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-conferenceSchottenstein Center, Columbus, OH
Lipscomb
Efficiency #179
2025-26: 19-13 · 12-7 conf
@
Ohio State
Efficiency #31
2025-26: 21-13 · 13-9 conf
Sun, Nov 29 · TBD
69.8
win 13%
Projected
82.6
win 87%
No line posted yet.
Model: OSU −12.8 · total 152.4 · 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: Ohio State 67.5, Lipscomb 69.7 → 68.9 possessions
+1.2
Ohio State offense vs Lipscomb defense
+5.9
Lipscomb offense vs Ohio State defense
−2.9
Projected total
152.4
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Ohio State offense vs Lipscomb defense
+5.9
Lipscomb offense vs Ohio State defense
+2.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Ohio State by 12.8
12.8
Lipscomb side ◂▸ Ohio State 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 Ohio State.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Lipscomb is the faster team (70.5, #76 of 365) and Ohio State the slower (66.4, #278). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.9
per team, 40 min
Projected total
152.4
model
Projected team totals
69.8 / 82.6
Lipscomb / Ohio State
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.7#69
Lipscomb
67.5#253
Ohio State
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageOhio State
Where Ohio State scores: shooting
Ohio State shoots an effective 56.2% (#19); Lipscomb allows 53.2% (#273). Expect about 55.1%, 3.8 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.5 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageLipscomb
Where Lipscomb struggles: the offensive glass
Lipscomb rebounds 25.8% of its own misses (#327); Ohio State lets opponents grab 30.0% of their own misses (#160). Expect about 27.0%, 3.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions.
Lipscomb has the ball
OffenseOhio State allowsvs D1 avg
54.1% #67
50.2% #114
+1.5 pt/100
16.0% #142
15.6% #242
+1.4 pt/100
25.8% #327
30.0% #160
-2.1 pt/100
26.0% #357
34.7% #170
-0.6 pt/100
74.9% #85
—
+0.2 pt/100
Lipscomb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.5 pts/100
Ohio State has the ball
OffenseLipscomb allowsvs D1 avg
56.2% #19
53.2% #273
+5.5 pt/100
15.3% #91
17.7% #112
+0.3 pt/100
30.4% #185
30.2% #171
-0.1 pt/100
37.2% #122
29.0% #45
-0.3 pt/100
77.7% #21
—
+0.5 pt/100
Ohio State net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLipscomboffense vsOhio Statedefense
Share of shots by zone
Lipscomb shoots
39.4
5.7
7.1
47.8
Ohio State allows
31.5
8.2
20.1
40.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.2%#114 | 59.8%#220 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.8%#246 | 38.4%#143 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.1%#361 | 42.7%#328 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#75 | 31.9%#57 | 33.7% |
Ohio Stateoffense vsLipscombdefense
Share of shots by zone
Ohio State shoots
31.3
9.5
18.8
40.4
Lipscomb allows
36.4
9.7
13.7
40.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 66.1%#14 | 62.9%#322 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 50.3%#12 | 43.8%#264 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 47.6%#4 | 35.8%#102 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#72 | 34.3%#207 | 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 numbersLipscomb
−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#220 of 365
Off reb %
25.8%
#327
Def reb %
69.8%
#171
Turnover %
16.0%
#142
Forced TO %
17.7%
#112
FT rate
26.0%
#357
FT allowed
29.0%
#45
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.5
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+0.5
Forcing turnovers+0.7
Foul shots drawn−2.3
Foul shots allowed+1.6
Ohio State
+1.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#132 of 365
Off reb %
30.4%
#185
Def reb %
70.0%
#160
Turnover %
15.3%
#91
Forced TO %
15.6%
#242
FT rate
37.2%
#122
FT allowed
34.7%
#170
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding0.0
Defensive rebounding+0.2
Ball security+1.0
Forcing turnovers−0.7
Foul shots drawn+0.6
Foul shots allowed+0.1
Ohio State has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.2 (#132 of 365) to Lipscomb’s −0.8 (#220).
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
Lipscomb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mateo Esmeraldo | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 1.6 | 53.2% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 82.9% | 19.0% | |
| 35 | Grant Asman | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 27.8 | 14.3 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 60.8% | 36.2% | 5.1 | 76.8% | 26.3% | |
| 26 | Titas Sargiunas | F | Jr | 6'4" | 32-20 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 51.8% | 34.0% | 4.4 | 73.3% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Ross Candelino | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-13 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 62.4% | 42.6% | 5.5 | 69.8% | 22.3% | |
| 33 | Charlie Williams | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 21.3 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.2% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 79.2% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Ethan Duncan | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-7 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 55.7% | 36.7% | 5.7 | 92.3% | 26.0% | |
| 6 | Or Ashkenazi | F | Fr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 39.4% | 1.1 | 75.0% | 9.4% | |
| 3 | Kennedy Okpara | F | Fr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 50.4% | 30.2% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 23.3% | |
| 23 | Kellan Boylan | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-0 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 47.0% | 6.3% | 0.5 | 67.3% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Cole Middleton | F | Sr | 6'6" | 29-0 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 26.5% | |
| 12 | Luke Carter | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.2% | 71.4% | 1.0 | — | 23.1% | |
| 2 | Devyn Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Josh Scott | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Logan Suber | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Luke Jack | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Miles White | G | Sr | 6'3" | 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.
Ohio State2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Devin Royal | F | Jr | 6'6" | 32-32 | 32.5 | 13.7 | 5.7 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 52.5% | 31.6% | 3.1 | 80.2% | 25.1% | |
| 0 | John Mobley Jr. | G | So | 6'1" | 31-31 | 31.6 | 15.7 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 56.7% | 41.1% | 7.6 | 86.8% | 28.2% | |
| 1 | Amare Bynum | F | Fr | 6'8" | 34-24 | 28.5 | 9.7 | 4.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 56.1% | 30.8% | 2.7 | 72.6% | 20.2% | |
| 4 | Gabe Cupps | G | So | 6'2" | 33-0 | 12.2 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 45.6% | 25.9% | 0.8 | 73.7% | 11.2% | |
| 3 | Taison Chatman | G | So | 6'4" | 28-3 | 12.9 | 4.3 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 59.8% | 47.1% | 1.8 | 85.0% | 19.8% | |
| 7 | Ivan Njegovan | C | So | 7'1" | 30-2 | 11.4 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 58.8% | 66.7% | 0.1 | 65.5% | 14.7% | |
| 14 | Brandon Noel | F | Sr | 6'8" | 16-10 | 18.9 | 6.6 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 65.1% | 20.0% | 0.9 | 73.3% | 18.3% | |
| 6 | Puff Johnson | G | Sr | 6'8" | 9-1 | 11.4 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 41.7% | 42.9% | 0.8 | 66.7% | 15.3% | |
| 9 | Mathieu Grujicic | G | Fr | 6'6" | 6-0 | 5.5 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 18.8% | 14.3% | 1.2 | 42.9% | 20.7% | |
| 55 | Braylen Nash | G | So | 6'4" | 5-0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 17 | Josh Ojianwuna | F | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Myles Herro | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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.
Lipscomb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mateo Esmeraldo | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 1.6 | 53.2% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 82.9% | 19.0% | |
| 35 | Grant Asman | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 27.8 | 14.3 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 60.8% | 36.2% | 5.1 | 76.8% | 26.3% | |
| 26 | Titas Sargiunas | F | Jr | 6'4" | 32-20 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 51.8% | 34.0% | 4.4 | 73.3% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Ross Candelino | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-13 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 62.4% | 42.6% | 5.5 | 69.8% | 22.3% | |
| 33 | Charlie Williams | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 21.3 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.2% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 79.2% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Ethan Duncan | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-7 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 55.7% | 36.7% | 5.7 | 92.3% | 26.0% | |
| 6 | Or Ashkenazi | F | Fr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 39.4% | 1.1 | 75.0% | 9.4% | |
| 3 | Kennedy Okpara | F | Fr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 50.4% | 30.2% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 23.3% | |
| 23 | Kellan Boylan | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-0 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 47.0% | 6.3% | 0.5 | 67.3% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Cole Middleton | F | Sr | 6'6" | 29-0 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 26.5% | |
| 12 | Luke Carter | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.2% | 71.4% | 1.0 | — | 23.1% | |
| 2 | Devyn Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Josh Scott | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Logan Suber | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Luke Jack | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Miles White | G | Sr | 6'3" | 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 2025-26Lipscomb
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
8-4
Road
7-10
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −4.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
16-14
Home
5-7
Road
11-6
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −2.8
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | FGCU | N | L 53–77 | −4.5 | L−28.5 | 150.0 | U130 | 84.1 | 122.2 | 63.0 |
| Feb 28 | E Kentucky | A | W 80–77 | −2.5 | W+0.5 | 159.0 | U157 | 122.3 | 117.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 25 | West Georgia | A | L 78–84 | −5.5 | L−11.5 | 153.0 | O162 | 110.6 | 119.1 | 70.5 |
| Feb 21 | North Alabama | H | W 73–51 | −12.0 | W+10.0 | 149.5 | U124 | 116.8 | 81.6 | 62.5 |
| Feb 18 | Bellarmine | A | W 75–72 | −3.5 | L−0.5 | 155.5 | U147 | 117.2 | 112.5 | 64.0 |
| Feb 14 | Queens | A | L 81–87 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 165.5 | O168 | 103.2 | 110.9 | 78.5 |
| Feb 11 | E Kentucky | H | W 75–61 | −6.0 | W+8.0 | 161.0 | U136 | 114.6 | 93.2 | 65.5 |
| Feb 7 | C Arkansas | H | L 78–86 | −4.0 | L−12.0 | 155.5 | O164 | 107.3 | 118.3 | 72.7 |
| Feb 4 | Austin Peay | A | L 76–87 | +4.5 | L−6.5 | 157.0 | O163 | 105.6 | 120.9 | 71.9 |
| Jan 31 | North Florida | A | W 100–94 | −11.0 | L−5.0 | 166.5 | O194 | 137.2 | 129.0 | 72.9 |
Ohio State
Against the spread
Season
17-16-1
Home
7-9-1
Road
6-5
Last 10
8-2
avg cover +6.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 5 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-18
Home
10-7
Road
4-7
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −4.5
Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19 | #9TCU | N | L 64–66 | −2.0 | L−4.0 | 146.0 | U130 | 102.5 | 105.7 | 62.4 |
| Mar 13 | #3Michigan | N | L 67–71 | +12.5 | W+8.5 | 155.0 | U138 | 100.0 | 106.0 | 67.0 |
| Mar 12 | Iowa | N | W 72–69 | +1.5 | W+4.5 | 140.5 | O141 | 124.1 | 118.9 | 58.0 |
| Mar 7 | Indiana | H | W 91–78 | −4.0 | W+9.0 | 148.0 | O169 | 134.0 | 114.8 | 67.9 |
| Mar 4 | Penn State | A | W 94–62 | −7.0 | W+25.0 | 152.0 | O156 | 145.1 | 95.7 | 64.8 |
| Mar 1 | #8Purdue | H | W 82–74 | +6.5 | W+14.5 | 149.5 | O156 | 133.4 | 120.4 | 61.5 |
| Feb 25 | Iowa | A | L 57–74 | +6.0 | L−11.0 | 140.5 | U131 | 97.4 | 126.4 | 58.5 |
| Feb 22 | #15Michigan St | A | L 60–66 | +10.0 | W+4.0 | 147.0 | U126 | 98.4 | 108.2 | 61.0 |
| Feb 17 | #24Wisconsin | H | W 86–69 | −1.0 | W+16.0 | 157.5 | U155 | 125.0 | 100.3 | 68.8 |
| Feb 14 | #15Virginia | N | L 66–70 | +5.0 | W+1.0 | 147.0 | U136 | 100.4 | 106.5 | 65.7 |
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 homeLipscombOhio State
Efficiency
107.8
117.4
108.1
104.9
69.7
67.5
—
—
Shooting
54.1%
56.2%
54.5%
58.0%
35.7%
35.7%
74.9%
77.7%
26.0%
37.2%
Ball control & glass
16.0%
15.3%
17.7%
15.6%
25.8%
30.4%
30.2%
30.0%
9.3%
8.1%
10.1%
8.9%
Style
47.9%
40.1%
42.5%
43.4%
16.2%
8.5%
62.3%
52.6%
36.9%
23.7%
Roster
3.04
2.19
6'5.4"
6'5.5"
—
66.1%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLipscomb
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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.)
Ohio State
Returning minutes: 66.1%Returning production: 58.1%
Lost
- Bruce Thornton 36.6 mpg, 19.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Christoph Tilly 24.5 mpg, 10.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Colin White 7.5 mpg, 0.7 ppg · transferred to Akron
Added
- Myles Herro no D1 minutes last season
- Josh Ojianwuna no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 66% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5. 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).
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.