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 gameStroh Center, Bowling Green, OH
W Michigan
Efficiency #276
2025-26: 10-21 · 4-14 conf
@
Bowling Green
Efficiency #114
2025-26: 18-14 · 9-10 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
70.0
win 19%
Projected
80.0
win 81%
No line posted yet.
Model: BGSU −10.0 · total 150.0 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Bowling Green 68.9, W Michigan 68.6 → 69.2 possessions
+2.0
Bowling Green offense vs W Michigan defense
+2.9
W Michigan offense vs Bowling Green defense
−3.1
Projected total
150.0
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Bowling Green offense vs W Michigan defense
+2.9
W Michigan offense vs Bowling Green defense
+3.1
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Bowling Green by 10.0
10.0
W Michigan side ◂▸ Bowling Green 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 Bowling Green.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Bowling Green is the faster team (70.2, #86 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
69.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
150.0
model
Projected team totals
70.0 / 80.0
W Michigan / Bowling Green
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.6#153
W Michigan
68.9#128
Bowling Green
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageBowling Green
Where Bowling Green scores: ball control
Bowling Green turns it over on 16.5% of possessions (#166); W Michigan forces turnovers on 13.4% of opponent possessions (#346). Expect about 14.5%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseBowling Green
Bowling Green's ball-hawking
Bowling Green ranks #31 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 10.9% of W Michigan's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
ClashBowling Green
Style clash: 3-point volume
Bowling Green rarely shoots threes (34.2% of its shots); W Michigan lets opponents take 43.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 38.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
W Michigan has the ball
OffenseBowling Green allowsvs D1 avg
49.9% #241
51.0% #163
-1.3 pt/100
16.9% #198
18.4% #80
-1.4 pt/100
30.5% #177
26.9% #31
-1.0 pt/100
32.8% #241
37.2% #243
+0.0 pt/100
74.4% #104
—
+0.2 pt/100
W Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.5 pts/100
Bowling Green has the ball
OffenseW Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #153
54.4% #310
+2.7 pt/100
16.5% #166
13.4% #346
+2.8 pt/100
28.7% #244
29.1% #110
-1.1 pt/100
37.0% #129
37.5% #251
+0.3 pt/100
72.3% #196
—
-0.0 pt/100
Bowling Green net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersW Michiganoffense vsBowling Greendefense
Share of shots by zone
W Michigan shoots
39.5
5.4
19.6
35.5
Bowling Green allows
36.2
10.8
11.8
41.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.2%#338 | 55.8%#81 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.0%#171 | 46.3%#323 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.2%#180 | 40.2%#251 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.3%#95 | 33.5%#161 | 33.7% |
Bowling Greenoffense vsW Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Bowling Green shoots
49.9
8.9
8.1
33.1
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 | 57.4%#214 | 60.5%#250 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.8%#306 | 48.1%#340 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.5%#274 | 37.0%#130 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.4%#148 | 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 numbersW 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
Bowling Green
+2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#98 of 365
Off reb %
28.7%
#244
Def reb %
73.1%
#31
Turnover %
16.5%
#166
Forced TO %
18.4%
#80
FT rate
37.0%
#129
FT allowed
37.2%
#243
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.6
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers+1.2
Foul shots drawn+0.5
Foul shots allowed−0.5
Bowling Green has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.0 (#98 of 365) to W Michigan’s −3.0 (#302).
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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Bowling Green2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Jayden Johnsonat SC State | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-29 | 27.4 | 13.4 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 48.8% | 37.0% | 3.1 | 72.6% | 31.5% | |
| 8 | Juan Cranford Jr.at E Kentucky | G | Jr | 6'4" | 32-29 | 25.9 | 12.1 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 53.3% | 36.3% | 7.0 | 79.6% | 27.2% | |
| 4 | Josiah Shackelford | G | Jr | 6'5" | 32-14 | 22.8 | 11.3 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 52.0% | 35.3% | 3.6 | 74.7% | 27.2% | |
| 3 | Makhi Leach | G | So | 6'2" | 25-0 | 8.8 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 47.5% | 11.1% | 0.7 | 75.0% | 21.9% | |
| 34 | Aiden Goins | F | Sr | 6'9" | 25-0 | 8.5 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 48.3% | 25.0% | 0.8 | 87.9% | 29.6% | |
| 22 | Christ Essandokoat South Carolina | F | Sr | 7'1" | 21-4 | 7.5 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 38.6% | 37.5% | 0.8 | 50.0% | 23.1% | |
| 0 | Tristan Beckfordat South Florida | G | So | 6'7" | 19-1 | 7.9 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 52.7% | 23.1% | 0.7 | 72.7% | 19.2% | |
| 15 | Camden Karel | F | So | 6'9" | 19-0 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 64.6% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 18.0% | |
| 13 | Preston Squire | F | Jr | 6'11" | 4-0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.5 | — | 10.0% | |
| 5 | Christian Dedivanaj | G | So | 6'3" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 4.0% | |
| 2 | KJ Torbert | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 35 | Leek Ateny | F | Fr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Talan Staley | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Trey Simmons | G | Jr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Zach Howell | G | Sr | 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.
Transfers in: Tristan Beckford (from South Florida), Juan Cranford Jr. (from E Kentucky), Christ Essandoko (from South Carolina), Jayden Johnson (from SC State)
W Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 2025-26W 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 State | A | L 78–86 | +13.5 | W+5.5 | 157.5 | O164 | 111.1 | 122.5 | 70.2 |
| Mar 3 | Ball State | H | L 71–74 OT | −2.0 | L−5.0 | 138.5 | O145 | 99.0 | 103.2 | 71.7 |
| Feb 27 | #21Miami OH | H | L 67–69 | +11.5 | W+9.5 | 163.0 | U136 | 98.3 | 101.2 | 68.2 |
| Feb 24 | Bowling Green | A | W 88–79 | +12.0 | W+21.0 | 149.0 | O167 | 120.6 | 108.3 | 73.0 |
| Feb 21 | C Michigan | A | L 70–83 | +3.5 | L−9.5 | 151.5 | O153 | 94.0 | 111.5 | 74.5 |
| Feb 17 | Akron | H | L 73–90 | +14.0 | L−3.0 | 159.0 | O163 | 107.5 | 132.6 | 67.9 |
| Feb 14 | E Michigan | A | W 76–62 | +6.5 | W+20.5 | 144.0 | U138 | 117.6 | 96.0 | 64.6 |
| Feb 11 | Toledo | H | L 79–90 | +6.5 | L−4.5 | 154.5 | O169 | 115.0 | 131.0 | 68.7 |
| Feb 7 | Texas St | A | L 61–77 | +6.5 | L−9.5 | 146.5 | U138 | 94.9 | 119.8 | 64.3 |
| Feb 3 | Ohio | A | L 71–91 | +10.5 | L−9.5 | 156.0 | O162 | 102.7 | 131.6 | 69.2 |
Bowling Green
Against the spread
Season
14-14-1
Home
5-8-1
Road
7-5
Last 10
6-4
avg cover −2.3
Covered 3 straightCovered 5 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
11-17-1
Home
5-8-1
Road
5-7
Last 10
4-5-1
avg vs total −1.9
Over 2 straightOver in 2 of 7 as a favorite, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Toledo | N | L 76–77 | +1.5 | W+0.5 | 152.0 | O153 | 111.6 | 113.1 | 68.1 |
| Mar 6 | E Michigan | A | W 77–69 | −5.0 | W+3.0 | 143.0 | O146 | 108.2 | 96.9 | 71.2 |
| Feb 28 | UMass | H | W 81–62 | −4.0 | W+15.0 | 151.5 | U143 | 123.5 | 94.5 | 65.6 |
| Feb 24 | W Michigan | H | L 79–88 | −12.0 | L−21.0 | 149.0 | O167 | 108.3 | 120.6 | 73.0 |
| Feb 20 | #22Miami OH | A | L 77–91 | +8.0 | L−6.0 | 154.0 | O168 | 104.1 | 123.0 | 74.0 |
| Feb 17 | Kent State | H | L 71–78 | −2.5 | L−9.5 | 151.5 | U149 | 97.9 | 107.5 | 72.5 |
| Feb 14 | Toledo | H | W 80–70 | −4.0 | W+6.0 | 150.0 | P150 | 122.0 | 106.7 | 65.6 |
| Feb 11 | N Illinois | A | W 68–52 | −7.5 | W+8.5 | 145.0 | U120 | 97.6 | 74.6 | 69.7 |
| Feb 7 | Arkansas St | A | L 54–91 | +3.5 | L−33.5 | 155.0 | U145 | 71.8 | 121.0 | 75.2 |
| Feb 3 | Ball State | H | W 77–52 | −11.0 | W+14.0 | 138.0 | U129 | 123.0 | 83.1 | 62.6 |
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 homeW MichiganBowling Green
Efficiency
107.3
107.8
113.3
105.1
68.6
68.9
—
—
Shooting
49.9%
51.8%
48.1%
51.9%
35.3%
34.4%
74.4%
72.3%
32.8%
37.0%
Ball control & glass
16.9%
16.5%
13.4%
18.4%
30.5%
28.7%
29.1%
26.9%
9.5%
9.0%
11.9%
9.8%
Style
36.1%
34.2%
40.7%
48.7%
14.5%
19.8%
48.1%
48.5%
37.5%
28.7%
Roster
2.48
2.96
6'4.3"
6'4.4"
79.4%
20.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputW 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).
Bowling Green
Returning minutes: 20.3%Returning production: 18.4%
Lost
- Javontae Campbell 34.1 mpg, 18.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sam Towns 32.0 mpg, 11.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Thomas 24.3 mpg, 5.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Troy Glover II 22.9 mpg, 7.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Javon Ruffin 22.8 mpg, 7.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mayar Wol 20.0 mpg, 10.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jayden Johnson from SC State · 27.4 mpg, 13.4 ppg last season
- Juan Cranford Jr. from E Kentucky · 25.9 mpg, 12.1 ppg last season
- Christ Essandoko from South Carolina · 4.9 mpg, 1.3 ppg last season
- Tristan Beckford from South Florida · 4.4 mpg, 1.6 ppg last season
- Zach Howell no D1 minutes last season
- Talan Staley no D1 minutes last season
Returns 20% 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Feb 24 | 2025-26 | W Michigan 88 – 79 Bowling Green |
| Tue, Jan 20 | 2025-26 | Bowling Green 72 – 54 W Michigan |
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.