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 siteAcrisure Arena, Palm Springs, CAAcrisure Series

SMU

Efficiency #44

2025-26: 20-14 · 9-11 conf

LSU

Efficiency #72

2025-26: 15-17 · 3-16 conf

Thu, Nov 26 · 7:00 PM ET

80.0

win 58%

Projected

77.6

win 42%

No line posted yet.

Model: SMU −2.4 · total 157.5 · 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: LSU 67.9, SMU 69.1 → 68.7 possessions

+0.8

LSU offense vs SMU defense

+3.1

SMU offense vs LSU defense

+5.4

Projected total

157.5

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

LSU offense vs SMU defense

+3.1

SMU offense vs LSU defense

−5.4

SMU by 2.4

2.4

SMU side ◂▸ LSU side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to −2.3 against −2.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help LSU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, SMU is the faster team (70.6, #73 of 365) and LSU the slower (68.6, #168). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.7

per team, 40 min

Projected total

157.5

model

Projected team totals

80.0 / 77.6

SMU / LSU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.1#108

SMU

67.9#219

LSU

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); LSU allows 50.9% (#150). Expect about 53.6%, 2.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.3 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversSMU

SMU protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 14.3% is worth roughly +3.0 points per 100 possessions for SMU's offense.

GlassSMU

SMU owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 34.5% is worth roughly +2.5 points per 100 possessions for SMU's offense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (SMU) 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 SMU at about 35.6% of its shots from three, LSU about 40.7%.

AdvantageLSU

Where LSU scores: the offensive glass

LSU rebounds 33.1% of its own misses (#87); SMU lets opponents grab 31.6% of their own misses (#237). Expect about 32.9%, 2.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions.

ClashLSU

Style clash: 3-point volume

LSU rarely shoots threes (34.5% of its shots); SMU lets opponents take 47.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 40.7% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

SMU has the ball

OffenseLSU allowsvs D1 avg

55.6% #26

50.9% #150

+3.3 pt/100

15.7% #116

13.9% #338

+3.0 pt/100

35.4% #37

31.7% #239

+2.5 pt/100

30.4% #301

37.8% #256

-0.1 pt/100

74.3% #117

—

+0.2 pt/100

SMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +8.9 pts/100

LSU has the ball

OffenseSMU allowsvs D1 avg

52.8% #111

51.6% #189

+1.5 pt/100

15.6% #107

16.8% #164

+0.8 pt/100

33.1% #87

31.6% #237

+1.5 pt/100

40.9% #49

32.1% #107

+0.1 pt/100

76.4% #43

—

+0.3 pt/100

LSU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

SMUoffense vsLSUdefense

Share of shots by zone

SMU shoots

34.6

6.9

23.0

35.4

LSU allows

39.5

6.9

16.5

37.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.0%#38	56.4%#98	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#17	34.2%#47	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	44.1%#25	39.9%#241	38.0%
Three	37.1%#27	35.4%#271	33.7%

LSUoffense vsSMUdefense

Share of shots by zone

LSU shoots

40.3

9.4

15.8

34.5

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	62.8%#56	60.8%#263	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.3%#240	37.0%#111	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.8%#115	38.3%#169	38.0%
Three	33.1%#225	34.1%#188	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

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

LSU

+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#170 of 365

Off reb %

33.1%

#87

Def reb %

68.3%

#239

Turnover %

15.6%

#107

Forced TO %

13.9%

#338

FT rate

40.9%

#49

FT allowed

37.8%

#256

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.9

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security+0.8

Forcing turnovers−1.9

Foul shots drawn+1.5

Foul shots allowed−0.7

SMU has more extra scoring chances per game: +1.7 (#112 of 365) to LSU’s +0.3 (#170).

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

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.

LSU2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Pablo Tamba	F	Sr	6'7"	32-32	28.6	7.9	7.3	1.5	1.0	64.1%	32.0%	0.8	60.7%	14.6%
2	Jalen Reece	G	Fr	6'0"	32-10	23.8	5.8	1.8	3.6	1.3	42.2%	29.9%	2.4	72.3%	18.6%
1	Mike Nwoko	F	Jr	6'10"	32-29	21.9	13.4	5.9	0.8	1.8	61.0%	0.0%	0.1	76.1%	31.9%
4	Rashad King	G	Sr	6'6"	32-9	18.7	5.8	2.1	1.2	0.9	47.5%	29.5%	2.8	78.6%	20.5%
11	Dedan Thomas Jr.	G	Jr	6'1"	16-15	29.4	15.3	2.7	6.5	1.6	49.4%	30.2%	2.7	83.3%	29.5%
7	PJ Carter	G	Sr	6'4"	25-1	10.8	4.2	0.9	0.3	0.2	49.5%	33.7%	3.4	85.7%	23.1%
0	Mazi Mosley	G	Fr	6'5"	18-0	6.7	1.9	0.7	0.3	0.3	48.6%	38.5%	1.4	0.0%	20.0%
9	Jalen Reed	F	Jr	6'10"	6-0	17.8	9.5	5.7	0.7	1.8	61.4%	42.9%	1.2	66.7%	28.5%
16	Ron Zipper	G	Fr	6'5"	9-0	3.6	2.2	0.4	0.2	0.3	53.6%	41.7%	1.3	83.3%	35.5%
14	Jaden Bobbett	G	Sr	6'1"	6-0	1.2	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.0%	0.0%	0.2	—	23.9%
5	Marcus Vaughn	F	Fr	6'8"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Matt Gilhool	F	Fr	6'11"	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

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

LSU

Against the spread

Season

18-14

Home

7-10

Road

8-2

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −3.1

Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-15-2

Home

7-8-2

Road

5-5

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +10.2

Over 3 straightOver in 6 of 9 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 11	KentuckyAdjEM #27	N	L 82–87	+9.0	W+4.0	151.5	O169	116.8	123.9	70.2
Mar 7	Texas A&MAdjEM #43	H	L 91–94 3OT	+2.5	L−0.5	160.5	O185	98.7	101.9	92.2
Mar 3	AuburnAdjEM #41	A	L 74–88	+10.5	L−3.5	155.5	O162	109.8	130.6	67.4
Feb 28	OklahomaAdjEM #47	H	L 67–83	−2.0	L−18.0	156.0	U150	102.6	127.1	65.3
Feb 25	Ole MissAdjEM #82	A	W 106–99 2OT	+2.0	W+9.0	147.0	O205	125.8	117.5	84.3
Feb 21	#25AlabamaAdjEM #18	H	L 83–90	+7.5	W+0.5	172.0	O173	116.9	126.7	71.0
Feb 17	TexasAdjEM #38	A	L 85–88	+11.0	W+8.0	151.0	O173	123.9	128.3	68.6
Feb 14	TennesseeAdjEM #13	A	L 63–73	+14.5	W+4.5	143.5	U136	107.7	124.8	58.5
Feb 10	#21ArkansasAdjEM #19	H	L 62–91	+5.0	L−24.0	159.0	U153	83.1	122.0	74.6
Feb 7	GeorgiaAdjEM #32	H	L 71–83	+1.0	L−11.0	161.5	U154	107.7	125.9	65.9

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

SMULSU

Efficiency

117.0

114.7

106.7

107.9

69.1

67.9

—

Shooting

55.6%

52.8%

55.6%

54.5%

37.1%

33.1%

74.3%

76.4%

30.4%

40.9%

Ball control & glass

15.7%

15.6%

16.8%

13.9%

35.4%

33.1%

31.6%

31.7%

9.3%

9.5%

7.5%

8.3%

Style

35.9%

34.5%

43.7%

46.3%

13.4%

54.9%

52.5%

22.4%

29.8%

Roster

2.18

2.99

6'9"

6'5.1"

53.0%

60.6%

Offseason

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

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).

LSU

Returning minutes: 60.6%Returning production: 60.9%

Lost

Marquel Sutton 31.4 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Max Mackinnon 30.9 mpg, 15.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Robert Miller III 18.8 mpg, 5.9 ppg · transferred to Miami

Added

Matt Gilhool no D1 minutes last season
Marcus Vaughn no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 61% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Dec 13	2025-26	SMU 77 – 89 LSU(N)

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.