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-conferenceBryce Jordan Center, University Park, PA

Chattanooga

Efficiency #289

2025-26: 13-19 · 7-12 conf

Penn State

Efficiency #194

2025-26: 12-20 · 3-18 conf

Thu, Nov 5 · TBD

73.2

win 25%

Projected

80.9

win 75%

No line posted yet.

Model: PSU −7.7 · total 154.1 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Penn State 68.4, Chattanooga 68.1 → 68.2 possessions

−0.3

Penn State offense vs Chattanooga defense

+5.0

Chattanooga offense vs Penn State defense

+1.2

Projected total

154.1

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Penn State offense vs Chattanooga defense

+5.0

Chattanooga offense vs Penn State defense

−1.2

Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors

+3.9

Penn State by 7.7

7.7

Chattanooga side ◂▸ Penn 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 Penn State.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Chattanooga is the faster team (67.6, #218 of 365) and Penn State the slower (67.5, #224). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

154.1

model

Projected team totals

73.2 / 80.9

Chattanooga / Penn State

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#204

Chattanooga

68.4#175

Penn State

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet

AdvantageChattanooga

Where Chattanooga scores: shooting

Chattanooga shoots an effective 54.2% (#60); Penn State allows 58.4% (#363). Expect about 56.6%, 5.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +7.6 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantagePenn State

Where Penn State scores: ball control

Penn State turns it over on 15.6% of possessions (#108); Chattanooga forces turnovers on 13.2% of opponent possessions (#350). Expect about 13.8%, 3.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions.

GlassChattanooga

Chattanooga gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 24.7% is worth roughly -3.5 points per 100 possessions against Chattanooga's offense.

ClashChattanooga

Style match: 3-point volume

Chattanooga takes 49.2% of its shots from three; Penn State lets opponents take 43.4% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 49.8% — both habits push the same way.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Penn State'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 Chattanooga at about 49.8% of its shots from three, Penn State about 41.4%.

GlassPenn State

Penn State gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.9% is worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions against Penn State's offense.

Chattanooga has the ball

OffensePenn State allowsvs D1 avg

54.2% #60

58.4% #363

+7.6 pt/100

14.4% #38

17.7% #113

+0.9 pt/100

21.8% #358

31.1% #210

-3.5 pt/100

29.7% #319

27.5% #28

-0.9 pt/100

77.4% #26

—

+0.4 pt/100

Chattanooga net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.6 pts/100

Penn State has the ball

OffenseChattanooga allowsvs D1 avg

53.0% #102

51.7% #195

+1.7 pt/100

15.6% #108

13.2% #350

+3.6 pt/100

25.9% #325

31.7% #240

-1.5 pt/100

33.8% #219

42.6% #335

+0.5 pt/100

75.0% #83

—

+0.2 pt/100

Penn State net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.6 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers

Chattanoogaoffense vsPenn Statedefense

Share of shots by zone

Chattanooga shoots

28.2

6.1

16.3

49.4

Penn State allows

39.1

5.8

12.5

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.8%#78	67.3%#362	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	52.6%#4	35.2%#63	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	47.8%#2	43.7%#338	38.0%
Three	35.0%#116	38.8%#363	33.7%

Penn Stateoffense vsChattanoogadefense

Share of shots by zone

Penn State shoots

38.7

5.6

17.9

37.7

Chattanooga allows

38.0

4.8

13.3

43.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.1%#69	58.7%#173	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.5%#111	42.9%#247	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.8%#42	34.6%#63	38.0%
Three	32.4%#263	34.2%#195	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 numbers

Chattanooga

−7.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#359 of 365

Off reb %

21.8%

#358

Def reb %

68.3%

#240

Turnover %

14.4%

#38

Forced TO %

13.2%

#350

FT rate

29.7%

#319

FT allowed

42.6%

#335

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−2.8

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security+1.6

Forcing turnovers−2.4

Foul shots drawn−1.4

Foul shots allowed−1.9

Penn State

+1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#118 of 365

Off reb %

25.9%

#325

Def reb %

68.9%

#210

Turnover %

15.6%

#108

Forced TO %

17.7%

#113

FT rate

33.8%

#219

FT allowed

27.5%

#28

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.4

Defensive rebounding−0.2

Ball security+0.8

Forcing turnovers+0.7

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed+2.0

Penn State has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.5 (#118 of 365) to Chattanooga’s −7.2 (#359).

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

Chattanooga2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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
5	Jordan Frison	G	Jr	6'0"	32-29	29.9	16.4	3.3	4.0	1.7	62.9%	45.5%	3.5	82.0%	28.0%
0	Tate Darner	G	Fr	6'4"	30-18	27.5	9.9	4.4	1.7	1.1	56.9%	37.9%	4.7	73.6%	20.2%
1	Brennan Watkins	G	Sr	6'0"	32-22	25.2	10.2	2.8	1.8	1.2	62.3%	45.6%	4.7	88.6%	20.8%
11	Billy Smith	G	Sr	6'7"	32-16	23.0	8.4	2.8	1.2	0.9	50.4%	34.0%	5.9	69.2%	23.5%
10	Teddy Washington Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	31-20	21.9	9.0	3.3	1.4	1.0	46.0%	23.1%	3.4	77.9%	26.5%
34	Makai Richards	C	Sr	6'10"	32-13	13.1	3.4	3.1	0.9	0.8	58.8%	33.3%	0.1	76.7%	16.2%
21	Collin Mulholland	F	So	6'10"	23-9	17.2	7.6	3.4	1.7	1.0	48.6%	21.7%	2.6	81.6%	28.4%
3	Jikari Johnson	G	Sr	6'4"	29-7	13.5	6.7	2.2	0.8	0.5	54.4%	35.2%	3.0	78.3%	26.8%
55	Parker Robison	G	So	6'0"	27-1	10.7	1.3	1.5	0.8	0.2	37.5%	9.5%	0.8	62.5%	10.1%
13	Houston Holland	G	So	6'3"	27-4	10.5	2.0	1.7	0.6	0.4	59.8%	50.0%	0.8	75.0%	11.5%
30	Josh Bowman	F	Fr	6'9"	23-8	12.0	3.2	2.5	0.9	0.6	50.8%	22.2%	0.4	42.9%	18.7%
2	Sebastian Hartmann	G	Jr	6'6"	7-6	22.4	7.0	5.0	1.0	1.1	60.0%	43.5%	3.3	70.0%	18.1%
7	Sean Cusano	G	Jr	6'9"	6-4	13.7	4.2	2.7	1.0	0.2	47.9%	10.0%	1.7	66.7%	18.2%
23	Latif Diouf	F	So	6'9"	5-3	14.4	4.8	2.6	1.8	0.8	64.7%	40.0%	1.0	50.0%	18.2%
6	Ryan Lopez	G	Jr	5'8"	5-0	5.6	3.4	0.8	0.4	0.2	62.5%	50.0%	2.0	50.0%	30.1%
20	Liam Vitters	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
4	Zach Bleshoy	G	Fr	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.

Penn State2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Josh Reed	F	Sr	6'8"	32-31	28.2	11.5	4.1	1.0	1.1	55.3%	36.8%	2.7	87.2%	22.0%
4	Kayden Mingo	G	Fr	6'3"	28-28	32.1	13.7	3.5	4.3	2.0	51.2%	24.4%	3.1	70.5%	26.9%
3	Ivan Juric	F	Fr	7'0"	30-26	26.4	10.2	5.3	0.8	1.9	61.6%	28.3%	1.8	66.1%	22.5%
7	Dominick Stewart	G	So	6'5"	32-24	22.5	6.6	2.2	1.6	0.8	51.5%	34.8%	3.5	79.1%	18.1%
9	Melih Tunca	G	Fr	6'5"	31-12	22.8	7.8	2.0	2.4	1.4	50.3%	31.3%	2.1	77.0%	22.1%
11	Eli Rice	G	So	6'8"	29-18	19.8	6.7	1.7	0.2	0.6	51.6%	39.0%	3.6	77.3%	20.3%
1	Mason Blackwood	F	Fr	6'7"	26-1	12.3	2.6	1.8	0.2	0.3	54.5%	22.2%	1.0	77.8%	12.5%
22	Sasa Ciani	F	Jr	6'10"	28-4	10.0	2.1	1.9	0.2	0.4	39.8%	20.0%	0.2	68.2%	16.0%
16	Tibor Mirtic	F	Fr	6'9"	15-1	14.2	3.7	3.3	0.7	0.7	54.3%	33.3%	0.2	30.8%	17.6%
21	Justin Houser	F	Fr	7'0"	18-0	6.2	1.4	1.1	0.2	0.3	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	62.5%	16.2%
30	Chris Lotito	F	Fr	6'7"	4-0	1.5	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.3	—	—	0.0	—	9.7%
12	Reggie Grodin	G	Fr	6'5"	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.

Chattanooga2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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
5	Jordan Frison	G	Jr	6'0"	32-29	29.9	16.4	3.3	4.0	1.7	62.9%	45.5%	3.5	82.0%	28.0%
0	Tate Darner	G	Fr	6'4"	30-18	27.5	9.9	4.4	1.7	1.1	56.9%	37.9%	4.7	73.6%	20.2%
1	Brennan Watkins	G	Sr	6'0"	32-22	25.2	10.2	2.8	1.8	1.2	62.3%	45.6%	4.7	88.6%	20.8%
11	Billy Smith	G	Sr	6'7"	32-16	23.0	8.4	2.8	1.2	0.9	50.4%	34.0%	5.9	69.2%	23.5%
10	Teddy Washington Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	31-20	21.9	9.0	3.3	1.4	1.0	46.0%	23.1%	3.4	77.9%	26.5%
34	Makai Richards	C	Sr	6'10"	32-13	13.1	3.4	3.1	0.9	0.8	58.8%	33.3%	0.1	76.7%	16.2%
21	Collin Mulholland	F	So	6'10"	23-9	17.2	7.6	3.4	1.7	1.0	48.6%	21.7%	2.6	81.6%	28.4%
3	Jikari Johnson	G	Sr	6'4"	29-7	13.5	6.7	2.2	0.8	0.5	54.4%	35.2%	3.0	78.3%	26.8%
55	Parker Robison	G	So	6'0"	27-1	10.7	1.3	1.5	0.8	0.2	37.5%	9.5%	0.8	62.5%	10.1%
13	Houston Holland	G	So	6'3"	27-4	10.5	2.0	1.7	0.6	0.4	59.8%	50.0%	0.8	75.0%	11.5%
30	Josh Bowman	F	Fr	6'9"	23-8	12.0	3.2	2.5	0.9	0.6	50.8%	22.2%	0.4	42.9%	18.7%
2	Sebastian Hartmann	G	Jr	6'6"	7-6	22.4	7.0	5.0	1.0	1.1	60.0%	43.5%	3.3	70.0%	18.1%
7	Sean Cusano	G	Jr	6'9"	6-4	13.7	4.2	2.7	1.0	0.2	47.9%	10.0%	1.7	66.7%	18.2%
23	Latif Diouf	F	So	6'9"	5-3	14.4	4.8	2.6	1.8	0.8	64.7%	40.0%	1.0	50.0%	18.2%
6	Ryan Lopez	G	Jr	5'8"	5-0	5.6	3.4	0.8	0.4	0.2	62.5%	50.0%	2.0	50.0%	30.1%
20	Liam Vitters	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
4	Zach Bleshoy	G	Fr	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 2025-26

Chattanooga

Against the spread

Season

12-17

Home

4-8

Road

7-8

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.7

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-13

Home

5-7

Road

9-6

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +9.8

Over 6 straightOver in 6 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	The CitadelAdjEM #348	N	L 85–88	−7.5	L−10.5	147.5	O173	133.9	138.7	63.5
Feb 28	VMIAdjEM #361	H	W 86–79	−11.5	L−4.5	155.0	O165	135.7	124.6	63.4
Feb 26	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	H	L 80–85	−3.5	L−8.5	157.5	O165	104.3	110.8	76.7
Feb 21	The CitadelAdjEM #348	A	W 93–72	−4.0	W+17.0	144.0	O165	128.9	99.8	72.1
Feb 19	MercerAdjEM #161	A	W 94–90	+10.0	W+14.0	151.5	O184	144.7	138.6	65.0
Feb 14	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	H	L 76–81	−2.0	L−7.0	151.5	O157	110.4	117.6	68.9
Feb 11	ETSUAdjEM #110	A	L 61–73	+10.0	L−2.0	145.0	U134	92.2	110.3	66.2
Feb 7	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	L 71–78	−9.5	L−16.5	141.0	O149	104.4	114.7	68.0
Feb 5	MercerAdjEM #161	H	W 79–75	+4.5	W+8.5	155.0	U154	109.5	104.0	72.2
Feb 1	FurmanAdjEM #163	A	L 70–75	+7.5	W+2.5	145.5	U145	106.4	114.0	65.8

Penn State

Against the spread

Season

12-20

Home

7-10

Road

4-7

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −5.2

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 9 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

18-14

Home

9-8

Road

8-3

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −1.6

Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 9 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	NorthwesternAdjEM #78	N	L 66–76	+5.0	L−5.0	144.5	U142	103.9	119.6	63.6
Mar 8	RutgersAdjEM #192	A	L 62–74	+5.0	L−7.0	150.5	U136	89.5	106.8	69.3
Mar 4	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	H	L 62–94	+7.0	L−25.0	152.0	O156	95.7	145.1	64.8
Feb 28	IowaAdjEM #22	H	W 71–69	+9.0	W+11.0	144.0	U140	119.5	116.1	59.4
Feb 21	#9NebraskaAdjEM #17	A	L 64–87	+17.5	L−5.5	147.5	O151	92.2	125.4	69.4
Feb 18	RutgersAdjEM #192	H	L 72–85	−4.5	L−17.5	149.0	O157	105.6	124.7	68.2
Feb 14	OregonAdjEM #143	A	L 72–83	+6.5	L−4.5	147.0	O155	109.7	126.5	65.6
Feb 11	WashingtonAdjEM #59	A	W 63–60	+12.5	W+15.5	153.0	U123	96.3	91.7	65.4
Feb 8	USCAdjEM #97	H	L 75–77	+3.0	W+1.0	157.0	U152	103.7	106.4	72.3
Feb 5	#2MichiganAdjEM #1	A	L 69–110	+26.5	L−14.5	162.0	O179	96.9	154.5	71.2

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 home

ChattanoogaPenn State

Efficiency

106.9

110.8

113.5

111.8

68.1

68.4

—

Shooting

54.2%

53.0%

55.8%

35.0%

32.4%

77.4%

75.0%

29.7%

33.8%

Ball control & glass

14.4%

15.6%

13.2%

17.7%

21.8%

25.9%

31.7%

31.1%

8.3%

8.6%

7.7%

9.8%

Style

49.2%

38.1%

36.2%

46.1%

12.7%

14.8%

55.6%

48.3%

39.4%

33.2%

Roster

2.97

1.82

6'3.9"

6'7.1"

—

86.3%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input

Chattanooga

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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.)

Penn State

Returning minutes: 86.3%Returning production: 82.2%

Lost

Freddie Dilione V 27.5 mpg, 14.0 ppg · transferred to Georgia

Added

Reggie Grodin no D1 minutes last season

No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.

Returns 86% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 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).

Head-to-head

this season and last

No 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.