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-conferenceNeutral sitePensacola Bay Center, Pensacola, FL
LMU
Efficiency #183
2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf
vs
South Alabama
Efficiency #188
2025-26: 21-12 · 11-8 conf
Thu, Nov 12 · TBD
70.3
win 50%
Projected
70.1
win 50%
No line posted yet.
Model: LMU −0.1 · total 140.4 · 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: South Alabama 66.5, LMU 68.2 → 66.4 possessions
−4.1
South Alabama offense vs LMU defense
−1.9
LMU offense vs South Alabama defense
−1.8
Projected total
140.4
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
South Alabama offense vs LMU defense
−1.9
LMU offense vs South Alabama defense
+1.8
LMU by 0.1
0.1
LMU side ◂▸ South Alabama 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 South Alabama.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, LMU is the faster team (68.1, #197 of 365) and South Alabama the slower (65.7, #307). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
140.4
model
Projected team totals
70.3 / 70.1
LMU / South Alabama
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.2#189
LMU
66.5#320
South Alabama
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageSouth Alabama
Where South Alabama scores: ball control
South Alabama turns it over on 13.0% of possessions (#6); LMU forces turnovers on 16.6% of opponent possessions (#181). Expect about 14.5%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
GlassSouth Alabama
South Alabama gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.4% is worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions against South Alabama's offense.
AdvantageLMU
Where LMU struggles: ball control
LMU turns it over on 17.5% of possessions (#238); South Alabama forces turnovers on 18.1% of opponent possessions (#92). Expect about 18.0%, 1.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseSouth Alabama
South Alabama's ball-hawking
South Alabama ranks #28 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 10.8% of LMU's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
LMU has the ball
OffenseSouth Alabama allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #152
50.1% #105
-0.4 pt/100
17.5% #238
18.1% #92
-1.5 pt/100
26.7% #307
31.4% #222
-1.3 pt/100
31.1% #280
25.4% #8
-1.0 pt/100
69.5% #280
—
-0.2 pt/100
LMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.5 pts/100
South Alabama has the ball
OffenseLMU allowsvs D1 avg
52.6% #120
48.9% #60
-0.6 pt/100
13.0% #6
16.6% #181
+2.8 pt/100
25.0% #341
32.0% #258
-1.8 pt/100
38.5% #89
32.5% #114
+0.0 pt/100
65.5% #357
—
-0.6 pt/100
South Alabama net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.2 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLMUoffense vsSouth Alabamadefense
Share of shots by zone
LMU shoots
32.8
8.4
19.0
39.8
South Alabama allows
24.5
3.9
7.7
63.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.2%#156 | 58.9%#184 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.0%#195 | 34.4%#50 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.6%#68 | 34.4%#57 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.8%#130 | 33.1%#133 | 33.7% |
South Alabamaoffense vsLMUdefense
Share of shots by zone
South Alabama shoots
45.7
5.6
12.4
36.2
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 | 59.1%#159 | 53.3%#27 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.9%#66 | 35.8%#88 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.2%#281 | 39.0%#200 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.5%#146 | 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 numbersLMU
−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
South Alabama
+5.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#25 of 365
Off reb %
25.0%
#341
Def reb %
68.6%
#222
Turnover %
13.0%
#6
Forced TO %
18.1%
#92
FT rate
38.5%
#89
FT allowed
25.4%
#8
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.7
Defensive rebounding−0.2
Ball security+2.6
Forcing turnovers+1.0
Foul shots drawn+0.9
Foul shots allowed+2.5
South Alabama has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.0 (#25 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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
South Alabama2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Chaze Harris | G | Sr | 6'6" | 33-33 | 31.8 | 19.2 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 54.0% | 15.4% | 0.8 | 59.2% | 39.1% | |
| 1 | Jayden Cooper | G | Jr | 6'2" | 33-33 | 30.0 | 11.3 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 49.5% | 34.0% | 4.9 | 66.2% | 23.9% | |
| 34 | Randy Brady | F | Sr | 6'5" | 33-33 | 26.9 | 5.5 | 5.7 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 53.8% | 35.0% | 1.8 | 63.9% | 13.2% | |
| 4 | Hantz Louis-Jeune | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-22 | 23.5 | 5.1 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 44.9% | 28.6% | 3.4 | 74.3% | 14.3% | |
| 3 | Stephen Williams | F | So | 6'9" | 33-1 | 15.8 | 6.4 | 4.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 65.7% | — | 0.0 | 65.4% | 19.6% | |
| 14 | John Broom | G | So | 6'5" | 30-2 | 15.7 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 55.1% | 35.1% | 1.2 | 80.0% | 8.7% | |
| 6 | JJ Wheat | G | Sr | 6'0" | 33-0 | 13.4 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 51.1% | 46.2% | 0.4 | 46.2% | 19.3% | |
| 9 | Peyton Law | F | Sr | 6'7" | 10-10 | 25.5 | 12.8 | 5.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 64.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 75.0% | 24.8% | |
| 7 | Brian Hawthorne | G | Jr | 6'2" | 19-0 | 10.8 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 35.3% | 33.3% | 0.6 | 68.0% | 22.9% | |
| 10 | Maxwell Land | G | Sr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 0.5 | — | 25.2% | |
| 8 | Desmond Williams | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Samuel Shoptaw | 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.
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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 2025-26LMU
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 Diego | N | L 62–66 | −5.5 | L−9.5 | 145.5 | U128 | 101.1 | 107.6 | 61.3 |
| Feb 28 | Seattle U | H | L 66–71 | −1.0 | L−6.0 | 136.0 | O137 | 104.8 | 112.8 | 63.0 |
| Feb 25 | Washington St | H | W 67–66 | −2.0 | L−1.0 | 148.0 | U133 | 98.6 | 97.1 | 68.0 |
| Feb 21 | San Diego | A | W 77–65 | −2.5 | W+9.5 | 149.5 | U142 | 124.0 | 104.7 | 62.1 |
| Feb 14 | Pepperdine | A | L 89–90 | −6.0 | L−7.0 | 148.5 | O179 | 125.0 | 126.4 | 71.2 |
| Feb 11 | Pacific | A | L 59–65 | +6.0 | P0.0 | 141.5 | U124 | 93.7 | 103.2 | 63.0 |
| Feb 7 | San Diego | H | W 83–63 | −6.0 | W+14.0 | 151.5 | U146 | 131.5 | 99.8 | 63.1 |
| Feb 4 | San Francisco | A | W 84–75 | +8.0 | W+17.0 | 146.0 | O159 | 121.8 | 108.8 | 69.0 |
| Jan 31 | Santa Clara | H | L 73–104 | +9.0 | L−22.0 | 154.5 | O177 | 94.1 | 134.1 | 77.5 |
| Jan 28 | Oregon St | H | L 69–72 | −6.0 | L−9.0 | 142.0 | U141 | 104.6 | 109.2 | 65.9 |
South Alabama
Against the spread
Season
17-13-1
Home
6-6
Road
10-4-1
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +2.9
Covered the last gameCovered 2 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 5 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-14
Home
5-7
Road
9-6
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +7.8
Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17 | Auburn | A | L 67–78 | +18.0 | W+7.0 | 153.0 | U145 | 104.4 | 121.6 | 64.2 |
| Mar 6 | GA Southern | N | L 85–94 | −4.5 | L−13.5 | 148.5 | O179 | 126.5 | 139.9 | 67.2 |
| Feb 27 | Southern Miss | H | L 55–68 | −4.0 | L−17.0 | 142.0 | U123 | 85.0 | 105.1 | 64.7 |
| Feb 25 | UL Monroe | H | W 89–54 | −14.5 | W+20.5 | 153.5 | U143 | 132.3 | 80.3 | 67.3 |
| Feb 21 | Troy | H | W 65–54 | +2.5 | W+13.5 | 143.0 | U119 | 111.0 | 92.2 | 58.5 |
| Feb 19 | Texas St | H | L 82–90 OT | −4.0 | L−12.0 | 137.5 | O172 | 112.6 | 123.5 | 72.8 |
| Feb 16 | Marshall | A | L 80–84 | +5.5 | W+1.5 | 151.0 | O164 | 123.6 | 129.8 | 64.7 |
| Feb 14 | Arkansas St | A | W 92–88 OT | +7.5 | W+11.5 | 150.0 | O180 | 120.6 | 115.3 | 76.3 |
| Feb 12 | Southern Miss | A | W 84–78 | +1.0 | W+7.0 | 136.0 | O162 | 112.1 | 104.1 | 74.9 |
| Feb 7 | Buffalo | H | W 81–69 | −2.0 | W+10.0 | 145.0 | O150 | 116.3 | 99.1 | 69.6 |
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 homeLMUSouth Alabama
Efficiency
106.0
107.5
106.6
108.3
68.2
66.5
—
—
Shooting
51.8%
52.6%
51.6%
53.2%
34.8%
34.5%
69.5%
65.5%
31.1%
38.5%
Ball control & glass
17.5%
13.0%
16.6%
18.1%
26.7%
25.0%
32.0%
31.4%
9.0%
8.3%
7.3%
11.3%
Style
40.4%
36.5%
43.4%
47.3%
14.5%
13.8%
49.3%
45.9%
32.4%
25.6%
Roster
2.92
3.43
6'6.4"
6'4.6"
—
83.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLMU
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.)
South Alabama
Returning minutes: 83.4%Returning production: 83.6%
Lost
- Adam Olsen 33.8 mpg, 15.7 ppg · transferred to Auburn
Added
- Samuel Shoptaw no D1 minutes last season
- Desmond Williams 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 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.