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.
Conference gameJames A. Rhodes Arena, Akron, OH
Ball State
Efficiency #295
2025-26: 12-19 · 7-11 conf
@
Akron
Efficiency #48
2025-26: 29-6 · 20-1 conf
Wed, Dec 2 · TBD
65.7
win 9%
Projected
80.9
win 91%
No line posted yet.
Model: AKR −15.2 · total 146.6 · 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: Akron 70.2, Ball State 65.9 → 67.8 possessions
−1.2
Akron offense vs Ball State defense
+5.4
Ball State offense vs Akron defense
−5.9
Projected total
146.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Akron offense vs Ball State defense
+5.4
Ball State offense vs Akron defense
+5.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Akron by 15.2
15.2
Ball State side ◂▸ Akron side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 146.5 against a projected 146.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Akron.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Akron is the faster team (71.1, #47 of 365) and Ball State the slower (65.3, #321). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
67.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
146.6
model
Projected team totals
65.7 / 80.9
Ball State / Akron
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
65.9#344
Ball State
70.2#38
Akron

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageAkron
Where Akron scores: shooting
Akron shoots an effective 58.2% (#9); Ball State allows 52.7% (#253). Expect about 56.0%, 4.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.7 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageBall State
Where Ball State struggles: shooting
Ball State shoots an effective 47.0% (#336); Akron allows 51.2% (#173). Expect about 48.8%, 2.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.5 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Akron averages 71.1 possessions per 40, Ball State 65.3. 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 68 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Akron) 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 Ball State at about 41.7% of its shots from three, Akron about 44.8%.
GlassBall State
Ball State gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.9% is worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions against Ball State's offense.
Ball State has the ball
OffenseAkron allowsvs D1 avg
47.0% #336
51.2% #173
-3.5 pt/100
16.2% #152
18.3% #86
-0.8 pt/100
27.1% #290
29.9% #156
-1.5 pt/100
31.6% #263
30.4% #70
-0.5 pt/100
71.0% #240
—
-0.1 pt/100
Ball State net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.5 pts/100
Akron has the ball
OffenseBall State allowsvs D1 avg
58.2% #9
52.7% #253
+6.7 pt/100
15.5% #102
18.7% #63
-0.6 pt/100
33.4% #78
31.0% #204
+1.5 pt/100
29.2% #327
32.1% #106
-0.6 pt/100
75.4% #69
—
+0.3 pt/100
Akron net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.3 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Ball Stateoffense vsAkrondefense
Share of shots by zone
Ball State shoots
Akron allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim52.7%#34454.9%#5858.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)38.2%#21836.3%#9639.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)30.6%#35032.7%#2538.0%
Three31.4%#31235.5%#28433.7%
Akronoffense vsBall Statedefense
Share of shots by zone
Akron shoots
Ball State allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim63.6%#4461.4%#28058.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)53.8%#342.3%#23539.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)42.8%#4137.9%#15838.0%
Three38.2%#1534.8%#23933.7%
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
Ball State
+0.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#162 of 365
Off reb %
27.1%
#290
Def reb %
69.0%
#204
Turnover %
16.2%
#152
Forced TO %
18.7%
#63
FT rate
31.6%
#263
FT allowed
32.1%
#106
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.0
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security+0.4
Forcing turnovers+1.4
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed+0.8
Akron
+2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#55 of 365
Off reb %
33.4%
#78
Def reb %
70.1%
#156
Turnover %
15.5%
#102
Forced TO %
18.3%
#86
FT rate
29.2%
#327
FT allowed
30.4%
#70
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.0
Defensive rebounding+0.2
Ball security+0.9
Forcing turnovers+1.1
Foul shots drawn−1.5
Foul shots allowed+1.2

Akron has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.9 (#55 of 365) to Ball State’s +0.5 (#162).

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

Ball State2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
24Mason JonesFSr6'7"31-3030.94.24.41.70.848.0%36.9%2.140.9%10.1%
0Sean Blakeat VermontGJr6'2"34-2728.69.94.23.92.450.4%35.2%1.669.3%25.0%
55Zaon Collinsat Fresno StGSr6'1"26-2430.711.63.44.62.849.8%30.9%2.171.3%25.6%
2Javion Guy-Kingat C ArkansasGSr6'6"32-2022.49.84.21.81.352.0%34.1%4.269.7%26.1%
5K'Jei Parkerat UMassGSr6'2"33-620.810.71.92.01.456.7%40.8%4.890.0%27.3%
11Babatunde Durodolaat TempleFJr6'8"32-919.24.83.51.60.949.5%0.0%0.175.8%16.8%
1Trey Lewisat W MichiganGSr6'6"31-1117.67.72.60.50.855.2%38.5%4.474.3%24.5%
7Jaden Smithat Saint Joseph'sCJr6'11"36-19.12.81.80.30.747.1%18.2%0.369.4%21.1%
20Joey HartGSr6'5"4-319.39.01.81.00.363.6%40.0%2.5100.0%20.5%
4Jazz Henderson Jr.at Texas TechGJr5'11"12-04.30.90.50.30.341.7%50.0%0.350.0%19.3%
3Aaron Fineat PurdueGJr6'2"9-02.41.20.00.30.250.0%—0.050.0%34.4%
25Kai McgrewFFr6'9"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
6Kamden McGilvearyGFr6'1"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
33Kijani WrightFSr6'8"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: Zaon Collins (from Fresno St), Babatunde Durodola (from Temple), Aaron Fine (from Purdue), Javion Guy-King (from C Arkansas), Jazz Henderson Jr. (from Texas Tech), Trey Lewis (from W Michigan), K'Jei Parker (from UMass), Jaden Smith (from Saint Joseph's), Sean Blake (from Vermont)

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
Ball StateAkron
Efficiency
101.8
116.2
108.8
106.5
65.9
70.2
—
—
Shooting
47.0%
58.2%
47.0%
58.8%
31.4%
38.2%
71.0%
75.4%
31.6%
29.2%
Ball control & glass
16.2%
15.5%
18.7%
18.3%
27.1%
33.4%
31.0%
29.9%
8.1%
9.0%
10.9%
8.4%
Style
39.4%
44.8%
45.4%
42.0%
10.8%
15.6%
53.6%
57.1%
34.8%
36.9%
Roster
3.66
3.81
6'4.7"
6'5.6"
16.6%
25.9%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Ball State
Returning minutes: 16.6%Returning production: 13.1%
Lost
  • Armoni Zeigler 32.4 mpg, 12.5 ppg · transferred to Boston College
  • Davion Hill 26.9 mpg, 14.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Elmore James IV 23.9 mpg, 7.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Devon Barnes 20.9 mpg, 9.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Preston Copeland 18.1 mpg, 4.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Juwan Maxey 13.7 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Sean Blake from Vermont · 28.6 mpg, 9.9 ppg last season
  • Zaon Collins from Fresno St · 24.9 mpg, 9.4 ppg last season
  • Javion Guy-King from C Arkansas · 21.1 mpg, 9.2 ppg last season
  • K'Jei Parker from UMass · 20.8 mpg, 10.7 ppg last season
  • Babatunde Durodola from Temple · 19.2 mpg, 4.8 ppg last season
  • Trey Lewis from W Michigan · 17.6 mpg, 7.7 ppg last season

Returns 17% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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).

Akron
Returning minutes: 25.9%Returning production: 25.3%
Lost
  • Tavari Johnson 31.9 mpg, 19.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Shammah Scott 26.7 mpg, 12.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Amani Lyles 26.4 mpg, 14.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Eric Mahaffey 21.3 mpg, 7.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Sharron Young 18.6 mpg, 7.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Bowen Hardman 18.4 mpg, 7.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Tahj Staveskie from Incarnate Word · 35.3 mpg, 17.3 ppg last season
  • Max Burton from W Michigan · 23.8 mpg, 5.7 ppg last season
  • Ty Pence from Illinois St · 23.5 mpg, 9.4 ppg last season
  • Buddy Hammer Jr. from North Texas · 12.5 mpg, 3.6 ppg last season
  • Colin White from Ohio State · 7.5 mpg, 0.7 ppg last season
  • Josh Henderson no D1 minutes last season

Returns 26% 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
DateSeasonResult
Fri, Feb 202025-26Akron 78 – 65 Ball State
Tue, Jan 132025-26Ball State 77 – 87 Akron

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.