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-conferenceLavietes Pavilion, Cambridge, MA

Fordham

Efficiency #170

2025-26: 17-15 · 8-11 conf

Harvard

Efficiency #133

2025-26: 17-12 · 10-5 conf

Sat, Nov 28 · TBD

63.2

win 34%

Projected

68.0

win 66%

No line posted yet.

Model: HARV −4.7 · total 131.2 · 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: Harvard 65.6, Fordham 66.2 → 63.5 possessions

−10.5

Harvard offense vs Fordham defense

−2.7

Fordham offense vs Harvard defense

−3.8

Projected total

131.2

Axis starts at 120 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Harvard offense vs Fordham defense

−2.7

Fordham offense vs Harvard defense

+3.8

Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors

+3.7

Harvard by 4.7

4.7

Fordham side ◂▸ Harvard side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +4.8 against +4.7. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Harvard.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 63.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Fordham is the faster team (64.5, #341 of 365) and Harvard the slower (63.9, #357). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

63.5

per team, 40 min

Projected total

131.2

model

Projected team totals

63.2 / 68.0

Fordham / Harvard

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.2#334

Fordham

65.6#354

Harvard

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet

Pace

Half-court grind

Harvard averages 63.9 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 62 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageFordham

Where Fordham struggles: shooting

Fordham shoots an effective 48.6% (#300); Harvard allows 50.4% (#122). Expect about 49.3%, 2.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageHarvard

Where Harvard struggles: the offensive glass

Harvard rebounds 26.8% of its own misses (#302); Fordham lets opponents grab 26.8% of their own misses (#29). Expect about 26.2%, 4.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (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 38.0% of its shots from three, Harvard about 41.9%.

ClashFordham

Style match: paint scoring

Fordham scores 48.9% of its points in the paint; Harvard gives up 47.0% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 45.7% — both habits push the same way.

Fordham has the ball

OffenseHarvard allowsvs D1 avg

48.6% #300

50.4% #122

-2.8 pt/100

17.2% #218

17.1% #141

-0.5 pt/100

34.1% #64

28.2% #69

+0.9 pt/100

26.4% #354

26.6% #17

-1.1 pt/100

70.2% #265

—

-0.2 pt/100

Fordham net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.8 pts/100

Harvard has the ball

OffenseFordham allowsvs D1 avg

53.2% #94

49.9% #95

+0.6 pt/100

17.4% #233

17.2% #136

-0.8 pt/100

26.8% #302

26.8% #29

-2.6 pt/100

25.7% #359

30.3% #66

-0.9 pt/100

80.8% #1

—

+0.7 pt/100

Harvard net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.9 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

Fordhamoffense vsHarvarddefense

Share of shots by zone

Fordham shoots

37.2

8.9

15.4

38.5

Harvard allows

41.4

4.6

15.2

38.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.1%#225	56.4%#95	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.0%#221	44.9%#295	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	43.3%#33	41.3%#284	38.0%
Three	28.9%#356	32.6%#94	33.7%

Harvardoffense vsFordhamdefense

Share of shots by zone

Harvard shoots

38.5

4.1

17.1

40.3

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	61.7%#80	57.7%#137	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.5%#35	38.1%#137	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.8%#118	39.0%#203	38.0%
Three	34.7%#135	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 numbers

Fordham

+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

Harvard

−0.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#212 of 365

Off reb %

26.8%

#302

Def reb %

71.8%

#69

Turnover %

17.4%

#233

Forced TO %

17.1%

#141

FT rate

25.7%

#359

FT allowed

26.6%

#17

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.2

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers+0.3

Foul shots drawn−2.4

Foul shots allowed+2.2

Fordham has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#117 of 365) to Harvard’s −0.7 (#212).

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
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.

Harvard2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Harvard'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
8	Tey Barbour	G	So	6'4"	29-28	33.6	13.6	5.2	1.4	1.3	60.8%	39.6%	6.8	81.6%	22.1%
13	Chandler Pigge	G	Sr	6'5"	29-29	33.6	12.9	5.1	3.3	2.0	50.6%	31.5%	3.1	75.3%	26.3%
4	Robert Hinton	G	So	6'5"	29-29	33.4	16.8	4.8	2.1	1.8	52.4%	29.4%	2.9	82.9%	31.2%
15	Thomas Batties III	F	Jr	6'7"	29-29	33.0	12.3	5.4	2.3	1.6	57.7%	45.3%	4.4	87.2%	22.4%
5	Ben Eisendrath	G	So	6'2"	28-26	29.1	5.3	2.2	3.3	2.2	45.2%	14.3%	1.5	89.7%	15.9%
7	Austin Hunt	G	So	6'4"	14-3	22.8	6.9	3.6	1.0	1.1	58.7%	37.8%	2.6	81.8%	18.6%
10	Frankie Mannino	G	Fr	6'5"	28-0	8.9	1.8	1.3	0.5	0.3	57.4%	10.0%	0.4	66.7%	13.1%
34	Ryan Sullivan	F	Fr	6'9"	21-0	7.5	1.3	2.0	0.2	0.2	60.0%	0.0%	0.0	30.0%	11.3%
3	Xavier Nesbitt	G	Jr	5'11"	27-0	5.2	0.6	0.6	0.3	0.3	24.1%	11.1%	0.7	75.0%	17.0%
0	Kenan Parrish	F	Fr	7'0"	18-0	6.2	2.2	1.2	0.1	0.4	45.8%	33.3%	0.5	66.7%	26.6%
35	Luca Ace-Nasteski	F	Jr	6'10"	20-0	5.5	1.1	0.9	0.3	0.1	43.8%	0.0%	0.1	81.8%	13.6%
12	Dutch Dowdell	G	So	6'6"	16-0	3.9	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.1	44.1%	31.3%	1.0	—	18.3%
18	Joseph Quartey	G	Fr	6'2"	7-0	2.9	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	—	18.3%
14	Greg Cooper	G	Sr	6'0"	4-1	2.3	0.8	0.3	0.0	0.0	75.0%	50.0%	0.5	—	13.6%
24	Payton Pitts	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	1.7	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	12.5%
41	Avner Dror	F	Fr	6'9"	2-0	2.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	15.5%
11	Alex Touomou	F	Fr	6'7"	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
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 2025-26

Fordham

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 WashingtonAdjEM #68	N	L 62–66	+6.0	W+2.0	141.0	U128	97.2	103.5	63.8
Mar 7	Rhode IslandAdjEM #137	H	W 61–49	−2.0	W+10.0	135.5	U110	94.4	75.8	64.6
Mar 4	La SalleAdjEM #256	A	L 84–87	−2.5	L−5.5	131.5	O171	124.3	128.7	67.6
Feb 28	VCUAdjEM #39	A	L 63–82	+12.5	L−6.5	143.5	O145	92.4	120.2	68.2
Feb 21	DavidsonAdjEM #112	H	W 63–59	+1.0	W+5.0	132.0	U122	105.1	98.4	60.0
Feb 18	Loyola ChicagoAdjEM #309	H	W 62–59	−8.0	L−5.0	136.5	U121	92.3	87.9	67.1
Feb 14	Rhode IslandAdjEM #137	A	W 70–66 OT	+5.0	W+9.0	132.5	O136	101.2	95.5	69.1
Feb 10	Saint Joseph'sAdjEM #118	A	W 68–64	+4.0	W+8.0	136.5	U132	106.7	100.5	63.7
Feb 7	St BonaventureAdjEM #138	H	L 67–70	+1.5	L−1.5	140.0	U137	108.1	112.9	62.0
Feb 3	VCUAdjEM #39	H	L 59–63	+7.0	W+3.0	147.5	U122	92.2	98.5	64.0

Harvard

Against the spread

Season

14-14

Home

4-7

Road

10-5

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +5.2

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

10-18

Home

5-6

Road

4-11

Last 10

2-8

avg vs total −9.5

Under in the last gameOver in 1 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 14	PennAdjEM #162	N	L 60–62 OT	−3.5	L−5.5	139.0	U122	85.9	88.7	69.9
Mar 6	ColumbiaAdjEM #166	H	W 81–71	−5.0	W+5.0	135.0	O152	120.2	105.4	67.4
Feb 28	PennAdjEM #162	A	L 61–64	−1.0	L−4.0	139.5	U125	85.3	89.5	71.5
Feb 27	PrincetonAdjEM #251	A	W 58–56	−4.0	L−2.0	129.5	U114	96.6	93.3	60.0
Feb 21	CornellAdjEM #135	A	W 73–54	+5.5	W+24.5	155.0	U127	121.5	89.9	60.1
Feb 14	YaleAdjEM #57	H	L 75–76 OT	+5.5	W+4.5	139.5	O151	114.2	115.8	65.7
Feb 13	BrownAdjEM #275	H	W 56–53	−8.0	L−5.0	131.5	U109	90.6	85.7	61.8
Feb 7	DartmouthAdjEM #254	A	W 71–58	−1.0	W+12.0	140.5	U129	110.3	90.1	64.4
Jan 31	YaleAdjEM #57	A	W 67–65	+12.0	W+14.0	141.5	U132	115.7	112.3	57.9
Jan 30	BrownAdjEM #275	A	W 69–59	−1.5	W+8.5	133.0	U128	113.3	96.8	60.9

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 home

FordhamHarvard

Efficiency

105.4

107.6

105.1

105.6

66.2

65.6

—

Shooting

48.6%

53.2%

51.9%

54.0%

28.9%

34.7%

70.2%

80.8%

26.4%

25.7%

Ball control & glass

17.2%

17.4%

17.2%

17.1%

34.1%

26.8%

28.2%

8.8%

10.2%

8.5%

7.4%

Style

38.3%

40.2%

48.9%

43.0%

11.1%

10.7%

52.4%

56.1%

29.5%

19.9%

Roster

3.07

2.45

6'5.8"

6'4.9"

—

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

Fordham

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.)

Harvard

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Harvard's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Head-to-head

this season and last

No 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.