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-conferenceNeutral siteThe Palestra, Philadelphia, PA
Penn State
Efficiency #194
2025-26: 12-20 · 3-18 conf
vs
Pitt
Efficiency #120
2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf
Sun, Nov 8 · TBD
72.5
win 42%
Projected
74.9
win 58%
No line posted yet.
Model: PITT −2.4 · total 147.4 · 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: Pitt 65.9, Penn State 68.4 → 66.0 possessions
−5.1
Pitt offense vs Penn State defense
+3.3
Penn State offense vs Pitt defense
+0.9
Projected total
147.4
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Pitt offense vs Penn State defense
+3.3
Penn State offense vs Pitt defense
−0.9
Pitt by 2.4
2.4
Penn State side ◂▸ Pitt side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 147.3 against a projected 147.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Pitt.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Penn State is the faster team (67.5, #224 of 365) and Pitt the slower (64.5, #340). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
147.4
model
Projected team totals
72.5 / 74.9
Penn State / Pitt
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.4#175
Penn State
65.9#346
Pitt
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantagePitt
Where Pitt scores: shooting
Pitt shoots an effective 51.0% (#193); Penn State allows 58.4% (#363). Expect about 54.8%, 3.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.0 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Pitt averages 64.5 possessions per 40, Penn State 67.5. 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.
AdvantagePenn State
Where Penn State scores: shooting
Penn State shoots an effective 53.0% (#102); Pitt allows 53.4% (#279). Expect about 53.3%, 2.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.9 points per 100 possessions.
GlassPenn State
Penn State gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.1% is worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions against Penn State's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Penn State'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 Penn State at about 39.3% of its shots from three, Pitt about 44.5%.
GlassPitt
Pitt owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.2% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Pitt's offense.
Penn State has the ball
OffensePitt allowsvs D1 avg
53.0% #102
53.4% #279
+2.9 pt/100
15.6% #108
16.2% #208
+1.2 pt/100
25.9% #325
28.1% #68
-2.6 pt/100
33.8% #219
30.9% #82
-0.4 pt/100
75.0% #83
—
+0.2 pt/100
Penn State net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.4 pts/100
Pitt has the ball
OffensePenn State allowsvs D1 avg
51.0% #193
58.4% #363
+5.0 pt/100
17.3% #225
17.7% #113
-1.1 pt/100
33.9% #72
31.1% #210
+1.7 pt/100
30.4% #300
27.5% #28
-0.8 pt/100
67.4% #336
—
-0.4 pt/100
Pitt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersPenn Stateoffense vsPittdefense
Share of shots by zone
Penn State shoots
38.7
5.6
17.9
37.7
Pitt allows
40.2
6.4
12.8
40.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.1%#69 | 60.0%#225 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 42.5%#111 | 44.3%#278 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.8%#42 | 38.8%#193 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.4%#263 | 35.2%#263 | 33.7% |
Pittoffense vsPenn Statedefense
Share of shots by zone
Pitt shoots
37.1
5.6
14.8
42.5
Penn State allows
39.1
5.8
12.5
42.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.3%#217 | 67.3%#362 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.4%#281 | 35.2%#63 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.1%#35 | 43.7%#338 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.4%#206 | 38.8%#363 | 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 numbersPenn State
+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#118 of 365
Off reb %
25.9%
#325
Def reb %
68.9%
#210
Turnover %
15.6%
#108
Forced TO %
17.7%
#113
FT rate
33.8%
#219
FT allowed
27.5%
#28
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.4
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security+0.8
Forcing turnovers+0.7
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed+2.0
Pitt
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#131 of 365
Off reb %
33.9%
#72
Def reb %
71.9%
#68
Turnover %
17.3%
#225
Forced TO %
16.2%
#208
FT rate
30.4%
#300
FT allowed
30.9%
#82
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.1
Penn State has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#118 of 365) to Pitt’s +1.2 (#131).
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
Penn State2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Josh Reed | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-31 | 28.2 | 11.5 | 4.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 55.3% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 87.2% | 22.0% | |
| 4 | Kayden Mingo | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-28 | 32.1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 51.2% | 24.4% | 3.1 | 70.5% | 26.9% | |
| 3 | Ivan Juric | F | Fr | 7'0" | 30-26 | 26.4 | 10.2 | 5.3 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 61.6% | 28.3% | 1.8 | 66.1% | 22.5% | |
| 7 | Dominick Stewart | G | So | 6'5" | 32-24 | 22.5 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 51.5% | 34.8% | 3.5 | 79.1% | 18.1% | |
| 9 | Melih Tunca | G | Fr | 6'5" | 31-12 | 22.8 | 7.8 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 50.3% | 31.3% | 2.1 | 77.0% | 22.1% | |
| 11 | Eli Rice | G | So | 6'8" | 29-18 | 19.8 | 6.7 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 51.6% | 39.0% | 3.6 | 77.3% | 20.3% | |
| 1 | Mason Blackwood | F | Fr | 6'7" | 26-1 | 12.3 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 54.5% | 22.2% | 1.0 | 77.8% | 12.5% | |
| 22 | Sasa Ciani | F | Jr | 6'10" | 28-4 | 10.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 39.8% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 68.2% | 16.0% | |
| 16 | Tibor Mirtic | F | Fr | 6'9" | 15-1 | 14.2 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 54.3% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 30.8% | 17.6% | |
| 21 | Justin Houser | F | Fr | 7'0" | 18-0 | 6.2 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | 62.5% | 16.2% | |
| 30 | Chris Lotito | F | Fr | 6'7" | 4-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 9.7% | |
| 12 | Reggie Grodin | G | Fr | 6'5" | 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.
Pitt2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Damarco Minor | G | Sr | 6'0" | 33-32 | 32.1 | 8.5 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 48.3% | 31.6% | 5.3 | 88.3% | 18.4% | |
| 8 | Omari Witherspoon | G | Fr | 6'4" | 33-25 | 27.8 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 43.2% | 28.7% | 2.6 | 64.5% | 23.6% | |
| 13 | Roman Siulepa | F | Fr | 6'6" | 33-33 | 26.7 | 10.0 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 51.5% | 29.6% | 3.0 | 50.0% | 24.7% | |
| 3 | Brandin Cummings | G | So | 6'3" | 19-9 | 26.3 | 12.5 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 50.5% | 32.6% | 4.8 | 71.8% | 29.5% | |
| 21 | Macari Moore | G | Fr | 6'3" | 21-0 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 46.0% | 75.0% | 0.2 | 87.5% | 20.6% | |
| 4 | Papa Amadou Kante | F | So | 6'10" | 8-0 | 14.3 | 2.8 | 5.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 45.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 44.4% | 14.3% | |
| 12 | Kieran Mullen | C | Fr | 7'0" | 18-0 | 6.0 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 100.0% | 11.0% | |
| 0 | Amdy Ndiaye | F | So | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 35 | Benjamin Mayhew | F | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Dishon Jackson | C | Sr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Henry Lau | F | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 44 | Jajuan Nelson | F | Jr | 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.
Penn State2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Josh Reed | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-31 | 28.2 | 11.5 | 4.1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 55.3% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 87.2% | 22.0% | |
| 4 | Kayden Mingo | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-28 | 32.1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 51.2% | 24.4% | 3.1 | 70.5% | 26.9% | |
| 3 | Ivan Juric | F | Fr | 7'0" | 30-26 | 26.4 | 10.2 | 5.3 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 61.6% | 28.3% | 1.8 | 66.1% | 22.5% | |
| 7 | Dominick Stewart | G | So | 6'5" | 32-24 | 22.5 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 51.5% | 34.8% | 3.5 | 79.1% | 18.1% | |
| 9 | Melih Tunca | G | Fr | 6'5" | 31-12 | 22.8 | 7.8 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 50.3% | 31.3% | 2.1 | 77.0% | 22.1% | |
| 11 | Eli Rice | G | So | 6'8" | 29-18 | 19.8 | 6.7 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 51.6% | 39.0% | 3.6 | 77.3% | 20.3% | |
| 1 | Mason Blackwood | F | Fr | 6'7" | 26-1 | 12.3 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 54.5% | 22.2% | 1.0 | 77.8% | 12.5% | |
| 22 | Sasa Ciani | F | Jr | 6'10" | 28-4 | 10.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 39.8% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 68.2% | 16.0% | |
| 16 | Tibor Mirtic | F | Fr | 6'9" | 15-1 | 14.2 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 54.3% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 30.8% | 17.6% | |
| 21 | Justin Houser | F | Fr | 7'0" | 18-0 | 6.2 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.5 | 62.5% | 16.2% | |
| 30 | Chris Lotito | F | Fr | 6'7" | 4-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 9.7% | |
| 12 | Reggie Grodin | G | Fr | 6'5" | 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 2025-26Penn State
Against the spread
Season
12-20
Home
7-10
Road
4-7
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −5.2
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
18-14
Home
9-8
Road
8-3
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −1.6
Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | Northwestern | N | L 66–76 | +5.0 | L−5.0 | 144.5 | U142 | 103.9 | 119.6 | 63.6 |
| Mar 8 | Rutgers | A | L 62–74 | +5.0 | L−7.0 | 150.5 | U136 | 89.5 | 106.8 | 69.3 |
| Mar 4 | Ohio State | H | L 62–94 | +7.0 | L−25.0 | 152.0 | O156 | 95.7 | 145.1 | 64.8 |
| Feb 28 | Iowa | H | W 71–69 | +9.0 | W+11.0 | 144.0 | U140 | 119.5 | 116.1 | 59.4 |
| Feb 21 | #9Nebraska | A | L 64–87 | +17.5 | L−5.5 | 147.5 | O151 | 92.2 | 125.4 | 69.4 |
| Feb 18 | Rutgers | H | L 72–85 | −4.5 | L−17.5 | 149.0 | O157 | 105.6 | 124.7 | 68.2 |
| Feb 14 | Oregon | A | L 72–83 | +6.5 | L−4.5 | 147.0 | O155 | 109.7 | 126.5 | 65.6 |
| Feb 11 | Washington | A | W 63–60 | +12.5 | W+15.5 | 153.0 | U123 | 96.3 | 91.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 8 | USC | H | L 75–77 | +3.0 | W+1.0 | 157.0 | U152 | 103.7 | 106.4 | 72.3 |
| Feb 5 | #2Michigan | A | L 69–110 | +26.5 | L−14.5 | 162.0 | O179 | 96.9 | 154.5 | 71.2 |
Pitt
Against the spread
Season
15-16-2
Home
9-9
Road
4-5-2
Last 10
6-3-1
avg cover +2.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
18-15
Home
13-5
Road
4-7
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.6
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 | NC State | N | L 88–98 | +9.0 | L−1.0 | 144.5 | O186 | 133.6 | 148.8 | 65.8 |
| Mar 10 | Stanford | N | W 64–63 | +5.0 | W+6.0 | 136.5 | U127 | 109.3 | 107.6 | 58.6 |
| Mar 7 | Syracuse | A | W 71–69 OT | +6.5 | W+8.5 | 142.0 | U140 | 104.0 | 101.0 | 68.3 |
| Mar 4 | Florida St | H | L 74–75 | +1.5 | W+0.5 | 145.0 | O149 | 112.8 | 114.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 28 | California | A | W 72–56 | +7.5 | W+23.5 | 143.5 | U128 | 107.5 | 83.6 | 67.0 |
| Feb 25 | Stanford | A | L 67–75 | +8.0 | P0.0 | 138.5 | O142 | 109.1 | 122.1 | 61.4 |
| Feb 21 | Notre Dame | H | W 73–68 | −2.5 | W+2.5 | 139.0 | O141 | 116.4 | 108.4 | 62.7 |
| Feb 14 | #11North Carolina | A | L 65–79 | +11.5 | L−2.5 | 145.0 | U144 | 99.3 | 120.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 10 | #4Duke | H | L 54–70 | +17.5 | W+1.5 | 136.5 | U124 | 88.1 | 114.2 | 61.3 |
| Feb 7 | SMU | H | L 67–86 | +4.5 | L−14.5 | 147.5 | O153 | 101.4 | 130.2 | 66.1 |
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 homePenn StatePitt
Efficiency
110.8
110.2
111.8
107.6
68.4
65.9
—
—
Shooting
53.0%
51.0%
55.8%
51.7%
32.4%
33.4%
75.0%
67.4%
33.8%
30.4%
Ball control & glass
15.6%
17.3%
17.7%
16.2%
25.9%
33.9%
31.1%
28.1%
8.6%
9.5%
9.8%
9.2%
Style
38.1%
42.6%
46.1%
41.5%
14.8%
12.6%
48.3%
52.3%
33.2%
22.7%
Roster
1.82
2.02
6'7.1"
6'3.6"
86.3%
55.7%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputPenn State
Returning minutes: 86.3%Returning production: 82.2%
Lost
- Freddie Dilione V 27.5 mpg, 14.0 ppg · transferred to Georgia
Added
- Reggie Grodin no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 86% of last season's minutes; lost 1 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).
Pitt
Returning minutes: 55.7%Returning production: 50.3%
Lost
- Cameron Corhen 33.8 mpg, 13.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Barry Dunning Jr. 31.8 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nojus Indrusaitis 23.6 mpg, 9.1 ppg · transferred to California
Added
- Benjamin Mayhew no D1 minutes last season
- Henry Lau no D1 minutes last season
- Jajuan Nelson no D1 minutes last season
- Amdy Ndiaye no D1 minutes last season
- Dishon Jackson no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 56% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sun, Dec 21 | 2025-26 | Pitt 80 – 46 Penn State(N) |
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.