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-conferenceBogota Savings Bank Center, Hackensack, NJ

NJIT

Efficiency #331

2025-26: 16-17 · 11-7 conf

FDU

Efficiency #332

2025-26: 11-21 · 8-11 conf

Wed, Nov 18 · TBD

68.3

win 37%

Projected

72.1

win 63%

No line posted yet.

Model: FDU −3.8 · total 140.4 · 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: FDU 66.2, NJIT 68.7 → 66.6 possessions

−3.8

FDU offense vs NJIT defense

−2.1

NJIT offense vs FDU defense

−2.0

Projected total

140.4

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

FDU offense vs NJIT defense

−2.1

NJIT offense vs FDU defense

+2.0

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

+3.8

FDU by 3.8

3.8

NJIT side ◂▸ FDU side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 140.3 against a projected 140.4, and the margin steps add to +3.7 against +3.8. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help FDU.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, NJIT is the faster team (67.9, #204 of 365) and FDU the slower (64.1, #352). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.6

per team, 40 min

Projected total

140.4

model

Projected team totals

68.3 / 72.1

NJIT / FDU

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.7#140

NJIT

66.2#337

FDU

How this game plays

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

AdvantageFDU

Where FDU struggles: shooting

FDU shoots an effective 47.1% (#333); NJIT allows 50.0% (#99). Expect about 48.2%, 3.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.3 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Half-court grind

FDU averages 64.1 possessions per 40, NJIT 67.9. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageNJIT

Where NJIT struggles: the offensive glass

NJIT rebounds 26.2% of its own misses (#316); FDU lets opponents grab 27.3% of their own misses (#46). Expect about 26.0%, 4.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.7 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (FDU, NJIT, FDU'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 NJIT at about 40.7% of its shots from three, FDU about 44.8%.

NJIT has the ball

OffenseFDU allowsvs D1 avg

46.7% #342

55.2% #336

-0.9 pt/100

17.1% #210

16.1% #216

+0.3 pt/100

26.2% #316

27.3% #46

-2.7 pt/100

33.2% #233

36.3% #217

-0.0 pt/100

70.5% #253

—

-0.2 pt/100

NJIT net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.5 pts/100

FDU has the ball

OffenseNJIT allowsvs D1 avg

47.1% #333

50.0% #99

-4.3 pt/100

18.1% #280

16.2% #210

-0.5 pt/100

32.0% #125

32.1% #264

+1.2 pt/100

32.8% #240

37.9% #258

+0.1 pt/100

70.1% #272

—

-0.2 pt/100

FDU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

NJIToffense vsFDUdefense

Share of shots by zone

NJIT shoots

33.9

6.7

19.6

39.7

FDU allows

35.4

6.8

17.0

40.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	53.7%#324	60.0%#224	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	40.7%#152	38.5%#148	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	38.4%#175	43.3%#331	38.0%
Three	30.4%#336	37.8%#354	33.7%

FDUoffense vsNJITdefense

Share of shots by zone

FDU shoots

35.6

5.8

14.0

44.6

NJIT allows

40.9

4.3

13.8

40.9

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.1%#236	57.8%#142	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	37.3%#239	43.7%#261	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.5%#337	30.7%#7	38.0%
Three	30.3%#339	32.3%#79	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

NJIT

−3.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#316 of 365

Off reb %

26.2%

#316

Def reb %

67.9%

#264

Turnover %

17.1%

#210

Forced TO %

16.2%

#210

FT rate

33.2%

#233

FT allowed

37.9%

#258

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.3

Defensive rebounding−0.5

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers−0.3

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed−0.7

FDU

−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#205 of 365

Off reb %

32.0%

#125

Def reb %

72.7%

#46

Turnover %

18.1%

#280

Forced TO %

16.1%

#216

FT rate

32.8%

#240

FT allowed

36.3%

#217

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.5

Defensive rebounding+1.1

Ball security−0.9

Forcing turnovers−0.4

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed−0.3

FDU has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.6 (#205 of 365) to NJIT’s −3.5 (#316).

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

NJIT2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted NJIT'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
1	David Bolden	G	Fr	6'0"	33-33	29.8	11.8	2.8	2.8	2.0	41.9%	31.8%	6.7	80.2%	28.6%
24	Ari Fulton	G	So	6'7"	33-32	28.3	10.9	6.2	1.2	1.5	47.1%	26.2%	3.2	78.9%	24.2%
3	Jordan Rogers	F	So	6'6"	33-33	26.6	5.8	5.2	2.2	1.5	54.7%	33.3%	1.8	66.7%	14.7%
0	Sebastian Robinson	G	Jr	6'3"	30-15	27.4	14.8	3.0	2.2	1.9	46.8%	24.0%	1.7	70.1%	35.7%
11	Melvyn Ebonkoli	F	Sr	6'8"	21-18	26.1	7.3	5.7	0.6	1.7	51.6%	—	0.0	52.4%	20.1%
25	John Kelly	F	So	6'8"	33-0	15.6	4.3	2.5	0.4	0.6	47.1%	34.2%	1.2	68.8%	17.6%
14	Quentin Duncan	G	So	6'4"	33-4	13.6	4.4	1.7	0.5	0.3	50.8%	37.6%	2.6	52.0%	19.9%
44	Rocco Awad	G	Fr	6'1"	33-1	12.8	3.1	1.3	0.3	0.6	39.2%	26.4%	2.6	76.9%	19.7%
32	Malachi Arrington	C	So	6'11"	29-15	14.2	3.9	3.7	0.0	0.7	59.7%	—	0.0	55.3%	16.4%
2	Jeremy Clayville	G	So	6'1"	16-14	19.4	6.8	1.5	1.5	1.3	42.7%	30.1%	5.2	100.0%	26.6%
33	Zack Scherler	F	Fr	6'11"	19-0	6.5	1.0	1.2	0.2	0.3	50.0%	—	0.0	55.6%	10.8%
8	Jeffrey Akintolu	F	Jr	6'7"	19-0	5.6	0.7	0.9	0.0	0.2	30.0%	13.3%	0.8	50.0%	13.9%
7	Cameron Piggee	G	Jr	6'1"	18-0	5.4	1.8	0.3	0.4	0.2	41.9%	32.0%	1.4	85.7%	21.9%
5	AJ Altobelli	G	Fr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Stefan Jimenez-Vojnic	C	So	6'11"	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.

FDU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted FDU'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
0	Joey Niesman	G	Sr	6'2"	32-28	33.9	12.3	3.8	3.2	1.9	50.3%	34.3%	5.4	74.1%	24.8%
2	Taeshaud Jackson	F	Sr	6'6"	32-32	29.6	10.3	8.4	1.6	1.8	48.6%	21.6%	1.6	76.2%	23.9%
7	Eric Parnell	G	Sr	6'3"	32-31	25.7	10.7	2.2	0.7	0.5	49.8%	33.1%	7.6	81.8%	26.2%
22	Cyril Martynov	C	Sr	7'0"	32-32	25.6	8.1	5.4	2.3	1.9	53.9%	14.3%	0.2	53.6%	22.8%
35	David Jevtic	G	Fr	6'8"	31-10	20.3	6.6	3.4	1.2	1.3	48.0%	32.6%	3.0	66.0%	24.0%
55	Arthur Cox	F	Sr	6'8"	29-1	20.1	8.8	3.7	1.3	1.6	48.9%	29.2%	2.2	78.0%	29.3%
3	Raysean Johnson	G	So	6'1"	31-17	17.4	4.6	1.8	0.7	0.9	43.4%	27.6%	1.9	67.9%	20.1%
8	Noah Melson	G	Jr	6'6"	25-6	17.3	6.0	1.6	0.5	0.6	45.6%	32.7%	3.9	53.8%	24.7%
24	Ras Elijah Godbolt	G	Fr	6'0"	30-2	11.7	1.3	0.8	0.9	0.3	30.2%	21.1%	0.6	86.7%	10.5%
15	Josiah Francis	G	So	6'8"	14-0	6.9	1.4	2.1	0.0	0.6	31.8%	18.2%	0.8	83.3%	20.7%
9	Sebastian Haubro	F	Fr	6'10"	23-0	3.7	0.6	0.9	0.2	0.2	40.0%	—	0.0	90.0%	10.7%
5	Chid Ekwommadu	G	So	6'6"	2-0	8.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	1.0	0.0%	0.0%	1.0	—	14.2%
11	Tyler McQuaid	G	Fr	6'0"	7-0	1.6	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	16.1%
21	Cole Alexander	F	Sr	6'7"	5-1	1.2	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	50.0%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	30.3%
30	Andrew Canda	G	So	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
1	Kody Frey	G	Fr	6'6"	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.

NJIT2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted NJIT'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
1	David Bolden	G	Fr	6'0"	33-33	29.8	11.8	2.8	2.8	2.0	41.9%	31.8%	6.7	80.2%	28.6%
24	Ari Fulton	G	So	6'7"	33-32	28.3	10.9	6.2	1.2	1.5	47.1%	26.2%	3.2	78.9%	24.2%
3	Jordan Rogers	F	So	6'6"	33-33	26.6	5.8	5.2	2.2	1.5	54.7%	33.3%	1.8	66.7%	14.7%
0	Sebastian Robinson	G	Jr	6'3"	30-15	27.4	14.8	3.0	2.2	1.9	46.8%	24.0%	1.7	70.1%	35.7%
11	Melvyn Ebonkoli	F	Sr	6'8"	21-18	26.1	7.3	5.7	0.6	1.7	51.6%	—	0.0	52.4%	20.1%
25	John Kelly	F	So	6'8"	33-0	15.6	4.3	2.5	0.4	0.6	47.1%	34.2%	1.2	68.8%	17.6%
14	Quentin Duncan	G	So	6'4"	33-4	13.6	4.4	1.7	0.5	0.3	50.8%	37.6%	2.6	52.0%	19.9%
44	Rocco Awad	G	Fr	6'1"	33-1	12.8	3.1	1.3	0.3	0.6	39.2%	26.4%	2.6	76.9%	19.7%
32	Malachi Arrington	C	So	6'11"	29-15	14.2	3.9	3.7	0.0	0.7	59.7%	—	0.0	55.3%	16.4%
2	Jeremy Clayville	G	So	6'1"	16-14	19.4	6.8	1.5	1.5	1.3	42.7%	30.1%	5.2	100.0%	26.6%
33	Zack Scherler	F	Fr	6'11"	19-0	6.5	1.0	1.2	0.2	0.3	50.0%	—	0.0	55.6%	10.8%
8	Jeffrey Akintolu	F	Jr	6'7"	19-0	5.6	0.7	0.9	0.0	0.2	30.0%	13.3%	0.8	50.0%	13.9%
7	Cameron Piggee	G	Jr	6'1"	18-0	5.4	1.8	0.3	0.4	0.2	41.9%	32.0%	1.4	85.7%	21.9%
5	AJ Altobelli	G	Fr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
13	Stefan Jimenez-Vojnic	C	So	6'11"	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

NJIT

Against the spread

Season

18-14

Home

6-7

Road

12-7

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −3.4

Covered the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

14-18

Home

6-7

Road

8-11

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −8.2

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

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	VermontAdjEM #199	A	L 54–63	+11.5	W+2.5	135.0	U117	85.4	99.6	63.2
Mar 7	MaineAdjEM #335	H	W 60–58	−3.5	L−1.5	133.5	U118	92.5	89.5	64.8
Mar 3	UMBCAdjEM #147	H	L 52–91	+5.0	L−34.0	142.5	O143	74.2	129.9	70.1
Feb 28	BryantAdjEM #347	A	L 52–69	−1.5	L−18.5	138.5	U121	80.9	107.3	64.3
Feb 21	VermontAdjEM #199	H	L 64–70	+6.5	W+0.5	142.0	U134	100.8	110.2	63.5
Feb 19	UAlbanyAdjEM #306	H	L 63–81	−4.0	L−22.0	143.0	O144	105.7	136.0	59.6
Feb 14	MaineAdjEM #335	A	W 67–58	−2.0	W+7.0	137.0	U125	98.9	85.7	67.7
Feb 12	New HampshireAdjEM #340	A	W 76–70	+2.5	W+8.5	143.5	O146	113.8	104.8	66.8
Feb 7	BinghamtonAdjEM #354	H	W 73–64	−9.5	L−0.5	140.5	U137	110.5	96.9	66.0
Feb 5	UMass LowellAdjEM #308	H	W 81–56	−1.0	W+24.0	149.0	U137	118.7	82.1	68.2

FDU

Against the spread

Season

9-19-1

Home

4-6-1

Road

5-13

Last 10

2-7-1

avg cover −2.7

Missed the spread 6 straightCovered 2 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 0 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

10-19

Home

4-7

Road

6-12

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −2.9

Under 3 straightOver in 3 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 0 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 4	MercyhurstAdjEM #261	A	L 61–70	+4.0	L−5.0	132.5	U131	94.2	108.0	64.8
Feb 28	Long IslandAdjEM #195	A	L 60–74	+9.0	L−5.0	137.5	U134	95.3	117.6	62.9
Feb 26	Le MoyneAdjEM #270	A	L 59–76	+4.5	L−12.5	139.5	U135	92.2	118.7	64.0
Feb 21	New HavenAdjEM #326	H	L 77–84	−2.5	L−9.5	124.5	O161	122.6	133.7	62.8
Feb 19	Chicago StAdjEM #342	A	W 60–59	−2.0	L−1.0	132.0	U119	113.5	111.6	52.9
Feb 14	C ConnecticutAdjEM #277	H	L 57–63	+1.0	L−5.0	134.0	U120	100.9	111.5	56.5
Feb 12	Saint Francis Red Wolves	H	W 66–59	−7.0	P0.0	142.5	U125	100.9	90.2	65.4
Feb 7	MercyhurstAdjEM #261	H	W 55–52	−2.5	W+0.5	131.0	U107	101.4	95.9	54.3
Feb 5	StonehillAdjEM #320	H	W 74–58	−1.0	W+15.0	131.0	O132	116.1	91.0	63.7
Jan 31	WagnerAdjEM #285	A	L 72–75 OT	−1.5	L−4.5	135.5	O147	105.0	109.4	68.6

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

NJITFDU

Efficiency

100.5

103.2

110.6

113.4

68.7

66.2

—

Shooting

46.7%

47.1%

47.5%

48.6%

30.4%

30.3%

70.5%

70.1%

33.2%

32.8%

Ball control & glass

17.1%

18.1%

16.2%

16.1%

26.2%

32.0%

32.1%

27.3%

9.6%

9.8%

9.0%

9.4%

Style

40.1%

45.2%

40.9%

40.1%

12.9%

5.7%

45.7%

51.0%

33.0%

32.0%

Roster

2.09

3.23

6'4.9"

6'5.4"

—

Offseason

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

NJIT

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted NJIT'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.)

FDU

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

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

Head-to-head

this season and last

Date	Season	Result
Sat, Nov 15	2025-26	FDU 81 – 93 NJIT

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.