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 gameUCCU Center, Orem, UT
Sacramento St
Efficiency #280
2025-26: 10-21 · 6-13 conf
@
Utah Valley
Efficiency #75
2025-26: 25-9 · 15-5 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · 4:00 PM ET
71.1
win 13%
Projected
84.2
win 87%
No line posted yet.
Model: UVU −13.1 · total 155.3 · 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: Utah Valley 69.1, Sacramento St 71.1 → 71.8 possessions
+7.6
Utah Valley offense vs Sacramento St defense
+4.2
Sacramento St offense vs Utah Valley defense
−4.8
Projected total
155.3
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Utah Valley offense vs Sacramento St defense
+4.2
Sacramento St offense vs Utah Valley defense
+4.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.1
Utah Valley by 13.1
13.1
Sacramento St side ◂▸ Utah Valley side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 155.2 against a projected 155.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Utah Valley.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 71.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Sacramento St is the faster team (72.3, #19 of 365) and Utah Valley the slower (69.4, #122). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
71.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
155.3
model
Projected team totals
71.1 / 84.2
Sacramento St / Utah Valley
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
71.1#14
Sacramento St
69.1#116
Utah Valley
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageUtah Valley
Where Utah Valley scores: shooting
Utah Valley shoots an effective 54.9% (#38); Sacramento St allows 55.0% (#331). Expect about 55.3%, 4.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.8 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageSacramento St
Where Sacramento St struggles: shooting
Sacramento St shoots an effective 47.0% (#337); Utah Valley allows 49.4% (#78). Expect about 47.8%, 3.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.9 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Track meet
Utah Valley averages 69.4 possessions per 40, Sacramento St 72.3. 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 72 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
ClashUtah Valley
Style match: ball movement
Utah Valley assists on 62.1% of its made baskets; Sacramento St allows assists on 57.9% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 62.3% — both habits push the same way.
GlassUtah Valley
Utah Valley owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 35.0% is worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions for Utah Valley's offense.
TurnoversUtah Valley
Utah Valley turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.9% is worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions against Utah Valley's offense.
Sacramento St has the ball
OffenseUtah Valley allowsvs D1 avg
47.0% #337
49.4% #78
-4.9 pt/100
14.1% #26
21.3% #7
-1.7 pt/100
25.2% #336
31.4% #221
-1.9 pt/100
41.2% #41
39.2% #291
+0.7 pt/100
78.1% #15
—
+0.5 pt/100
Sacramento St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -7.3 pts/100
Utah Valley has the ball
OffenseSacramento St allowsvs D1 avg
54.9% #38
55.0% #331
+5.8 pt/100
20.1% #350
17.1% #139
-2.6 pt/100
34.8% #51
33.4% #306
+2.8 pt/100
38.2% #98
36.2% #216
+0.3 pt/100
68.6% #308
—
-0.3 pt/100
Utah Valley net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersSacramento Stoffense vsUtah Valleydefense
Share of shots by zone
Sacramento St shoots
37.7
5.7
20.6
36.0
Utah Valley allows
42.9
7.3
16.6
33.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.7%#306 | 52.1%#16 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 34.1%#301 | 39.5%#171 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.5%#276 | 38.8%#197 | 38.0% |
| Three | 31.9%#284 | 35.2%#260 | 33.7% |
Utah Valleyoffense vsSacramento Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Utah Valley shoots
47.2
8.8
11.3
32.6
Sacramento St allows
42.1
5.7
8.2
44.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.7%#43 | 60.1%#230 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.2%#217 | 43.3%#256 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.6%#247 | 42.6%#322 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.0%#170 | 35.2%#257 | 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 numbersSacramento St
+0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#141 of 365
Off reb %
25.2%
#336
Def reb %
66.6%
#306
Turnover %
14.1%
#26
Forced TO %
17.1%
#139
FT rate
41.2%
#41
FT allowed
36.2%
#216
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.7
Defensive rebounding−0.9
Ball security+1.9
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn+1.6
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Utah Valley
+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#107 of 365
Off reb %
34.8%
#51
Def reb %
68.6%
#221
Turnover %
20.1%
#350
Forced TO %
21.3%
#7
FT rate
38.2%
#98
FT allowed
39.2%
#291
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.4
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security−2.3
Forcing turnovers+3.2
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed−1.0
Utah Valley has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#107 of 365) to Sacramento St’s +0.9 (#141).
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
Sacramento St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Sacramento 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Prophet Johnson | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-29 | 35.4 | 18.2 | 7.4 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 52.8% | 39.2% | 4.2 | 74.2% | 28.5% | |
| 32 | Mark Lavrenov | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-21 | 26.0 | 9.9 | 7.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 46.9% | 28.6% | 1.1 | 82.4% | 20.9% | |
| 4 | Jahni Summers | G | Jr | 6'6" | 31-30 | 25.8 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 57.5% | 42.2% | 4.4 | 75.0% | 20.1% | |
| 1 | Mikey Williams | G | So | 6'3" | 21-21 | 35.0 | 17.1 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 2.9 | 40.1% | 26.5% | 4.0 | 83.0% | 31.2% | |
| 23 | Arman Madi | G | So | 6'6" | 30-5 | 21.9 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 50.9% | 28.6% | 2.6 | 73.2% | 18.1% | |
| 8 | Shaqir O'Neal | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-31 | 19.4 | 5.3 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 47.9% | 32.7% | 1.6 | 77.0% | 15.6% | |
| 5 | Jayden Teat | G | So | 6'2" | 29-1 | 14.6 | 6.0 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 43.6% | 34.7% | 3.5 | 82.8% | 27.1% | |
| 2 | Taj Glover | G | Fr | 6'3" | 29-6 | 13.6 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 41.9% | 23.1% | 1.3 | 75.0% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Romari Robinson | G | Fr | 6'4" | 24-1 | 11.0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 40.2% | 26.3% | 0.8 | 60.0% | 12.3% | |
| 0 | Brandon Gardner | F | So | 6'8" | 16-4 | 15.6 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 46.5% | 22.7% | 1.4 | 86.7% | 15.4% | |
| 9 | Jeremiah Cherry | F | Sr | 6'11" | 6-6 | 31.2 | 15.5 | 8.2 | 1.7 | 3.7 | 48.7% | 12.5% | 1.3 | 69.2% | 32.2% | |
| 34 | Jeremiah Nyarko | F | Sr | 6'9" | 5-0 | 5.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 15.0% | |
| 13 | Isaiah Bronson | G | Fr | 6'2" | 6-0 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 12.0% | |
| 7 | Zach Anderson | G | Jr | 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.
Utah Valley2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Trevan Leonhardt | G | Jr | 6'4" | 34-34 | 34.5 | 11.9 | 5.4 | 6.0 | 2.7 | 57.7% | 36.8% | 3.4 | 75.6% | 20.9% | |
| 2 | Jackson Holcombe | G | So | 6'7" | 34-34 | 30.1 | 16.0 | 7.0 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 53.8% | 16.2% | 1.1 | 68.2% | 31.0% | |
| 9 | Braden Housley | G | So | 6'4" | 28-19 | 26.1 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 47.4% | 29.4% | 1.8 | 57.8% | 15.5% | |
| 1 | Isaac Davis | F | So | 6'8" | 34-34 | 19.1 | 10.9 | 3.7 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 63.8% | 33.3% | 0.6 | 67.0% | 30.8% | |
| 7 | Noah Taitz | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-15 | 19.6 | 5.0 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 47.7% | 34.5% | 2.9 | 71.4% | 16.8% | |
| 8 | Hayden Welling | F | Sr | 6'9" | 34-1 | 16.5 | 7.5 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 45.8% | 20.3% | 2.0 | 68.5% | 30.3% | |
| 4 | Sherman Weatherspoon IV | G | Jr | 6'3" | 32-5 | 16.1 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 55.4% | 38.0% | 3.1 | 72.7% | 18.2% | |
| 23 | Isaac Hawkins | F | Jr | 6'10" | 34-0 | 14.0 | 7.2 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 67.2% | 27.3% | 0.3 | 76.1% | 24.2% | |
| 11 | Tyler Weaver | F | Fr | 6'7" | 20-0 | 8.2 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 49.0% | 34.5% | 1.4 | 75.0% | 23.9% | |
| 12 | Tyler Medaris | F | Fr | 6'7" | 15-0 | 5.4 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 52.9% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 57.1% | 18.2% | |
| 99 | Joul Karram | C | So | 6'11" | 9-0 | 4.7 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 61.5% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 20.5% | |
| 5 | AJ Riggs | G | So | 6'3" | 11-0 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 57.7% | 33.3% | 0.8 | — | 21.8% | |
| 24 | AJ Dixon | G | Jr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Jaxson Roberts | G | Fr | 6'2" | 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.
Sacramento St2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Sacramento 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Prophet Johnson | G | Sr | 6'3" | 30-29 | 35.4 | 18.2 | 7.4 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 52.8% | 39.2% | 4.2 | 74.2% | 28.5% | |
| 32 | Mark Lavrenov | F | Fr | 6'8" | 31-21 | 26.0 | 9.9 | 7.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 46.9% | 28.6% | 1.1 | 82.4% | 20.9% | |
| 4 | Jahni Summers | G | Jr | 6'6" | 31-30 | 25.8 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 57.5% | 42.2% | 4.4 | 75.0% | 20.1% | |
| 1 | Mikey Williams | G | So | 6'3" | 21-21 | 35.0 | 17.1 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 2.9 | 40.1% | 26.5% | 4.0 | 83.0% | 31.2% | |
| 23 | Arman Madi | G | So | 6'6" | 30-5 | 21.9 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 50.9% | 28.6% | 2.6 | 73.2% | 18.1% | |
| 8 | Shaqir O'Neal | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-31 | 19.4 | 5.3 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 47.9% | 32.7% | 1.6 | 77.0% | 15.6% | |
| 5 | Jayden Teat | G | So | 6'2" | 29-1 | 14.6 | 6.0 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 43.6% | 34.7% | 3.5 | 82.8% | 27.1% | |
| 2 | Taj Glover | G | Fr | 6'3" | 29-6 | 13.6 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 41.9% | 23.1% | 1.3 | 75.0% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Romari Robinson | G | Fr | 6'4" | 24-1 | 11.0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 40.2% | 26.3% | 0.8 | 60.0% | 12.3% | |
| 0 | Brandon Gardner | F | So | 6'8" | 16-4 | 15.6 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 46.5% | 22.7% | 1.4 | 86.7% | 15.4% | |
| 9 | Jeremiah Cherry | F | Sr | 6'11" | 6-6 | 31.2 | 15.5 | 8.2 | 1.7 | 3.7 | 48.7% | 12.5% | 1.3 | 69.2% | 32.2% | |
| 34 | Jeremiah Nyarko | F | Sr | 6'9" | 5-0 | 5.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 33.3% | — | 0.0 | — | 15.0% | |
| 13 | Isaiah Bronson | G | Fr | 6'2" | 6-0 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 12.0% | |
| 7 | Zach Anderson | G | Jr | 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 2025-26Sacramento St
Against the spread
Season
12-15-1
Home
8-3
Road
4-11-1
Last 10
3-6-1
avg cover −1.1
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 9 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
14-14
Home
7-4
Road
7-9
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −1.1
Under 4 straightOver in 3 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | Idaho | N | L 45–68 | +7.0 | L−16.0 | 158.5 | U113 | 65.0 | 98.2 | 69.3 |
| Mar 2 | Idaho St | H | W 83–65 | +1.0 | W+19.0 | 160.5 | U148 | 118.7 | 92.9 | 69.9 |
| Feb 28 | Montana St | A | L 61–82 | +7.0 | L−14.0 | 158.5 | U143 | 91.9 | 123.5 | 66.4 |
| Feb 26 | Montana | A | L 73–81 | +8.0 | P0.0 | 161.5 | U154 | 101.4 | 112.5 | 72.0 |
| Feb 21 | Idaho | H | L 80–86 | +4.0 | L−2.0 | 165.0 | O166 | 109.2 | 117.4 | 73.3 |
| Feb 19 | E Washington | H | L 94–102 | +3.0 | L−5.0 | 161.5 | O196 | 129.2 | 140.2 | 72.8 |
| Feb 14 | N Arizona | A | L 74–79 | +1.5 | L−3.5 | 155.0 | U153 | 104.2 | 111.2 | 71.0 |
| Feb 12 | N Colorado | A | L 79–95 | +10.5 | L−5.5 | 165.0 | O174 | 99.4 | 119.6 | 79.4 |
| Feb 7 | Portland St | H | L 73–74 | +4.0 | W+3.0 | 150.5 | U147 | 106.9 | 108.3 | 68.3 |
| Feb 2 | Weber St | H | W 104–90 | −1.5 | W+12.5 | 162.5 | O194 | 133.3 | 115.3 | 78.0 |
Utah Valley
Against the spread
Season
13-18
Home
6-7
Road
4-9
Last 10
2-8
avg cover −4.0
Missed the spread 7 straightCovered 2 of 10 as a favoriteCovered 0 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
17-14
Home
9-4
Road
8-5
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +4.2
Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 10 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18 | G Washington | H | L 78–79 | −1.5 | L−2.5 | 153.0 | O157 | 113.1 | 114.5 | 69.0 |
| Mar 14 | CA Baptist | N | L 61–63 | −2.5 | L−4.5 | 138.5 | U124 | 92.0 | 95.0 | 66.3 |
| Mar 13 | UT Arlington | N | W 67–65 | −8.0 | L−6.0 | 136.0 | U132 | 107.4 | 104.2 | 62.4 |
| Mar 7 | Utah Tech | A | W 104–101 2OT | −9.0 | L−6.0 | 148.0 | O205 | 122.1 | 118.6 | 85.2 |
| Mar 5 | Southern Utah | A | W 92–88 | −10.0 | L−6.0 | 150.0 | O180 | 129.1 | 123.5 | 71.3 |
| Feb 28 | Abilene Chrstn | H | W 74–67 | −15.0 | L−8.0 | 140.5 | O141 | 106.7 | 96.6 | 69.3 |
| Feb 26 | Tarleton St | H | W 79–72 | −17.0 | L−10.0 | 141.5 | O151 | 113.8 | 103.7 | 69.4 |
| Feb 21 | UT Arlington | A | W 66–54 | −5.5 | W+6.5 | 137.5 | U120 | 99.0 | 81.0 | 66.6 |
| Feb 19 | CA Baptist | H | W 65–46 | −8.5 | W+10.5 | 143.0 | U111 | 99.3 | 70.3 | 65.4 |
| Feb 12 | Utah Tech | A | L 77–81 | −10.0 | L−14.0 | 149.0 | O158 | 113.9 | 119.8 | 67.6 |
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 homeSacramento StUtah Valley
Efficiency
105.8
110.9
111.9
104.5
71.1
69.1
—
—
Shooting
47.0%
54.9%
46.6%
56.9%
31.9%
34.0%
78.1%
68.6%
41.2%
38.2%
Ball control & glass
14.1%
20.1%
17.1%
21.3%
25.2%
34.8%
33.4%
31.4%
9.2%
12.1%
8.5%
8.1%
Style
35.6%
32.9%
40.4%
53.2%
16.8%
15.2%
48.9%
62.1%
29.5%
31.0%
Roster
2.49
2.70
6'5.3"
6'6"
—
87.9%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputSacramento St
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Sacramento St'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.)
Utah Valley
Returning minutes: 87.9%Returning production: 88.1%
Lost
- Tyler Hendricks 24.5 mpg, 9.7 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma
Added
- AJ Dixon no D1 minutes last season
- Jaxson Roberts no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 88% 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 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.