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-conferenceNeutral siteAcrisure Arena, Palm Springs, CAAcrisure Series
Fordham
Efficiency #170
2025-26: 17-15 · 8-11 conf
vs
Portland
Efficiency #259
2025-26: 15-19 · 8-13 conf
Sat, Nov 21 · 2:00 PM ET
71.6
win 62%
Projected
68.1
win 38%
No line posted yet.
Model: FOR −3.5 · total 139.6 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Portland 69.1, Fordham 66.2 → 67.0 possessions
−2.8
Portland offense vs Fordham defense
−4.6
Fordham offense vs Portland defense
−1.1
Projected total
139.6
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Portland offense vs Fordham defense
−4.6
Fordham offense vs Portland defense
+1.1
Fordham by 3.5
3.5
Fordham side ◂▸ Portland side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 139.7 against a projected 139.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Portland.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Portland is the faster team (69.7, #105 of 365) and Fordham the slower (64.5, #341). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
139.6
model
Projected team totals
71.6 / 68.1
Fordham / Portland
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.2#334
Fordham
69.1#114
Portland
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashPortland
Style match: ball movement
Portland assists on 61.6% of its made baskets; Fordham allows assists on 60.7% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 63.7% — both habits push the same way.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Portland averages 69.7 possessions per 40, Fordham 64.5. 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 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantagePortland
Where Portland struggles: ball control
Portland turns it over on 19.7% of possessions (#342); Fordham forces turnovers on 17.2% of opponent possessions (#136). Expect about 18.7%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.4 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageFordham
Where Fordham scores: the offensive glass
Fordham rebounds 34.1% of its own misses (#64); Portland lets opponents grab 32.5% of their own misses (#281). Expect about 34.0%, 3.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.
GlassPortland
Portland gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.0% is worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions against Portland's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Portland, Fordham) 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 Fordham at about 42.5% of its shots from three, Portland about 38.1%.
Fordham has the ball
OffensePortland allowsvs D1 avg
48.6% #300
52.7% #255
-1.2 pt/100
17.2% #218
17.0% #151
-0.5 pt/100
34.1% #64
32.5% #281
+2.2 pt/100
26.4% #354
32.6% #118
-0.7 pt/100
70.2% #265
—
-0.2 pt/100
Fordham net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100
Portland has the ball
OffenseFordham allowsvs D1 avg
51.2% #188
49.9% #95
-1.0 pt/100
19.7% #342
17.2% #136
-2.4 pt/100
28.1% #266
26.8% #29
-2.1 pt/100
34.4% #197
30.3% #66
-0.4 pt/100
74.0% #131
—
+0.1 pt/100
Portland net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.7 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersFordhamoffense vsPortlanddefense
Share of shots by zone
Fordham shoots
37.2
8.9
15.4
38.5
Portland allows
35.3
5.5
13.9
45.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.1%#225 | 59.2%#200 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.0%#221 | 29.5%#14 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.3%#33 | 37.2%#136 | 38.0% |
| Three | 28.9%#356 | 36.1%#308 | 33.7% |
Portlandoffense vsFordhamdefense
Share of shots by zone
Portland shoots
41.7
8.2
15.3
34.8
Fordham allows
32.3
7.6
17.8
42.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.9%#53 | 57.7%#137 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.3%#74 | 38.1%#137 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.4%#208 | 39.0%#203 | 38.0% |
| Three | 29.9%#344 | 33.4%#149 | 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 numbersFordham
+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#117 of 365
Off reb %
34.1%
#64
Def reb %
73.2%
#29
Turnover %
17.2%
#218
Forced TO %
17.2%
#136
FT rate
26.4%
#354
FT allowed
30.3%
#66
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.2
Defensive rebounding+1.2
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn−2.2
Foul shots allowed+1.3
Portland
−2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#290 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#266
Def reb %
67.5%
#281
Turnover %
19.7%
#342
Forced TO %
17.0%
#151
FT rate
34.4%
#197
FT allowed
32.6%
#118
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−0.6
Ball security−2.0
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.7
Fordham has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#117 of 365) to Portland’s −2.6 (#290).
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
Fordham2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Fordham's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Dejour Reaves | G | Sr | 6'0" | 31-30 | 33.9 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 51.0% | 28.7% | 3.7 | 85.8% | 33.6% | |
| 12 | Rikus Schulte | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.0 | 10.7 | 9.1 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 57.5% | 22.2% | 0.8 | 62.0% | 22.4% | |
| 13 | Akira Jacobs | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-30 | 28.5 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 52.0% | 33.3% | 4.1 | 75.8% | 15.5% | |
| 30 | Christian Henry | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-23 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 2.6 | 41.8% | 26.1% | 3.8 | 56.3% | 31.4% | |
| 77 | Louis Lesmond | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-10 | 19.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 35.1% | 20.0% | 2.7 | 42.9% | 17.3% | |
| 0 | Abass Bodija | F | Fr | 6'10" | 27-10 | 19.4 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 52.8% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 78.3% | 23.0% | |
| 4 | Marcus Greene | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-10 | 15.9 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 53.0% | 33.7% | 3.1 | 62.5% | 17.9% | |
| 14 | Roor Akhuar | F | Fr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 19.6 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 56.1% | 37.2% | 3.8 | 45.5% | 19.0% | |
| 3 | Jack Whitbourn | C | So | 6'11" | 11-9 | 23.9 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 47.1% | 20.0% | 0.9 | 85.7% | 24.6% | |
| 10 | Kingston Price | G | So | 6'2" | 21-0 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 55.9% | 31.6% | 0.9 | — | 15.8% | |
| 8 | Ryan Pettis | G | So | 6'4" | 6-0 | 11.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 32.4% | 10.0% | 1.7 | 50.0% | 17.1% | |
| 1 | Zarique Nutter | F | Sr | 6'7" | 3-2 | 16.3 | 12.7 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 44.8% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 75.0% | 48.7% | |
| 25 | Jace Howard | G | Sr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 10.0 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 100.0% | 27.6% | |
| 23 | Max Miller | G | So | 6'0" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.1% | |
| 21 | Aidan Crotty | G | So | 5'11" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 80.0% | 66.7% | 0.6 | — | 27.2% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Portland2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Portland's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Joel Foxwell | G | Fr | 6'1" | 34-34 | 35.7 | 15.6 | 4.3 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 46.8% | 31.9% | 6.4 | 80.7% | 29.3% | |
| 10 | Garrett Nuckolls | G | Jr | 6'6" | 34-19 | 25.9 | 6.7 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 41.5% | 17.8% | 2.1 | 82.6% | 20.9% | |
| 14 | James O'Donnell | F | So | 6'10" | 34-23 | 22.5 | 10.0 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 65.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 60.5% | 24.2% | |
| 35 | Cameron Williams | F | Jr | 6'8" | 31-28 | 23.9 | 10.6 | 4.6 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 52.6% | 26.8% | 1.3 | 79.8% | 24.7% | |
| 44 | Mikah Ballew | G | So | 6'5" | 31-15 | 23.6 | 8.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 45.8% | 33.6% | 4.8 | 81.3% | 23.0% | |
| 5 | Dante Censori-Hercules | G | Fr | 6'7" | 33-12 | 20.5 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 53.2% | 14.3% | 0.4 | 58.5% | 10.0% | |
| 1 | Jermaine Ballisager Webb | C | Sr | 7'1" | 34-17 | 19.8 | 8.9 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 57.4% | 35.5% | 1.8 | 71.0% | 24.7% | |
| 7 | Matus Hronsky | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-21 | 18.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 30.8% | 2.9 | 90.5% | 19.3% | |
| 3 | Timo George | F | Fr | 6'8" | 15-1 | 19.9 | 12.5 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 70.5% | 18.2% | 0.7 | 71.4% | 28.3% | |
| 21 | NaVaughn Long | G | Fr | 6'6" | 13-0 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 62.5% | 55.6% | 0.7 | 50.0% | 12.1% | |
| 12 | Kelson Gebbers | G | So | 6'7" | 15-0 | 5.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.2% | 0.6 | 50.0% | 13.1% | |
| 2 | Sam Noland | G | Sr | 6'1" | 13-0 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 83.3% | 7.7% | |
| 11 | Riley Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 1-0 | 19.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 80.0% | 13.4% | |
| 8 | Preston Lee | G | Fr | 5'11" | 6-0 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 87.5% | 100.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 18.4% | |
| 9 | Carlin Briggs | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Marchelo Moreira | G | So | 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.
Fordham2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Fordham's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Dejour Reaves | G | Sr | 6'0" | 31-30 | 33.9 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 51.0% | 28.7% | 3.7 | 85.8% | 33.6% | |
| 12 | Rikus Schulte | F | Jr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 30.0 | 10.7 | 9.1 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 57.5% | 22.2% | 0.8 | 62.0% | 22.4% | |
| 13 | Akira Jacobs | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-30 | 28.5 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 52.0% | 33.3% | 4.1 | 75.8% | 15.5% | |
| 30 | Christian Henry | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-23 | 28.2 | 10.7 | 3.4 | 5.1 | 2.6 | 41.8% | 26.1% | 3.8 | 56.3% | 31.4% | |
| 77 | Louis Lesmond | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-10 | 19.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 35.1% | 20.0% | 2.7 | 42.9% | 17.3% | |
| 0 | Abass Bodija | F | Fr | 6'10" | 27-10 | 19.4 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 52.8% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 78.3% | 23.0% | |
| 4 | Marcus Greene | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-10 | 15.9 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 53.0% | 33.7% | 3.1 | 62.5% | 17.9% | |
| 14 | Roor Akhuar | F | Fr | 6'7" | 25-3 | 19.6 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 56.1% | 37.2% | 3.8 | 45.5% | 19.0% | |
| 3 | Jack Whitbourn | C | So | 6'11" | 11-9 | 23.9 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 47.1% | 20.0% | 0.9 | 85.7% | 24.6% | |
| 10 | Kingston Price | G | So | 6'2" | 21-0 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 55.9% | 31.6% | 0.9 | — | 15.8% | |
| 8 | Ryan Pettis | G | So | 6'4" | 6-0 | 11.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 32.4% | 10.0% | 1.7 | 50.0% | 17.1% | |
| 1 | Zarique Nutter | F | Sr | 6'7" | 3-2 | 16.3 | 12.7 | 5.7 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 44.8% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 75.0% | 48.7% | |
| 25 | Jace Howard | G | Sr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 10.0 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 100.0% | 27.6% | |
| 23 | Max Miller | G | So | 6'0" | 5-0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | — | 25.1% | |
| 21 | Aidan Crotty | G | So | 5'11" | 5-0 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 80.0% | 66.7% | 0.6 | — | 27.2% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Fordham
Against the spread
Season
16-12-1
Home
8-8
Road
6-3-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +1.9
Covered 2 straightCovered 5 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
7-22
Home
2-14
Road
4-6
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −5.2
Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | G Washington | N | L 62–66 | +6.0 | W+2.0 | 141.0 | U128 | 97.2 | 103.5 | 63.8 |
| Mar 7 | Rhode Island | H | W 61–49 | −2.0 | W+10.0 | 135.5 | U110 | 94.4 | 75.8 | 64.6 |
| Mar 4 | La Salle | A | L 84–87 | −2.5 | L−5.5 | 131.5 | O171 | 124.3 | 128.7 | 67.6 |
| Feb 28 | VCU | A | L 63–82 | +12.5 | L−6.5 | 143.5 | O145 | 92.4 | 120.2 | 68.2 |
| Feb 21 | Davidson | H | W 63–59 | +1.0 | W+5.0 | 132.0 | U122 | 105.1 | 98.4 | 60.0 |
| Feb 18 | Loyola Chicago | H | W 62–59 | −8.0 | L−5.0 | 136.5 | U121 | 92.3 | 87.9 | 67.1 |
| Feb 14 | Rhode Island | A | W 70–66 OT | +5.0 | W+9.0 | 132.5 | O136 | 101.2 | 95.5 | 69.1 |
| Feb 10 | Saint Joseph's | A | W 68–64 | +4.0 | W+8.0 | 136.5 | U132 | 106.7 | 100.5 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | St Bonaventure | H | L 67–70 | +1.5 | L−1.5 | 140.0 | U137 | 108.1 | 112.9 | 62.0 |
| Feb 3 | VCU | H | L 59–63 | +7.0 | W+3.0 | 147.5 | U122 | 92.2 | 98.5 | 64.0 |
Portland
Against the spread
Season
15-17
Home
11-5
Road
2-11
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-18
Home
10-6
Road
3-10
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.8
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | San Francisco | N | L 65–82 | +7.0 | L−10.0 | 144.5 | O147 | 97.0 | 122.3 | 67.0 |
| Mar 6 | Washington St | N | W 74–68 | +5.5 | W+11.5 | 150.0 | U142 | 106.3 | 97.7 | 69.6 |
| Mar 5 | Pepperdine | N | W 77–68 | −3.5 | W+5.5 | 154.0 | U145 | 111.2 | 98.2 | 69.3 |
| Feb 28 | San Diego | H | W 87–74 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 148.5 | O161 | 125.8 | 107.0 | 69.2 |
| Feb 25 | #9Gonzaga | A | L 48–89 | +27.0 | L−14.0 | 150.0 | U137 | 71.2 | 131.9 | 67.5 |
| Feb 21 | Seattle U | A | L 59–71 | +6.5 | L−5.5 | 140.0 | U130 | 86.0 | 103.5 | 68.6 |
| Feb 18 | Pepperdine | H | L 87–95 | −7.0 | L−15.0 | 151.0 | O182 | 124.8 | 136.2 | 69.7 |
| Feb 11 | San Diego | A | L 58–71 | +2.5 | L−10.5 | 151.5 | U129 | 91.0 | 111.4 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | Seattle U | H | W 54–53 | +3.5 | W+4.5 | 143.0 | U107 | 86.5 | 84.9 | 62.5 |
| Feb 4 | #6Gonzaga | H | W 87–80 | +22.0 | W+29.0 | 152.5 | O167 | 117.7 | 108.2 | 73.9 |
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 homeFordhamPortland
Efficiency
105.4
104.9
105.1
109.9
66.2
69.1
—
—
Shooting
48.6%
51.2%
51.9%
54.7%
28.9%
29.9%
70.2%
74.0%
26.4%
34.4%
Ball control & glass
17.2%
19.7%
17.2%
17.0%
34.1%
28.1%
26.8%
32.5%
8.8%
10.7%
8.5%
6.4%
Style
38.3%
35.4%
48.9%
49.2%
11.1%
10.6%
52.4%
61.6%
29.5%
31.8%
Roster
3.07
2.28
6'5.8"
6'6.7"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputFordham
Returning minutes: 99.6%Returning production: 99.7%
ESPN hasn't posted Fordham's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 100% of last season's minutes. 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)
Portland
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Portland's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 100% of last season's minutes. 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo 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.