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-conferenceChartway Arena, Norfolk, VA

W Michigan

Efficiency #276

2025-26: 10-21 · 4-14 conf

Old Dominion

Efficiency #242

2025-26: 12-21 · 8-12 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

74.1

win 31%

Projected

79.9

win 69%

No line posted yet.

Model: ODU −5.7 · total 154.0 · 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: Old Dominion 69.4, W Michigan 68.6 → 69.7 possessions

+2.9

Old Dominion offense vs W Michigan defense

+2.3

W Michigan offense vs Old Dominion defense

+0.6

Projected total

154.0

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Old Dominion offense vs W Michigan defense

+2.3

W Michigan offense vs Old Dominion defense

−0.6

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

+4.0

Old Dominion by 5.7

5.7

W Michigan side ◂▸ Old Dominion 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 Old Dominion.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Old Dominion is the faster team (70.3, #83 of 365) and W Michigan the slower (69.0, #148). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.7

per team, 40 min

Projected total

154.0

model

Projected team totals

74.1 / 79.9

W Michigan / Old Dominion

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.6#153

W Michigan

69.4#94

Old Dominion

How this game plays

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

AdvantageOld Dominion

Where Old Dominion scores: ball control

Old Dominion turns it over on 15.4% of possessions (#100); W Michigan forces turnovers on 13.4% of opponent possessions (#346). Expect about 13.9%, 2.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions.

GlassOld Dominion

Old Dominion gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.7% is worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions against Old Dominion's offense.

AdvantageW Michigan

Where W Michigan scores: ball control

W Michigan turns it over on 16.9% of possessions (#198); Old Dominion forces turnovers on 14.5% of opponent possessions (#323). Expect about 15.4%, 1.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions.

ClashOld Dominion

Style clash: 3-point volume

Old Dominion rarely shoots threes (36.2% of its shots); W Michigan lets opponents take 43.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 39.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

W Michigan has the ball

OffenseOld Dominion allowsvs D1 avg

49.9% #241

50.8% #145

-1.5 pt/100

16.9% #198

14.5% #323

+1.7 pt/100

30.5% #177

30.3% #176

+0.0 pt/100

32.8% #241

42.0% #322

+0.4 pt/100

74.4% #104

—

+0.2 pt/100

W Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.8 pts/100

Old Dominion has the ball

OffenseW Michigan allowsvs D1 avg

50.7% #203

54.4% #310

+1.7 pt/100

15.4% #100

13.4% #346

+3.6 pt/100

26.0% #323

29.1% #110

-2.3 pt/100

34.7% #189

37.5% #251

+0.2 pt/100

73.3% #161

—

+0.1 pt/100

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

Shot diet

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

W Michiganoffense vsOld Dominiondefense

Share of shots by zone

W Michigan shoots

39.5

5.4

19.6

35.5

Old Dominion allows

39.7

7.5

16.6

36.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.2%#338	61.6%#290	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.0%#171	28.6%#9	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.2%#180	40.5%#257	38.0%
Three	35.3%#95	32.0%#62	33.7%

Old Dominionoffense vsW Michigandefense

Share of shots by zone

Old Dominion shoots

35.9

7.0

21.6

35.5

W Michigan allows

38.9

4.9

12.8

43.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.0%#117	60.5%#250	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	32.8%#318	48.1%#340	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.0%#290	37.0%#130	38.0%
Three	36.0%#60	36.1%#307	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

W Michigan

−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#302 of 365

Off reb %

30.5%

#177

Def reb %

70.9%

#110

Turnover %

16.9%

#198

Forced TO %

13.4%

#346

FT rate

32.8%

#241

FT allowed

37.5%

#251

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security−0.1

Forcing turnovers−2.3

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed−0.6

Old Dominion

−3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#326 of 365

Off reb %

26.0%

#323

Def reb %

69.7%

#176

Turnover %

15.4%

#100

Forced TO %

14.5%

#323

FT rate

34.7%

#189

FT allowed

42.0%

#322

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.4

Defensive rebounding+0.1

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers−1.5

Foul shots drawn−0.1

Foul shots allowed−1.7

W Michigan has more extra scoring chances per game: −3.0 (#302 of 365) to Old Dominion’s −3.8 (#326).

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

W Michigan2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	EJ Ryans	G	So	6'3"	31-31	27.3	7.5	1.7	1.9	1.2	46.8%	31.2%	3.0	89.1%	17.9%
12	Jayden Brewer	G	Sr	6'6"	31-28	25.4	13.3	7.0	1.1	1.8	47.5%	31.6%	1.2	70.8%	32.4%
2	Jalen Griffith	G	Jr	5'10"	27-17	22.9	11.9	1.5	3.4	1.7	55.3%	41.2%	4.2	81.5%	29.5%
11	Justice Williams	G	Sr	6'4"	18-14	30.1	15.1	3.6	1.9	1.6	50.2%	36.4%	4.9	85.1%	29.6%
4	Brady Swartz	G	Fr	6'7"	25-17	20.6	7.7	4.6	0.4	0.4	50.3%	34.1%	3.4	69.6%	21.2%
7	Carson Vis	G	Fr	6'3"	31-0	14.8	5.8	2.2	0.8	0.7	48.6%	30.6%	1.6	60.7%	24.6%
0	Sharod Barnes	G	Fr	6'2"	27-0	12.4	3.3	1.6	1.3	1.4	34.6%	11.1%	0.3	82.4%	22.1%
24	Michael Sulaka	F	So	6'9"	24-1	11.0	2.9	2.0	0.6	0.4	52.8%	33.3%	0.1	70.6%	15.4%
22	Declan Peterson	C	Sr	6'11"	27-0	9.1	2.1	2.2	0.5	0.9	60.5%	—	0.0	54.5%	16.8%
8	Hudson Ward	F	So	6'7"	13-6	18.6	4.5	3.4	0.8	0.4	54.6%	33.3%	2.1	0.0%	13.8%
52	Junior Sileu	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	6.1	0.9	1.0	0.1	0.1	80.0%	—	0.0	—	6.3%
9	Nicholas Errica	G	Fr	6'3"	6-0	5.0	1.2	0.3	0.2	0.5	43.8%	16.7%	1.0	—	19.7%
23	Camden Thompson	G	Fr	6'5"	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.

Old Dominion2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Old Dominion'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
23	Jordan Battle	G	Sr	6'2"	33-33	32.8	15.4	4.4	3.0	2.0	54.1%	43.5%	5.6	85.0%	25.0%
0	KC Shaw	G	Sr	6'4"	29-29	31.2	16.8	4.3	2.2	2.1	46.9%	8.7%	0.8	72.3%	33.6%
6	LJ Thomas	G	Sr	6'2"	30-25	27.6	11.3	3.6	3.3	2.0	48.2%	29.0%	1.0	74.5%	26.0%
4	Robert Davis Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	26-20	29.6	9.6	2.5	1.4	1.1	44.7%	33.0%	6.9	81.5%	21.7%
13	Jared Turner	F	Jr	6'8"	33-5	20.9	6.1	3.6	0.9	0.4	56.5%	38.2%	4.4	64.3%	15.5%
35	Caelum Swanton-Rodger	F	Sr	7'0"	31-31	20.5	8.2	4.9	0.8	1.4	63.3%	0.0%	0.1	58.9%	22.0%
2	Zacch Wiggins	G	Fr	6'4"	33-10	18.6	6.1	2.5	1.1	0.6	54.7%	37.3%	1.5	71.2%	17.8%
3	Scottie Hubbard	G	So	6'6"	32-9	16.0	3.1	2.9	0.5	0.7	45.8%	32.4%	2.1	75.0%	14.0%
7	Drew McKenna	G	So	6'7"	26-0	11.0	4.0	2.5	0.5	0.5	45.3%	25.0%	1.1	76.2%	23.2%
8	Donovan Raymond	F	So	6'10"	31-2	6.5	1.5	1.4	0.2	0.3	66.7%	—	0.0	45.8%	13.4%
42	Ben Nacey	F	So	6'8"	9-0	7.6	2.3	1.6	0.3	0.1	58.3%	—	0.0	58.3%	15.4%
11	Rieco Hellams	G	Jr	5'10"	12-0	2.8	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.2	25.0%	0.0%	0.1	100.0%	12.0%
30	Cooper Jones	G	Jr	6'2"	3-1	4.7	1.0	0.0	0.3	1.0	30.0%	20.0%	1.7	—	33.1%
15	CJ Parker	G	So	6'6"	3-0	3.3	0.0	2.0	0.3	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	5.7%
10	Elijah Flowers	F	Fr	6'7"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Stephaun Walker	F	Sr	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.

W Michigan2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	EJ Ryans	G	So	6'3"	31-31	27.3	7.5	1.7	1.9	1.2	46.8%	31.2%	3.0	89.1%	17.9%
12	Jayden Brewer	G	Sr	6'6"	31-28	25.4	13.3	7.0	1.1	1.8	47.5%	31.6%	1.2	70.8%	32.4%
2	Jalen Griffith	G	Jr	5'10"	27-17	22.9	11.9	1.5	3.4	1.7	55.3%	41.2%	4.2	81.5%	29.5%
11	Justice Williams	G	Sr	6'4"	18-14	30.1	15.1	3.6	1.9	1.6	50.2%	36.4%	4.9	85.1%	29.6%
4	Brady Swartz	G	Fr	6'7"	25-17	20.6	7.7	4.6	0.4	0.4	50.3%	34.1%	3.4	69.6%	21.2%
7	Carson Vis	G	Fr	6'3"	31-0	14.8	5.8	2.2	0.8	0.7	48.6%	30.6%	1.6	60.7%	24.6%
0	Sharod Barnes	G	Fr	6'2"	27-0	12.4	3.3	1.6	1.3	1.4	34.6%	11.1%	0.3	82.4%	22.1%
24	Michael Sulaka	F	So	6'9"	24-1	11.0	2.9	2.0	0.6	0.4	52.8%	33.3%	0.1	70.6%	15.4%
22	Declan Peterson	C	Sr	6'11"	27-0	9.1	2.1	2.2	0.5	0.9	60.5%	—	0.0	54.5%	16.8%
8	Hudson Ward	F	So	6'7"	13-6	18.6	4.5	3.4	0.8	0.4	54.6%	33.3%	2.1	0.0%	13.8%
52	Junior Sileu	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	6.1	0.9	1.0	0.1	0.1	80.0%	—	0.0	—	6.3%
9	Nicholas Errica	G	Fr	6'3"	6-0	5.0	1.2	0.3	0.2	0.5	43.8%	16.7%	1.0	—	19.7%
23	Camden Thompson	G	Fr	6'5"	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

W Michigan

Against the spread

Season

15-13-1

Home

8-5

Road

7-8-1

Last 10

4-6

avg cover +1.6

Covered the last gameCovered 4 of 9 as an underdogCovered 3 of 5 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

18-11

Home

7-6

Road

11-5

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +1.6

Over 2 straightOver in 6 of 9 as an underdogOver in 4 of 5 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	Kent StateAdjEM #157	A	L 78–86	+13.5	W+5.5	157.5	O164	111.1	122.5	70.2
Mar 3	Ball StateAdjEM #295	H	L 71–74 OT	−2.0	L−5.0	138.5	O145	99.0	103.2	71.7
Feb 27	#21Miami OHAdjEM #66	H	L 67–69	+11.5	W+9.5	163.0	U136	98.3	101.2	68.2
Feb 24	Bowling GreenAdjEM #114	A	W 88–79	+12.0	W+21.0	149.0	O167	120.6	108.3	73.0
Feb 21	C MichiganAdjEM #283	A	L 70–83	+3.5	L−9.5	151.5	O153	94.0	111.5	74.5
Feb 17	AkronAdjEM #48	H	L 73–90	+14.0	L−3.0	159.0	O163	107.5	132.6	67.9
Feb 14	E MichiganAdjEM #247	A	W 76–62	+6.5	W+20.5	144.0	U138	117.6	96.0	64.6
Feb 11	ToledoAdjEM #115	H	L 79–90	+6.5	L−4.5	154.5	O169	115.0	131.0	68.7
Feb 7	Texas StAdjEM #249	A	L 61–77	+6.5	L−9.5	146.5	U138	94.9	119.8	64.3
Feb 3	OhioAdjEM #233	A	L 71–91	+10.5	L−9.5	156.0	O162	102.7	131.6	69.2

Old Dominion

Against the spread

Season

15-14-3

Home

6-5-1

Road

9-7-2

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover +1.6

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 3 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

21-11

Home

7-5

Road

12-6

Last 10

8-2

avg vs total +8.5

Over 6 straightOver in 4 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 4	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	N	L 84–88	+2.0	L−2.0	157.5	O172	121.6	127.4	69.1
Mar 3	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	N	W 87–80	−10.5	L−3.5	157.5	O167	124.6	114.6	69.8
Feb 27	Georgia StAdjEM #310	A	W 81–73	−1.0	W+7.0	149.5	O154	109.9	99.1	73.7
Feb 24	MarshallAdjEM #175	A	L 88–97	+8.5	L−0.5	160.5	O185	122.0	134.5	72.1
Feb 21	Southern MissAdjEM #218	A	L 81–86	+5.0	P0.0	148.0	O167	100.0	106.1	81.0
Feb 16	LouisianaAdjEM #318	H	W 83–72	−5.5	W+5.5	136.0	O155	124.6	108.1	66.6
Feb 14	Georgia StAdjEM #310	H	W 78–55	−4.0	W+19.0	147.0	U133	120.8	85.2	64.6
Feb 11	MarshallAdjEM #175	H	L 79–81	+3.0	W+1.0	156.0	O160	111.9	114.7	70.6
Feb 7	OhioAdjEM #233	H	W 78–72	+3.5	W+9.5	156.0	U150	120.3	111.0	64.8
Feb 4	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	H	L 79–85	−14.5	L−20.5	154.0	O164	106.8	115.0	73.9

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

W MichiganOld Dominion

Efficiency

107.3

106.9

113.3

110.4

68.6

69.4

—

Shooting

49.9%

50.7%

48.1%

48.8%

35.3%

36.0%

74.4%

73.3%

32.8%

34.7%

Ball control & glass

16.9%

15.4%

13.4%

14.5%

30.5%

26.0%

29.1%

30.3%

9.5%

9.2%

11.9%

11.1%

Style

36.1%

36.2%

40.7%

40.5%

14.5%

12.1%

48.1%

49.0%

37.5%

31.6%

Roster

2.48

3.17

6'4.3"

6'5.3"

79.4%

—

Offseason

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

W Michigan

Returning minutes: 79.4%Returning production: 81.4%

Lost

Max Burton 23.8 mpg, 5.7 ppg · transferred to Akron
Trey Lewis 17.6 mpg, 7.7 ppg · transferred to Ball State

Added

Camden Thompson no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 79% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 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).

Old Dominion

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Old Dominion'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.)

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.