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-conferenceMcDermott Center, San Antonio, TX

Chicago St

Efficiency #342

2025-26: 7-25 · 5-14 conf

Incarnate Word

Efficiency #264

2025-26: 12-19 · 7-15 conf

Thu, Nov 5 · TBD

68.9

win 24%

Projected

77.1

win 76%

No line posted yet.

Model: UIW −8.2 · total 146.1 · 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: Incarnate Word 67.0, Chicago St 67.2 → 65.9 possessions

−5.2

Incarnate Word offense vs Chicago St defense

+3.7

Chicago St offense vs Incarnate Word defense

−0.7

Projected total

146.1

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Incarnate Word offense vs Chicago St defense

+3.7

Chicago St offense vs Incarnate Word defense

+0.7

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

+3.8

Incarnate Word by 8.2

8.2

Chicago St side ◂▸ Incarnate Word side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 146.0 against a projected 146.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Incarnate Word.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 65.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Chicago St is the faster team (65.8, #304 of 365) and Incarnate Word the slower (65.4, #318). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

65.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

146.1

model

Projected team totals

68.9 / 77.1

Chicago St / Incarnate Word

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.2#272

Chicago St

67.0#290

Incarnate Word

How this game plays

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

Pace

Half-court grind

Incarnate Word averages 65.4 possessions per 40, Chicago St 65.8. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageIncarnate Word

Where Incarnate Word scores: shooting

Incarnate Word shoots an effective 50.2% (#228); Chicago St allows 56.7% (#354). Expect about 53.4%, 2.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions.

ClashChicago St

Style match: 3-point volume

Chicago St rarely shoots threes (30.9% of its shots); Incarnate Word runs teams off the line (35.4% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 29.9% — both habits push the same way.

TurnoversIncarnate Word

Incarnate Word turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 19.1% is worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions against Incarnate Word's offense.

AdvantageChicago St

Where Chicago St struggles: shooting

Chicago St shoots an effective 45.3% (#358); Incarnate Word allows 54.5% (#314). Expect about 49.5%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.

ClashIncarnate Word

Style clash: ball movement

Incarnate Word creates off the dribble (assists on 44.2% of its baskets); Chicago St allows assists on 72.7% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 60.3% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

Chicago St has the ball

OffenseIncarnate Word allowsvs D1 avg

45.3% #358

54.5% #314

-2.6 pt/100

15.6% #113

15.7% #239

+1.7 pt/100

28.3% #255

32.0% #260

-0.4 pt/100

30.0% #311

41.6% #318

+0.2 pt/100

75.0% #84

—

+0.2 pt/100

Chicago St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.0 pts/100

Incarnate Word has the ball

OffenseChicago St allowsvs D1 avg

50.2% #228

56.7% #354

+3.1 pt/100

17.2% #215

20.1% #20

-2.9 pt/100

32.1% #120

35.0% #339

+2.1 pt/100

34.0% #210

38.0% #261

+0.2 pt/100

71.2% #233

—

-0.1 pt/100

Incarnate Word net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.3 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Chicago Stoffense vsIncarnate Worddefense

Share of shots by zone

Chicago St shoots

33.6

8.8

26.8

30.7

Incarnate Word allows

44.5

5.9

14.4

35.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	49.8%#361	61.9%#298	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.0%#195	41.0%#208	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.8%#232	41.6%#292	38.0%
Three	32.1%#275	34.4%#214	33.7%

Incarnate Wordoffense vsChicago Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Incarnate Word shoots

38.3

5.1

18.1

38.4

Chicago St allows

37.0

4.0

8.8

50.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	54.3%#317	64.9%#350	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	33.3%#312	31.0%#19	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	37.7%#195	44.1%#341	38.0%
Three	36.1%#54	35.6%#290	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

Chicago St

−1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#232 of 365

Off reb %

28.3%

#255

Def reb %

65.0%

#339

Turnover %

15.6%

#113

Forced TO %

20.1%

#20

FT rate

30.0%

#311

FT allowed

38.0%

#261

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−1.4

Ball security+0.8

Forcing turnovers+2.3

Foul shots drawn−1.3

Foul shots allowed−0.7

Incarnate Word

−2.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#293 of 365

Off reb %

32.1%

#120

Def reb %

68.0%

#260

Turnover %

17.2%

#215

Forced TO %

15.7%

#239

FT rate

34.0%

#210

FT allowed

41.6%

#318

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.6

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.3

Forcing turnovers−0.7

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed−1.6

Chicago St has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.0 (#232 of 365) to Incarnate Word’s −2.8 (#293).

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

Chicago St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Chicago St'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
23	CJ Ray	F	Sr	6'6"	32-27	31.1	13.5	4.7	1.5	1.3	47.8%	37.2%	3.5	85.2%	28.3%
4	Marcus Tankersley	G	Sr	6'5"	30-29	30.6	13.0	3.1	2.5	2.0	46.5%	23.3%	1.0	65.6%	29.9%
3	Doyel Cockrill III	G	Jr	6'2"	28-9	24.4	11.8	2.6	2.0	1.0	49.4%	36.4%	5.8	83.3%	29.7%
21	Braelon Bush	G	Sr	5'9"	26-9	25.9	8.5	1.9	3.1	1.4	45.6%	27.7%	3.9	91.9%	23.3%
10	Corey Sands	G	Sr	6'4"	30-20	17.4	2.8	1.9	0.6	0.4	39.4%	25.8%	2.1	73.3%	13.1%
8	Stephen Byard	F	Sr	6'8"	22-9	22.6	9.8	4.8	0.8	1.4	48.3%	41.7%	0.5	73.4%	28.7%
9	Malek Robinson	G	Fr	5'11"	32-22	15.4	3.0	1.6	0.9	0.8	36.5%	31.8%	0.7	70.4%	15.8%
22	Dailliss Cox	F	Sr	6'6"	32-21	15.2	3.1	3.2	0.2	0.4	48.4%	33.3%	0.3	69.2%	14.0%
15	Joseph Owens	F	Sr	6'7"	26-2	11.2	2.1	2.2	0.2	0.6	53.7%	—	0.0	62.5%	13.5%
11	Lionel Larvadain III	G	So	6'0"	21-1	11.2	2.8	1.1	0.7	1.0	31.6%	20.0%	0.7	71.4%	24.4%
5	Chauncey Gibson	G	Jr	6'7"	15-4	15.5	4.9	2.3	1.2	1.1	37.8%	26.4%	3.5	42.9%	30.0%
6	Daniel Zatsepin	F	Jr	6'4"	25-2	8.7	0.9	1.4	0.1	0.2	35.2%	50.0%	0.1	50.0%	10.1%
25	Dakari Thomas	G	So	6'1"	19-0	5.0	0.7	0.6	0.1	0.1	42.9%	—	0.0	63.6%	8.3%
20	CJ Delancy	F	Sr	6'9"	6-2	9.2	1.7	1.8	0.3	0.3	44.4%	—	0.0	100.0%	12.4%
1	Deshawn Jean-Charles	G	Sr	6'7"	4-3	8.5	0.8	1.3	0.5	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	75.0%	7.7%
12	DaJuan Bates	G	Jr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
0	Greg Spate	G	Jr	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.

Incarnate Word2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Davion Bailey	G	Sr	6'4"	30-29	35.5	18.6	3.4	2.0	2.1	49.4%	35.7%	8.8	77.1%	33.0%
10	Harold Woods	G	Sr	6'5"	31-24	30.3	8.8	6.8	1.3	1.5	52.1%	32.7%	1.6	67.5%	19.1%
7	Jordan Pyke	F	Jr	6'7"	27-25	25.4	12.6	5.1	1.6	1.3	57.1%	40.4%	2.1	70.7%	27.5%
3	Love Bettis	G	Sr	5'11"	30-8	17.0	4.3	0.7	0.9	0.9	47.6%	31.0%	1.4	84.6%	18.7%
8	Marcus Glover	F	Jr	6'8"	29-20	16.5	3.5	3.4	0.6	0.7	50.0%	—	0.0	70.3%	13.2%
21	Lewis Rowe	C	Sr	6'10"	26-9	14.8	2.3	2.4	1.0	0.4	46.0%	—	0.0	33.3%	12.1%
0	Esteban Mann	F	Jr	6'7"	22-3	12.0	2.1	2.9	0.2	0.7	28.1%	0.0%	0.2	44.1%	20.3%
9	Mihael Tomic	G	Fr	—	22-3	9.0	1.9	2.2	0.1	0.3	65.2%	—	0.0	78.6%	11.0%
4	Jayden Williams	C	So	6'9"	22-1	8.0	2.2	2.1	0.2	0.4	62.5%	—	0.0	61.5%	15.5%
99	Amani Drummond	G	Sr	6'1"	19-0	4.4	1.6	0.8	0.1	0.1	48.2%	31.3%	0.8	66.7%	23.3%
22	Drew Barbee	F	So	6'5"	5-0	5.6	2.2	1.8	0.8	0.4	35.7%	50.0%	0.4	75.0%	24.9%
93	Tyler Simon	F	Sr	6'5"	4-0	4.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	7.9%
11	Isaiah Kortas	G	So	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.

Chicago St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Chicago St'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
23	CJ Ray	F	Sr	6'6"	32-27	31.1	13.5	4.7	1.5	1.3	47.8%	37.2%	3.5	85.2%	28.3%
4	Marcus Tankersley	G	Sr	6'5"	30-29	30.6	13.0	3.1	2.5	2.0	46.5%	23.3%	1.0	65.6%	29.9%
3	Doyel Cockrill III	G	Jr	6'2"	28-9	24.4	11.8	2.6	2.0	1.0	49.4%	36.4%	5.8	83.3%	29.7%
21	Braelon Bush	G	Sr	5'9"	26-9	25.9	8.5	1.9	3.1	1.4	45.6%	27.7%	3.9	91.9%	23.3%
10	Corey Sands	G	Sr	6'4"	30-20	17.4	2.8	1.9	0.6	0.4	39.4%	25.8%	2.1	73.3%	13.1%
8	Stephen Byard	F	Sr	6'8"	22-9	22.6	9.8	4.8	0.8	1.4	48.3%	41.7%	0.5	73.4%	28.7%
9	Malek Robinson	G	Fr	5'11"	32-22	15.4	3.0	1.6	0.9	0.8	36.5%	31.8%	0.7	70.4%	15.8%
22	Dailliss Cox	F	Sr	6'6"	32-21	15.2	3.1	3.2	0.2	0.4	48.4%	33.3%	0.3	69.2%	14.0%
15	Joseph Owens	F	Sr	6'7"	26-2	11.2	2.1	2.2	0.2	0.6	53.7%	—	0.0	62.5%	13.5%
11	Lionel Larvadain III	G	So	6'0"	21-1	11.2	2.8	1.1	0.7	1.0	31.6%	20.0%	0.7	71.4%	24.4%
5	Chauncey Gibson	G	Jr	6'7"	15-4	15.5	4.9	2.3	1.2	1.1	37.8%	26.4%	3.5	42.9%	30.0%
6	Daniel Zatsepin	F	Jr	6'4"	25-2	8.7	0.9	1.4	0.1	0.2	35.2%	50.0%	0.1	50.0%	10.1%
25	Dakari Thomas	G	So	6'1"	19-0	5.0	0.7	0.6	0.1	0.1	42.9%	—	0.0	63.6%	8.3%
20	CJ Delancy	F	Sr	6'9"	6-2	9.2	1.7	1.8	0.3	0.3	44.4%	—	0.0	100.0%	12.4%
1	Deshawn Jean-Charles	G	Sr	6'7"	4-3	8.5	0.8	1.3	0.5	0.0	0.0%	—	0.0	75.0%	7.7%
12	DaJuan Bates	G	Jr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
0	Greg Spate	G	Jr	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Chicago St

Against the spread

Season

14-16-1

Home

6-4

Road

8-12-1

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +2.5

Covered the last gameCovered 5 of 9 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-16

Home

3-7

Road

12-9

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −2.1

Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 9 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 4	Long IslandAdjEM #195	A	L 75–79	+11.0	W+7.0	138.0	O154	122.2	128.7	61.4
Feb 28	WagnerAdjEM #285	A	L 61–80	+5.0	L−14.0	135.5	O141	88.6	116.2	68.9
Feb 26	Long IslandAdjEM #195	A	L 56–73	+11.5	L−5.5	140.0	U129	85.8	111.9	65.3
Feb 21	C ConnecticutAdjEM #277	H	W 70–51	+3.0	W+22.0	138.5	U121	113.1	82.4	61.9
Feb 19	FDUAdjEM #332	H	L 59–60	+2.0	W+1.0	132.0	U119	111.6	113.5	52.9
Feb 14	Le MoyneAdjEM #270	A	L 63–81	+7.0	L−11.0	146.0	U144	91.5	117.6	68.9
Feb 12	StonehillAdjEM #320	H	W 68–55	+1.5	W+14.5	132.5	U123	121.5	98.3	56.0
Feb 9	Saint Francis Red Wolves	H	W 80–75	−3.0	W+2.0	145.5	O155	112.7	105.7	71.0
Feb 7	New HavenAdjEM #326	A	W 63–57	+5.5	W+11.5	127.5	U120	106.9	96.8	58.9
Feb 5	C ConnecticutAdjEM #277	A	L 67–78	+9.0	L−2.0	137.0	O145	107.5	125.1	62.3

Incarnate Word

Against the spread

Season

11-17

Home

5-7

Road

5-9

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −1.9

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-14

Home

7-5

Road

5-9

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +3.6

Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 2	SF AustinAdjEM #73	H	L 68–76	+7.0	L−1.0	143.5	O144	113.0	126.2	60.2
Feb 28	LamarAdjEM #236	H	W 72–60	−1.0	W+11.0	138.0	U132	113.3	94.4	63.6
Feb 23	N'Western StAdjEM #299	A	L 49–54	+2.5	L−2.5	138.0	U103	81.6	89.9	60.1
Feb 21	East Texas A&MAdjEM #311	A	W 82–73	+4.0	W+13.0	146.5	O155	143.4	127.6	57.2
Feb 16	LSU N OrleansAdjEM #221	H	L 64–78	−2.0	L−16.0	153.5	U142	99.2	120.9	64.5
Feb 14	NichollsAdjEM #250	H	L 83–91	−1.5	L−9.5	149.0	O174	126.5	138.7	65.6
Feb 9	SE LouisianaAdjEM #296	A	L 62–74	+1.0	L−11.0	137.5	U136	101.5	121.1	61.1
Feb 7	McNeeseAdjEM #49	A	L 64–81	+17.5	W+0.5	146.0	U145	103.1	130.5	62.1
Feb 2	Texas A&M-CCAdjEM #181	A	W 71–69	+5.0	W+7.0	140.5	U140	108.1	105.1	65.7
Jan 31	UT Rio GrandeAdjEM #109	H	L 93–106	+2.0	L−11.0	141.0	O199	129.3	147.3	72.0

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

Chicago StIncarnate Word

Efficiency

102.4

108.2

114.4

113.5

67.2

67.0

—

Shooting

45.3%

50.2%

44.0%

47.7%

32.1%

36.1%

75.0%

71.2%

30.0%

34.0%

Ball control & glass

15.6%

17.2%

20.1%

15.7%

28.3%

32.1%

35.0%

32.0%

8.4%

9.3%

8.7%

9.8%

Style

30.9%

39.1%

41.8%

39.1%

11.7%

11.1%

50.3%

44.2%

39.8%

27.1%

Roster

3.49

3.50

6'3.7"

6'5.3"

—

78.0%

Offseason

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

Chicago St

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Chicago St'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.)

Incarnate Word

Returning minutes: 78.0%Returning production: 73.1%

Lost

Tahj Staveskie 35.3 mpg, 17.3 ppg · transferred to Akron
Harrison Reede 8.8 mpg, 4.1 ppg · transferred to Buffalo

Added

Isaiah Kortas no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 78% 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.