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-conferenceAtlantic Union Bank Center, Harrisonburg, VA

Mercyhurst

Efficiency #261

2025-26: 17-17 · 12-9 conf

James Madison

Efficiency #206

2025-26: 18-15 · 10-10 conf

Sun, Nov 15 · TBD

67.6

win 30%

Projected

73.7

win 70%

No line posted yet.

Model: JMU −6.1 · total 141.3 · 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: James Madison 67.4, Mercyhurst 66.5 → 65.6 possessions

−6.0

James Madison offense vs Mercyhurst defense

+0.7

Mercyhurst offense vs James Madison defense

−1.6

Projected total

141.3

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

James Madison offense vs Mercyhurst defense

+0.7

Mercyhurst offense vs James Madison defense

+1.6

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

+3.8

James Madison by 6.1

6.1

Mercyhurst side ◂▸ James Madison side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help James Madison.

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, James Madison is the faster team (67.0, #242 of 365) and Mercyhurst the slower (64.6, #338). 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

141.3

model

Projected team totals

67.6 / 73.7

Mercyhurst / James Madison

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.5#321

Mercyhurst

67.4#259

James Madison

How this game plays

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

AdvantageMercyhurst

Where Mercyhurst scores: ball control

Mercyhurst turns it over on 14.3% of possessions (#32); James Madison forces turnovers on 12.8% of opponent possessions (#360). Expect about 12.8%, 4.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.9 points per 100 possessions.

Pace

Half-court grind

James Madison averages 67.0 possessions per 40, Mercyhurst 64.6. 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.

GlassMercyhurst

Mercyhurst gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.2% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against Mercyhurst's offense.

AdvantageJames Madison

Where James Madison struggles: ball control

James Madison turns it over on 17.3% of possessions (#226); Mercyhurst forces turnovers on 18.7% of opponent possessions (#64). Expect about 18.3%, 1.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.9 points per 100 possessions.

Mercyhurst has the ball

OffenseJames Madison allowsvs D1 avg

49.5% #269

49.0% #66

-3.2 pt/100

14.3% #32

12.8% #360

+4.9 pt/100

26.4% #312

29.5% #134

-2.0 pt/100

25.6% #361

40.8% #310

-0.1 pt/100

74.1% #129

—

+0.1 pt/100

Mercyhurst net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100

James Madison has the ball

OffenseMercyhurst allowsvs D1 avg

53.1% #97

50.1% #107

+0.7 pt/100

17.3% #226

18.7% #64

-1.9 pt/100

30.6% #175

29.9% #153

-0.1 pt/100

35.9% #153

42.6% #332

+0.6 pt/100

70.3% #263

—

-0.2 pt/100

James Madison net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.8 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Mercyhurstoffense vsJames Madisondefense

Share of shots by zone

Mercyhurst shoots

33.8

11.3

23.5

31.3

James Madison allows

37.1

6.6

18.3

38.0

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	56.5%#256	56.6%#103	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	48.7%#16	37.6%#128	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.5%#43	38.5%#182	38.0%
Three	32.1%#276	32.7%#101	33.7%

James Madisonoffense vsMercyhurstdefense

Share of shots by zone

James Madison shoots

40.6

6.7

11.1

41.6

Mercyhurst allows

43.4

8.0

14.4

34.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	61.1%#91	57.8%#141	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	42.1%#118	42.7%#245	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	30.2%#352	33.3%#35	38.0%
Three	35.4%#94	32.3%#80	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

Mercyhurst

−2.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#278 of 365

Off reb %

26.4%

#312

Def reb %

70.1%

#153

Turnover %

14.3%

#32

Forced TO %

18.7%

#64

FT rate

25.6%

#361

FT allowed

42.6%

#332

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−1.3

Defensive rebounding+0.2

Ball security+1.7

Forcing turnovers+1.3

Foul shots drawn−2.4

Foul shots allowed−1.9

James Madison

−3.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#327 of 365

Off reb %

30.6%

#175

Def reb %

70.5%

#134

Turnover %

17.3%

#226

Forced TO %

12.8%

#360

FT rate

35.9%

#153

FT allowed

40.8%

#310

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.1

Defensive rebounding+0.4

Ball security−0.4

Forcing turnovers−2.7

Foul shots drawn+0.2

Foul shots allowed−1.4

Mercyhurst has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.3 (#278 of 365) to James Madison’s −3.8 (#327).

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

Mercyhurst2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	Bernie Blunt III	G	Sr	5'11"	34-34	30.9	17.6	3.1	2.2	1.3	49.8%	35.5%	5.9	86.5%	34.1%
11	Jake Lemelman	G	So	6'2"	34-34	30.0	13.9	2.5	3.2	1.7	50.2%	39.6%	4.5	86.4%	30.6%
7	Deshaun Jackson Jr.	G	So	6'2"	34-1	22.4	6.0	3.0	3.0	1.4	46.8%	0.0%	0.1	65.9%	20.6%
10	Christian Gamble	G	Sr	6'0"	34-33	21.1	3.9	1.6	2.1	0.6	44.6%	28.8%	2.1	73.1%	13.9%
5	Mykolas Ivanauskas	F	So	6'8"	32-31	19.6	7.4	5.1	0.4	1.1	57.9%	22.6%	1.0	58.6%	23.6%
1	Sean Lang	G	Sr	6'3"	32-0	13.4	0.8	2.4	1.0	0.3	26.6%	15.8%	0.6	62.5%	6.9%
3	Cameron Johnson	F	Jr	6'5"	33-4	12.2	3.4	2.4	0.5	0.6	44.9%	32.1%	0.8	75.0%	20.8%
15	Kaden Fuhrmann	G	Sr	6'5"	32-0	11.6	3.3	0.8	0.8	0.4	51.6%	31.3%	2.5	87.5%	18.6%
34	James Thomas	F	Sr	6'6"	33-0	9.6	1.4	2.0	0.4	0.3	48.8%	—	0.0	27.3%	12.2%
23	Or Faran	G	Fr	6'5"	9-0	5.2	1.2	0.3	0.2	0.0	33.3%	28.6%	0.8	33.3%	20.8%
33	Vladimir Pavlovic	G	Jr	6'2"	8-0	4.4	0.8	0.0	0.4	0.6	33.3%	0.0%	0.3	—	23.4%
2	Brady Conner	G	Fr	6'6"	6-0	5.0	0.3	0.8	0.5	0.5	11.1%	0.0%	1.0	0.0%	25.1%
13	Chris Leman	F	Fr	6'9"	6-0	4.3	1.2	0.7	0.2	0.3	43.8%	33.3%	0.5	0.0%	24.3%
21	Emilis Butkus	G	Sr	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.

James Madison2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
10	Cliff Davis	G	Sr	6'2"	33-33	31.3	15.6	3.1	1.7	1.2	55.1%	37.8%	7.9	87.1%	27.5%
2	Bradley Douglas	G	Sr	6'1"	32-18	27.6	12.1	2.0	3.5	2.3	50.2%	35.6%	4.7	73.3%	29.2%
3	Eddie Ricks III	F	Jr	6'7"	32-20	26.8	7.1	5.6	1.6	0.9	53.8%	27.8%	1.7	78.7%	15.3%
13	Preston Fowler	F	Fr	6'8"	33-14	23.1	6.2	4.6	0.9	0.5	49.1%	29.8%	3.7	72.3%	16.9%
33	Gabe Newhof	F	Sr	6'9"	33-33	18.9	8.1	3.7	0.3	0.8	61.3%	—	0.0	53.5%	23.9%
0	Christian Brown	F	Fr	6'8"	33-0	13.3	3.0	3.8	0.4	0.9	57.0%	33.3%	0.1	56.8%	15.7%
12	Kose Egbule	G	Sr	6'2"	22-15	16.2	3.7	2.0	1.8	1.4	41.5%	31.4%	1.6	69.7%	20.0%
1	Paul Jones III	G	So	6'4"	20-0	11.2	2.8	0.8	0.7	0.7	41.2%	29.5%	2.2	64.3%	20.2%
11	Paul Lewis	G	Jr	6'2"	14-1	11.8	2.5	0.9	1.8	0.7	28.6%	25.0%	1.1	78.6%	20.8%
5	Justin Taylor	G	Sr	6'6"	18-1	7.7	1.0	0.6	0.2	0.2	45.5%	66.7%	0.2	57.1%	9.0%
23	Ike Cornish	G	Sr	6'6"	6-0	11.0	3.5	2.3	0.7	1.0	56.7%	35.7%	2.3	44.4%	23.5%
4	Chance Lundy	G	Sr	6'0"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
15	Josh Stephen	G	Sr	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.

Mercyhurst2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
4	Bernie Blunt III	G	Sr	5'11"	34-34	30.9	17.6	3.1	2.2	1.3	49.8%	35.5%	5.9	86.5%	34.1%
11	Jake Lemelman	G	So	6'2"	34-34	30.0	13.9	2.5	3.2	1.7	50.2%	39.6%	4.5	86.4%	30.6%
7	Deshaun Jackson Jr.	G	So	6'2"	34-1	22.4	6.0	3.0	3.0	1.4	46.8%	0.0%	0.1	65.9%	20.6%
10	Christian Gamble	G	Sr	6'0"	34-33	21.1	3.9	1.6	2.1	0.6	44.6%	28.8%	2.1	73.1%	13.9%
5	Mykolas Ivanauskas	F	So	6'8"	32-31	19.6	7.4	5.1	0.4	1.1	57.9%	22.6%	1.0	58.6%	23.6%
1	Sean Lang	G	Sr	6'3"	32-0	13.4	0.8	2.4	1.0	0.3	26.6%	15.8%	0.6	62.5%	6.9%
3	Cameron Johnson	F	Jr	6'5"	33-4	12.2	3.4	2.4	0.5	0.6	44.9%	32.1%	0.8	75.0%	20.8%
15	Kaden Fuhrmann	G	Sr	6'5"	32-0	11.6	3.3	0.8	0.8	0.4	51.6%	31.3%	2.5	87.5%	18.6%
34	James Thomas	F	Sr	6'6"	33-0	9.6	1.4	2.0	0.4	0.3	48.8%	—	0.0	27.3%	12.2%
23	Or Faran	G	Fr	6'5"	9-0	5.2	1.2	0.3	0.2	0.0	33.3%	28.6%	0.8	33.3%	20.8%
33	Vladimir Pavlovic	G	Jr	6'2"	8-0	4.4	0.8	0.0	0.4	0.6	33.3%	0.0%	0.3	—	23.4%
2	Brady Conner	G	Fr	6'6"	6-0	5.0	0.3	0.8	0.5	0.5	11.1%	0.0%	1.0	0.0%	25.1%
13	Chris Leman	F	Fr	6'9"	6-0	4.3	1.2	0.7	0.2	0.3	43.8%	33.3%	0.5	0.0%	24.3%
21	Emilis Butkus	G	Sr	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Mercyhurst

Against the spread

Season

21-11

Home

9-4

Road

12-7

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +2.3

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-16

Home

7-6

Road

9-10

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +6.0

Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	Long IslandAdjEM #195	A	L 70–79	+5.0	L−4.0	134.0	O149	105.7	119.3	66.2
Mar 7	StonehillAdjEM #320	H	W 56–51	−4.5	W+0.5	135.0	U107	85.4	77.8	65.6
Mar 4	FDUAdjEM #332	H	W 70–61	−4.0	W+5.0	132.5	U131	108.0	94.2	64.8
Feb 28	StonehillAdjEM #320	A	W 75–72 OT	−2.5	W+0.5	138.5	O147	97.9	94.0	76.6
Feb 26	C ConnecticutAdjEM #277	A	L 78–80	+4.0	W+2.0	141.0	O158	114.7	117.7	68.0
Feb 21	Long IslandAdjEM #195	H	W 91–83	+3.5	W+11.5	141.0	O174	130.5	119.0	69.7
Feb 19	WagnerAdjEM #285	H	L 80–83 OT	−3.5	L−6.5	134.5	O163	107.3	111.4	74.5
Feb 14	Saint Francis Red Wolves	A	W 94–79	−2.0	W+13.0	138.5	O173	137.0	115.1	68.6
Feb 12	Le MoyneAdjEM #270	A	L 57–58	+2.5	W+1.5	138.5	U115	82.7	84.2	68.9
Feb 7	FDUAdjEM #332	A	L 52–55	+2.5	L−0.5	131.0	U107	95.9	101.4	54.3

James Madison

Against the spread

Season

13-19

Home

5-9

Road

6-9

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +1.6

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 8 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

15-17

Home

4-10

Road

8-7

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total +2.2

Over 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	Southern MissAdjEM #218	N	L 80–86	−2.0	L−8.0	143.5	O166	111.1	119.4	72.0
Mar 4	LouisianaAdjEM #318	N	W 87–72	−6.5	W+8.5	135.0	O159	122.3	101.2	71.2
Feb 27	CoastalAdjEM #241	H	L 68–69	−6.0	L−7.0	142.0	U137	107.0	108.6	63.5
Feb 25	GA SouthernAdjEM #231	H	W 82–66	−5.5	W+10.5	153.5	U148	116.4	93.7	70.4
Feb 21	Georgia StAdjEM #310	A	W 80–65	−2.5	W+12.5	142.5	O145	119.4	97.0	67.0
Feb 18	CoastalAdjEM #241	A	W 67–65	−1.0	W+1.0	141.5	U132	102.2	99.1	65.6
Feb 14	App StateAdjEM #180	H	W 69–58	+1.5	W+12.5	135.0	U127	112.7	94.7	61.2
Feb 12	Georgia StAdjEM #310	H	W 81–79 OT	−6.0	L−4.0	144.0	O160	109.5	106.8	74.0
Feb 7	ToledoAdjEM #115	H	W 73–71	+1.0	W+3.0	152.0	U144	109.6	106.6	66.6
Feb 4	LouisianaAdjEM #318	H	L 61–64	−9.5	L−12.5	132.0	U125	107.7	113.0	56.6

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

MercyhurstJames Madison

Efficiency

103.8

109.2

108.8

110.7

66.5

67.4

—

Shooting

49.5%

53.1%

50.0%

53.2%

32.1%

35.4%

74.1%

70.3%

25.6%

35.9%

Ball control & glass

14.3%

17.3%

18.7%

12.8%

26.4%

30.6%

29.9%

29.5%

7.7%

9.5%

6.3%

11.1%

Style

31.1%

42.5%

46.5%

43.8%

11.3%

13.9%

54.2%

48.3%

34.3%

34.8%

Roster

3.05

3.09

6'2.6"

6'4.9"

84.5%

83.4%

Offseason

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

Mercyhurst

Returning minutes: 84.5%Returning production: 78.6%

Lost

Qadir Martin 31.4 mpg, 11.6 ppg · transferred to Fairfield

Added

Emilis Butkus no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 85% 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).

James Madison

Returning minutes: 83.4%Returning production: 78.2%

Lost

Justin McBride 25.5 mpg, 14.3 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
Elijah Wilborn 8.0 mpg, 2.2 ppg · transferred to Merrimack

Added

Josh Stephen no D1 minutes last season
Chance Lundy no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 83% 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.