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-conferenceAtlantic Union Bank Center, Harrisonburg, VA

William & Mary

Efficiency #127

2025-26: 20-12 · 11-9 conf

James Madison

Efficiency #206

2025-26: 18-15 · 10-10 conf

Sun, Nov 29 · TBD

77.6

win 45%

Projected

78.9

win 55%

No line posted yet.

Model: JMU −1.4 · total 156.5 · 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: James Madison 67.4, William & Mary 71.8 → 70.9 possessions

+5.6

James Madison offense vs William & Mary defense

0.0

William & Mary offense vs James Madison defense

+2.7

Projected total

156.5

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

James Madison offense vs William & Mary defense

0.0

William & Mary offense vs James Madison defense

−2.7

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

+4.1

James Madison by 1.4

1.4

William & Mary side ◂▸ James Madison 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 James Madison.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, William & Mary is the faster team (73.6, #9 of 365) and James Madison the slower (67.0, #242). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

156.5

model

Projected team totals

77.6 / 78.9

William & Mary / James Madison

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

71.8#6

William & Mary

67.4#259

James Madison

How this game plays

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

AdvantageWilliam & Mary

Where William & Mary scores: ball control

William & Mary turns it over on 16.5% of possessions (#169); James Madison forces turnovers on 12.8% of opponent possessions (#360). Expect about 14.1%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Tempo tug-of-war

James Madison averages 67.0 possessions per 40, William & Mary 73.6. 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.

GlassWilliam & Mary

William & Mary gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.9% is worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions against William & Mary's offense.

AdvantageJames Madison

Where James Madison struggles: ball control

James Madison turns it over on 17.3% of possessions (#226); William & Mary forces turnovers on 19.0% of opponent possessions (#48). Expect about 18.5%, 1.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions.

ClashWilliam & Mary

Style clash: ball movement

William & Mary assists on 63.8% of its made baskets; James Madison breaks up passing offenses (assists on 45.5% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 55.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

William & Mary has the ball

OffenseJames Madison allowsvs D1 avg

54.3% #58

49.0% #66

+0.8 pt/100

16.5% #169

12.8% #360

+3.3 pt/100

26.0% #324

29.5% #134

-2.2 pt/100

44.0% #9

40.8% #310

+1.0 pt/100

74.9% #87

—

+0.2 pt/100

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

James Madison has the ball

OffenseWilliam & Mary allowsvs D1 avg

53.1% #97

51.9% #205

+2.0 pt/100

17.3% #226

19.0% #48

-2.1 pt/100

30.6% #175

31.5% #229

+0.4 pt/100

35.9% #153

35.5% #195

+0.1 pt/100

70.3% #263

—

-0.2 pt/100

James Madison net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.1 pts/100

Shot diet

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

William & Maryoffense vsJames Madisondefense

Share of shots by zone

William & Mary shoots

43.8

4.6

8.6

43.0

James Madison allows

37.1

6.6

18.3

38.0

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.0%#37	56.6%#103	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	32.0%#332	37.6%#128	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.7%#120	38.5%#182	38.0%
Three	33.0%#233	32.7%#101	33.7%

James Madisonoffense vsWilliam & Marydefense

Share of shots by zone

James Madison shoots

40.6

6.7

11.1

41.6

William & Mary allows

38.6

4.2

11.3

45.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.1%#91	59.9%#222	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.1%#118	34.2%#48	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	30.2%#352	40.2%#249	38.0%
Three	35.4%#94	33.1%#126	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

William & Mary

+2.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#83 of 365

Off reb %

26.0%

#324

Def reb %

68.5%

#229

Turnover %

16.5%

#169

Forced TO %

19.0%

#48

FT rate

44.0%

FT allowed

35.5%

#195

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.4

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.2

Forcing turnovers+1.6

Foul shots drawn+2.3

Foul shots allowed−0.1

James Madison

−3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#327 of 365

Off reb %

30.6%

#175

Def reb %

70.5%

#134

Turnover %

17.3%

#226

Forced TO %

12.8%

#360

FT rate

35.9%

#153

FT allowed

40.8%

#310

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.1

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers−2.7

Foul shots drawn+0.2

Foul shots allowed−1.4

William & Mary has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.3 (#83 of 365) to James Madison’s −3.8 (#327).

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

William & Mary2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
16	Tunde Vahlberg Fasasi	F	Jr	6'8"	32-31	26.8	11.9	4.1	2.5	1.4	55.0%	35.0%	4.5	78.7%	23.4%
2	Chase Lowe	G	Sr	6'5"	32-32	23.4	9.2	5.8	3.8	1.7	58.0%	11.1%	0.3	72.8%	21.0%
0	Reese Miller	G	Jr	6'4"	30-0	24.5	12.1	2.5	2.4	1.4	52.9%	32.8%	4.3	73.4%	27.1%
11	Kyle Pulliam	G	Sr	6'4"	30-29	24.4	10.4	3.4	1.9	1.0	51.7%	30.1%	3.1	82.0%	21.9%
23	Jo'el Emanuel	F	Sr	6'6"	31-4	22.1	8.5	3.0	1.6	1.3	58.2%	33.3%	1.4	69.6%	20.0%
15	Ryan Jackson Jr.	G	So	6'6"	31-0	18.6	7.0	3.0	0.8	0.7	69.4%	52.4%	0.7	67.9%	16.8%
1	Cade Haskins	F	Sr	6'6"	32-31	16.9	6.3	2.4	0.8	0.8	51.8%	34.4%	4.1	76.5%	21.3%
8	Jhei-R Jones	G	Sr	6'1"	24-0	17.7	5.4	2.2	1.5	1.2	52.2%	33.3%	2.0	82.9%	17.8%
43	Finn Lally	F	Sr	6'8"	25-1	10.0	3.9	1.9	1.0	0.6	56.5%	38.5%	1.0	66.7%	21.1%
7	Kyle Frazier	G	Sr	6'2"	16-1	5.6	1.7	0.6	0.3	0.0	39.1%	22.2%	1.1	69.2%	17.2%
24	Kaleb Spencer	F	Fr	6'8"	6-0	5.7	3.0	3.7	1.2	0.7	56.7%	25.0%	0.7	33.3%	30.8%
6	Colin Ndaw	G	So	6'3"	5-0	5.6	2.0	1.0	0.6	0.4	33.3%	0.0%	0.6	66.7%	25.9%
5	Ethan Connery	G	Jr	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
25	Miles Hicks	G	Sr	6'1"	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.

James Madison2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Cliff Davis	G	Sr	6'2"	33-33	31.3	15.6	3.1	1.7	1.2	55.1%	37.8%	7.9	87.1%	27.5%
2	Bradley Douglas	G	Sr	6'1"	32-18	27.6	12.1	2.0	3.5	2.3	50.2%	35.6%	4.7	73.3%	29.2%
3	Eddie Ricks III	F	Jr	6'7"	32-20	26.8	7.1	5.6	1.6	0.9	53.8%	27.8%	1.7	78.7%	15.3%
13	Preston Fowler	F	Fr	6'8"	33-14	23.1	6.2	4.6	0.9	0.5	49.1%	29.8%	3.7	72.3%	16.9%
33	Gabe Newhof	F	Sr	6'9"	33-33	18.9	8.1	3.7	0.3	0.8	61.3%	—	0.0	53.5%	23.9%
0	Christian Brown	F	Fr	6'8"	33-0	13.3	3.0	3.8	0.4	0.9	57.0%	33.3%	0.1	56.8%	15.7%
12	Kose Egbule	G	Sr	6'2"	22-15	16.2	3.7	2.0	1.8	1.4	41.5%	31.4%	1.6	69.7%	20.0%
1	Paul Jones III	G	So	6'4"	20-0	11.2	2.8	0.8	0.7	0.7	41.2%	29.5%	2.2	64.3%	20.2%
11	Paul Lewis	G	Jr	6'2"	14-1	11.8	2.5	0.9	1.8	0.7	28.6%	25.0%	1.1	78.6%	20.8%
5	Justin Taylor	G	Sr	6'6"	18-1	7.7	1.0	0.6	0.2	0.2	45.5%	66.7%	0.2	57.1%	9.0%
23	Ike Cornish	G	Sr	6'6"	6-0	11.0	3.5	2.3	0.7	1.0	56.7%	35.7%	2.3	44.4%	23.5%
4	Chance Lundy	G	Sr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
15	Josh Stephen	G	Sr	6'0"	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.

William & Mary2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
16	Tunde Vahlberg Fasasi	F	Jr	6'8"	32-31	26.8	11.9	4.1	2.5	1.4	55.0%	35.0%	4.5	78.7%	23.4%
2	Chase Lowe	G	Sr	6'5"	32-32	23.4	9.2	5.8	3.8	1.7	58.0%	11.1%	0.3	72.8%	21.0%
0	Reese Miller	G	Jr	6'4"	30-0	24.5	12.1	2.5	2.4	1.4	52.9%	32.8%	4.3	73.4%	27.1%
11	Kyle Pulliam	G	Sr	6'4"	30-29	24.4	10.4	3.4	1.9	1.0	51.7%	30.1%	3.1	82.0%	21.9%
23	Jo'el Emanuel	F	Sr	6'6"	31-4	22.1	8.5	3.0	1.6	1.3	58.2%	33.3%	1.4	69.6%	20.0%
15	Ryan Jackson Jr.	G	So	6'6"	31-0	18.6	7.0	3.0	0.8	0.7	69.4%	52.4%	0.7	67.9%	16.8%
1	Cade Haskins	F	Sr	6'6"	32-31	16.9	6.3	2.4	0.8	0.8	51.8%	34.4%	4.1	76.5%	21.3%
8	Jhei-R Jones	G	Sr	6'1"	24-0	17.7	5.4	2.2	1.5	1.2	52.2%	33.3%	2.0	82.9%	17.8%
43	Finn Lally	F	Sr	6'8"	25-1	10.0	3.9	1.9	1.0	0.6	56.5%	38.5%	1.0	66.7%	21.1%
7	Kyle Frazier	G	Sr	6'2"	16-1	5.6	1.7	0.6	0.3	0.0	39.1%	22.2%	1.1	69.2%	17.2%
24	Kaleb Spencer	F	Fr	6'8"	6-0	5.7	3.0	3.7	1.2	0.7	56.7%	25.0%	0.7	33.3%	30.8%
6	Colin Ndaw	G	So	6'3"	5-0	5.6	2.0	1.0	0.6	0.4	33.3%	0.0%	0.6	66.7%	25.9%
5	Ethan Connery	G	Jr	6'3"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
25	Miles Hicks	G	Sr	6'1"	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

William & Mary

Against the spread

Season

16-14

Home

6-5

Road

7-8

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −2.5

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

12-17-1

Home

5-6

Road

6-9

Last 10

3-6-1

avg vs total −0.3

Over in 2 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	HofstraAdjEM #69	N	L 61–92	+2.5	L−28.5	153.0	P153	92.8	140.0	65.7
Mar 7	ElonAdjEM #228	N	W 72–62	−5.5	W+4.5	163.5	U134	106.4	91.6	67.7
Mar 3	HamptonAdjEM #268	H	W 94–85	−11.5	L−2.5	154.0	O179	130.3	117.9	72.1
Feb 28	NC A&TAdjEM #271	A	W 91–88	−7.0	L−4.0	163.5	O179	121.0	117.0	75.2
Feb 26	NortheasternAdjEM #274	H	W 84–77	−11.0	L−4.0	164.5	U161	105.1	96.4	79.9
Feb 19	CampbellAdjEM #208	A	L 83–84	−2.5	L−3.5	167.5	U167	111.8	113.1	74.3
Feb 14	ElonAdjEM #228	H	L 78–81	−8.0	L−11.0	165.5	U159	109.6	113.8	71.2
Feb 12	NortheasternAdjEM #274	A	W 94–67	−5.5	W+21.5	167.5	U161	135.0	96.2	69.7
Feb 7	HamptonAdjEM #268	A	L 74–77	−5.5	L−8.5	152.0	U151	103.6	107.7	71.5
Feb 5	UNC WilmingtonAdjEM #86	A	W 85–78	+4.5	W+11.5	159.0	O163	125.9	115.6	67.5

James Madison

Against the spread

Season

13-19

Home

5-9

Road

6-9

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +1.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

15-17

Home

4-10

Road

8-7

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +2.2

Over 2 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	Southern MissAdjEM #218	N	L 80–86	−2.0	L−8.0	143.5	O166	111.1	119.4	72.0
Mar 4	LouisianaAdjEM #318	N	W 87–72	−6.5	W+8.5	135.0	O159	122.3	101.2	71.2
Feb 27	CoastalAdjEM #241	H	L 68–69	−6.0	L−7.0	142.0	U137	107.0	108.6	63.5
Feb 25	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	H	W 82–66	−5.5	W+10.5	153.5	U148	116.4	93.7	70.4
Feb 21	Georgia StAdjEM #310	A	W 80–65	−2.5	W+12.5	142.5	O145	119.4	97.0	67.0
Feb 18	CoastalAdjEM #241	A	W 67–65	−1.0	W+1.0	141.5	U132	102.2	99.1	65.6
Feb 14	App StateAdjEM #180	H	W 69–58	+1.5	W+12.5	135.0	U127	112.7	94.7	61.2
Feb 12	Georgia StAdjEM #310	H	W 81–79 OT	−6.0	L−4.0	144.0	O160	109.5	106.8	74.0
Feb 7	ToledoAdjEM #115	H	W 73–71	+1.0	W+3.0	152.0	U144	109.6	106.6	66.6
Feb 4	LouisianaAdjEM #318	H	L 61–64	−9.5	L−12.5	132.0	U125	107.7	113.0	56.6

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

William & MaryJames Madison

Efficiency

110.1

109.2

107.7

110.7

71.8

67.4

—

Shooting

54.3%

53.1%

57.9%

53.2%

33.0%

35.4%

74.9%

70.3%

44.0%

35.9%

Ball control & glass

16.5%

17.3%

19.0%

12.8%

26.0%

30.6%

31.5%

29.5%

9.9%

9.5%

9.8%

11.1%

Style

42.8%

42.5%

43.3%

43.8%

19.6%

13.9%

63.8%

48.3%

43.8%

34.8%

Roster

3.49

3.09

6'5.3"

6'4.9"

89.1%

83.4%

Offseason

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

William & Mary

Returning minutes: 89.1%Returning production: 88.7%

Lost

Kilian Brockhoff 21.7 mpg, 10.7 ppg · transferred to E Michigan

Added

Miles Hicks no D1 minutes last season
Ethan Connery no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 89% 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).

James Madison

Returning minutes: 83.4%Returning production: 78.2%

Lost

Justin McBride 25.5 mpg, 14.3 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
Elijah Wilborn 8.0 mpg, 2.2 ppg · transferred to Merrimack

Added

Josh Stephen no D1 minutes last season
Chance Lundy 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 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.