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-conferenceAvron B. Fogelman Arena in the Devlin Fieldhouse, New Orleans, LA
Nicholls
Efficiency #250
2025-26: 14-19 · 13-11 conf
@
Tulane
Efficiency #239
2025-26: 18-15 · 9-11 conf
Tue, Nov 10 · TBD
71.9
win 35%
Projected
76.4
win 65%
No line posted yet.
Model: TULN −4.4 · total 148.3 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Tulane 68.0, Nicholls 68.9 → 68.5 possessions
+0.4
Tulane offense vs Nicholls defense
+0.1
Nicholls offense vs Tulane defense
−0.4
Projected total
148.3
Axis starts at 148 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Tulane offense vs Nicholls defense
+0.1
Nicholls offense vs Tulane defense
+0.4
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Tulane by 4.4
4.4
Nicholls side ◂▸ Tulane side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Tulane.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Nicholls is the faster team (68.3, #180 of 365) and Tulane the slower (67.9, #203). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.5
per team, 40 min
Projected total
148.3
model
Projected team totals
71.9 / 76.4
Nicholls / Tulane
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.9#131
Nicholls
68.0#212
Tulane
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetDefenseTulane
Tulane's shot-blocking
Tulane ranks #29 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.0% of Nicholls's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageTulane
Where Tulane struggles: the offensive glass
Tulane rebounds 22.8% of its own misses (#352); Nicholls lets opponents grab 33.7% of their own misses (#314). Expect about 26.7%, 3.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversTulane
Tulane turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.4% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against Tulane's offense.
DefenseNicholls
Nicholls's ball-hawking
Nicholls ranks #13 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.2% of Tulane's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
Nicholls has the ball
OffenseTulane allowsvs D1 avg
50.6% #205
50.7% #140
-1.0 pt/100
17.4% #232
17.1% #140
-0.7 pt/100
28.1% #263
35.8% #352
+0.6 pt/100
34.5% #195
38.1% #262
+0.2 pt/100
66.2% #350
—
-0.5 pt/100
Nicholls net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.4 pts/100
Tulane has the ball
OffenseNicholls allowsvs D1 avg
49.4% #275
54.4% #311
+0.7 pt/100
15.4% #97
20.5% #15
-2.0 pt/100
22.8% #352
33.7% #314
-2.3 pt/100
43.5% #14
37.9% #259
+0.7 pt/100
76.7% #40
—
+0.4 pt/100
Tulane net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.4 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersNichollsoffense vsTulanedefense
Share of shots by zone
Nicholls shoots
41.5
2.7
12.2
43.6
Tulane allows
40.6
6.9
12.8
39.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.8%#203 | 54.5%#49 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.8%#225 | 42.4%#236 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.1%#360 | 36.8%#124 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.3%#215 | 34.5%#216 | 33.7% |
Tulaneoffense vsNichollsdefense
Share of shots by zone
Tulane shoots
37.2
4.0
14.5
44.4
Nicholls allows
41.8
6.2
12.8
39.2
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.0%#162 | 62.3%#304 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 27.0%#362 | 48.5%#343 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 32.6%#335 | 36.9%#128 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.0%#279 | 34.6%#224 | 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 numbersNicholls
−0.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#195 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#263
Def reb %
66.3%
#314
Turnover %
17.4%
#232
Forced TO %
20.5%
#15
FT rate
34.5%
#195
FT allowed
37.9%
#259
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security−0.4
Forcing turnovers+2.6
Foul shots drawn−0.1
Foul shots allowed−0.7
Tulane
−1.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#255 of 365
Off reb %
22.8%
#352
Def reb %
64.2%
#352
Turnover %
15.4%
#97
Forced TO %
17.1%
#140
FT rate
43.5%
#14
FT allowed
38.1%
#262
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−2.5
Defensive rebounding−1.7
Ball security+0.9
Forcing turnovers+0.3
Foul shots drawn+2.2
Foul shots allowed−0.7
Nicholls has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.4 (#195 of 365) to Tulane’s −1.5 (#255).
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
Nicholls2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Sincere Malone | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 32.7 | 11.4 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 53.9% | 30.9% | 1.7 | 79.7% | 21.4% | |
| 1 | Trae English | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-25 | 30.8 | 11.5 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 44.8% | 29.6% | 4.2 | 81.1% | 25.4% | |
| 22 | Jalik Dunkley | G | So | 6'7" | 30-27 | 28.5 | 12.4 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 58.5% | 34.2% | 1.3 | 52.0% | 25.1% | |
| 3 | Jaylen Searles | G | Sr | 6'8" | 32-25 | 25.6 | 11.8 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 50.6% | 35.5% | 5.3 | 66.7% | 29.1% | |
| 2 | Christian Winborne | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-17 | 22.7 | 7.9 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 49.5% | 34.8% | 5.3 | 64.7% | 21.6% | |
| 24 | Zee Hamoda | G | Sr | 6'7" | 29-13 | 20.9 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 54.4% | 38.3% | 5.1 | 79.3% | 26.3% | |
| 0 | Jalin Rice | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-12 | 17.0 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 45.4% | 21.2% | 1.1 | 62.1% | 22.0% | |
| 7 | Grant Sanders | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-6 | 15.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 58.1% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 45.9% | 14.5% | |
| 21 | Nick Krass | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-6 | 11.9 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 48.8% | 30.4% | 0.8 | 78.6% | 10.2% | |
| 9 | Zaiden Cross | G | Sr | 6'7" | 16-2 | 11.8 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 37.2% | 25.4% | 3.7 | 66.7% | 28.4% | |
| 8 | Kevin Pazmino | G | Jr | 6'4" | 17-0 | 6.2 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 60.9% | 41.9% | 1.8 | — | 17.6% | |
| 25 | Domanic Betancourt | F | Jr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 11.3% | |
| 6 | Jordan Matthews | G | Fr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 2 | Chaydon Stone | G | Sr | 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.
Tulane2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Tulane'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Rowan Brumbaugh | G | Jr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 36.1 | 19.2 | 4.9 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 52.8% | 36.0% | 5.3 | 80.4% | 29.9% | |
| 99 | Curtis Williams Jr. | G | Jr | 6'6" | 33-32 | 32.1 | 12.4 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 49.4% | 33.5% | 6.2 | 82.5% | 24.4% | |
| 22 | Asher Woods | G | Sr | 6'3" | 33-31 | 30.9 | 12.8 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 45.7% | 27.2% | 3.5 | 85.0% | 25.5% | |
| 5 | Scotty Middleton | F | Jr | 6'6" | 33-19 | 25.7 | 6.9 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 52.7% | 36.9% | 4.3 | 73.9% | 16.5% | |
| 0 | Tyler Ringgold | F | So | 6'8" | 32-32 | 24.8 | 9.4 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 49.3% | 29.9% | 2.4 | 62.8% | 24.4% | |
| 23 | Percy Daniels | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-4 | 16.5 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 62.8% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 72.4% | 8.0% | |
| 9 | KJ Greene | G | So | 6'3" | 32-1 | 15.1 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 40.1% | 22.5% | 1.3 | 78.9% | 20.6% | |
| 1 | Josiah Moore | G | So | 6'4" | 32-2 | 12.6 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 48.4% | 15.8% | 0.6 | 67.5% | 19.3% | |
| 11 | Luke Rasmussen | G | So | 6'8" | 17-11 | 15.1 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 46.6% | 23.3% | 1.8 | 27.3% | 13.6% | |
| 55 | Davion Bradford | C | Sr | 7'0" | 11-0 | 4.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 75.0% | 11.7% | |
| 15 | Robert Moore | G | Fr | 6'6" | 5-0 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.4% | 25.0% | 1.6 | — | 40.0% | |
| 34 | Jake Shapiro | G | Jr | 6'1" | 5-0 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 112.5% | 75.0% | 0.8 | — | 38.9% | |
| 32 | Luke Cronin | F | Jr | 6'8" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 19.9% | |
| 77 | Vasilije Kuridza | F | Fr | 6'9" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 13 | Joseph Teich | G | So | 5'10" | 2-0 | 1.0 | 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.
Nicholls2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Sincere Malone | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-32 | 32.7 | 11.4 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 53.9% | 30.9% | 1.7 | 79.7% | 21.4% | |
| 1 | Trae English | G | Sr | 6'0" | 30-25 | 30.8 | 11.5 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 1.8 | 44.8% | 29.6% | 4.2 | 81.1% | 25.4% | |
| 22 | Jalik Dunkley | G | So | 6'7" | 30-27 | 28.5 | 12.4 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 58.5% | 34.2% | 1.3 | 52.0% | 25.1% | |
| 3 | Jaylen Searles | G | Sr | 6'8" | 32-25 | 25.6 | 11.8 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 50.6% | 35.5% | 5.3 | 66.7% | 29.1% | |
| 2 | Christian Winborne | G | Sr | 6'3" | 29-17 | 22.7 | 7.9 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 49.5% | 34.8% | 5.3 | 64.7% | 21.6% | |
| 24 | Zee Hamoda | G | Sr | 6'7" | 29-13 | 20.9 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 54.4% | 38.3% | 5.1 | 79.3% | 26.3% | |
| 0 | Jalin Rice | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-12 | 17.0 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 45.4% | 21.2% | 1.1 | 62.1% | 22.0% | |
| 7 | Grant Sanders | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-6 | 15.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 58.1% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 45.9% | 14.5% | |
| 21 | Nick Krass | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-6 | 11.9 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 48.8% | 30.4% | 0.8 | 78.6% | 10.2% | |
| 9 | Zaiden Cross | G | Sr | 6'7" | 16-2 | 11.8 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 37.2% | 25.4% | 3.7 | 66.7% | 28.4% | |
| 8 | Kevin Pazmino | G | Jr | 6'4" | 17-0 | 6.2 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 60.9% | 41.9% | 1.8 | — | 17.6% | |
| 25 | Domanic Betancourt | F | Jr | 6'10" | 6-0 | 6.0 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 11.3% | |
| 6 | Jordan Matthews | G | Fr | 6'3" | 2-0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 0.0% | |
| 2 | Chaydon Stone | G | Sr | 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 2025-26Nicholls
Against the spread
Season
15-16-1
Home
4-6-1
Road
10-9
Last 10
5-4-1
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog, 1 push
Over / under
Season
17-15
Home
5-6
Road
11-8
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total −0.1
Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | UT Rio Grande | N | L 68–86 | +5.5 | L−12.5 | 143.5 | O154 | 101.7 | 128.6 | 66.9 |
| Mar 8 | N'Western St | N | W 61–47 | −2.0 | W+12.0 | 139.0 | U108 | 103.5 | 79.8 | 58.9 |
| Mar 2 | McNeese | H | L 65–75 | +10.0 | P0.0 | 145.0 | U140 | 96.6 | 111.5 | 67.3 |
| Feb 28 | SE Louisiana | H | W 68–60 | −4.5 | W+3.5 | 140.0 | U128 | 104.0 | 91.8 | 65.4 |
| Feb 23 | Lamar | A | W 53–52 | +3.5 | W+4.5 | 143.5 | U105 | 81.8 | 80.3 | 64.8 |
| Feb 21 | SF Austin | A | L 78–81 | +12.0 | W+9.0 | 148.5 | O159 | 117.5 | 122.0 | 66.4 |
| Feb 16 | Hou Christian | A | L 68–72 | +2.0 | L−2.0 | 138.5 | O140 | 100.9 | 106.9 | 67.4 |
| Feb 14 | Incarnate Word | A | W 91–83 | +1.5 | W+9.5 | 149.0 | O174 | 138.7 | 126.5 | 65.6 |
| Feb 9 | UT Rio Grande | H | L 72–92 | +3.0 | L−17.0 | 147.5 | O164 | 104.4 | 133.4 | 69.0 |
| Feb 7 | Texas A&M-CC | H | L 76–83 | −1.0 | L−8.0 | 137.0 | O159 | 112.2 | 122.6 | 67.7 |
Tulane
Against the spread
Season
15-17
Home
7-10
Road
6-4
Last 10
6-4
avg cover −3.0
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-18
Home
6-11
Road
5-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −0.9
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | Charlotte | N | L 60–74 | +1.0 | L−13.0 | 144.5 | U134 | 98.3 | 121.3 | 61.0 |
| Mar 11 | Memphis | N | W 81–69 | +4.5 | W+16.5 | 150.5 | U150 | 114.8 | 97.8 | 70.5 |
| Mar 8 | Memphis | H | L 95–96 OT | +2.5 | W+1.5 | 154.0 | O191 | 122.9 | 124.2 | 77.3 |
| Mar 5 | Temple | A | L 60–89 | +5.0 | L−24.0 | 145.0 | O149 | 89.1 | 132.2 | 67.3 |
| Mar 1 | South Florida | A | L 62–90 | +15.0 | L−13.0 | 154.5 | U152 | 85.1 | 123.5 | 72.8 |
| Feb 25 | Tulsa | H | L 56–90 | +5.5 | L−28.5 | 156.5 | U146 | 84.4 | 135.6 | 66.4 |
| Feb 22 | Rice | H | W 81–75 | −5.0 | W+1.0 | 147.5 | O156 | 118.1 | 109.3 | 68.6 |
| Feb 19 | North Texas | A | W 77–71 | +6.5 | W+12.5 | 137.5 | O148 | 117.4 | 108.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 15 | UAB | A | W 55–54 | +7.0 | W+8.0 | 152.5 | U109 | 87.7 | 86.1 | 62.7 |
| Feb 11 | Temple | H | W 77–66 | −2.0 | W+9.0 | 145.0 | U143 | 113.4 | 97.2 | 67.9 |
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 homeNichollsTulane
Efficiency
106.1
106.8
110.3
110.2
68.9
68.0
—
—
Shooting
50.6%
49.4%
51.2%
50.5%
33.3%
32.0%
66.2%
76.7%
34.5%
43.5%
Ball control & glass
17.4%
15.4%
20.5%
17.1%
28.1%
22.8%
33.7%
35.8%
9.2%
8.7%
9.9%
10.9%
Style
43.9%
45.0%
41.2%
37.1%
16.6%
10.8%
52.1%
54.8%
30.5%
26.0%
Roster
3.67
2.94
6'5.6"
6'5.5"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputNicholls
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Nicholls'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.)
Tulane
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Tulane'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.)
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Fri, Nov 28 | 2025-26 | Nicholls 72 – 82 Tulane |
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.