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 gameMillett Hall, Oxford, OH
C Michigan
Efficiency #283
2025-26: 10-21 · 6-12 conf
@
Miami OH
Efficiency #66
2025-26: 32-2 · 18-1 conf
Wed, Dec 2 · TBD
70.9
win 12%
Projected
84.5
win 88%
No line posted yet.
Model: M-OH −13.5 · total 155.4 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Miami OH 69.8, C Michigan 68.1 → 69.6 possessions
+2.8
Miami OH offense vs C Michigan defense
+6.9
C Michigan offense vs Miami OH defense
−2.6
Projected total
155.4
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Miami OH offense vs C Michigan defense
+6.9
C Michigan offense vs Miami OH defense
+2.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Miami OH by 13.5
13.5
C Michigan side ◂▸ Miami OH side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 155.3 against a projected 155.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Miami OH.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Miami OH is the faster team (71.0, #55 of 365) and C Michigan the slower (68.3, #185). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
155.4
model
Projected team totals
70.9 / 84.5
C Michigan / Miami OH
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.1#198
C Michigan
69.8#62
Miami OH
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageMiami OH
Where Miami OH scores: shooting
Miami OH shoots an effective 58.6% (#6); C Michigan allows 54.0% (#299). Expect about 56.9%, 5.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +8.0 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Miami OH) 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 C Michigan at about 33.2% of its shots from three, Miami OH about 43.7%.
TurnoversMiami OH
Miami OH protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions for Miami OH's offense.
ClashC Michigan
Style match: paint scoring
C Michigan scores 47.8% of its points in the paint; Miami OH gives up 46.7% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 45.4% — both habits push the same way.
C Michigan has the ball
OffenseMiami OH allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #158
51.2% #167
+0.3 pt/100
18.1% #276
17.4% #125
-1.4 pt/100
29.2% #230
28.7% #92
-1.0 pt/100
31.4% #269
30.2% #63
-0.6 pt/100
69.7% #277
—
-0.2 pt/100
C Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.0 pts/100
Miami OH has the ball
OffenseC Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
58.6% #6
54.0% #299
+8.0 pt/100
14.3% #34
17.0% #156
+1.6 pt/100
25.5% #332
34.3% #323
-0.9 pt/100
39.6% #64
39.0% #284
+0.6 pt/100
74.9% #89
—
+0.2 pt/100
Miami OH net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersC Michiganoffense vsMiami OHdefense
Share of shots by zone
C Michigan shoots
38.2
10.0
18.5
33.3
Miami OH allows
38.1
8.1
17.1
36.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.3%#154 | 58.8%#183 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#41 | 41.0%#209 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.4%#99 | 40.3%#255 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#181 | 33.1%#131 | 33.7% |
Miami OHoffense vsC Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Miami OH shoots
37.7
4.7
11.1
46.5
C Michigan allows
44.8
6.0
10.8
38.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 68.9%#2 | 61.1%#270 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.6%#89 | 44.2%#270 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.5%#47 | 31.6%#14 | 38.0% |
| Three | 37.1%#25 | 35.5%#282 | 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 numbersC Michigan
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#330 of 365
Off reb %
29.2%
#230
Def reb %
65.7%
#323
Turnover %
18.1%
#276
Forced TO %
17.0%
#156
FT rate
31.4%
#269
FT allowed
39.0%
#284
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−0.9
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed−1.0
Miami OH
+3.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#42 of 365
Off reb %
25.5%
#332
Def reb %
71.3%
#92
Turnover %
14.3%
#34
Forced TO %
17.4%
#125
FT rate
39.6%
#64
FT allowed
30.2%
#63
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.6
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security+1.7
Forcing turnovers+0.5
Foul shots drawn+1.2
Foul shots allowed+1.3
Miami OH has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.7 (#42 of 365) to C Michigan’s −4.2 (#330).
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
C Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Jayson Pettyat Kansas City | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 49.0% | 33.5% | 5.3 | 83.3% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Phat Phat Brooks | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-27 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 43.2% | 17.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 27.3% | |
| 13 | Keenan Garner | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-18 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 56.1% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 59.2% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Jaxson Whitaker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-6 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.3% | 34.5% | 3.7 | 83.3% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Jalen Kampen | G | So | 6'4" | 20-0 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 49.3% | 31.3% | 1.6 | 68.8% | 18.3% | |
| 4 | Kareem Aburashed | C | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Nsikan Usen | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Uchenna Amene | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Brock Mendoza | C | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Conrad Luczynski | C | Sr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jacob Wrencher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jake Bascom | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jayden Hackett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 40 | Travis Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Tyre Acuff | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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.
Transfers in: Jayson Petty (from Kansas City)
Miami OH2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | Brant Byers | G | So | 6'8" | 34-33 | 30.8 | 14.2 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 59.4% | 39.2% | 5.2 | 78.5% | 21.8% | |
| 0 | Eian Elmer | G | Jr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 30.3 | 12.7 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 62.5% | 42.9% | 4.9 | 75.8% | 20.3% | |
| 3 | Luke Skaljac | G | So | 6'2" | 32-21 | 28.0 | 10.3 | 3.0 | 4.7 | 1.8 | 55.1% | 35.3% | 3.6 | 78.7% | 21.3% | |
| 13 | Antwone Woolfolk | F | Sr | 6'9" | 33-33 | 23.3 | 9.8 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 65.7% | 32.4% | 1.1 | 55.2% | 22.1% | |
| 11 | Almar Atlason | F | Jr | 6'8" | 34-1 | 18.8 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 57.8% | 36.4% | 4.9 | 80.8% | 26.3% | |
| 1 | Trey Perry | G | Fr | 6'2" | 32-1 | 13.1 | 5.8 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 59.5% | 38.3% | 1.5 | 74.5% | 22.3% | |
| 12 | Justin Kirby | G | Fr | 6'4" | 21-1 | 17.0 | 6.2 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 63.1% | 40.5% | 2.0 | 81.1% | 17.4% | |
| 2 | Evan Ipsaro | G | Jr | 6'0" | 12-12 | 27.8 | 13.9 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 63.8% | 39.4% | 2.8 | 82.4% | 22.9% | |
| 20 | Tyler Robbins | F | Fr | 6'10" | 25-0 | 6.3 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 61.4% | 26.7% | 0.6 | 68.4% | 25.8% | |
| 25 | Kyle Waltz | F | Fr | 6'7" | 20-0 | 7.8 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 67.1% | 37.5% | 1.2 | 66.7% | 17.5% | |
| 24 | Jackson Kotecki | F | Jr | 6'9" | 4-0 | 7.3 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 66.7% | 15.5% | |
| 4 | Brady Ganley | G | Fr | 6'3" | 6-0 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 112.5% | 100.0% | 0.2 | 100.0% | 21.6% | |
| 8 | Eli Yofan | G | Sr | 6'2" | 2-1 | 7.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 1.0 | — | 7.2% | |
| 7 | Ethan Wright | F | Jr | 6'5" | 5-0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | 83.3% | 33.3% | |
| 33 | Blake Anderson | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Leshawn Stowers | 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.
C Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Jayson Pettyat Kansas City | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 49.0% | 33.5% | 5.3 | 83.3% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Phat Phat Brooks | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-27 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 43.2% | 17.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 27.3% | |
| 13 | Keenan Garner | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-18 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 56.1% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 59.2% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Jaxson Whitaker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-6 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.3% | 34.5% | 3.7 | 83.3% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Jalen Kampen | G | So | 6'4" | 20-0 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 49.3% | 31.3% | 1.6 | 68.8% | 18.3% | |
| 4 | Kareem Aburashed | C | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Nsikan Usen | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Uchenna Amene | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Brock Mendoza | C | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Conrad Luczynski | C | Sr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jacob Wrencher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jake Bascom | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jayden Hackett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 40 | Travis Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Tyre Acuff | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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.
Transfers in: Jayson Petty (from Kansas City)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26C Michigan
Against the spread
Season
15-13-1
Home
7-3-1
Road
6-10
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +6.0
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-16
Home
5-6
Road
8-8
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +0.5
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Ball State | A | L 69–85 | +2.0 | L−14.0 | 135.0 | O154 | 102.1 | 125.8 | 67.6 |
| Mar 3 | Akron | H | L 64–77 | +11.5 | L−1.5 | 158.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 113.2 | 68.0 |
| Feb 28 | Buffalo | A | W 75–70 | +6.0 | W+11.0 | 149.5 | U145 | 117.8 | 109.9 | 63.7 |
| Feb 24 | Kent State | A | L 81–83 | +12.0 | W+10.0 | 157.0 | O164 | 121.1 | 124.1 | 66.9 |
| Feb 21 | W Michigan | H | W 83–70 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 151.5 | O153 | 111.5 | 94.0 | 74.5 |
| Feb 17 | E Michigan | A | L 54–66 | +5.0 | L−7.0 | 143.0 | U120 | 81.4 | 99.5 | 66.3 |
| Feb 14 | N Illinois | H | W 88–46 | −4.5 | W+37.5 | 146.0 | U134 | 128.9 | 67.4 | 68.3 |
| Feb 7 | Louisiana | A | L 80–85 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 134.0 | O165 | 125.0 | 132.8 | 64.0 |
| Feb 3 | UMass | A | L 89–95 | +11.5 | W+5.5 | 152.5 | O184 | 127.4 | 136.0 | 69.8 |
| Jan 31 | Bowling Green | H | W 62–59 | +9.0 | W+12.0 | 149.0 | U121 | 88.1 | 83.8 | 70.4 |
Miami OH
Against the spread
Season
20-11
Home
8-5
Road
10-4
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
18-13
Home
9-4
Road
6-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +1.2
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #6Tennessee | N | L 56–78 | +12.0 | L−10.0 | 149.0 | U134 | 85.2 | 118.7 | 65.7 |
| Mar 18 | #11SMU | N | W 89–79 | +7.0 | W+17.0 | 160.5 | O168 | 134.3 | 119.2 | 66.3 |
| Mar 12 | UMass | N | L 83–87 | −8.0 | L−12.0 | 163.5 | O170 | 120.2 | 126.0 | 69.0 |
| Mar 6 | Ohio | A | W 110–108 OT | −3.5 | L−1.5 | 160.0 | O218 | 132.3 | 129.8 | 83.2 |
| Mar 3 | Toledo | H | W 74–72 | −8.0 | L−6.0 | 162.5 | U146 | 107.6 | 104.7 | 68.8 |
| Feb 27 | W Michigan | A | W 69–67 | −11.5 | L−9.5 | 163.0 | U136 | 101.2 | 98.3 | 68.2 |
| Feb 24 | E Michigan | A | W 74–64 | −9.0 | W+1.0 | 152.5 | U138 | 103.5 | 89.5 | 71.5 |
| Feb 20 | Bowling Green | H | W 91–77 | −8.0 | W+6.0 | 154.0 | O168 | 123.0 | 104.1 | 74.0 |
| Feb 17 | UMass | A | W 86–77 | −3.0 | W+6.0 | 163.5 | U163 | 121.7 | 109.0 | 70.6 |
| Feb 13 | Ohio | H | W 90–74 | −7.5 | W+8.5 | 164.5 | U164 | 125.2 | 102.9 | 71.9 |
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 homeC MichiganMiami OH
Efficiency
106.1
114.6
112.3
107.1
68.1
69.8
—
—
Shooting
51.8%
58.6%
52.2%
61.0%
33.9%
37.1%
69.7%
74.9%
31.4%
39.6%
Ball control & glass
18.1%
14.3%
17.0%
17.4%
29.2%
25.5%
34.3%
28.7%
11.1%
8.6%
8.8%
7.7%
Style
34.0%
45.6%
47.8%
40.4%
15.0%
11.0%
54.9%
51.4%
31.5%
29.2%
Roster
3.20
2.43
6'4.1"
6'5.7"
39.7%
85.1%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputC Michigan
Returning minutes: 39.7%Returning production: 34.3%
Lost
- Nathan Claerbaut 29.1 mpg, 12.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tamario Adley 29.0 mpg, 12.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Logan McIntire 23.8 mpg, 10.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nick Mullen 19.0 mpg, 5.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Will Ashford 9.9 mpg, 2.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Rodney Johnson Jr. 5.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jayson Petty from Kansas City · 31.1 mpg, 11.1 ppg last season
- Conrad Luczynski no D1 minutes last season
- Uchenna Amene no D1 minutes last season
- Tyre Acuff no D1 minutes last season
- Jacob Wrencher no D1 minutes last season
- Kareem Aburashed no D1 minutes last season
Returns 40% of last season's minutes; lost 3 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).
Miami OH
Returning minutes: 85.1%Returning production: 82.9%
Lost
- Peter Suder 30.2 mpg, 14.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Blake Anderson no D1 minutes last season
- Leshawn Stowers 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| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Jan 13 | 2025-26 | C Michigan 61 – 100 Miami OH |
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.