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-conferenceRose Hill Gym, Bronx, NY

FDU

Efficiency #332

2025-26: 11-21 · 8-11 conf

Fordham

Efficiency #170

2025-26: 17-15 · 8-11 conf

Mon, Dec 7 · TBD

62.1

win 18%

Projected

72.6

win 82%

No line posted yet.

Model: FOR −10.4 · total 134.7 · 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: Fordham 66.2, FDU 66.2 → 64.1 possessions

−9.2

Fordham offense vs FDU defense

+1.2

FDU offense vs Fordham defense

−5.5

Projected total

134.7

Axis starts at 125 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Fordham offense vs FDU defense

+1.2

FDU offense vs Fordham defense

+5.5

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

+3.7

Fordham by 10.4

10.4

FDU side ◂▸ Fordham 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 Fordham.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 64.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Fordham is the faster team (64.5, #341 of 365) and FDU the slower (64.1, #352). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

64.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

134.7

model

Projected team totals

62.1 / 72.6

FDU / Fordham

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.2#337

FDU

66.2#334

Fordham

How this game plays

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

Pace

Half-court grind

Fordham averages 64.5 possessions per 40, FDU 64.1. 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.

AdvantageFDU

Where FDU struggles: shooting

FDU shoots an effective 47.1% (#333); Fordham allows 49.9% (#95). Expect about 48.2%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.4 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Fordham, FDU, FDU's defense) 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 FDU at about 45.9% of its shots from three, Fordham about 39.2%.

FDU has the ball

OffenseFordham allowsvs D1 avg

47.1% #333

49.9% #95

-4.4 pt/100

18.1% #280

17.2% #136

-1.3 pt/100

32.0% #125

26.8% #29

-0.4 pt/100

32.8% #240

30.3% #66

-0.5 pt/100

70.1% #272

—

-0.2 pt/100

FDU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.8 pts/100

Fordham has the ball

OffenseFDU allowsvs D1 avg

48.6% #300

55.2% #336

+0.6 pt/100

17.2% #218

16.1% #216

+0.2 pt/100

34.1% #64

27.3% #46

+0.7 pt/100

26.4% #354

36.3% #217

-0.4 pt/100

70.2% #265

—

-0.2 pt/100

Fordham net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.9 pts/100

Shot diet

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

FDUoffense vsFordhamdefense

Share of shots by zone

FDU shoots

35.6

5.8

14.0

44.6

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	57.1%#236	57.7%#137	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.3%#239	38.1%#137	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.5%#337	39.0%#203	38.0%
Three	30.3%#339	33.4%#149	33.7%

Fordhamoffense vsFDUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Fordham shoots

37.2

8.9

15.4

38.5

FDU allows

35.4

6.8

17.0

40.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.1%#225	60.0%#224	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.0%#221	38.5%#148	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	43.3%#33	43.3%#331	38.0%
Three	28.9%#356	37.8%#354	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

FDU

−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#205 of 365

Off reb %

32.0%

#125

Def reb %

72.7%

#46

Turnover %

18.1%

#280

Forced TO %

16.1%

#216

FT rate

32.8%

#240

FT allowed

36.3%

#217

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.5

Defensive rebounding+1.1

Ball security−0.9

Forcing turnovers−0.4

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed−0.3

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

Fordham has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#117 of 365) to FDU’s −0.6 (#205).

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

FDU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted FDU'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
0	Joey Niesman	G	Sr	6'2"	32-28	33.9	12.3	3.8	3.2	1.9	50.3%	34.3%	5.4	74.1%	24.8%
2	Taeshaud Jackson	F	Sr	6'6"	32-32	29.6	10.3	8.4	1.6	1.8	48.6%	21.6%	1.6	76.2%	23.9%
7	Eric Parnell	G	Sr	6'3"	32-31	25.7	10.7	2.2	0.7	0.5	49.8%	33.1%	7.6	81.8%	26.2%
22	Cyril Martynov	C	Sr	7'0"	32-32	25.6	8.1	5.4	2.3	1.9	53.9%	14.3%	0.2	53.6%	22.8%
35	David Jevtic	G	Fr	6'8"	31-10	20.3	6.6	3.4	1.2	1.3	48.0%	32.6%	3.0	66.0%	24.0%
55	Arthur Cox	F	Sr	6'8"	29-1	20.1	8.8	3.7	1.3	1.6	48.9%	29.2%	2.2	78.0%	29.3%
3	Raysean Johnson	G	So	6'1"	31-17	17.4	4.6	1.8	0.7	0.9	43.4%	27.6%	1.9	67.9%	20.1%
8	Noah Melson	G	Jr	6'6"	25-6	17.3	6.0	1.6	0.5	0.6	45.6%	32.7%	3.9	53.8%	24.7%
24	Ras Elijah Godbolt	G	Fr	6'0"	30-2	11.7	1.3	0.8	0.9	0.3	30.2%	21.1%	0.6	86.7%	10.5%
15	Josiah Francis	G	So	6'8"	14-0	6.9	1.4	2.1	0.0	0.6	31.8%	18.2%	0.8	83.3%	20.7%
9	Sebastian Haubro	F	Fr	6'10"	23-0	3.7	0.6	0.9	0.2	0.2	40.0%	—	0.0	90.0%	10.7%
5	Chid Ekwommadu	G	So	6'6"	2-0	8.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	1.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	—	14.2%
11	Tyler McQuaid	G	Fr	6'0"	7-0	1.6	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	16.1%
21	Cole Alexander	F	Sr	6'7"	5-1	1.2	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	30.3%
30	Andrew Canda	G	So	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Kody Frey	G	Fr	6'6"	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.

FDU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted FDU'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
0	Joey Niesman	G	Sr	6'2"	32-28	33.9	12.3	3.8	3.2	1.9	50.3%	34.3%	5.4	74.1%	24.8%
2	Taeshaud Jackson	F	Sr	6'6"	32-32	29.6	10.3	8.4	1.6	1.8	48.6%	21.6%	1.6	76.2%	23.9%
7	Eric Parnell	G	Sr	6'3"	32-31	25.7	10.7	2.2	0.7	0.5	49.8%	33.1%	7.6	81.8%	26.2%
22	Cyril Martynov	C	Sr	7'0"	32-32	25.6	8.1	5.4	2.3	1.9	53.9%	14.3%	0.2	53.6%	22.8%
35	David Jevtic	G	Fr	6'8"	31-10	20.3	6.6	3.4	1.2	1.3	48.0%	32.6%	3.0	66.0%	24.0%
55	Arthur Cox	F	Sr	6'8"	29-1	20.1	8.8	3.7	1.3	1.6	48.9%	29.2%	2.2	78.0%	29.3%
3	Raysean Johnson	G	So	6'1"	31-17	17.4	4.6	1.8	0.7	0.9	43.4%	27.6%	1.9	67.9%	20.1%
8	Noah Melson	G	Jr	6'6"	25-6	17.3	6.0	1.6	0.5	0.6	45.6%	32.7%	3.9	53.8%	24.7%
24	Ras Elijah Godbolt	G	Fr	6'0"	30-2	11.7	1.3	0.8	0.9	0.3	30.2%	21.1%	0.6	86.7%	10.5%
15	Josiah Francis	G	So	6'8"	14-0	6.9	1.4	2.1	0.0	0.6	31.8%	18.2%	0.8	83.3%	20.7%
9	Sebastian Haubro	F	Fr	6'10"	23-0	3.7	0.6	0.9	0.2	0.2	40.0%	—	0.0	90.0%	10.7%
5	Chid Ekwommadu	G	So	6'6"	2-0	8.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	1.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	—	14.2%
11	Tyler McQuaid	G	Fr	6'0"	7-0	1.6	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	16.1%
21	Cole Alexander	F	Sr	6'7"	5-1	1.2	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	30.3%
30	Andrew Canda	G	So	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Kody Frey	G	Fr	6'6"	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 2025-26

FDU

Against the spread

Season

9-19-1

Home

4-6-1

Road

5-13

Last 10

2-7-1

avg cover −2.7

Missed the spread 6 straightCovered 2 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 0 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

10-19

Home

4-7

Road

6-12

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −2.9

Under 3 straightOver in 3 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 0 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 4	MercyhurstAdjEM #261	A	L 61–70	+4.0	L−5.0	132.5	U131	94.2	108.0	64.8
Feb 28	Long IslandAdjEM #195	A	L 60–74	+9.0	L−5.0	137.5	U134	95.3	117.6	62.9
Feb 26	Le MoyneAdjEM #270	A	L 59–76	+4.5	L−12.5	139.5	U135	92.2	118.7	64.0
Feb 21	New HavenAdjEM #326	H	L 77–84	−2.5	L−9.5	124.5	O161	122.6	133.7	62.8
Feb 19	Chicago StAdjEM #342	A	W 60–59	−2.0	L−1.0	132.0	U119	113.5	111.6	52.9
Feb 14	C ConnecticutAdjEM #277	H	L 57–63	+1.0	L−5.0	134.0	U120	100.9	111.5	56.5
Feb 12	Saint Francis Red Wolves	H	W 66–59	−7.0	P0.0	142.5	U125	100.9	90.2	65.4
Feb 7	MercyhurstAdjEM #261	H	W 55–52	−2.5	W+0.5	131.0	U107	101.4	95.9	54.3
Feb 5	StonehillAdjEM #320	H	W 74–58	−1.0	W+15.0	131.0	O132	116.1	91.0	63.7
Jan 31	WagnerAdjEM #285	A	L 72–75 OT	−1.5	L−4.5	135.5	O147	105.0	109.4	68.6

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

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

FDUFordham

Efficiency

103.2

105.4

113.4

105.1

66.2

—

Shooting

47.1%

48.6%

51.9%

30.3%

28.9%

70.1%

70.2%

32.8%

26.4%

Ball control & glass

18.1%

17.2%

16.1%

17.2%

32.0%

34.1%

27.3%

26.8%

9.8%

8.8%

9.4%

8.5%

Style

45.2%

38.3%

40.1%

48.9%

5.7%

11.1%

51.0%

52.4%

32.0%

29.5%

Roster

3.23

3.07

6'5.4"

6'5.8"

—

Offseason

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

FDU

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted FDU'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.)

Fordham

Returning minutes: 99.6%Returning production: 99.7%

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

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Wed, Dec 10	2025-26	FDU 54 – 75 Fordham

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.