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-conferenceNeutral siteTyson Events Center, Sioux City, IABad Boy Mowers Series

Virginia Tech

Efficiency #61

2025-26: 19-13 · 8-11 conf

Iowa

Efficiency #22

2025-26: 24-13 · 11-11 conf

Tue, Nov 10 · TBD

70.1

win 36%

Projected

74.3

win 64%

No line posted yet.

Model: IOWA −4.2 · total 144.4 · 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: Iowa 65.0, Virginia Tech 68.2 → 64.9 possessions

−7.4

Iowa offense vs Virginia Tech defense

+3.9

Virginia Tech offense vs Iowa defense

−0.3

Projected total

144.4

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Iowa offense vs Virginia Tech defense

+3.9

Virginia Tech offense vs Iowa defense

+0.3

Iowa by 4.2

4.2

Virginia Tech side ◂▸ Iowa 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 Iowa.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 64.9, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Virginia Tech is the faster team (68.0, #201 of 365) and Iowa the slower (62.8, #365). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

64.9

per team, 40 min

Projected total

144.4

model

Projected team totals

70.1 / 74.3

Virginia Tech / Iowa

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.2#191

Virginia Tech

65.0#363

Iowa

How this game plays

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

Pace

Half-court grind

Iowa averages 62.8 possessions per 40, Virginia Tech 68.0. 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.

AdvantageIowa

Where Iowa scores: shooting

Iowa shoots an effective 56.4% (#17); Virginia Tech allows 50.8% (#147). Expect about 54.0%, 2.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.9 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Virginia Tech'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 Virginia Tech at about 40.0% of its shots from three, Iowa about 42.3%.

AdvantageVirginia Tech

Where Virginia Tech scores: shooting

Virginia Tech shoots an effective 52.2% (#134); Iowa allows 52.6% (#245). Expect about 52.5%, 1.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions.

ClashIowa

Style clash: ball movement

Iowa assists on 57.7% of its made baskets; Virginia Tech breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.0% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 52.4% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

Virginia Tech has the ball

OffenseIowa allowsvs D1 avg

52.2% #134

52.6% #245

+1.7 pt/100

14.9% #61

20.3% #17

-1.5 pt/100

31.9% #129

29.2% #119

+0.3 pt/100

34.0% #209

38.5% #272

+0.2 pt/100

74.3% #116

—

+0.2 pt/100

Virginia Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.9 pts/100

Iowa has the ball

OffenseVirginia Tech allowsvs D1 avg

56.4% #17

50.8% #147

+3.9 pt/100

15.1% #73

17.2% #133

+0.8 pt/100

30.2% #192

32.6% #284

+0.6 pt/100

35.1% #176

28.8% #41

-0.5 pt/100

76.9% #34

—

+0.4 pt/100

Iowa net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.2 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Virginia Techoffense vsIowadefense

Share of shots by zone

Virginia Tech shoots

35.1

6.7

18.3

39.9

Iowa allows

37.6

6.4

16.4

39.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.6%#59	65.5%#354	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.3%#95	44.2%#273	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.4%#339	32.5%#21	38.0%
Three	35.5%#88	33.3%#141	33.7%

Iowaoffense vsVirginia Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

Iowa shoots

38.4

7.1

11.5

43.0

Virginia Tech allows

38.1

5.5

16.6

39.8

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	64.8%#25	61.0%#269	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.1%#145	41.4%#222	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	44.0%#26	42.1%#307	38.0%
Three	35.6%#85	30.6%#26	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

Virginia Tech

+2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#59 of 365

Off reb %

31.9%

#129

Def reb %

67.4%

#284

Turnover %

14.9%

#61

Forced TO %

17.2%

#133

FT rate

34.0%

#209

FT allowed

28.8%

#41

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.5

Defensive rebounding−0.6

Ball security+1.2

Forcing turnovers+0.4

Foul shots drawn−0.3

Foul shots allowed+1.7

Iowa

+3.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#51 of 365

Off reb %

30.2%

#192

Def reb %

70.8%

#119

Turnover %

15.1%

#73

Forced TO %

20.3%

#17

FT rate

35.1%

#176

FT allowed

38.5%

#272

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.1

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security+1.1

Forcing turnovers+2.5

Foul shots drawn0.0

Foul shots allowed−0.8

Iowa has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.2 (#51 of 365) to Virginia Tech’s +2.9 (#59).

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

Virginia Tech2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Ben Hammond	G	So	5'11"	32-18	31.5	13.2	2.3	3.2	1.4	51.0%	43.1%	3.2	86.5%	24.3%
13	Amani Hansberry	F	Jr	6'8"	30-30	30.7	14.3	7.4	2.4	2.1	54.5%	35.4%	3.2	73.6%	27.8%
0	Jailen Bedford	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	26.0	11.3	3.3	1.3	1.1	48.3%	35.9%	4.7	72.6%	27.8%
2	Jaden Schutt	G	Jr	6'5"	32-5	24.8	7.7	1.6	0.9	0.4	54.4%	38.5%	5.3	86.2%	17.0%
32	Christian Gurdak	C	Fr	6'10"	31-10	17.1	5.6	4.4	0.3	0.6	63.2%	—	0.0	69.6%	16.8%
10	Tyler Johnson	G	So	6'5"	17-13	26.2	8.0	4.5	1.6	0.7	62.5%	41.5%	2.4	67.7%	15.5%
77	Antonio Dorn	C	Fr	7'0"	24-5	8.5	2.6	1.8	0.4	0.5	64.3%	—	0.0	50.0%	17.8%
4	Izaiah Pasha	G	So	6'5"	18-0	8.2	2.0	0.8	0.7	0.6	36.3%	14.3%	0.4	53.8%	23.1%
5	Sin'Cere Jones	F	Fr	6'7"	11-0	6.5	0.6	1.4	0.0	0.1	25.0%	0.0%	0.6	33.3%	11.5%
7	Brett Freeman	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Solomon Davis	C	Fr	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.

Iowa2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Cooper Koch	F	Fr	6'8"	37-37	28.4	7.8	3.1	1.1	0.5	58.6%	40.2%	4.4	83.3%	15.6%
11	Kael Combs	G	Jr	6'4"	37-33	26.0	6.1	2.4	2.4	1.4	54.4%	33.3%	1.5	83.7%	16.3%
6	Tavion Banks	G	Sr	6'7"	37-35	23.3	10.2	4.6	1.1	1.4	55.9%	44.2%	1.2	79.2%	26.7%
3	Cam Manyawu	F	Jr	6'9"	37-37	19.2	6.6	4.6	1.1	0.8	63.1%	—	0.0	57.5%	20.2%
23	Isaia Howard	G	So	6'5"	37-5	18.2	5.1	2.6	1.1	0.6	50.6%	28.1%	1.7	69.4%	19.0%
24	Tate Sage	G	Fr	6'7"	37-0	16.2	6.1	2.1	0.7	0.5	58.9%	38.9%	1.9	71.1%	21.3%
27	Trevin Jirak	C	Fr	6'11"	17-0	8.0	3.4	0.9	1.1	1.0	51.3%	16.7%	1.1	70.4%	30.8%
44	Joey Matteoni	F	Fr	6'9"	11-0	3.8	1.5	0.6	0.3	0.2	53.3%	—	0.0	33.3%	26.8%
10	Jacob Koch	G	So	6'2"	5-0	2.2	0.4	0.0	0.2	0.0	33.3%	0.0%	0.2	—	17.3%
5	Peyton McCollum	G	Fr	6'2"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
20	Trey Thompson	F	Fr	6'8"	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.

Virginia Tech2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
3	Ben Hammond	G	So	5'11"	32-18	31.5	13.2	2.3	3.2	1.4	51.0%	43.1%	3.2	86.5%	24.3%
13	Amani Hansberry	F	Jr	6'8"	30-30	30.7	14.3	7.4	2.4	2.1	54.5%	35.4%	3.2	73.6%	27.8%
0	Jailen Bedford	G	Sr	6'4"	31-31	26.0	11.3	3.3	1.3	1.1	48.3%	35.9%	4.7	72.6%	27.8%
2	Jaden Schutt	G	Jr	6'5"	32-5	24.8	7.7	1.6	0.9	0.4	54.4%	38.5%	5.3	86.2%	17.0%
32	Christian Gurdak	C	Fr	6'10"	31-10	17.1	5.6	4.4	0.3	0.6	63.2%	—	0.0	69.6%	16.8%
10	Tyler Johnson	G	So	6'5"	17-13	26.2	8.0	4.5	1.6	0.7	62.5%	41.5%	2.4	67.7%	15.5%
77	Antonio Dorn	C	Fr	7'0"	24-5	8.5	2.6	1.8	0.4	0.5	64.3%	—	0.0	50.0%	17.8%
4	Izaiah Pasha	G	So	6'5"	18-0	8.2	2.0	0.8	0.7	0.6	36.3%	14.3%	0.4	53.8%	23.1%
5	Sin'Cere Jones	F	Fr	6'7"	11-0	6.5	0.6	1.4	0.0	0.1	25.0%	0.0%	0.6	33.3%	11.5%
7	Brett Freeman	G	Fr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
22	Solomon Davis	C	Fr	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

Virginia Tech

Against the spread

Season

17-14-1

Home

8-9

Road

8-1-1

Last 10

5-4-1

avg cover +1.4

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as an underdog, 1 pushCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+

Over / under

Season

17-15

Home

8-9

Road

6-4

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.0

Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 7 as an underdogOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 10	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	N	L 89–95 OT	+1.0	L−5.0	151.5	O184	118.6	126.6	75.0
Mar 7	#13VirginiaAdjEM #15	A	L 72–76	+12.0	W+8.0	146.5	O148	108.5	114.6	66.3
Mar 3	Boston CollegeAdjEM #187	H	W 72–63	−11.5	L−2.5	143.0	U135	108.8	95.2	66.2
Feb 28	#18North CarolinaAdjEM #29	A	L 82–89	+7.0	P0.0	150.0	O171	118.4	128.5	69.2
Feb 21	Wake ForestAdjEM #76	H	W 82–63	−4.0	W+15.0	148.5	U145	135.3	104.0	60.6
Feb 17	MiamiAdjEM #30	A	L 66–67	+8.5	W+7.5	148.0	U133	105.1	106.7	62.8
Feb 14	Florida StAdjEM #74	H	L 69–92	−4.0	L−27.0	156.5	O161	106.8	142.4	64.6
Feb 11	#20ClemsonAdjEM #35	A	W 76–66	+8.0	W+18.0	139.0	O142	117.2	101.8	64.9
Feb 7	NC StateAdjEM #34	A	L 73–82	+10.0	W+1.0	152.5	O155	101.0	113.5	72.3
Jan 31	#4DukeAdjEM #2	H	L 58–72	+13.5	L−0.5	148.0	U130	100.7	125.0	57.6

Iowa

Against the spread

Season

21-16

Home

11-7

Road

5-6

Last 10

5-5

avg cover +1.4

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

Over / under

Season

20-15-2

Home

9-8-1

Road

7-4

Last 10

4-5-1

avg vs total +1.1

Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog, 1 push

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 28	#3IllinoisAdjEM #4	N	L 59–71	+7.0	L−5.0	138.5	U130	107.6	129.5	54.8
Mar 26	#4NebraskaAdjEM #17	N	W 77–71	+1.5	W+7.5	131.0	O148	127.4	117.4	60.5
Mar 22	#1FloridaAdjEM #5	N	W 73–72	+10.0	W+11.0	145.0	P145	119.4	117.8	61.1
Mar 20	#8ClemsonAdjEM #35	N	W 67–61	−1.5	W+4.5	131.0	U128	124.7	113.6	53.7
Mar 12	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	N	L 69–72	−1.5	L−4.5	140.5	O141	118.9	124.1	58.0
Mar 11	MarylandAdjEM #198	N	W 75–64	−12.0	L−1.0	134.5	O139	114.1	97.4	65.7
Mar 8	#9NebraskaAdjEM #17	A	L 75–84 OT	+5.0	L−4.0	136.5	O159	100.7	112.8	74.5
Mar 5	#3MichiganAdjEM #1	H	L 68–71	+9.0	W+6.0	147.0	U139	104.5	109.1	65.1
Feb 28	Penn StateAdjEM #194	A	L 69–71	−9.0	L−11.0	144.0	U140	116.1	119.5	59.4
Feb 25	Ohio StateAdjEM #31	H	W 74–57	−6.0	W+11.0	140.5	U131	126.4	97.4	58.5

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

Virginia TechIowa

Efficiency

113.1

117.6

105.3

103.4

68.2

65.0

—

Shooting

52.2%

56.4%

51.5%

58.6%

35.5%

35.6%

74.3%

76.9%

34.0%

35.1%

Ball control & glass

14.9%

15.1%

17.2%

20.3%

31.9%

30.2%

32.6%

29.2%

7.8%

8.1%

9.3%

8.8%

Style

39.7%

43.0%

42.1%

43.9%

10.6%

9.6%

52.4%

57.7%

27.6%

32.9%

Roster

2.51

2.31

6'5"

6'6.8"

74.9%

68.0%

Offseason

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

Virginia Tech

Returning minutes: 74.9%Returning production: 74.4%

Lost

Neo Avdalas 30.8 mpg, 11.7 ppg · transferred to North Carolina
Tobi Lawal 20.9 mpg, 8.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Brett Freeman no D1 minutes last season
Solomon Davis no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 75% 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).

Iowa

Returning minutes: 68.0%Returning production: 61.3%

Lost

Bennett Stirtz 37.8 mpg, 19.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Alvaro Folgueiras 20.6 mpg, 8.4 ppg · transferred to Louisville
Brendan Hausen 5.8 mpg, 2.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Peyton McCollum no D1 minutes last season
Trey Thompson no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 68% of last season's minutes; lost 2 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.