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-conferencePaul Porter Arena, Boiling Springs, NC

UNC Greensboro

Efficiency #301

2025-26: 15-19 · 11-10 conf

Gardner-Webb

Efficiency #363

2025-26: 4-29 · 2-16 conf

Wed, Nov 18 · TBD

79.5

win 62%

Projected

76.1

win 38%

No line posted yet.

Model: UNCG −3.4 · total 155.6 · 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: Gardner-Webb 69.8, UNC Greensboro 68.6 → 70.0 possessions

+3.7

Gardner-Webb offense vs UNC Greensboro defense

−1.9

UNC Greensboro offense vs Gardner-Webb defense

+5.6

Projected total

155.6

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Gardner-Webb offense vs UNC Greensboro defense

−1.9

UNC Greensboro offense vs Gardner-Webb defense

−5.6

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

+4.0

UNC Greensboro by 3.4

3.4

UNC Greensboro side ◂▸ Gardner-Webb side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −3.5 against −3.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Gardner-Webb.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Gardner-Webb is the faster team (70.8, #62 of 365) and UNC Greensboro the slower (68.5, #170). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.0

per team, 40 min

Projected total

155.6

model

Projected team totals

79.5 / 76.1

UNC Greensboro / Gardner-Webb

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.6#161

UNC Greensboro

69.8#64

Gardner-Webb

How this game plays

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

AdvantageUNC Greensboro

Where UNC Greensboro scores: shooting

UNC Greensboro shoots an effective 52.0% (#146); Gardner-Webb allows 56.9% (#356). Expect about 54.6%, 3.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.7 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageGardner-Webb

Where Gardner-Webb struggles: the offensive glass

Gardner-Webb rebounds 23.2% of its own misses (#350); UNC Greensboro lets opponents grab 29.0% of their own misses (#104). Expect about 24.7%, 5.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.5 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversUNC Greensboro

UNC Greensboro protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.8% is worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions for UNC Greensboro's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Gardner-Webb, UNC Greensboro'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 UNC Greensboro at about 41.0% of its shots from three, Gardner-Webb about 44.4%.

ClashGardner-Webb

Style clash: paint scoring

Gardner-Webb scores 46.5% of its points in the paint; UNC Greensboro protects the paint (38.8% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

ClashUNC Greensboro

Style clash: paint scoring

UNC Greensboro gets only 37.8% of its points in the paint; Gardner-Webb gives up 47.5% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 43.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

UNC Greensboro has the ball

OffenseGardner-Webb allowsvs D1 avg

52.0% #146

56.9% #356

+4.7 pt/100

15.0% #63

15.3% #264

+2.4 pt/100

28.1% #259

36.6% #355

+0.9 pt/100

42.0% #31

35.2% #185

+0.4 pt/100

70.4% #256

—

-0.2 pt/100

UNC Greensboro net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +8.2 pts/100

Gardner-Webb has the ball

OffenseUNC Greensboro allowsvs D1 avg

47.8% #317

56.2% #347

+0.7 pt/100

19.8% #344

13.7% #343

+0.3 pt/100

23.2% #350

29.0% #104

-3.5 pt/100

30.3% #302

30.6% #74

-0.6 pt/100

68.5% #313

—

-0.3 pt/100

Gardner-Webb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.4 pts/100

Shot diet

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

UNC Greensborooffense vsGardner-Webbdefense

Share of shots by zone

UNC Greensboro shoots

34.6

5.7

19.9

39.9

Gardner-Webb allows

41.8

5.5

11.5

41.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.0%#197	65.9%#357	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.2%#100	44.7%#287	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.8%#83	37.3%#139	38.0%
Three	35.6%#80	36.0%#300	33.7%

Gardner-Webboffense vsUNC Greensborodefense

Share of shots by zone

Gardner-Webb shoots

42.6

5.3

13.4

38.7

UNC Greensboro allows

33.7

5.0

14.7

46.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.3%#315	63.6%#336	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	27.4%#361	44.4%#279	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	34.1%#311	37.9%#155	38.0%
Three	31.0%#320	38.0%#357	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

UNC Greensboro

+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#102 of 365

Off reb %

28.1%

#259

Def reb %

71.0%

#104

Turnover %

15.0%

#63

Forced TO %

13.7%

#343

FT rate

42.0%

#31

FT allowed

30.6%

#74

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+1.2

Forcing turnovers−2.1

Foul shots drawn+1.8

Foul shots allowed+1.2

Gardner-Webb

−8.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#364 of 365

Off reb %

23.2%

#350

Def reb %

63.4%

#355

Turnover %

19.8%

#344

Forced TO %

15.3%

#264

FT rate

30.3%

#302

FT allowed

35.2%

#185

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−2.3

Defensive rebounding−1.9

Ball security−2.1

Forcing turnovers−0.9

Foul shots drawn−1.2

Foul shots allowed0.0

UNC Greensboro has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#102 of 365) to Gardner-Webb’s −8.5 (#364).

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

UNC Greensboro2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
12	Justin Neely	F	Sr	6'6"	34-34	32.3	17.9	11.5	2.4	2.2	56.5%	31.4%	1.5	78.4%	29.6%
21	KJ Younger	G	Fr	6'4"	34-34	28.5	15.1	4.7	1.2	1.2	52.9%	34.1%	5.4	71.1%	29.8%
13	Donald Whitehead Jr.	G	Sr	5'10"	34-20	26.2	10.1	1.6	2.4	1.1	45.7%	30.7%	4.9	69.2%	24.8%
6	Noah Norgaard	G	Fr	6'2"	34-26	25.1	7.7	2.1	1.5	1.2	51.1%	37.2%	3.8	70.0%	19.5%
11	Valentino Pinedo	F	Sr	6'8"	32-28	26.4	7.3	4.9	1.3	1.0	60.8%	—	0.0	50.0%	15.9%
45	Lilian Marville	G	Fr	6'1"	31-21	26.2	9.5	2.0	2.3	1.3	56.5%	52.2%	3.0	75.0%	20.7%
16	Domas Kauzonas	F	Jr	6'10"	33-6	9.9	2.9	1.6	0.3	0.7	57.5%	—	0.0	42.3%	19.2%
4	Assane Mandian	G	Fr	6'7"	22-0	8.0	2.2	1.0	0.2	0.4	56.4%	37.0%	1.2	100.0%	16.2%
24	Landon King	G	Jr	6'1"	20-1	8.6	2.5	0.9	0.7	0.3	44.4%	32.4%	1.9	42.9%	21.5%
7	Clyde Bailey II	G	Sr	6'1"	13-0	6.7	1.8	0.9	0.4	0.3	52.8%	27.3%	0.8	80.0%	15.6%
0	Antwann Jones	G	Sr	6'6"	7-0	11.4	3.4	2.1	0.4	0.9	47.9%	37.5%	1.1	50.0%	21.8%
8	Chane Bynum	F	Fr	6'9"	13-0	4.2	1.7	1.5	0.2	0.2	36.5%	23.1%	1.0	75.0%	29.5%
9	Braylen Bowman	G	Fr	6'1"	5-0	3.2	1.6	0.4	1.2	0.0	66.7%	50.0%	0.8	—	18.6%
3	Jordan Brown	G	Sr	6'1"	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.

Gardner-Webb2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Gardner-Webb'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
23	Colin Hawkins	G	So	6'3"	31-31	27.2	8.2	1.8	2.1	2.1	46.0%	23.8%	1.4	59.0%	22.0%
5	Jacob Hogarth	F	So	6'9"	33-30	25.0	10.7	7.1	1.3	2.4	53.8%	40.0%	0.5	70.6%	26.3%
25	Ace Talbert	G	Jr	6'0"	32-29	25.3	6.9	1.9	1.4	0.9	44.3%	26.1%	4.4	61.7%	18.6%
6	Jacob Hudson	G	So	6'2"	29-17	27.1	10.7	4.0	1.7	1.6	48.8%	25.0%	1.8	65.1%	24.7%
1	Spence Sims	G	Fr	6'1"	32-15	24.5	9.9	1.9	0.8	1.6	59.6%	43.0%	5.2	75.8%	22.6%
10	Curtis Williams III	G	Jr	6'7"	26-22	21.3	6.6	2.9	0.7	0.8	43.7%	27.4%	2.8	70.2%	20.5%
0	Jamias Ferere	G	Fr	6'6"	32-8	17.0	6.3	2.9	0.7	1.3	44.0%	23.7%	1.2	77.0%	25.6%
4	DJ Jefferson	G	Jr	6'4"	27-3	16.7	7.6	2.8	0.4	1.4	51.1%	35.1%	3.5	62.9%	29.0%
11	NaVuan Peterson	F	Sr	6'6"	27-4	13.2	3.1	2.1	0.9	0.4	43.5%	26.7%	2.2	84.6%	16.2%
7	Riek Riek	F	Sr	6'9"	27-0	10.4	1.4	1.3	0.5	0.8	47.2%	26.1%	0.9	66.7%	12.0%
35	Bo Barber	G	Sr	5'10"	17-0	8.2	1.1	0.6	0.8	0.8	28.6%	0.0%	0.4	90.9%	13.1%
3	Julius Clark	G	Jr	6'7"	8-4	17.0	7.3	2.0	0.5	0.6	52.7%	23.1%	1.6	73.1%	21.9%
21	Ahmadou Ndiaye	G	Jr	6'8"	10-0	4.7	0.3	0.7	0.1	0.8	30.0%	50.0%	0.2	0.0%	16.2%
12	Cameron Gales	G	So	6'0"	10-0	1.7	0.3	0.2	0.1	0.1	21.4%	25.0%	0.4	—	26.1%
9	Paul Lindberg	G	Jr	6'4"	8-1	1.9	0.6	0.5	0.1	0.0	35.7%	50.0%	0.3	—	26.2%
2	Isaiah Hicks	G	Jr	6'0"	5-1	2.0	0.4	0.4	0.6	0.2	20.0%	0.0%	0.6	—	34.3%
8	Ashton King	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.

UNC Greensboro2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
12	Justin Neely	F	Sr	6'6"	34-34	32.3	17.9	11.5	2.4	2.2	56.5%	31.4%	1.5	78.4%	29.6%
21	KJ Younger	G	Fr	6'4"	34-34	28.5	15.1	4.7	1.2	1.2	52.9%	34.1%	5.4	71.1%	29.8%
13	Donald Whitehead Jr.	G	Sr	5'10"	34-20	26.2	10.1	1.6	2.4	1.1	45.7%	30.7%	4.9	69.2%	24.8%
6	Noah Norgaard	G	Fr	6'2"	34-26	25.1	7.7	2.1	1.5	1.2	51.1%	37.2%	3.8	70.0%	19.5%
11	Valentino Pinedo	F	Sr	6'8"	32-28	26.4	7.3	4.9	1.3	1.0	60.8%	—	0.0	50.0%	15.9%
45	Lilian Marville	G	Fr	6'1"	31-21	26.2	9.5	2.0	2.3	1.3	56.5%	52.2%	3.0	75.0%	20.7%
16	Domas Kauzonas	F	Jr	6'10"	33-6	9.9	2.9	1.6	0.3	0.7	57.5%	—	0.0	42.3%	19.2%
4	Assane Mandian	G	Fr	6'7"	22-0	8.0	2.2	1.0	0.2	0.4	56.4%	37.0%	1.2	100.0%	16.2%
24	Landon King	G	Jr	6'1"	20-1	8.6	2.5	0.9	0.7	0.3	44.4%	32.4%	1.9	42.9%	21.5%
7	Clyde Bailey II	G	Sr	6'1"	13-0	6.7	1.8	0.9	0.4	0.3	52.8%	27.3%	0.8	80.0%	15.6%
0	Antwann Jones	G	Sr	6'6"	7-0	11.4	3.4	2.1	0.4	0.9	47.9%	37.5%	1.1	50.0%	21.8%
8	Chane Bynum	F	Fr	6'9"	13-0	4.2	1.7	1.5	0.2	0.2	36.5%	23.1%	1.0	75.0%	29.5%
9	Braylen Bowman	G	Fr	6'1"	5-0	3.2	1.6	0.4	1.2	0.0	66.7%	50.0%	0.8	—	18.6%
3	Jordan Brown	G	Sr	6'1"	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

UNC Greensboro

Against the spread

Season

14-17-1

Home

5-7

Road

5-8

Last 10

7-2-1

avg cover +4.9

Covered 5 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

22-10

Home

9-3

Road

10-3

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +6.3

Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	FurmanAdjEM #163	N	L 75–81	+6.0	P0.0	148.5	O156	114.3	123.4	65.6
Mar 7	WoffordAdjEM #235	N	W 75–72	+5.5	W+8.5	156.5	U147	114.3	109.7	65.6
Mar 6	VMIAdjEM #361	N	W 84–70	−6.5	W+7.5	156.0	U154	124.6	103.8	67.4
Feb 28	SamfordAdjEM #202	A	L 78–87	+9.5	W+0.5	157.0	O165	107.4	119.8	72.6
Feb 26	ChattanoogaAdjEM #289	A	W 85–80	+3.5	W+8.5	157.5	O165	110.8	104.3	76.7
Feb 21	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 75–87	+6.0	L−6.0	149.0	O162	112.1	130.1	66.9
Feb 18	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	A	L 77–91	+6.0	L−8.0	155.0	O168	109.3	129.1	70.5
Feb 14	WoffordAdjEM #235	H	W 99–89	+2.0	W+12.0	155.5	O188	141.1	126.8	70.2
Feb 11	VMIAdjEM #361	H	W 92–71	−8.5	W+12.5	151.0	O163	133.0	102.7	69.2
Feb 8	FurmanAdjEM #163	A	W 67–64	+10.5	W+13.5	150.0	U131	106.3	101.5	63.0

Gardner-Webb

Against the spread

Season

15-14-1

Home

7-3

Road

6-9-1

Last 10

9-1

avg cover +5.0

Covered 9 straightCovered 9 of 10 as an underdogCovered 9 of 10 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

16-13-1

Home

8-2

Road

7-8-1

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −1.5

Under 3 straightOver in 4 of 10 as an underdogOver in 4 of 10 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	High PointAdjEM #50	N	L 59–81	+27.5	W+5.5	156.5	U140	84.0	115.3	70.3
Mar 4	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	N	W 65–64	+11.0	W+12.0	144.0	U129	100.7	99.1	64.6
Feb 28	SC UpstateAdjEM #284	A	L 61–71	+13.5	W+3.5	146.5	U132	86.8	101.0	70.3
Feb 26	UNC AshevilleAdjEM #226	H	L 71–77	+12.5	W+6.5	145.5	O148	114.6	124.2	62.0
Feb 19	RadfordAdjEM #245	A	L 70–82	+19.0	W+7.0	162.5	U152	101.4	118.8	69.0
Feb 17	Charleston SoAdjEM #220	A	L 66–75	+17.5	W+8.5	160.5	U141	88.8	100.9	74.4
Feb 14	High PointAdjEM #50	H	L 87–112	+25.5	W+0.5	162.0	O199	111.4	143.5	78.1
Feb 12	WinthropAdjEM #116	H	L 85–103	+20.5	W+2.5	155.0	O188	110.9	134.4	76.7
Feb 7	PresbyterianAdjEM #252	A	L 62–68	+17.5	W+11.5	145.5	U130	97.9	107.4	63.3
Feb 4	LongwoodAdjEM #248	H	L 66–86	+12.5	L−7.5	148.0	O152	93.0	121.1	71.0

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

UNC GreensboroGardner-Webb

Efficiency

107.8

99.1

115.2

117.1

68.6

69.8

—

Shooting

52.0%

47.8%

51.0%

48.6%

35.6%

31.0%

70.4%

68.5%

42.0%

30.3%

Ball control & glass

15.0%

19.8%

13.7%

15.3%

28.1%

23.2%

29.0%

36.6%

8.7%

11.7%

9.1%

10.4%

Style

40.2%

39.8%

37.8%

46.5%

11.3%

14.3%

46.9%

41.0%

29.3%

36.5%

Roster

2.57

2.34

6'3.7"

6'4.1"

92.8%

—

Offseason

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

UNC Greensboro

Returning minutes: 92.8%Returning production: 95.0%

Lost

Clinton Efinda 14.5 mpg, 4.3 ppg · transferred to Canisius

Added

Jordan Brown no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 93% 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).

Gardner-Webb

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Gardner-Webb'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 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.