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-conferenceStabler Arena, Bethlehem, PA
Binghamton
Efficiency #354
2025-26: 8-23 · 4-12 conf
@
Lehigh
Efficiency #273
2025-26: 18-17 · 14-7 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · TBD
66.8
win 20%
Projected
76.5
win 80%
No line posted yet.
Model: LEH −9.6 · total 143.3 · 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: Lehigh 67.8, Binghamton 67.1 → 66.6 possessions
−3.7
Lehigh offense vs Binghamton defense
+2.3
Binghamton offense vs Lehigh defense
−3.5
Projected total
143.3
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Lehigh offense vs Binghamton defense
+2.3
Binghamton offense vs Lehigh defense
+3.5
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Lehigh by 9.6
9.6
Binghamton side ◂▸ Lehigh 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 Lehigh.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Lehigh is the faster team (66.5, #275 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
66.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
143.3
model
Projected team totals
66.8 / 76.5
Binghamton / Lehigh
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.1#281
Binghamton
67.8#221
Lehigh
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
Lehigh averages 66.5 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageBinghamton
Where Binghamton struggles: the offensive glass
Binghamton rebounds 20.9% of its own misses (#361); Lehigh lets opponents grab 31.4% of their own misses (#226). Expect about 24.3%, 6.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.7 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageLehigh
Where Lehigh scores: shooting
Lehigh shoots an effective 52.9% (#107); Binghamton allows 54.3% (#309). Expect about 53.8%, 2.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions.
ClashBinghamton
Style match: 3-point volume
Binghamton rarely shoots threes (30.9% of its shots); Lehigh runs teams off the line (31.8% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 27.6% — both habits push the same way.
GlassLehigh
Lehigh gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 24.9% is worth roughly -3.4 points per 100 possessions against Lehigh's offense.
TurnoversLehigh
Lehigh protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.1% is worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions for Lehigh's offense.
Binghamton has the ball
OffenseLehigh allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #234
50.6% #133
-1.6 pt/100
18.8% #312
16.2% #213
-1.0 pt/100
20.9% #361
31.4% #226
-3.7 pt/100
41.5% #37
32.5% #115
+0.2 pt/100
75.3% #75
—
+0.3 pt/100
Binghamton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.8 pts/100
Lehigh has the ball
OffenseBinghamton allowsvs D1 avg
52.9% #107
54.3% #309
+3.6 pt/100
17.7% #252
13.3% #349
+2.1 pt/100
23.2% #349
29.4% #128
-3.4 pt/100
31.8% #258
34.6% #167
-0.2 pt/100
72.6% #180
—
+0.0 pt/100
Lehigh net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.1 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersBinghamtonoffense vsLehighdefense
Share of shots by zone
Binghamton shoots
44.6
8.1
16.3
31.0
Lehigh allows
44.6
5.6
18.5
31.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.9%#275 | 55.8%#82 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.7%#228 | 45.6%#318 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.0%#78 | 40.9%#274 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.5%#254 | 32.9%#109 | 33.7% |
Lehighoffense vsBinghamtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Lehigh shoots
34.4
7.9
18.9
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 | 61.6%#82 | 58.7%#174 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.7%#229 | 45.5%#314 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.8%#116 | 42.0%#300 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.1%#56 | 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
Lehigh
−3.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#320 of 365
Off reb %
23.2%
#349
Def reb %
68.6%
#226
Turnover %
17.7%
#252
Forced TO %
16.2%
#213
FT rate
31.8%
#258
FT allowed
32.5%
#115
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.3
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers−0.4
Foul shots drawn−0.8
Foul shots allowed+0.7
Lehigh has more extra scoring chances per game: −3.7 (#320 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.
Lehigh2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Joshua Ingram | G | Jr | 6'4" | 35-35 | 34.9 | 10.5 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 58.1% | 38.4% | 3.6 | 72.5% | 18.3% | |
| 35 | Hank Alvey | F | So | 6'9" | 35-35 | 30.9 | 15.2 | 7.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 63.1% | 41.7% | 0.3 | 65.9% | 26.5% | |
| 25 | Peter Kramer | G | So | 6'5" | 35-14 | 20.0 | 4.0 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 53.8% | 37.5% | 2.7 | 68.4% | 12.5% | |
| 5 | Edouard Benoit | F | So | 6'8" | 24-23 | 28.8 | 10.3 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 46.9% | 31.3% | 4.0 | 82.5% | 24.6% | |
| 31 | Jalen Vazquez | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-19 | 21.9 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 43.6% | 28.2% | 1.3 | 68.6% | 14.3% | |
| 0 | Andrew Urosevic | G | Fr | 6'3" | 28-1 | 19.6 | 7.5 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 51.8% | 33.1% | 5.2 | 77.8% | 23.6% | |
| 10 | Caleb Thomas | G | Fr | 5'10" | 21-13 | 22.7 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 36.7% | 18.8% | 1.5 | 58.3% | 21.1% | |
| 15 | Alfredo Addesa | F | So | 6'10" | 33-0 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 42.5% | 28.1% | 1.0 | 75.0% | 21.2% | |
| 21 | Jake Pike | F | Jr | 6'8" | 15-0 | 11.0 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 50.0% | 25.0% | 0.5 | 80.0% | 9.7% | |
| 32 | Henri Adiassa | C | Sr | 6'11" | 22-0 | 4.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 80.0% | 8.0% | |
| 44 | Tommy Conniff | C | Sr | 6'11" | 11-0 | 5.4 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 7.5% | |
| 11 | Brendan Reed | G | Sr | 6'0" | 6-0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 17.6% | |
| 23 | Bube Momah | F | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Caesar Burrows | G | Fr | 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.
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 |
Lehigh
Against the spread
Season
19-14
Home
11-4
Road
6-9
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +3.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 6 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
18-15
Home
8-7
Road
9-6
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +2.1
Under 4 straightOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18 | #16Prairie View | N | L 55–67 | −3.0 | L−15.0 | 142.5 | U122 | 84.4 | 102.8 | 65.2 |
| Mar 11 | Boston U | H | W 74–60 | +2.0 | W+16.0 | 139.0 | U134 | 121.0 | 98.1 | 61.2 |
| Mar 8 | Colgate | H | W 76–69 | +2.0 | W+9.0 | 146.0 | U145 | 110.9 | 100.7 | 68.5 |
| Mar 5 | Holy Cross | H | W 69–66 | −5.5 | L−2.5 | 142.5 | U135 | 103.6 | 99.1 | 66.6 |
| Feb 28 | Bucknell | H | W 89–79 | −4.5 | W+5.5 | 139.5 | O168 | 131.1 | 116.3 | 67.9 |
| Feb 25 | American | A | W 78–73 | +7.0 | W+12.0 | 140.0 | O151 | 117.5 | 110.0 | 66.4 |
| Feb 22 | Boston U | H | W 70–67 | +2.0 | W+5.0 | 141.0 | U137 | 119.1 | 114.0 | 58.8 |
| Feb 18 | Navy | A | L 49–72 | +10.0 | L−13.0 | 139.5 | U121 | 76.0 | 111.7 | 64.5 |
| Feb 14 | Lafayette | A | W 78–69 | +1.0 | W+10.0 | 140.5 | O147 | 120.7 | 106.8 | 64.6 |
| Feb 11 | American | H | W 90–82 | +1.5 | W+9.5 | 140.0 | O172 | 121.4 | 110.6 | 74.2 |
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 homeBinghamtonLehigh
Efficiency
101.6
104.1
116.3
110.0
67.1
67.8
—
—
Shooting
50.0%
52.9%
50.6%
52.2%
32.5%
36.1%
75.3%
72.6%
41.5%
31.8%
Ball control & glass
18.8%
17.7%
13.3%
16.2%
20.9%
23.2%
29.4%
31.4%
10.9%
12.2%
8.8%
8.3%
Style
30.9%
38.3%
47.2%
41.2%
9.5%
13.4%
48.7%
54.3%
21.1%
25.4%
Roster
3.21
2.23
6'4.4"
6'5.4"
87.5%
83.1%
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).
Lehigh
Returning minutes: 83.1%Returning production: 77.0%
Lost
- Nasir Whitlock 35.0 mpg, 20.5 ppg · transferred to Georgia Tech
Added
- Caesar Burrows no D1 minutes last season
- Bube Momah no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 83% 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).
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Tue, Dec 2 | 2025-26 | Lehigh 71 – 80 Binghamton |
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.