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

SF Austin

Efficiency #73

2025-26: 28-6 · 21-3 conf

SMU

Efficiency #44

2025-26: 20-14 · 9-11 conf

Tue, Dec 1 · TBD

72.6

win 29%

Projected

79.0

win 71%

No line posted yet.

Model: SMU −6.3 · total 151.6 · 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: SMU 69.1, SF Austin 67.3 → 68.1 possessions

−0.5

SMU offense vs SF Austin defense

+3.1

SF Austin offense vs SMU defense

+0.7

Projected total

151.6

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

SMU offense vs SF Austin defense

+3.1

SF Austin offense vs SMU defense

−0.7

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

+3.9

SMU by 6.3

6.3

SF Austin side ◂▸ SMU side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 151.5 against a projected 151.6. 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: 68.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, SMU is the faster team (70.6, #73 of 365) and SF Austin the slower (66.2, #285). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.1

per team, 40 min

Projected total

151.6

model

Projected team totals

72.6 / 79.0

SF Austin / SMU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.3#268

SF Austin

69.1#108

SMU

How this game plays

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

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (SMU, SF Austin'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 SF Austin at about 45.0% of its shots from three, SMU about 34.0%.

AdvantageSMU

Where SMU scores: the offensive glass

SMU rebounds 35.4% of its own misses (#37); SF Austin lets opponents grab 29.5% of their own misses (#131). Expect about 33.4%, 3.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageSF Austin

Where SF Austin scores: the offensive glass

SF Austin rebounds 33.8% of its own misses (#74); SMU lets opponents grab 31.6% of their own misses (#237). Expect about 33.4%, 3.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversSF Austin

SF Austin protects the ball

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

ClashSMU

Style match: 3-point volume

SMU rarely shoots threes (35.9% of its shots); SF Austin runs teams off the line (35.5% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 34.0% — both habits push the same way.

ClashSMU

Strength vs strength: eFG%

SMU (#26 in eFG%) against SF Austin (#35 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 52.0%. Historically SMU's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.58 vs 0.51).

SF Austin has the ball

OffenseSMU allowsvs D1 avg

51.7% #160

51.6% #189

+0.6 pt/100

14.3% #29

16.8% #164

+1.7 pt/100

33.8% #74

31.6% #237

+1.8 pt/100

30.1% #306

32.1% #107

-0.5 pt/100

68.6% #310

—

-0.3 pt/100

SF Austin net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.3 pts/100

SMU has the ball

OffenseSF Austin allowsvs D1 avg

55.6% #26

47.7% #35

+1.0 pt/100

15.7% #116

17.6% #116

+0.1 pt/100

35.4% #37

29.5% #131

+1.8 pt/100

30.4% #301

31.1% #85

-0.6 pt/100

74.3% #117

—

+0.2 pt/100

SMU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

SF Austinoffense vsSMUdefense

Share of shots by zone

SF Austin shoots

35.4

6.4

18.7

39.5

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	57.0%#240	60.8%#263	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.1%#102	37.0%#111	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	40.5%#94	38.3%#169	38.0%
Three	35.8%#71	34.1%#188	33.7%

SMUoffense vsSF Austindefense

Share of shots by zone

SMU shoots

34.6

6.9

23.0

35.4

SF Austin allows

40.2

7.1

17.2

35.5

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.0%#38	53.1%#24	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.5%#17	43.6%#260	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	44.1%#25	39.8%#234	38.0%
Three	37.1%#27	30.3%#11	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

SF Austin

+3.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#44 of 365

Off reb %

33.8%

#74

Def reb %

70.5%

#131

Turnover %

14.3%

#29

Forced TO %

17.6%

#116

FT rate

30.1%

#306

FT allowed

31.1%

#85

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.1

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security+1.7

Forcing turnovers+0.6

Foul shots drawn−1.3

Foul shots allowed+1.1

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

SF Austin has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.6 (#44 of 365) to SMU’s +1.7 (#112).

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

SF Austin2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted SF Austin'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	Keon Thompson	G	Sr	6'1"	34-34	29.8	18.5	4.8	4.4	2.6	52.8%	32.1%	2.5	69.3%	38.3%
1	Chrishawn Christmas	G	Sr	6'5"	34-34	29.1	6.3	6.8	1.8	0.8	54.0%	0.0%	0.1	43.1%	13.9%
11	Lateef Patrick	G	Jr	—	34-34	28.5	15.2	3.1	1.7	1.4	47.1%	33.8%	6.3	81.3%	34.0%
2	Jerald Colonel	F	Sr	6'9"	34-34	25.1	5.0	7.3	1.3	0.7	50.4%	0.0%	0.0	56.4%	13.1%
6	Narit Chotikavanic	G	So	—	34-0	22.5	9.6	2.8	0.6	0.4	56.2%	39.4%	6.5	70.3%	23.3%
0	Kam Burton	G	Jr	6'3"	34-34	18.6	7.9	1.8	0.3	0.5	59.2%	42.5%	5.3	85.2%	22.4%
21	Ahamed Mohammed	G	Sr	—	34-0	15.8	4.4	1.7	1.5	0.8	42.5%	33.3%	1.9	75.0%	20.3%
17	Gediminas Alisas	F	So	—	34-0	14.0	4.9	2.4	1.2	0.8	63.2%	0.0%	0.0	67.6%	19.7%
4	Marcus Scurry	G	Fr	—	28-0	7.3	3.1	0.5	0.4	0.4	51.9%	35.6%	1.6	58.3%	26.8%
3	Christian Green	G	Jr	—	28-0	6.9	1.0	1.3	0.3	0.3	54.2%	—	0.0	33.3%	10.8%
12	Eltramon Smith Jr.	F	So	—	16-0	7.1	1.9	1.3	0.5	0.4	40.8%	13.0%	1.4	0.0%	23.8%
7	Tichyque Musaka	F	Jr	6'11"	8-0	3.8	1.6	1.9	0.1	0.1	60.0%	0.0%	0.1	20.0%	24.9%
9	Harris Dar	G	So	—	8-0	3.3	0.5	0.5	0.1	0.3	66.7%	—	0.0	—	10.9%
8	Bryceson Melvin	G	Fr	—	4-0	5.8	1.8	2.0	0.0	0.0	23.1%	0.0%	1.0	50.0%	32.3%
10	Yohan Gutierrez	F	Fr	—	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.

SF Austin2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted SF Austin'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	Keon Thompson	G	Sr	6'1"	34-34	29.8	18.5	4.8	4.4	2.6	52.8%	32.1%	2.5	69.3%	38.3%
1	Chrishawn Christmas	G	Sr	6'5"	34-34	29.1	6.3	6.8	1.8	0.8	54.0%	0.0%	0.1	43.1%	13.9%
11	Lateef Patrick	G	Jr	—	34-34	28.5	15.2	3.1	1.7	1.4	47.1%	33.8%	6.3	81.3%	34.0%
2	Jerald Colonel	F	Sr	6'9"	34-34	25.1	5.0	7.3	1.3	0.7	50.4%	0.0%	0.0	56.4%	13.1%
6	Narit Chotikavanic	G	So	—	34-0	22.5	9.6	2.8	0.6	0.4	56.2%	39.4%	6.5	70.3%	23.3%
0	Kam Burton	G	Jr	6'3"	34-34	18.6	7.9	1.8	0.3	0.5	59.2%	42.5%	5.3	85.2%	22.4%
21	Ahamed Mohammed	G	Sr	—	34-0	15.8	4.4	1.7	1.5	0.8	42.5%	33.3%	1.9	75.0%	20.3%
17	Gediminas Alisas	F	So	—	34-0	14.0	4.9	2.4	1.2	0.8	63.2%	0.0%	0.0	67.6%	19.7%
4	Marcus Scurry	G	Fr	—	28-0	7.3	3.1	0.5	0.4	0.4	51.9%	35.6%	1.6	58.3%	26.8%
3	Christian Green	G	Jr	—	28-0	6.9	1.0	1.3	0.3	0.3	54.2%	—	0.0	33.3%	10.8%
12	Eltramon Smith Jr.	F	So	—	16-0	7.1	1.9	1.3	0.5	0.4	40.8%	13.0%	1.4	0.0%	23.8%
7	Tichyque Musaka	F	Jr	6'11"	8-0	3.8	1.6	1.9	0.1	0.1	60.0%	0.0%	0.1	20.0%	24.9%
9	Harris Dar	G	So	—	8-0	3.3	0.5	0.5	0.1	0.3	66.7%	—	0.0	—	10.9%
8	Bryceson Melvin	G	Fr	—	4-0	5.8	1.8	2.0	0.0	0.0	23.1%	0.0%	1.0	50.0%	32.3%
10	Yohan Gutierrez	F	Fr	—	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

SF Austin

Against the spread

Season

23-9

Home

10-4

Road

13-3

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −2.1

Covered the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

13-18-1

Home

5-8-1

Road

7-9

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −0.1

Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 17	TulsaAdjEM #46	A	L 84–89 OT	+6.5	W+1.5	150.5	O173	107.0	113.3	78.5
Mar 11	McNeeseAdjEM #49	N	L 59–76	+3.5	L−13.5	134.5	O135	92.4	119.0	63.9
Mar 10	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	N	W 60–58	−6.0	L−4.0	134.5	U118	98.0	94.7	61.3
Mar 2	Incarnate WordAdjEM #264	A	W 76–68	−7.0	W+1.0	143.5	O144	126.2	113.0	60.2
Feb 28	Hou ChristianAdjEM #297	A	W 77–56	−8.5	W+12.5	137.5	U133	122.9	89.4	62.6
Feb 23	LSU N OrleansAdjEM #221	H	L 73–77	−11.5	L−15.5	152.0	U150	107.5	113.4	67.9
Feb 21	NichollsAdjEM #250	H	W 81–78	−12.0	L−9.0	148.5	O159	122.0	117.5	66.4
Feb 16	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	A	W 78–68	−5.0	W+5.0	136.5	O146	116.4	101.5	67.0
Feb 14	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	A	W 66–57	+2.5	W+11.5	143.5	U123	105.5	91.1	62.6
Feb 9	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	H	W 74–70	−15.0	L−11.0	144.5	U144	110.7	104.7	66.8

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

SF AustinSMU

Efficiency

111.2

117.0

104.5

106.7

67.3

69.1

—

Shooting

51.7%

55.6%

50.4%

55.6%

35.8%

37.1%

68.6%

74.3%

30.1%

30.4%

Ball control & glass

14.3%

15.7%

17.6%

16.8%

33.8%

35.4%

29.5%

31.6%

8.2%

9.3%

10.1%

7.5%

Style

39.8%

35.9%

41.1%

43.7%

9.6%

13.4%

48.5%

54.9%

34.7%

22.4%

Roster

3.23

2.18

6'4.5"

6'9"

—

53.0%

Offseason

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

SF Austin

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted SF Austin'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.)

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.