CBB Matchups
Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.
How the projection is built
each step, from an average D-I game to this oneSteps 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 minutesProjected 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).
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetShot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 52.7%#344 | 54.9%#58 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.2%#218 | 36.3%#96 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 30.6%#350 | 32.7%#25 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.4%#312 | 35.5%#284 | 33.7% |
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.6%#44 | 61.4%#280 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 53.8%#3 | 42.3%#235 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.8%#41 | 37.9%#158 | 38.0% |
| Three | 38.2%#15 | 34.8%#239 | 33.7% |
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 numbersAkron 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
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Mason Jones | F | Sr | 6'7" | 31-30 | 30.9 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 48.0% | 36.9% | 2.1 | 40.9% | 10.1% | |
| 0 | Sean Blakeat Vermont | G | Jr | 6'2" | 34-27 | 28.6 | 9.9 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 50.4% | 35.2% | 1.6 | 69.3% | 25.0% | |
| 55 | Zaon Collinsat Fresno St | G | Sr | 6'1" | 26-24 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 49.8% | 30.9% | 2.1 | 71.3% | 25.6% | |
| 2 | Javion Guy-Kingat C Arkansas | G | Sr | 6'6" | 32-20 | 22.4 | 9.8 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 52.0% | 34.1% | 4.2 | 69.7% | 26.1% | |
| 5 | K'Jei Parkerat UMass | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-6 | 20.8 | 10.7 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 56.7% | 40.8% | 4.8 | 90.0% | 27.3% | |
| 11 | Babatunde Durodolaat Temple | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-9 | 19.2 | 4.8 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 49.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 75.8% | 16.8% | |
| 1 | Trey Lewisat W Michigan | G | Sr | 6'6" | 31-11 | 17.6 | 7.7 | 2.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 55.2% | 38.5% | 4.4 | 74.3% | 24.5% | |
| 7 | Jaden Smithat Saint Joseph's | C | Jr | 6'11" | 36-1 | 9.1 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 47.1% | 18.2% | 0.3 | 69.4% | 21.1% | |
| 20 | Joey Hart | G | Sr | 6'5" | 4-3 | 19.3 | 9.0 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 63.6% | 40.0% | 2.5 | 100.0% | 20.5% | |
| 4 | Jazz Henderson Jr.at Texas Tech | G | Jr | 5'11" | 12-0 | 4.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 19.3% | |
| 3 | Aaron Fineat Purdue | G | Jr | 6'2" | 9-0 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 34.4% | |
| 25 | Kai Mcgrew | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Kamden McGilveary | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Kijani Wright | F | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Tahj Staveskieat Incarnate Word | G | Sr | 6'1" | 31-30 | 35.3 | 17.3 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 52.0% | 37.3% | 6.2 | 79.8% | 31.1% | |
| 12 | Evan Mahaffey | F | Sr | 6'6" | 35-35 | 28.5 | 10.2 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 60.5% | 30.4% | 1.3 | 57.6% | 19.0% | |
| 10 | Max Burtonat W Michigan | F | Sr | 6'10" | 30-30 | 24.6 | 5.9 | 5.2 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 47.9% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 69.1% | 16.3% | |
| 8 | Ty Penceat Illinois St | G | Sr | 6'6" | 36-23 | 23.5 | 9.4 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 59.2% | 36.0% | 2.1 | 69.9% | 21.9% | |
| 4 | Buddy Hammer Jr.at North Texas | F | Sr | 6'7" | 29-0 | 14.2 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 51.5% | 31.6% | 0.7 | 77.3% | 16.9% | |
| 21 | Zach Halligan | F | Jr | 6'5" | 33-23 | 11.9 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 51.5% | 25.7% | 1.1 | 80.0% | 12.5% | |
| 23 | Marvin Musiime-Kamali | F | Jr | 6'6" | 35-0 | 8.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 70.0% | — | 0.0 | 65.2% | 11.1% | |
| 22 | Colin Whiteat Ohio State | F | Jr | 6'6" | 29-1 | 8.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 42.9% | 11.1% | 0.6 | 20.0% | 8.5% | |
| 5 | Chabi Barre | F | Sr | 6'10" | 18-0 | 6.4 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 76.2% | — | 0.0 | 77.4% | 21.9% | |
| 9 | Cody Head | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Josh Henderson | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Tai Perkins | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 19 | Devan Christion | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Exavier Wilson | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | RJ Jones | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Mason Jones | F | Sr | 6'7" | 31-30 | 30.9 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 48.0% | 36.9% | 2.1 | 40.9% | 10.1% | |
| 0 | Sean Blakeat Vermont | G | Jr | 6'2" | 34-27 | 28.6 | 9.9 | 4.2 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 50.4% | 35.2% | 1.6 | 69.3% | 25.0% | |
| 55 | Zaon Collinsat Fresno St | G | Sr | 6'1" | 26-24 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 49.8% | 30.9% | 2.1 | 71.3% | 25.6% | |
| 2 | Javion Guy-Kingat C Arkansas | G | Sr | 6'6" | 32-20 | 22.4 | 9.8 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 52.0% | 34.1% | 4.2 | 69.7% | 26.1% | |
| 5 | K'Jei Parkerat UMass | G | Sr | 6'2" | 33-6 | 20.8 | 10.7 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 56.7% | 40.8% | 4.8 | 90.0% | 27.3% | |
| 11 | Babatunde Durodolaat Temple | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-9 | 19.2 | 4.8 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 49.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 75.8% | 16.8% | |
| 1 | Trey Lewisat W Michigan | G | Sr | 6'6" | 31-11 | 17.6 | 7.7 | 2.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 55.2% | 38.5% | 4.4 | 74.3% | 24.5% | |
| 7 | Jaden Smithat Saint Joseph's | C | Jr | 6'11" | 36-1 | 9.1 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 47.1% | 18.2% | 0.3 | 69.4% | 21.1% | |
| 20 | Joey Hart | G | Sr | 6'5" | 4-3 | 19.3 | 9.0 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 63.6% | 40.0% | 2.5 | 100.0% | 20.5% | |
| 4 | Jazz Henderson Jr.at Texas Tech | G | Jr | 5'11" | 12-0 | 4.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 19.3% | |
| 3 | Aaron Fineat Purdue | G | Jr | 6'2" | 9-0 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 34.4% | |
| 25 | Kai Mcgrew | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 6 | Kamden McGilveary | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Kijani Wright | F | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | C Michigan | H | W 85–69 | −2.0 | W+14.0 | 135.0 | O154 | 125.8 | 102.1 | 67.6 |
| Mar 3 | W Michigan | A | W 74–71 OT | +2.0 | W+5.0 | 138.5 | O145 | 103.2 | 99.0 | 71.7 |
| Feb 28 | N Illinois | A | W 79–43 | +1.5 | W+37.5 | 133.5 | U122 | 125.7 | 68.4 | 62.8 |
| Feb 24 | UMass | H | W 74–73 OT | +4.5 | W+5.5 | 143.5 | O147 | 100.6 | 99.3 | 73.5 |
| Feb 20 | Akron | H | L 65–78 | +14.0 | W+1.0 | 147.5 | U143 | 96.7 | 116.1 | 67.2 |
| Feb 17 | Ohio | A | L 57–69 | +9.5 | L−2.5 | 144.5 | U126 | 95.3 | 115.4 | 59.8 |
| Feb 14 | Kent State | H | L 68–75 | +8.0 | W+1.0 | 143.0 | P143 | 93.7 | 103.3 | 72.6 |
| Feb 11 | Buffalo | H | L 53–63 | −1.0 | L−11.0 | 141.0 | U116 | 89.6 | 106.5 | 59.2 |
| Feb 7 | UL Monroe | A | W 73–68 | −4.5 | W+0.5 | 143.5 | U141 | 105.3 | 98.1 | 69.3 |
| Feb 3 | Bowling Green | A | L 52–77 | +11.0 | L−14.0 | 138.0 | U129 | 83.1 | 123.0 | 62.6 |
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #5Texas Tech | N | L 71–91 | +6.5 | L−13.5 | 154.0 | O162 | 108.8 | 139.4 | 65.3 |
| Mar 14 | Toledo | N | W 79–76 | −8.0 | L−5.0 | 157.5 | U155 | 115.8 | 111.4 | 68.2 |
| Mar 13 | Kent State | N | W 75–68 | −6.5 | W+0.5 | 163.0 | U143 | 109.7 | 99.5 | 68.3 |
| Mar 12 | Buffalo | N | W 73–70 | −12.5 | L−9.5 | 158.0 | U143 | 105.0 | 100.7 | 69.5 |
| Mar 6 | N Illinois | H | W 94–55 | −23.5 | W+15.5 | 156.0 | U149 | 135.8 | 79.5 | 69.2 |
| Mar 3 | C Michigan | A | W 77–64 | −11.5 | W+1.5 | 158.5 | U141 | 113.2 | 94.1 | 68.0 |
| Feb 27 | Kent State | A | W 92–70 | −3.5 | W+18.5 | 165.0 | U162 | 130.7 | 99.4 | 70.4 |
| Feb 24 | Buffalo | H | W 99–85 | −15.0 | L−1.0 | 160.0 | O184 | 123.4 | 106.0 | 80.2 |
| Feb 20 | Ball State | A | W 78–65 | −14.0 | L−1.0 | 147.5 | U143 | 116.1 | 96.7 | 67.2 |
| Feb 17 | W Michigan | A | W 90–73 | −14.0 | W+3.0 | 159.0 | O163 | 132.6 | 107.5 | 67.9 |
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 homeOffseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input- 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
- 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).
- 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
- 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| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Fri, Feb 20 | 2025-26 | Akron 78 – 65 Ball State |
| Tue, Jan 13 | 2025-26 | Ball 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.