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

Hawai'i

Efficiency #96

2025-26: 24-9 · 16-6 conf

LMU

Efficiency #183

2025-26: 15-17 · 6-13 conf

Fri, Dec 4 · 10:00 PM ET

71.6

win 48%

Projected

72.2

win 52%

No line posted yet.

Model: LMU −0.6 · total 143.8 · 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: LMU 68.2, Hawai'i 69.9 → 69.8 possessions

+3.2

LMU offense vs Hawai'i defense

−5.5

Hawai'i offense vs LMU defense

−2.1

Projected total

143.8

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

LMU offense vs Hawai'i defense

−5.5

Hawai'i offense vs LMU defense

+2.1

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

+4.0

LMU by 0.6

0.6

Hawai'i side ◂▸ LMU 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 LMU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Hawai'i is the faster team (72.4, #17 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

69.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

143.8

model

Projected team totals

71.6 / 72.2

Hawai'i / LMU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.9#56

Hawai'i

68.2#189

LMU

How this game plays

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

AdvantageLMU

Where LMU struggles: the offensive glass

LMU rebounds 26.7% of its own misses (#307); Hawai'i lets opponents grab 25.3% of their own misses (#11). Expect about 25.3%, 5.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.1 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Tempo tug-of-war

LMU averages 68.1 possessions per 40, Hawai'i 72.4. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Hawai'i'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 Hawai'i at about 37.7% of its shots from three, LMU about 35.6%.

ClashHawai'i

Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting

Hawai'i (#58 in 2-point shooting) against LMU (#31 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 51.2%. Historically Hawai'i's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).

Hawai'i has the ball

OffenseLMU allowsvs D1 avg

52.0% #148

48.9% #60

-1.2 pt/100

18.8% #314

16.6% #181

-1.3 pt/100

31.3% #154

32.0% #258

+0.8 pt/100

41.4% #38

32.5% #114

+0.2 pt/100

73.5% #152

—

+0.1 pt/100

Hawai'i net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.3 pts/100

LMU has the ball

OffenseHawai'i allowsvs D1 avg

51.8% #152

46.8% #19

-2.8 pt/100

17.5% #238

16.8% #169

-0.5 pt/100

26.7% #307

25.3% #11

-3.1 pt/100

31.1% #280

35.6% #200

-0.2 pt/100

69.5% #280

—

-0.2 pt/100

LMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Hawai'ioffense vsLMUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Hawai'i shoots

44.9

5.4

9.6

40.1

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	59.6%#139	53.3%#27	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.2%#75	35.8%#88	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	34.4%#303	39.0%#200	38.0%
Three	31.7%#298	34.6%#225	33.7%

LMUoffense vsHawai'idefense

Share of shots by zone

LMU shoots

32.8

8.4

19.0

39.8

Hawai'i allows

41.9

7.7

18.6

31.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.2%#156	53.5%#32	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#195	45.3%#307	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	41.6%#68	35.4%#87	38.0%
Three	34.8%#130	30.3%#13	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

Hawai'i

+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#88 of 365

Off reb %

31.3%

#154

Def reb %

74.7%

#11

Turnover %

18.8%

#314

Forced TO %

16.8%

#169

FT rate

41.4%

#38

FT allowed

35.6%

#200

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.3

Defensive rebounding+1.7

Ball security−1.4

Forcing turnovers+0.1

Foul shots drawn+1.6

Foul shots allowed−0.1

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

Hawai'i has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.2 (#88 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

Hawai'i2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Hunter Erickson	G	Sr	6'3"	33-33	31.4	8.4	3.8	3.9	2.4	53.8%	35.0%	3.5	71.0%	17.3%
4	Dre Bullock	G	Sr	6'6"	33-33	28.4	13.8	5.9	1.9	1.9	47.3%	26.1%	4.1	75.9%	29.2%
14	Harry Rouhliadeff	F	Sr	6'9"	31-30	25.5	10.7	5.0	1.4	1.5	60.6%	39.8%	2.8	80.8%	21.5%
5	Gytis Nemeiksa	F	Sr	6'8"	33-3	23.8	9.2	4.8	1.0	1.1	48.7%	27.6%	2.6	75.8%	22.3%
6	Isaac Finlinson	F	Jr	6'8"	33-16	22.7	9.2	3.6	0.8	1.2	57.0%	39.1%	2.6	65.7%	21.8%
7	Isaiah Kerr	G	Jr	6'3"	31-0	20.7	6.4	2.4	1.4	1.0	48.2%	27.3%	2.8	70.7%	19.1%
30	Aaron Hunkin-Claytor	G	So	6'3"	17-17	28.2	6.0	2.8	3.9	1.9	48.2%	31.0%	1.7	63.6%	15.6%
10	Yacine Toumi	F	Sr	6'10"	30-0	10.3	4.3	2.5	0.4	0.8	58.1%	—	0.0	58.1%	23.9%
8	AJ Economou	G	So	6'5"	18-0	5.9	1.5	0.7	0.1	0.5	35.5%	18.2%	1.2	55.6%	22.4%
9	Jalen Myers	F	Sr	6'8"	7-0	8.9	2.9	0.9	0.6	0.3	35.0%	0.0%	0.4	60.0%	23.7%
2	Hunter Carter	G	Fr	6'5"	12-0	4.6	1.2	0.8	0.2	0.4	34.4%	33.3%	0.8	60.0%	23.5%
1	Tanner Cuff	G	Sr	6'7"	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.

Hawai'i2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
0	Hunter Erickson	G	Sr	6'3"	33-33	31.4	8.4	3.8	3.9	2.4	53.8%	35.0%	3.5	71.0%	17.3%
4	Dre Bullock	G	Sr	6'6"	33-33	28.4	13.8	5.9	1.9	1.9	47.3%	26.1%	4.1	75.9%	29.2%
14	Harry Rouhliadeff	F	Sr	6'9"	31-30	25.5	10.7	5.0	1.4	1.5	60.6%	39.8%	2.8	80.8%	21.5%
5	Gytis Nemeiksa	F	Sr	6'8"	33-3	23.8	9.2	4.8	1.0	1.1	48.7%	27.6%	2.6	75.8%	22.3%
6	Isaac Finlinson	F	Jr	6'8"	33-16	22.7	9.2	3.6	0.8	1.2	57.0%	39.1%	2.6	65.7%	21.8%
7	Isaiah Kerr	G	Jr	6'3"	31-0	20.7	6.4	2.4	1.4	1.0	48.2%	27.3%	2.8	70.7%	19.1%
30	Aaron Hunkin-Claytor	G	So	6'3"	17-17	28.2	6.0	2.8	3.9	1.9	48.2%	31.0%	1.7	63.6%	15.6%
10	Yacine Toumi	F	Sr	6'10"	30-0	10.3	4.3	2.5	0.4	0.8	58.1%	—	0.0	58.1%	23.9%
8	AJ Economou	G	So	6'5"	18-0	5.9	1.5	0.7	0.1	0.5	35.5%	18.2%	1.2	55.6%	22.4%
9	Jalen Myers	F	Sr	6'8"	7-0	8.9	2.9	0.9	0.6	0.3	35.0%	0.0%	0.4	60.0%	23.7%
2	Hunter Carter	G	Fr	6'5"	12-0	4.6	1.2	0.8	0.2	0.4	34.4%	33.3%	0.8	60.0%	23.5%
1	Tanner Cuff	G	Sr	6'7"	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

Hawai'i

Against the spread

Season

12-18

Home

5-11

Road

5-6

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −5.2

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

Over / under

Season

12-17-1

Home

5-10-1

Road

6-5

Last 10

6-3-1

avg vs total +2.7

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 8 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 3 of 4 with a line of 10+, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 19	#4ArkansasAdjEM #19	N	L 78–97	+15.0	L−4.0	158.0	O175	101.8	126.5	76.7
Mar 14	UC IrvineAdjEM #105	N	W 71–64	+1.5	W+8.5	142.0	U135	100.6	90.7	70.6
Mar 13	FullertonAdjEM #205	N	W 78–63	−5.0	W+10.0	157.5	U141	106.1	85.7	73.5
Mar 7	Long Beach StAdjEM #267	H	L 75–84	−14.0	L−23.0	150.0	O159	97.9	109.6	76.6
Mar 5	UC RiversideAdjEM #288	H	W 93–74	−12.5	W+6.5	149.0	O167	129.5	103.1	71.8
Feb 28	FullertonAdjEM #205	A	W 87–85	−3.5	L−1.5	157.0	O172	121.0	118.2	71.9
Feb 26	UC DavisAdjEM #185	A	W 77–73	−2.0	W+2.0	147.0	O150	112.0	106.2	68.8
Feb 21	Santa BarbaraAdjEM #140	H	W 78–75 OT	−5.0	L−2.0	145.5	O153	105.4	101.3	74.0
Feb 19	Cal PolyAdjEM #240	H	L 75–86	−11.0	L−22.0	161.0	P161	91.0	104.3	82.4
Feb 14	CSU NorthridgeAdjEM #196	A	L 60–84	−3.0	L−27.0	163.0	U144	83.6	117.1	71.7

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

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

Hawai'iLMU

Efficiency

107.3

106.0

103.1

106.6

69.9

68.2

—

Shooting

52.0%

51.8%

54.9%

51.6%

31.7%

34.8%

73.5%

69.5%

41.4%

31.1%

Ball control & glass

18.8%

17.5%

16.8%

16.6%

31.3%

26.7%

25.3%

32.0%

10.7%

9.0%

8.7%

7.3%

Style

39.8%

40.4%

46.1%

43.4%

13.6%

14.5%

49.8%

49.3%

32.6%

32.4%

Roster

3.54

2.92

6'6"

6'6.4"

89.5%

—

Offseason

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

Hawai'i

Returning minutes: 89.5%Returning production: 81.9%

Lost

Isaac Johnson 21.2 mpg, 14.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Tanner Cuff no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 90% 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).

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

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.