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-conferenceJMA Wireless Dome, Syracuse, NY
New Haven
Efficiency #326
2025-26: 14-17 · 9-9 conf
@
Syracuse
Efficiency #85
2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
62.3
win 13%
Projected
75.5
win 87%
No line posted yet.
Model: SYR −13.3 · total 137.8 · 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: Syracuse 68.3, New Haven 65.7 → 65.7 possessions
−5.7
Syracuse offense vs New Haven defense
+2.4
New Haven offense vs Syracuse defense
−7.1
Projected total
137.8
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Syracuse offense vs New Haven defense
+2.4
New Haven offense vs Syracuse defense
+7.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Syracuse by 13.3
13.3
New Haven side ◂▸ Syracuse 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 Syracuse.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 65.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Syracuse is the faster team (67.8, #212 of 365) and New Haven the slower (63.5, #360). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
65.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
137.8
model
Projected team totals
62.3 / 75.5
New Haven / Syracuse
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
65.7#349
New Haven
68.3#185
Syracuse

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
Pace
Half-court grind
Syracuse averages 67.8 possessions per 40, New Haven 63.5. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
ClashNew Haven
Strength vs strength: shot-blocking exposure
New Haven (#46 in shot-blocking exposure) against Syracuse (#7 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 12.8%. Historically Syracuse's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.41 vs 0.68).
AdvantageNew Haven
Where New Haven struggles: shooting
New Haven shoots an effective 48.7% (#296); Syracuse allows 50.3% (#116). Expect about 49.3%, 2.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.
GlassNew Haven
New Haven gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.8% is worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions against New Haven's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (New Haven) 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 New Haven at about 37.4% of its shots from three, Syracuse about 36.9%.
AdvantageSyracuse
Where Syracuse struggles: the offensive glass
Syracuse rebounds 29.2% of its own misses (#228); New Haven lets opponents grab 26.8% of their own misses (#30). Expect about 27.9%, 2.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions.
New Haven has the ball
OffenseSyracuse allowsvs D1 avg
48.7% #296
50.3% #116
-2.9 pt/100
17.8% #257
17.4% #124
-1.2 pt/100
21.5% #359
33.6% #310
-2.8 pt/100
31.7% #261
32.6% #117
-0.4 pt/100
70.2% #266
—
-0.2 pt/100
New Haven net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -7.5 pts/100
Syracuse has the ball
OffenseNew Haven allowsvs D1 avg
52.6% #122
51.8% #203
+1.5 pt/100
16.0% #136
17.1% #142
+0.3 pt/100
29.2% #228
26.8% #30
-1.6 pt/100
35.1% #171
27.7% #31
-0.5 pt/100
64.8% #361
—
-0.7 pt/100
Syracuse net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.0 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
New Havenoffense vsSyracusedefense
Share of shots by zone
New Haven shoots
Syracuse allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim61.1%#9260.1%#23258.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)36.2%#26438.1%#13839.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)33.2%#32731.0%#938.0%
Three30.2%#34034.1%#18633.7%
Syracuseoffense vsNew Havendefense
Share of shots by zone
Syracuse shoots
New Haven allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim62.4%#6457.9%#14658.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)41.9%#12645.2%#30539.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)36.8%#23338.5%#17938.0%
Three32.9%#23934.3%#19833.7%
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
New Haven
−1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#230 of 365
Off reb %
21.5%
#359
Def reb %
73.2%
#30
Turnover %
17.8%
#257
Forced TO %
17.1%
#142
FT rate
31.7%
#261
FT allowed
27.7%
#31
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.9
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security−0.7
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn−0.8
Foul shots allowed+1.9
Syracuse
+0.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#165 of 365
Off reb %
29.2%
#228
Def reb %
66.4%
#310
Turnover %
16.0%
#136
Forced TO %
17.4%
#124
FT rate
35.1%
#171
FT allowed
32.6%
#117
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.5
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed+0.7

Syracuse has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.4 (#165 of 365) to New Haven’s −1.0 (#230).

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

New Haven2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
23Najimi GeorgeGSo6'4"30-2933.711.23.61.61.646.0%27.8%3.664.0%24.2%
15Andre PashaFSo6'9"31-3131.710.75.21.81.551.5%35.1%3.782.9%22.8%
5Stefano FaloppaFJr6'9"31-3126.16.24.41.31.158.0%35.6%1.970.3%15.1%
3Kheni BriggsGSr6'3"28-1818.36.91.31.21.255.4%34.7%2.672.5%24.6%
22Maison AdeleyeGSr6'3"31-1215.94.52.11.00.947.9%26.4%1.768.4%20.9%
14Teshaun SteeleGFr6'7"31-015.23.93.20.90.547.3%17.1%1.171.7%17.1%
10Vere AnthonyGFr6'0"14-013.52.60.81.20.933.8%7.1%1.057.9%18.5%
21Zoumana TraoreGFr6'8"21-18.72.31.60.40.645.8%33.3%1.180.0%20.6%
2Aidan LosiewiczGFr6'3"23-16.72.90.70.30.363.5%43.9%1.825.0%25.4%
20Tristan BurthFFr6'8"19-07.21.61.70.20.248.0%—0.037.5%16.0%
25Kyle KearsonGSr6'4"19-26.91.31.40.40.244.2%33.3%0.825.0%14.5%
7Dior KennedyGFr6'2"6-02.81.71.00.80.044.4%0.0%0.350.0%35.9%
8Jagger BascombeGSo6'4"3-04.00.70.30.30.025.0%0.0%0.7—18.3%
12Timothy ColemanFJr6'7"3-04.02.71.01.00.0100.0%100.0%0.7—18.3%
4Dominick LaDucaGFr5'7"3-02.72.70.30.00.0133.3%100.0%0.7—20.6%
11Nathan NarcisseGSo6'4"1-03.00.00.00.00.00.0%0.0%1.0—17.3%
13John OladipoGFr6'2"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
6Justice HannaGFr6'0"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
31Matiss OgleGFr6'5"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
9Owen HotalingGFr6'3"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
New HavenSyracuse
Efficiency
100.1
111.0
109.6
106.1
65.7
68.3
—
—
Shooting
48.7%
52.6%
51.0%
54.5%
30.2%
32.9%
70.2%
64.8%
31.7%
35.1%
Ball control & glass
17.8%
16.0%
17.1%
17.4%
21.5%
29.2%
26.8%
33.6%
9.3%
9.9%
7.7%
7.9%
Style
39.8%
37.2%
45.0%
47.6%
9.8%
15.5%
49.7%
47.1%
27.6%
27.2%
Roster
2.38
2.86
6'5.9"
6'6.6"
82.7%
15.6%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
New Haven
Returning minutes: 82.7%Returning production: 78.3%
Lost
  • Jabri Fitzpatrick 34.5 mpg, 15.0 ppg · transferred to E Michigan
Added
  • Justice Hanna no D1 minutes last season
  • Matiss Ogle no D1 minutes last season
  • John Oladipo no D1 minutes last season
  • Owen Hotaling no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 83% 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).

Syracuse
Returning minutes: 15.6%Returning production: 13.6%
Lost
  • Naithan George 32.2 mpg, 10.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Nate Kingz 31.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • William Kyle III 28.1 mpg, 8.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • J.J. Starling 27.2 mpg, 10.3 ppg · transferred to Buffalo
  • Donnie Freeman 22.5 mpg, 11.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Tyler Betsey 17.5 mpg, 6.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Gavin Doty from Siena · 36.7 mpg, 18.0 ppg last season
  • Aiden Tobiason from Temple · 35.4 mpg, 15.3 ppg last season
  • Luke Wilson from App State · 28.2 mpg, 10.7 ppg last season
  • Francis Folefac from Siena · 28.1 mpg, 11.3 ppg last season
  • Garwey Dual from McNeese · 26.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg last season
  • Tasman Goodrick from Siena · 6.0 mpg, 2.5 ppg last season

Returns 16% 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 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.