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 siteMichelob ULTRA Arena, Las Vegas, NVPlayers Era Sixteen
Louisville
Efficiency #14
2025-26: 24-11 · 12-8 conf
vs
Texas Tech
Efficiency #21
2025-26: 23-11 · 12-7 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · 8:00 PM ET
77.7
win 54%
Projected
76.5
win 46%
No line posted yet.
Model: LOU −1.2 · total 154.2 · 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: Texas Tech 67.5, Louisville 69.9 → 69.0 possessions
+1.6
Texas Tech offense vs Louisville defense
+1.6
Louisville offense vs Texas Tech defense
+2.8
Projected total
154.2
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Texas Tech offense vs Louisville defense
+1.6
Louisville offense vs Texas Tech defense
−2.8
Louisville by 1.2
1.2
Louisville side ◂▸ Texas Tech side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Texas Tech.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Louisville is the faster team (71.0, #54 of 365) and Texas Tech the slower (67.9, #206). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
154.2
model
Projected team totals
77.7 / 76.5
Louisville / Texas Tech
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.9#60
Louisville
67.5#250
Texas Tech
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageLouisville
Where Louisville scores: shooting
Louisville shoots an effective 56.5% (#14); Texas Tech allows 49.7% (#86). Expect about 53.5%, 2.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.2 points per 100 possessions.
ClashLouisville
Style clash: 3-point volume
Louisville takes 52.9% of its shots from three; Texas Tech runs teams off the line (35.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
AdvantageTexas Tech
Where Texas Tech scores: shooting
Texas Tech shoots an effective 56.1% (#21); Louisville allows 48.7% (#54). Expect about 52.8%, 1.5 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 (Texas Tech) 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 Louisville at about 47.9% of its shots from three, Texas Tech about 45.9%.
TurnoversLouisville
Louisville protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for Louisville's offense.
ClashLouisville
Style clash: ball movement
Louisville assists on 59.6% of its made baskets; Texas Tech breaks up passing offenses (assists on 43.1% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 51.1% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
Louisville has the ball
OffenseTexas Tech allowsvs D1 avg
56.5% #14
49.7% #86
+3.2 pt/100
16.8% #186
14.8% #304
+1.5 pt/100
32.8% #93
30.6% #186
+1.1 pt/100
33.1% #236
31.4% #89
-0.4 pt/100
76.1% #51
—
+0.3 pt/100
Louisville net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.7 pts/100
Texas Tech has the ball
OffenseLouisville allowsvs D1 avg
56.1% #21
48.7% #54
+2.1 pt/100
15.8% #123
16.7% #172
+0.7 pt/100
33.2% #82
27.5% #50
+0.3 pt/100
27.7% #347
33.0% #130
-0.6 pt/100
71.5% #222
—
-0.1 pt/100
Texas Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.5 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLouisvilleoffense vsTexas Techdefense
Share of shots by zone
Louisville shoots
36.2
5.3
6.1
52.5
Texas Tech allows
31.6
10.7
22.4
35.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.8%#41 | 63.4%#331 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.4%#36 | 38.1%#140 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.8%#265 | 39.3%#213 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.0%#58 | 32.1%#67 | 33.7% |
Texas Techoffense vsLouisvilledefense
Share of shots by zone
Texas Tech shoots
25.6
9.7
16.7
48.1
Louisville allows
32.4
9.0
19.1
39.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.5%#46 | 58.8%#181 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.5%#33 | 39.2%#162 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 42.0%#56 | 32.9%#28 | 38.0% |
| Three | 39.1%#4 | 32.3%#76 | 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 numbersLouisville
+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#104 of 365
Off reb %
32.8%
#93
Def reb %
72.5%
#50
Turnover %
16.8%
#186
Forced TO %
16.7%
#172
FT rate
33.1%
#236
FT allowed
33.0%
#130
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.8
Defensive rebounding+1.0
Ball security0.0
Forcing turnovers0.0
Foul shots drawn−0.5
Foul shots allowed+0.6
Texas Tech
−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#202 of 365
Off reb %
33.2%
#82
Def reb %
69.4%
#186
Turnover %
15.8%
#123
Forced TO %
14.8%
#304
FT rate
27.7%
#347
FT allowed
31.4%
#89
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.9
Defensive rebounding0.0
Ball security+0.7
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.9
Foul shots allowed+1.0
Louisville has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#104 of 365) to Texas Tech’s −0.6 (#202).
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
Louisville2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | Flory Bidungaat Kansas | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 31.6 | 13.3 | 9.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 64.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 65.4% | 21.9% | |
| 11 | De'Shayne Montgomeryat Dayton | G | Sr | 6'4" | 36-36 | 30.6 | 13.4 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 56.2% | 33.5% | 4.3 | 78.9% | 25.7% | |
| 53 | LJ Wellsat N Kentucky | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-33 | 30.3 | 15.0 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 57.9% | 28.3% | 1.6 | 67.5% | 26.1% | |
| 5 | Seth Trimbleat North Carolina | G | Sr | 6'3" | 24-24 | 32.5 | 14.0 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 50.8% | 28.6% | 2.6 | 66.7% | 25.4% | |
| 14 | Adrian Wooley | G | Jr | 6'4" | 35-16 | 22.5 | 8.7 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 53.9% | 35.0% | 3.3 | 77.8% | 21.8% | |
| 7 | Alvaro Folgueirasat Iowa | F | Sr | 6'10" | 37-1 | 20.6 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 58.6% | 33.3% | 2.9 | 76.7% | 24.8% | |
| 3 | Jackson Shelstadat Oregon | G | Sr | 6'1" | 12-12 | 34.9 | 15.6 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 48.8% | 31.4% | 8.8 | 84.6% | 28.0% | |
| 1 | Karter Knoxat Arkansas | G | Jr | 6'6" | 22-18 | 22.2 | 8.1 | 4.5 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 55.4% | 37.7% | 3.1 | 72.7% | 20.1% | |
| 45 | Gabe Dynesat USC | C | Sr | 7'5" | 30-6 | 11.9 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 78.8% | — | 0.0 | 35.3% | 12.8% | |
| 33 | Will Hanke | G | So | 6'4" | 9-0 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 16.1% | |
| 6 | Boyuan Zhang | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Isaac Ellis | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Obinna Ekezie Jr. | C | Fr | 7'2" | 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.
Transfers in: Flory Bidunga (from Kansas), Gabe Dynes (from USC), Alvaro Folgueiras (from Iowa), De'Shayne Montgomery (from Dayton), Jackson Shelstad (from Oregon), Seth Trimble (from North Carolina), LJ Wells (from N Kentucky), Karter Knox (from Arkansas)
Texas Tech2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Jaylen Petty | G | Fr | 6'1" | 33-22 | 30.4 | 9.9 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 53.3% | 37.5% | 5.6 | 77.1% | 19.1% | |
| 3 | LeJuan Watts | F | Jr | 6'6" | 33-28 | 27.3 | 11.8 | 6.0 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 47.5% | 32.1% | 2.4 | 76.9% | 29.2% | |
| 15 | JT Toppin | F | Jr | 6'9" | 25-25 | 34.8 | 21.8 | 10.8 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 56.7% | 28.1% | 2.3 | 57.9% | 36.2% | |
| 1 | Tyeree Bryan | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-13 | 17.1 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 45.0% | 28.6% | 2.3 | 66.7% | 13.6% | |
| 9 | Luke Bamgboye | F | So | 6'11" | 21-12 | 16.5 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 50.8% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 71.1% | 16.7% | |
| 6 | Leon Horner | G | So | 6'4" | 23-0 | 9.0 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 36.4% | 0.5 | 86.7% | 19.0% | |
| 5 | Josiah Moseley | F | So | 6'8" | 14-0 | 13.9 | 5.5 | 3.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 71.6% | 50.0% | 0.4 | 36.4% | 20.3% | |
| 8 | Nolan Groves | G | Fr | 6'5" | 21-2 | 6.4 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 33.3% | 23.5% | 0.8 | 58.3% | 11.6% | |
| 13 | Marial Akuentok | F | Fr | 6'11" | 15-1 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 54.2% | 100.0% | 0.1 | 30.8% | 15.9% | |
| 10 | Jack Francis | G | Sr | 6'3" | 13-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 8.9% | |
| 21 | LaTrell Hoover | F | Fr | 7'0" | 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.
Louisville2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | Flory Bidungaat Kansas | F | Jr | 6'9" | 35-34 | 31.6 | 13.3 | 9.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 64.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 65.4% | 21.9% | |
| 11 | De'Shayne Montgomeryat Dayton | G | Sr | 6'4" | 36-36 | 30.6 | 13.4 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 56.2% | 33.5% | 4.3 | 78.9% | 25.7% | |
| 53 | LJ Wellsat N Kentucky | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-33 | 30.3 | 15.0 | 7.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 57.9% | 28.3% | 1.6 | 67.5% | 26.1% | |
| 5 | Seth Trimbleat North Carolina | G | Sr | 6'3" | 24-24 | 32.5 | 14.0 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 1.4 | 50.8% | 28.6% | 2.6 | 66.7% | 25.4% | |
| 14 | Adrian Wooley | G | Jr | 6'4" | 35-16 | 22.5 | 8.7 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 53.9% | 35.0% | 3.3 | 77.8% | 21.8% | |
| 7 | Alvaro Folgueirasat Iowa | F | Sr | 6'10" | 37-1 | 20.6 | 8.4 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 58.6% | 33.3% | 2.9 | 76.7% | 24.8% | |
| 3 | Jackson Shelstadat Oregon | G | Sr | 6'1" | 12-12 | 34.9 | 15.6 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 48.8% | 31.4% | 8.8 | 84.6% | 28.0% | |
| 1 | Karter Knoxat Arkansas | G | Jr | 6'6" | 22-18 | 22.2 | 8.1 | 4.5 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 55.4% | 37.7% | 3.1 | 72.7% | 20.1% | |
| 45 | Gabe Dynesat USC | C | Sr | 7'5" | 30-6 | 11.9 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 78.8% | — | 0.0 | 35.3% | 12.8% | |
| 33 | Will Hanke | G | So | 6'4" | 9-0 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 16.1% | |
| 6 | Boyuan Zhang | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Isaac Ellis | G | Fr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Obinna Ekezie Jr. | C | Fr | 7'2" | 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.
Transfers in: Flory Bidunga (from Kansas), Gabe Dynes (from USC), Alvaro Folgueiras (from Iowa), De'Shayne Montgomery (from Dayton), Jackson Shelstad (from Oregon), Seth Trimble (from North Carolina), LJ Wells (from N Kentucky), Karter Knox (from Arkansas)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Louisville
Against the spread
Season
15-18-2
Home
9-7-1
Road
3-8
Last 10
1-7-2
avg cover −4.2
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 0 of 8 as a favorite, 2 pushes
Over / under
Season
14-21
Home
6-11
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −4.5
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21 | #3Michigan St | N | L 69–77 | +5.0 | L−3.0 | 151.0 | U146 | 103.1 | 115.0 | 66.9 |
| Mar 19 | #11South Florida | N | W 83–79 | −4.0 | P0.0 | 160.0 | O162 | 110.3 | 105.0 | 75.2 |
| Mar 12 | Miami | N | L 73–78 | −1.5 | L−6.5 | 153.5 | U151 | 106.7 | 114.0 | 68.4 |
| Mar 11 | SMU | N | W 62–58 | −6.5 | L−2.5 | 163.5 | U120 | 100.9 | 94.4 | 61.5 |
| Mar 7 | #22Miami | A | W 92–89 | +1.5 | W+4.5 | 155.5 | O181 | 142.7 | 138.1 | 64.5 |
| Mar 3 | Syracuse | H | W 77–62 | −15.0 | P0.0 | 160.0 | U139 | 113.8 | 91.6 | 67.7 |
| Feb 28 | Clemson | A | L 75–80 | −2.0 | L−7.0 | 146.5 | O155 | 107.3 | 114.4 | 69.9 |
| Feb 23 | #18North Carolina | A | L 74–77 | −3.5 | L−6.5 | 163.0 | U151 | 111.1 | 115.6 | 66.6 |
| Feb 21 | Georgia Tech | H | W 87–70 | −23.5 | L−6.5 | 166.5 | U157 | 118.2 | 95.1 | 73.6 |
| Feb 17 | SMU | A | L 85–95 | −4.0 | L−14.0 | 168.0 | O180 | 111.2 | 124.3 | 76.4 |
Texas Tech
Against the spread
Season
17-16-1
Home
9-7
Road
5-4-1
Last 10
5-5
avg cover −0.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-19
Home
8-8
Road
3-7
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −2.0
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22 | #4Alabama | N | L 65–90 | +1.0 | L−24.0 | 164.5 | U155 | 93.8 | 129.9 | 69.3 |
| Mar 20 | #12Akron | N | W 91–71 | −6.5 | W+13.5 | 154.0 | O162 | 139.4 | 108.8 | 65.3 |
| Mar 12 | #7Iowa State | N | L 53–75 | +5.5 | L−16.5 | 143.5 | U128 | 81.9 | 115.9 | 64.7 |
| Mar 7 | BYU | A | L 76–82 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 159.5 | U158 | 124.8 | 134.6 | 60.9 |
| Mar 3 | TCU | H | L 65–73 | −8.0 | L−16.0 | 148.5 | U138 | 101.6 | 114.1 | 64.0 |
| Feb 28 | #4Iowa State | A | W 82–73 | +9.5 | W+18.5 | 145.0 | O155 | 127.1 | 113.1 | 64.5 |
| Feb 24 | Cincinnati | H | W 80–68 | −6.5 | W+5.5 | 143.5 | O148 | 131.5 | 111.8 | 60.8 |
| Feb 21 | Kansas St | H | W 100–72 | −12.5 | W+15.5 | 158.5 | O172 | 144.9 | 104.3 | 69.0 |
| Feb 17 | Arizona St | A | L 67–72 | −7.5 | L−12.5 | 155.5 | U139 | 101.3 | 108.9 | 66.1 |
| Feb 14 | #1Arizona | A | W 78–75 OT | +9.5 | W+12.5 | 156.0 | U153 | 110.8 | 106.6 | 70.4 |
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 homeLouisvilleTexas Tech
Efficiency
117.8
117.7
101.5
103.2
69.9
67.5
—
—
Shooting
56.5%
56.1%
59.4%
53.9%
36.0%
39.1%
76.1%
71.5%
33.1%
27.7%
Ball control & glass
16.8%
15.8%
16.7%
14.8%
32.8%
33.2%
27.5%
30.6%
9.5%
8.9%
12.5%
7.7%
Style
52.9%
47.6%
39.1%
36.6%
8.6%
8.6%
59.6%
55.0%
31.7%
20.5%
Roster
3.65
2.40
6'6.6"
6'5.8"
11.4%
63.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLouisville
Returning minutes: 11.4%Returning production: 10.0%
Lost
- Ryan Conwell 30.0 mpg, 18.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Isaac McKneely 29.0 mpg, 10.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- J'Vonne Hadley 27.2 mpg, 11.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Sananda Fru 22.0 mpg, 9.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mikel Brown Jr. 17.5 mpg, 10.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Khani Rooths 14.1 mpg, 4.7 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma
Added
- Flory Bidunga from Kansas · 31.6 mpg, 13.3 ppg last season
- De'Shayne Montgomery from Dayton · 29.8 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
- LJ Wells from N Kentucky · 29.4 mpg, 14.5 ppg last season
- Seth Trimble from North Carolina · 23.6 mpg, 10.2 ppg last season
- Alvaro Folgueiras from Iowa · 20.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg last season
- Karter Knox from Arkansas · 13.2 mpg, 4.8 ppg last season
Returns 11% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Texas Tech
Returning minutes: 63.4%Returning production: 60.4%
Lost
- Christian Anderson 37.3 mpg, 18.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Donovan Atwell 34.7 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jazz Henderson Jr. 1.5 mpg, 0.3 ppg · transferred to Ball State
Added
- LaTrell Hoover no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 63% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
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.