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-conferenceLawlor Events Center, Reno, NV

LMU

Efficiency #183

2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf

Nevada

Efficiency #71

2025-26: 24-13 · 14-9 conf

Wed, Dec 9 · TBD

67.3

win 22%

Projected

76.2

win 78%

No line posted yet.

Model: NEV −8.9 · total 143.5 · 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: Nevada 67.4, LMU 68.2 → 67.3 possessions

−2.2

Nevada offense vs LMU defense

+1.3

LMU offense vs Nevada defense

−3.8

Projected total

143.5

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Nevada offense vs LMU defense

+1.3

LMU offense vs Nevada defense

+3.8

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

+3.9

Nevada by 8.9

8.9

LMU side ◂▸ Nevada side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +9.0 against +8.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Nevada.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, LMU is the faster team (68.1, #197 of 365) and Nevada the slower (66.8, #253). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

143.5

model

Projected team totals

67.3 / 76.2

LMU / Nevada

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.2#189

LMU

67.4#263

Nevada

How this game plays

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

AdvantageNevada

Where Nevada struggles: shooting

Nevada shoots an effective 50.0% (#234); LMU allows 48.9% (#60). Expect about 49.3%, 2.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageLMU

Where LMU struggles: the offensive glass

LMU rebounds 26.7% of its own misses (#307); Nevada lets opponents grab 26.9% of their own misses (#33). Expect about 26.1%, 4.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.

ClashNevada

Style match: 3-point volume

Nevada rarely shoots threes (32.3% of its shots); LMU runs teams off the line (36.2% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 31.6% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversNevada

Nevada protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for Nevada's offense.

ClashLMU

Strength vs strength: shot-blocking exposure

LMU (#23 in shot-blocking exposure) against Nevada (#56 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 10.2%. Historically Nevada's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.41 vs 0.68).

LMU has the ball

OffenseNevada allowsvs D1 avg

51.8% #152

51.1% #166

+0.4 pt/100

17.5% #238

17.0% #150

-0.7 pt/100

26.7% #307

26.9% #33

-2.6 pt/100

31.1% #280

38.9% #282

+0.0 pt/100

69.5% #280

—

-0.2 pt/100

LMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.2 pts/100

Nevada has the ball

OffenseLMU allowsvs D1 avg

50.0% #234

48.9% #60

-2.8 pt/100

14.8% #55

16.6% #181

+1.5 pt/100

32.2% #119

32.0% #258

+1.3 pt/100

44.8% #6

32.5% #114

+0.4 pt/100

75.7% #61

—

+0.3 pt/100

Nevada net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.7 pts/100

Shot diet

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

LMUoffense vsNevadadefense

Share of shots by zone

LMU shoots

32.8

8.4

19.0

39.8

Nevada allows

38.7

5.9

12.9

42.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.2%#156	53.7%#36	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#195	37.8%#132	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.6%#68	46.9%#359	38.0%
Three	34.8%#130	33.7%#168	33.7%

Nevadaoffense vsLMUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Nevada shoots

39.2

6.2

22.1

32.5

LMU allows

37.1

7.4

18.9

36.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.4%#335	53.3%#27	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.5%#236	35.8%#88	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.7%#123	39.0%#200	38.0%
Three	35.8%#70	34.6%#225	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

LMU

−2.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#287 of 365

Off reb %

26.7%

#307

Def reb %

68.0%

#258

Turnover %

17.5%

#238

Forced TO %

16.6%

#181

FT rate

31.1%

#280

FT allowed

32.5%

#114

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.2

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.5

Forcing turnovers−0.1

Foul shots drawn−1.0

Foul shots allowed+0.7

Nevada

+4.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#26 of 365

Off reb %

32.2%

#119

Def reb %

73.1%

#33

Turnover %

14.8%

#55

Forced TO %

17.0%

#150

FT rate

44.8%

FT allowed

38.9%

#282

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.6

Defensive rebounding+1.2

Ball security+1.3

Forcing turnovers+0.2

Foul shots drawn+2.5

Foul shots allowed−0.9

Nevada has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.9 (#26 of 365) to LMU’s −2.5 (#287).

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

LMU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted LMU'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
2	Rodney Brown Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	31-30	32.4	14.0	2.4	1.7	1.5	54.8%	38.2%	7.4	83.0%	24.9%
5	Myron Amey Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	32-17	30.5	14.8	3.9	1.7	1.3	52.7%	35.3%	7.3	77.1%	28.0%
16	Aaron McBride	F	Jr	6'6"	31-24	27.2	7.6	5.6	1.0	1.2	58.1%	35.0%	1.3	75.5%	16.1%
1	Jalen Shelley	F	So	6'8"	25-25	31.2	13.7	6.6	2.7	2.3	50.6%	28.7%	3.5	70.4%	27.5%
7	Jan Vide	G	Jr	6'6"	27-27	28.8	12.1	3.0	4.0	2.3	47.0%	32.3%	1.1	75.3%	29.0%
22	Rick Issanza	C	Sr	7'1"	30-17	16.3	2.6	3.4	0.3	0.6	66.7%	0.0%	0.0	34.4%	10.3%
4	AJ Thomas	G	Fr	6'4"	32-4	13.5	5.2	1.4	1.8	1.3	44.7%	29.2%	0.8	66.0%	26.6%
35	Rokas Jocius	F	Sr	6'10"	32-15	12.5	3.2	3.0	0.4	0.7	59.1%	43.8%	0.5	52.2%	15.9%
6	Josh Dalton	F	Fr	6'10"	29-0	12.9	3.6	2.6	0.5	0.4	55.5%	33.3%	1.8	72.2%	15.9%
0	Nakyel Shelton	G	Sr	6'3"	27-0	9.1	2.9	1.0	0.4	0.4	55.6%	38.5%	1.0	85.0%	17.4%
24	Jael Martin	F	Fr	6'8"	17-1	7.4	1.9	1.4	0.2	0.1	61.4%	20.0%	0.3	62.5%	12.0%
42	George Tupy	F	Jr	6'6"	4-0	2.8	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	4.8%
41	Kevin Carney	G	Sr	5'11"	2-0	4.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.5	0.0%	32.3%
40	Cooper Smith	G	Fr	6'2"	3-0	2.3	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	100.0%	7.0%
3	Marley Zeller	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Tanner Thomas	G	Sr	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.

Nevada2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Elijah Price	F	So	6'9"	37-37	30.0	12.8	8.5	1.1	1.9	46.3%	35.5%	0.8	73.3%	26.5%
12	Tayshawn Comer	G	Sr	6'1"	37-36	25.2	11.0	1.8	3.6	2.0	44.2%	35.1%	3.1	79.7%	30.7%
7	Vaughn Weems	G	Jr	6'5"	34-25	25.0	10.1	4.2	0.9	1.1	60.4%	38.2%	2.0	76.8%	21.8%
6	Kaleb Lowery	F	Sr	6'8"	36-27	18.3	4.6	3.1	1.0	0.5	56.9%	33.9%	1.7	75.8%	14.4%
0	Chuck Bailey III	G	Jr	6'4"	33-14	18.0	6.3	2.4	1.0	0.5	45.9%	39.4%	2.2	74.4%	23.3%
3	Tyler Rolison	G	Jr	6'0"	34-4	17.2	5.5	1.7	2.6	1.0	41.1%	22.0%	1.2	76.0%	23.0%
17	Peyton White	G	Fr	6'6"	36-0	13.9	4.6	1.7	0.4	0.4	48.1%	32.7%	1.4	79.2%	20.2%
21	Joel Armotrading	C	Sr	6'10"	21-10	16.9	5.2	4.0	0.5	0.9	50.7%	—	0.0	77.4%	18.3%
5	Amire Robinson	G	So	6'3"	36-0	9.4	2.7	1.1	0.4	0.2	56.0%	33.3%	1.3	70.6%	16.0%
2	Myles Walker	G	Fr	5'10"	32-0	7.7	1.3	0.6	1.4	0.4	46.3%	33.3%	0.6	100.0%	13.7%
10	Jeriah Coleman	C	Sr	7'1"	29-0	5.8	1.1	1.6	0.0	0.1	70.6%	—	0.0	50.0%	9.6%
50	Ethan Croley	F	Fr	6'9"	16-0	5.3	1.9	1.3	0.0	0.3	57.1%	0.0%	0.1	46.2%	22.5%
24	Christopher Baudreau	F	Fr	6'9"	4-0	2.0	1.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	40.0%	—	0.0	—	37.9%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

LMU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted LMU'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
2	Rodney Brown Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	31-30	32.4	14.0	2.4	1.7	1.5	54.8%	38.2%	7.4	83.0%	24.9%
5	Myron Amey Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	32-17	30.5	14.8	3.9	1.7	1.3	52.7%	35.3%	7.3	77.1%	28.0%
16	Aaron McBride	F	Jr	6'6"	31-24	27.2	7.6	5.6	1.0	1.2	58.1%	35.0%	1.3	75.5%	16.1%
1	Jalen Shelley	F	So	6'8"	25-25	31.2	13.7	6.6	2.7	2.3	50.6%	28.7%	3.5	70.4%	27.5%
7	Jan Vide	G	Jr	6'6"	27-27	28.8	12.1	3.0	4.0	2.3	47.0%	32.3%	1.1	75.3%	29.0%
22	Rick Issanza	C	Sr	7'1"	30-17	16.3	2.6	3.4	0.3	0.6	66.7%	0.0%	0.0	34.4%	10.3%
4	AJ Thomas	G	Fr	6'4"	32-4	13.5	5.2	1.4	1.8	1.3	44.7%	29.2%	0.8	66.0%	26.6%
35	Rokas Jocius	F	Sr	6'10"	32-15	12.5	3.2	3.0	0.4	0.7	59.1%	43.8%	0.5	52.2%	15.9%
6	Josh Dalton	F	Fr	6'10"	29-0	12.9	3.6	2.6	0.5	0.4	55.5%	33.3%	1.8	72.2%	15.9%
0	Nakyel Shelton	G	Sr	6'3"	27-0	9.1	2.9	1.0	0.4	0.4	55.6%	38.5%	1.0	85.0%	17.4%
24	Jael Martin	F	Fr	6'8"	17-1	7.4	1.9	1.4	0.2	0.1	61.4%	20.0%	0.3	62.5%	12.0%
42	George Tupy	F	Jr	6'6"	4-0	2.8	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	4.8%
41	Kevin Carney	G	Sr	5'11"	2-0	4.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.5	0.0%	32.3%
40	Cooper Smith	G	Fr	6'2"	3-0	2.3	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	100.0%	7.0%
3	Marley Zeller	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Tanner Thomas	G	Sr	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

LMU

Against the spread

Season

14-16-1

Home

8-9

Road

5-5-1

Last 10

3-6-1

avg cover −1.4

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 2 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

15-16

Home

9-8

Road

6-5

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +0.3

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	San DiegoAdjEM #269	N	L 62–66	−5.5	L−9.5	145.5	U128	101.1	107.6	61.3
Feb 28	Seattle UAdjEM #125	H	L 66–71	−1.0	L−6.0	136.0	O137	104.8	112.8	63.0
Feb 25	Washington StAdjEM #174	H	W 67–66	−2.0	L−1.0	148.0	U133	98.6	97.1	68.0
Feb 21	San DiegoAdjEM #269	A	W 77–65	−2.5	W+9.5	149.5	U142	124.0	104.7	62.1
Feb 14	PepperdineAdjEM #307	A	L 89–90	−6.0	L−7.0	148.5	O179	125.0	126.4	71.2
Feb 11	PacificAdjEM #126	A	L 59–65	+6.0	P0.0	141.5	U124	93.7	103.2	63.0
Feb 7	San DiegoAdjEM #269	H	W 83–63	−6.0	W+14.0	151.5	U146	131.5	99.8	63.1
Feb 4	San FranciscoAdjEM #148	A	W 84–75	+8.0	W+17.0	146.0	O159	121.8	108.8	69.0
Jan 31	Santa ClaraAdjEM #33	H	L 73–104	+9.0	L−22.0	154.5	O177	94.1	134.1	77.5
Jan 28	Oregon StAdjEM #219	H	L 69–72	−6.0	L−9.0	142.0	U141	104.6	109.2	65.9

Nevada

Against the spread

Season

21-15-1

Home

12-7

Road

6-6-1

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +1.0

Covered 3 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

21-16

Home

10-9

Road

7-6

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −1.2

Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 25	AuburnAdjEM #41	A	L 69–75	+8.0	W+2.0	153.0	U144	107.2	116.5	64.4
Mar 21	LibertyAdjEM #103	H	W 73–63	−7.0	W+3.0	147.5	U136	117.6	101.5	62.0
Mar 18	Murray StAdjEM #108	H	W 89–75	−9.0	W+5.0	160.0	O164	123.2	103.8	72.2
Mar 13	Utah StateAdjEM #24	N	L 66–79	+6.5	L−6.5	144.5	O145	90.3	108.1	73.1
Mar 12	Grand CanyonAdjEM #65	N	W 84–80	+3.5	W+7.5	137.5	O164	119.3	113.6	70.4
Mar 11	Air ForceAdjEM #360	N	W 80–45	−19.0	W+16.0	141.0	U125	112.3	63.2	71.2
Mar 7	Air ForceAdjEM #360	H	W 74–59	−25.5	L−10.5	145.0	U133	114.2	91.1	64.8
Mar 3	WyomingAdjEM #98	A	L 73–83	−1.5	L−11.5	144.0	O156	110.1	125.2	66.3
Feb 28	UNLVAdjEM #124	A	L 83–85 OT	−1.0	L−3.0	151.5	O168	110.0	112.7	75.4
Feb 24	New MexicoAdjEM #42	H	W 67–60	+1.0	W+8.0	150.0	U127	94.7	84.9	70.7

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

LMUNevada

Efficiency

106.0

112.3

106.6

105.3

68.2

67.4

—

Shooting

51.8%

50.0%

51.6%

48.2%

34.8%

35.8%

69.5%

75.7%

31.1%

44.8%

Ball control & glass

17.5%

14.8%

16.6%

17.0%

26.7%

32.2%

32.0%

26.9%

9.0%

8.7%

7.3%

9.5%

Style

40.4%

32.3%

43.4%

39.9%

14.5%

15.7%

49.3%

57.6%

32.4%

34.5%

Roster

2.92

2.84

6'6.4"

6'5.1"

—

85.8%

Offseason

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

LMU

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted LMU'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.)

Nevada

Returning minutes: 85.8%Returning production: 81.9%

Lost

Corey Camper Jr. 28.8 mpg, 14.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 86% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. 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.