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-conferenceLJVM Coliseum, Winston-Salem, NC

Southern Utah

Efficiency #293

2025-26: 10-22 · 6-13 conf

Wake Forest

Efficiency #76

2025-26: 18-17 · 8-12 conf

Sat, Nov 14 · TBD

71.6

win 12%

Projected

85.0

win 88%

No line posted yet.

Model: WAKE −13.4 · total 156.5 · 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: Wake Forest 69.0, Southern Utah 70.3 → 70.9 possessions

+5.6

Wake Forest offense vs Southern Utah defense

+6.0

Southern Utah offense vs Wake Forest defense

−3.3

Projected total

156.5

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Wake Forest offense vs Southern Utah defense

+6.0

Southern Utah offense vs Wake Forest defense

+3.3

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

+4.1

Wake Forest by 13.4

13.4

Southern Utah side ◂▸ Wake Forest 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 Wake Forest.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Southern Utah is the faster team (70.9, #59 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

70.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

156.5

model

Projected team totals

71.6 / 85.0

Southern Utah / Wake Forest

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

70.3#34

Southern Utah

69.0#125

Wake Forest

How this game plays

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

AdvantageSouthern Utah

Where Southern Utah struggles: ball control

Southern Utah turns it over on 20.3% of possessions (#352); Wake Forest forces turnovers on 17.7% of opponent possessions (#115). Expect about 19.4%, 2.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.2 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageWake Forest

Where Wake Forest scores: shooting

Wake Forest shoots an effective 52.7% (#117); Southern Utah allows 53.2% (#276). Expect about 53.1%, 1.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Track meet

Wake Forest averages 69.4 possessions per 40, Southern Utah 70.9. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

TurnoversWake Forest

Wake Forest protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.8% is worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions for Wake Forest's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Southern Utah'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 Southern Utah at about 40.9% of its shots from three, Wake Forest about 36.3%.

ClashWake Forest

Style clash: 3-point volume

Wake Forest takes 43.6% of its shots from three; Southern Utah runs teams off the line (29.5% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 36.3% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Southern Utah has the ball

OffenseWake Forest allowsvs D1 avg

50.7% #200

51.8% #202

-0.0 pt/100

20.3% #352

17.7% #115

-3.2 pt/100

28.8% #239

33.0% #298

+0.1 pt/100

33.1% #235

35.7% #203

-0.1 pt/100

71.5% #221

—

-0.1 pt/100

Southern Utah net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.3 pts/100

Wake Forest has the ball

OffenseSouthern Utah allowsvs D1 avg

52.7% #117

53.2% #276

+2.6 pt/100

15.5% #106

14.8% #303

+2.4 pt/100

30.1% #196

33.6% #309

+0.8 pt/100

35.2% #170

29.8% #55

-0.4 pt/100

77.6% #22

—

+0.5 pt/100

Wake Forest net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Southern Utahoffense vsWake Forestdefense

Share of shots by zone

Southern Utah shoots

41.8

6.9

15.9

35.4

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	60.3%#113	60.3%#244	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.1%#219	35.8%#85	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.0%#291	38.5%#183	38.0%
Three	33.0%#231	32.9%#117	33.7%

Wake Forestoffense vsSouthern Utahdefense

Share of shots by zone

Wake Forest shoots

33.8

6.0

16.4

43.8

Southern Utah allows

46.3

5.6

19.0

29.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.0%#70	57.5%#132	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.9%#126	35.1%#60	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.0%#145	42.7%#324	38.0%
Three	34.1%#166	38.0%#358	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

Southern Utah

−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#333 of 365

Off reb %

28.8%

#239

Def reb %

66.4%

#309

Turnover %

20.3%

#352

Forced TO %

14.8%

#303

FT rate

33.1%

#235

FT allowed

29.8%

#55

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.5

Defensive rebounding−1.0

Ball security−2.4

Forcing turnovers−1.3

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed+1.4

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

Wake Forest has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.6 (#156 of 365) to Southern Utah’s −4.2 (#333).

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

Southern Utah2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Southern Utah's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
35	Jaiden Feroah	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	29.9	13.5	6.7	1.8	2.2	62.3%	41.5%	2.9	86.5%	23.3%
3	Tanner Hayhurst	G	Jr	6'6"	31-26	29.2	10.3	3.4	1.5	0.9	60.9%	46.1%	3.7	87.7%	17.2%
1	Elijah Duval	G	Fr	6'3"	31-31	26.4	15.3	4.0	3.6	3.6	51.2%	31.9%	3.0	62.6%	38.0%
0	Isaiah Cottrell	F	Sr	6'11"	32-31	25.5	8.8	5.8	1.3	1.4	44.9%	20.4%	1.7	70.7%	22.5%
20	Dylan Jones	G	Sr	6'5"	30-14	24.8	8.1	1.8	0.8	0.9	56.4%	36.5%	4.9	82.4%	17.6%
24	Cale Barclay	F	Fr	6'8"	31-8	15.5	4.6	2.8	1.0	1.1	45.3%	13.2%	1.2	68.5%	20.3%
25	Kai Burdick	C	Sr	7'0"	32-9	13.7	4.0	3.3	0.6	0.8	66.7%	50.0%	0.1	40.0%	16.1%
4	Lorenzo Abellar	G	Sr	5'10"	31-4	11.5	3.0	0.8	1.5	0.8	36.5%	33.3%	0.8	78.0%	19.6%
9	Jalen Lee	G	So	6'7"	24-3	14.3	5.5	1.8	0.4	0.5	48.2%	35.2%	2.3	71.0%	22.2%
5	Zach Bell	G	Jr	6'2"	10-2	20.8	7.0	2.1	2.1	3.0	44.4%	21.1%	1.9	77.8%	26.5%
2	Logan Stephens	G	Sr	6'3"	20-0	9.1	4.4	1.6	1.3	1.2	38.7%	24.0%	1.3	74.1%	34.1%
13	Brayden Johnson	G	So	6'1"	11-0	5.3	0.9	0.3	0.8	0.2	30.8%	33.3%	0.5	50.0%	15.0%
7	Zeplin Kidd	G	Fr	6'7"	11-0	5.3	1.3	1.5	0.3	0.3	46.2%	25.0%	0.7	40.0%	15.7%
23	Chuks Isitua	F	So	6'10"	7-0	5.6	0.9	1.9	0.0	0.4	28.6%	—	0.0	66.7%	14.4%
10	Langston Binns	G	Sr	6'2"	4-0	6.3	2.5	0.5	0.3	0.3	38.5%	22.2%	2.3	0.0%	29.9%
11	Juok Riak	F	So	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.

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.

Southern Utah2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Southern Utah's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
35	Jaiden Feroah	F	Sr	6'9"	32-32	29.9	13.5	6.7	1.8	2.2	62.3%	41.5%	2.9	86.5%	23.3%
3	Tanner Hayhurst	G	Jr	6'6"	31-26	29.2	10.3	3.4	1.5	0.9	60.9%	46.1%	3.7	87.7%	17.2%
1	Elijah Duval	G	Fr	6'3"	31-31	26.4	15.3	4.0	3.6	3.6	51.2%	31.9%	3.0	62.6%	38.0%
0	Isaiah Cottrell	F	Sr	6'11"	32-31	25.5	8.8	5.8	1.3	1.4	44.9%	20.4%	1.7	70.7%	22.5%
20	Dylan Jones	G	Sr	6'5"	30-14	24.8	8.1	1.8	0.8	0.9	56.4%	36.5%	4.9	82.4%	17.6%
24	Cale Barclay	F	Fr	6'8"	31-8	15.5	4.6	2.8	1.0	1.1	45.3%	13.2%	1.2	68.5%	20.3%
25	Kai Burdick	C	Sr	7'0"	32-9	13.7	4.0	3.3	0.6	0.8	66.7%	50.0%	0.1	40.0%	16.1%
4	Lorenzo Abellar	G	Sr	5'10"	31-4	11.5	3.0	0.8	1.5	0.8	36.5%	33.3%	0.8	78.0%	19.6%
9	Jalen Lee	G	So	6'7"	24-3	14.3	5.5	1.8	0.4	0.5	48.2%	35.2%	2.3	71.0%	22.2%
5	Zach Bell	G	Jr	6'2"	10-2	20.8	7.0	2.1	2.1	3.0	44.4%	21.1%	1.9	77.8%	26.5%
2	Logan Stephens	G	Sr	6'3"	20-0	9.1	4.4	1.6	1.3	1.2	38.7%	24.0%	1.3	74.1%	34.1%
13	Brayden Johnson	G	So	6'1"	11-0	5.3	0.9	0.3	0.8	0.2	30.8%	33.3%	0.5	50.0%	15.0%
7	Zeplin Kidd	G	Fr	6'7"	11-0	5.3	1.3	1.5	0.3	0.3	46.2%	25.0%	0.7	40.0%	15.7%
23	Chuks Isitua	F	So	6'10"	7-0	5.6	0.9	1.9	0.0	0.4	28.6%	—	0.0	66.7%	14.4%
10	Langston Binns	G	Sr	6'2"	4-0	6.3	2.5	0.5	0.3	0.3	38.5%	22.2%	2.3	0.0%	29.9%
11	Juok Riak	F	So	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

Southern Utah

Against the spread

Season

15-13-1

Home

5-5

Road

9-7-1

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +3.2

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 6 of 9 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-12

Home

6-4

Road

11-6

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +4.0

Under in the last gameOver in 7 of 9 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 12	UT ArlingtonAdjEM #171	N	L 63–69	+5.0	L−1.0	141.5	U132	88.3	96.7	71.3
Mar 7	CA BaptistAdjEM #102	H	L 75–82	+6.5	L−0.5	149.0	O157	107.2	117.2	69.9
Mar 5	Utah ValleyAdjEM #75	H	L 88–92	+10.0	W+6.0	150.0	O180	123.5	129.1	71.3
Feb 28	Utah TechAdjEM #216	H	W 81–67	+2.0	W+16.0	156.0	U148	122.1	101.0	66.3
Feb 21	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #263	A	L 83–87	+8.0	W+4.0	143.5	O170	110.6	115.9	75.1
Feb 19	Tarleton StAdjEM #238	A	L 74–78	+5.0	W+1.0	145.0	O152	110.5	116.5	67.0
Feb 14	UT ArlingtonAdjEM #171	A	W 78–73	+8.5	W+13.5	144.5	O151	111.7	104.5	69.8
Feb 12	CA BaptistAdjEM #102	H	L 66–83	+5.5	L−11.5	147.0	O149	97.6	122.7	67.7
Feb 7	Tarleton StAdjEM #238	H	L 59–62	−1.0	L−4.0	146.5	U121	85.8	90.2	68.8
Jan 31	Abilene ChrstnAdjEM #263	A	W 79–76	+6.0	W+9.0	152.0	O155	115.6	111.2	68.3

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

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

Southern UtahWake Forest

Efficiency

105.5

113.1

112.4

106.7

70.3

69.0

—

Shooting

50.7%

52.7%

51.4%

53.9%

33.0%

34.1%

71.5%

77.6%

33.1%

35.2%

Ball control & glass

20.3%

15.5%

14.8%

17.7%

28.8%

30.1%

33.6%

33.0%

12.4%

8.9%

10.2%

8.3%

Style

35.5%

43.6%

48.0%

39.9%

13.2%

11.1%

49.6%

53.5%

32.1%

32.7%

Roster

3.06

2.74

6'6.5"

6'5.3"

—

75.9%

Offseason

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

Southern Utah

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Southern Utah'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.)

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).

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.