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-conferenceCam Henderson Center, Huntington, WVMAC-SBC Challenge
Buffalo
Efficiency #186
2025-26: 17-15 · 7-12 conf
@
Marshall
Efficiency #175
2025-26: 19-13 · 11-8 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
76.8
win 35%
Projected
81.3
win 65%
No line posted yet.
Model: MRSH −4.5 · total 158.0 · 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: Marshall 69.7, Buffalo 67.7 → 69.1 possessions
+1.7
Marshall offense vs Buffalo defense
+4.3
Buffalo offense vs Marshall defense
+3.8
Projected total
158.0
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Marshall offense vs Buffalo defense
+4.3
Buffalo offense vs Marshall defense
−3.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Marshall by 4.5
4.5
Buffalo side ◂▸ Marshall 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 Marshall.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Marshall is the faster team (70.7, #66 of 365) and Buffalo the slower (67.6, #215). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
69.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
158.0
model
Projected team totals
76.8 / 81.3
Buffalo / Marshall
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.7#229
Buffalo
69.7#71
Marshall

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageMarshall
Where Marshall scores: shooting
Marshall shoots an effective 54.8% (#42); Buffalo allows 55.1% (#333). Expect about 55.3%, 4.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.7 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageBuffalo
Where Buffalo scores: shooting
Buffalo shoots an effective 55.4% (#30); Marshall allows 50.3% (#118). Expect about 53.1%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Marshall, Buffalo) 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 Buffalo at about 44.4% of its shots from three, Marshall about 44.9%.
DefenseMarshall
Marshall's shot-blocking
Marshall ranks #23 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.3% of Buffalo's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
Buffalo has the ball
OffenseMarshall allowsvs D1 avg
55.4% #30
50.3% #118
+2.6 pt/100
16.2% #151
16.3% #201
+0.8 pt/100
27.1% #291
33.8% #316
-0.4 pt/100
39.6% #65
41.1% #313
+0.7 pt/100
73.6% #151
—
+0.1 pt/100
Buffalo net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.9 pts/100
Marshall has the ball
OffenseBuffalo allowsvs D1 avg
54.8% #42
55.1% #333
+5.7 pt/100
16.6% #171
17.9% #101
-0.7 pt/100
31.9% #127
31.1% #209
+0.9 pt/100
29.2% #328
31.4% #90
-0.6 pt/100
73.0% #168
—
+0.1 pt/100
Marshall net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.3 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Buffalooffense vsMarshalldefense
Share of shots by zone
Buffalo shoots
Marshall allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim59.8%#12460.2%#24158.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)41.9%#12435.8%#8739.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)40.0%#10934.0%#5038.0%
Three37.9%#2033.6%#16233.7%
Marshalloffense vsBuffalodefense
Share of shots by zone
Marshall shoots
Buffalo allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim66.8%#862.0%#30058.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)36.8%#24855.6%#36539.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)36.9%#22942.2%#31038.0%
Three36.8%#3435.1%#25233.7%
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
Buffalo
+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#92 of 365
Off reb %
27.1%
#291
Def reb %
68.9%
#209
Turnover %
16.2%
#151
Forced TO %
17.9%
#101
FT rate
39.6%
#65
FT allowed
31.4%
#90
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.1
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security+0.4
Forcing turnovers+0.8
Foul shots drawn+1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.0
Marshall
−3.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#322 of 365
Off reb %
31.9%
#127
Def reb %
66.2%
#316
Turnover %
16.6%
#171
Forced TO %
16.3%
#201
FT rate
29.2%
#328
FT allowed
41.1%
#313
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.5
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security+0.1
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn−1.5
Foul shots allowed−1.5

Buffalo has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.2 (#92 of 365) to Marshall’s −3.7 (#322).

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

Buffalo2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
21Drew Steffeat S IllinoisGSr6'5"32-3230.89.93.12.51.649.1%29.9%5.167.2%21.0%
2J.J. Starlingat SyracuseGSr6'4"30-3029.010.92.72.41.445.7%28.9%2.854.8%26.6%
25Dylan Ducommunat N IllinoisGSo6'4"26-2630.610.82.93.42.942.7%28.9%7.370.0%28.1%
1Jalen Pitreat Tennessee StFSr6'8"33-3324.36.46.60.91.162.7%16.7%0.283.9%13.4%
9Antoine Lorick IIIat Tennessee StFSr6'8"33-2421.59.85.11.11.554.7%25.6%1.265.7%26.2%
10Mikkel Tyneat RichmondGSr5'10"31-2819.06.21.21.41.052.0%39.4%3.564.7%21.0%
3Tristan Kuskaat 108942FSo6'9"3-317.35.72.70.71.356.7%25.0%1.3—20.7%
7Harrison Reedeat Incarnate WordGSr6'1"25-310.95.10.80.10.178.8%53.2%3.266.7%17.8%
12Kyle JonesGSr6'5"18-010.52.22.20.30.250.0%0.0%0.266.7%12.4%
0Matas ButeliauskasFSo6'7"8-04.90.81.10.00.160.0%40.0%0.60.0%10.1%
20Daniel ShaoGSr5'10"2-01.50.00.00.00.5——0.0—21.9%
35Evan RomanoGSo6'3"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
22JJ Frakesat OregonGSo6'5"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
5Boluwasefe JohnFJr6'8"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
24Jahrel VigoGFr6'3"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.
Transfers in: Dylan Ducommun (from N Illinois), JJ Frakes (from Oregon), Tristan Kuska (from 108942), Antoine Lorick III (from Tennessee St), Jalen Pitre (from Tennessee St), Harrison Reede (from Incarnate Word), J.J. Starling (from Syracuse), Drew Steffe (from S Illinois), Mikkel Tyne (from Richmond)

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
BuffaloMarshall
Efficiency
111.2
111.3
111.9
111.2
67.7
69.7
—
—
Shooting
55.4%
54.8%
54.1%
54.6%
37.9%
36.8%
73.6%
73.0%
39.6%
29.2%
Ball control & glass
16.2%
16.6%
17.9%
16.3%
27.1%
31.9%
31.1%
33.8%
9.8%
10.1%
8.1%
8.1%
Style
45.5%
44.3%
37.8%
37.7%
14.1%
15.3%
54.4%
56.5%
24.2%
32.6%
Roster
3.67
3.30
6'4.6"
6'4.6"
3.6%
85.4%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Buffalo
Returning minutes: 3.6%Returning production: 2.6%
Lost
  • Ryan Sabol 36.2 mpg, 18.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Noah Batchelor 30.8 mpg, 7.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Angelo Brizzi 29.8 mpg, 14.5 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
  • Derrick Talton Jr. 26.0 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Daniel Freitag 23.9 mpg, 14.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Tim Oboh 21.0 mpg, 8.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Drew Steffe from S Illinois · 30.8 mpg, 9.9 ppg last season
  • J.J. Starling from Syracuse · 27.2 mpg, 10.3 ppg last season
  • Dylan Ducommun from N Illinois · 26.5 mpg, 9.3 ppg last season
  • Jalen Pitre from Tennessee St · 24.3 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
  • Antoine Lorick III from Tennessee St · 21.5 mpg, 9.8 ppg last season
  • Mikkel Tyne from Richmond · 18.4 mpg, 6.0 ppg last season

Returns 4% 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).

Marshall
Returning minutes: 85.4%Returning production: 80.3%
Lost
  • Wyatt Fricks 29.1 mpg, 15.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Kaiden White no D1 minutes last season
  • Will Moore no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 85% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. 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.