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 siteElridge Blake Sports and Fitness Center, Charlotte Amalie, Virgin IslandsU.S. Virgin Islands Paradise Jam
Temple
Efficiency #168
2025-26: 16-16 · 8-11 conf
vs
MTSU
Efficiency #167
2025-26: 17-15 · 11-10 conf
Fri, Nov 20 · 12:30 PM ET
72.2
win 50%
Projected
72.2
win 50%
No line posted yet.
Model: PK · total 144.4 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: MTSU 67.2, Temple 66.7 → 65.6 possessions
−6.0
MTSU offense vs Temple defense
+1.1
Temple offense vs MTSU defense
+1.1
Projected total
144.4
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
MTSU offense vs Temple defense
+1.1
Temple offense vs MTSU defense
−1.1
Even game
0.0
Temple side ◂▸ MTSU 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 MTSU.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, MTSU is the faster team (66.5, #266 of 365) and Temple the slower (65.4, #320). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.4
model
Projected team totals
72.2 / 72.2
Temple / MTSU
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.7#310
Temple
67.2#275
MTSU
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageTemple
Where Temple scores: ball control
Temple turns it over on 13.7% of possessions (#18); MTSU forces turnovers on 15.0% of opponent possessions (#291). Expect about 13.9%, 2.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
MTSU averages 66.5 possessions per 40, Temple 65.4. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
ClashTemple
Style match: 3-point volume
Temple rarely shoots threes (35.7% of its shots); MTSU runs teams off the line (35.3% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 33.8% — both habits push the same way.
ClashMTSU
Style clash: 3-point volume
MTSU takes 45.3% of its shots from three; Temple runs teams off the line (35.9% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 41.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
ClashMTSU
Style clash: paint scoring
MTSU gets only 37.7% of its points in the paint; Temple gives up 46.3% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
Temple has the ball
OffenseMTSU allowsvs D1 avg
50.2% #229
51.0% #155
-1.1 pt/100
13.7% #18
15.0% #291
+3.6 pt/100
29.8% #209
28.5% #83
-0.8 pt/100
40.6% #52
35.7% #204
+0.4 pt/100
74.7% #96
—
+0.2 pt/100
Temple net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.2 pts/100
MTSU has the ball
OffenseTemple allowsvs D1 avg
51.6% #167
50.7% #137
-0.2 pt/100
17.1% #214
15.5% #247
+0.7 pt/100
30.7% #171
30.3% #177
+0.1 pt/100
32.7% #245
35.5% #197
-0.1 pt/100
70.2% #267
—
-0.2 pt/100
MTSU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersTempleoffense vsMTSUdefense
Share of shots by zone
Temple shoots
40.0
6.6
17.3
36.1
MTSU allows
42.2
7.7
14.9
35.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 56.8%#247 | 58.9%#188 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.7%#250 | 37.5%#124 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.5%#200 | 33.0%#30 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.6%#194 | 33.9%#180 | 33.7% |
MTSUoffense vsTempledefense
Share of shots by zone
MTSU shoots
30.4
7.2
17.0
45.4
Temple allows
39.7
7.5
16.7
36.1
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.3%#65 | 58.5%#167 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.6%#183 | 39.2%#160 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.9%#114 | 39.1%#205 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.8%#183 | 32.8%#107 | 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 numbersTemple
+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#76 of 365
Off reb %
29.8%
#209
Def reb %
69.7%
#177
Turnover %
13.7%
#18
Forced TO %
15.5%
#247
FT rate
40.6%
#52
FT allowed
35.5%
#197
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.2
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+2.1
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn+1.4
Foul shots allowed−0.1
MTSU
−1.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#253 of 365
Off reb %
30.7%
#171
Def reb %
71.5%
#83
Turnover %
17.1%
#214
Forced TO %
15.0%
#291
FT rate
32.7%
#245
FT allowed
35.7%
#204
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.1
Defensive rebounding+0.7
Ball security−0.2
Forcing turnovers−1.2
Foul shots drawn−0.6
Foul shots allowed−0.1
Temple has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#76 of 365) to MTSU’s −1.4 (#253).
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
Temple2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | Derrian Ford | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 35.7 | 18.1 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 48.9% | 37.9% | 4.3 | 85.2% | 30.0% | |
| 32 | Jordan Mason | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-32 | 33.7 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 46.3% | 31.3% | 2.0 | 79.8% | 23.7% | |
| 0 | Gavin Griffiths | G | Jr | 6'7" | 30-29 | 29.4 | 10.1 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 51.8% | 33.5% | 6.3 | 52.2% | 22.3% | |
| 10 | Masiah Gilyard | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-2 | 18.0 | 5.8 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 33.8% | 2.5 | 63.6% | 20.2% | |
| 1 | Jamai Felt | F | So | 6'9" | 31-23 | 13.3 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 62.0% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 58.5% | 18.0% | |
| 2 | Ayuba Bryant Jr. | F | Fr | 6'9" | 26-2 | 8.4 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 58.6% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 45.2% | 14.6% | |
| 7 | Cam Wallace | G | Fr | 6'4" | 19-0 | 6.4 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 46.8% | 36.8% | 1.0 | 55.6% | 20.8% | |
| 9 | AJ Smith | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 15.0 | 7.8 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 53.3% | 44.4% | 1.1 | 73.7% | 28.4% | |
| 4 | Mohamed Keita | C | Sr | 7'1" | 23-0 | 4.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 37.5% | 10.8% | |
| 8 | Spencer Mahoney | F | So | 6'8" | 13-0 | 5.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | 100.0% | 15.1% | |
| 13 | Connor Gal | G | Sr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 72.2% | 25.0% | 1.0 | — | 39.2% | |
| 3 | CJ Hines | G | Sr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Olin Chamberlain Jr. | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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.
MTSU2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted MTSU'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Torey Alston | F | So | 6'9" | 32-32 | 29.3 | 13.1 | 7.9 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 55.9% | 11.1% | 0.6 | 63.6% | 26.7% | |
| 22 | Kamari Lands | G | Sr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 29.2 | 13.3 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 49.0% | 32.1% | 5.9 | 80.8% | 28.4% | |
| 2 | Jahvin Carter | G | So | 6'3" | 32-19 | 26.8 | 10.8 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 1.6 | 47.9% | 33.6% | 4.3 | 76.2% | 27.4% | |
| 13 | Chris Loofe | F | Jr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 24.9 | 7.3 | 6.3 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 54.9% | 26.3% | 1.2 | 62.2% | 19.4% | |
| 55 | Sean Smith | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-16 | 23.2 | 9.3 | 2.3 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 51.4% | 36.1% | 2.6 | 75.9% | 25.9% | |
| 0 | Alec Oglesby | G | Sr | 6'5" | 30-17 | 24.0 | 8.3 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 56.4% | 40.9% | 5.0 | 70.7% | 19.4% | |
| 11 | Tre Green | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-12 | 18.7 | 7.1 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 51.3% | 35.0% | 5.1 | 90.3% | 22.1% | |
| 3 | Luka Jovanovic | C | Fr | 6'11" | 31-0 | 13.7 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 70.9% | 100.0% | 0.0 | 53.3% | 9.1% | |
| 1 | Marcus Whitlock Jr. | G | So | 6'3" | 21-0 | 11.6 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 56.0% | 35.8% | 2.5 | 75.0% | 18.4% | |
| 23 | James Dent Jr. | G | Sr | 6'5" | 20-0 | 10.6 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 39.0% | 20.7% | 1.4 | 55.6% | 14.9% | |
| 5 | Jarred Hall | F | Jr | 6'9" | 11-0 | 8.4 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 53.8% | 30.8% | 1.2 | — | 20.8% | |
| 20 | Savon Wykle | G | Sr | 6'5" | 1-0 | 13.0 | 10.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 71.4% | 40.0% | 5.0 | — | 32.3% | |
| 12 | Brandon Oloumou | C | Jr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Charvez Ambrose | G | Jr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Jax Howard | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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.
Temple2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | Derrian Ford | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 35.7 | 18.1 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 48.9% | 37.9% | 4.3 | 85.2% | 30.0% | |
| 32 | Jordan Mason | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-32 | 33.7 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 46.3% | 31.3% | 2.0 | 79.8% | 23.7% | |
| 0 | Gavin Griffiths | G | Jr | 6'7" | 30-29 | 29.4 | 10.1 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 51.8% | 33.5% | 6.3 | 52.2% | 22.3% | |
| 10 | Masiah Gilyard | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-2 | 18.0 | 5.8 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 33.8% | 2.5 | 63.6% | 20.2% | |
| 1 | Jamai Felt | F | So | 6'9" | 31-23 | 13.3 | 3.8 | 4.1 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 62.0% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 58.5% | 18.0% | |
| 2 | Ayuba Bryant Jr. | F | Fr | 6'9" | 26-2 | 8.4 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 58.6% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 45.2% | 14.6% | |
| 7 | Cam Wallace | G | Fr | 6'4" | 19-0 | 6.4 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 46.8% | 36.8% | 1.0 | 55.6% | 20.8% | |
| 9 | AJ Smith | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 15.0 | 7.8 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 53.3% | 44.4% | 1.1 | 73.7% | 28.4% | |
| 4 | Mohamed Keita | C | Sr | 7'1" | 23-0 | 4.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 37.5% | 10.8% | |
| 8 | Spencer Mahoney | F | So | 6'8" | 13-0 | 5.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | 100.0% | 15.1% | |
| 13 | Connor Gal | G | Sr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 72.2% | 25.0% | 1.0 | — | 39.2% | |
| 3 | CJ Hines | G | Sr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Olin Chamberlain Jr. | G | Fr | 6'0" | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Temple
Against the spread
Season
13-18
Home
6-9
Road
7-4
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.2
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-14
Home
10-5
Road
4-7
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total −0.9
Under 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 11 | FAU | N | L 59–63 | −1.0 | L−5.0 | 144.5 | U122 | 91.3 | 97.4 | 64.7 |
| Mar 8 | Tulsa | A | L 76–78 | +11.5 | W+9.5 | 150.5 | O154 | 113.6 | 116.6 | 66.9 |
| Mar 5 | Tulane | H | W 89–60 | −5.0 | W+24.0 | 145.0 | O149 | 132.2 | 89.1 | 67.3 |
| Mar 1 | Rice | H | L 74–80 | −7.0 | L−13.0 | 142.5 | O154 | 113.5 | 122.7 | 65.2 |
| Feb 26 | FAU | A | L 73–77 | +4.5 | W+0.5 | 146.0 | O150 | 114.0 | 120.2 | 64.0 |
| Feb 21 | Wichita St | A | L 57–69 | +8.5 | L−3.5 | 143.5 | U126 | 92.8 | 112.4 | 61.4 |
| Feb 18 | UAB | H | L 71–76 | −1.5 | L−6.5 | 143.5 | O147 | 107.5 | 115.1 | 66.0 |
| Feb 15 | North Texas | H | L 62–65 | −2.0 | L−5.0 | 135.0 | U127 | 97.2 | 101.9 | 63.8 |
| Feb 11 | Tulane | A | L 66–77 | +2.0 | L−9.0 | 145.0 | U143 | 97.2 | 113.4 | 67.9 |
| Feb 7 | East Carolina | A | W 81–73 | −2.5 | W+5.5 | 139.5 | O154 | 127.2 | 114.7 | 63.7 |
MTSU
Against the spread
Season
13-16
Home
4-8
Road
8-5
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +0.3
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
15-14
Home
7-5
Road
5-8
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +11.4
Over in the last gameOver in 5 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 12 | Louisiana Tech | N | L 69–80 | −2.0 | L−13.0 | 133.5 | O149 | 104.0 | 120.6 | 66.3 |
| Mar 7 | Missouri St | A | W 75–63 | +2.5 | W+14.5 | 146.5 | U138 | 113.1 | 95.0 | 66.3 |
| Mar 5 | FIU | A | W 73–67 | −1.0 | W+5.0 | 153.5 | U140 | 106.1 | 97.4 | 68.8 |
| Feb 28 | New Mexico St | H | W 86–85 OT | −5.5 | L−4.5 | 148.0 | O171 | 114.3 | 113.0 | 75.2 |
| Feb 26 | UTEP | H | W 77–67 | −8.5 | W+1.5 | 139.5 | O144 | 112.8 | 98.2 | 68.3 |
| Feb 21 | Delaware | H | W 78–66 | −10.0 | W+2.0 | 137.5 | O144 | 125.8 | 106.5 | 62.0 |
| Feb 18 | Sam Houston | A | L 70–78 | +4.0 | L−4.0 | 151.5 | U148 | 100.5 | 112.0 | 69.6 |
| Feb 14 | Western KY | A | L 80–82 | +3.0 | W+1.0 | 144.5 | O162 | 113.2 | 116.0 | 70.7 |
| Feb 12 | Kennesaw St | A | W 90–87 | +3.0 | W+6.0 | 147.5 | O177 | 128.3 | 124.0 | 70.1 |
| Feb 7 | Delaware | A | L 88–89 OT | −4.5 | L−5.5 | 133.5 | O177 | 128.5 | 129.9 | 68.5 |
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 homeTempleMTSU
Efficiency
110.3
108.8
109.9
108.4
66.7
67.2
—
—
Shooting
50.2%
51.6%
50.0%
52.3%
33.6%
33.8%
74.7%
70.2%
40.6%
32.7%
Ball control & glass
13.7%
17.1%
15.5%
15.0%
29.8%
30.7%
30.3%
28.5%
8.1%
9.3%
11.4%
8.3%
Style
35.7%
45.3%
43.0%
37.7%
11.8%
11.4%
48.2%
53.5%
26.1%
34.4%
Roster
3.39
3.05
6'4.9"
6'6.4"
72.8%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputTemple
Returning minutes: 72.8%Returning production: 71.5%
Lost
- Aiden Tobiason 35.4 mpg, 15.3 ppg · transferred to Syracuse
- Babatunde Durodola 19.2 mpg, 4.8 ppg · transferred to Ball State
Added
- CJ Hines no D1 minutes last season
- Olin Chamberlain Jr. no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 73% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (2 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).
MTSU
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted MTSU'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.