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.

Conference gameResch Center, Ashwaubenon, WI

N Illinois

Efficiency #341

2025-26: 9-21 · 4-14 conf

Green Bay

Efficiency #222

2025-26: 18-15 · 13-9 conf

Thu, Dec 3 · TBD

66.9

win 20%

Projected

76.7

win 80%

No line posted yet.

Model: GB −9.8 · total 143.6 · 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: Green Bay 65.4, N Illinois 68.5 → 65.6 possessions

−5.9

Green Bay offense vs N Illinois defense

+3.6

N Illinois offense vs Green Bay defense

−2.4

Projected total

143.6

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Green Bay offense vs N Illinois defense

+3.6

N Illinois offense vs Green Bay defense

+2.4

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

+3.8

Green Bay by 9.8

9.8

N Illinois side ◂▸ Green Bay side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 143.5 against a projected 143.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Green Bay.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 65.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, N Illinois is the faster team (69.0, #149 of 365) and Green Bay the slower (64.7, #336). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

65.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

143.6

model

Projected team totals

66.9 / 76.7

N Illinois / Green Bay

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.5#172

N Illinois

65.4#360

Green Bay

How this game plays

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

AdvantageGreen Bay

Where Green Bay scores: shooting

Green Bay shoots an effective 54.9% (#41); N Illinois allows 55.6% (#342). Expect about 55.6%, 4.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.1 points per 100 possessions.

GlassGreen Bay

Green Bay gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.5% is worth roughly -2.4 points per 100 possessions against Green Bay's offense.

ClashN Illinois

Style match: 3-point volume

N Illinois takes 45.0% of its shots from three; Green Bay lets opponents take 43.3% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 46.4% — both habits push the same way.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Green Bay, N Illinois, Green Bay'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 N Illinois at about 46.4% of its shots from three, Green Bay about 36.6%.

N Illinois has the ball

OffenseGreen Bay allowsvs D1 avg

47.6% #324

53.6% #287

-1.4 pt/100

21.8% #360

13.2% #351

-0.7 pt/100

30.3% #187

29.6% #140

-0.3 pt/100

38.3% #95

37.4% #249

+0.4 pt/100

65.7% #356

—

-0.6 pt/100

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

Green Bay has the ball

OffenseN Illinois allowsvs D1 avg

54.9% #41

55.6% #342

+6.1 pt/100

16.0% #138

16.3% #205

+1.0 pt/100

25.1% #339

30.0% #161

-2.4 pt/100

41.6% #36

38.3% #267

+0.6 pt/100

77.5% #24

—

+0.4 pt/100

Green Bay net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

N Illinoisoffense vsGreen Baydefense

Share of shots by zone

N Illinois shoots

41.7

3.7

8.9

45.7

Green Bay allows

36.5

7.5

12.9

43.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	51.9%#350	61.3%#279	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	31.3%#339	38.7%#151	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.8%#333	37.6%#146	38.0%
Three	30.9%#323	36.3%#316	33.7%

Green Bayoffense vsN Illinoisdefense

Share of shots by zone

Green Bay shoots

46.6

5.2

10.9

37.2

N Illinois allows

44.0

4.6

13.3

38.1

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.6%#136	62.9%#323	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.1%#22	33.9%#42	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.0%#220	40.6%#259	38.0%
Three	36.4%#42	36.3%#315	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

N Illinois

−3.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#315 of 365

Off reb %

30.3%

#187

Def reb %

70.0%

#161

Turnover %

21.8%

#360

Forced TO %

16.3%

#205

FT rate

38.3%

#95

FT allowed

38.3%

#267

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.2

Ball security−3.4

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn+0.8

Foul shots allowed−0.8

Green Bay

−2.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#274 of 365

Off reb %

25.1%

#339

Def reb %

70.4%

#140

Turnover %

16.0%

#138

Forced TO %

13.2%

#351

FT rate

41.6%

#36

FT allowed

37.4%

#249

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.7

Defensive rebounding+0.3

Ball security+0.5

Forcing turnovers−2.4

Foul shots drawn+1.7

Foul shots allowed−0.6

Green Bay has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.1 (#274 of 365) to N Illinois’s −3.5 (#315).

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

N Illinois2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Makhai Valentine	G	So	6'3"	29-29	30.7	13.3	5.3	1.0	1.2	53.1%	35.8%	6.7	81.3%	24.0%
0	Gianni Cobb	G	So	6'0"	30-19	29.0	9.8	2.7	3.9	2.4	46.2%	26.8%	2.4	59.8%	24.3%
6	Taj Walters	G	Fr	6'5"	29-23	27.1	8.5	5.4	0.6	1.3	52.4%	38.3%	2.8	78.3%	18.8%
96	Gustav Winther	F	Fr	6'10"	30-21	21.2	8.1	4.2	0.9	1.4	64.5%	42.9%	0.2	54.7%	21.2%
3	Daemar Kelly	G	Jr	6'5"	29-15	20.6	5.6	3.1	1.2	1.2	35.2%	25.6%	2.8	76.7%	21.9%
7	Hassan Washington	F	Jr	6'8"	29-14	16.6	4.7	3.2	0.6	1.9	59.9%	43.8%	0.6	44.4%	20.6%
10	Jao Ituka	G	Jr	6'1"	15-0	14.1	6.9	2.5	0.9	0.3	48.9%	34.4%	4.1	81.0%	27.4%
2	Carlos Coronado	G	Fr	6'3"	20-1	10.3	3.9	0.8	0.6	1.0	41.2%	20.8%	1.2	68.9%	26.2%
8	Ladji Kante	F	Fr	6'7"	17-0	9.2	2.8	1.2	0.4	0.6	43.8%	20.0%	0.9	65.0%	21.2%
23	Jaylen Wharton	F	Jr	6'9"	18-0	7.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.3	45.2%	—	0.0	42.1%	20.2%
11	Isaiah Washington	G	Fr	6'5"	11-0	8.9	2.7	1.3	0.5	0.5	38.9%	11.1%	0.8	64.3%	22.3%
16	Isaiah Stewart	G	Fr	6'6"	13-0	5.5	1.2	0.9	0.3	0.2	60.0%	40.0%	0.4	66.7%	11.0%
4	JJ Taylor	F	Jr	6'8"	3-2	21.0	8.7	2.7	0.3	3.0	41.7%	11.1%	3.0	68.8%	29.3%
21	Max Laskey	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	2.5	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	13.9%
15	Lataevyon Taylor	G	So	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.

Green Bay2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Green Bay'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
2	Preston Ruedinger	G	Sr	6'2"	33-33	35.3	11.6	3.8	5.5	1.5	54.7%	41.1%	4.9	90.8%	19.6%
10	C.J. O'Hara	G	So	6'4"	33-33	32.6	14.1	4.4	1.2	1.5	58.2%	28.0%	0.8	79.4%	23.6%
13	Marcus Hall	F	Jr	6'6"	30-30	34.6	13.9	5.2	2.5	1.6	58.6%	40.6%	5.2	76.4%	22.7%
7	Justin Allen	G	Sr	6'4"	32-22	26.4	13.6	3.7	1.7	1.2	51.5%	25.3%	2.8	82.5%	31.0%
23	Caden Wilkins	F	So	6'6"	33-22	21.5	6.9	2.9	0.6	0.7	56.5%	40.3%	3.6	68.3%	18.9%
22	LeBron Thomas	G	Jr	6'3"	32-6	12.0	4.0	1.9	0.9	1.0	48.7%	11.1%	0.3	68.4%	23.0%
0	Ramel Bethea	F	So	6'9"	30-4	12.7	3.6	2.6	0.3	0.6	74.6%	0.0%	0.0	66.7%	14.4%
4	Mac Wrecke	G	So	6'5"	23-5	11.6	3.3	1.4	0.3	0.4	55.7%	36.0%	1.1	69.6%	16.3%
20	Maruan Cicic	C	Fr	7'0"	21-9	11.5	2.8	1.8	0.1	0.6	59.1%	0.0%	0.0	63.6%	15.6%
3	Keegan Van Kauwenberg	G	Fr	6'3"	18-0	9.6	2.1	0.8	0.6	0.4	54.4%	34.6%	1.4	—	15.1%
15	Rob Stroud	F	Sr	6'5"	12-1	5.5	3.4	1.2	0.1	0.3	43.9%	16.7%	0.5	75.0%	40.1%
1	Josh Hines	G	Jr	6'2"	5-0	11.0	3.8	1.2	1.2	0.0	63.3%	33.3%	1.8	0.0%	16.3%
12	Dontrell Hewlett	G	Sr	6'4"	4-0	11.5	3.8	1.5	1.5	0.8	28.9%	14.3%	1.8	50.0%	33.5%
21	Brady Fitzgerald	G	Fr	6'4"	5-0	1.6	0.2	0.4	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	50.0%	6.8%
11	Trey Schachter	G	Fr	6'3"	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.

N Illinois2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Makhai Valentine	G	So	6'3"	29-29	30.7	13.3	5.3	1.0	1.2	53.1%	35.8%	6.7	81.3%	24.0%
0	Gianni Cobb	G	So	6'0"	30-19	29.0	9.8	2.7	3.9	2.4	46.2%	26.8%	2.4	59.8%	24.3%
6	Taj Walters	G	Fr	6'5"	29-23	27.1	8.5	5.4	0.6	1.3	52.4%	38.3%	2.8	78.3%	18.8%
96	Gustav Winther	F	Fr	6'10"	30-21	21.2	8.1	4.2	0.9	1.4	64.5%	42.9%	0.2	54.7%	21.2%
3	Daemar Kelly	G	Jr	6'5"	29-15	20.6	5.6	3.1	1.2	1.2	35.2%	25.6%	2.8	76.7%	21.9%
7	Hassan Washington	F	Jr	6'8"	29-14	16.6	4.7	3.2	0.6	1.9	59.9%	43.8%	0.6	44.4%	20.6%
10	Jao Ituka	G	Jr	6'1"	15-0	14.1	6.9	2.5	0.9	0.3	48.9%	34.4%	4.1	81.0%	27.4%
2	Carlos Coronado	G	Fr	6'3"	20-1	10.3	3.9	0.8	0.6	1.0	41.2%	20.8%	1.2	68.9%	26.2%
8	Ladji Kante	F	Fr	6'7"	17-0	9.2	2.8	1.2	0.4	0.6	43.8%	20.0%	0.9	65.0%	21.2%
23	Jaylen Wharton	F	Jr	6'9"	18-0	7.0	2.0	1.7	0.1	0.3	45.2%	—	0.0	42.1%	20.2%
11	Isaiah Washington	G	Fr	6'5"	11-0	8.9	2.7	1.3	0.5	0.5	38.9%	11.1%	0.8	64.3%	22.3%
16	Isaiah Stewart	G	Fr	6'6"	13-0	5.5	1.2	0.9	0.3	0.2	60.0%	40.0%	0.4	66.7%	11.0%
4	JJ Taylor	F	Jr	6'8"	3-2	21.0	8.7	2.7	0.3	3.0	41.7%	11.1%	3.0	68.8%	29.3%
21	Max Laskey	G	Fr	6'5"	6-0	2.5	0.5	0.2	0.2	0.2	50.0%	33.3%	0.5	—	13.9%
15	Lataevyon Taylor	G	So	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

N Illinois

Against the spread

Season

13-15

Home

3-8

Road

10-7

Last 10

3-7

avg cover −10.6

Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 3 of 9 as an underdogCovered 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

8-20

Home

4-7

Road

4-13

Last 10

2-8

avg vs total −4.7

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 9 as an underdogOver in 1 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	AkronAdjEM #48	A	L 55–94	+23.5	L−15.5	156.0	U149	79.5	135.8	69.2
Mar 3	Kent StateAdjEM #157	H	L 76–102	+10.0	L−16.0	149.5	O178	100.2	134.5	75.9
Feb 28	Ball StateAdjEM #295	H	L 43–79	−1.5	L−37.5	133.5	U122	68.4	125.7	62.8
Feb 24	ToledoAdjEM #115	A	L 69–79	+12.5	W+2.5	150.0	U148	104.3	119.5	66.1
Feb 21	OhioAdjEM #233	H	L 66–74	+5.5	L−2.5	150.0	U140	102.2	114.6	64.6
Feb 17	BuffaloAdjEM #186	A	W 72–70	+8.5	W+10.5	147.5	U142	108.1	105.1	66.6
Feb 14	C MichiganAdjEM #283	A	L 46–88	+4.5	L−37.5	146.0	U134	67.4	128.9	68.3
Feb 11	Bowling GreenAdjEM #114	H	L 52–68	+7.5	L−8.5	145.0	U120	74.6	97.6	69.7
Feb 7	Georgia StAdjEM #310	A	W 75–74	+4.5	W+5.5	142.0	O149	104.8	103.4	71.6
Jan 31	#24Miami OHAdjEM #66	A	L 61–85	+17.0	L−7.0	155.5	U146	83.2	116.0	73.3

Green Bay

Against the spread

Season

19-12

Home

8-4

Road

8-7

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +4.8

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 6 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-15

Home

6-6

Road

7-8

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +0.7

Over in the last gameOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 6 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 8	N KentuckyAdjEM #164	N	L 76–96	+4.0	L−16.0	147.5	O172	115.2	145.5	66.0
Mar 3	Purdue FWAdjEM #258	H	W 64–56	−4.5	W+3.5	145.0	U120	110.6	96.7	57.9
Feb 28	Youngstown StAdjEM #204	H	W 85–63	−1.5	W+20.5	142.0	O148	130.0	96.4	65.4
Feb 22	Detroit MercyAdjEM #224	A	L 70–74	+1.0	L−3.0	147.5	U144	101.4	107.2	69.0
Feb 20	OaklandAdjEM #172	A	W 73–68	+6.5	W+11.5	153.5	U141	115.7	107.8	63.1
Feb 15	MilwaukeeAdjEM #262	A	L 72–75	+2.5	L−0.5	145.5	O147	117.0	121.8	61.6
Feb 12	Purdue FWAdjEM #258	H	W 76–59	−1.5	W+15.5	144.5	U135	129.0	100.1	58.9
Feb 7	Detroit MercyAdjEM #224	H	W 76–63	−4.0	W+9.0	148.0	U139	114.3	94.7	66.5
Feb 4	N KentuckyAdjEM #164	A	W 87–84 OT	+8.0	W+11.0	150.5	O171	115.3	111.3	75.5
Feb 1	Wright StAdjEM #119	H	L 75–83	+4.0	L−4.0	144.0	O158	118.4	131.1	63.3

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

N IllinoisGreen Bay

Efficiency

100.3

110.7

111.9

113.0

68.5

65.4

—

Shooting

47.6%

54.9%

48.5%

55.0%

30.9%

36.4%

65.7%

77.5%

38.3%

41.6%

Ball control & glass

21.8%

16.0%

16.3%

13.2%

30.3%

25.1%

30.0%

29.6%

11.7%

9.4%

14.5%

9.3%

Style

45.0%

37.3%

41.5%

44.9%

12.7%

10.7%

51.8%

54.5%

31.5%

27.2%

Roster

1.91

2.82

6'4.7"

86.8%

—

Offseason

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

N Illinois

Returning minutes: 86.8%Returning production: 90.1%

Lost

Dylan Ducommun 26.5 mpg, 9.3 ppg · transferred to Buffalo

Added

Lataevyon Taylor no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 87% 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).

Green Bay

Returning minutes: 97.1%Returning production: 98.1%

ESPN hasn't posted Green Bay's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.

Returns 97% 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

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.