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-conferenceThe Sandy and John Black Pavilion at Ole Miss, Oxford, MS

William & Mary

Efficiency #127

2025-26: 20-12 · 11-9 conf

Ole Miss

Efficiency #82

2025-26: 15-20 · 7-15 conf

Mon, Dec 7 · TBD

73.7

win 29%

Projected

80.0

win 71%

No line posted yet.

Model: MISS −6.3 · total 153.6 · 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: Ole Miss 67.5, William & Mary 71.8 → 71.0 possessions

+5.9

Ole Miss offense vs William & Mary defense

+0.9

William & Mary offense vs Ole Miss defense

−1.4

Projected total

153.6

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Ole Miss offense vs William & Mary defense

+0.9

William & Mary offense vs Ole Miss defense

+1.4

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

+4.1

Ole Miss by 6.3

6.3

William & Mary side ◂▸ Ole Miss side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +6.4 against +6.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Ole Miss.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.0, 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 Ole Miss the slower (68.3, #188). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

71.0

per team, 40 min

Projected total

153.6

model

Projected team totals

73.7 / 80.0

William & Mary / Ole Miss

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

71.8#6

William & Mary

67.5#248

Ole Miss

How this game plays

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

Pace

Tempo tug-of-war

Ole Miss averages 68.3 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 72 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

ClashWilliam & Mary

Style match: ball movement

William & Mary assists on 63.8% of its made baskets; Ole Miss allows assists on 57.4% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 63.1% — both habits push the same way.

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 12.0% of William & Mary's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

AdvantageWilliam & Mary

Where William & Mary scores: shooting

William & Mary shoots an effective 54.3% (#58); Ole Miss allows 50.5% (#127). Expect about 52.6%, 1.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.

ClashWilliam & Mary

Style match: 3-point volume

William & Mary takes 42.8% of its shots from three; Ole Miss lets opponents take 42.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 44.2% — both habits push the same way.

ClashOle Miss

Style clash: 3-point volume

Ole Miss rarely shoots threes (35.5% of its shots); William & Mary lets opponents take 45.5% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.2% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

William & Mary has the ball

OffenseOle Miss allowsvs D1 avg

54.3% #58

50.5% #127

+1.9 pt/100

16.5% #169

16.4% #189

+0.4 pt/100

26.0% #324

32.6% #285

-1.2 pt/100

44.0% #9

41.2% #315

+1.0 pt/100

74.9% #87

—

+0.2 pt/100

William & Mary net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.3 pts/100

Ole Miss has the ball

OffenseWilliam & Mary allowsvs D1 avg

50.4% #217

51.9% #205

-0.3 pt/100

14.0% #23

19.0% #48

+0.2 pt/100

28.3% #253

31.5% #229

-0.6 pt/100

33.0% #238

35.5% #195

-0.1 pt/100

74.9% #86

—

+0.2 pt/100

Ole Miss net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

William & Maryoffense vsOle Missdefense

Share of shots by zone

William & Mary shoots

43.8

4.6

8.6

43.0

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	64.0%#37	57.5%#129	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	32.0%#332	45.2%#303	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.7%#120	36.8%#125	38.0%
Three	33.0%#233	33.4%#151	33.7%

Ole Missoffense vsWilliam & Marydefense

Share of shots by zone

Ole Miss shoots

28.6

7.4

29.0

34.9

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	64.8%#26	59.9%#222	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.4%#213	34.2%#48	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#140	40.2%#249	38.0%
Three	33.2%#221	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

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

William & Mary has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.3 (#83 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

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.

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.

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

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

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 & MaryOle Miss

Efficiency

110.1

110.4

107.7

105.0

71.8

67.5

—

Shooting

54.3%

50.4%

57.9%

50.8%

33.0%

33.2%

74.9%

44.0%

33.0%

Ball control & glass

16.5%

14.0%

19.0%

16.4%

26.0%

28.3%

31.5%

32.6%

9.9%

8.6%

9.8%

7.9%

Style

42.8%

35.5%

43.3%

39.5%

19.6%

12.1%

63.8%

50.2%

43.8%

40.2%

Roster

3.49

2.79

6'5.3"

6'4.3"

89.1%

79.3%

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).

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).

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.