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-conferenceKohl Center, Madison, WI

Northeastern

Efficiency #274

2025-26: 7-24 · 3-17 conf

Wisconsin

Efficiency #28

2025-26: 24-11 · 16-7 conf

Wed, Nov 25 · TBD

71.7

win 7%

Projected

89.1

win 93%

No line posted yet.

Model: WIS −17.4 · total 160.8 · 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: Wisconsin 69.2, Northeastern 69.8 → 70.7 possessions

+5.2

Wisconsin offense vs Northeastern defense

+10.4

Northeastern offense vs Wisconsin defense

−3.0

Projected total

160.8

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Wisconsin offense vs Northeastern defense

+10.4

Northeastern offense vs Wisconsin defense

+3.0

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

+4.1

Wisconsin by 17.4

17.4

Northeastern side ◂▸ Wisconsin side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +17.5 against +17.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Wisconsin.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Northeastern is the faster team (69.6, #108 of 365) and Wisconsin the slower (69.0, #151). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.7

per team, 40 min

Projected total

160.8

model

Projected team totals

71.7 / 89.1

Northeastern / Wisconsin

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.8#63

Northeastern

69.2#107

Wisconsin

How this game plays

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

AdvantageWisconsin

Where Wisconsin scores: shooting

Wisconsin shoots an effective 54.5% (#52); Northeastern allows 56.4% (#351). Expect about 55.7%, 4.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.3 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversWisconsin

Wisconsin protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.5% is worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions for Wisconsin's offense.

AdvantageNortheastern

Where Northeastern scores: ball control

Northeastern turns it over on 16.4% of possessions (#162); Wisconsin forces turnovers on 14.3% of opponent possessions (#328). Expect about 14.9%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.

ClashWisconsin

Style clash: 3-point volume

Wisconsin takes 52.1% of its shots from three; Northeastern runs teams off the line (35.2% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 46.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Wisconsin) 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 Northeastern at about 38.9% of its shots from three, Wisconsin about 46.8%.

GlassNortheastern

Northeastern gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.2% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against Northeastern's offense.

Northeastern has the ball

OffenseWisconsin allowsvs D1 avg

52.4% #130

51.4% #178

+1.0 pt/100

16.4% #162

14.3% #328

+2.2 pt/100

27.3% #286

28.2% #74

-2.0 pt/100

29.4% #324

29.8% #56

-0.7 pt/100

69.0% #299

—

-0.3 pt/100

Northeastern net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.3 pts/100

Wisconsin has the ball

OffenseNortheastern allowsvs D1 avg

54.5% #52

56.4% #351

+6.3 pt/100

12.8% #4

16.8% #170

+2.7 pt/100

29.1% #232

30.2% #169

-0.6 pt/100

31.5% #267

41.9% #320

+0.3 pt/100

78.8% #6

—

+0.6 pt/100

Wisconsin net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Northeasternoffense vsWisconsindefense

Share of shots by zone

Northeastern shoots

42.0

5.9

15.1

37.1

Wisconsin allows

34.2

7.5

18.0

40.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.6%#103	58.9%#187	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.7%#249	47.1%#333	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.7%#157	41.4%#286	38.0%
Three	33.7%#187	33.4%#151	33.7%

Wisconsinoffense vsNortheasterndefense

Share of shots by zone

Wisconsin shoots

33.3

6.0

9.1

51.6

Northeastern allows

43.5

6.2

14.9

35.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.8%#99	63.5%#335	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.7%#27	45.5%#314	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.6%#126	47.9%#364	38.0%
Three	36.2%#50	35.8%#297	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

Northeastern

−3.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#321 of 365

Off reb %

27.3%

#286

Def reb %

69.8%

#169

Turnover %

16.4%

#162

Forced TO %

16.8%

#170

FT rate

29.4%

#324

FT allowed

41.9%

#320

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.0

Defensive rebounding+0.1

Ball security+0.3

Forcing turnovers+0.1

Foul shots drawn−1.4

Foul shots allowed−1.7

Wisconsin

+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#108 of 365

Off reb %

29.1%

#232

Def reb %

71.8%

#74

Turnover %

12.8%

Forced TO %

14.3%

#328

FT rate

31.5%

#267

FT allowed

29.8%

#56

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.4

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security+2.7

Forcing turnovers−1.7

Foul shots drawn−0.9

Foul shots allowed+1.4

Wisconsin has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#108 of 365) to Northeastern’s −3.7 (#321).

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

Northeastern2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	Mike Loughnane	G	Jr	6'4"	31-23	30.9	10.2	2.9	3.8	1.6	52.7%	35.1%	3.6	78.8%	20.0%
8	William Kermoury	G	Jr	6'5"	27-24	26.9	13.1	3.2	2.3	1.4	57.9%	40.2%	6.8	71.7%	26.7%
7	Youri Fritz	F	Sr	6'9"	25-23	25.9	9.8	5.4	1.5	1.6	59.8%	33.3%	0.1	52.1%	22.1%
1	Xavier Abreu	G	Fr	6'3"	29-9	21.0	12.6	2.7	1.0	1.1	50.3%	28.3%	3.2	75.6%	34.8%
13	Luca Soroa Schaller	G	So	6'7"	29-12	20.7	5.6	3.4	2.2	1.9	40.0%	22.6%	1.8	73.7%	22.0%
2	Ryan Williams	G	So	6'4"	28-10	14.7	7.4	1.1	1.6	0.6	62.3%	42.5%	2.6	90.9%	24.2%
21	Petar Pinter	C	Fr	6'11"	26-14	14.3	3.3	2.1	0.4	0.7	55.1%	—	0.0	55.0%	14.7%
9	Ty Francis	F	Fr	6'7"	24-5	15.0	4.5	2.6	0.4	0.6	52.9%	21.1%	0.8	57.6%	18.5%
0	Xander Alarie	F	Fr	6'8"	11-11	27.7	10.3	7.4	1.5	2.2	45.3%	26.3%	1.7	85.7%	24.1%
12	Liam Koelsch	C	Fr	6'9"	26-1	8.6	1.8	2.3	0.2	0.1	65.7%	—	0.0	8.7%	12.4%
10	Miles Newton	G	Fr	6'3"	9-7	16.8	5.4	2.0	0.9	0.8	58.3%	35.3%	1.9	70.0%	18.0%
22	Haris Elezovic	F	Sr	6'8"	17-0	8.1	2.2	1.5	0.5	0.4	45.7%	25.0%	0.5	85.7%	18.0%
3	LA Pratt	G	Sr	6'5"	3-3	33.0	17.0	1.7	3.3	2.0	51.2%	27.3%	3.7	90.9%	31.1%

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

Wisconsin2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
31	Nolan Winter	F	Jr	7'0"	31-30	30.7	13.1	8.5	1.5	0.8	62.6%	32.6%	3.1	74.2%	20.5%
7	Andrew Rohde	G	Sr	6'6"	34-34	26.5	5.7	2.1	2.9	1.1	47.8%	31.8%	3.9	77.8%	15.0%
32	Aleksas Bieliauskas	F	Fr	6'10"	35-28	20.1	4.9	4.4	0.9	0.8	52.8%	34.6%	2.3	63.3%	15.4%
22	Austin Rapp	F	So	6'10"	30-12	23.2	9.7	4.0	1.6	0.8	54.6%	36.3%	5.3	85.4%	22.9%
0	Braeden Carrington	G	Sr	6'5"	34-0	18.0	8.3	2.4	1.1	0.5	57.5%	40.1%	5.1	77.2%	23.9%
5	Jack Janicki	G	So	6'5"	26-1	16.5	2.2	2.0	1.1	0.6	42.3%	27.7%	1.8	60.0%	11.0%
23	Will Garlock	F	Fr	7'0"	30-0	6.7	1.1	1.1	0.7	0.4	72.2%	—	0.0	40.0%	10.3%
13	Hayden Jones	G	Fr	6'6"	27-1	7.2	1.7	1.0	0.4	0.5	63.5%	50.0%	0.1	54.5%	15.2%
4	Zach Kinziger	G	Fr	6'3"	14-0	5.5	1.5	0.3	0.6	0.1	40.0%	25.0%	1.1	50.0%	20.1%
11	Jack Robison	F	So	6'6"	16-0	2.0	1.1	0.5	0.1	0.3	93.8%	75.0%	0.3	66.7%	23.7%
18	Riccardo Greppi	F	So	6'10"	14-0	1.3	0.0	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.0%	0.0%	0.1	0.0%	28.3%
15	Isaac Gard	G	Sr	6'3"	14-0	1.1	0.8	0.2	0.1	0.1	64.3%	50.0%	0.4	100.0%	35.1%
6	Elijah Gray	F	Sr	6'9"	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.

Northeastern2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	Mike Loughnane	G	Jr	6'4"	31-23	30.9	10.2	2.9	3.8	1.6	52.7%	35.1%	3.6	78.8%	20.0%
8	William Kermoury	G	Jr	6'5"	27-24	26.9	13.1	3.2	2.3	1.4	57.9%	40.2%	6.8	71.7%	26.7%
7	Youri Fritz	F	Sr	6'9"	25-23	25.9	9.8	5.4	1.5	1.6	59.8%	33.3%	0.1	52.1%	22.1%
1	Xavier Abreu	G	Fr	6'3"	29-9	21.0	12.6	2.7	1.0	1.1	50.3%	28.3%	3.2	75.6%	34.8%
13	Luca Soroa Schaller	G	So	6'7"	29-12	20.7	5.6	3.4	2.2	1.9	40.0%	22.6%	1.8	73.7%	22.0%
2	Ryan Williams	G	So	6'4"	28-10	14.7	7.4	1.1	1.6	0.6	62.3%	42.5%	2.6	90.9%	24.2%
21	Petar Pinter	C	Fr	6'11"	26-14	14.3	3.3	2.1	0.4	0.7	55.1%	—	0.0	55.0%	14.7%
9	Ty Francis	F	Fr	6'7"	24-5	15.0	4.5	2.6	0.4	0.6	52.9%	21.1%	0.8	57.6%	18.5%
0	Xander Alarie	F	Fr	6'8"	11-11	27.7	10.3	7.4	1.5	2.2	45.3%	26.3%	1.7	85.7%	24.1%
12	Liam Koelsch	C	Fr	6'9"	26-1	8.6	1.8	2.3	0.2	0.1	65.7%	—	0.0	8.7%	12.4%
10	Miles Newton	G	Fr	6'3"	9-7	16.8	5.4	2.0	0.9	0.8	58.3%	35.3%	1.9	70.0%	18.0%
22	Haris Elezovic	F	Sr	6'8"	17-0	8.1	2.2	1.5	0.5	0.4	45.7%	25.0%	0.5	85.7%	18.0%
3	LA Pratt	G	Sr	6'5"	3-3	33.0	17.0	1.7	3.3	2.0	51.2%	27.3%	3.7	90.9%	31.1%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Northeastern

Against the spread

Season

11-19-1

Home

2-10

Road

7-8-1

Last 10

2-8

avg cover −4.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-11

Home

9-3

Road

8-8

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −1.4

Over 3 straightOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	DrexelAdjEM #214	N	L 77–84	+5.0	L−2.0	140.5	O161	112.0	122.2	68.8
Mar 6	NC A&TAdjEM #271	N	W 88–72	−2.0	W+14.0	152.5	O160	122.9	100.5	71.6
Mar 3	MonmouthAdjEM #173	H	L 83–89	+4.0	L−2.0	149.5	O172	123.9	132.9	67.0
Feb 28	HamptonAdjEM #268	A	L 65–76	+4.5	L−6.5	146.5	U141	98.6	115.2	65.9
Feb 26	William & MaryAdjEM #127	A	L 77–84	+11.0	W+4.0	164.5	U161	96.4	105.1	79.9
Feb 21	HofstraAdjEM #69	H	L 68–82	+7.5	L−6.5	145.0	O150	106.1	128.0	64.1
Feb 19	DrexelAdjEM #214	H	L 61–70	−1.0	L−10.0	145.0	U131	91.0	104.4	67.0
Feb 12	William & MaryAdjEM #127	H	L 67–94	+5.5	L−21.5	167.5	U161	96.2	135.0	69.7
Feb 7	Stony BrookAdjEM #232	A	L 55–69	+4.0	L−10.0	153.5	U124	82.0	102.9	67.1
Feb 5	HofstraAdjEM #69	A	L 63–80	+9.0	L−8.0	153.5	U143	94.9	120.5	66.4

Wisconsin

Against the spread

Season

20-14-1

Home

10-6-1

Road

7-4

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +2.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

22-13

Home

10-7

Road

8-3

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +3.1

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#12High PointAdjEM #50	N	L 82–83	−10.0	L−11.0	161.5	O165	112.3	113.7	73.0
Mar 14	#3MichiganAdjEM #1	N	L 65–68	+12.5	W+9.5	161.5	U133	96.2	100.7	67.5
Mar 13	#9IllinoisAdjEM #4	N	W 91–88 OT	+8.0	W+11.0	157.0	O179	121.0	117.0	75.2
Mar 12	WashingtonAdjEM #59	N	W 85–82	−6.5	L−3.5	156.5	O167	128.5	124.0	66.2
Mar 7	#15PurdueAdjEM #9	A	W 97–93	+9.5	W+13.5	154.0	O190	147.6	141.5	65.7
Mar 4	MarylandAdjEM #198	H	W 78–45	−14.5	W+18.5	153.5	U123	135.0	77.9	57.8
Feb 28	WashingtonAdjEM #59	A	W 90–73	−2.5	W+14.5	153.5	O163	127.7	103.6	70.5
Feb 25	OregonAdjEM #143	A	L 71–85	−5.5	L−19.5	153.0	O156	102.5	122.8	69.2
Feb 22	IowaAdjEM #22	H	W 84–71	−3.5	W+9.5	147.0	O155	130.5	110.3	64.4
Feb 17	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	A	L 69–86	+1.0	L−16.0	157.5	U155	100.3	125.0	68.8

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

NortheasternWisconsin

Efficiency

107.7

118.0

113.7

105.0

69.8

69.2

—

Shooting

52.4%

54.5%

53.6%

54.7%

33.7%

36.2%

69.0%

78.8%

29.4%

31.5%

Ball control & glass

16.4%

12.8%

16.8%

14.3%

27.3%

29.1%

30.2%

28.2%

9.3%

6.6%

9.5%

12.5%

Style

37.8%

52.1%

47.0%

36.2%

15.3%

12.9%

55.7%

57.3%

33.4%

28.3%

Roster

2.26

2.59

6'6.1"

6'8.3"

90.0%

68.1%

Offseason

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

Northeastern

Returning minutes: 90.0%Returning production: 93.2%

Lost

JB Frankel 20.0 mpg, 5.7 ppg · transferred to Boston College

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 90% 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).

Wisconsin

Returning minutes: 68.1%Returning production: 58.3%

Lost

John Blackwell 32.8 mpg, 18.6 ppg · transferred to Duke
Nick Boyd 32.0 mpg, 20.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Elijah Gray no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 68% 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.