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-conferenceYanitelli Center, Jersey City, NJAmerica East-Metro Challenge
Binghamton
Efficiency #354
2025-26: 8-23 · 4-12 conf
@
Saint Peter's
Efficiency #225
2025-26: 17-12 · 14-7 conf
Thu, Nov 5 · 7:00 PM ET
64.8
win 16%
Projected
76.4
win 84%
No line posted yet.
Model: SPU −11.6 · total 141.1 · 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: Saint Peter's 67.1, Binghamton 67.1 → 65.8 possessions
−5.4
Saint Peter's offense vs Binghamton defense
+3.1
Binghamton offense vs Saint Peter's defense
−4.7
Projected total
141.1
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Saint Peter's offense vs Binghamton defense
+3.1
Binghamton offense vs Saint Peter's defense
+4.7
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Saint Peter's by 11.6
11.6
Binghamton side ◂▸ Saint Peter's side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 141.2 against a projected 141.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Saint Peter's.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Saint Peter's is the faster team (65.5, #316 of 365) and Binghamton the slower (65.1, #331). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
141.1
model
Projected team totals
64.8 / 76.4
Binghamton / Saint Peter's
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.1#281
Binghamton
67.1#283
Saint Peter's
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Saint Peter's averages 65.5 possessions per 40, Binghamton 65.1. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageBinghamton
Where Binghamton struggles: ball control
Binghamton turns it over on 18.8% of possessions (#312); Saint Peter's forces turnovers on 20.0% of opponent possessions (#22). Expect about 20.0%, 3.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.0 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseSaint Peter's
Saint Peter's's ball-hawking
Saint Peter's ranks #7 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.5% of Binghamton's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
ClashBinghamton
Style match: 3-point volume
Binghamton rarely shoots threes (30.9% of its shots); Saint Peter's runs teams off the line (35.5% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 30.1% — both habits push the same way.
GlassBinghamton
Binghamton gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.8% is worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions against Binghamton's offense.
AdvantageSaint Peter's
Where Saint Peter's scores: the offensive glass
Saint Peter's rebounds 37.0% of its own misses (#16); Binghamton lets opponents grab 29.4% of their own misses (#128). Expect about 34.5%, 4.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions.
Binghamton has the ball
OffenseSaint Peter's allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #234
48.1% #39
-3.4 pt/100
18.8% #312
20.0% #22
-4.0 pt/100
20.9% #361
34.7% #330
-2.8 pt/100
41.5% #37
46.4% #354
+1.2 pt/100
75.3% #75
—
+0.3 pt/100
Binghamton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -8.7 pts/100
Saint Peter's has the ball
OffenseBinghamton allowsvs D1 avg
46.4% #347
54.3% #309
-1.8 pt/100
17.7% #249
13.3% #349
+2.1 pt/100
37.0% #16
29.4% #128
+2.5 pt/100
35.5% #163
34.6% #167
-0.0 pt/100
73.6% #148
—
+0.1 pt/100
Saint Peter's 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 numbersBinghamtonoffense vsSaint Peter'sdefense
Share of shots by zone
Binghamton shoots
44.6
8.1
16.3
31.0
Saint Peter's allows
43.9
4.1
16.2
35.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.9%#275 | 51.7%#13 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.7%#228 | 41.1%#210 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.0%#78 | 39.6%#227 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.5%#254 | 32.1%#68 | 33.7% |
Saint Peter'soffense vsBinghamtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Saint Peter's shoots
38.7
5.6
16.9
38.8
Binghamton allows
42.2
6.8
11.7
39.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 51.6%#351 | 58.7%#174 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.8%#198 | 45.5%#314 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.2%#216 | 42.0%#300 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.0%#321 | 35.8%#294 | 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 numbersBinghamton
−4.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#340 of 365
Off reb %
20.9%
#361
Def reb %
70.6%
#128
Turnover %
18.8%
#312
Forced TO %
13.3%
#349
FT rate
41.5%
#37
FT allowed
34.6%
#167
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−3.1
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security−1.4
Forcing turnovers−2.3
Foul shots drawn+1.7
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Saint Peter's
−0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#189 of 365
Off reb %
37.0%
#16
Def reb %
65.3%
#330
Turnover %
17.7%
#249
Forced TO %
20.0%
#22
FT rate
35.5%
#163
FT allowed
46.4%
#354
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.1
Defensive rebounding−1.3
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers+2.3
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed−2.9
Saint Peter's has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.2 (#189 of 365) to Binghamton’s −4.6 (#340).
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
Binghamton2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jeremiah Quigley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 30-30 | 37.1 | 14.5 | 4.9 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 47.7% | 17.4% | 1.5 | 78.4% | 27.5% | |
| 5 | Wes Peterson Jr. | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-26 | 35.7 | 10.7 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 47.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 77.5% | 21.0% | |
| 24 | Jackson Benigni | G | Sr | 6'1" | 30-21 | 31.5 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 62.0% | 40.1% | 5.1 | 89.2% | 16.4% | |
| 10 | Zyier Beverly | F | Jr | 6'9" | 29-18 | 25.0 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 61.0% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 64.4% | 27.7% | |
| 4 | Ryan Richardson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 22-12 | 25.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 39.8% | 31.0% | 3.2 | 35.3% | 16.2% | |
| 13 | Stephan Snagg | F | So | 6'8" | 27-14 | 19.9 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 61.6% | — | 0.0 | 56.3% | 11.3% | |
| 14 | Demetrius Lilley | C | Sr | 6'9" | 11-11 | 33.5 | 14.6 | 9.4 | 0.9 | 2.7 | 44.3% | 14.3% | 2.5 | 80.8% | 29.5% | |
| 30 | Jake Blackburn | G | Fr | 6'5" | 14-1 | 16.4 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 62.9% | 39.5% | 3.1 | 66.7% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Jayden Kelsey | G | Fr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 17.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 | 50.0% | 9.9% | |
| 12 | Nevin Ibroci | G | Fr | 6'2" | 10-0 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0% | 30.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Evan Ashe | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jayden Lemond | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Sayerr Senghore | F | Sr | 6'8" | 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.
Saint Peter's2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Bryce Eaton | G | Jr | 6'0" | 29-21 | 27.2 | 11.1 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 2.3 | 43.9% | 31.0% | 4.9 | 82.4% | 30.9% | |
| 15 | Bryson Wilsonat Binghamton | G | Sr | 6'5" | 28-22 | 28.1 | 9.9 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 44.8% | 24.1% | 1.9 | 77.5% | 24.9% | |
| 7 | Elijah Perkins | G | Sr | 6'4" | 22-19 | 25.4 | 3.9 | 2.9 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 36.3% | 0.0% | 0.5 | 55.6% | 13.9% | |
| 2 | Shaedon Simpson | G | Jr | 6'6" | 18-4 | 11.2 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 45.7% | 33.3% | 1.8 | 84.2% | 19.4% | |
| 3 | Trey Pattersonat Rice | F | Sr | 6'9" | 13-0 | 8.1 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 30.4% | 22.2% | 0.7 | 66.7% | 17.7% | |
| 0 | Phoenix Glassnorat Toledo | G | So | 6'0" | 6-0 | 6.3 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 53.3% | 33.3% | 1.0 | 100.0% | 25.6% | |
| 17 | Bourgeois Tshiloboat Weber St | F | So | 6'8" | 7-0 | 4.9 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 69.2% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 24.0% | |
| 14 | Jonathan Noudjihidiat UC Davis | C | Jr | 6'11" | 3-0 | 6.0 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | 33.3% | 16.6% | |
| 24 | Robert Wilmote | G | Jr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 17.3% | |
| 23 | Akil Watson | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Ken Walker | G | Sr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Mason Santiago | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 4 | Xavier Thomas | F | Jr | 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: Phoenix Glassnor (from Toledo), Jonathan Noudjihidi (from UC Davis), Trey Patterson (from Rice), Bourgeois Tshilobo (from Weber St), Bryson Wilson (from Binghamton)
Binghamton2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jeremiah Quigley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 30-30 | 37.1 | 14.5 | 4.9 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 47.7% | 17.4% | 1.5 | 78.4% | 27.5% | |
| 5 | Wes Peterson Jr. | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-26 | 35.7 | 10.7 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 47.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 77.5% | 21.0% | |
| 24 | Jackson Benigni | G | Sr | 6'1" | 30-21 | 31.5 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 62.0% | 40.1% | 5.1 | 89.2% | 16.4% | |
| 10 | Zyier Beverly | F | Jr | 6'9" | 29-18 | 25.0 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 61.0% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 64.4% | 27.7% | |
| 4 | Ryan Richardson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 22-12 | 25.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 39.8% | 31.0% | 3.2 | 35.3% | 16.2% | |
| 13 | Stephan Snagg | F | So | 6'8" | 27-14 | 19.9 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 61.6% | — | 0.0 | 56.3% | 11.3% | |
| 14 | Demetrius Lilley | C | Sr | 6'9" | 11-11 | 33.5 | 14.6 | 9.4 | 0.9 | 2.7 | 44.3% | 14.3% | 2.5 | 80.8% | 29.5% | |
| 30 | Jake Blackburn | G | Fr | 6'5" | 14-1 | 16.4 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 62.9% | 39.5% | 3.1 | 66.7% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Jayden Kelsey | G | Fr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 17.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 | 50.0% | 9.9% | |
| 12 | Nevin Ibroci | G | Fr | 6'2" | 10-0 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0% | 30.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Evan Ashe | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jayden Lemond | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Sayerr Senghore | F | Sr | 6'8" | 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 2025-26Binghamton
Against the spread
Season
14-14
Home
7-5
Road
7-8
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.9
Covered 2 straightCovered 6 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-12
Home
5-7
Road
11-4
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +5.5
Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28 | Maine | H | W 74–67 | −1.0 | W+6.0 | 134.0 | O141 | 112.4 | 101.8 | 65.8 |
| Feb 26 | New Hampshire | H | W 65–63 | +3.0 | W+5.0 | 141.5 | U128 | 103.7 | 100.5 | 62.7 |
| Feb 21 | UMass Lowell | A | L 79–92 | +9.0 | L−4.0 | 146.5 | O171 | 122.0 | 142.1 | 64.7 |
| Feb 19 | Bryant | A | W 79–67 | +5.5 | W+17.5 | 135.0 | O146 | 130.4 | 110.6 | 60.6 |
| Feb 14 | UAlbany | H | L 74–77 | +4.5 | W+1.5 | 137.0 | O151 | 108.0 | 112.4 | 68.5 |
| Feb 12 | Vermont | H | L 65–73 | +11.0 | W+3.0 | 136.0 | O138 | 99.1 | 111.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 7 | NJIT | A | L 64–73 | +9.5 | W+0.5 | 140.5 | U137 | 96.9 | 110.5 | 66.0 |
| Feb 5 | UMBC | A | L 62–79 | +11.0 | L−6.0 | 138.0 | O141 | 93.5 | 119.2 | 66.3 |
| Jan 29 | Bryant | H | W 63–60 | +2.0 | W+5.0 | 130.5 | U123 | 106.7 | 101.7 | 59.0 |
| Jan 24 | Maine | A | L 63–79 | +6.0 | L−10.0 | 124.0 | O142 | 102.2 | 128.1 | 61.7 |
Saint Peter's
Against the spread
Season
16-11-1
Home
10-2-1
Road
6-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −2.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
10-18
Home
4-9
Road
6-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +1.6
Under 5 straightOver in 4 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 6 | Fairfield | N | L 55–74 | −2.5 | L−21.5 | 137.5 | U129 | 85.3 | 114.7 | 64.5 |
| Mar 1 | Marist | A | W 63–56 | +4.0 | W+11.0 | 132.0 | U119 | 98.6 | 87.6 | 63.9 |
| Feb 27 | Manhattan | H | W 75–65 | −8.0 | W+2.0 | 145.0 | U140 | 119.5 | 103.6 | 62.8 |
| Feb 22 | Siena | A | L 63–72 | +6.0 | L−3.0 | 136.0 | U135 | 102.6 | 117.3 | 61.4 |
| Feb 20 | Iona | A | L 64–72 OT | +1.0 | L−7.0 | 140.5 | U136 | 84.4 | 94.9 | 75.9 |
| Feb 15 | Fairfield | H | W 83–74 | −4.0 | W+5.0 | 142.0 | O157 | 120.7 | 107.6 | 68.8 |
| Feb 13 | Sacred Heart | A | L 71–78 | −1.5 | L−8.5 | 148.0 | O149 | 110.6 | 121.5 | 64.2 |
| Feb 7 | Siena | H | W 70–65 | +1.0 | W+6.0 | 136.0 | U135 | 102.9 | 95.5 | 68.0 |
| Feb 5 | Manhattan | A | W 80–75 | −4.5 | W+0.5 | 145.5 | O155 | 128.1 | 120.1 | 62.5 |
| Feb 1 | Rider | A | L 78–81 | −7.5 | L−10.5 | 136.0 | O159 | 119.5 | 124.1 | 65.3 |
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 homeBinghamtonSaint Peter's
Efficiency
101.6
105.4
116.3
108.1
67.1
67.1
—
—
Shooting
50.0%
46.4%
50.6%
46.2%
32.5%
31.0%
75.3%
73.6%
41.5%
35.5%
Ball control & glass
18.8%
17.7%
13.3%
20.0%
20.9%
37.0%
29.4%
34.7%
10.9%
9.3%
8.8%
10.0%
Style
30.9%
38.7%
47.2%
39.9%
9.5%
17.0%
48.7%
53.2%
21.1%
36.5%
Roster
3.21
3.54
6'4.4"
6'3.5"
87.5%
26.5%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputBinghamton
Returning minutes: 87.5%Returning production: 88.7%
Lost
- Bryson Wilson 25.4 mpg, 8.9 ppg · transferred to Saint Peter's
Added
- Evan Ashe no D1 minutes last season
- Jayden Lemond no D1 minutes last season
- Sayerr Senghore no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 88% of last season's minutes; lost 1 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).
Saint Peter's
Returning minutes: 26.5%Returning production: 21.7%
Lost
- Brent Bland 33.1 mpg, 13.9 ppg · transferred to Miami
- Jahki Gupton 24.5 mpg, 7.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Zaakir Williamson 21.7 mpg, 8.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- TJ Robinson 18.1 mpg, 9.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Lucas Scroggins 16.2 mpg, 5.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Adetokunbo Bakare 10.4 mpg, 3.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Bryson Wilson from Binghamton · 25.4 mpg, 8.9 ppg last season
- Trey Patterson from Rice · 3.4 mpg, 0.6 ppg last season
- Phoenix Glassnor from Toledo · 1.1 mpg, 0.5 ppg last season
- Bourgeois Tshilobo from Weber St · 1.1 mpg, 0.6 ppg last season
- Jonathan Noudjihidi from UC Davis · 0.5 mpg, 0.0 ppg last season
- Xavier Thomas no D1 minutes last season
Returns 27% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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 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.