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.

Conference gameFirst Horizon Coliseum, Greensboro, NC

Furman

Efficiency #163

2025-26: 22-13 · 13-8 conf

UNC Greensboro

Efficiency #301

2025-26: 15-19 · 11-10 conf

Sat, Dec 5 · TBD

76.0

win 55%

Projected

74.4

win 45%

No line posted yet.

Model: FUR −1.6 · total 150.4 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: UNC Greensboro 68.6, Furman 67.3 → 67.6 possessions

−1.6

UNC Greensboro offense vs Furman defense

−0.9

Furman offense vs UNC Greensboro defense

+4.6

Projected total

150.4

Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

UNC Greensboro offense vs Furman defense

−0.9

Furman offense vs UNC Greensboro defense

−4.6

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

+3.9

Furman by 1.6

1.6

Furman side ◂▸ UNC Greensboro side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 150.3 against a projected 150.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UNC Greensboro.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UNC Greensboro is the faster team (68.5, #170 of 365) and Furman the slower (66.4, #279). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

150.4

model

Projected team totals

76.0 / 74.4

Furman / UNC Greensboro

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.3#265

Furman

68.6#161

UNC Greensboro

How this game plays

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

AdvantageFurman

Where Furman scores: shooting

Furman shoots an effective 54.8% (#43); UNC Greensboro allows 56.2% (#347). Expect about 55.8%, 4.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.5 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageUNC Greensboro

Where UNC Greensboro scores: ball control

UNC Greensboro turns it over on 15.0% of possessions (#63); Furman forces turnovers on 13.7% of opponent possessions (#342). Expect about 13.8%, 3.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.7 points per 100 possessions.

ClashFurman

Style match: 3-point volume

Furman takes 46.5% of its shots from three; UNC Greensboro lets opponents take 46.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 49.7% — both habits push the same way.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (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 Furman at about 49.7% of its shots from three, UNC Greensboro about 41.5%.

ClashUNC Greensboro

Style match: ball movement

UNC Greensboro creates off the dribble (assists on 46.9% of its baskets); Furman breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.7% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 45.8% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversFurman

Furman protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.4% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Furman's offense.

Furman has the ball

OffenseUNC Greensboro allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #43

56.2% #347

+6.5 pt/100

17.8% #259

13.7% #343

+1.7 pt/100

30.5% #180

29.0% #104

-0.4 pt/100

32.7% #246

30.6% #74

-0.5 pt/100

70.1% #269

—

-0.2 pt/100

Furman net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.2 pts/100

UNC Greensboro has the ball

OffenseFurman allowsvs D1 avg

52.0% #146

50.2% #112

-0.2 pt/100

15.0% #63

13.7% #342

+3.7 pt/100

28.1% #259

28.2% #72

-1.6 pt/100

42.0% #31

28.9% #44

-0.0 pt/100

70.4% #256

—

-0.2 pt/100

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

Shot diet

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

Furmanoffense vsUNC Greensborodefense

Share of shots by zone

Furman shoots

38.5

5.8

8.9

46.8

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	62.3%#66	63.6%#336	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	51.5%#8	44.4%#279	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	43.5%#28	37.9%#155	38.0%
Three	33.4%#204	38.0%#357	33.7%

UNC Greensborooffense vsFurmandefense

Share of shots by zone

UNC Greensboro shoots

34.6

5.7

19.9

39.9

Furman allows

37.0

5.5

15.9

41.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.0%#197	56.0%#86	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.2%#100	45.5%#314	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.8%#83	41.9%#297	38.0%
Three	35.6%#80	32.3%#75	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

Furman

−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#227 of 365

Off reb %

30.5%

#180

Def reb %

71.8%

#72

Turnover %

17.8%

#259

Forced TO %

13.7%

#342

FT rate

32.7%

#246

FT allowed

28.9%

#44

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security−0.7

Forcing turnovers−2.1

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.6

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

UNC Greensboro has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#102 of 365) to Furman’s −0.9 (#227).

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

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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.

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.

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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

Furman

Against the spread

Season

15-15-2

Home

4-8-1

Road

7-5

Last 10

6-3-1

avg cover +1.9

Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-15-1

Home

6-7

Road

6-5-1

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.4

Over in the last gameOver in 4 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 20	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 71–82	+21.0	W+10.0	135.0	O153	108.5	125.3	65.4
Mar 9	ETSUAdjEM #110	N	W 76–61	+1.0	W+16.0	138.0	U137	122.9	98.6	61.8
Mar 8	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	N	W 81–75	−6.0	P0.0	148.5	O156	123.4	114.3	65.6
Mar 7	SamfordAdjEM #202	N	W 86–81	+1.5	W+6.5	145.5	O167	124.6	117.4	69.0
Feb 28	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	A	L 67–86	−2.0	L−21.0	148.0	O153	105.4	135.3	63.6
Feb 25	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	W 72–51	−15.5	W+5.5	143.5	U123	120.3	85.2	59.8
Feb 21	WoffordAdjEM #235	A	W 76–67	−1.5	W+7.5	152.5	U143	118.7	104.6	64.1
Feb 18	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 69–78	−1.5	L−10.5	141.0	O147	101.2	114.4	68.2
Feb 14	VMIAdjEM #361	A	W 90–72	−12.0	W+6.0	146.5	O162	126.8	101.4	71.0
Feb 11	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 64–69	+3.5	L−1.5	151.5	U133	96.1	103.6	66.6

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

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

FurmanUNC Greensboro

Efficiency

108.6

107.8

107.9

115.2

67.3

68.6

—

Shooting

54.8%

52.0%

58.8%

51.0%

33.4%

35.6%

70.1%

70.4%

32.7%

42.0%

Ball control & glass

17.8%

15.0%

13.7%

30.5%

28.1%

28.2%

29.0%

11.3%

8.7%

10.6%

9.1%

Style

46.5%

40.2%

42.6%

37.8%

11.1%

11.3%

56.1%

46.9%

28.5%

29.3%

Roster

2.85

2.57

6'7.1"

6'3.7"

74.9%

92.8%

Offseason

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

Furman

Returning minutes: 74.9%Returning production: 66.0%

Lost

Alex Wilkins 29.7 mpg, 17.8 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
Cooper Bowser 21.1 mpg, 9.8 ppg · transferred to Arkansas

Added

Davis Molnar no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 75% 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).

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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sun, Mar 8	2025-26	UNC Greensboro 75 – 81 Furman(N)
Sun, Feb 8	2025-26	UNC Greensboro 67 – 64 Furman
Fri, Jan 23	2025-26	Furman 89 – 66 UNC Greensboro

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.