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-conferenceMemorial Gymnasium (TN), Nashville, TN

Wake Forest

Efficiency #76

2025-26: 18-17 · 8-12 conf

Vanderbilt

Efficiency #12

2025-26: 27-9 · 13-8 conf

Thu, Nov 5 · TBD

73.1

win 17%

Projected

84.3

win 83%

No line posted yet.

Model: VAN −11.2 · total 157.4 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Vanderbilt 69.2, Wake Forest 69.0 → 69.9 possessions

+3.4

Vanderbilt offense vs Wake Forest defense

+6.5

Wake Forest offense vs Vanderbilt defense

−0.7

Projected total

157.4

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Vanderbilt offense vs Wake Forest defense

+6.5

Wake Forest offense vs Vanderbilt defense

+0.7

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

+4.0

Vanderbilt by 11.2

11.2

Wake Forest side ◂▸ Vanderbilt 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 Vanderbilt.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Vanderbilt is the faster team (70.4, #77 of 365) and Wake Forest the slower (69.4, #120). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

157.4

model

Projected team totals

73.1 / 84.3

Wake Forest / Vanderbilt

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.0#125

Wake Forest

69.2#105

Vanderbilt

How this game plays

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

AdvantageVanderbilt

Where Vanderbilt scores: shooting

Vanderbilt shoots an effective 55.3% (#31); Wake Forest allows 51.8% (#202). Expect about 53.9%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.7 points per 100 possessions.

ClashVanderbilt

Style match: 3-point volume

Vanderbilt takes 44.2% of its shots from three; Wake Forest lets opponents take 46.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.9% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversVanderbilt

Vanderbilt protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions for Vanderbilt's offense.

DefenseVanderbilt

Vanderbilt's shot-blocking

Vanderbilt ranks #40 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.0% of Wake Forest's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Wake Forest has the ball

OffenseVanderbilt allowsvs D1 avg

52.7% #117

49.0% #67

-0.5 pt/100

15.5% #106

17.7% #111

+0.1 pt/100

30.1% #196

31.5% #231

+0.2 pt/100

35.2% #170

39.5% #295

+0.3 pt/100

77.6% #22

—

+0.5 pt/100

Wake Forest net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.6 pts/100

Vanderbilt has the ball

OffenseWake Forest allowsvs D1 avg

55.3% #31

51.8% #202

+3.7 pt/100

13.5% #15

17.7% #115

+1.6 pt/100

31.2% #158

33.0% #298

+1.1 pt/100

38.1% #101

35.7% #203

+0.2 pt/100

78.9% #5

—

+0.6 pt/100

Vanderbilt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.2 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Wake Forestoffense vsVanderbiltdefense

Share of shots by zone

Wake Forest shoots

33.8

6.0

16.4

43.8

Vanderbilt allows

37.6

6.5

19.0

37.0

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.0%#70	55.2%#65	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.9%#126	39.3%#166	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.0%#145	34.1%#52	38.0%
Three	34.1%#166	32.6%#96	33.7%

Vanderbiltoffense vsWake Forestdefense

Share of shots by zone

Vanderbilt shoots

35.2

5.1

15.3

44.4

Wake Forest allows

36.1

5.6

11.2

47.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	65.2%#19	60.3%#244	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.3%#97	35.8%#85	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#139	38.5%#183	38.0%
Three	35.6%#86	32.9%#117	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

Wake Forest

+0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#156 of 365

Off reb %

30.1%

#196

Def reb %

67.0%

#298

Turnover %

15.5%

#106

Forced TO %

17.7%

#115

FT rate

35.2%

#170

FT allowed

35.7%

#203

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.1

Defensive rebounding−0.8

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers+0.7

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed−0.1

Vanderbilt

+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#73 of 365

Off reb %

31.2%

#158

Def reb %

68.5%

#231

Turnover %

13.5%

#15

Forced TO %

17.7%

#111

FT rate

38.1%

#101

FT allowed

39.5%

#295

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.3

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+2.3

Forcing turnovers+0.7

Foul shots drawn+0.8

Foul shots allowed−1.1

Vanderbilt has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#73 of 365) to Wake Forest’s +0.6 (#156).

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

Wake Forest2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Juke Harris	G	So	6'7"	35-35	35.2	21.4	6.5	1.9	1.7	52.7%	33.2%	7.5	78.3%	33.1%
6	Myles Colvin	G	Jr	6'5"	35-24	27.2	11.6	4.4	1.4	1.7	50.0%	36.0%	4.7	87.0%	25.5%
0	Omaha Biliew	F	Jr	6'8"	35-24	20.2	6.3	2.4	0.5	0.7	56.7%	36.8%	2.5	79.4%	16.7%
8	Mekhi Mason	G	Sr	6'5"	34-12	20.1	7.4	2.6	1.4	1.0	50.0%	33.8%	4.0	67.7%	22.9%
1	Nate Calmese	G	Sr	6'2"	26-23	24.7	10.3	1.9	4.5	1.8	55.5%	39.8%	4.0	77.4%	25.0%
10	Sebastian Akins	G	So	6'2"	35-8	15.1	5.3	1.5	1.9	1.2	43.3%	18.0%	1.4	77.8%	24.8%
7	Isaac Carr	G	Fr	6'4"	23-4	12.8	2.5	1.9	1.3	0.7	47.0%	31.3%	0.7	62.5%	15.0%
11	Marqus Marion	F	So	6'9"	20-0	12.1	1.4	2.3	0.7	0.3	42.0%	9.1%	0.6	61.5%	8.3%
23	Jaylen Cross	F	Fr	6'4"	12-0	5.5	2.0	1.1	0.4	0.5	50.0%	60.0%	0.4	71.4%	23.7%
9	Vincent Ricchiuti	F	Jr	6'6"	4-0	2.0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.3	75.0%	50.0%	1.0	—	34.8%
4	Will Underwood	G	Jr	6'3"	4-0	1.8	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
30	Anson Beard Jr.	G	Fr	6'5"	3-0	2.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.3	—	—	0.0	—	9.2%
44	Owen Kmety	F	Jr	6'7"	2-0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	28.9%
33	Dimitrije Kovacevic	F	Fr	6'8"	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.

Vanderbilt2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Tyler Tanner	G	So	6'0"	36-36	33.5	19.5	3.6	5.1	1.9	54.9%	36.8%	4.5	85.3%	30.4%
7	Chandler Bing	G	Fr	6'5"	35-0	15.3	3.7	1.6	0.4	0.6	53.9%	28.9%	1.1	63.5%	14.8%
8	Tyler Harris	F	Jr	6'7"	29-2	13.2	5.7	2.4	0.3	0.4	47.8%	28.7%	2.8	53.3%	26.4%
0	Mike James	G	Jr	6'5"	21-0	11.2	1.5	2.0	0.8	0.3	41.2%	33.3%	1.1	57.1%	10.7%
1	Frankie Collins	G	Sr	6'1"	9-0	20.9	7.8	4.2	4.7	2.2	41.8%	25.0%	1.8	66.7%	26.4%
34	Jayden Leverett	C	Fr	6'11"	26-0	4.0	1.0	1.2	0.0	0.0	61.8%	50.0%	0.1	57.1%	11.8%
12	Jaylon Dean-Vines	G	Fr	6'4"	10-0	2.5	0.9	0.4	0.2	0.2	90.0%	50.0%	0.2	0.0%	16.5%
25	Miles Keeffe	G	Sr	6'5"	11-0	1.9	0.5	0.3	0.1	0.2	31.3%	33.3%	0.3	—	27.0%
50	Mason Nicholson	F	Sr	6'9"	5-0	4.0	0.4	1.0	0.0	0.2	50.0%	—	0.0	—	7.9%
15	Coleson Messer	G	So	6'4"	7-0	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	18.9%

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

Wake Forest2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Juke Harris	G	So	6'7"	35-35	35.2	21.4	6.5	1.9	1.7	52.7%	33.2%	7.5	78.3%	33.1%
6	Myles Colvin	G	Jr	6'5"	35-24	27.2	11.6	4.4	1.4	1.7	50.0%	36.0%	4.7	87.0%	25.5%
0	Omaha Biliew	F	Jr	6'8"	35-24	20.2	6.3	2.4	0.5	0.7	56.7%	36.8%	2.5	79.4%	16.7%
8	Mekhi Mason	G	Sr	6'5"	34-12	20.1	7.4	2.6	1.4	1.0	50.0%	33.8%	4.0	67.7%	22.9%
1	Nate Calmese	G	Sr	6'2"	26-23	24.7	10.3	1.9	4.5	1.8	55.5%	39.8%	4.0	77.4%	25.0%
10	Sebastian Akins	G	So	6'2"	35-8	15.1	5.3	1.5	1.9	1.2	43.3%	18.0%	1.4	77.8%	24.8%
7	Isaac Carr	G	Fr	6'4"	23-4	12.8	2.5	1.9	1.3	0.7	47.0%	31.3%	0.7	62.5%	15.0%
11	Marqus Marion	F	So	6'9"	20-0	12.1	1.4	2.3	0.7	0.3	42.0%	9.1%	0.6	61.5%	8.3%
23	Jaylen Cross	F	Fr	6'4"	12-0	5.5	2.0	1.1	0.4	0.5	50.0%	60.0%	0.4	71.4%	23.7%
9	Vincent Ricchiuti	F	Jr	6'6"	4-0	2.0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.3	75.0%	50.0%	1.0	—	34.8%
4	Will Underwood	G	Jr	6'3"	4-0	1.8	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
30	Anson Beard Jr.	G	Fr	6'5"	3-0	2.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.3	—	—	0.0	—	9.2%
44	Owen Kmety	F	Jr	6'7"	2-0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	28.9%
33	Dimitrije Kovacevic	F	Fr	6'8"	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 2025-26

Wake Forest

Against the spread

Season

16-18-1

Home

8-11-1

Road

4-5

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover −0.7

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-15

Home

14-6

Road

3-6

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +5.3

Over 2 straightOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 22	Illinois StAdjEM #80	H	L 75–78	−8.0	L−11.0	152.5	O153	108.0	112.3	69.5
Mar 18	NavyAdjEM #104	H	W 82–72	−10.0	P0.0	147.5	O154	124.1	109.0	66.1
Mar 11	ClemsonAdjEM #35	N	L 62–71	+5.5	L−3.5	142.0	U133	103.9	119.0	59.6
Mar 10	Virginia TechAdjEM #61	N	W 95–89 OT	−1.0	W+5.0	151.5	O184	126.6	118.6	75.0
Mar 7	CaliforniaAdjEM #79	H	W 80–73	−6.0	W+1.0	154.0	U153	109.6	100.1	73.0
Mar 3	#13VirginiaAdjEM #15	A	L 70–75	+14.0	W+9.0	149.5	U145	102.9	110.3	68.0
Feb 28	SyracuseAdjEM #85	H	W 88–83	−4.0	W+1.0	152.0	O171	135.2	127.5	65.1
Feb 25	Boston CollegeAdjEM #187	A	L 67–68	−4.0	L−5.0	144.5	U135	105.3	106.9	63.6
Feb 21	Virginia TechAdjEM #61	A	L 63–82	+4.0	L−15.0	148.5	U145	104.0	135.3	60.6
Feb 18	ClemsonAdjEM #35	H	W 85–77	+4.0	W+12.0	140.0	O162	127.6	115.6	66.6

Vanderbilt

Against the spread

Season

17-18-1

Home

8-8

Road

5-6-1

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.2

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-19

Home

8-8

Road

6-6

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +3.5

Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	L 72–74	−2.0	L−4.0	147.5	U146	112.7	115.8	63.9
Mar 19	#12McNeeseAdjEM #49	N	W 78–68	−12.0	L−2.0	148.0	U146	122.1	106.4	63.9
Mar 15	#17ArkansasAdjEM #19	N	L 75–86	−2.0	L−13.0	164.5	U161	107.0	122.6	70.1
Mar 14	#4FloridaAdjEM #5	N	W 91–74	+7.0	W+24.0	160.0	O165	142.4	115.8	63.9
Mar 13	#25TennesseeAdjEM #13	N	W 75–68	+2.0	W+9.0	147.0	U143	120.3	109.1	62.4
Mar 7	#23TennesseeAdjEM #13	A	W 86–82	+3.0	W+7.0	145.5	O168	117.7	112.2	73.1
Mar 3	Ole MissAdjEM #82	A	W 89–86 OT	−7.0	L−4.0	155.5	O175	115.6	111.7	77.0
Feb 28	KentuckyAdjEM #27	A	L 77–91	+1.0	L−13.0	157.5	O168	113.2	133.7	68.0
Feb 25	GeorgiaAdjEM #32	H	W 88–80	−7.5	W+0.5	163.0	O168	133.2	121.1	66.1
Feb 21	TennesseeAdjEM #13	H	L 65–69	−3.0	L−7.0	150.0	U134	102.7	109.1	63.3

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

Wake ForestVanderbilt

Efficiency

113.1

119.5

106.7

102.9

69.0

69.2

—

Shooting

52.7%

55.3%

53.9%

56.9%

34.1%

35.6%

77.6%

78.9%

35.2%

38.1%

Ball control & glass

15.5%

13.5%

17.7%

30.1%

31.2%

33.0%

31.5%

8.9%

7.4%

8.3%

7.4%

Style

43.6%

44.2%

39.9%

40.4%

11.1%

13.8%

53.5%

56.4%

32.7%

28.8%

Roster

2.74

2.15

6'5.3"

6'3"

75.9%

37.6%

Offseason

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

Wake Forest

Returning minutes: 75.9%Returning production: 74.4%

Lost

Tre'Von Spillers 29.1 mpg, 11.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Cooper Schwieger 19.7 mpg, 4.9 ppg · transferred to Florida St

Added

Dimitrije Kovacevic no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 76% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

Vanderbilt

Returning minutes: 37.6%Returning production: 36.1%

Lost

Tyler Nickel 30.5 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
AK Okereke 26.2 mpg, 9.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Devin McGlockton 25.3 mpg, 9.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Duke Miles 23.0 mpg, 12.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jalen Washington 20.6 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 38% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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

Date	Season	Result
Sun, Dec 21	2025-26	Vanderbilt 98 – 67 Wake Forest

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.