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 siteThe Palestra, Philadelphia, PA

Richmond

Efficiency #150

2025-26: 15-17 · 5-14 conf

Temple

Efficiency #168

2025-26: 16-16 · 8-11 conf

Sun, Nov 8 · TBD

74.5

win 52%

Projected

74.0

win 48%

No line posted yet.

Model: RICH −0.5 · total 148.4 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Temple 66.7, Richmond 68.5 → 66.8 possessions

−3.2

Temple offense vs Richmond defense

+1.5

Richmond offense vs Temple defense

+2.0

Projected total

148.4

Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Temple offense vs Richmond defense

+1.5

Richmond offense vs Temple defense

−2.0

Richmond by 0.5

0.5

Richmond side ◂▸ Temple side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 148.5 against a projected 148.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Temple.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Richmond is the faster team (68.5, #172 of 365) and Temple the slower (65.4, #320). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

148.4

model

Projected team totals

74.5 / 74.0

Richmond / Temple

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.5#169

Richmond

66.7#310

Temple

How this game plays

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

AdvantageRichmond

Where Richmond scores: ball control

Richmond turns it over on 14.3% of possessions (#33); Temple forces turnovers on 15.5% of opponent possessions (#247). Expect about 14.6%, 2.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions.

GlassRichmond

Richmond gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.6% is worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions against Richmond's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Richmond) 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 Richmond at about 39.7% of its shots from three, Temple about 40.5%.

ClashRichmond

Style clash: paint scoring

Richmond gets only 34.0% of its points in the paint; Temple gives up 46.3% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 41.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

ClashTemple

Style clash: 3-point volume

Temple rarely shoots threes (35.7% of its shots); Richmond lets opponents take 45.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Richmond has the ball

OffenseTemple allowsvs D1 avg

52.7% #115

50.7% #137

+0.7 pt/100

14.3% #33

15.5% #247

+2.7 pt/100

25.0% #340

30.3% #177

-2.3 pt/100

36.9% #133

35.5% #197

+0.1 pt/100

75.2% #76

—

+0.2 pt/100

Richmond net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.5 pts/100

Temple has the ball

OffenseRichmond allowsvs D1 avg

50.2% #229

52.0% #216

-0.4 pt/100

13.7% #18

17.7% #110

+1.4 pt/100

29.8% #209

31.0% #200

-0.1 pt/100

40.6% #52

35.1% #181

+0.3 pt/100

74.7% #96

—

+0.2 pt/100

Temple net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Richmondoffense vsTempledefense

Share of shots by zone

Richmond shoots

29.1

5.8

22.7

42.5

Temple allows

39.7

7.5

16.7

36.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.1%#116	58.5%#167	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.6%#230	39.2%#160	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.7%#87	39.1%#205	38.0%
Three	37.1%#28	32.8%#107	33.7%

Templeoffense vsRichmonddefense

Share of shots by zone

Temple shoots

40.0

6.6

17.3

36.1

Richmond allows

33.3

7.3

14.2

45.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.8%#247	64.5%#345	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.7%#250	39.5%#172	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.5%#200	39.8%#236	38.0%
Three	33.6%#194	32.7%#103	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

Richmond

+1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#135 of 365

Off reb %

25.0%

#340

Def reb %

69.0%

#200

Turnover %

14.3%

#33

Forced TO %

17.7%

#110

FT rate

36.9%

#133

FT allowed

35.1%

#181

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.7

Defensive rebounding−0.1

Ball security+1.7

Forcing turnovers+0.7

Foul shots drawn+0.5

Foul shots allowed0.0

Temple

+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#76 of 365

Off reb %

29.8%

#209

Def reb %

69.7%

#177

Turnover %

13.7%

#18

Forced TO %

15.5%

#247

FT rate

40.6%

#52

FT allowed

35.5%

#197

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding+0.1

Ball security+2.1

Forcing turnovers−0.8

Foul shots drawn+1.4

Foul shots allowed−0.1

Temple has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#76 of 365) to Richmond’s +1.0 (#135).

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

Richmond2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
6	AJ Lopez	G	Sr	6'5"	32-32	25.8	13.4	2.2	1.3	0.9	54.1%	39.4%	3.3	86.2%	26.7%
3	Aiden Argabright	G	Fr	5'11"	31-3	23.5	10.8	2.0	2.0	0.8	49.2%	35.0%	2.6	82.9%	24.3%
21	Mike Walz	C	Sr	6'11"	32-32	21.2	7.9	6.4	2.3	1.5	55.9%	38.5%	2.4	75.6%	22.8%
5	Collin Tanner	G	Jr	6'6"	29-22	18.6	5.9	3.2	0.8	0.6	50.7%	29.2%	2.2	75.0%	19.4%
2	Jaden Daughtry	F	Jr	6'7"	31-4	15.7	8.9	3.0	0.6	1.4	57.8%	45.3%	1.7	59.7%	33.5%
12	David Thomas	G	Jr	6'2"	31-7	14.1	4.2	1.1	0.5	0.5	55.4%	42.1%	1.8	87.5%	17.3%
33	Apostolos Roumoglou	F	Sr	6'8"	27-0	15.4	2.9	3.3	1.1	0.4	43.0%	22.6%	2.3	66.7%	13.6%
9	Jonathan Beagle	F	Sr	6'10"	24-0	14.9	6.0	4.6	1.5	1.0	54.3%	0.0%	0.1	61.1%	24.1%
11	Will Harper III	G	Fr	6'4"	13-0	11.2	3.6	1.7	0.6	0.5	39.7%	29.4%	1.3	84.2%	22.7%
35	Bryson McGlothin	F	Fr	6'8"	3-0	4.3	1.3	1.0	0.0	0.0	30.0%	25.0%	1.3	50.0%	27.1%
15	Kirby Mooney	G	Fr	6'3"	3-0	4.0	0.7	0.7	0.3	1.0	33.3%	0.0%	0.3	—	27.6%
8	Donovan Richardson	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
16	Dylan Homenick	C	Fr	6'11"	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.

Temple2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
22	Derrian Ford	G	Sr	6'3"	31-31	35.7	18.1	4.3	1.9	1.5	48.9%	37.9%	4.3	85.2%	30.0%
32	Jordan Mason	G	Sr	6'3"	32-32	33.7	11.8	3.1	4.0	1.6	46.3%	31.3%	2.0	79.8%	23.7%
0	Gavin Griffiths	G	Jr	6'7"	30-29	29.4	10.1	4.9	1.4	1.1	51.8%	33.5%	6.3	52.2%	22.3%
10	Masiah Gilyard	G	Sr	6'3"	31-2	18.0	5.8	4.0	0.5	0.5	50.7%	33.8%	2.5	63.6%	20.2%
1	Jamai Felt	F	So	6'9"	31-23	13.3	3.8	4.1	0.4	0.8	62.0%	0.0%	0.0	58.5%	18.0%
2	Ayuba Bryant Jr.	F	Fr	6'9"	26-2	8.4	1.8	1.7	0.2	0.3	58.6%	0.0%	0.0	45.2%	14.6%
7	Cam Wallace	G	Fr	6'4"	19-0	6.4	2.1	0.7	0.5	0.2	46.8%	36.8%	1.0	55.6%	20.8%
9	AJ Smith	G	Sr	6'5"	8-0	15.0	7.8	1.4	0.8	0.4	53.3%	44.4%	1.1	73.7%	28.4%
4	Mohamed Keita	C	Sr	7'1"	23-0	4.6	0.7	0.9	0.0	0.0	50.0%	—	0.0	37.5%	10.8%
8	Spencer Mahoney	F	So	6'8"	13-0	5.1	0.2	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	0.7	100.0%	15.1%
13	Connor Gal	G	Sr	6'4"	4-0	3.3	3.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	72.2%	25.0%	1.0	—	39.2%
3	CJ Hines	G	Sr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
21	Olin Chamberlain Jr.	G	Fr	6'0"	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.

Richmond2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
6	AJ Lopez	G	Sr	6'5"	32-32	25.8	13.4	2.2	1.3	0.9	54.1%	39.4%	3.3	86.2%	26.7%
3	Aiden Argabright	G	Fr	5'11"	31-3	23.5	10.8	2.0	2.0	0.8	49.2%	35.0%	2.6	82.9%	24.3%
21	Mike Walz	C	Sr	6'11"	32-32	21.2	7.9	6.4	2.3	1.5	55.9%	38.5%	2.4	75.6%	22.8%
5	Collin Tanner	G	Jr	6'6"	29-22	18.6	5.9	3.2	0.8	0.6	50.7%	29.2%	2.2	75.0%	19.4%
2	Jaden Daughtry	F	Jr	6'7"	31-4	15.7	8.9	3.0	0.6	1.4	57.8%	45.3%	1.7	59.7%	33.5%
12	David Thomas	G	Jr	6'2"	31-7	14.1	4.2	1.1	0.5	0.5	55.4%	42.1%	1.8	87.5%	17.3%
33	Apostolos Roumoglou	F	Sr	6'8"	27-0	15.4	2.9	3.3	1.1	0.4	43.0%	22.6%	2.3	66.7%	13.6%
9	Jonathan Beagle	F	Sr	6'10"	24-0	14.9	6.0	4.6	1.5	1.0	54.3%	0.0%	0.1	61.1%	24.1%
11	Will Harper III	G	Fr	6'4"	13-0	11.2	3.6	1.7	0.6	0.5	39.7%	29.4%	1.3	84.2%	22.7%
35	Bryson McGlothin	F	Fr	6'8"	3-0	4.3	1.3	1.0	0.0	0.0	30.0%	25.0%	1.3	50.0%	27.1%
15	Kirby Mooney	G	Fr	6'3"	3-0	4.0	0.7	0.7	0.3	1.0	33.3%	0.0%	0.3	—	27.6%
8	Donovan Richardson	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
16	Dylan Homenick	C	Fr	6'11"	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

Richmond

Against the spread

Season

15-15-1

Home

8-8-1

Road

7-4

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover −2.2

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 6 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

14-17

Home

8-9

Road

5-6

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +2.0

Over 2 straightOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 11	Loyola ChicagoAdjEM #309	N	L 67–75	−4.5	L−12.5	141.5	O142	107.2	120.0	62.5
Mar 7	DuquesneAdjEM #131	A	L 77–79	+4.5	W+2.5	148.0	O156	116.8	119.9	65.9
Mar 3	DaytonAdjEM #62	H	L 60–65	+5.0	P0.0	145.0	U125	97.0	105.1	61.8
Feb 28	Loyola ChicagoAdjEM #309	A	L 66–69	−2.5	L−5.5	146.5	U135	91.7	95.9	72.0
Feb 21	St BonaventureAdjEM #138	H	W 99–94	−1.0	W+4.0	148.5	O193	134.8	128.0	73.4
Feb 18	DavidsonAdjEM #112	A	L 63–65	+5.0	W+3.0	140.5	U128	98.8	101.9	63.8
Feb 14	VCUAdjEM #39	H	L 67–78	+8.5	L−2.5	156.0	U145	95.9	111.6	69.9
Feb 10	George MasonAdjEM #83	H	W 82–70	+3.0	W+15.0	140.0	O152	116.9	99.8	70.1
Feb 7	Rhode IslandAdjEM #137	A	L 77–82	+6.0	W+1.0	141.0	O159	113.2	120.5	68.0
Jan 31	DavidsonAdjEM #112	H	L 54–79	−2.0	L−27.0	140.5	U133	93.5	136.8	57.8

Temple

Against the spread

Season

13-18

Home

6-9

Road

7-4

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.2

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

17-14

Home

10-5

Road

4-7

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total −0.9

Under in the last gameOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 11	FAUAdjEM #122	N	L 59–63	−1.0	L−5.0	144.5	U122	91.3	97.4	64.7
Mar 8	TulsaAdjEM #46	A	L 76–78	+11.5	W+9.5	150.5	O154	113.6	116.6	66.9
Mar 5	TulaneAdjEM #239	H	W 89–60	−5.0	W+24.0	145.0	O149	132.2	89.1	67.3
Mar 1	RiceAdjEM #255	H	L 74–80	−7.0	L−13.0	142.5	O154	113.5	122.7	65.2
Feb 26	FAUAdjEM #122	A	L 73–77	+4.5	W+0.5	146.0	O150	114.0	120.2	64.0
Feb 21	Wichita StAdjEM #60	A	L 57–69	+8.5	L−3.5	143.5	U126	92.8	112.4	61.4
Feb 18	UABAdjEM #111	H	L 71–76	−1.5	L−6.5	143.5	O147	107.5	115.1	66.0
Feb 15	North TexasAdjEM #151	H	L 62–65	−2.0	L−5.0	135.0	U127	97.2	101.9	63.8
Feb 11	TulaneAdjEM #239	A	L 66–77	+2.0	L−9.0	145.0	U143	97.2	113.4	67.9
Feb 7	East CarolinaAdjEM #272	A	W 81–73	−2.5	W+5.5	139.5	O154	127.2	114.7	63.7

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

RichmondTemple

Efficiency

110.1

110.3

108.9

109.9

68.5

66.7

—

Shooting

52.7%

50.2%

50.5%

50.0%

37.1%

33.6%

75.2%

74.7%

36.9%

40.6%

Ball control & glass

14.3%

13.7%

17.7%

15.5%

25.0%

29.8%

31.0%

30.3%

7.8%

8.1%

7.7%

11.4%

Style

42.6%

35.7%

34.0%

43.0%

16.1%

11.8%

54.5%

48.2%

43.4%

26.1%

Roster

3.10

3.39

6'5.6"

6'4.9"

72.2%

72.8%

Offseason

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

Richmond

Returning minutes: 72.2%Returning production: 78.0%

Lost

Will Johnston 27.5 mpg, 9.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Mikkel Tyne 18.4 mpg, 6.0 ppg · transferred to Buffalo
Jaylen Robinson 10.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg · transferred to Sacred Heart

Added

Dylan Homenick no D1 minutes last season
Donovan Richardson no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 72% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (1 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).

Temple

Returning minutes: 72.8%Returning production: 71.5%

Lost

Aiden Tobiason 35.4 mpg, 15.3 ppg · transferred to Syracuse
Babatunde Durodola 19.2 mpg, 4.8 ppg · transferred to Ball State

Added

CJ Hines no D1 minutes last season
Olin Chamberlain Jr. no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 73% 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).

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.