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-conferenceTrojan Arena, Troy, AL

LMU

Efficiency #183

2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf

Troy

Efficiency #136

2025-26: 22-12 · 14-6 conf

Tue, Nov 10 · TBD

68.5

win 32%

Projected

74.0

win 68%

No line posted yet.

Model: TROY −5.5 · total 142.5 · 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: Troy 66.8, LMU 68.2 → 66.7 possessions

−3.5

Troy offense vs LMU defense

−0.3

LMU offense vs Troy defense

−1.9

Projected total

142.5

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Troy offense vs LMU defense

−0.3

LMU offense vs Troy defense

+1.9

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

+3.8

Troy by 5.5

5.5

LMU side ◂▸ Troy side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +5.4 against +5.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Troy.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, LMU is the faster team (68.1, #197 of 365) and Troy the slower (67.0, #245). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.7

per team, 40 min

Projected total

142.5

model

Projected team totals

68.5 / 74.0

LMU / Troy

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.2#189

LMU

66.8#303

Troy

How this game plays

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

AdvantageTroy

Where Troy scores: the offensive glass

Troy rebounds 34.6% of its own misses (#58); LMU lets opponents grab 32.0% of their own misses (#258). Expect about 34.1%, 3.7 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 (Troy'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 LMU at about 40.0% of its shots from three, Troy about 42.5%.

ClashTroy

Style clash: 3-point volume

Troy takes 45.9% of its shots from three; LMU runs teams off the line (36.2% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 42.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

LMU has the ball

OffenseTroy allowsvs D1 avg

51.8% #152

50.2% #111

-0.3 pt/100

17.5% #238

16.7% #173

-0.5 pt/100

26.7% #307

31.7% #243

-1.2 pt/100

31.1% #280

31.4% #92

-0.5 pt/100

69.5% #280

—

-0.2 pt/100

LMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.7 pts/100

Troy has the ball

OffenseLMU allowsvs D1 avg

51.5% #171

48.9% #60

-1.6 pt/100

17.3% #224

16.6% #181

-0.2 pt/100

34.6% #58

32.0% #258

+2.2 pt/100

36.2% #147

32.5% #114

-0.1 pt/100

74.2% #122

—

+0.2 pt/100

Troy net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

LMUoffense vsTroydefense

Share of shots by zone

LMU shoots

32.8

8.4

19.0

39.8

Troy allows

39.7

4.0

17.8

38.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.2%#156	55.3%#68	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#195	48.6%#346	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.6%#68	44.6%#344	38.0%
Three	34.8%#130	31.6%#47	33.7%

Troyoffense vsLMUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Troy shoots

43.6

4.2

6.1

46.1

LMU allows

37.1

7.4

18.9

36.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.3%#259	53.3%#27	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	35.5%#278	35.8%#88	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.3%#214	39.0%#200	38.0%
Three	33.0%#229	34.6%#225	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

LMU

−2.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#287 of 365

Off reb %

26.7%

#307

Def reb %

68.0%

#258

Turnover %

17.5%

#238

Forced TO %

16.6%

#181

FT rate

31.1%

#280

FT allowed

32.5%

#114

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.2

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.5

Forcing turnovers−0.1

Foul shots drawn−1.0

Foul shots allowed+0.7

Troy

+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#101 of 365

Off reb %

34.6%

#58

Def reb %

68.3%

#243

Turnover %

17.3%

#224

Forced TO %

16.7%

#173

FT rate

36.2%

#147

FT allowed

31.4%

#92

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.3

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security−0.3

Forcing turnovers0.0

Foul shots drawn+0.3

Foul shots allowed+1.0

Troy has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#101 of 365) to LMU’s −2.5 (#287).

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

LMU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted LMU'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
2	Rodney Brown Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	31-30	32.4	14.0	2.4	1.7	1.5	54.8%	38.2%	7.4	83.0%	24.9%
5	Myron Amey Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	32-17	30.5	14.8	3.9	1.7	1.3	52.7%	35.3%	7.3	77.1%	28.0%
16	Aaron McBride	F	Jr	6'6"	31-24	27.2	7.6	5.6	1.0	1.2	58.1%	35.0%	1.3	75.5%	16.1%
1	Jalen Shelley	F	So	6'8"	25-25	31.2	13.7	6.6	2.7	2.3	50.6%	28.7%	3.5	70.4%	27.5%
7	Jan Vide	G	Jr	6'6"	27-27	28.8	12.1	3.0	4.0	2.3	47.0%	32.3%	1.1	75.3%	29.0%
22	Rick Issanza	C	Sr	7'1"	30-17	16.3	2.6	3.4	0.3	0.6	66.7%	0.0%	0.0	34.4%	10.3%
4	AJ Thomas	G	Fr	6'4"	32-4	13.5	5.2	1.4	1.8	1.3	44.7%	29.2%	0.8	66.0%	26.6%
35	Rokas Jocius	F	Sr	6'10"	32-15	12.5	3.2	3.0	0.4	0.7	59.1%	43.8%	0.5	52.2%	15.9%
6	Josh Dalton	F	Fr	6'10"	29-0	12.9	3.6	2.6	0.5	0.4	55.5%	33.3%	1.8	72.2%	15.9%
0	Nakyel Shelton	G	Sr	6'3"	27-0	9.1	2.9	1.0	0.4	0.4	55.6%	38.5%	1.0	85.0%	17.4%
24	Jael Martin	F	Fr	6'8"	17-1	7.4	1.9	1.4	0.2	0.1	61.4%	20.0%	0.3	62.5%	12.0%
42	George Tupy	F	Jr	6'6"	4-0	2.8	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	4.8%
41	Kevin Carney	G	Sr	5'11"	2-0	4.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.5	0.0%	32.3%
40	Cooper Smith	G	Fr	6'2"	3-0	2.3	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	100.0%	7.0%
3	Marley Zeller	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Tanner Thomas	G	Sr	6'6"	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.

Troy2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Cooper Campbell	G	So	6'1"	34-33	33.8	12.5	3.4	4.2	1.9	53.5%	39.1%	5.1	83.1%	22.5%
11	Victor Valdes	F	Jr	6'7"	33-29	29.2	14.8	4.0	4.5	3.3	44.8%	24.4%	3.8	76.1%	35.3%
2	Cobi Campbell	G	Jr	6'2"	33-31	27.9	9.0	1.8	1.5	0.9	55.3%	40.0%	5.3	81.3%	18.7%
33	Theo Seng	F	Sr	6'9"	28-26	28.6	12.7	5.8	1.1	0.9	57.1%	32.5%	2.9	76.8%	23.3%
10	Jerrell Bellamy	C	Sr	6'9"	34-8	16.6	7.9	3.4	0.4	1.2	66.1%	28.6%	0.6	61.5%	25.8%
0	Kerrington Kiel	F	So	6'5"	34-5	16.1	3.9	3.6	1.1	0.8	42.4%	27.3%	1.6	72.5%	17.6%
95	Austin Cross	G	Fr	6'3"	34-1	16.1	3.6	1.5	0.4	0.4	45.1%	30.0%	2.6	56.5%	16.1%
5	Javen Colbert	G	Fr	6'1"	19-1	5.5	1.9	0.6	0.7	0.6	51.9%	41.7%	0.6	66.7%	23.0%
25	Evan Griffin	F	Fr	6'9"	13-0	6.2	2.2	1.8	0.5	0.2	50.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	21.8%
22	Corbin Green	F	Sr	6'4"	14-1	4.1	1.4	1.2	0.3	0.4	53.6%	25.0%	0.3	44.4%	21.6%
4	Emmanuel Clarton	G	Fr	6'5"	13-1	3.9	1.6	1.1	0.4	0.7	55.6%	0.0%	0.4	25.0%	29.8%
14	Kameryn Mitchell	G	Sr	6'4"	9-1	3.1	0.6	0.6	0.1	0.1	31.3%	20.0%	0.6	—	16.6%
30	Hikaru Awata	G	Fr	5'7"	4-0	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.0%	0.0%	0.5	33.3%	87.3%
7	Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow	G	Sr	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.

LMU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted LMU'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
2	Rodney Brown Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	31-30	32.4	14.0	2.4	1.7	1.5	54.8%	38.2%	7.4	83.0%	24.9%
5	Myron Amey Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	32-17	30.5	14.8	3.9	1.7	1.3	52.7%	35.3%	7.3	77.1%	28.0%
16	Aaron McBride	F	Jr	6'6"	31-24	27.2	7.6	5.6	1.0	1.2	58.1%	35.0%	1.3	75.5%	16.1%
1	Jalen Shelley	F	So	6'8"	25-25	31.2	13.7	6.6	2.7	2.3	50.6%	28.7%	3.5	70.4%	27.5%
7	Jan Vide	G	Jr	6'6"	27-27	28.8	12.1	3.0	4.0	2.3	47.0%	32.3%	1.1	75.3%	29.0%
22	Rick Issanza	C	Sr	7'1"	30-17	16.3	2.6	3.4	0.3	0.6	66.7%	0.0%	0.0	34.4%	10.3%
4	AJ Thomas	G	Fr	6'4"	32-4	13.5	5.2	1.4	1.8	1.3	44.7%	29.2%	0.8	66.0%	26.6%
35	Rokas Jocius	F	Sr	6'10"	32-15	12.5	3.2	3.0	0.4	0.7	59.1%	43.8%	0.5	52.2%	15.9%
6	Josh Dalton	F	Fr	6'10"	29-0	12.9	3.6	2.6	0.5	0.4	55.5%	33.3%	1.8	72.2%	15.9%
0	Nakyel Shelton	G	Sr	6'3"	27-0	9.1	2.9	1.0	0.4	0.4	55.6%	38.5%	1.0	85.0%	17.4%
24	Jael Martin	F	Fr	6'8"	17-1	7.4	1.9	1.4	0.2	0.1	61.4%	20.0%	0.3	62.5%	12.0%
42	George Tupy	F	Jr	6'6"	4-0	2.8	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	4.8%
41	Kevin Carney	G	Sr	5'11"	2-0	4.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.5	0.0%	32.3%
40	Cooper Smith	G	Fr	6'2"	3-0	2.3	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	100.0%	7.0%
3	Marley Zeller	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Tanner Thomas	G	Sr	6'6"	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

LMU

Against the spread

Season

14-16-1

Home

8-9

Road

5-5-1

Last 10

3-6-1

avg cover −1.4

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 2 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

15-16

Home

9-8

Road

6-5

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +0.3

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	San DiegoAdjEM #269	N	L 62–66	−5.5	L−9.5	145.5	U128	101.1	107.6	61.3
Feb 28	Seattle UAdjEM #125	H	L 66–71	−1.0	L−6.0	136.0	O137	104.8	112.8	63.0
Feb 25	Washington StAdjEM #174	H	W 67–66	−2.0	L−1.0	148.0	U133	98.6	97.1	68.0
Feb 21	San DiegoAdjEM #269	A	W 77–65	−2.5	W+9.5	149.5	U142	124.0	104.7	62.1
Feb 14	PepperdineAdjEM #307	A	L 89–90	−6.0	L−7.0	148.5	O179	125.0	126.4	71.2
Feb 11	PacificAdjEM #126	A	L 59–65	+6.0	P0.0	141.5	U124	93.7	103.2	63.0
Feb 7	San DiegoAdjEM #269	H	W 83–63	−6.0	W+14.0	151.5	U146	131.5	99.8	63.1
Feb 4	San FranciscoAdjEM #148	A	W 84–75	+8.0	W+17.0	146.0	O159	121.8	108.8	69.0
Jan 31	Santa ClaraAdjEM #33	H	L 73–104	+9.0	L−22.0	154.5	O177	94.1	134.1	77.5
Jan 28	Oregon StAdjEM #219	H	L 69–72	−6.0	L−9.0	142.0	U141	104.6	109.2	65.9

Troy

Against the spread

Season

15-14-3

Home

6-4-1

Road

7-7-2

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −4.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

14-17-1

Home

5-6

Road

8-7-1

Last 10

2-8

avg vs total −8.2

Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 8 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	L 47–76	+13.0	L−16.0	139.5	U123	77.4	125.1	60.8
Mar 9	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	N	W 77–61	−5.0	W+11.0	152.5	U138	122.0	96.7	63.1
Mar 8	Southern MissAdjEM #218	N	W 78–70	−5.5	W+2.5	143.0	O148	109.4	98.2	71.3
Feb 27	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	H	W 80–65	−18.0	L−3.0	153.5	U145	128.4	104.3	62.3
Feb 24	LouisianaAdjEM #318	H	W 78–59	−11.0	W+8.0	134.5	O137	136.6	103.3	57.1
Feb 21	South AlabamaAdjEM #188	A	L 54–65	−2.5	L−13.5	143.0	U119	92.2	111.0	58.5
Feb 18	UL MonroeAdjEM #351	A	W 77–76	−17.0	L−16.0	155.5	U153	109.0	107.6	70.6
Feb 14	Southern MissAdjEM #218	A	L 65–69	−5.0	L−9.0	144.5	U134	98.3	104.4	66.1
Feb 11	Texas StAdjEM #249	A	L 62–74	−5.0	L−17.0	140.5	U136	97.4	116.2	63.7
Feb 7	AkronAdjEM #48	H	W 79–69	+3.5	W+13.5	157.0	U148	123.2	107.6	64.1

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

LMUTroy

Efficiency

106.0

110.0

106.6

108.1

68.2

66.8

—

Shooting

51.8%

51.5%

51.6%

53.2%

34.8%

33.0%

69.5%

74.2%

31.1%

36.2%

Ball control & glass

17.5%

17.3%

16.6%

16.7%

26.7%

34.6%

32.0%

31.7%

9.0%

9.9%

7.3%

10.9%

Style

40.4%

45.9%

43.4%

43.0%

14.5%

13.0%

49.3%

57.5%

32.4%

26.0%

Roster

2.92

2.69

6'6.4"

6'4.8"

—

82.6%

Offseason

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

LMU

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted LMU'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.)

Troy

Returning minutes: 82.6%Returning production: 78.3%

Lost

Thomas Dowd 36.1 mpg, 14.4 ppg · transferred to Auburn

Added

Javier Gilgeous-Glasgow no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 83% 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

Date	Season	Result
Fri, Nov 14	2025-26	Troy 63 – 74 LMU

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.