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-conferenceSEC NetworkMizzou Arena, Columbia, MOACC/SEC Men's Challenge
Pitt
Efficiency #120
2025-26: 13-20 · 6-14 conf
@
Missouri
Efficiency #67
2025-26: 20-13 · 10-9 conf
Tue, Dec 1 · 7:00 PM ET
68.8
win 28%
Projected
75.7
win 72%
No line posted yet.
Model: MIZ −6.9 · total 144.4 · 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: Missouri 67.7, Pitt 65.9 → 65.3 possessions
−6.7
Missouri offense vs Pitt defense
+3.0
Pitt offense vs Missouri defense
−0.2
Projected total
144.4
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Missouri offense vs Pitt defense
+3.0
Pitt offense vs Missouri defense
+0.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Missouri by 6.9
6.9
Pitt side ◂▸ Missouri side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 144.3 against a projected 144.4, and the margin steps add to +7.0 against +6.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Missouri.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Missouri is the faster team (68.3, #182 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
65.3
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.4
model
Projected team totals
68.8 / 75.7
Pitt / Missouri
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
65.9#346
Pitt
67.7#235
Missouri
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageMissouri
Where Missouri scores: shooting
Missouri shoots an effective 55.0% (#36); Pitt allows 53.4% (#279). Expect about 54.5%, 3.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.6 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Missouri averages 68.3 possessions per 40, Pitt 64.5. 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.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Missouri'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 Pitt at about 44.2% of its shots from three, Missouri about 38.0%.
AdvantagePitt
Where Pitt scores: the offensive glass
Pitt rebounds 33.9% of its own misses (#72); Missouri lets opponents grab 31.7% of their own misses (#238). Expect about 33.5%, 3.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.
Pitt has the ball
OffenseMissouri allowsvs D1 avg
51.0% #193
51.5% #183
-0.1 pt/100
17.3% #225
16.5% #186
-0.1 pt/100
33.9% #72
31.7% #238
+1.9 pt/100
30.4% #300
35.5% #193
-0.2 pt/100
67.4% #336
—
-0.4 pt/100
Pitt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.0 pts/100
Missouri has the ball
OffensePitt allowsvs D1 avg
55.0% #36
53.4% #279
+4.6 pt/100
17.8% #261
16.2% #208
-0.3 pt/100
34.9% #48
28.1% #68
+1.2 pt/100
42.1% #28
30.9% #82
+0.1 pt/100
69.1% #298
—
-0.3 pt/100
Missouri net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersPittoffense vsMissouridefense
Share of shots by zone
Pitt shoots
37.1
5.6
14.8
42.5
Missouri allows
32.8
7.0
17.0
43.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.3%#217 | 55.4%#72 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 35.4%#281 | 39.5%#172 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.1%#35 | 36.2%#116 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.4%#206 | 36.8%#341 | 33.7% |
Missourioffense vsPittdefense
Share of shots by zone
Missouri shoots
43.9
7.6
12.5
35.9
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 | 65.0%#21 | 60.0%#225 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.8%#247 | 44.3%#278 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 34.5%#301 | 38.8%#193 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#112 | 35.2%#263 | 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 numbersPitt
+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
Missouri
+2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#97 of 365
Off reb %
34.9%
#48
Def reb %
68.3%
#238
Turnover %
17.8%
#261
Forced TO %
16.5%
#186
FT rate
42.1%
#28
FT allowed
35.5%
#193
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.5
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security−0.7
Forcing turnovers−0.2
Foul shots drawn+1.8
Foul shots allowed−0.1
Missouri has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.0 (#97 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
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.
Missouri2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Jordan Crawfordat South Dakota | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 31.2 | 14.4 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 51.7% | 36.8% | 6.5 | 74.5% | 26.1% | |
| 0 | Cord Stansberryat W Carolina | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-29 | 30.0 | 14.1 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 43.6% | 29.6% | 6.3 | 80.3% | 30.2% | |
| 4 | Kennard Davis Jr.at BYU | G | Sr | 6'6" | 32-32 | 29.5 | 8.5 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 50.6% | 32.1% | 5.2 | 75.0% | 16.8% | |
| 15 | Bryson Tillerat Kansas | F | So | 6'11" | 35-31 | 25.9 | 7.9 | 6.1 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 48.0% | 26.9% | 1.5 | 69.4% | 21.3% | |
| 1 | Jamier Jonesat Providence | G | So | 6'6" | 31-19 | 25.7 | 11.9 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 59.5% | 38.7% | 1.0 | 66.4% | 24.7% | |
| 23 | Jaylen Careyat Tennessee | F | Sr | 6'8" | 37-8 | 18.4 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 48.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 49.1% | 27.3% | |
| 11 | Trent Pierce | G | Sr | 6'10" | 20-12 | 28.4 | 10.4 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 59.7% | 38.4% | 5.0 | 75.0% | 19.3% | |
| 45 | Luke Northweather | F | Sr | 6'11" | 20-2 | 12.3 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 61.1% | 41.9% | 1.6 | 57.1% | 12.6% | |
| 7 | Trent Burns | C | Jr | 7'5" | 21-0 | 8.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 45.6% | 7.7% | 0.6 | 50.0% | 19.0% | |
| 6 | Annor Boateng | G | Jr | 6'6" | 15-4 | 11.5 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 37.5% | 25.0% | 1.3 | 50.0% | 23.2% | |
| 24 | Nicholas Randall | F | So | 6'9" | 22-0 | 5.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 27.8% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 15.5% | |
| 2 | Aaron Rowe | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Aidan Chronister | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Jason Crowe Jr. | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Toni Bryant | F | Fr | 6'10" | 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: Jaylen Carey (from Tennessee), Jordan Crawford (from South Dakota), Kennard Davis Jr. (from BYU), Jamier Jones (from Providence), Cord Stansberry (from W Carolina), Bryson Tiller (from Kansas)
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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Pitt
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 |
Missouri
Against the spread
Season
14-19
Home
8-10
Road
6-5
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −1.2
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-15-1
Home
11-7
Road
4-6-1
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +3.7
Over 3 straightOver in 5 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #7Miami | N | L 66–80 | +1.0 | L−13.0 | 145.5 | O146 | 98.3 | 119.1 | 67.2 |
| Mar 12 | Kentucky | N | L 72–78 | +3.5 | L−2.5 | 149.5 | O150 | 104.5 | 113.2 | 68.9 |
| Mar 7 | #20Arkansas | H | L 84–88 OT | −2.5 | L−6.5 | 161.5 | O172 | 109.9 | 115.1 | 76.4 |
| Mar 3 | Oklahoma | A | L 64–80 | +1.0 | L−15.0 | 154.0 | U144 | 100.7 | 125.9 | 63.5 |
| Feb 28 | Mississippi St | A | W 88–64 | −1.0 | W+23.0 | 154.5 | U152 | 127.9 | 93.0 | 68.8 |
| Feb 24 | #22Tennessee | H | W 73–69 | +4.0 | W+8.0 | 144.0 | U142 | 111.4 | 105.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 21 | #20Arkansas | A | L 86–94 | +9.5 | W+1.5 | 159.5 | O180 | 125.7 | 137.4 | 68.4 |
| Feb 18 | #19Vanderbilt | H | W 81–80 | +3.0 | W+4.0 | 155.0 | O161 | 115.9 | 114.5 | 69.9 |
| Feb 14 | Texas | H | L 68–85 | −2.0 | L−19.0 | 150.5 | O153 | 105.4 | 131.8 | 64.5 |
| Feb 11 | Texas A&M | A | W 86–85 | +6.5 | W+7.5 | 160.0 | O171 | 131.0 | 129.5 | 65.6 |
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 homePittMissouri
Efficiency
110.2
114.0
107.6
106.5
65.9
67.7
—
—
Shooting
51.0%
55.0%
51.7%
56.4%
33.4%
35.0%
67.4%
69.1%
30.4%
42.1%
Ball control & glass
17.3%
17.8%
16.2%
16.5%
33.9%
34.9%
28.1%
31.7%
9.5%
9.6%
9.2%
9.7%
Style
42.6%
36.4%
41.5%
48.3%
12.6%
14.1%
52.3%
51.2%
22.7%
32.1%
Roster
2.02
3.39
6'3.6"
6'6.9"
55.7%
19.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputPitt
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.
Missouri
Returning minutes: 19.4%Returning production: 13.8%
Lost
- Mark Mitchell Jr. 33.8 mpg, 18.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Anthony Robinson II 27.0 mpg, 8.9 ppg · transferred to Florida St
- Jayden Stone 23.6 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- T.O. Barrett 22.8 mpg, 8.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jacob Crews 20.7 mpg, 8.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Shawn Phillips Jr. 19.3 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jordan Crawford from South Dakota · 31.2 mpg, 14.4 ppg last season
- Cord Stansberry from W Carolina · 29.1 mpg, 13.7 ppg last season
- Kennard Davis Jr. from BYU · 27.0 mpg, 7.7 ppg last season
- Bryson Tiller from Kansas · 25.9 mpg, 7.9 ppg last season
- Jamier Jones from Providence · 24.2 mpg, 11.2 ppg last season
- Jaylen Carey from Tennessee · 18.4 mpg, 7.4 ppg last season
Returns 19% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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 lastNo 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.