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-conferenceKFC Yum! Center, Louisville, KY

Chattanooga

Efficiency #289

2025-26: 13-19 · 7-12 conf

Louisville

Efficiency #14

2025-26: 24-11 · 12-8 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

67.6

win 4%

Projected

87.5

win 96%

No line posted yet.

Model: LOU −20.0 · total 155.1 · 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: Louisville 69.9, Chattanooga 68.1 → 69.6 possessions

+2.8

Louisville offense vs Chattanooga defense

+10.0

Chattanooga offense vs Louisville defense

−5.9

Projected total

155.1

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Louisville offense vs Chattanooga defense

+10.0

Chattanooga offense vs Louisville defense

+5.9

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

+4.0

Louisville by 20.0

20.0

Chattanooga side ◂▸ Louisville side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +19.9 against +20.0. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Louisville.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 69.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Louisville is the faster team (71.0, #54 of 365) and Chattanooga the slower (67.6, #218). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

69.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

155.1

model

Projected team totals

67.6 / 87.5

Chattanooga / Louisville

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.1#204

Chattanooga

69.9#60

Louisville

How this game plays

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

AdvantageLouisville

Where Louisville scores: shooting

Louisville shoots an effective 56.5% (#14); Chattanooga allows 51.7% (#195). Expect about 54.6%, 3.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.7 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageChattanooga

Where Chattanooga struggles: the offensive glass

Chattanooga rebounds 21.8% of its own misses (#358); Louisville lets opponents grab 27.5% of their own misses (#50). Expect about 22.9%, 7.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.6 points per 100 possessions.

ClashLouisville

Style match: 3-point volume

Louisville takes 52.9% of its shots from three; Chattanooga lets opponents take 44.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 53.3% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversLouisville

Louisville protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.5% is worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions for Louisville's offense.

TurnoversChattanooga

Chattanooga protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.4% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Chattanooga's offense.

ClashChattanooga

Strength vs strength: eFG%

Chattanooga (#60 in eFG%) against Louisville (#54 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 51.7%. Historically Chattanooga's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.58 vs 0.51).

Chattanooga has the ball

OffenseLouisville allowsvs D1 avg

54.2% #60

48.7% #54

+0.5 pt/100

14.4% #38

16.7% #172

+1.7 pt/100

21.8% #358

27.5% #50

-4.6 pt/100

29.7% #319

33.0% #130

-0.5 pt/100

77.4% #26

—

+0.4 pt/100

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

Louisville has the ball

OffenseChattanooga allowsvs D1 avg

56.5% #14

51.7% #195

+4.7 pt/100

16.8% #186

13.2% #350

+2.8 pt/100

32.8% #93

31.7% #240

+1.4 pt/100

33.1% #236

42.6% #335

+0.4 pt/100

76.1% #51

—

+0.3 pt/100

Louisville net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.7 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Chattanoogaoffense vsLouisvilledefense

Share of shots by zone

Chattanooga shoots

28.2

6.1

16.3

49.4

Louisville allows

32.4

9.0

19.1

39.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.8%#78	58.8%#181	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	52.6%#4	39.2%#162	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	47.8%#2	32.9%#28	38.0%
Three	35.0%#116	32.3%#76	33.7%

Louisvilleoffense vsChattanoogadefense

Share of shots by zone

Louisville shoots

36.2

5.3

6.1

52.5

Chattanooga allows

38.0

4.8

13.3

43.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	63.8%#41	58.7%#173	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.4%#36	42.9%#247	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.8%#265	34.6%#63	38.0%
Three	36.0%#58	34.2%#195	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

Chattanooga

−7.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#359 of 365

Off reb %

21.8%

#358

Def reb %

68.3%

#240

Turnover %

14.4%

#38

Forced TO %

13.2%

#350

FT rate

29.7%

#319

FT allowed

42.6%

#335

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−2.8

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security+1.6

Forcing turnovers−2.4

Foul shots drawn−1.4

Foul shots allowed−1.9

Louisville

+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#104 of 365

Off reb %

32.8%

#93

Def reb %

72.5%

#50

Turnover %

16.8%

#186

Forced TO %

16.7%

#172

FT rate

33.1%

#236

FT allowed

33.0%

#130

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.8

Defensive rebounding+1.0

Ball security0.0

Forcing turnovers0.0

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed+0.6

Louisville has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.9 (#104 of 365) to Chattanooga’s −7.2 (#359).

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

Chattanooga2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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
5	Jordan Frison	G	Jr	6'0"	32-29	29.9	16.4	3.3	4.0	1.7	62.9%	45.5%	3.5	82.0%	28.0%
0	Tate Darner	G	Fr	6'4"	30-18	27.5	9.9	4.4	1.7	1.1	56.9%	37.9%	4.7	73.6%	20.2%
1	Brennan Watkins	G	Sr	6'0"	32-22	25.2	10.2	2.8	1.8	1.2	62.3%	45.6%	4.7	88.6%	20.8%
11	Billy Smith	G	Sr	6'7"	32-16	23.0	8.4	2.8	1.2	0.9	50.4%	34.0%	5.9	69.2%	23.5%
10	Teddy Washington Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	31-20	21.9	9.0	3.3	1.4	1.0	46.0%	23.1%	3.4	77.9%	26.5%
34	Makai Richards	C	Sr	6'10"	32-13	13.1	3.4	3.1	0.9	0.8	58.8%	33.3%	0.1	76.7%	16.2%
21	Collin Mulholland	F	So	6'10"	23-9	17.2	7.6	3.4	1.7	1.0	48.6%	21.7%	2.6	81.6%	28.4%
3	Jikari Johnson	G	Sr	6'4"	29-7	13.5	6.7	2.2	0.8	0.5	54.4%	35.2%	3.0	78.3%	26.8%
55	Parker Robison	G	So	6'0"	27-1	10.7	1.3	1.5	0.8	0.2	37.5%	9.5%	0.8	62.5%	10.1%
13	Houston Holland	G	So	6'3"	27-4	10.5	2.0	1.7	0.6	0.4	59.8%	50.0%	0.8	75.0%	11.5%
30	Josh Bowman	F	Fr	6'9"	23-8	12.0	3.2	2.5	0.9	0.6	50.8%	22.2%	0.4	42.9%	18.7%
2	Sebastian Hartmann	G	Jr	6'6"	7-6	22.4	7.0	5.0	1.0	1.1	60.0%	43.5%	3.3	70.0%	18.1%
7	Sean Cusano	G	Jr	6'9"	6-4	13.7	4.2	2.7	1.0	0.2	47.9%	10.0%	1.7	66.7%	18.2%
23	Latif Diouf	F	So	6'9"	5-3	14.4	4.8	2.6	1.8	0.8	64.7%	40.0%	1.0	50.0%	18.2%
6	Ryan Lopez	G	Jr	5'8"	5-0	5.6	3.4	0.8	0.4	0.2	62.5%	50.0%	2.0	50.0%	30.1%
20	Liam Vitters	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
4	Zach Bleshoy	G	Fr	6'4"	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.

Louisville2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
40	Flory Bidungaat Kansas	F	Jr	6'9"	35-34	31.6	13.3	9.0	1.5	1.5	64.0%	0.0%	0.1	65.4%	21.9%
11	De'Shayne Montgomeryat Dayton	G	Sr	6'4"	36-36	30.6	13.4	4.0	2.1	1.9	56.2%	33.5%	4.3	78.9%	25.7%
53	LJ Wellsat N Kentucky	F	Sr	6'8"	33-33	30.3	15.0	7.3	2.1	1.9	57.9%	28.3%	1.6	67.5%	26.1%
5	Seth Trimbleat North Carolina	G	Sr	6'3"	24-24	32.5	14.0	3.8	3.0	1.4	50.8%	28.6%	2.6	66.7%	25.4%
14	Adrian Wooley	G	Jr	6'4"	35-16	22.5	8.7	3.9	1.8	1.1	53.9%	35.0%	3.3	77.8%	21.8%
7	Alvaro Folgueirasat Iowa	F	Sr	6'10"	37-1	20.6	8.4	3.6	2.2	1.2	58.6%	33.3%	2.9	76.7%	24.8%
3	Jackson Shelstadat Oregon	G	Sr	6'1"	12-12	34.9	15.6	2.9	4.9	1.8	48.8%	31.4%	8.8	84.6%	28.0%
1	Karter Knoxat Arkansas	G	Jr	6'6"	22-18	22.2	8.1	4.5	1.2	1.0	55.4%	37.7%	3.1	72.7%	20.1%
45	Gabe Dynesat USC	C	Sr	7'5"	30-6	11.9	2.9	2.3	0.4	0.7	78.8%	—	0.0	35.3%	12.8%
33	Will Hanke	G	So	6'4"	9-0	1.1	0.2	0.4	0.0	0.0	33.3%	—	0.0	—	16.1%
6	Boyuan Zhang	F	Fr	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Isaac Ellis	G	Fr	6'1"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
15	Obinna Ekezie Jr.	C	Fr	7'2"	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: Flory Bidunga (from Kansas), Gabe Dynes (from USC), Alvaro Folgueiras (from Iowa), De'Shayne Montgomery (from Dayton), Jackson Shelstad (from Oregon), Seth Trimble (from North Carolina), LJ Wells (from N Kentucky), Karter Knox (from Arkansas)

Chattanooga2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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
5	Jordan Frison	G	Jr	6'0"	32-29	29.9	16.4	3.3	4.0	1.7	62.9%	45.5%	3.5	82.0%	28.0%
0	Tate Darner	G	Fr	6'4"	30-18	27.5	9.9	4.4	1.7	1.1	56.9%	37.9%	4.7	73.6%	20.2%
1	Brennan Watkins	G	Sr	6'0"	32-22	25.2	10.2	2.8	1.8	1.2	62.3%	45.6%	4.7	88.6%	20.8%
11	Billy Smith	G	Sr	6'7"	32-16	23.0	8.4	2.8	1.2	0.9	50.4%	34.0%	5.9	69.2%	23.5%
10	Teddy Washington Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	31-20	21.9	9.0	3.3	1.4	1.0	46.0%	23.1%	3.4	77.9%	26.5%
34	Makai Richards	C	Sr	6'10"	32-13	13.1	3.4	3.1	0.9	0.8	58.8%	33.3%	0.1	76.7%	16.2%
21	Collin Mulholland	F	So	6'10"	23-9	17.2	7.6	3.4	1.7	1.0	48.6%	21.7%	2.6	81.6%	28.4%
3	Jikari Johnson	G	Sr	6'4"	29-7	13.5	6.7	2.2	0.8	0.5	54.4%	35.2%	3.0	78.3%	26.8%
55	Parker Robison	G	So	6'0"	27-1	10.7	1.3	1.5	0.8	0.2	37.5%	9.5%	0.8	62.5%	10.1%
13	Houston Holland	G	So	6'3"	27-4	10.5	2.0	1.7	0.6	0.4	59.8%	50.0%	0.8	75.0%	11.5%
30	Josh Bowman	F	Fr	6'9"	23-8	12.0	3.2	2.5	0.9	0.6	50.8%	22.2%	0.4	42.9%	18.7%
2	Sebastian Hartmann	G	Jr	6'6"	7-6	22.4	7.0	5.0	1.0	1.1	60.0%	43.5%	3.3	70.0%	18.1%
7	Sean Cusano	G	Jr	6'9"	6-4	13.7	4.2	2.7	1.0	0.2	47.9%	10.0%	1.7	66.7%	18.2%
23	Latif Diouf	F	So	6'9"	5-3	14.4	4.8	2.6	1.8	0.8	64.7%	40.0%	1.0	50.0%	18.2%
6	Ryan Lopez	G	Jr	5'8"	5-0	5.6	3.4	0.8	0.4	0.2	62.5%	50.0%	2.0	50.0%	30.1%
20	Liam Vitters	G	So	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
4	Zach Bleshoy	G	Fr	6'4"	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

Chattanooga

Against the spread

Season

12-17

Home

4-8

Road

7-8

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.7

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-13

Home

5-7

Road

9-6

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +9.8

Over 6 straightOver in 6 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	The CitadelAdjEM #348	N	L 85–88	−7.5	L−10.5	147.5	O173	133.9	138.7	63.5
Feb 28	VMIAdjEM #361	H	W 86–79	−11.5	L−4.5	155.0	O165	135.7	124.6	63.4
Feb 26	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	H	L 80–85	−3.5	L−8.5	157.5	O165	104.3	110.8	76.7
Feb 21	The CitadelAdjEM #348	A	W 93–72	−4.0	W+17.0	144.0	O165	128.9	99.8	72.1
Feb 19	MercerAdjEM #161	A	W 94–90	+10.0	W+14.0	151.5	O184	144.7	138.6	65.0
Feb 14	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	H	L 76–81	−2.0	L−7.0	151.5	O157	110.4	117.6	68.9
Feb 11	ETSUAdjEM #110	A	L 61–73	+10.0	L−2.0	145.0	U134	92.2	110.3	66.2
Feb 7	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	L 71–78	−9.5	L−16.5	141.0	O149	104.4	114.7	68.0
Feb 5	MercerAdjEM #161	H	W 79–75	+4.5	W+8.5	155.0	U154	109.5	104.0	72.2
Feb 1	FurmanAdjEM #163	A	L 70–75	+7.5	W+2.5	145.5	U145	106.4	114.0	65.8

Louisville

Against the spread

Season

15-18-2

Home

9-7-1

Road

3-8

Last 10

1-7-2

avg cover −4.2

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 0 of 8 as a favorite, 2 pushes

Over / under

Season

14-21

Home

6-11

Road

6-5

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −4.5

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#3Michigan StAdjEM #11	N	L 69–77	+5.0	L−3.0	151.0	U146	103.1	115.0	66.9
Mar 19	#11South FloridaAdjEM #36	N	W 83–79	−4.0	P0.0	160.0	O162	110.3	105.0	75.2
Mar 12	MiamiAdjEM #30	N	L 73–78	−1.5	L−6.5	153.5	U151	106.7	114.0	68.4
Mar 11	SMUAdjEM #44	N	W 62–58	−6.5	L−2.5	163.5	U120	100.9	94.4	61.5
Mar 7	#22MiamiAdjEM #30	A	W 92–89	+1.5	W+4.5	155.5	O181	142.7	138.1	64.5
Mar 3	SyracuseAdjEM #85	H	W 77–62	−15.0	P0.0	160.0	U139	113.8	91.6	67.7
Feb 28	ClemsonAdjEM #35	A	L 75–80	−2.0	L−7.0	146.5	O155	107.3	114.4	69.9
Feb 23	#18North CarolinaAdjEM #29	A	L 74–77	−3.5	L−6.5	163.0	U151	111.1	115.6	66.6
Feb 21	Georgia TechAdjEM #201	H	W 87–70	−23.5	L−6.5	166.5	U157	118.2	95.1	73.6
Feb 17	SMUAdjEM #44	A	L 85–95	−4.0	L−14.0	168.0	O180	111.2	124.3	76.4

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

ChattanoogaLouisville

Efficiency

106.9

117.8

113.5

101.5

68.1

69.9

—

Shooting

54.2%

56.5%

55.8%

59.4%

35.0%

36.0%

77.4%

76.1%

29.7%

33.1%

Ball control & glass

14.4%

16.8%

13.2%

16.7%

21.8%

32.8%

31.7%

27.5%

8.3%

9.5%

7.7%

12.5%

Style

49.2%

52.9%

36.2%

39.1%

12.7%

8.6%

55.6%

59.6%

39.4%

31.7%

Roster

2.97

3.65

6'3.9"

6'6.6"

—

11.4%

Offseason

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

Chattanooga

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Chattanooga'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.)

Louisville

Returning minutes: 11.4%Returning production: 10.0%

Lost

Ryan Conwell 30.0 mpg, 18.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Isaac McKneely 29.0 mpg, 10.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
J'Vonne Hadley 27.2 mpg, 11.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Sananda Fru 22.0 mpg, 9.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Mikel Brown Jr. 17.5 mpg, 10.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Khani Rooths 14.1 mpg, 4.7 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma

Added

Flory Bidunga from Kansas · 31.6 mpg, 13.3 ppg last season
De'Shayne Montgomery from Dayton · 29.8 mpg, 13.0 ppg last season
LJ Wells from N Kentucky · 29.4 mpg, 14.5 ppg last season
Seth Trimble from North Carolina · 23.6 mpg, 10.2 ppg last season
Alvaro Folgueiras from Iowa · 20.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg last season
Karter Knox from Arkansas · 13.2 mpg, 4.8 ppg last season

Returns 11% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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.