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 gameAmerica First Events Center, Cedar City, UT
Weber St
Efficiency #203
2025-26: 16-16 · 10-9 conf
@
Southern Utah
Efficiency #293
2025-26: 10-22 · 6-13 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · TBD
78.9
win 49%
Projected
79.1
win 51%
No line posted yet.
Model: SUU −0.2 · total 157.9 · 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: Southern Utah 70.3, Weber St 69.1 → 71.0 possessions
+5.9
Southern Utah offense vs Weber St defense
−0.1
Weber St offense vs Southern Utah defense
+3.8
Projected total
157.9
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Southern Utah offense vs Weber St defense
−0.1
Weber St offense vs Southern Utah defense
−3.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Southern Utah by 0.2
0.2
Weber St side ◂▸ Southern Utah side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 157.8 against a projected 157.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Southern Utah.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 71.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Southern Utah is the faster team (70.9, #59 of 365) and Weber St the slower (69.9, #99). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
71.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
157.9
model
Projected team totals
78.9 / 79.1
Weber St / Southern Utah
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.1#111
Weber St
70.3#34
Southern Utah
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashWeber St
Style match: 3-point volume
Weber St rarely shoots threes (32.8% of its shots); Southern Utah runs teams off the line (29.5% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 27.7% — both habits push the same way.
Pace
Track meet
Southern Utah averages 70.9 possessions per 40, Weber St 69.9. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
ClashWeber St
Style match: ball movement
Weber St creates off the dribble (assists on 45.9% of its baskets); Southern Utah breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.9% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 44.7% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageWeber St
Where Weber St scores: ball control
Weber St turns it over on 15.7% of possessions (#117); Southern Utah forces turnovers on 14.8% of opponent possessions (#303). Expect about 14.9%, 1.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.3 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageSouthern Utah
Where Southern Utah struggles: ball control
Southern Utah turns it over on 20.3% of possessions (#352); Weber St forces turnovers on 16.3% of opponent possessions (#202). Expect about 18.5%, 1.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Southern Utah'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 27.7% of its shots from three, Southern Utah about 35.8%.
Weber St has the ball
OffenseSouthern Utah allowsvs D1 avg
51.7% #163
53.2% #276
+1.8 pt/100
15.7% #117
14.8% #303
+2.3 pt/100
31.8% #132
33.6% #309
+1.5 pt/100
39.2% #76
29.8% #55
-0.1 pt/100
72.9% #170
—
+0.0 pt/100
Weber St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.5 pts/100
Southern Utah has the ball
OffenseWeber St allowsvs D1 avg
50.7% #200
54.5% #316
+1.9 pt/100
20.3% #352
16.3% #202
-2.1 pt/100
28.8% #239
27.7% #56
-1.5 pt/100
33.1% #235
36.4% #224
-0.0 pt/100
71.5% #221
—
-0.1 pt/100
Southern Utah net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersWeber Stoffense vsSouthern Utahdefense
Share of shots by zone
Weber St shoots
50.0
5.1
12.2
32.7
Southern Utah allows
46.3
5.6
19.0
29.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.4%#257 | 57.5%#132 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.7%#310 | 35.1%#60 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.5%#324 | 42.7%#324 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.5%#143 | 38.0%#358 | 33.7% |
Southern Utahoffense vsWeber Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Southern Utah shoots
41.8
6.9
15.9
35.4
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 | 60.3%#113 | 65.1%#353 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.1%#219 | 40.5%#199 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.0%#291 | 40.1%#246 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.0%#231 | 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
Southern Utah
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#333 of 365
Off reb %
28.8%
#239
Def reb %
66.4%
#309
Turnover %
20.3%
#352
Forced TO %
14.8%
#303
FT rate
33.1%
#235
FT allowed
29.8%
#55
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.5
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security−2.4
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−0.5
Foul shots allowed+1.4
Weber St has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#72 of 365) to Southern Utah’s −4.2 (#333).
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.
Southern Utah2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Southern Utah'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35 | Jaiden Feroah | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-32 | 29.9 | 13.5 | 6.7 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 62.3% | 41.5% | 2.9 | 86.5% | 23.3% | |
| 3 | Tanner Hayhurst | G | Jr | 6'6" | 31-26 | 29.2 | 10.3 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 60.9% | 46.1% | 3.7 | 87.7% | 17.2% | |
| 1 | Elijah Duval | G | Fr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 26.4 | 15.3 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 51.2% | 31.9% | 3.0 | 62.6% | 38.0% | |
| 0 | Isaiah Cottrell | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-31 | 25.5 | 8.8 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 44.9% | 20.4% | 1.7 | 70.7% | 22.5% | |
| 20 | Dylan Jones | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-14 | 24.8 | 8.1 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 56.4% | 36.5% | 4.9 | 82.4% | 17.6% | |
| 24 | Cale Barclay | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-8 | 15.5 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 45.3% | 13.2% | 1.2 | 68.5% | 20.3% | |
| 25 | Kai Burdick | C | Sr | 7'0" | 32-9 | 13.7 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 66.7% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 40.0% | 16.1% | |
| 4 | Lorenzo Abellar | G | Sr | 5'10" | 31-4 | 11.5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 36.5% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 78.0% | 19.6% | |
| 9 | Jalen Lee | G | So | 6'7" | 24-3 | 14.3 | 5.5 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 48.2% | 35.2% | 2.3 | 71.0% | 22.2% | |
| 5 | Zach Bell | G | Jr | 6'2" | 10-2 | 20.8 | 7.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 44.4% | 21.1% | 1.9 | 77.8% | 26.5% | |
| 2 | Logan Stephens | G | Sr | 6'3" | 20-0 | 9.1 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 38.7% | 24.0% | 1.3 | 74.1% | 34.1% | |
| 13 | Brayden Johnson | G | So | 6'1" | 11-0 | 5.3 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 30.8% | 33.3% | 0.5 | 50.0% | 15.0% | |
| 7 | Zeplin Kidd | G | Fr | 6'7" | 11-0 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 46.2% | 25.0% | 0.7 | 40.0% | 15.7% | |
| 23 | Chuks Isitua | F | So | 6'10" | 7-0 | 5.6 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 28.6% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 14.4% | |
| 10 | Langston Binns | G | Sr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 6.3 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 38.5% | 22.2% | 2.3 | 0.0% | 29.9% | |
| 11 | Juok Riak | F | 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.
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 |
Southern Utah
Against the spread
Season
15-13-1
Home
5-5
Road
9-7-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +3.2
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 6 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-12
Home
6-4
Road
11-6
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +4.0
Under in the last gameOver in 7 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | UT Arlington | N | L 63–69 | +5.0 | L−1.0 | 141.5 | U132 | 88.3 | 96.7 | 71.3 |
| Mar 7 | CA Baptist | H | L 75–82 | +6.5 | L−0.5 | 149.0 | O157 | 107.2 | 117.2 | 69.9 |
| Mar 5 | Utah Valley | H | L 88–92 | +10.0 | W+6.0 | 150.0 | O180 | 123.5 | 129.1 | 71.3 |
| Feb 28 | Utah Tech | H | W 81–67 | +2.0 | W+16.0 | 156.0 | U148 | 122.1 | 101.0 | 66.3 |
| Feb 21 | Abilene Chrstn | A | L 83–87 | +8.0 | W+4.0 | 143.5 | O170 | 110.6 | 115.9 | 75.1 |
| Feb 19 | Tarleton St | A | L 74–78 | +5.0 | W+1.0 | 145.0 | O152 | 110.5 | 116.5 | 67.0 |
| Feb 14 | UT Arlington | A | W 78–73 | +8.5 | W+13.5 | 144.5 | O151 | 111.7 | 104.5 | 69.8 |
| Feb 12 | CA Baptist | H | L 66–83 | +5.5 | L−11.5 | 147.0 | O149 | 97.6 | 122.7 | 67.7 |
| Feb 7 | Tarleton St | H | L 59–62 | −1.0 | L−4.0 | 146.5 | U121 | 85.8 | 90.2 | 68.8 |
| Jan 31 | Abilene Chrstn | A | W 79–76 | +6.0 | W+9.0 | 152.0 | O155 | 115.6 | 111.2 | 68.3 |
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 StSouthern Utah
Efficiency
110.0
105.5
111.3
112.4
69.1
70.3
—
—
Shooting
51.7%
50.7%
51.6%
51.4%
34.5%
33.0%
72.9%
71.5%
39.2%
33.1%
Ball control & glass
15.7%
20.3%
16.3%
14.8%
31.8%
28.8%
27.7%
33.6%
9.0%
12.4%
11.0%
10.2%
Style
32.8%
35.5%
48.0%
48.0%
15.3%
13.2%
45.9%
49.6%
31.6%
32.1%
Roster
2.70
3.06
6'4.3"
6'6.5"
—
—
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.)
Southern Utah
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Southern Utah'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.