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-conferenceBogota Savings Bank Center, Hackensack, NJ
Binghamton
Efficiency #354
2025-26: 8-23 · 4-12 conf
@
FDU
Efficiency #332
2025-26: 11-21 · 8-11 conf
Mon, Nov 30 · TBD
67.3
win 28%
Projected
73.9
win 72%
No line posted yet.
Model: FDU −6.6 · total 141.3 · 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: FDU 66.2, Binghamton 67.1 → 64.9 possessions
−7.4
FDU offense vs Binghamton defense
+1.6
Binghamton offense vs FDU defense
−1.2
Projected total
141.3
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
FDU offense vs Binghamton defense
+1.6
Binghamton offense vs FDU defense
+1.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
FDU by 6.6
6.6
Binghamton side ◂▸ FDU 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 141.3, and the margin steps add to +6.5 against +6.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help FDU.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 64.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Binghamton is the faster team (65.1, #331 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
64.9
per team, 40 min
Projected total
141.3
model
Projected team totals
67.3 / 73.9
Binghamton / FDU
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.1#281
Binghamton
66.2#337
FDU
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetPace
Half-court grind
FDU averages 64.1 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 63 — 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); FDU lets opponents grab 27.3% of their own misses (#46). Expect about 22.3%, 8.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -5.0 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (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 Binghamton at about 33.3% of its shots from three, FDU about 43.9%.
AdvantageFDU
Where FDU scores: ball control
FDU turns it over on 18.1% of possessions (#280); Binghamton forces turnovers on 13.3% of opponent possessions (#349). Expect about 15.3%, 1.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.
Binghamton has the ball
OffenseFDU allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #234
55.2% #336
+1.8 pt/100
18.8% #312
16.1% #216
-0.9 pt/100
20.9% #361
27.3% #46
-5.0 pt/100
41.5% #37
36.3% #217
+0.5 pt/100
75.3% #75
—
+0.3 pt/100
Binghamton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.3 pts/100
FDU has the ball
OffenseBinghamton allowsvs D1 avg
47.1% #333
54.3% #309
-1.2 pt/100
18.1% #280
13.3% #349
+1.8 pt/100
32.0% #125
29.4% #128
+0.4 pt/100
32.8% #240
34.6% #167
-0.2 pt/100
70.1% #272
—
-0.2 pt/100
FDU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersBinghamtonoffense vsFDUdefense
Share of shots by zone
Binghamton shoots
44.6
8.1
16.3
31.0
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 | 55.9%#275 | 60.0%#224 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.7%#228 | 38.5%#148 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.0%#78 | 43.3%#331 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.5%#254 | 37.8%#354 | 33.7% |
FDUoffense vsBinghamtondefense
Share of shots by zone
FDU shoots
35.6
5.8
14.0
44.6
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 | 57.1%#236 | 58.7%#174 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.3%#239 | 45.5%#314 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 32.5%#337 | 42.0%#300 | 38.0% |
| Three | 30.3%#339 | 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
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
FDU has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.6 (#205 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.
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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
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 |
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 | Mercyhurst | A | L 61–70 | +4.0 | L−5.0 | 132.5 | U131 | 94.2 | 108.0 | 64.8 |
| Feb 28 | Long Island | A | L 60–74 | +9.0 | L−5.0 | 137.5 | U134 | 95.3 | 117.6 | 62.9 |
| Feb 26 | Le Moyne | A | L 59–76 | +4.5 | L−12.5 | 139.5 | U135 | 92.2 | 118.7 | 64.0 |
| Feb 21 | New Haven | H | L 77–84 | −2.5 | L−9.5 | 124.5 | O161 | 122.6 | 133.7 | 62.8 |
| Feb 19 | Chicago St | A | W 60–59 | −2.0 | L−1.0 | 132.0 | U119 | 113.5 | 111.6 | 52.9 |
| Feb 14 | C Connecticut | 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 | Mercyhurst | H | W 55–52 | −2.5 | W+0.5 | 131.0 | U107 | 101.4 | 95.9 | 54.3 |
| Feb 5 | Stonehill | H | W 74–58 | −1.0 | W+15.0 | 131.0 | O132 | 116.1 | 91.0 | 63.7 |
| Jan 31 | Wagner | A | L 72–75 OT | −1.5 | L−4.5 | 135.5 | O147 | 105.0 | 109.4 | 68.6 |
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 homeBinghamtonFDU
Efficiency
101.6
103.2
116.3
113.4
67.1
66.2
—
—
Shooting
50.0%
47.1%
50.6%
48.6%
32.5%
30.3%
75.3%
70.1%
41.5%
32.8%
Ball control & glass
18.8%
18.1%
13.3%
16.1%
20.9%
32.0%
29.4%
27.3%
10.9%
9.8%
8.8%
9.4%
Style
30.9%
45.2%
47.2%
40.1%
9.5%
5.7%
48.7%
51.0%
21.1%
32.0%
Roster
3.21
3.23
6'4.4"
6'5.4"
87.5%
—
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).
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.)
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.