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-conferenceMoody Coliseum (Dallas), Dallas, TX

VMI

Efficiency #361

2025-26: 6-26 · 1-18 conf

SMU

Efficiency #44

2025-26: 20-14 · 9-11 conf

Thu, Nov 5 · TBD

66.8

win 3%

Projected

89.1

win 97%

No line posted yet.

Model: SMU −22.4 · total 155.9 · 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: SMU 69.1, VMI 67.9 → 68.8 possessions

+1.0

SMU offense vs VMI defense

+12.6

VMI offense vs SMU defense

−5.8

Projected total

155.9

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

SMU offense vs VMI defense

+12.6

VMI offense vs SMU defense

+5.8

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

+4.0

SMU by 22.4

22.4

VMI side ◂▸ SMU side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 156.0 against a projected 155.9. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help SMU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, SMU is the faster team (70.6, #73 of 365) and VMI the slower (67.6, #219). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

155.9

model

Projected team totals

66.8 / 89.1

VMI / SMU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.9#215

VMI

69.1#108

SMU

How this game plays

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

AdvantageSMU

Where SMU scores: shooting

SMU shoots an effective 55.6% (#26); VMI allows 57.0% (#357). Expect about 56.7%, 5.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +7.7 points per 100 possessions.

ClashVMI

Style match: 3-point volume

VMI takes 53.6% of its shots from three; SMU lets opponents take 47.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 56.0% — both habits push the same way.

GlassSMU

SMU owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 37.2% is worth roughly +4.1 points per 100 possessions for SMU's offense.

AdvantageVMI

Where VMI struggles: shooting

VMI shoots an effective 47.6% (#325); SMU allows 51.6% (#189). Expect about 49.3%, 2.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (SMU, VMI's defense) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect VMI at about 56.0% of its shots from three, SMU about 41.1%.

GlassVMI

VMI gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.7% is worth roughly -1.7 points per 100 possessions against VMI's offense.

VMI has the ball

OffenseSMU allowsvs D1 avg

47.6% #325

51.6% #189

-2.8 pt/100

15.3% #88

16.8% #164

+1.0 pt/100

25.6% #330

31.6% #237

-1.7 pt/100

30.6% #293

32.1% #107

-0.5 pt/100

72.2% #201

—

-0.0 pt/100

VMI net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.0 pts/100

SMU has the ball

OffenseVMI allowsvs D1 avg

55.6% #26

57.0% #357

+7.7 pt/100

15.7% #116

15.7% #241

+1.6 pt/100

35.4% #37

37.2% #360

+4.1 pt/100

30.4% #301

34.6% #168

-0.3 pt/100

74.3% #117

—

+0.2 pt/100

SMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +13.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

VMIoffense vsSMUdefense

Share of shots by zone

VMI shoots

32.1

4.2

9.7

53.9

SMU allows

31.4

4.3

16.6

47.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.5%#327	60.8%#263	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	19.7%#365	37.0%#111	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.6%#246	38.3%#169	38.0%
Three	31.5%#306	34.1%#188	33.7%

SMUoffense vsVMIdefense

Share of shots by zone

SMU shoots

34.6

6.9

23.0

35.4

VMI allows

34.3

4.7

14.4

46.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.0%#38	66.0%#359	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#17	49.3%#351	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	44.1%#25	44.7%#347	38.0%
Three	37.1%#27	36.5%#327	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

VMI

−4.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#337 of 365

Off reb %

25.6%

#330

Def reb %

62.8%

#360

Turnover %

15.3%

#88

Forced TO %

15.7%

#241

FT rate

30.6%

#293

FT allowed

34.6%

#168

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.5

Defensive rebounding−2.1

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn−1.1

Foul shots allowed+0.2

SMU

+1.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#112 of 365

Off reb %

35.4%

#37

Def reb %

68.4%

#237

Turnover %

15.7%

#116

Forced TO %

16.8%

#164

FT rate

30.4%

#301

FT allowed

32.1%

#107

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.6

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers+0.1

Foul shots drawn−1.2

Foul shots allowed+0.8

SMU has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.7 (#112 of 365) to VMI’s −4.4 (#337).

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

VMI2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
44	TJ Johnson	F	Jr	6'7"	31-31	35.6	18.3	7.2	1.4	1.6	52.7%	35.5%	10.0	81.9%	29.0%
4	Linus Holmstrom	G	So	6'3"	31-29	27.2	11.4	2.5	1.7	1.4	58.0%	39.4%	6.4	76.2%	23.3%
2	Mario Tatum Jr.	G	Fr	6'3"	31-8	25.9	8.5	2.0	1.4	0.6	45.3%	27.3%	3.2	64.6%	21.1%
0	Cal Liston	F	So	6'5"	32-24	23.0	5.3	3.2	1.0	0.7	50.3%	33.3%	3.7	72.0%	14.8%
5	AJ Clark	G	Jr	6'4"	22-22	26.5	6.6	6.0	1.6	1.1	50.4%	37.0%	1.2	66.7%	16.2%
6	Kaden Stuckey	F	So	6'8"	28-7	18.7	4.4	4.9	0.5	1.1	35.3%	0.0%	0.5	62.9%	20.2%
14	Walker Andrews	G	So	6'1"	29-3	13.4	5.9	0.9	0.7	0.3	49.0%	33.3%	3.4	84.4%	24.9%
7	Jaylen Pazon	G	So	6'5"	20-1	13.4	6.7	2.2	0.7	1.1	44.9%	17.6%	1.7	71.1%	33.3%
9	Alexander Daushvili	F	Fr	6'8"	5-3	17.2	6.8	4.2	1.0	0.6	41.2%	0.0%	1.4	83.3%	21.0%
3	Mason Hagedorn	F	So	6'9"	7-1	9.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.1	30.4%	36.4%	1.6	—	20.6%
10	Branford Edmonds III	G	So	6'2"	5-0	5.6	2.6	1.6	0.0	0.2	65.0%	37.5%	1.6	—	19.9%
42	Mason Lawson	G	So	6'1"	4-0	1.5	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	150.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	20.8%
1	Rickey Bradley Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
32	Robert Peters	F	Jr	6'8"	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.

SMU2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
24	Samet Yigitoglu	C	So	7'2"	34-34	28.9	10.7	7.9	1.6	1.7	62.8%	0.0%	0.0	49.5%	20.7%
3	Corey Washington	F	Sr	6'6"	34-34	27.8	11.4	4.9	0.9	1.0	56.8%	38.8%	3.4	76.9%	21.1%
10	Jaden Toombs	C	Fr	6'10"	27-5	20.0	8.3	4.6	1.1	0.8	58.6%	23.1%	1.0	65.8%	22.8%
7	Jermaine O'Neal Jr.	F	Fr	6'5"	34-2	15.0	4.5	2.0	0.4	0.5	51.1%	37.1%	1.8	91.7%	17.8%
9	B.J. Davis-Ray	G	Fr	6'6"	32-0	7.1	1.3	0.7	0.4	0.3	41.1%	21.7%	0.7	75.0%	13.9%
4	Sam Walters	F	Jr	6'9"	24-2	9.3	2.6	1.0	0.4	0.4	52.5%	34.9%	1.8	0.0%	17.9%
13	Mitchell Holmes	F	Fr	6'10"	25-0	5.5	1.7	0.9	0.2	0.2	70.4%	—	0.0	100.0%	13.1%
1	Chance Puryear	F	Fr	6'7"	11-0	3.2	0.4	0.5	0.0	0.4	30.0%	33.3%	0.3	33.3%	16.3%
22	Nigel Walls	F	Fr	6'10"	9-0	3.3	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	0.1	—	6.9%
31	Trey Utter	G	Sr	6'0"	2-0	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
33	Niccolo Kalischer-Stork	G	Fr	6'2"	2-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	—	—	0.0	0.0%	49.3%
8	Billy White III	F	Fr	6'8"	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.

VMI2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
44	TJ Johnson	F	Jr	6'7"	31-31	35.6	18.3	7.2	1.4	1.6	52.7%	35.5%	10.0	81.9%	29.0%
4	Linus Holmstrom	G	So	6'3"	31-29	27.2	11.4	2.5	1.7	1.4	58.0%	39.4%	6.4	76.2%	23.3%
2	Mario Tatum Jr.	G	Fr	6'3"	31-8	25.9	8.5	2.0	1.4	0.6	45.3%	27.3%	3.2	64.6%	21.1%
0	Cal Liston	F	So	6'5"	32-24	23.0	5.3	3.2	1.0	0.7	50.3%	33.3%	3.7	72.0%	14.8%
5	AJ Clark	G	Jr	6'4"	22-22	26.5	6.6	6.0	1.6	1.1	50.4%	37.0%	1.2	66.7%	16.2%
6	Kaden Stuckey	F	So	6'8"	28-7	18.7	4.4	4.9	0.5	1.1	35.3%	0.0%	0.5	62.9%	20.2%
14	Walker Andrews	G	So	6'1"	29-3	13.4	5.9	0.9	0.7	0.3	49.0%	33.3%	3.4	84.4%	24.9%
7	Jaylen Pazon	G	So	6'5"	20-1	13.4	6.7	2.2	0.7	1.1	44.9%	17.6%	1.7	71.1%	33.3%
9	Alexander Daushvili	F	Fr	6'8"	5-3	17.2	6.8	4.2	1.0	0.6	41.2%	0.0%	1.4	83.3%	21.0%
3	Mason Hagedorn	F	So	6'9"	7-1	9.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.1	30.4%	36.4%	1.6	—	20.6%
10	Branford Edmonds III	G	So	6'2"	5-0	5.6	2.6	1.6	0.0	0.2	65.0%	37.5%	1.6	—	19.9%
42	Mason Lawson	G	So	6'1"	4-0	1.5	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	150.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	20.8%
1	Rickey Bradley Jr.	G	Sr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
32	Robert Peters	F	Jr	6'8"	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

VMI

Against the spread

Season

8-19-2

Home

2-9

Road

6-8-1

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −3.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 10 as an underdogCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

13-16

Home

6-5

Road

7-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +4.2

Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 10 as an underdogOver in 4 of 6 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	N	L 70–84	+6.5	L−7.5	156.0	U154	103.8	124.6	67.4
Feb 28	ChattanoogaAdjEM #289	A	L 79–86	+11.5	W+4.5	155.0	O165	124.6	135.7	63.4
Feb 26	SamfordAdjEM #202	A	L 61–80	+17.0	L−2.0	156.0	U141	93.0	122.0	65.6
Feb 21	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	H	L 62–81	+9.0	L−10.0	155.0	U143	98.2	128.3	63.2
Feb 18	WoffordAdjEM #235	A	L 76–82	+13.5	W+7.5	158.5	U158	110.3	119.0	68.9
Feb 14	FurmanAdjEM #163	H	L 72–90	+12.0	L−6.0	146.5	O162	101.4	126.8	71.0
Feb 11	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	A	L 71–92	+8.5	L−12.5	151.0	O163	102.7	133.0	69.2
Feb 7	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 70–87	+14.5	L−2.5	144.0	O157	99.1	123.2	70.6
Feb 4	WoffordAdjEM #235	H	L 67–81	+9.0	L−5.0	150.0	U148	98.9	119.6	67.7
Jan 31	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 81–95	+18.0	W+4.0	153.5	O176	111.4	130.7	72.7

SMU

Against the spread

Season

14-18-2

Home

7-10-1

Road

4-6-1

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −3.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

19-13-2

Home

10-8

Road

6-4-1

Last 10

5-4-1

avg vs total −1.6

Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 18	#11Miami OHAdjEM #66	N	L 79–89	−7.0	L−17.0	160.5	O168	119.2	134.3	66.3
Mar 11	#24LouisvilleAdjEM #14	N	L 58–62	+6.5	W+2.5	163.5	U120	94.4	100.9	61.5
Mar 10	SyracuseAdjEM #85	N	W 86–69	−4.0	W+13.0	155.0	P155	130.2	104.4	66.1
Mar 7	Florida StAdjEM #74	A	L 78–91	+1.0	L−12.0	158.5	O169	105.8	123.4	73.7
Mar 4	#22MiamiAdjEM #30	H	L 69–77	−1.5	L−9.5	156.5	U146	99.4	111.0	69.4
Feb 28	StanfordAdjEM #77	A	L 75–95	+1.0	L−19.0	154.5	O170	116.6	147.6	64.3
Feb 25	CaliforniaAdjEM #79	A	L 69–73	−4.0	L−8.0	163.0	U142	98.9	104.7	69.7
Feb 21	Boston CollegeAdjEM #187	H	W 94–70	−15.5	W+8.5	150.0	O164	143.1	106.6	65.7
Feb 17	#21LouisvilleAdjEM #14	H	W 95–85	+4.0	W+14.0	168.0	O180	124.3	111.2	76.4
Feb 14	SyracuseAdjEM #85	A	L 78–79	−2.0	L−3.0	158.0	U157	119.4	121.0	65.3

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

VMISMU

Efficiency

101.8

117.0

118.2

106.7

67.9

69.1

—

Shooting

47.6%

55.6%

47.9%

55.6%

31.5%

37.1%

72.2%

74.3%

30.6%

30.4%

Ball control & glass

15.3%

15.7%

16.8%

25.6%

35.4%

37.2%

31.6%

8.6%

9.3%

10.5%

7.5%

Style

53.6%

35.9%

32.8%

43.7%

11.0%

13.4%

50.7%

54.9%

28.4%

22.4%

Roster

2.15

2.18

6'4.8"

6'9"

84.9%

53.0%

Offseason

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

VMI

Returning minutes: 84.9%Returning production: 84.7%

Lost

Tan Yildizoglu 30.2 mpg, 9.9 ppg · transferred to Siena

Added

Robert Peters no D1 minutes last season
Rickey Bradley Jr. no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 85% 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).

SMU

Returning minutes: 53.0%Returning production: 45.5%

Lost

Boopie Miller 34.1 mpg, 18.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jaron Pierre Jr. 33.2 mpg, 17.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
B.J. Edwards 27.4 mpg, 10.5 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma

Added

Billy White III no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 53% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred).

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.