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 gameIcardo Center, Bakersfield, CA
CSU Northridge
Efficiency #196
2025-26: 20-14 · 13-9 conf
@
Bakersfield
Efficiency #339
2025-26: 8-24 · 2-18 conf
Sat, Dec 5 · 5:00 PM ET
82.0
win 61%
Projected
78.6
win 39%
No line posted yet.
Model: CSUN −3.4 · total 160.6 · 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: Bakersfield 70.2, CSU Northridge 72.4 → 74.2 possessions
+12.8
Bakersfield offense vs CSU Northridge defense
−4.0
CSU Northridge offense vs Bakersfield defense
+3.6
Projected total
160.6
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Bakersfield offense vs CSU Northridge defense
−4.0
CSU Northridge offense vs Bakersfield defense
−3.6
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.3
CSU Northridge by 3.4
3.4
CSU Northridge side ◂▸ Bakersfield side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −3.3 against −3.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Bakersfield.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 74.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, CSU Northridge is the faster team (75.3, #3 of 365) and Bakersfield the slower (72.6, #14). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
74.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
160.6
model
Projected team totals
82.0 / 78.6
CSU Northridge / Bakersfield
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
72.4#3
CSU Northridge
70.2#39
Bakersfield

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
Pace
Track meet
Bakersfield averages 72.6 possessions per 40, CSU Northridge 75.3. 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 76 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageBakersfield
Where Bakersfield struggles: shooting
Bakersfield shoots an effective 45.7% (#355); CSU Northridge allows 51.6% (#191). Expect about 48.2%, 3.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.3 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseBakersfield
Bakersfield's shot-blocking
Bakersfield ranks #18 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.5% of CSU Northridge's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageCSU Northridge
Where CSU Northridge scores: the offensive glass
CSU Northridge rebounds 31.9% of its own misses (#130); Bakersfield lets opponents grab 35.6% of their own misses (#349). Expect about 34.0%, 3.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Bakersfield) 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 CSU Northridge at about 34.4% of its shots from three, Bakersfield about 36.9%.
ClashBakersfield
Style clash: 3-point volume
Bakersfield rarely shoots threes (28.9% of its shots); CSU Northridge lets opponents take 48.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 36.9% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
CSU Northridge has the ball
OffenseBakersfield allowsvs D1 avg
51.3% #183
54.0% #301
+1.9 pt/100
17.5% #239
17.9% #100
-1.4 pt/100
31.9% #130
35.6% #349
+2.2 pt/100
34.2% #200
42.6% #334
+0.5 pt/100
66.8% #345
—
-0.5 pt/100
CSU Northridge net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.7 pts/100
Bakersfield has the ball
OffenseCSU Northridge allowsvs D1 avg
45.7% #355
51.6% #191
-4.3 pt/100
18.9% #316
16.4% #191
-1.2 pt/100
30.4% #181
26.6% #26
-1.1 pt/100
42.2% #27
34.3% #162
+0.4 pt/100
73.8% #142
—
+0.1 pt/100
Bakersfield net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.1 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
CSU Northridgeoffense vsBakersfielddefense
Share of shots by zone
CSU Northridge shoots
Bakersfield allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim58.0%#19460.1%#22858.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)32.7%#31942.6%#24039.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)41.9%#6240.7%#26938.0%
Three32.4%#26036.0%#30533.7%
Bakersfieldoffense vsCSU Northridgedefense
Share of shots by zone
Bakersfield shoots
CSU Northridge allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim55.4%#28958.4%#16258.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)31.3%#33937.4%#12239.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)37.0%#22240.2%#24838.0%
Three29.0%#35334.4%#21033.7%
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
CSU Northridge
+1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#133 of 365
Off reb %
31.9%
#130
Def reb %
73.4%
#26
Turnover %
17.5%
#239
Forced TO %
16.4%
#191
FT rate
34.2%
#200
FT allowed
34.3%
#162
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.5
Defensive rebounding+1.3
Ball security−0.5
Forcing turnovers−0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Bakersfield
−2.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#277 of 365
Off reb %
30.4%
#181
Def reb %
64.4%
#349
Turnover %
18.9%
#316
Forced TO %
17.9%
#100
FT rate
42.2%
#27
FT allowed
42.6%
#334
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding0.0
Defensive rebounding−1.6
Ball security−1.4
Forcing turnovers+0.8
Foul shots drawn+1.8
Foul shots allowed−1.9

CSU Northridge has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.1 (#133 of 365) to Bakersfield’s −2.3 (#277).

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

CSU Northridge2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
4Josiah DavisGSr6'3"34-3433.415.94.67.44.746.6%16.7%1.170.0%31.7%
2Larry Hughes IIGSr6'4"33-3331.617.72.90.91.453.3%39.5%7.886.0%28.0%
11Mahmoud FofanaFSr6'6"34-3429.511.07.91.51.163.2%20.0%0.160.5%17.4%
23Jordan BrinsonGSr6'2"33-118.33.52.81.60.550.0%34.9%1.985.0%10.9%
1Davius LouryFSo6'7"33-2216.94.92.20.80.842.4%29.4%3.164.7%19.6%
5James Evans Jr.GFr6'6"34-1015.26.01.91.20.844.6%33.0%2.658.8%25.1%
21Grady LewisFSr6'9"31-29.84.02.50.40.465.5%—0.038.9%19.6%
15Jai ChisolmGJr6'3"33-18.82.91.40.20.442.9%20.3%1.960.0%22.3%
13Aleks SzymczykCJr6'10"26-08.22.92.80.20.453.7%18.2%0.458.1%19.4%
24Greg GazarianGFr6'0"9-03.20.40.10.10.70.0%0.0%0.150.0%31.3%
20Robert ThibiantGSr6'2"8-02.10.90.10.00.331.8%14.3%0.9—39.3%
6Joseph BarrioGJr6'1"5-01.80.00.20.00.00.0%—0.0—5.7%
3Jalen BarbeeGSr6'6"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
8Max RehlGFr6'6"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
14Omer DahanGFr6'0"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
—Quinton WebbGJr6'6"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
CSU NorthridgeBakersfield
Efficiency
107.8
102.7
108.9
114.0
72.4
70.2
—
—
Shooting
51.3%
45.7%
52.6%
46.6%
32.4%
29.0%
66.8%
73.8%
34.2%
42.2%
Ball control & glass
17.5%
18.9%
16.4%
17.9%
31.9%
30.4%
26.6%
35.6%
10.7%
10.4%
10.1%
9.1%
Style
33.6%
28.9%
50.4%
41.8%
14.8%
16.0%
56.6%
44.6%
26.5%
32.3%
Roster
3.43
3.37
6'4.8"
6'5.1"
83.8%
—

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
CSU Northridge
Returning minutes: 83.8%Returning production: 81.4%
Lost
  • Joshua O'Garro 32.5 mpg, 14.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Max Rehl no D1 minutes last season
  • Jalen Barbee no D1 minutes last season
  • Omer Dahan no D1 minutes last season
  • Quinton Webb no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 84% of last season's minutes; lost 1 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).

Bakersfield
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Bakersfield'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 last
DateSeasonResult
Thu, Mar 52025-26CSU Northridge 86 – 84 Bakersfield
Thu, Dec 42025-26Bakersfield 66 – 87 CSU Northridge

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.