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-conferenceUniversity Credit Union Pavilion, Moraga, CA

Illinois St

Efficiency #80

2025-26: 23-13 · 12-9 conf

Saint Mary's

Efficiency #23

2025-26: 27-6 · 16-3 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

65.7

win 22%

Projected

74.8

win 78%

No line posted yet.

Model: SMC −9.1 · total 140.5 · 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: Saint Mary's 66.7, Illinois St 67.8 → 66.2 possessions

−4.6

Saint Mary's offense vs Illinois St defense

+1.0

Illinois St offense vs Saint Mary's defense

−4.2

Projected total

140.5

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Saint Mary's offense vs Illinois St defense

+1.0

Illinois St offense vs Saint Mary's defense

+4.2

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

+3.8

Saint Mary's by 9.1

9.1

Illinois St side ◂▸ Saint Mary's side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 140.4 against a projected 140.5, and the margin steps add to +9.0 against +9.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Saint Mary's.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Illinois St is the faster team (67.5, #225 of 365) and Saint Mary's the slower (66.2, #288). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.2

per team, 40 min

Projected total

140.5

model

Projected team totals

65.7 / 74.8

Illinois St / Saint Mary's

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.8#227

Illinois St

66.7#305

Saint Mary's

How this game plays

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

AdvantageIllinois St

Where Illinois St struggles: the offensive glass

Illinois St rebounds 28.0% of its own misses (#268); Saint Mary's lets opponents grab 23.9% of their own misses (#4). Expect about 25.6%, 4.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Saint Mary's, Saint Mary's'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 Illinois St at about 40.9% of its shots from three, Saint Mary's about 34.1%.

AdvantageSaint Mary's

Where Saint Mary's scores: the offensive glass

Saint Mary's rebounds 37.5% of its own misses (#11); Illinois St lets opponents grab 25.4% of their own misses (#13). Expect about 32.9%, 2.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions.

Illinois St has the ball

OffenseSaint Mary's allowsvs D1 avg

53.6% #77

46.8% #19

-1.3 pt/100

16.9% #194

15.2% #270

+1.1 pt/100

28.0% #268

23.9% #4

-2.9 pt/100

31.6% #266

25.7% #12

-0.9 pt/100

71.2% #234

—

-0.1 pt/100

Illinois St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.1 pts/100

Saint Mary's has the ball

OffenseIllinois St allowsvs D1 avg

52.8% #109

49.8% #90

+0.2 pt/100

16.8% #189

16.0% #223

+0.6 pt/100

37.5% #11

25.4% #13

+1.5 pt/100

35.5% #162

32.3% #113

-0.2 pt/100

80.3% #2

—

+0.7 pt/100

Saint Mary's net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Illinois Stoffense vsSaint Mary'sdefense

Share of shots by zone

Illinois St shoots

33.7

7.4

16.2

42.8

Saint Mary's allows

36.6

7.7

18.7

37.0

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	65.0%#23	54.4%#47	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	33.8%#306	46.4%#324	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.5%#93	33.7%#43	38.0%
Three	34.9%#126	31.3%#40	33.7%

Saint Mary'soffense vsIllinois Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Saint Mary's shoots

37.5

7.8

17.6

37.0

Illinois St allows

37.2

8.2

19.8

34.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.4%#215	60.7%#258	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.2%#117	41.1%#212	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.5%#253	33.7%#46	38.0%
Three	38.7%#7	33.0%#122	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

Illinois St

+0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#171 of 365

Off reb %

28.0%

#268

Def reb %

74.6%

#13

Turnover %

16.9%

#194

Forced TO %

16.0%

#223

FT rate

31.6%

#266

FT allowed

32.3%

#113

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.8

Defensive rebounding+1.7

Ball security−0.1

Forcing turnovers−0.5

Foul shots drawn−0.9

Foul shots allowed+0.8

Saint Mary's

+6.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#13 of 365

Off reb %

37.5%

#11

Def reb %

76.1%

Turnover %

16.8%

#189

Forced TO %

15.2%

#270

FT rate

35.5%

#162

FT allowed

25.7%

#12

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+2.3

Defensive rebounding+2.2

Ball security0.0

Forcing turnovers−1.0

Foul shots drawn+0.1

Foul shots allowed+2.4

Saint Mary's has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.0 (#13 of 365) to Illinois St’s +0.2 (#171).

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

Illinois St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Johnny Kinziger	G	Jr	5'11"	36-34	32.3	11.5	2.5	3.3	2.1	48.6%	33.0%	5.2	77.4%	24.4%
14	Boden Skunberg	G	Sr	6'5"	35-34	27.0	9.6	4.4	1.4	1.2	54.4%	38.8%	4.3	72.2%	21.4%
4	Landon Wolf	G	Sr	6'5"	36-15	23.2	7.6	5.0	0.8	0.8	60.5%	38.5%	3.0	81.8%	17.5%
10	Ty'Reek Coleman	G	Fr	6'2"	35-19	22.7	10.0	2.7	1.8	1.6	58.2%	41.6%	2.5	70.2%	25.6%
35	Chase Walker	F	Jr	6'9"	32-32	22.6	13.7	5.5	2.1	2.3	56.1%	29.0%	1.0	70.1%	35.9%
3	Mason Klabo	G	Fr	6'2"	34-17	16.1	5.5	2.3	1.2	0.5	57.0%	38.8%	2.5	78.1%	19.0%
1	Landon Moore	G	Sr	6'3"	36-0	13.9	3.5	1.3	1.0	0.5	50.9%	32.8%	1.7	50.0%	16.7%
12	Brandon Lieb	F	Sr	7'1"	36-4	12.6	3.1	4.0	0.7	0.8	51.1%	—	0.0	52.6%	17.7%
0	Jack Daugherty	F	So	6'8"	29-2	10.6	3.0	1.5	0.2	0.2	34.8%	24.2%	3.3	76.5%	22.8%
23	Cameron Barnes	F	So	6'10"	13-0	6.9	1.3	1.8	0.5	0.5	70.8%	50.0%	0.2	—	12.4%
13	Ty Blake	G	Jr	6'4"	8-0	2.4	0.9	0.3	0.0	0.1	43.8%	33.3%	0.4	—	27.7%
2	Isaac Ericksen	F	Fr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
15	Nick Allen	F	Fr	6'10"	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.

Saint Mary's2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
7	Joshua Dent	G	So	6'3"	33-33	36.2	13.2	2.5	5.6	2.3	56.7%	40.4%	4.6	91.8%	21.7%
23	Paulius Murauskas	F	Jr	6'8"	33-32	32.2	18.4	7.6	2.1	1.8	52.5%	33.3%	3.3	84.0%	32.7%
11	Dillan Shaw	G	Fr	6'7"	33-22	27.5	7.5	5.4	1.5	1.0	55.7%	41.6%	3.8	69.7%	17.0%
0	Mikey Lewis	G	So	6'3"	33-33	26.8	13.9	2.7	2.1	1.4	48.6%	36.8%	5.6	88.2%	33.0%
45	Andrew McKeever	C	So	7'2"	33-10	23.1	8.2	9.2	1.8	1.7	50.0%	—	0.0	62.8%	24.8%
33	Liam Campbell	G	Fr	6'4"	33-0	14.7	4.9	1.8	0.5	0.5	63.7%	52.0%	1.5	80.0%	16.9%
8	Rory Hawke	G	Fr	6'5"	31-4	11.0	2.5	1.2	0.4	0.5	54.7%	22.2%	0.6	78.3%	14.3%
6	Mantas Juzenas	G	Fr	6'6"	26-1	5.8	2.1	1.4	0.3	0.3	66.2%	48.4%	1.2	55.6%	19.5%
2	Tony Duckett	G	So	6'4"	20-0	7.3	3.5	0.5	0.5	0.4	45.1%	30.8%	0.7	92.0%	29.4%
24	Kevin Gad	F	Jr	6'6"	7-7	10.1	1.4	1.3	0.7	0.1	45.5%	33.3%	0.9	—	10.0%
22	Cade Bennett	G	Jr	6'0"	8-0	4.5	1.0	1.0	0.5	0.1	60.0%	40.0%	0.6	50.0%	12.9%
14	Oliver Faubert	F	Fr	6'8"	11-0	1.9	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.1	33.3%	—	0.0	—	11.5%
32	Jazz Gardner	C	Jr	7'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
42	Trent MacLean	F	Fr	6'8"	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.

Illinois St2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Johnny Kinziger	G	Jr	5'11"	36-34	32.3	11.5	2.5	3.3	2.1	48.6%	33.0%	5.2	77.4%	24.4%
14	Boden Skunberg	G	Sr	6'5"	35-34	27.0	9.6	4.4	1.4	1.2	54.4%	38.8%	4.3	72.2%	21.4%
4	Landon Wolf	G	Sr	6'5"	36-15	23.2	7.6	5.0	0.8	0.8	60.5%	38.5%	3.0	81.8%	17.5%
10	Ty'Reek Coleman	G	Fr	6'2"	35-19	22.7	10.0	2.7	1.8	1.6	58.2%	41.6%	2.5	70.2%	25.6%
35	Chase Walker	F	Jr	6'9"	32-32	22.6	13.7	5.5	2.1	2.3	56.1%	29.0%	1.0	70.1%	35.9%
3	Mason Klabo	G	Fr	6'2"	34-17	16.1	5.5	2.3	1.2	0.5	57.0%	38.8%	2.5	78.1%	19.0%
1	Landon Moore	G	Sr	6'3"	36-0	13.9	3.5	1.3	1.0	0.5	50.9%	32.8%	1.7	50.0%	16.7%
12	Brandon Lieb	F	Sr	7'1"	36-4	12.6	3.1	4.0	0.7	0.8	51.1%	—	0.0	52.6%	17.7%
0	Jack Daugherty	F	So	6'8"	29-2	10.6	3.0	1.5	0.2	0.2	34.8%	24.2%	3.3	76.5%	22.8%
23	Cameron Barnes	F	So	6'10"	13-0	6.9	1.3	1.8	0.5	0.5	70.8%	50.0%	0.2	—	12.4%
13	Ty Blake	G	Jr	6'4"	8-0	2.4	0.9	0.3	0.0	0.1	43.8%	33.3%	0.4	—	27.7%
2	Isaac Ericksen	F	Fr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
15	Nick Allen	F	Fr	6'10"	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

Illinois St

Against the spread

Season

20-15

Home

11-4

Road

6-8

Last 10

6-4

avg cover −0.1

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-20

Home

6-9

Road

6-8

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −5.8

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Apr 2	AuburnAdjEM #41	N	L 66–88	+8.0	L−14.0	148.0	O154	102.7	136.9	64.3
Mar 25	DaytonAdjEM #62	A	W 61–55	+7.0	W+13.0	140.0	U116	97.2	87.6	62.8
Mar 22	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	A	W 78–75	+8.0	W+11.0	152.5	O153	112.3	108.0	69.5
Mar 18	Kent StateAdjEM #157	H	W 79–58	−4.5	W+16.5	154.5	U137	114.3	83.9	69.1
Mar 6	Northern IowaAdjEM #64	N	L 52–74	+2.0	L−20.0	129.5	U126	83.5	118.9	62.3
Mar 1	BelmontAdjEM #54	H	W 81–74	+1.0	W+8.0	151.0	O155	131.1	119.8	61.8
Feb 25	Northern IowaAdjEM #64	A	W 71–69	+5.0	W+7.0	132.0	O140	114.3	111.1	62.1
Feb 21	BradleyAdjEM #117	A	L 60–74	+4.5	L−9.5	144.5	U134	93.5	115.3	64.2
Feb 18	Murray StAdjEM #108	H	W 78–61	−2.5	W+14.5	158.5	U139	120.1	93.9	64.9
Feb 15	UICAdjEM #99	A	L 56–83	−1.0	L−28.0	141.0	U139	76.9	114.0	72.8

Saint Mary's

Against the spread

Season

19-13

Home

12-4

Road

6-4

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +3.0

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 6 of 9 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

12-18-2

Home

7-7-2

Road

4-6

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −5.3

Under 4 straightOver in 3 of 9 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#10Texas A&MAdjEM #43	N	L 50–63	−2.5	L−15.5	148.5	U113	84.5	106.4	59.2
Mar 9	Santa ClaraAdjEM #33	N	L 71–76	−4.5	L−9.5	150.0	U147	114.8	122.9	61.8
Feb 28	#9GonzagaAdjEM #8	H	W 70–59	+2.5	W+13.5	143.0	U129	109.4	92.2	64.0
Feb 25	Santa ClaraAdjEM #33	H	W 86–67	−5.5	W+13.5	154.0	U153	131.5	102.4	65.4
Feb 21	Washington StAdjEM #174	A	W 83–67	−8.5	W+7.5	148.5	O150	131.9	106.5	62.9
Feb 18	Seattle UAdjEM #125	A	W 72–70	−9.5	L−7.5	133.0	O142	98.4	95.7	73.1
Feb 14	PacificAdjEM #126	A	W 72–61	−7.0	W+4.0	135.5	U133	113.5	96.2	63.4
Feb 11	PepperdineAdjEM #307	H	W 88–60	−24.5	W+3.5	144.0	O148	122.9	83.8	71.6
Feb 7	San FranciscoAdjEM #148	H	W 79–54	−11.5	W+13.5	143.0	U133	123.1	84.1	64.2
Feb 4	San DiegoAdjEM #269	H	W 87–60	−19.5	W+7.5	149.0	U147	136.3	94.0	63.8

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

Illinois StSaint Mary's

Efficiency

109.8

114.9

103.6

100.8

67.8

66.7

—

Shooting

53.6%

52.8%

54.6%

49.8%

34.9%

38.7%

71.2%

80.3%

31.6%

35.5%

Ball control & glass

16.9%

16.8%

16.0%

15.2%

28.0%

37.5%

25.4%

23.9%

9.1%

8.4%

9.0%

8.8%

Style

43.3%

36.4%

41.5%

40.9%

9.0%

10.5%

51.3%

57.8%

35.8%

29.3%

Roster

2.94

1.88

6'4.4"

6'6.2"

88.3%

91.9%

Offseason

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

Illinois St

Returning minutes: 88.3%Returning production: 85.9%

Lost

Ty Pence 23.5 mpg, 9.4 ppg · transferred to Akron

Added

Isaac Ericksen no D1 minutes last season
Nick Allen 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).

Saint Mary's

Returning minutes: 91.9%Returning production: 91.8%

Lost

Harry Wessels 16.2 mpg, 4.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Trent MacLean no D1 minutes last season
Jazz Gardner no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 92% 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).

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.