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-conferenceBartow Arena, Birmingham, AL
Nicholls
Efficiency #250
2025-26: 14-19 · 13-11 conf
@
UAB
Efficiency #111
2025-26: 20-12 · 11-8 conf
Fri, Nov 6 · TBD
70.8
win 22%
Projected
79.7
win 78%
No line posted yet.
Model: UAB −8.9 · total 150.6 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: UAB 69.6, Nicholls 68.9 → 70.2 possessions
+4.0
UAB offense vs Nicholls defense
+1.6
Nicholls offense vs UAB defense
−3.3
Projected total
150.6
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
UAB offense vs Nicholls defense
+1.6
Nicholls offense vs UAB defense
+3.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
UAB by 8.9
8.9
Nicholls side ◂▸ UAB side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 150.5 against a projected 150.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help UAB.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UAB is the faster team (70.4, #78 of 365) and Nicholls the slower (68.3, #180). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
150.6
model
Projected team totals
70.8 / 79.7
Nicholls / UAB
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.9#131
Nicholls
69.6#77
UAB
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetWatch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (UAB) 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 Nicholls at about 42.8% of its shots from three, UAB about 31.8%.
AdvantageUAB
Where UAB scores: the offensive glass
UAB rebounds 32.5% of its own misses (#104); Nicholls lets opponents grab 33.7% of their own misses (#314). Expect about 33.5%, 3.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageNicholls
Where Nicholls struggles: the offensive glass
Nicholls rebounds 28.1% of its own misses (#263); UAB lets opponents grab 27.7% of their own misses (#53). Expect about 27.5%, 2.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions.
ClashUAB
Strength vs strength: live-ball turnovers
UAB (#44 in live-ball turnovers) against Nicholls (#13 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 11.0%. Historically Nicholls's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.40 vs 0.65).
ClashUAB
Strength vs strength: turnover rate
UAB (#2 in turnover rate) against Nicholls (#15 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 16.7%. Historically Nicholls's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.57 vs 0.64).
Nicholls has the ball
OffenseUAB allowsvs D1 avg
50.6% #205
50.0% #98
-1.4 pt/100
17.4% #232
16.1% #215
+0.1 pt/100
28.1% #263
27.7% #53
-1.8 pt/100
34.5% #195
28.7% #38
-0.5 pt/100
66.2% #350
—
-0.5 pt/100
Nicholls net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.2 pts/100
UAB has the ball
OffenseNicholls allowsvs D1 avg
48.4% #305
54.4% #311
-0.2 pt/100
12.5% #2
20.5% #15
+0.1 pt/100
32.5% #104
33.7% #314
+1.9 pt/100
36.4% #141
37.9% #259
+0.3 pt/100
70.6% #251
—
-0.2 pt/100
UAB net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersNichollsoffense vsUABdefense
Share of shots by zone
Nicholls shoots
41.5
2.7
12.2
43.6
UAB allows
37.4
7.5
16.3
38.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.8%#203 | 58.6%#171 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.8%#225 | 37.9%#133 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.1%#360 | 35.5%#92 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.3%#215 | 32.6%#95 | 33.7% |
UABoffense vsNichollsdefense
Share of shots by zone
UAB shoots
45.0
7.3
17.6
30.1
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 | 60.8%#101 | 62.3%#304 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 30.3%#347 | 48.5%#343 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 35.2%#282 | 36.9%#128 | 38.0% |
| Three | 27.8%#364 | 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
UAB
+6.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#11 of 365
Off reb %
32.5%
#104
Def reb %
72.3%
#53
Turnover %
12.5%
#2
Forced TO %
16.1%
#215
FT rate
36.4%
#141
FT allowed
28.7%
#38
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.7
Defensive rebounding+1.0
Ball security+2.9
Forcing turnovers−0.4
Foul shots drawn+0.4
Foul shots allowed+1.7
UAB has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.2 (#11 of 365) to Nicholls’s −0.4 (#195).
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.
UAB2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted UAB'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Chance Westry | G | So | 6'6" | 32-27 | 30.5 | 15.5 | 3.8 | 5.5 | 1.9 | 51.7% | 24.1% | 2.7 | 70.8% | 29.1% | |
| 23 | Daniel Rivera | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-31 | 29.3 | 12.0 | 6.7 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 54.9% | 33.3% | 0.3 | 58.1% | 23.2% | |
| 15 | Evan Chatman | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-29 | 28.9 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 48.4% | 27.5% | 2.5 | 68.6% | 17.5% | |
| 12 | Jacob Meyer | G | Jr | 6'2" | 28-25 | 28.5 | 12.4 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 45.9% | 31.4% | 3.6 | 80.3% | 27.0% | |
| 2 | KyeRon Lindsay-Martin | F | Sr | 6'8" | 28-4 | 22.6 | 10.8 | 6.4 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 53.8% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 75.9% | 25.5% | |
| 5 | Salim London | G | Fr | 6'4" | 32-12 | 19.6 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 41.0% | 29.5% | 1.9 | 84.4% | 17.0% | |
| 4 | Ahmad Robinson | G | Sr | 5'10" | 26-18 | 24.1 | 9.5 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 45.1% | 33.3% | 3.9 | 71.2% | 25.4% | |
| 0 | Dayjaun Anderson | G | So | 6'2" | 30-11 | 16.3 | 5.4 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 42.9% | 24.1% | 4.4 | 52.9% | 23.5% | |
| 8 | Quaran McPherson | G | Jr | 6'4" | 27-3 | 10.8 | 4.4 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 51.2% | 30.0% | 1.5 | 77.5% | 24.8% | |
| 7 | Ari Gooch | G | So | 6'2" | 17-0 | 8.4 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 37.5% | 15.4% | 0.8 | 68.4% | 18.4% | |
| 6 | Lance Carr | F | Fr | 6'7" | 7-0 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 9.2% | |
| 3 | Joao Das Chagas | C | Jr | 6'10" | 2-0 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 17.0% | |
| 9 | Joey Kahn | G | Sr | 6'4" | 1-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 23.4% | |
| 21 | Jorden Pittman | G | Fr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 22 | Justin Holloway | F | Fr | 6'7" | 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.
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 |
UAB
Against the spread
Season
15-16
Home
5-11
Road
8-4
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.2
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 1 of 7 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
13-18
Home
7-9
Road
5-7
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −6.2
Over 3 straightOver in 4 of 7 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13 | Charlotte | N | L 78–83 | −5.5 | L−10.5 | 148.0 | O161 | 117.2 | 124.7 | 66.6 |
| Mar 8 | East Carolina | H | W 90–83 | −10.0 | L−3.0 | 150.5 | O173 | 118.1 | 108.9 | 76.2 |
| Mar 4 | Charlotte | A | W 80–74 | −2.0 | W+4.0 | 148.0 | O154 | 125.4 | 116.0 | 63.8 |
| Mar 1 | North Texas | H | L 58–62 | −5.0 | L−9.0 | 141.5 | U120 | 90.4 | 96.7 | 64.1 |
| Feb 22 | Memphis | A | W 78–67 | +6.0 | W+17.0 | 152.0 | U145 | 108.7 | 93.4 | 71.8 |
| Feb 18 | Temple | A | W 76–71 | +1.5 | W+6.5 | 143.5 | O147 | 115.1 | 107.5 | 66.0 |
| Feb 15 | Tulane | H | L 54–55 | −7.0 | L−8.0 | 152.5 | U109 | 86.1 | 87.7 | 62.7 |
| Feb 11 | Tulsa | A | W 68–63 | +10.5 | W+15.5 | 161.0 | U131 | 101.9 | 94.4 | 66.7 |
| Feb 8 | Rice | H | W 71–65 | −9.5 | L−3.5 | 154.5 | U136 | 107.0 | 97.9 | 66.4 |
| Feb 5 | Memphis | H | L 80–90 | −1.5 | L−11.5 | 156.0 | O170 | 100.3 | 112.8 | 79.8 |
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 homeNichollsUAB
Efficiency
106.1
109.0
110.3
106.2
68.9
69.6
—
—
Shooting
50.6%
48.4%
51.2%
51.3%
33.3%
27.8%
66.2%
70.6%
34.5%
36.4%
Ball control & glass
17.4%
12.5%
20.5%
16.1%
28.1%
32.5%
33.7%
27.7%
9.2%
8.1%
9.9%
9.7%
Style
43.9%
30.5%
41.2%
50.7%
16.6%
19.6%
52.1%
50.3%
30.5%
29.9%
Roster
3.67
2.89
6'5.6"
6'4.7"
—
—
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.)
UAB
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted UAB'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 lastNo 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.