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-conferenceCameron Hall, Lexington, VA

Gardner-Webb

Efficiency #363

2025-26: 4-29 · 2-16 conf

VMI

Efficiency #361

2025-26: 6-26 · 1-18 conf

Sat, Nov 21 · TBD

73.6

win 33%

Projected

78.6

win 67%

No line posted yet.

Model: VMI −5.1 · total 152.2 · 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: VMI 67.9, Gardner-Webb 69.8 → 69.4 possessions

+2.4

VMI offense vs Gardner-Webb defense

+1.3

Gardner-Webb offense vs VMI defense

+0.3

Projected total

152.2

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

VMI offense vs Gardner-Webb defense

+1.3

Gardner-Webb offense vs VMI defense

−0.3

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

+4.0

VMI by 5.1

5.1

Gardner-Webb side ◂▸ VMI side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +5.0 against +5.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help VMI.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.4, 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 VMI the slower (67.6, #219). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.4

per team, 40 min

Projected total

152.2

model

Projected team totals

73.6 / 78.6

Gardner-Webb / VMI

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.8#64

Gardner-Webb

67.9#215

VMI

How this game plays

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

AdvantageVMI

Where VMI scores: ball control

VMI turns it over on 15.3% of possessions (#88); Gardner-Webb forces turnovers on 15.3% of opponent possessions (#264). Expect about 15.0%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Gardner-Webb, VMI'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 Gardner-Webb at about 44.3% of its shots from three, VMI about 51.7%.

ClashGardner-Webb

Style clash: ball movement

Gardner-Webb creates off the dribble (assists on 41.0% of its baskets); VMI allows assists on 62.3% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 51.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

ClashVMI

Style clash: paint scoring

VMI gets only 32.8% of its points in the paint; Gardner-Webb gives up 47.5% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 41.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

Gardner-Webb has the ball

OffenseVMI allowsvs D1 avg

47.8% #317

57.0% #357

+1.2 pt/100

19.8% #344

15.7% #241

-1.3 pt/100

23.2% #350

37.2% #360

-1.1 pt/100

30.3% #302

34.6% #168

-0.3 pt/100

68.5% #313

—

-0.3 pt/100

Gardner-Webb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.7 pts/100

VMI has the ball

OffenseGardner-Webb allowsvs D1 avg

47.6% #325

56.9% #356

+1.1 pt/100

15.3% #88

15.3% #264

+2.2 pt/100

25.6% #330

36.6% #355

-0.2 pt/100

30.6% #293

35.2% #185

-0.3 pt/100

72.2% #201

—

-0.0 pt/100

VMI net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.7 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Gardner-Webboffense vsVMIdefense

Share of shots by zone

Gardner-Webb shoots

42.6

5.3

13.4

38.7

VMI allows

34.3

4.7

14.4

46.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.3%#315	66.0%#359	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	27.4%#361	49.3%#351	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	34.1%#311	44.7%#347	38.0%
Three	31.0%#320	36.5%#327	33.7%

VMIoffense vsGardner-Webbdefense

Share of shots by zone

VMI shoots

32.1

4.2

9.7

53.9

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	53.5%#327	65.9%#357	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	19.7%#365	44.7%#287	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.6%#246	37.3%#139	38.0%
Three	31.5%#306	36.0%#300	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

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

VMI

−4.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#337 of 365

Off reb %

25.6%

#330

Def reb %

62.8%

#360

Turnover %

15.3%

#88

Forced TO %

15.7%

#241

FT rate

30.6%

#293

FT allowed

34.6%

#168

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.5

Defensive rebounding−2.1

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn−1.1

Foul shots allowed+0.2

VMI has more extra scoring chances per game: −4.4 (#337 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

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.

VMI2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
44	TJ Johnson	F	Jr	6'7"	31-31	35.6	18.3	7.2	1.4	1.6	52.7%	35.5%	10.0	81.9%	29.0%
4	Linus Holmstrom	G	So	6'3"	31-29	27.2	11.4	2.5	1.7	1.4	58.0%	39.4%	6.4	76.2%	23.3%
2	Mario Tatum Jr.	G	Fr	6'3"	31-8	25.9	8.5	2.0	1.4	0.6	45.3%	27.3%	3.2	64.6%	21.1%
0	Cal Liston	F	So	6'5"	32-24	23.0	5.3	3.2	1.0	0.7	50.3%	33.3%	3.7	72.0%	14.8%
5	AJ Clark	G	Jr	6'4"	22-22	26.5	6.6	6.0	1.6	1.1	50.4%	37.0%	1.2	66.7%	16.2%
6	Kaden Stuckey	F	So	6'8"	28-7	18.7	4.4	4.9	0.5	1.1	35.3%	0.0%	0.5	62.9%	20.2%
14	Walker Andrews	G	So	6'1"	29-3	13.4	5.9	0.9	0.7	0.3	49.0%	33.3%	3.4	84.4%	24.9%
7	Jaylen Pazon	G	So	6'5"	20-1	13.4	6.7	2.2	0.7	1.1	44.9%	17.6%	1.7	71.1%	33.3%
9	Alexander Daushvili	F	Fr	6'8"	5-3	17.2	6.8	4.2	1.0	0.6	41.2%	0.0%	1.4	83.3%	21.0%
3	Mason Hagedorn	F	So	6'9"	7-1	9.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.1	30.4%	36.4%	1.6	—	20.6%
10	Branford Edmonds III	G	So	6'2"	5-0	5.6	2.6	1.6	0.0	0.2	65.0%	37.5%	1.6	—	19.9%
42	Mason Lawson	G	So	6'1"	4-0	1.5	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	150.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	20.8%
1	Rickey Bradley Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
32	Robert Peters	F	Jr	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.

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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

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

VMI

Against the spread

Season

8-19-2

Home

2-9

Road

6-8-1

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −3.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

13-16

Home

6-5

Road

7-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +4.2

Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 10 as an underdogOver in 4 of 6 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	N	L 70–84	+6.5	L−7.5	156.0	U154	103.8	124.6	67.4
Feb 28	ChattanoogaAdjEM #289	A	L 79–86	+11.5	W+4.5	155.0	O165	124.6	135.7	63.4
Feb 26	SamfordAdjEM #202	A	L 61–80	+17.0	L−2.0	156.0	U141	93.0	122.0	65.6
Feb 21	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	H	L 62–81	+9.0	L−10.0	155.0	U143	98.2	128.3	63.2
Feb 18	WoffordAdjEM #235	A	L 76–82	+13.5	W+7.5	158.5	U158	110.3	119.0	68.9
Feb 14	FurmanAdjEM #163	H	L 72–90	+12.0	L−6.0	146.5	O162	101.4	126.8	71.0
Feb 11	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	A	L 71–92	+8.5	L−12.5	151.0	O163	102.7	133.0	69.2
Feb 7	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 70–87	+14.5	L−2.5	144.0	O157	99.1	123.2	70.6
Feb 4	WoffordAdjEM #235	H	L 67–81	+9.0	L−5.0	150.0	U148	98.9	119.6	67.7
Jan 31	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 81–95	+18.0	W+4.0	153.5	O176	111.4	130.7	72.7

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

Gardner-WebbVMI

Efficiency

99.1

101.8

117.1

118.2

69.8

67.9

—

Shooting

47.8%

47.6%

48.6%

47.9%

31.0%

31.5%

68.5%

72.2%

30.3%

30.6%

Ball control & glass

19.8%

15.3%

15.7%

23.2%

25.6%

36.6%

37.2%

11.7%

8.6%

10.4%

10.5%

Style

39.8%

53.6%

46.5%

32.8%

14.3%

11.0%

41.0%

50.7%

36.5%

28.4%

Roster

2.34

2.15

6'4.1"

6'4.8"

—

84.9%

Offseason

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

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.)

VMI

Returning minutes: 84.9%Returning production: 84.7%

Lost

Tan Yildizoglu 30.2 mpg, 9.9 ppg · transferred to Siena

Added

Robert Peters no D1 minutes last season
Rickey Bradley 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 85% 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

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.