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
Queens
Efficiency #191
2025-26: 21-14 · 16-5 conf
@
Gardner-Webb
Efficiency #363
2025-26: 4-29 · 2-16 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
84.9
win 76%
Projected
76.8
win 24%
No line posted yet.
Model: QUC −8.1 · total 161.7 · 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: Gardner-Webb 69.8, Queens 69.7 → 71.2 possessions
+6.2
Gardner-Webb offense vs Queens defense
−2.5
Queens offense vs Gardner-Webb defense
+9.7
Projected total
161.7
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Gardner-Webb offense vs Queens defense
−2.5
Queens offense vs Gardner-Webb defense
−9.7
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Queens by 8.1
8.1
Queens side ◂▸ Gardner-Webb side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 161.6 against a projected 161.7. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Gardner-Webb.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 71.2, 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 Queens the slower (70.6, #68). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
71.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
161.7
model
Projected team totals
84.9 / 76.8
Queens / Gardner-Webb
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.7#68
Queens
69.8#64
Gardner-Webb
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageQueens
Where Queens scores: shooting
Queens shoots an effective 56.4% (#15); Gardner-Webb allows 56.9% (#356). Expect about 57.2%, 5.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +8.4 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Track meet
Gardner-Webb averages 70.8 possessions per 40, Queens 70.6. 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 72 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
TurnoversQueens
Queens protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 14.7% is worth roughly +2.6 points per 100 possessions for Queens's offense.
AdvantageGardner-Webb
Where Gardner-Webb struggles: the offensive glass
Gardner-Webb rebounds 23.2% of its own misses (#350); Queens lets opponents grab 33.6% of their own misses (#308). Expect about 26.9%, 3.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Gardner-Webb, Queens'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 Queens at about 46.1% of its shots from three, Gardner-Webb about 39.8%.
GlassQueens
Queens owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.3% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Queens's offense.
Queens has the ball
OffenseGardner-Webb allowsvs D1 avg
56.4% #15
56.9% #356
+8.4 pt/100
14.8% #54
15.3% #264
+2.6 pt/100
30.2% #190
36.6% #355
+1.7 pt/100
35.4% #167
35.2% #185
+0.0 pt/100
74.9% #88
—
+0.2 pt/100
Queens net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +12.9 pts/100
Gardner-Webb has the ball
OffenseQueens allowsvs D1 avg
47.8% #317
54.6% #319
-0.5 pt/100
19.8% #344
15.1% #277
-0.9 pt/100
23.2% #350
33.6% #308
-2.1 pt/100
30.3% #302
38.1% #263
-0.1 pt/100
68.5% #313
—
-0.3 pt/100
Gardner-Webb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersQueensoffense vsGardner-Webbdefense
Share of shots by zone
Queens shoots
40.4
6.0
7.2
46.4
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 | 64.2%#32 | 65.9%#357 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#42 | 44.7%#287 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.5%#95 | 37.3%#139 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#74 | 36.0%#300 | 33.7% |
Gardner-Webboffense vsQueensdefense
Share of shots by zone
Gardner-Webb shoots
42.6
5.3
13.4
38.7
Queens allows
42.3
5.5
13.0
39.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.3%#315 | 58.9%#186 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 27.4%#361 | 50.5%#357 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 34.1%#311 | 37.8%#153 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.0%#320 | 36.5%#325 | 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 numbersQueens
−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#251 of 365
Off reb %
30.2%
#190
Def reb %
66.4%
#308
Turnover %
14.8%
#54
Forced TO %
15.1%
#277
FT rate
35.4%
#167
FT allowed
38.1%
#263
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.1
Defensive rebounding−0.9
Ball security+1.4
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed−0.7
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
Queens has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.3 (#251 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
Queens2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Chris Ashby | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-35 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 53.5% | 37.5% | 8.5 | 87.8% | 20.5% | |
| 1 | Nasir Mann | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 30.4 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 54.6% | 31.8% | 3.1 | 78.0% | 24.1% | |
| 24 | Yoav Berman | G | So | 6'6" | 35-30 | 29.2 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 48.3% | 29.7% | 4.2 | 78.7% | 25.2% | |
| 22 | Carson Schwieger | F | So | 6'8" | 34-27 | 24.6 | 10.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 60.7% | 40.9% | 6.6 | 69.0% | 20.4% | |
| 6 | Avantae Parker | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 22.1 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 68.2% | 38.5% | 0.4 | 61.7% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | Jordan Watford | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-8 | 20.8 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 61.8% | 37.5% | 0.7 | 77.8% | 29.0% | |
| 9 | Maban Jabriel | F | So | 6'9" | 35-2 | 19.8 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 61.6% | 43.2% | 3.2 | 77.4% | 19.9% | |
| 7 | Gus Larson | F | Sr | 6'10" | 35-1 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 55.3% | 18.8% | 0.5 | 57.4% | 16.8% | |
| 3 | Isaiah Henry | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-0 | 7.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 25.0% | 0.6 | 73.3% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Kam Clark | F | Jr | 6'7" | 26-3 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 35.1% | 11.1% | 1.0 | 78.9% | 19.1% | |
| 4 | Reid Celestin | G | Jr | 6'6" | 15-0 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 25.0% | 12.9% | |
| 12 | Tyler Crider | G | Fr | 6'0" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 22.6% | |
| 25 | Jacob Brandly | G | Fr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 35 | Colby Christiansen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Danzelle Bullock Coles | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jimma James | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Matthew Walter | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Saif-Allah Zatari | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Seamus Wilson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Queens2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Chris Ashby | G | Sr | 6'2" | 35-35 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 53.5% | 37.5% | 8.5 | 87.8% | 20.5% | |
| 1 | Nasir Mann | G | Sr | 6'5" | 35-35 | 30.4 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 54.6% | 31.8% | 3.1 | 78.0% | 24.1% | |
| 24 | Yoav Berman | G | So | 6'6" | 35-30 | 29.2 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 48.3% | 29.7% | 4.2 | 78.7% | 25.2% | |
| 22 | Carson Schwieger | F | So | 6'8" | 34-27 | 24.6 | 10.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 60.7% | 40.9% | 6.6 | 69.0% | 20.4% | |
| 6 | Avantae Parker | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 22.1 | 11.1 | 5.3 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 68.2% | 38.5% | 0.4 | 61.7% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | Jordan Watford | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-8 | 20.8 | 11.8 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 61.8% | 37.5% | 0.7 | 77.8% | 29.0% | |
| 9 | Maban Jabriel | F | So | 6'9" | 35-2 | 19.8 | 7.7 | 3.8 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 61.6% | 43.2% | 3.2 | 77.4% | 19.9% | |
| 7 | Gus Larson | F | Sr | 6'10" | 35-1 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 55.3% | 18.8% | 0.5 | 57.4% | 16.8% | |
| 3 | Isaiah Henry | G | Fr | 6'4" | 26-0 | 7.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 25.0% | 0.6 | 73.3% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Kam Clark | F | Jr | 6'7" | 26-3 | 7.3 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 35.1% | 11.1% | 1.0 | 78.9% | 19.1% | |
| 4 | Reid Celestin | G | Jr | 6'6" | 15-0 | 2.9 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 25.0% | 12.9% | |
| 12 | Tyler Crider | G | Fr | 6'0" | 8-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4 | — | 22.6% | |
| 25 | Jacob Brandly | G | Fr | 6'6" | 1-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 35 | Colby Christiansen | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 2 | Danzelle Bullock Coles | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jimma James | G | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Matthew Walter | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Saif-Allah Zatari | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Seamus Wilson | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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 2025-26Queens
Against the spread
Season
15-17-1
Home
9-4
Road
4-12
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover +0.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
23-9-1
Home
10-3
Road
10-5-1
Last 10
8-1-1
avg vs total +8.2
Over 3 straightOver in 5 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20 | #2Purdue | N | L 71–104 | +25.5 | L−7.5 | 159.5 | O175 | 105.1 | 154.0 | 67.5 |
| Mar 8 | C Arkansas | N | W 98–93 OT | +2.0 | W+7.0 | 157.0 | O191 | 122.3 | 116.0 | 80.2 |
| Mar 7 | Austin Peay | N | W 90–83 | +2.0 | W+9.0 | 161.5 | O173 | 123.8 | 114.1 | 72.7 |
| Mar 6 | West Georgia | N | W 71–63 | −8.0 | P0.0 | 165.5 | U134 | 97.5 | 86.5 | 72.8 |
| Feb 28 | C Arkansas | A | L 79–84 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 163.0 | P163 | 111.3 | 118.4 | 70.9 |
| Feb 25 | E Kentucky | A | W 96–79 | −2.5 | W+14.5 | 165.5 | O175 | 135.8 | 111.8 | 70.7 |
| Feb 21 | West Georgia | H | W 91–84 | −11.0 | L−4.0 | 162.5 | O175 | 126.3 | 116.6 | 72.1 |
| Feb 18 | North Alabama | A | W 85–78 | −8.5 | L−1.5 | 155.5 | O163 | 126.1 | 115.7 | 67.4 |
| Feb 14 | Lipscomb | H | W 87–81 | −3.0 | W+3.0 | 165.5 | O168 | 110.9 | 103.2 | 78.5 |
| Feb 11 | Austin Peay | H | L 87–95 | −2.5 | L−10.5 | 161.0 | O182 | 118.1 | 128.9 | 73.7 |
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 Point | N | L 59–81 | +27.5 | W+5.5 | 156.5 | U140 | 84.0 | 115.3 | 70.3 |
| Mar 4 | SC Upstate | N | W 65–64 | +11.0 | W+12.0 | 144.0 | U129 | 100.7 | 99.1 | 64.6 |
| Feb 28 | SC Upstate | A | L 61–71 | +13.5 | W+3.5 | 146.5 | U132 | 86.8 | 101.0 | 70.3 |
| Feb 26 | UNC Asheville | H | L 71–77 | +12.5 | W+6.5 | 145.5 | O148 | 114.6 | 124.2 | 62.0 |
| Feb 19 | Radford | A | L 70–82 | +19.0 | W+7.0 | 162.5 | U152 | 101.4 | 118.8 | 69.0 |
| Feb 17 | Charleston So | A | L 66–75 | +17.5 | W+8.5 | 160.5 | U141 | 88.8 | 100.9 | 74.4 |
| Feb 14 | High Point | H | L 87–112 | +25.5 | W+0.5 | 162.0 | O199 | 111.4 | 143.5 | 78.1 |
| Feb 12 | Winthrop | H | L 85–103 | +20.5 | W+2.5 | 155.0 | O188 | 110.9 | 134.4 | 76.7 |
| Feb 7 | Presbyterian | A | L 62–68 | +17.5 | W+11.5 | 145.5 | U130 | 97.9 | 107.4 | 63.3 |
| Feb 4 | Longwood | 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 homeQueensGardner-Webb
Efficiency
113.5
99.1
114.4
117.1
69.7
69.8
—
—
Shooting
56.4%
47.8%
58.9%
48.6%
35.7%
31.0%
74.9%
68.5%
35.4%
30.3%
Ball control & glass
14.8%
19.8%
15.1%
15.3%
30.2%
23.2%
33.6%
36.6%
9.0%
11.7%
9.4%
10.4%
Style
46.5%
39.8%
43.6%
46.5%
13.2%
14.3%
54.9%
41.0%
32.2%
36.5%
Roster
2.73
2.34
6'6.2"
6'4.1"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputQueens
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Queens'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.)
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| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Wed, Dec 3 | 2025-26 | Gardner-Webb 74 – 107 Queens |
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.