayvilleGSo6'1"16-1419.46.81.51.51.342.7%30.1%5.2100.0%26.6%
33Zack ScherlerFFr6'11"19-06.51.01.20.20.350.0%—0.055.6%10.8%
8Jeffrey AkintoluFJr6'7"19-05.60.70.90.00.230.0%13.3%0.850.0%13.9%
7Cameron PiggeeGJr6'1"18-05.41.80.30.40.241.9%32.0%1.485.7%21.9%
5AJ AltobelliGFr6'0"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
13Stefan Jimenez-VojnicCSo6'11"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
NJITBoston College
Efficiency
100.5
103.8
110.6
104.5
68.7
67.4
—
—
Shooting
46.7%
47.0%
47.5%
49.1%
30.4%
29.4%
70.5%
65.3%
33.2%
32.4%
Ball control & glass
17.1%
15.4%
16.2%
14.9%
26.2%
28.3%
32.1%
28.6%
9.6%
9.2%
9.0%
10.0%
Style
40.1%
42.4%
40.9%
40.9%
12.9%
9.5%
45.7%
47.4%
33.0%
30.0%
Roster
2.09
3.65
6'4.9"
6'6.3"
—
0.0%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
NJIT
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted NJIT'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.