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 gameHooper Eblen Center, Cookeville, TN

Samford

Efficiency #202

2025-26: 18-14 · 11-8 conf

Tennessee Tech

Efficiency #298

2025-26: 13-18 · 8-12 conf

Sat, Dec 5 · TBD

74.8

win 50%

Projected

74.7

win 50%

No line posted yet.

Model: SAM −0.1 · total 149.6 · 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: Tennessee Tech 68.1, Samford 68.3 → 68.2 possessions

−0.4

Tennessee Tech offense vs Samford defense

−1.2

Samford offense vs Tennessee Tech defense

+2.9

Projected total

149.6

Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Tennessee Tech offense vs Samford defense

−1.2

Samford offense vs Tennessee Tech defense

−2.9

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

+3.9

Samford by 0.1

0.1

Samford side ◂▸ Tennessee Tech side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 149.5 against a projected 149.6, and the margin steps add to −0.2 against −0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Tennessee Tech.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Samford is the faster team (68.4, #176 of 365) and Tennessee Tech the slower (68.3, #186). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

149.6

model

Projected team totals

74.8 / 74.7

Samford / Tennessee Tech

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.3#182

Samford

68.1#196

Tennessee Tech

How this game plays

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

AdvantageSamford

Where Samford scores: ball control

Samford turns it over on 13.4% of possessions (#11); Tennessee Tech forces turnovers on 15.1% of opponent possessions (#282). Expect about 13.7%, 3.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.7 points per 100 possessions.

ClashTennessee Tech

Style match: ball movement

Tennessee Tech creates off the dribble (assists on 45.4% of its baskets); Samford breaks up passing offenses (assists on 45.8% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 43.6% — both habits push the same way.

GlassSamford

Samford gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.0% is worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions against Samford's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Tennessee Tech, Samford'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 Samford at about 42.3% of its shots from three, Tennessee Tech about 34.8%.

AdvantageTennessee Tech

Where Tennessee Tech struggles: shooting

Tennessee Tech shoots an effective 48.9% (#293); Samford allows 51.9% (#206). Expect about 50.2%, 1.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions.

ClashSamford

Style clash: 3-point volume

Samford takes 45.7% of its shots from three; Tennessee Tech runs teams off the line (36.1% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 42.3% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

Samford has the ball

OffenseTennessee Tech allowsvs D1 avg

53.1% #101

51.5% #186

+1.7 pt/100

13.4% #11

15.1% #282

+3.7 pt/100

25.3% #333

30.7% #192

-2.1 pt/100

41.9% #32

31.3% #88

+0.1 pt/100

69.2% #293

—

-0.3 pt/100

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

Tennessee Tech has the ball

OffenseSamford allowsvs D1 avg

48.9% #293

51.9% #206

-1.5 pt/100

19.1% #324

13.0% #354

+1.3 pt/100

31.3% #151

25.7% #17

-1.0 pt/100

35.5% #164

32.9% #128

-0.1 pt/100

76.2% #47

—

+0.3 pt/100

Tennessee Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.0 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Samfordoffense vsTennessee Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

Samford shoots

35.0

4.3

14.4

46.3

Tennessee Tech allows

39.7

5.7

19.6

35.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.5%#63	58.8%#179	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	27.5%#359	37.2%#117	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.4%#136	33.7%#45	38.0%
Three	35.6%#84	35.8%#295	33.7%

Tennessee Techoffense vsSamforddefense

Share of shots by zone

Tennessee Tech shoots

41.7

6.6

14.9

36.8

Samford allows

34.3

9.2

21.2

35.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.2%#266	57.1%#114	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	30.9%#343	37.5%#124	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.4%#73	42.7%#325	38.0%
Three	31.1%#316	36.5%#326	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

Samford

+2.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#94 of 365

Off reb %

25.3%

#333

Def reb %

74.3%

#17

Turnover %

13.4%

#11

Forced TO %

13.0%

#354

FT rate

41.9%

#32

FT allowed

32.9%

#128

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.6

Defensive rebounding+1.6

Ball security+2.3

Forcing turnovers−2.5

Foul shots drawn+1.8

Foul shots allowed+0.6

Tennessee Tech

−1.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#250 of 365

Off reb %

31.3%

#151

Def reb %

69.3%

#192

Turnover %

19.1%

#324

Forced TO %

15.1%

#282

FT rate

35.5%

#164

FT allowed

31.3%

#88

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.3

Defensive rebounding0.0

Ball security−1.6

Forcing turnovers−1.1

Foul shots drawn+0.1

Foul shots allowed+1.0

Samford has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.1 (#94 of 365) to Tennessee Tech’s −1.3 (#250).

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

Samford2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Jadin Booth	G	Sr	6'2"	30-30	36.5	21.6	3.7	2.2	1.6	60.3%	43.6%	9.7	86.9%	29.2%
5	Cade Norris	G	So	6'4"	32-31	30.7	8.9	4.6	2.1	0.8	56.2%	40.4%	3.4	76.3%	15.7%
3	Keaton Norris	G	Sr	6'0"	28-28	32.9	10.0	4.3	4.9	1.4	47.4%	31.1%	4.7	83.6%	20.0%
0	Isaiah Campbell-Finch	G	Fr	6'0"	29-19	23.4	7.4	1.5	1.3	0.7	49.5%	32.1%	2.9	51.6%	20.0%
10	Kam Martin	G	So	6'4"	32-8	16.6	5.7	2.1	0.9	0.5	50.0%	32.6%	2.8	85.1%	19.6%
8	Zion Wilburn	G	So	6'5"	30-5	17.0	4.6	2.2	0.9	1.0	45.5%	29.6%	1.8	60.7%	19.6%
22	Jaxon Pollard	F	Sr	6'7"	25-8	13.0	3.2	3.7	0.6	0.3	37.4%	19.6%	2.0	60.0%	19.4%
35	Will Shaver	C	So	6'10"	30-0	9.6	2.7	2.6	0.8	1.1	50.8%	33.3%	0.4	59.3%	22.0%
4	Judson Bjornstad	F	So	6'8"	24-1	8.8	2.3	1.4	0.3	0.3	41.3%	28.6%	0.9	72.7%	17.1%
23	Caleb Harrison	F	Fr	6'9"	12-0	6.1	1.7	1.5	0.8	0.3	60.0%	0.0%	0.1	50.0%	15.1%
33	Zach Lamey	G	So	6'3"	5-0	8.2	4.6	1.0	0.0	0.6	68.8%	46.2%	2.6	50.0%	26.5%
21	Corey Brown	G	So	6'4"	5-0	6.4	0.8	0.6	0.8	0.2	25.0%	0.0%	0.6	100.0%	10.1%
11	Cooper Davenport	G	Fr	5'11"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	DaJion Humphrey	G	Sr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	JD Gossett	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
31	Joshua Hughes	F	Sr	6'5"	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.

Tennessee Tech2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Tennessee Tech'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
8	Ty Owens	G	Jr	6'0"	31-28	27.3	6.8	2.7	3.7	2.2	44.6%	28.6%	2.3	83.6%	19.4%
1	Mekhi Cameron	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	26.7	11.2	3.8	1.2	1.3	47.5%	32.8%	4.3	80.2%	25.4%
6	Brandon Muntu	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	24.8	9.1	2.9	0.8	0.5	53.1%	33.8%	5.2	93.1%	20.2%
7	JaJuan Nicholls	F	Jr	6'8"	31-12	17.9	11.2	5.3	0.4	1.0	62.7%	—	0.0	67.6%	31.3%
11	Dani Pounds	F	Jr	6'8"	29-15	17.6	10.6	4.9	0.7	1.9	53.7%	35.3%	0.6	78.8%	34.6%
5	Ja'Quavian Florence	G	Sr	6'4"	28-1	17.8	6.8	2.4	1.5	1.5	43.7%	31.3%	1.7	73.5%	27.6%
10	Grant Slatten	G	Sr	6'5"	24-16	17.2	3.6	2.0	0.8	0.7	51.4%	30.6%	1.5	65.0%	13.5%
0	Malik Ferguson	G	Jr	6'4"	22-7	17.6	5.3	1.6	1.0	1.4	47.0%	28.1%	1.5	75.0%	21.9%
2	Jacobe Whitted	G	Fr	6'7"	24-3	15.3	3.1	3.9	0.8	0.8	39.5%	23.1%	2.2	64.7%	17.0%
13	C.J. McPherson	G	Jr	6'3"	26-4	13.3	4.5	1.5	0.5	0.6	49.5%	36.4%	2.5	90.5%	20.0%
3	Jah'Kim Payne	G	Jr	6'6"	23-1	13.6	3.0	1.5	1.3	1.3	48.5%	37.1%	1.5	77.8%	18.2%
4	Mekhi Turner	F	So	6'8"	25-4	8.9	4.1	2.7	0.4	0.7	61.9%	—	0.0	61.0%	25.0%
24	Owen Varnado	F	Sr	6'5"	15-2	8.0	1.0	1.5	0.7	0.7	25.0%	7.1%	0.9	66.7%	15.1%
12	Hagan Preston	G	Fr	6'3"	6-0	2.8	0.8	0.3	0.0	0.0	50.0%	25.0%	0.7	—	15.3%
23	Colin Ayers	G	Fr	6'0"	3-0	3.0	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.3	50.0%	50.0%	0.7	—	23.1%
32	Maguire Evans	G	Fr	6'2"	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.

Samford2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Jadin Booth	G	Sr	6'2"	30-30	36.5	21.6	3.7	2.2	1.6	60.3%	43.6%	9.7	86.9%	29.2%
5	Cade Norris	G	So	6'4"	32-31	30.7	8.9	4.6	2.1	0.8	56.2%	40.4%	3.4	76.3%	15.7%
3	Keaton Norris	G	Sr	6'0"	28-28	32.9	10.0	4.3	4.9	1.4	47.4%	31.1%	4.7	83.6%	20.0%
0	Isaiah Campbell-Finch	G	Fr	6'0"	29-19	23.4	7.4	1.5	1.3	0.7	49.5%	32.1%	2.9	51.6%	20.0%
10	Kam Martin	G	So	6'4"	32-8	16.6	5.7	2.1	0.9	0.5	50.0%	32.6%	2.8	85.1%	19.6%
8	Zion Wilburn	G	So	6'5"	30-5	17.0	4.6	2.2	0.9	1.0	45.5%	29.6%	1.8	60.7%	19.6%
22	Jaxon Pollard	F	Sr	6'7"	25-8	13.0	3.2	3.7	0.6	0.3	37.4%	19.6%	2.0	60.0%	19.4%
35	Will Shaver	C	So	6'10"	30-0	9.6	2.7	2.6	0.8	1.1	50.8%	33.3%	0.4	59.3%	22.0%
4	Judson Bjornstad	F	So	6'8"	24-1	8.8	2.3	1.4	0.3	0.3	41.3%	28.6%	0.9	72.7%	17.1%
23	Caleb Harrison	F	Fr	6'9"	12-0	6.1	1.7	1.5	0.8	0.3	60.0%	0.0%	0.1	50.0%	15.1%
33	Zach Lamey	G	So	6'3"	5-0	8.2	4.6	1.0	0.0	0.6	68.8%	46.2%	2.6	50.0%	26.5%
21	Corey Brown	G	So	6'4"	5-0	6.4	0.8	0.6	0.8	0.2	25.0%	0.0%	0.6	100.0%	10.1%
11	Cooper Davenport	G	Fr	5'11"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	DaJion Humphrey	G	Sr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	JD Gossett	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
31	Joshua Hughes	F	Sr	6'5"	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

Samford

Against the spread

Season

14-14-2

Home

7-5

Road

6-7-2

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +5.0

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

18-10-2

Home

5-5-2

Road

12-3

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +3.7

Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	FurmanAdjEM #163	N	L 81–86	−1.5	L−6.5	145.5	O167	117.4	124.6	69.0
Feb 28	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	H	W 87–78	−9.5	L−0.5	157.0	O165	119.8	107.4	72.6
Feb 26	VMIAdjEM #361	H	W 80–61	−17.0	W+2.0	156.0	U141	122.0	93.0	65.6
Feb 21	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 86–89	+3.5	W+0.5	156.5	O175	122.2	126.4	70.4
Feb 19	The CitadelAdjEM #348	A	W 78–75	−10.5	L−7.5	144.0	O153	110.0	105.8	70.9
Feb 14	ETSUAdjEM #110	A	W 82–72 OT	+6.0	W+16.0	145.5	O154	109.0	95.7	75.2
Feb 11	WoffordAdjEM #235	H	W 97–80	−6.0	W+11.0	151.0	O177	133.0	109.7	72.9
Feb 7	MercerAdjEM #161	H	W 69–49	+2.0	W+22.0	161.0	U118	104.9	74.5	65.8
Feb 5	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	W 78–64	−13.5	W+0.5	146.0	U142	120.5	98.9	64.7
Feb 1	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	A	W 88–74	−1.5	W+12.5	154.5	O162	121.5	102.2	72.4

Tennessee Tech

Against the spread

Season

14-14

Home

5-6

Road

9-8

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +4.8

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-14

Home

6-5

Road

8-9

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +1.1

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Feb 28	SE MissouriAdjEM #209	A	L 73–89	+7.5	L−8.5	142.0	O162	107.3	130.8	68.1
Feb 26	UT MartinAdjEM #182	A	L 49–64	+7.0	L−8.0	133.5	U113	74.2	97.0	66.0
Feb 21	LindenwoodAdjEM #244	H	W 72–57	+2.0	W+17.0	152.0	U129	108.8	86.1	66.2
Feb 19	SIUEAdjEM #229	H	W 62–52	+2.0	W+12.0	135.0	U114	92.0	77.1	67.4
Feb 14	S IndianaAdjEM #333	A	W 82–74	+1.0	W+9.0	139.5	O156	127.3	114.9	64.4
Feb 12	Morehead StAdjEM #266	A	L 66–73	+4.0	L−3.0	144.0	U139	105.9	117.1	62.3
Feb 7	E IllinoisAdjEM #317	H	L 54–60	−4.5	L−10.5	140.5	U114	83.7	93.0	64.5
Feb 5	W IllinoisAdjEM #362	H	W 97–72	−9.5	W+15.5	144.0	O169	156.9	116.4	61.8
Feb 2	Tennessee StAdjEM #155	A	W 90–85	+7.5	W+12.5	153.0	O175	130.5	123.2	69.0
Jan 31	Little RockAdjEM #300	H	W 87–77	+2.5	W+12.5	141.0	O164	127.8	113.2	68.0

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

SamfordTennessee Tech

Efficiency

109.1

104.8

110.4

112.0

68.3

68.1

—

Shooting

53.1%

48.9%

52.8%

50.1%

35.6%

31.1%

69.2%

76.2%

41.9%

35.5%

Ball control & glass

13.4%

19.1%

13.0%

15.1%

25.3%

31.3%

25.7%

30.7%

7.6%

11.0%

10.2%

10.8%

Style

45.7%

36.5%

37.7%

45.2%

10.8%

14.0%

55.2%

45.4%

28.1%

41.4%

Roster

2.69

3.26

6'3.3"

6'4.6"

87.9%

—

Offseason

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

Samford

Returning minutes: 87.9%Returning production: 77.5%

Lost

Dylan Faulkner 24.5 mpg, 16.1 ppg · transferred to Clemson

Added

JD Gossett no D1 minutes last season
Cooper Davenport no D1 minutes last season
DaJion Humphrey no D1 minutes last season
Joshua Hughes no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 88% 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).

Tennessee Tech

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Tennessee Tech'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

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.