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-conferenceSchollmaier Arena, Fort Worth, TX

Lindenwood

Efficiency #244

2025-26: 18-15 · 12-10 conf

TCU

Efficiency #51

2025-26: 23-12 · 12-8 conf

Mon, Nov 2 · TBD

67.5

win 12%

Projected

81.1

win 88%

No line posted yet.

Model: TCU −13.6 · total 148.6 · 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: TCU 68.4, Lindenwood 71.6 → 71.7 possessions

+7.4

TCU offense vs Lindenwood defense

+1.2

Lindenwood offense vs TCU defense

−8.2

Projected total

148.6

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

TCU offense vs Lindenwood defense

+1.2

Lindenwood offense vs TCU defense

+8.2

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

+4.1

TCU by 13.6

13.6

Lindenwood side ◂▸ TCU side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +13.5 against +13.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help TCU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Lindenwood is the faster team (73.0, #11 of 365) and TCU the slower (69.4, #117). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

71.7

per team, 40 min

Projected total

148.6

model

Projected team totals

67.5 / 81.1

Lindenwood / TCU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

71.6#9

Lindenwood

68.4#173

TCU

How this game plays

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

Pace

Track meet

TCU averages 69.4 possessions per 40, Lindenwood 73.0. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 72 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageLindenwood

Where Lindenwood struggles: ball control

Lindenwood turns it over on 18.7% of possessions (#308); TCU forces turnovers on 19.6% of opponent possessions (#32). Expect about 19.6%, 2.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -3.5 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageTCU

Where TCU struggles: shooting

TCU shoots an effective 50.4% (#221); Lindenwood allows 49.1% (#72). Expect about 49.7%, 1.6 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions.

DefenseTCU

TCU's shot-blocking

TCU ranks #35 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.6% of Lindenwood's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Lindenwood) 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 Lindenwood at about 31.7% of its shots from three, TCU about 33.1%.

GlassTCU

TCU owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.6% is worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions for TCU's offense.

Lindenwood has the ball

OffenseTCU allowsvs D1 avg

48.0% #313

51.2% #172

-2.8 pt/100

18.7% #308

19.6% #32

-3.5 pt/100

33.2% #83

29.1% #112

+0.8 pt/100

38.6% #88

30.5% #72

-0.1 pt/100

67.4% #335

—

-0.4 pt/100

Lindenwood net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.1 pts/100

TCU has the ball

OffenseLindenwood allowsvs D1 avg

50.4% #221

49.1% #72

-2.3 pt/100

15.3% #87

18.4% #79

-0.3 pt/100

34.0% #67

31.8% #244

+1.9 pt/100

37.5% #112

37.4% #248

+0.3 pt/100

70.4% #257

—

-0.2 pt/100

TCU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Lindenwoodoffense vsTCUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Lindenwood shoots

45.1

9.6

14.2

31.0

TCU allows

38.4

6.4

16.8

38.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	58.3%#184	60.3%#242	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.0%#222	35.0%#58	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	31.3%#345	39.2%#206	38.0%
Three	29.4%#347	33.5%#158	33.7%

TCUoffense vsLindenwooddefense

Share of shots by zone

TCU shoots

38.4

8.8

16.1

36.7

Lindenwood allows

42.5

8.4

16.6

32.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.8%#204	58.1%#149	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	44.8%#68	33.3%#31	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.1%#286	34.1%#51	38.0%
Three	33.2%#220	32.4%#84	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

Lindenwood

+0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#150 of 365

Off reb %

33.2%

#83

Def reb %

68.2%

#244

Turnover %

18.7%

#308

Forced TO %

18.4%

#79

FT rate

38.6%

#88

FT allowed

37.4%

#248

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.9

Defensive rebounding−0.4

Ball security−1.3

Forcing turnovers+1.2

Foul shots drawn+0.9

Foul shots allowed−0.6

TCU

+6.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#10 of 365

Off reb %

34.0%

#67

Def reb %

70.9%

#112

Turnover %

15.3%

#87

Forced TO %

19.6%

#32

FT rate

37.5%

#112

FT allowed

30.5%

#72

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+1.2

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+1.0

Forcing turnovers+2.0

Foul shots drawn+0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.2

TCU has more extra scoring chances per game: +6.5 (#10 of 365) to Lindenwood’s +0.8 (#150).

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

Lindenwood2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Lindenwood'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
8	Anias Futrell	G	Sr	6'5"	32-28	31.6	17.4	5.9	2.0	2.5	51.1%	36.5%	6.8	83.7%	31.4%
0	Mekhi Cooper	G	Jr	6'0"	33-33	29.9	6.4	2.8	3.9	2.1	40.8%	31.9%	3.4	76.9%	16.7%
1	Dontrez Williams	G	So	6'5"	29-27	32.0	15.2	5.1	2.1	2.7	48.6%	29.3%	3.2	56.3%	30.5%
10	Jadis Jones	G	So	6'5"	28-26	32.9	15.3	8.5	2.6	1.7	57.4%	0.0%	0.3	60.6%	24.4%
7	Milos Nenadic	C	Sr	6'10"	33-32	27.5	12.0	6.1	1.1	1.6	49.2%	24.6%	1.8	71.4%	25.5%
34	Clayton Jackson	G	So	6'2"	33-7	25.0	7.1	2.8	2.6	1.8	41.3%	19.8%	2.5	77.8%	20.1%
22	Robert Lewis	F	Jr	6'9"	33-9	16.1	5.0	3.8	0.3	0.7	62.2%	20.0%	0.3	45.7%	16.1%
24	Jeremiah Talton	F	Jr	6'6"	11-3	13.3	5.4	2.5	0.5	0.1	52.1%	38.2%	3.1	90.9%	19.2%
21	Kevin Anthony	C	Jr	6'10"	18-0	8.1	1.8	1.6	0.1	0.3	60.9%	—	0.0	41.7%	12.6%
25	Todd Bieg	F	Sr	6'6"	15-0	5.3	0.5	0.7	0.1	0.1	87.5%	100.0%	0.1	50.0%	3.8%
3	Tidiane d'Almeida	G	Fr	6'1"	10-0	7.3	1.7	0.6	1.0	0.7	46.4%	37.5%	0.8	100.0%	15.8%
5	Jaylon McDaniel	F	Sr	6'7"	3-0	8.3	2.3	2.7	0.7	0.7	50.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	18.9%
12	William Campbell	G	Fr	6'4"	5-0	4.2	1.8	1.6	0.4	0.2	64.3%	50.0%	0.4	—	19.2%
15	Daniel Kwon	G	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
11	Jalen Bouknight	G	Jr	6'0"	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.

TCU2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
2	Brock Harding	G	Jr	6'0"	35-35	31.8	8.0	2.9	5.6	1.9	43.1%	28.4%	3.3	64.6%	19.4%
1	Jayden Pierre	G	Sr	6'0"	35-35	30.4	10.1	2.1	2.8	1.3	50.2%	35.1%	4.2	81.8%	20.7%
15	David Punch	F	So	6'7"	34-34	29.7	14.1	6.8	2.0	1.7	51.8%	23.9%	1.4	65.3%	28.3%
5	Micah Robinson	F	So	6'6"	35-13	26.9	10.9	4.7	1.7	1.3	46.9%	33.3%	3.9	75.9%	25.0%
24	Xavier Edmonds	F	Jr	6'8"	35-34	22.9	12.7	6.5	1.2	1.9	61.4%	43.6%	1.6	64.4%	30.3%
55	Tanner Toolson	G	Jr	6'5"	35-1	20.9	7.7	3.2	0.9	0.5	43.5%	29.1%	2.9	72.6%	23.1%
00	Jace Posey	G	So	6'5"	26-0	11.8	4.8	2.4	0.2	0.7	46.0%	15.4%	0.5	68.1%	26.2%
23	Vianney Salatchoum	C	Sr	6'10"	23-0	5.3	1.1	1.0	0.1	0.3	52.2%	—	0.0	66.7%	15.0%
7	Kayden Edwards	G	Fr	6'2"	13-0	6.8	3.5	0.7	0.6	0.4	57.9%	43.5%	1.8	25.0%	28.6%
8	RJ Jones	G	So	6'2"	8-0	7.1	2.9	0.5	0.9	0.4	55.0%	35.3%	2.1	50.0%	23.7%
6	Ashton Simmons	G	Fr	6'3"	5-0	3.8	1.0	0.6	0.2	0.6	35.7%	25.0%	0.8	—	29.2%
32	Malick Diallo	C	So	6'9"	1-1	7.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	2.0	—	—	0.0	—	14.8%
33	Trey Stuart	G	Sr	6'2"	5-0	1.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	—	22.6%
22	Adam Stewart	C	So	6'11"	4-0	1.0	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.0	100.0%	—	0.0	—	13.8%
30	Drew McElroy	G	Jr	6'2"	3-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	—	18.5%

Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Lindenwood2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Lindenwood'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
8	Anias Futrell	G	Sr	6'5"	32-28	31.6	17.4	5.9	2.0	2.5	51.1%	36.5%	6.8	83.7%	31.4%
0	Mekhi Cooper	G	Jr	6'0"	33-33	29.9	6.4	2.8	3.9	2.1	40.8%	31.9%	3.4	76.9%	16.7%
1	Dontrez Williams	G	So	6'5"	29-27	32.0	15.2	5.1	2.1	2.7	48.6%	29.3%	3.2	56.3%	30.5%
10	Jadis Jones	G	So	6'5"	28-26	32.9	15.3	8.5	2.6	1.7	57.4%	0.0%	0.3	60.6%	24.4%
7	Milos Nenadic	C	Sr	6'10"	33-32	27.5	12.0	6.1	1.1	1.6	49.2%	24.6%	1.8	71.4%	25.5%
34	Clayton Jackson	G	So	6'2"	33-7	25.0	7.1	2.8	2.6	1.8	41.3%	19.8%	2.5	77.8%	20.1%
22	Robert Lewis	F	Jr	6'9"	33-9	16.1	5.0	3.8	0.3	0.7	62.2%	20.0%	0.3	45.7%	16.1%
24	Jeremiah Talton	F	Jr	6'6"	11-3	13.3	5.4	2.5	0.5	0.1	52.1%	38.2%	3.1	90.9%	19.2%
21	Kevin Anthony	C	Jr	6'10"	18-0	8.1	1.8	1.6	0.1	0.3	60.9%	—	0.0	41.7%	12.6%
25	Todd Bieg	F	Sr	6'6"	15-0	5.3	0.5	0.7	0.1	0.1	87.5%	100.0%	0.1	50.0%	3.8%
3	Tidiane d'Almeida	G	Fr	6'1"	10-0	7.3	1.7	0.6	1.0	0.7	46.4%	37.5%	0.8	100.0%	15.8%
5	Jaylon McDaniel	F	Sr	6'7"	3-0	8.3	2.3	2.7	0.7	0.7	50.0%	—	0.0	50.0%	18.9%
12	William Campbell	G	Fr	6'4"	5-0	4.2	1.8	1.6	0.4	0.2	64.3%	50.0%	0.4	—	19.2%
15	Daniel Kwon	G	Fr	6'4"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
11	Jalen Bouknight	G	Jr	6'0"	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

Lindenwood

Against the spread

Season

14-15-1

Home

4-6-1

Road

7-9

Last 10

4-5-1

avg cover −3.8

Covered 3 straightCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite, 1 push

Over / under

Season

17-13

Home

7-4

Road

9-7

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −4.6

Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 5	SE MissouriAdjEM #209	N	L 66–68	+3.0	W+1.0	149.0	U134	97.2	100.1	67.9
Mar 4	Little RockAdjEM #300	N	W 72–62	−4.5	W+5.5	148.5	U134	93.0	80.1	77.4
Feb 28	W IllinoisAdjEM #362	A	W 91–69	−11.5	W+10.5	150.5	O160	129.0	97.8	70.5
Feb 26	E IllinoisAdjEM #317	H	L 67–71	−7.5	L−11.5	144.0	U138	96.9	102.7	69.2
Feb 21	Tennessee TechAdjEM #298	A	L 57–72	−2.0	L−17.0	152.0	U129	86.1	108.8	66.2
Feb 19	Tennessee StAdjEM #155	A	L 80–89	+3.5	L−5.5	159.0	O169	100.9	112.2	79.3
Feb 14	SE MissouriAdjEM #209	H	L 61–73	−2.0	L−14.0	156.5	U134	84.2	100.8	72.4
Feb 12	UT MartinAdjEM #182	H	W 75–74	−1.0	P0.0	145.5	O149	108.2	106.8	69.3
Feb 5	Little RockAdjEM #300	A	W 79–74	−1.5	W+3.5	150.5	O153	116.6	109.2	67.8
Feb 3	SIUEAdjEM #229	H	L 72–78	−4.5	L−10.5	140.5	O150	98.6	106.8	73.0

TCU

Against the spread

Season

19-14-2

Home

9-10

Road

7-3

Last 10

6-2-2

avg cover +1.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

15-20

Home

8-11

Road

4-6

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −1.9

Under 2 straightOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#1DukeAdjEM #2	N	L 58–81	+12.0	L−11.0	140.5	U139	83.6	116.8	69.3
Mar 19	#8Ohio StateAdjEM #31	N	W 66–64	+2.0	W+4.0	146.0	U130	105.7	102.5	62.4
Mar 12	#14KansasAdjEM #25	N	L 73–78	+5.0	P0.0	146.5	O151	97.9	104.6	74.6
Mar 11	Oklahoma StAdjEM #89	N	W 95–88	−7.0	P0.0	158.0	O183	137.8	127.6	69.0
Mar 7	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	H	W 73–63	−2.5	W+7.5	139.5	U136	115.1	99.3	63.4
Mar 3	#10Texas TechAdjEM #21	A	W 73–65	+8.0	W+16.0	148.5	U138	114.1	101.6	64.0
Feb 28	Kansas StAdjEM #128	A	W 77–68	−3.0	W+6.0	159.5	U145	106.8	94.3	72.1
Feb 24	Arizona StAdjEM #93	H	W 90–78	−6.5	W+5.5	149.0	O168	120.1	104.1	75.0
Feb 21	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	H	W 60–54	−4.5	W+1.5	133.5	U114	99.6	89.6	60.3
Feb 17	UCFAdjEM #70	A	L 71–82	−1.0	L−12.0	155.0	U153	99.8	115.2	71.2

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

LindenwoodTCU

Efficiency

103.5

111.5

107.2

101.9

71.6

68.4

—

Shooting

48.0%

50.4%

49.6%

50.8%

29.4%

33.2%

67.4%

70.4%

38.6%

37.5%

Ball control & glass

18.7%

15.3%

18.4%

19.6%

33.2%

34.0%

31.8%

29.1%

11.2%

8.7%

9.5%

9.8%

Style

30.7%

36.8%

51.2%

45.4%

20.8%

17.2%

49.1%

57.3%

23.8%

30.5%

Roster

2.87

2.79

6'5"

6'4.1"

—

88.6%

Offseason

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

Lindenwood

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Lindenwood'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.)

TCU

Returning minutes: 88.6%Returning production: 90.1%

Lost

Liutauras Lelevicius 23.0 mpg, 7.8 ppg · transferred to Clemson

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 89% 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).

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.