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-conferenceNeutral siteResorts World Event Center, Las Vegas, NVResorts World Classic
Omaha
Efficiency #257
2025-26: 16-17 · 9-9 conf
vs
UC Davis
Efficiency #185
2025-26: 19-14 · 12-10 conf
Wed, Nov 25 · TBD
73.3
win 40%
Projected
76.2
win 60%
No line posted yet.
Model: UCD −2.9 · total 149.4 · 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: UC Davis 69.3, Omaha 68.2 → 69.2 possessions
+1.8
UC Davis offense vs Omaha defense
+1.1
Omaha offense vs UC Davis defense
−1.8
Projected total
149.4
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
UC Davis offense vs Omaha defense
+1.1
Omaha offense vs UC Davis defense
+1.8
UC Davis by 2.9
2.9
Omaha side ◂▸ UC Davis side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 149.3 against a projected 149.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UC Davis.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UC Davis is the faster team (71.3, #41 of 365) and Omaha the slower (68.6, #166). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.4
model
Projected team totals
73.3 / 76.2
Omaha / UC Davis
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.2#193
Omaha
69.3#99
UC Davis
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageUC Davis
Where UC Davis struggles: the offensive glass
UC Davis rebounds 25.2% of its own misses (#334); Omaha lets opponents grab 28.7% of their own misses (#90). Expect about 25.9%, 4.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.7 points per 100 possessions.
ClashUC Davis
Style match: 3-point volume
UC Davis takes 43.5% of its shots from three; Omaha lets opponents take 45.5% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 46.6% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageOmaha
Where Omaha struggles: the offensive glass
Omaha rebounds 25.5% of its own misses (#331); UC Davis lets opponents grab 30.5% of their own misses (#182). Expect about 27.1%, 3.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversOmaha
Omaha turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.3% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against Omaha's offense.
Omaha has the ball
OffenseUC Davis allowsvs D1 avg
52.2% #139
51.7% #197
+1.1 pt/100
16.1% #145
19.8% #30
-1.8 pt/100
25.5% #331
30.5% #182
-2.0 pt/100
34.5% #196
39.1% #290
+0.3 pt/100
73.2% #164
—
+0.1 pt/100
Omaha net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.5 pts/100
UC Davis has the ball
OffenseOmaha allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #157
52.7% #258
+1.5 pt/100
17.9% #266
14.1% #333
+1.3 pt/100
25.2% #334
28.7% #90
-2.7 pt/100
40.5% #53
33.6% #142
+0.2 pt/100
75.3% #74
—
+0.3 pt/100
UC Davis 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 numbersOmahaoffense vsUC Davisdefense
Share of shots by zone
Omaha shoots
38.8
7.4
13.0
40.8
UC Davis allows
44.1
5.0
12.7
38.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.9%#165 | 58.4%#164 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.7%#155 | 41.2%#213 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.5%#71 | 33.6%#42 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.0%#169 | 33.8%#172 | 33.7% |
UC Davisoffense vsOmahadefense
Share of shots by zone
UC Davis shoots
35.7
3.8
16.7
43.8
Omaha allows
35.1
7.8
11.8
45.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.5%#141 | 64.6%#346 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.5%#236 | 39.7%#182 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.0%#189 | 41.6%#291 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.4%#149 | 32.9%#114 | 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 numbersOmaha
−2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#269 of 365
Off reb %
25.5%
#331
Def reb %
71.3%
#90
Turnover %
16.1%
#145
Forced TO %
14.1%
#333
FT rate
34.5%
#196
FT allowed
33.6%
#142
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.6
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security+0.5
Forcing turnovers−1.8
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed+0.4
UC Davis
+0.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#176 of 365
Off reb %
25.2%
#334
Def reb %
69.5%
#182
Turnover %
17.9%
#266
Forced TO %
19.8%
#30
FT rate
40.5%
#53
FT allowed
39.1%
#290
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.7
Defensive rebounding0.0
Ball security−0.8
Forcing turnovers+2.1
Foul shots drawn+1.4
Foul shots allowed−1.0
UC Davis has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.1 (#176 of 365) to Omaha’s −2.0 (#269).
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
Omaha2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Omaha'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Lance Waddles | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 29.4 | 12.8 | 4.8 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 55.6% | 38.0% | 6.2 | 66.7% | 25.4% | |
| 32 | Tony Osburn | G | Sr | 6'2" | 29-28 | 32.8 | 11.6 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 53.3% | 36.8% | 6.3 | 78.6% | 20.2% | |
| 5 | Ja'Sean Glover | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-8 | 25.9 | 11.6 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 49.2% | 28.3% | 3.2 | 86.7% | 27.5% | |
| 3 | Grant Stubblefield | G | Jr | 6'1" | 26-22 | 28.5 | 9.3 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 55.9% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 77.6% | 19.0% | |
| 11 | Paul Djobet | G | Jr | 6'7" | 20-18 | 29.9 | 17.4 | 6.6 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 58.0% | 41.5% | 4.1 | 72.0% | 33.0% | |
| 22 | Kamryn Thomas | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-14 | 20.8 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 48.6% | 34.6% | 1.9 | 62.2% | 15.9% | |
| 44 | Brock Scholl | F | Fr | 6'8" | 33-9 | 14.5 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 44.8% | 25.0% | 0.1 | 71.1% | 17.8% | |
| 15 | Christian Richardson | C | Sr | 7'1" | 27-16 | 15.7 | 7.4 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 72.7% | — | 0.0 | 59.7% | 23.7% | |
| 25 | Khamani Cooper | G | Jr | 6'4" | 26-9 | 16.1 | 4.8 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 46.9% | 33.3% | 2.1 | 76.9% | 21.4% | |
| 21 | Valentino Simon | F | Sr | 6'6" | 30-8 | 12.5 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 53.6% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 64.9% | 17.0% | |
| 2 | Julian Margrave | F | Sr | 6'10" | 20-0 | 9.8 | 3.9 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 47.4% | 31.7% | 3.0 | 100.0% | 25.3% | |
| 12 | Aidan Skradis | G | So | 6'4" | 12-0 | 7.7 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 36.7% | 25.0% | 1.0 | 100.0% | 12.9% | |
| 0 | Benji Nelson | F | So | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Brandon Orgilbold | G | — | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Deng Mayar | F | Sr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Isaac Ondekane | C | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Rob Matos | G | Jr | 5'9" | 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.
UC Davis2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted UC Davis'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Connor Sevilla | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 13.3 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 53.4% | 39.9% | 5.4 | 90.3% | 22.2% | |
| 2 | Marcus Wilson | G | Fr | 6'3" | 33-33 | 26.4 | 12.5 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 48.1% | 32.4% | 3.1 | 78.5% | 29.1% | |
| 20 | Isaiah Chappell | F | So | 6'9" | 33-18 | 24.1 | 8.5 | 4.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 52.3% | 35.6% | 4.9 | 60.0% | 20.6% | |
| 0 | Brayden Fagbemi | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-3 | 25.4 | 7.0 | 3.5 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 46.8% | 27.3% | 1.8 | 64.7% | 19.7% | |
| 7 | Niko Rocak | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 24.2 | 9.4 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 59.7% | 36.1% | 2.6 | 68.1% | 21.8% | |
| 36 | Nils Cooper | G | Jr | 6'6" | 27-23 | 24.7 | 12.3 | 4.6 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 57.2% | 23.8% | 1.6 | 73.7% | 26.2% | |
| 1 | Carl Daughtery Jr. | G | Sr | 6'3" | 24-9 | 26.5 | 10.0 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 55.1% | 42.0% | 4.7 | 73.3% | 19.4% | |
| 21 | Omer Suljanovic | F | Fr | 6'8" | 32-9 | 14.7 | 5.6 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 46.6% | 24.6% | 1.8 | 68.3% | 25.5% | |
| 5 | Jalen Stokes | G | Fr | 6'5" | 27-7 | 13.9 | 4.7 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 48.9% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 87.8% | 19.7% | |
| 10 | Cyril Franklin Jr. | G | So | 6'5" | 19-0 | 7.1 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 52.2% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 33.3% | 13.6% | |
| 8 | Chase Rawlins | G | Fr | 6'5" | 19-0 | 5.6 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 54.8% | 42.9% | 0.4 | 77.8% | 17.8% | |
| 14 | Abdullah Amzil | F | Fr | 6'7" | 15-0 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 35.7% | 20.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 10.3% | |
| 11 | Ylan Esso-Essis | G | So | 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.
Omaha2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Omaha'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Lance Waddles | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 29.4 | 12.8 | 4.8 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 55.6% | 38.0% | 6.2 | 66.7% | 25.4% | |
| 32 | Tony Osburn | G | Sr | 6'2" | 29-28 | 32.8 | 11.6 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 53.3% | 36.8% | 6.3 | 78.6% | 20.2% | |
| 5 | Ja'Sean Glover | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-8 | 25.9 | 11.6 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 49.2% | 28.3% | 3.2 | 86.7% | 27.5% | |
| 3 | Grant Stubblefield | G | Jr | 6'1" | 26-22 | 28.5 | 9.3 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 55.9% | 33.3% | 1.5 | 77.6% | 19.0% | |
| 11 | Paul Djobet | G | Jr | 6'7" | 20-18 | 29.9 | 17.4 | 6.6 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 58.0% | 41.5% | 4.1 | 72.0% | 33.0% | |
| 22 | Kamryn Thomas | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-14 | 20.8 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 48.6% | 34.6% | 1.9 | 62.2% | 15.9% | |
| 44 | Brock Scholl | F | Fr | 6'8" | 33-9 | 14.5 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 44.8% | 25.0% | 0.1 | 71.1% | 17.8% | |
| 15 | Christian Richardson | C | Sr | 7'1" | 27-16 | 15.7 | 7.4 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 72.7% | — | 0.0 | 59.7% | 23.7% | |
| 25 | Khamani Cooper | G | Jr | 6'4" | 26-9 | 16.1 | 4.8 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 46.9% | 33.3% | 2.1 | 76.9% | 21.4% | |
| 21 | Valentino Simon | F | Sr | 6'6" | 30-8 | 12.5 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 53.6% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 64.9% | 17.0% | |
| 2 | Julian Margrave | F | Sr | 6'10" | 20-0 | 9.8 | 3.9 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 47.4% | 31.7% | 3.0 | 100.0% | 25.3% | |
| 12 | Aidan Skradis | G | So | 6'4" | 12-0 | 7.7 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 36.7% | 25.0% | 1.0 | 100.0% | 12.9% | |
| 0 | Benji Nelson | F | So | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Brandon Orgilbold | G | — | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Deng Mayar | F | Sr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Isaac Ondekane | C | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Rob Matos | G | Jr | 5'9" | 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 2025-26Omaha
Against the spread
Season
14-15
Home
6-4
Road
7-8
Last 10
6-4
avg cover −0.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-16
Home
4-6
Road
7-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +0.5
Under 3 straightOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | N Dakota St | N | L 50–74 | +8.0 | L−16.0 | 147.0 | U124 | 73.8 | 109.2 | 67.8 |
| Mar 6 | South Dakota | N | W 76–62 | −2.0 | W+12.0 | 151.5 | U138 | 117.4 | 95.8 | 64.7 |
| Feb 28 | St Thomas | A | L 53–68 | +11.5 | L−3.5 | 159.5 | U121 | 81.3 | 104.3 | 65.2 |
| Feb 25 | South Dakota | A | L 72–89 | −1.5 | L−18.5 | 153.5 | O161 | 98.3 | 121.5 | 73.3 |
| Feb 18 | Oral Roberts | H | W 80–71 | −6.5 | W+2.5 | 152.0 | U151 | 121.2 | 107.6 | 66.0 |
| Feb 15 | Denver | H | W 83–76 | −2.5 | W+4.5 | 160.5 | U159 | 125.7 | 115.1 | 66.0 |
| Feb 12 | St Thomas | H | W 98–94 | +4.5 | W+8.5 | 156.5 | O192 | 132.5 | 127.1 | 74.0 |
| Feb 7 | N Dakota St | A | L 84–92 | +9.5 | W+1.5 | 144.5 | O176 | 125.2 | 137.2 | 67.1 |
| Feb 5 | North Dakota | A | L 73–76 | +2.0 | L−1.0 | 150.0 | U149 | 107.0 | 111.4 | 68.3 |
| Jan 31 | Denver | A | W 84–82 | +2.5 | W+4.5 | 157.5 | O166 | 117.0 | 114.2 | 71.8 |
UC Davis
Against the spread
Season
17-13-1
Home
9-5
Road
7-7-1
Last 10
5-4-1
avg cover +0.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 6 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
17-14
Home
7-7
Road
9-6
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −6.0
Under in the last gameOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Fullerton | N | L 70–82 | +1.0 | L−11.0 | 155.0 | U152 | 84.4 | 98.9 | 82.9 |
| Mar 11 | Santa Barbara | N | W 79–73 | +4.5 | W+10.5 | 139.5 | O152 | 107.2 | 99.1 | 73.7 |
| Mar 7 | UC Irvine | A | L 69–79 OT | +8.5 | L−1.5 | 145.0 | O148 | 92.6 | 106.0 | 74.6 |
| Mar 5 | Long Beach St | A | W 76–70 OT | −2.0 | W+4.0 | 150.0 | U146 | 95.7 | 88.2 | 79.4 |
| Feb 26 | Hawai'i | H | L 73–77 | +2.0 | L−2.0 | 147.0 | O150 | 106.2 | 112.0 | 68.8 |
| Feb 21 | UC Riverside | A | W 78–73 | −3.0 | W+2.0 | 150.0 | O151 | 104.9 | 98.2 | 74.4 |
| Feb 19 | Fullerton | A | L 92–93 | +1.0 | P0.0 | 157.0 | O185 | 138.1 | 139.6 | 66.6 |
| Feb 14 | Long Beach St | H | W 71–54 | −5.0 | W+12.0 | 149.5 | U125 | 100.8 | 76.6 | 70.5 |
| Feb 12 | UC San Diego | A | L 51–68 | +6.0 | L−11.0 | 150.5 | U119 | 72.5 | 96.7 | 70.3 |
| Feb 7 | Cal Poly | H | W 67–58 | −6.0 | W+3.0 | 169.0 | U125 | 96.6 | 83.6 | 69.4 |
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 homeOmahaUC Davis
Efficiency
106.6
107.2
111.5
107.8
68.2
69.3
—
—
Shooting
52.2%
51.8%
53.0%
51.9%
34.0%
34.4%
73.2%
75.3%
34.5%
40.5%
Ball control & glass
16.1%
17.9%
14.1%
19.8%
25.5%
25.2%
28.7%
30.5%
9.1%
9.2%
10.5%
10.3%
Style
40.9%
43.5%
41.6%
37.0%
10.2%
13.1%
46.9%
59.9%
30.1%
34.0%
Roster
3.49
2.51
6'5.3"
6'4.5"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputOmaha
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Omaha'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.)
UC Davis
Returning minutes: 99.7%Returning production: 100.1%
ESPN hasn't posted UC Davis'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.