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-conferenceGersten Pavilion, Los Angeles, CA
E Washington
Efficiency #189
2025-26: 14-19 · 12-8 conf
@
LMU
Efficiency #183
2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf
Wed, Nov 25 · 9:00 PM ET
72.6
win 36%
Projected
76.7
win 64%
No line posted yet.
Model: LMU −4.1 · total 149.3 · 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: LMU 68.2, E Washington 68.6 → 68.5 possessions
+0.4
LMU offense vs E Washington defense
+0.4
E Washington offense vs LMU defense
+0.3
Projected total
149.3
Axis starts at 148 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
LMU offense vs E Washington defense
+0.4
E Washington offense vs LMU defense
−0.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
LMU by 4.1
4.1
E Washington side ◂▸ LMU side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +4.0 against +4.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help LMU.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, E Washington is the faster team (68.9, #154 of 365) and LMU the slower (68.1, #197). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.3
model
Projected team totals
72.6 / 76.7
E Washington / LMU
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.6#158
E Washington
68.2#189
LMU
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageLMU
Where LMU scores: shooting
LMU shoots an effective 51.8% (#152); E Washington allows 54.9% (#326). Expect about 53.5%, 2.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions.
ClashE Washington
Style match: 3-point volume
E Washington rarely shoots threes (34.7% of its shots); LMU runs teams off the line (36.2% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 33.6% — both habits push the same way.
E Washington has the ball
OffenseLMU allowsvs D1 avg
53.7% #75
48.9% #60
+0.3 pt/100
17.7% #251
16.6% #181
-0.5 pt/100
31.3% #153
32.0% #258
+0.8 pt/100
36.1% #148
32.5% #114
-0.1 pt/100
74.3% #118
—
+0.2 pt/100
E Washington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.7 pts/100
LMU has the ball
OffenseE Washington allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #152
54.9% #326
+3.1 pt/100
17.5% #238
16.2% #211
-0.1 pt/100
26.7% #307
30.8% #194
-1.5 pt/100
31.1% #280
37.3% #246
-0.1 pt/100
69.5% #280
—
-0.2 pt/100
LMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersE Washingtonoffense vsLMUdefense
Share of shots by zone
E Washington shoots
41.4
6.3
18.8
33.5
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 | 59.7%#132 | 53.3%#27 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 42.9%#105 | 35.8%#88 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.4%#21 | 39.0%#200 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.9%#62 | 34.6%#225 | 33.7% |
LMUoffense vsE Washingtondefense
Share of shots by zone
LMU shoots
32.8
8.4
19.0
39.8
E Washington allows
41.1
5.9
13.4
39.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.2%#156 | 60.5%#252 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 39.0%#195 | 44.9%#294 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.6%#68 | 46.8%#358 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.8%#130 | 35.2%#261 | 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 numbersE Washington
−1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#231 of 365
Off reb %
31.3%
#153
Def reb %
69.2%
#194
Turnover %
17.7%
#251
Forced TO %
16.2%
#211
FT rate
36.1%
#148
FT allowed
37.3%
#246
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed−0.5
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
E Washington has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.0 (#231 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
E Washington2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted E Washington'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 | Isaiah Moses | G | Sr | 6'0" | 33-33 | 33.4 | 17.8 | 3.0 | 4.2 | 2.9 | 53.1% | 41.3% | 4.8 | 93.4% | 30.8% | |
| 4 | Alton Hamilton IV | F | Jr | 6'8" | 33-23 | 28.1 | 13.5 | 5.7 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 60.1% | 36.4% | 1.3 | 75.9% | 25.8% | |
| 15 | Kiree Huie | F | Sr | 6'9" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 12.8 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 2.0 | 54.8% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 58.0% | 30.6% | |
| 12 | Straton Rogers | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-14 | 22.0 | 5.8 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 61.4% | 28.6% | 0.2 | 65.1% | 13.4% | |
| 22 | Jojo Anderson | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-8 | 21.7 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 51.7% | 36.8% | 2.1 | 67.9% | 21.0% | |
| 21 | Johnny Radford | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-11 | 18.8 | 6.5 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 49.2% | 37.7% | 3.9 | 82.6% | 20.9% | |
| 1 | Tyler Powell | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-17 | 16.5 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 55.8% | 36.8% | 2.6 | 72.7% | 16.9% | |
| 33 | Emmett Marquardt | F | So | 6'9" | 30-11 | 15.9 | 5.5 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 54.5% | 35.8% | 2.7 | 86.4% | 20.5% | |
| 5 | Elijah Thomas | G | Sr | 6'6" | 30-4 | 10.9 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 38.9% | 19.0% | 1.4 | 75.0% | 12.8% | |
| 11 | Cole Scherer | G | Fr | 6'2" | 29-12 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.9% | 24.3% | 1.3 | 71.4% | 20.7% | |
| 35 | Shaumba Ngoyi | F | So | 6'9" | 20-0 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 12.9% | |
| 10 | Maddox Monson | G | Sr | 6'2" | 11-0 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 42.3% | 30.0% | 0.9 | — | 19.6% | |
| 0 | Angelo Winkel | F | Sr | 6'8" | 4-0 | 5.0 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 22.2% | |
| 55 | Alan Gballou | F | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Andrew Cook | G | Sr | 6'4" | 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.
E Washington2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted E Washington'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 | Isaiah Moses | G | Sr | 6'0" | 33-33 | 33.4 | 17.8 | 3.0 | 4.2 | 2.9 | 53.1% | 41.3% | 4.8 | 93.4% | 30.8% | |
| 4 | Alton Hamilton IV | F | Jr | 6'8" | 33-23 | 28.1 | 13.5 | 5.7 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 60.1% | 36.4% | 1.3 | 75.9% | 25.8% | |
| 15 | Kiree Huie | F | Sr | 6'9" | 33-32 | 25.3 | 12.8 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 2.0 | 54.8% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 58.0% | 30.6% | |
| 12 | Straton Rogers | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-14 | 22.0 | 5.8 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 61.4% | 28.6% | 0.2 | 65.1% | 13.4% | |
| 22 | Jojo Anderson | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-8 | 21.7 | 7.4 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 51.7% | 36.8% | 2.1 | 67.9% | 21.0% | |
| 21 | Johnny Radford | G | Sr | 6'1" | 33-11 | 18.8 | 6.5 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 49.2% | 37.7% | 3.9 | 82.6% | 20.9% | |
| 1 | Tyler Powell | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-17 | 16.5 | 4.8 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 55.8% | 36.8% | 2.6 | 72.7% | 16.9% | |
| 33 | Emmett Marquardt | F | So | 6'9" | 30-11 | 15.9 | 5.5 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 54.5% | 35.8% | 2.7 | 86.4% | 20.5% | |
| 5 | Elijah Thomas | G | Sr | 6'6" | 30-4 | 10.9 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 38.9% | 19.0% | 1.4 | 75.0% | 12.8% | |
| 11 | Cole Scherer | G | Fr | 6'2" | 29-12 | 7.8 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.9% | 24.3% | 1.3 | 71.4% | 20.7% | |
| 35 | Shaumba Ngoyi | F | So | 6'9" | 20-0 | 4.3 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 12.9% | |
| 10 | Maddox Monson | G | Sr | 6'2" | 11-0 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 42.3% | 30.0% | 0.9 | — | 19.6% | |
| 0 | Angelo Winkel | F | Sr | 6'8" | 4-0 | 5.0 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 66.7% | — | 0.0 | 75.0% | 22.2% | |
| 55 | Alan Gballou | F | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 9 | Andrew Cook | G | Sr | 6'4" | 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 2025-26E Washington
Against the spread
Season
19-13
Home
6-5
Road
12-6
Last 10
8-2
avg cover +7.0
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
19-13
Home
4-7
Road
13-5
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +3.5
Over 3 straightOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | Idaho | N | L 68–81 | +2.5 | L−10.5 | 148.0 | O149 | 95.1 | 113.2 | 71.5 |
| Mar 9 | Weber St | N | W 84–79 | −3.5 | W+1.5 | 154.5 | O163 | 121.1 | 113.9 | 69.3 |
| Mar 2 | Idaho | H | L 81–85 | −3.0 | L−7.0 | 150.5 | O166 | 121.0 | 127.0 | 66.9 |
| Feb 28 | N Arizona | H | W 88–57 | −9.5 | W+21.5 | 147.0 | U145 | 138.6 | 89.7 | 63.5 |
| Feb 26 | N Colorado | H | W 82–72 | +1.0 | W+11.0 | 157.0 | U154 | 122.8 | 107.8 | 66.8 |
| Feb 21 | Portland St | A | W 67–55 | +6.0 | W+18.0 | 146.5 | U122 | 101.1 | 83.0 | 66.3 |
| Feb 19 | Sacramento St | A | W 102–94 | −3.0 | W+5.0 | 161.5 | O196 | 140.2 | 129.2 | 72.8 |
| Feb 14 | Weber St | H | W 84–66 | −3.0 | W+15.0 | 155.0 | U150 | 122.3 | 96.1 | 68.7 |
| Feb 12 | Idaho St | H | W 88–75 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 147.5 | O163 | 133.7 | 114.0 | 65.8 |
| Feb 7 | Montana St | A | W 72–71 | +5.0 | W+6.0 | 148.0 | U143 | 111.0 | 109.5 | 64.9 |
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 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 |
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 homeE WashingtonLMU
Efficiency
110.8
106.0
111.6
106.6
68.6
68.2
—
—
Shooting
53.7%
51.8%
53.6%
51.6%
35.9%
34.8%
74.3%
69.5%
36.1%
31.1%
Ball control & glass
17.7%
17.5%
16.2%
16.6%
31.3%
26.7%
30.8%
32.0%
10.6%
9.0%
7.9%
7.3%
Style
34.7%
40.4%
44.2%
43.4%
9.8%
14.5%
49.0%
49.3%
37.4%
32.4%
Roster
3.59
2.92
6'4.6"
6'6.4"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputE Washington
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted E Washington'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.)
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.)
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Wed, Nov 5 | 2025-26 | E Washington 62 – 70 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.