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 siteLahaina Civic Center, Maui, HIMaui Invitational

Ole Miss

Efficiency #82

2025-26: 15-20 · 7-15 conf

Clemson

Efficiency #35

2025-26: 24-11 · 14-7 conf

Mon, Nov 23 · 2:30 PM ET

67.5

win 37%

Projected

71.5

win 63%

No line posted yet.

Model: CLEM −4.0 · total 139.0 · 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: Clemson 66.1, Ole Miss 67.5 → 65.3 possessions

−6.5

Clemson offense vs Ole Miss defense

+0.6

Ole Miss offense vs Clemson defense

−3.4

Projected total

139.0

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Clemson offense vs Ole Miss defense

+0.6

Ole Miss offense vs Clemson defense

+3.4

Clemson by 4.0

4.0

Ole Miss side ◂▸ Clemson side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 138.9 against a projected 139.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Clemson.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 65.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Ole Miss is the faster team (68.3, #188 of 365) and Clemson the slower (65.1, #330). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

65.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

139.0

model

Projected team totals

67.5 / 71.5

Ole Miss / Clemson

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.5#248

Ole Miss

66.1#338

Clemson

How this game plays

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

DefenseOle Miss

Ole Miss's shot-blocking

Ole Miss ranks #28 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.1% of Clemson's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Pace

Half-court grind

Clemson averages 65.1 possessions per 40, Ole Miss 68.3. 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 66 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageOle Miss

Where Ole Miss struggles: shooting

Ole Miss shoots an effective 50.4% (#217); Clemson allows 48.8% (#59). Expect about 49.6%, 1.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageClemson

Where Clemson scores: ball control

Clemson turns it over on 14.0% of possessions (#24); Ole Miss forces turnovers on 16.4% of opponent possessions (#189). Expect about 15.0%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.

GlassOle Miss

Ole Miss gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.9% is worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions against Ole Miss's offense.

ClashClemson

Style match: 3-point volume

Clemson takes 43.1% of its shots from three; Ole Miss lets opponents take 42.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 44.4% — both habits push the same way.

Ole Miss has the ball

OffenseClemson allowsvs D1 avg

50.4% #217

48.8% #59

-2.5 pt/100

14.0% #23

17.4% #123

+1.4 pt/100

28.3% #253

26.3% #21

-2.1 pt/100

33.0% #238

33.9% #150

-0.2 pt/100

74.9% #86

—

+0.2 pt/100

Ole Miss net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.1 pts/100

Clemson has the ball

OffenseOle Miss allowsvs D1 avg

52.6% #126

50.5% #127

+0.5 pt/100

14.0% #24

16.4% #189

+2.2 pt/100

28.1% #264

32.6% #285

-0.3 pt/100

36.7% #136

41.2% #315

+0.6 pt/100

72.5% #187

—

+0.0 pt/100

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

Shot diet

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

Ole Missoffense vsClemsondefense

Share of shots by zone

Ole Miss shoots

28.6

7.4

29.0

34.9

Clemson allows

33.0

5.5

17.9

43.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.8%#26	57.6%#133	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.4%#213	35.1%#60	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#140	37.1%#135	38.0%
Three	33.2%#221	32.4%#88	33.7%

Clemsonoffense vsOle Missdefense

Share of shots by zone

Clemson shoots

36.3

6.9

13.7

43.1

Ole Miss allows

36.3

6.1

15.0

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.0%#195	57.5%#129	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	52.4%#5	45.2%#303	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.8%#81	36.8%#125	38.0%
Three	34.1%#165	33.4%#151	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

Ole Miss

−1.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#260 of 365

Off reb %

28.3%

#253

Def reb %

67.4%

#285

Turnover %

14.0%

#23

Forced TO %

16.4%

#189

FT rate

33.0%

#238

FT allowed

41.2%

#315

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−0.6

Ball security+1.9

Forcing turnovers−0.2

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed−1.5

Clemson

+3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#40 of 365

Off reb %

28.1%

#264

Def reb %

73.7%

#21

Turnover %

14.0%

#24

Forced TO %

17.4%

#123

FT rate

36.7%

#136

FT allowed

33.9%

#150

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding+1.4

Ball security+1.9

Forcing turnovers+0.5

Foul shots drawn+0.4

Foul shots allowed+0.3

Clemson has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.8 (#40 of 365) to Ole Miss’s −1.6 (#260).

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

Ole Miss2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
6	Ilias Kamardine	G	Sr	6'4"	35-35	31.1	11.3	3.4	3.8	2.0	47.9%	29.3%	4.0	76.4%	24.6%
2	AJ Storr	G	Sr	6'5"	35-15	26.3	15.5	3.1	1.9	1.5	49.5%	35.0%	3.3	78.3%	35.4%
23	Patton Pinkins	G	Fr	6'5"	35-20	25.0	9.3	1.9	0.9	0.3	55.9%	42.2%	2.9	85.9%	18.5%
11	Travis Perry	G	So	6'1"	35-16	16.5	5.3	1.6	1.1	0.5	48.8%	35.3%	3.9	88.0%	19.6%
8	Eduardo Klafke	G	So	6'5"	34-12	15.0	4.6	2.5	1.1	0.5	59.0%	42.6%	1.4	74.4%	16.3%
1	Corey Chest	F	So	6'8"	34-4	13.1	2.6	3.8	0.6	0.5	60.2%	100.0%	0.0	48.1%	12.5%
13	Kezza Giffa	G	Sr	6'1"	28-8	15.5	5.9	1.3	1.3	1.0	52.2%	37.2%	1.5	82.4%	22.0%
88	Augusto Cassia	F	Jr	6'8"	31-5	10.4	2.2	1.6	0.5	0.3	49.1%	25.0%	0.5	77.8%	13.5%
3	Koren Johnson	G	Jr	6'1"	25-1	9.6	1.8	0.8	1.4	0.4	31.7%	19.4%	1.2	72.7%	18.7%
31	Zach Day	G	Fr	6'5"	20-0	7.6	0.9	1.4	0.3	0.1	26.6%	18.5%	1.4	50.0%	13.6%
7	Niko Bundalo	F	Fr	6'10"	11-0	3.1	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.5	66.7%	—	0.0	66.7%	16.0%
5	Hobert Grayson IV	G	Sr	6'4"	5-0	5.6	1.4	1.4	0.2	0.2	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	18.2%
22	Max Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	10-1	2.5	1.0	0.2	0.1	0.1	30.0%	20.0%	1.0	100.0%	29.3%

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

Clemson2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Cole Certaat Notre Dame	G	Jr	6'5"	31-16	26.9	12.8	1.7	0.8	0.7	50.8%	36.7%	7.1	89.2%	26.6%
15	Dylan Faulknerat Samford	F	Sr	6'10"	30-30	26.2	17.2	8.6	1.8	1.4	61.7%	0.0%	0.2	56.3%	34.5%
45	Liutauras Leleviciusat TCU	F	Sr	6'7"	34-22	23.7	8.0	3.4	0.7	0.5	57.4%	38.0%	3.6	88.7%	17.1%
8	David Fuchsat San Francisco	F	Sr	6'9"	29-19	24.0	12.7	7.8	1.4	1.9	53.9%	30.3%	1.1	64.5%	32.3%
21	Ace Buckner	G	Jr	6'3"	35-3	19.5	8.3	2.9	1.8	1.0	49.1%	31.2%	2.7	81.3%	27.6%
22	Carter Welling	F	Sr	6'11"	32-24	20.9	10.2	5.4	1.1	1.3	53.2%	29.3%	1.8	70.1%	29.3%
3	Chase Thompson	F	So	6'8"	35-0	8.9	2.3	1.1	0.3	0.3	62.3%	40.0%	0.7	68.4%	14.4%
5	Zac Foster	G	So	6'4"	12-0	18.6	6.9	2.8	2.5	1.3	38.7%	27.7%	3.9	81.8%	29.1%
11	Dallas Thomas	F	Jr	6'9"	22-0	4.4	2.2	0.4	0.1	0.2	71.0%	57.1%	1.0	62.5%	24.8%
44	Trent Steinour	F	So	6'10"	6-0	2.5	1.0	1.2	0.0	0.2	25.0%	—	0.0	66.7%	30.2%
4	Blake Davidson	F	So	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	Amare James	G	Fr	6'6"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
2	Harris Reynolds	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
25	Will Stevens	C	Fr	6'10"	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.

Transfers in: Cole Certa (from Notre Dame), Dylan Faulkner (from Samford), David Fuchs (from San Francisco), Liutauras Lelevicius (from TCU)

Ole Miss2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
6	Ilias Kamardine	G	Sr	6'4"	35-35	31.1	11.3	3.4	3.8	2.0	47.9%	29.3%	4.0	76.4%	24.6%
2	AJ Storr	G	Sr	6'5"	35-15	26.3	15.5	3.1	1.9	1.5	49.5%	35.0%	3.3	78.3%	35.4%
23	Patton Pinkins	G	Fr	6'5"	35-20	25.0	9.3	1.9	0.9	0.3	55.9%	42.2%	2.9	85.9%	18.5%
11	Travis Perry	G	So	6'1"	35-16	16.5	5.3	1.6	1.1	0.5	48.8%	35.3%	3.9	88.0%	19.6%
8	Eduardo Klafke	G	So	6'5"	34-12	15.0	4.6	2.5	1.1	0.5	59.0%	42.6%	1.4	74.4%	16.3%
1	Corey Chest	F	So	6'8"	34-4	13.1	2.6	3.8	0.6	0.5	60.2%	100.0%	0.0	48.1%	12.5%
13	Kezza Giffa	G	Sr	6'1"	28-8	15.5	5.9	1.3	1.3	1.0	52.2%	37.2%	1.5	82.4%	22.0%
88	Augusto Cassia	F	Jr	6'8"	31-5	10.4	2.2	1.6	0.5	0.3	49.1%	25.0%	0.5	77.8%	13.5%
3	Koren Johnson	G	Jr	6'1"	25-1	9.6	1.8	0.8	1.4	0.4	31.7%	19.4%	1.2	72.7%	18.7%
31	Zach Day	G	Fr	6'5"	20-0	7.6	0.9	1.4	0.3	0.1	26.6%	18.5%	1.4	50.0%	13.6%
7	Niko Bundalo	F	Fr	6'10"	11-0	3.1	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.5	66.7%	—	0.0	66.7%	16.0%
5	Hobert Grayson IV	G	Sr	6'4"	5-0	5.6	1.4	1.4	0.2	0.2	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	18.2%
22	Max Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	10-1	2.5	1.0	0.2	0.1	0.1	30.0%	20.0%	1.0	100.0%	29.3%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Ole Miss

Against the spread

Season

15-20

Home

4-12

Road

7-3

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +4.8

Covered 4 straightCovered 7 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

21-13-1

Home

11-5

Road

6-4

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +9.2

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 14	#17ArkansasAdjEM #19	N	L 90–93 OT	+8.5	W+5.5	158.5	O183	115.8	119.7	77.7
Mar 13	#15AlabamaAdjEM #18	N	W 80–79	+12.5	W+13.5	164.5	U159	108.8	107.5	73.5
Mar 12	GeorgiaAdjEM #32	N	W 76–72	+5.5	W+9.5	156.5	U148	102.4	97.0	74.2
Mar 11	TexasAdjEM #38	N	W 76–66	+6.0	W+16.0	148.0	U142	109.1	94.7	69.7
Mar 7	South CarolinaAdjEM #123	H	L 61–64	−7.0	L−10.0	147.0	U125	92.0	96.5	66.3
Mar 3	#24VanderbiltAdjEM #12	H	L 86–89 OT	+7.0	W+4.0	155.5	O175	111.7	115.6	77.0
Feb 28	AuburnAdjEM #41	A	W 85–79	+11.0	W+17.0	152.5	O164	127.0	118.0	67.0
Feb 25	LSUAdjEM #72	H	L 99–106 2OT	−2.0	L−9.0	147.0	O205	117.5	125.8	84.3
Feb 21	#12FloridaAdjEM #5	H	L 75–94	+13.5	L−5.5	150.5	O169	97.5	122.2	76.9
Feb 18	Texas A&MAdjEM #43	A	L 77–80	+9.5	W+6.5	155.0	O157	111.9	116.3	68.8

Clemson

Against the spread

Season

16-17-2

Home

6-8-2

Road

7-4

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −3.7

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-21

Home

6-10

Road

5-6

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +1.2

Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 20	#9IowaAdjEM #22	N	L 61–67	+1.5	L−4.5	131.0	U128	113.6	124.7	53.7
Mar 13	#1DukeAdjEM #2	N	L 61–73	+10.5	L−1.5	135.0	U134	96.5	115.5	63.2
Mar 12	#19North CarolinaAdjEM #29	N	W 80–79	−1.5	L−0.5	140.5	O159	115.9	114.5	69.0
Mar 11	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	N	W 71–62	−5.5	W+3.5	142.0	U133	119.0	103.9	59.6
Mar 7	Georgia TechAdjEM #201	H	W 79–76	−17.5	L−14.5	144.5	O155	119.4	114.9	66.2
Mar 3	#17North CarolinaAdjEM #29	A	L 63–67	+2.5	L−1.5	142.0	U130	96.2	102.3	65.5
Feb 28	#24LouisvilleAdjEM #14	H	W 80–75	+2.0	W+7.0	146.5	O155	114.4	107.3	69.9
Feb 21	Florida StAdjEM #74	H	L 65–70	−8.5	L−13.5	144.5	U135	108.6	116.9	59.9
Feb 18	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	A	L 77–85	−4.0	L−12.0	140.0	O162	115.6	127.6	66.6
Feb 14	#4DukeAdjEM #2	A	L 54–67	+13.5	W+0.5	133.5	U121	87.2	108.2	61.9

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

Ole MissClemson

Efficiency

110.4

112.9

105.0

101.3

67.5

66.1

—

Shooting

50.4%

52.6%

50.8%

53.6%

33.2%

34.1%

74.9%

72.5%

33.0%

36.7%

Ball control & glass

14.0%

16.4%

17.4%

28.3%

28.1%

32.6%

26.3%

8.6%

8.4%

7.9%

10.1%

Style

35.5%

43.1%

39.5%

42.2%

12.1%

10.0%

50.2%

50.3%

40.2%

37.6%

Roster

2.79

3.47

6'4.3"

6'7.4"

79.3%

28.4%

Offseason

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

Ole Miss

Returning minutes: 79.3%Returning production: 75.1%

Lost

Malik Dia 24.3 mpg, 14.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
James Scott 17.9 mpg, 3.9 ppg · transferred to Georgia

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 79% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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).

Clemson

Returning minutes: 28.4%Returning production: 32.0%

Lost

Dillon Hunter 28.6 mpg, 7.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jestin Porter 27.1 mpg, 9.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
RJ Godfrey 25.2 mpg, 12.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Nick Davidson 21.9 mpg, 9.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Butta Johnson 21.1 mpg, 6.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jake Wahlin 20.5 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Cole Certa from Notre Dame · 26.9 mpg, 12.8 ppg last season
Dylan Faulkner from Samford · 24.5 mpg, 16.1 ppg last season
Liutauras Lelevicius from TCU · 23.0 mpg, 7.8 ppg last season
David Fuchs from San Francisco · 21.1 mpg, 11.2 ppg last season
Blake Davidson no D1 minutes last season
Will Stevens no D1 minutes last season

Returns 28% of last season's minutes; lost 5 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 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.