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-conferenceTimmons Arena, Greenville, SC

Austin Peay

Efficiency #141

2025-26: 22-9 · 16-4 conf

Furman

Efficiency #163

2025-26: 22-13 · 13-8 conf

Sat, Nov 28 · TBD

72.1

win 39%

Projected

75.4

win 61%

No line posted yet.

Model: FUR −3.3 · total 147.5 · 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: Furman 67.3, Austin Peay 69.5 → 68.5 possessions

+0.5

Furman offense vs Austin Peay defense

−0.9

Austin Peay offense vs Furman defense

−0.2

Projected total

147.5

Axis starts at 147 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Furman offense vs Austin Peay defense

−0.9

Austin Peay offense vs Furman defense

+0.2

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

+3.9

Furman by 3.3

3.3

Austin Peay side ◂▸ Furman side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 147.6 against a projected 147.5, and the margin steps add to +3.2 against +3.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Furman.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Austin Peay is the faster team (70.1, #90 of 365) and Furman the slower (66.4, #279). 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

147.5

model

Projected team totals

72.1 / 75.4

Austin Peay / Furman

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.5#82

Austin Peay

67.3#265

Furman

How this game plays

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

AdvantageFurman

Where Furman scores: shooting

Furman shoots an effective 54.8% (#43); Austin Peay allows 52.2% (#227). Expect about 53.8%, 2.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.6 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageAustin Peay

Where Austin Peay scores: ball control

Austin Peay turns it over on 15.4% of possessions (#93); Furman forces turnovers on 13.7% of opponent possessions (#342). Expect about 14.0%, 2.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.4 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseAustin Peay

Austin Peay's ball-hawking

Austin Peay ranks #24 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.8% of Furman's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.

TurnoversFurman

Furman turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.1% is worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions against Furman's offense.

Austin Peay has the ball

OffenseFurman allowsvs D1 avg

53.0% #105

50.2% #112

+0.6 pt/100

15.4% #93

13.7% #342

+3.4 pt/100

29.7% #214

28.2% #72

-0.9 pt/100

37.6% #110

28.9% #44

-0.3 pt/100

73.4% #158

—

+0.1 pt/100

Austin Peay net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.9 pts/100

Furman has the ball

OffenseAustin Peay allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #43

52.2% #227

+3.6 pt/100

17.8% #259

17.9% #104

-1.6 pt/100

30.5% #180

28.9% #100

-0.4 pt/100

32.7% #246

32.8% #127

-0.3 pt/100

70.1% #269

—

-0.2 pt/100

Furman net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Austin Peayoffense vsFurmandefense

Share of shots by zone

Austin Peay shoots

43.8

7.7

10.7

37.8

Furman allows

37.0

5.5

15.9

41.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.5%#178	56.0%#86	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.0%#79	45.5%#314	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	33.7%#318	41.9%#297	38.0%
Three	35.3%#99	32.3%#75	33.7%

Furmanoffense vsAustin Peaydefense

Share of shots by zone

Furman shoots

38.5

5.8

8.9

46.8

Austin Peay allows

41.7

5.2

12.2

40.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.3%#66	60.5%#254	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	51.5%#8	32.5%#24	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	43.5%#28	40.2%#249	38.0%
Three	33.4%#204	33.2%#137	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

Austin Peay

+3.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#48 of 365

Off reb %

29.7%

#214

Def reb %

71.1%

#100

Turnover %

15.4%

#93

Forced TO %

17.9%

#104

FT rate

37.6%

#110

FT allowed

32.8%

#127

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.2

Defensive rebounding+0.6

Ball security+0.9

Forcing turnovers+0.8

Foul shots drawn+0.7

Foul shots allowed+0.6

Furman

−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#227 of 365

Off reb %

30.5%

#180

Def reb %

71.8%

#72

Turnover %

17.8%

#259

Forced TO %

13.7%

#342

FT rate

32.7%

#246

FT allowed

28.9%

#44

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security−0.7

Forcing turnovers−2.1

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.6

Austin Peay has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.4 (#48 of 365) to Furman’s −0.9 (#227).

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

Austin Peay2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Austin Peay'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
32	Collin Parker	F	Sr	6'8"	31-31	30.6	17.6	6.2	3.2	1.6	54.5%	40.0%	4.5	81.5%	30.8%
0	Tate McCubbin	G	So	6'8"	31-31	29.5	9.7	4.8	1.4	0.8	49.8%	34.6%	6.0	79.2%	19.1%
1	Zyree Collins	PG	Fr	6'0"	31-30	29.3	13.5	3.1	4.3	2.5	47.8%	31.3%	3.2	74.8%	29.5%
5	Rashaud Marshall	F	Jr	6'8"	31-28	29.2	16.3	6.8	1.2	1.2	65.5%	—	0.0	67.3%	25.7%
12	Anton Brookshire	PG	Sr	6'2"	31-20	24.8	8.4	2.2	2.7	1.4	54.8%	37.7%	4.7	80.0%	19.4%
23	Ja'Corey Robinson	PG	Fr	6'6"	30-0	17.2	6.6	2.9	2.0	1.3	53.4%	40.0%	0.3	75.4%	22.9%
3	Matt Enright	PG	Sr	6'2"	25-12	15.4	4.7	1.1	1.0	0.3	52.6%	37.3%	3.0	75.0%	16.5%
7	Creighton Morisch	F	Sr	6'10"	30-3	9.2	1.3	2.0	0.4	0.6	48.7%	28.6%	0.2	18.2%	12.8%
22	Travis Torain	G	So	6'8"	21-0	9.2	2.0	2.4	0.0	0.4	54.7%	33.3%	0.1	100.0%	12.2%
2	Tyler Wagner	G	Fr	6'5"	21-0	7.8	2.9	1.3	0.1	0.1	59.4%	38.6%	2.1	75.0%	17.0%
20	Quan Lax	PG	Sr	6'2"	9-0	13.8	2.4	1.6	0.9	0.7	34.1%	10.0%	1.1	77.8%	14.6%
24	Hansel Enmanuel	PG	Sr	6'6"	11-0	6.5	1.5	1.5	0.0	0.5	36.4%	0.0%	0.1	72.7%	16.3%
10	Terrell Gaines	PG	So	5'8"	5-0	5.0	1.8	0.2	0.0	0.8	31.3%	20.0%	1.0	100.0%	27.1%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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.

Austin Peay2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Austin Peay'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
32	Collin Parker	F	Sr	6'8"	31-31	30.6	17.6	6.2	3.2	1.6	54.5%	40.0%	4.5	81.5%	30.8%
0	Tate McCubbin	G	So	6'8"	31-31	29.5	9.7	4.8	1.4	0.8	49.8%	34.6%	6.0	79.2%	19.1%
1	Zyree Collins	PG	Fr	6'0"	31-30	29.3	13.5	3.1	4.3	2.5	47.8%	31.3%	3.2	74.8%	29.5%
5	Rashaud Marshall	F	Jr	6'8"	31-28	29.2	16.3	6.8	1.2	1.2	65.5%	—	0.0	67.3%	25.7%
12	Anton Brookshire	PG	Sr	6'2"	31-20	24.8	8.4	2.2	2.7	1.4	54.8%	37.7%	4.7	80.0%	19.4%
23	Ja'Corey Robinson	PG	Fr	6'6"	30-0	17.2	6.6	2.9	2.0	1.3	53.4%	40.0%	0.3	75.4%	22.9%
3	Matt Enright	PG	Sr	6'2"	25-12	15.4	4.7	1.1	1.0	0.3	52.6%	37.3%	3.0	75.0%	16.5%
7	Creighton Morisch	F	Sr	6'10"	30-3	9.2	1.3	2.0	0.4	0.6	48.7%	28.6%	0.2	18.2%	12.8%
22	Travis Torain	G	So	6'8"	21-0	9.2	2.0	2.4	0.0	0.4	54.7%	33.3%	0.1	100.0%	12.2%
2	Tyler Wagner	G	Fr	6'5"	21-0	7.8	2.9	1.3	0.1	0.1	59.4%	38.6%	2.1	75.0%	17.0%
20	Quan Lax	PG	Sr	6'2"	9-0	13.8	2.4	1.6	0.9	0.7	34.1%	10.0%	1.1	77.8%	14.6%
24	Hansel Enmanuel	PG	Sr	6'6"	11-0	6.5	1.5	1.5	0.0	0.5	36.4%	0.0%	0.1	72.7%	16.3%
10	Terrell Gaines	PG	So	5'8"	5-0	5.0	1.8	0.2	0.0	0.8	31.3%	20.0%	1.0	100.0%	27.1%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Austin Peay

Against the spread

Season

14-14-1

Home

7-4

Road

7-8-1

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.9

Missed the spread 6 straightCovered 3 of 9 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

14-15

Home

6-5

Road

7-9

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +8.2

Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 9 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	QueensAdjEM #191	N	L 83–90	−2.0	L−9.0	161.5	O173	114.1	123.8	72.7
Mar 6	StetsonAdjEM #322	N	W 69–60	−12.5	L−3.5	153.0	U129	109.7	95.4	62.9
Feb 28	BellarmineAdjEM #281	A	L 97–111	−5.5	L−19.5	155.0	O208	117.3	134.2	82.7
Feb 25	C ArkansasAdjEM #139	H	L 88–93	−5.0	L−10.0	151.5	O181	129.9	137.2	67.8
Feb 21	JacksonvilleAdjEM #294	A	W 65–61	−5.5	L−1.5	142.5	U126	107.6	101.0	60.4
Feb 19	North FloridaAdjEM #338	A	W 77–76	−11.0	L−10.0	165.5	U153	98.7	97.5	78.0
Feb 14	BellarmineAdjEM #281	H	W 90–70	−9.5	W+10.5	153.0	O160	148.8	115.7	60.5
Feb 11	QueensAdjEM #191	A	W 95–87	+2.5	W+10.5	161.0	O182	128.9	118.1	73.7
Feb 7	North AlabamaAdjEM #343	H	W 91–62	−12.5	W+16.5	145.5	O153	147.3	100.4	61.8
Feb 4	LipscombAdjEM #179	H	W 87–76	−4.5	W+6.5	157.0	O163	120.9	105.6	71.9

Furman

Against the spread

Season

15-15-2

Home

4-8-1

Road

7-5

Last 10

6-3-1

avg cover +1.9

Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-15-1

Home

6-7

Road

6-5-1

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.4

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 20	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 71–82	+21.0	W+10.0	135.0	O153	108.5	125.3	65.4
Mar 9	ETSUAdjEM #110	N	W 76–61	+1.0	W+16.0	138.0	U137	122.9	98.6	61.8
Mar 8	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	N	W 81–75	−6.0	P0.0	148.5	O156	123.4	114.3	65.6
Mar 7	SamfordAdjEM #202	N	W 86–81	+1.5	W+6.5	145.5	O167	124.6	117.4	69.0
Feb 28	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	A	L 67–86	−2.0	L−21.0	148.0	O153	105.4	135.3	63.6
Feb 25	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	W 72–51	−15.5	W+5.5	143.5	U123	120.3	85.2	59.8
Feb 21	WoffordAdjEM #235	A	W 76–67	−1.5	W+7.5	152.5	U143	118.7	104.6	64.1
Feb 18	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 69–78	−1.5	L−10.5	141.0	O147	101.2	114.4	68.2
Feb 14	VMIAdjEM #361	A	W 90–72	−12.0	W+6.0	146.5	O162	126.8	101.4	71.0
Feb 11	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 64–69	+3.5	L−1.5	151.5	U133	96.1	103.6	66.6

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 home

Austin PeayFurman

Efficiency

108.7

108.6

107.1

107.9

69.5

67.3

—

Shooting

53.0%

54.8%

53.0%

58.8%

35.3%

33.4%

73.4%

70.1%

37.6%

32.7%

Ball control & glass

15.4%

17.8%

17.9%

13.7%

29.7%

30.5%

28.9%

28.2%

9.3%

11.3%

8.7%

10.6%

Style

38.0%

46.5%

46.1%

42.6%

15.2%

11.1%

56.0%

56.1%

29.5%

28.5%

Roster

2.72

2.85

6'5.4"

6'7.1"

—

74.9%

Offseason

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

Austin Peay

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Austin Peay'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.)

Furman

Returning minutes: 74.9%Returning production: 66.0%

Lost

Alex Wilkins 29.7 mpg, 17.8 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
Cooper Bowser 21.1 mpg, 9.8 ppg · transferred to Arkansas

Added

Davis Molnar no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 75% 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

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.