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-conferenceUnited Supermarkets Arena, Lubbock, TX

Stonehill

Efficiency #320

2025-26: 12-21 · 9-11 conf

Texas Tech

Efficiency #21

2025-26: 23-11 · 12-7 conf

Sat, Nov 14 · TBD

60.2

win 4%

Projected

79.9

win 96%

No line posted yet.

Model: TTU −19.7 · total 140.1 · 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: Texas Tech 67.5, Stonehill 67.7 → 66.8 possessions

−3.2

Texas Tech offense vs Stonehill defense

+5.5

Stonehill offense vs Texas Tech defense

−10.4

Projected total

140.1

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Texas Tech offense vs Stonehill defense

+5.5

Stonehill offense vs Texas Tech defense

+10.4

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

+3.8

Texas Tech by 19.7

19.7

Stonehill side ◂▸ Texas Tech 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 Texas Tech.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 66.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Texas Tech is the faster team (67.9, #206 of 365) and Stonehill the slower (66.6, #265). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

66.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

140.1

model

Projected team totals

60.2 / 79.9

Stonehill / Texas Tech

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.7#240

Stonehill

67.5#250

Texas Tech

How this game plays

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

AdvantageStonehill

Where Stonehill struggles: shooting

Stonehill shoots an effective 46.9% (#339); Texas Tech allows 49.7% (#86). Expect about 47.9%, 3.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.8 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageTexas Tech

Where Texas Tech scores: ball control

Texas Tech turns it over on 15.8% of possessions (#123); Stonehill forces turnovers on 13.4% of opponent possessions (#347). Expect about 14.0%, 2.7 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.4 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Texas Tech) 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 Stonehill at about 38.0% of its shots from three, Texas Tech about 41.4%.

ClashTexas Tech

Strength vs strength: eFG%

Texas Tech (#21 in eFG%) against Stonehill (#36 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 52.3%. Historically Texas Tech's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.58 vs 0.51).

ClashTexas Tech

Style clash: 3-point volume

Texas Tech takes 47.6% of its shots from three; Stonehill runs teams off the line (32.4% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 41.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

ClashTexas Tech

Style clash: paint scoring

Texas Tech gets only 36.6% of its points in the paint; Stonehill gives up 46.6% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.5% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).

Stonehill has the ball

OffenseTexas Tech allowsvs D1 avg

46.9% #339

49.7% #86

-4.8 pt/100

19.4% #335

14.8% #304

-0.3 pt/100

27.5% #282

30.6% #186

-1.2 pt/100

27.3% #350

31.4% #89

-0.7 pt/100

68.5% #311

—

-0.3 pt/100

Stonehill net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -7.3 pts/100

Texas Tech has the ball

OffenseStonehill allowsvs D1 avg

56.1% #21

47.8% #36

+1.5 pt/100

15.8% #123

13.4% #347

+3.4 pt/100

33.2% #82

27.1% #40

+0.2 pt/100

27.7% #347

30.3% #67

-0.8 pt/100

71.5% #222

—

-0.1 pt/100

Texas Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.2 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Stonehilloffense vsTexas Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

Stonehill shoots

42.6

4.2

12.7

40.6

Texas Tech allows

31.6

10.7

22.4

35.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	49.6%#362	63.4%#331	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	28.4%#355	38.1%#140	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	35.1%#285	39.3%#213	38.0%
Three	31.7%#294	32.1%#67	33.7%

Texas Techoffense vsStonehilldefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas Tech shoots

25.6

9.7

16.7

48.1

Stonehill allows

40.9

8.7

17.9

32.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	63.5%#46	53.6%#33	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	47.5%#33	37.2%#114	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	42.0%#56	34.2%#54	38.0%
Three	39.1%#4	33.4%#150	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

Stonehill

−4.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#341 of 365

Off reb %

27.5%

#282

Def reb %

72.9%

#40

Turnover %

19.4%

#335

Forced TO %

13.4%

#347

FT rate

27.3%

#350

FT allowed

30.3%

#67

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.9

Defensive rebounding+1.1

Ball security−1.8

Forcing turnovers−2.3

Foul shots drawn−2.0

Foul shots allowed+1.3

Texas Tech

−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#202 of 365

Off reb %

33.2%

#82

Def reb %

69.4%

#186

Turnover %

15.8%

#123

Forced TO %

14.8%

#304

FT rate

27.7%

#347

FT allowed

31.4%

#89

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.9

Defensive rebounding0.0

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers−1.3

Foul shots drawn−1.9

Foul shots allowed+1.0

Texas Tech has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.6 (#202 of 365) to Stonehill’s −4.6 (#341).

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

Stonehill2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Stonehill'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
10	Hermann Koffi	G	So	6'4"	32-32	35.4	12.8	2.8	1.3	1.3	51.4%	36.8%	6.6	88.7%	22.1%
4	Davante Hackett	G	Jr	6'3"	33-11	27.7	13.6	4.1	1.5	1.3	51.0%	34.4%	5.6	73.6%	29.8%
5	Chas Stinson	G	Sr	6'4"	32-29	27.9	11.3	5.5	1.6	2.1	47.2%	23.5%	1.1	70.3%	27.6%
1	Rex Sunderland	G	Sr	6'5"	33-32	26.9	4.7	3.5	3.2	2.4	38.3%	27.4%	2.5	62.2%	17.9%
13	Raymond Espinal-Guzman	F	Sr	6'8"	33-22	24.1	6.3	5.1	1.3	1.6	43.1%	26.3%	2.3	67.3%	20.9%
11	Ridvan Tutic	F	Jr	6'11"	30-24	22.5	7.1	7.8	1.0	1.3	59.4%	—	0.0	53.8%	19.4%
33	Ethan Meuser	F	Sr	6'8"	20-11	20.4	6.1	5.2	1.3	1.1	46.4%	28.3%	3.0	54.3%	22.4%
2	Trenton Ruth	G	So	6'3"	32-0	11.4	3.4	1.1	1.2	0.7	38.7%	28.0%	1.6	62.1%	25.2%
31	Pearse McGuinn	F	So	6'8"	25-1	9.3	2.7	1.6	0.3	0.6	44.1%	25.0%	0.6	78.9%	20.9%
30	Anthony Holden	G	Sr	6'5"	20-0	10.0	2.4	0.9	0.4	0.2	59.0%	42.9%	1.4	66.7%	12.9%
3	William Batchelder	G	Sr	6'2"	3-3	27.3	10.3	2.0	1.3	2.0	54.0%	46.7%	5.0	66.7%	22.5%
20	Cory Lovell	F	Jr	6'9"	11-0	5.9	0.6	1.0	0.1	0.1	37.5%	0.0%	0.2	33.3%	9.2%
22	Charlie Diamantis	G	Sr	6'3"	5-0	3.8	0.6	1.2	0.4	0.6	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	60.0%	21.3%
15	Norbu Jenpa	G	Fr	6'4"	6-0	2.8	0.8	0.8	0.2	0.5	35.7%	20.0%	0.8	—	32.5%
12	Eino Montin	G	Jr	6'1"	2-0	4.5	1.0	0.5	0.0	0.5	100.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	22.8%
21	Colin Byrne	G	Fr	6'3"	2-0	2.0	0.0	1.0	0.5	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%

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

Texas Tech2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
11	Jaylen Petty	G	Fr	6'1"	33-22	30.4	9.9	3.9	2.2	0.9	53.3%	37.5%	5.6	77.1%	19.1%
3	LeJuan Watts	F	Jr	6'6"	33-28	27.3	11.8	6.0	2.4	2.5	47.5%	32.1%	2.4	76.9%	29.2%
15	JT Toppin	F	Jr	6'9"	25-25	34.8	21.8	10.8	2.1	2.5	56.7%	28.1%	2.3	57.9%	36.2%
1	Tyeree Bryan	G	Sr	6'5"	33-13	17.1	3.5	2.5	0.6	0.3	45.0%	28.6%	2.3	66.7%	13.6%
9	Luke Bamgboye	F	So	6'11"	21-12	16.5	4.5	3.4	0.5	0.6	50.8%	0.0%	0.1	71.1%	16.7%
6	Leon Horner	G	So	6'4"	23-0	9.0	2.8	2.0	0.2	0.3	50.0%	36.4%	0.5	86.7%	19.0%
5	Josiah Moseley	F	So	6'8"	14-0	13.9	5.5	3.6	0.5	0.6	71.6%	50.0%	0.4	36.4%	20.3%
8	Nolan Groves	G	Fr	6'5"	21-2	6.4	1.0	1.3	0.2	0.0	33.3%	23.5%	0.8	58.3%	11.6%
13	Marial Akuentok	F	Fr	6'11"	15-1	5.9	1.1	1.7	0.2	0.4	54.2%	100.0%	0.1	30.8%	15.9%
10	Jack Francis	G	Sr	6'3"	13-0	1.5	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	8.9%
21	LaTrell Hoover	F	Fr	7'0"	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.

Stonehill2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Stonehill'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
10	Hermann Koffi	G	So	6'4"	32-32	35.4	12.8	2.8	1.3	1.3	51.4%	36.8%	6.6	88.7%	22.1%
4	Davante Hackett	G	Jr	6'3"	33-11	27.7	13.6	4.1	1.5	1.3	51.0%	34.4%	5.6	73.6%	29.8%
5	Chas Stinson	G	Sr	6'4"	32-29	27.9	11.3	5.5	1.6	2.1	47.2%	23.5%	1.1	70.3%	27.6%
1	Rex Sunderland	G	Sr	6'5"	33-32	26.9	4.7	3.5	3.2	2.4	38.3%	27.4%	2.5	62.2%	17.9%
13	Raymond Espinal-Guzman	F	Sr	6'8"	33-22	24.1	6.3	5.1	1.3	1.6	43.1%	26.3%	2.3	67.3%	20.9%
11	Ridvan Tutic	F	Jr	6'11"	30-24	22.5	7.1	7.8	1.0	1.3	59.4%	—	0.0	53.8%	19.4%
33	Ethan Meuser	F	Sr	6'8"	20-11	20.4	6.1	5.2	1.3	1.1	46.4%	28.3%	3.0	54.3%	22.4%
2	Trenton Ruth	G	So	6'3"	32-0	11.4	3.4	1.1	1.2	0.7	38.7%	28.0%	1.6	62.1%	25.2%
31	Pearse McGuinn	F	So	6'8"	25-1	9.3	2.7	1.6	0.3	0.6	44.1%	25.0%	0.6	78.9%	20.9%
30	Anthony Holden	G	Sr	6'5"	20-0	10.0	2.4	0.9	0.4	0.2	59.0%	42.9%	1.4	66.7%	12.9%
3	William Batchelder	G	Sr	6'2"	3-3	27.3	10.3	2.0	1.3	2.0	54.0%	46.7%	5.0	66.7%	22.5%
20	Cory Lovell	F	Jr	6'9"	11-0	5.9	0.6	1.0	0.1	0.1	37.5%	0.0%	0.2	33.3%	9.2%
22	Charlie Diamantis	G	Sr	6'3"	5-0	3.8	0.6	1.2	0.4	0.6	0.0%	0.0%	0.4	60.0%	21.3%
15	Norbu Jenpa	G	Fr	6'4"	6-0	2.8	0.8	0.8	0.2	0.5	35.7%	20.0%	0.8	—	32.5%
12	Eino Montin	G	Jr	6'1"	2-0	4.5	1.0	0.5	0.0	0.5	100.0%	—	0.0	0.0%	22.8%
21	Colin Byrne	G	Fr	6'3"	2-0	2.0	0.0	1.0	0.5	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

Stonehill

Against the spread

Season

16-15

Home

5-6

Road

11-8

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −0.6

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

Over / under

Season

10-21

Home

5-6

Road

5-14

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +0.4

Under in the last gameOver in 4 of 7 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 7	MercyhurstAdjEM #261	A	L 51–56	+4.5	L−0.5	135.0	U107	77.8	85.4	65.6
Mar 4	Le MoyneAdjEM #270	A	W 81–71	+4.5	W+14.5	140.0	O152	114.8	100.6	70.5
Feb 28	MercyhurstAdjEM #261	H	L 72–75 OT	+2.5	L−0.5	138.5	O147	94.0	97.9	76.6
Feb 26	Saint Francis Red Wolves	H	W 103–77	−5.5	W+20.5	140.0	O180	141.0	105.4	73.0
Feb 21	Le MoyneAdjEM #270	H	W 77–68	+2.0	W+11.0	137.0	O145	109.4	96.6	70.4
Feb 19	New HavenAdjEM #326	A	L 51–64	+3.0	L−10.0	121.0	U115	77.9	97.8	65.5
Feb 14	WagnerAdjEM #285	H	L 57–68	−3.0	L−14.0	129.5	U125	86.5	103.2	65.9
Feb 12	Chicago StAdjEM #342	A	L 55–68	−1.5	L−14.5	132.5	U123	98.3	121.5	56.0
Feb 7	Long IslandAdjEM #195	A	L 54–61	+10.0	W+3.0	132.5	U115	88.2	99.7	61.2
Feb 5	FDUAdjEM #332	A	L 58–74	+1.0	L−15.0	131.0	O132	91.0	116.1	63.7

Texas Tech

Against the spread

Season

17-16-1

Home

9-7

Road

5-4-1

Last 10

5-5

avg cover −0.7

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-19

Home

8-8

Road

3-7

Last 10

4-6

avg vs total −2.0

Under in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 1 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 22	#4AlabamaAdjEM #18	N	L 65–90	+1.0	L−24.0	164.5	U155	93.8	129.9	69.3
Mar 20	#12AkronAdjEM #48	N	W 91–71	−6.5	W+13.5	154.0	O162	139.4	108.8	65.3
Mar 12	#7Iowa StateAdjEM #7	N	L 53–75	+5.5	L−16.5	143.5	U128	81.9	115.9	64.7
Mar 7	BYUAdjEM #26	A	L 76–82	+3.0	L−3.0	159.5	U158	124.8	134.6	60.9
Mar 3	TCUAdjEM #51	H	L 65–73	−8.0	L−16.0	148.5	U138	101.6	114.1	64.0
Feb 28	#4Iowa StateAdjEM #7	A	W 82–73	+9.5	W+18.5	145.0	O155	127.1	113.1	64.5
Feb 24	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	H	W 80–68	−6.5	W+5.5	143.5	O148	131.5	111.8	60.8
Feb 21	Kansas StAdjEM #128	H	W 100–72	−12.5	W+15.5	158.5	O172	144.9	104.3	69.0
Feb 17	Arizona StAdjEM #93	A	L 67–72	−7.5	L−12.5	155.5	U139	101.3	108.9	66.1
Feb 14	#1ArizonaAdjEM #3	A	W 78–75 OT	+9.5	W+12.5	156.0	U153	110.8	106.6	70.4

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

StonehillTexas Tech

Efficiency

98.2

117.7

107.4

103.2

67.7

67.5

—

Shooting

46.9%

56.1%

46.5%

53.9%

31.7%

39.1%

68.5%

71.5%

27.3%

27.7%

Ball control & glass

19.4%

15.8%

13.4%

14.8%

27.5%

33.2%

27.1%

30.6%

11.2%

8.9%

13.6%

7.7%

Style

40.5%

47.6%

44.1%

36.6%

12.4%

8.6%

51.3%

55.0%

29.3%

20.5%

Roster

3.23

2.40

6'5.6"

6'5.8"

—

63.4%

Offseason

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

Stonehill

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Stonehill'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.)

Texas Tech

Returning minutes: 63.4%Returning production: 60.4%

Lost

Christian Anderson 37.3 mpg, 18.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Donovan Atwell 34.7 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Jazz Henderson Jr. 1.5 mpg, 0.3 ppg · transferred to Ball State

Added

LaTrell Hoover no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 63% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.

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.