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 gameBurns Arena, St. George, UT
Weber St
Efficiency #203
2025-26: 16-16 · 10-9 conf
@
Utah Tech
Efficiency #216
2025-26: 19-15 · 12-8 conf
Thu, Dec 3 · TBD
75.0
win 38%
Projected
78.5
win 62%
No line posted yet.
Model: UTU −3.6 · total 153.5 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Utah Tech 67.7, Weber St 69.1 → 68.5 possessions
+0.5
Utah Tech offense vs Weber St defense
+2.2
Weber St offense vs Utah Tech defense
+2.6
Projected total
153.5
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Utah Tech offense vs Weber St defense
+2.2
Weber St offense vs Utah Tech defense
−2.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Utah Tech by 3.6
3.6
Weber St side ◂▸ Utah Tech side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +3.5 against +3.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Utah Tech.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Weber St is the faster team (69.9, #99 of 365) and Utah Tech the slower (68.0, #199). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
153.5
model
Projected team totals
75.0 / 78.5
Weber St / Utah Tech
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.1#111
Weber St
67.7#230
Utah Tech
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageUtah Tech
Where Utah Tech scores: shooting
Utah Tech shoots an effective 53.3% (#90); Weber St allows 54.5% (#316). Expect about 54.1%, 2.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.0 points per 100 possessions.
ClashWeber St
Style match: 3-point volume
Weber St rarely shoots threes (32.8% of its shots); Utah Tech runs teams off the line (34.4% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 30.8% — both habits push the same way.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Utah Tech'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 Weber St at about 30.8% of its shots from three, Utah Tech about 38.1%.
AdvantageWeber St
Where Weber St scores: the offensive glass
Weber St rebounds 31.8% of its own misses (#132); Utah Tech lets opponents grab 34.5% of their own misses (#326). Expect about 33.4%, 3.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.
GlassUtah Tech
Utah Tech gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.5% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against Utah Tech's offense.
ClashWeber St
Style match: paint scoring
Weber St scores 48.0% of its points in the paint; Utah Tech gives up 51.0% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 46.9% — both habits push the same way.
Weber St has the ball
OffenseUtah Tech allowsvs D1 avg
51.7% #163
50.9% #151
+0.0 pt/100
15.7% #117
16.9% #160
+0.6 pt/100
31.8% #132
34.5% #326
+1.8 pt/100
39.2% #76
33.0% #132
+0.1 pt/100
72.9% #170
—
+0.0 pt/100
Weber St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.6 pts/100
Utah Tech has the ball
OffenseWeber St allowsvs D1 avg
53.3% #90
54.5% #316
+4.0 pt/100
17.6% #244
16.3% #202
-0.2 pt/100
28.1% #261
27.7% #56
-1.8 pt/100
30.6% #290
36.4% #224
-0.2 pt/100
72.6% #183
—
+0.0 pt/100
Utah Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersWeber Stoffense vsUtah Techdefense
Share of shots by zone
Weber St shoots
50.0
5.1
12.2
32.7
Utah Tech allows
44.8
5.4
15.2
34.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.4%#257 | 60.9%#265 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.7%#310 | 28.9%#11 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.5%#324 | 37.5%#141 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.5%#143 | 30.7%#29 | 33.7% |
Utah Techoffense vsWeber Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Utah Tech shoots
37.5
5.8
18.6
38.1
Weber St allows
40.7
7.2
13.6
38.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.7%#131 | 65.1%#353 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 49.0%#14 | 40.5%#199 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.5%#30 | 40.1%#246 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.0%#113 | 33.5%#160 | 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 numbersWeber St
+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#72 of 365
Off reb %
31.8%
#132
Def reb %
72.3%
#56
Turnover %
15.7%
#117
Forced TO %
16.3%
#202
FT rate
39.2%
#76
FT allowed
36.4%
#224
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.5
Defensive rebounding+0.9
Ball security+0.7
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn+1.1
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Utah Tech
−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#301 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#261
Def reb %
65.5%
#326
Turnover %
17.6%
#244
Forced TO %
16.9%
#160
FT rate
30.6%
#290
FT allowed
33.0%
#132
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−1.1
Foul shots allowed+0.6
Weber St has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#72 of 365) to Utah Tech’s −3.0 (#301).
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
Weber St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Weber St'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Tijan Saine Jr. | G | Jr | 5'10" | 32-32 | 32.6 | 17.5 | 2.3 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 52.2% | 34.7% | 4.5 | 89.6% | 28.5% | |
| 7 | Malek Gomma | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 25.1 | 8.0 | 6.9 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 54.2% | 40.0% | 0.2 | 47.0% | 19.5% | |
| 8 | Viljami Vartiainen | G | Jr | 6'6" | 26-23 | 30.0 | 12.8 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 61.8% | 42.2% | 6.9 | 78.4% | 20.6% | |
| 5 | Nigel Burris | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-12 | 23.2 | 10.3 | 4.9 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 57.6% | 35.0% | 1.9 | 84.6% | 22.9% | |
| 0 | Edwin Suarez Jr. | F | Jr | 6'6" | 31-20 | 21.6 | 9.2 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 51.8% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 57.6% | 28.0% | |
| 6 | Trevor Hennig | G | So | 6'4" | 26-7 | 24.3 | 10.0 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 52.2% | 30.0% | 2.3 | 65.4% | 24.9% | |
| 24 | Jace Whiting | G | Jr | 6'3" | 20-18 | 30.8 | 11.2 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 51.3% | 36.2% | 3.5 | 82.4% | 21.0% | |
| 12 | ArDarius Grayson | G | Fr | 6'1" | 31-0 | 13.0 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 38.0% | 24.4% | 1.5 | 77.8% | 22.6% | |
| 9 | Duce Paschal | G | Fr | 6'5" | 31-16 | 12.7 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 40.3% | 23.9% | 1.5 | 70.4% | 21.4% | |
| 15 | Declan Cutler | F | So | 6'9" | 27-0 | 7.1 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 63.0% | — | 0.0 | 54.5% | 11.8% | |
| 33 | David Hansen | F | Fr | 6'9" | 23-0 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 53.7% | 37.8% | 1.6 | 100.0% | 20.1% | |
| 11 | Brady Smith | G | Jr | 6'0" | 7-0 | 3.6 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 36.4% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 28.8% | |
| 4 | Anthony Moore | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Tyler Christensen | G | Jr | 6'4" | 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.
Utah Tech2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Utah 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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66 | Noah Bolanga | G | So | 6'8" | 34-31 | 32.7 | 11.9 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 49.7% | 32.6% | 5.3 | 67.5% | 24.4% | |
| 2 | Chance Trujillo | G | So | 6'4" | 33-23 | 32.9 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 52.6% | 35.3% | 6.3 | 81.3% | 22.3% | |
| 35 | Ethan Potter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 34-34 | 31.2 | 16.8 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 60.2% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 80.1% | 27.3% | |
| 4 | Jusaun Holt | G | Sr | 6'7" | 33-29 | 31.7 | 12.0 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 50.5% | 40.6% | 4.2 | 80.7% | 25.8% | |
| 11 | Tanner Davis | G | Fr | 6'5" | 33-26 | 26.6 | 7.5 | 3.1 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 55.7% | 23.1% | 1.2 | 52.6% | 16.9% | |
| 13 | Britton Berrett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-17 | 23.0 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 60.0% | 40.4% | 3.1 | 92.3% | 12.4% | |
| 33 | Madiba Owona | G | So | 6'4" | 15-8 | 24.7 | 9.7 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 50.8% | 36.0% | 3.3 | 52.2% | 25.6% | |
| 23 | Samuel Ariyibi | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-2 | 9.9 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 42.7% | 11.1% | 0.3 | 67.6% | 18.9% | |
| 52 | Dario Domingos | F | Sr | 6'7" | 26-0 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 63.5% | 25.0% | 0.2 | 61.4% | 39.4% | |
| 3 | Boston Harker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 7-0 | 8.0 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 46.9% | 20.0% | 0.7 | 78.6% | 21.9% | |
| 5 | Dallin Grant | F | So | 6'8" | 10-0 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 62.5% | 16.7% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 21.4% | |
| 14 | Preston Vandermyde | G | So | 6'5" | 8-0 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 42.9% | 50.0% | 0.5 | 100.0% | 19.1% | |
| 1 | Hunter Schenck | G | So | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Marvel Allen | G | So | 6'4" | 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.
Weber St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Weber St'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Tijan Saine Jr. | G | Jr | 5'10" | 32-32 | 32.6 | 17.5 | 2.3 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 52.2% | 34.7% | 4.5 | 89.6% | 28.5% | |
| 7 | Malek Gomma | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 25.1 | 8.0 | 6.9 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 54.2% | 40.0% | 0.2 | 47.0% | 19.5% | |
| 8 | Viljami Vartiainen | G | Jr | 6'6" | 26-23 | 30.0 | 12.8 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 61.8% | 42.2% | 6.9 | 78.4% | 20.6% | |
| 5 | Nigel Burris | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-12 | 23.2 | 10.3 | 4.9 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 57.6% | 35.0% | 1.9 | 84.6% | 22.9% | |
| 0 | Edwin Suarez Jr. | F | Jr | 6'6" | 31-20 | 21.6 | 9.2 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 51.8% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 57.6% | 28.0% | |
| 6 | Trevor Hennig | G | So | 6'4" | 26-7 | 24.3 | 10.0 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 52.2% | 30.0% | 2.3 | 65.4% | 24.9% | |
| 24 | Jace Whiting | G | Jr | 6'3" | 20-18 | 30.8 | 11.2 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 51.3% | 36.2% | 3.5 | 82.4% | 21.0% | |
| 12 | ArDarius Grayson | G | Fr | 6'1" | 31-0 | 13.0 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 38.0% | 24.4% | 1.5 | 77.8% | 22.6% | |
| 9 | Duce Paschal | G | Fr | 6'5" | 31-16 | 12.7 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 40.3% | 23.9% | 1.5 | 70.4% | 21.4% | |
| 15 | Declan Cutler | F | So | 6'9" | 27-0 | 7.1 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 63.0% | — | 0.0 | 54.5% | 11.8% | |
| 33 | David Hansen | F | Fr | 6'9" | 23-0 | 6.0 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 53.7% | 37.8% | 1.6 | 100.0% | 20.1% | |
| 11 | Brady Smith | G | Jr | 6'0" | 7-0 | 3.6 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 36.4% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 28.8% | |
| 4 | Anthony Moore | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Tyler Christensen | G | Jr | 6'4" | 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 2025-26Weber St
Against the spread
Season
16-14
Home
8-6
Road
8-7
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 2 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-13-2
Home
8-4-2
Road
6-9
Last 10
6-3-1
avg vs total +3.8
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | E Washington | N | L 79–84 | +3.5 | L−1.5 | 154.5 | O163 | 113.9 | 121.1 | 69.3 |
| Mar 2 | Portland St | A | L 60–84 | +5.0 | L−19.0 | 144.5 | U144 | 87.0 | 121.8 | 68.9 |
| Feb 28 | Idaho St | A | W 83–73 | +2.0 | W+12.0 | 153.0 | O156 | 122.0 | 107.3 | 68.1 |
| Feb 21 | Montana | H | W 92–72 | −2.5 | W+17.5 | 152.0 | O164 | 136.2 | 106.6 | 67.5 |
| Feb 19 | Montana St | H | W 82–79 OT | −1.0 | W+2.0 | 148.0 | O161 | 112.7 | 108.5 | 72.8 |
| Feb 14 | E Washington | A | L 66–84 | +3.0 | L−15.0 | 155.0 | U150 | 96.1 | 122.3 | 68.7 |
| Feb 12 | Idaho | A | W 83–72 | +5.5 | W+16.5 | 154.0 | O155 | 129.1 | 112.0 | 64.3 |
| Feb 7 | N Arizona | H | W 72–53 | −7.0 | W+12.0 | 151.0 | U125 | 122.6 | 90.3 | 58.7 |
| Feb 5 | N Colorado | H | L 74–88 | +1.5 | L−12.5 | 162.0 | P162 | 109.5 | 130.2 | 67.6 |
| Feb 2 | Sacramento St | A | L 90–104 | +1.5 | L−12.5 | 162.5 | O194 | 115.3 | 133.3 | 78.0 |
Utah Tech
Against the spread
Season
19-12
Home
9-2
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 4 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-14
Home
6-5
Road
8-8
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +11.8
Over 3 straightOver in 3 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 13 | CA Baptist | N | L 72–86 | +8.0 | L−6.0 | 143.5 | O158 | 102.3 | 122.2 | 70.4 |
| Mar 12 | Abilene Chrstn | N | W 80–74 | −1.5 | W+4.5 | 141.5 | O154 | 113.6 | 105.1 | 70.4 |
| Mar 7 | Utah Valley | H | L 101–104 2OT | +9.0 | W+6.0 | 148.0 | O205 | 118.6 | 122.1 | 85.2 |
| Feb 28 | Southern Utah | A | L 67–81 | −2.0 | L−16.0 | 156.0 | U148 | 101.0 | 122.1 | 66.3 |
| Feb 26 | Abilene Chrstn | H | W 85–81 | −2.0 | W+2.0 | 139.0 | O166 | 121.7 | 115.9 | 69.9 |
| Feb 21 | Tarleton St | A | W 80–72 | +1.5 | W+9.5 | 141.0 | O152 | 123.4 | 111.1 | 64.8 |
| Feb 19 | UT Arlington | A | L 50–63 | +4.5 | L−8.5 | 140.5 | U113 | 81.7 | 103.0 | 61.2 |
| Feb 14 | CA Baptist | H | W 70–65 | +3.5 | W+8.5 | 143.5 | U135 | 108.9 | 101.1 | 64.3 |
| Feb 12 | Utah Valley | H | W 81–77 | +10.0 | W+14.0 | 149.0 | O158 | 119.8 | 113.9 | 67.6 |
| Feb 5 | UT Arlington | H | W 87–84 2OT | −1.5 | W+1.5 | 140.5 | O171 | 113.9 | 110.0 | 76.4 |
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 homeWeber StUtah Tech
Efficiency
110.0
108.9
111.3
110.8
69.1
67.7
—
—
Shooting
51.7%
53.3%
51.6%
53.7%
34.5%
35.0%
72.9%
72.6%
39.2%
30.6%
Ball control & glass
15.7%
17.6%
16.3%
16.9%
31.8%
28.1%
27.7%
34.5%
9.0%
10.2%
11.0%
7.3%
Style
32.8%
38.2%
48.0%
42.8%
15.3%
12.0%
45.9%
53.2%
31.6%
25.8%
Roster
2.70
2.85
6'4.3"
6'6.2"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputWeber St
Returning minutes: 99.5%Returning production: 99.1%
ESPN hasn't posted Weber St's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 99% 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.)
Utah Tech
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Utah 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| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Dec 20 | 2025-26 | Utah Tech 82 – 80 Weber St |
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.