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 siteTD Arena, Charleston, SCCharleston Classic

Virginia Tech

Efficiency #61

2025-26: 19-13 · 8-11 conf

Oklahoma St

Efficiency #89

2025-26: 20-15 · 7-13 conf

Sun, Nov 22 · 3:30 PM ET

80.9

win 58%

Projected

78.7

win 42%

No line posted yet.

Model: VT −2.3 · total 159.6 · 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: Oklahoma St 71.7, Virginia Tech 68.2 → 71.5 possessions

+7.0

Oklahoma St offense vs Virginia Tech defense

+1.0

Virginia Tech offense vs Oklahoma St defense

+3.3

Projected total

159.6

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Oklahoma St offense vs Virginia Tech defense

+1.0

Virginia Tech offense vs Oklahoma St defense

−3.3

Virginia Tech by 2.3

2.3

Virginia Tech side ◂▸ Oklahoma St side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 159.5 against a projected 159.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Oklahoma St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.5, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Oklahoma St is the faster team (74.0, #6 of 365) and Virginia Tech the slower (68.0, #201). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

71.5

per team, 40 min

Projected total

159.6

model

Projected team totals

80.9 / 78.7

Virginia Tech / Oklahoma St

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

68.2#191

Virginia Tech

71.7#8

Oklahoma St

How this game plays

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

Pace

Tempo tug-of-war

Oklahoma St averages 74.0 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 72 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageVirginia Tech

Where Virginia Tech scores: ball control

Virginia Tech turns it over on 14.9% of possessions (#61); Oklahoma St forces turnovers on 15.6% of opponent possessions (#243). Expect about 15.0%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 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 41.9% of its shots from three, Oklahoma St about 36.4%.

Virginia Tech has the ball

OffenseOklahoma St allowsvs D1 avg

52.2% #134

53.1% #272

+2.1 pt/100

14.9% #61

15.6% #243

+2.2 pt/100

31.9% #129

30.4% #178

+0.6 pt/100

34.0% #209

31.5% #96

-0.3 pt/100

74.3% #116

—

+0.2 pt/100

Virginia Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.8 pts/100

Oklahoma St has the ball

OffenseVirginia Tech allowsvs D1 avg

52.0% #144

50.8% #147

+0.3 pt/100

15.8% #120

17.2% #133

+0.3 pt/100

30.8% #169

32.6% #284

+0.8 pt/100

39.4% #70

28.8% #41

-0.2 pt/100

74.5% #102

—

+0.2 pt/100

Oklahoma St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.4 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Virginia Techoffense vsOklahoma Stdefense

Share of shots by zone

Virginia Tech shoots

35.1

6.7

18.3

39.9

Oklahoma St allows

40.1

5.1

12.4

42.4

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.6%#59	57.2%#120	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.3%#95	48.5%#344	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.4%#339	36.9%#129	38.0%
Three	35.5%#88	36.0%#304	33.7%

Oklahoma Stoffense vsVirginia Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

Oklahoma St shoots

48.2

4.5

12.5

34.7

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	58.4%#180	61.0%#269	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.4%#295	41.4%#222	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.5%#248	42.1%#307	38.0%
Three	33.9%#176	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

Oklahoma St

+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#87 of 365

Off reb %

30.8%

#169

Def reb %

69.6%

#178

Turnover %

15.8%

#120

Forced TO %

15.6%

#243

FT rate

39.4%

#70

FT allowed

31.5%

#96

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.1

Defensive rebounding+0.1

Ball security+0.7

Forcing turnovers−0.8

Foul shots drawn+1.1

Foul shots allowed+1.0

Virginia Tech has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.9 (#59 of 365) to Oklahoma St’s +2.2 (#87).

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.

Oklahoma St2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted Oklahoma 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
1	Kanye Clary	G	Jr	6'0"	34-31	28.2	10.6	2.9	4.6	2.0	46.2%	35.5%	3.6	80.7%	23.4%
9	Anthony Roy	G	Sr	6'5"	31-25	28.7	16.9	4.1	1.3	1.6	55.5%	39.0%	7.5	85.7%	29.4%
4	Christian Coleman	G	Sr	6'8"	34-26	25.3	10.3	5.6	1.0	1.2	53.7%	27.1%	1.7	66.7%	22.4%
5	Vyctorius Miller	G	So	6'5"	32-26	25.5	10.8	2.7	1.8	1.6	50.8%	37.5%	3.8	85.7%	23.1%
0	Jaylen Curry	G	Jr	6'1"	33-7	23.8	10.1	3.2	3.5	1.4	46.3%	31.6%	2.4	80.6%	25.1%
22	Parsa Fallah	F	Sr	6'10"	26-26	26.4	14.7	6.0	0.8	1.3	62.3%	40.0%	1.2	68.0%	26.1%
21	Isaiah Coleman	G	Jr	6'5"	33-5	19.2	6.4	3.8	0.8	1.2	50.0%	8.0%	0.8	57.1%	20.7%
19	Andrija Vukovic	F	So	6'11"	27-3	15.2	5.3	3.4	0.6	0.7	62.8%	33.3%	0.1	69.0%	16.7%
24	Ryan Crotty	G	Fr	6'6"	28-10	10.1	2.5	1.5	0.5	0.2	42.9%	29.6%	1.9	75.0%	14.8%
23	Benjamin Ahmed	C	Fr	6'10"	21-7	12.6	4.9	3.6	0.2	0.9	55.4%	—	0.0	56.6%	22.4%
72	Lefteris Mantzoukas	F	Fr	6'9"	12-6	17.8	4.4	4.2	0.5	1.0	44.6%	24.2%	2.8	60.0%	17.0%
8	Daniel Guetta	G	Fr	6'2"	11-0	9.5	2.0	0.7	0.8	1.1	52.8%	14.3%	0.6	60.0%	16.0%
13	Mekhi Ragland	F	Fr	6'11"	14-0	5.6	1.4	1.6	0.2	0.1	34.6%	0.0%	0.1	50.0%	19.3%
7	Kirk Cole	G	Sr	6'1"	12-0	4.5	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.1	46.2%	33.3%	1.0	—	13.2%
25	Robert Jennings II	F	Sr	6'7"	3-3	12.7	3.7	4.0	0.0	1.0	50.0%	50.0%	0.7	50.0%	18.0%

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

Oklahoma St

Against the spread

Season

15-19-1

Home

8-13

Road

5-5

Last 10

4-5-1

avg cover −2.0

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog, 1 push

Over / under

Season

21-14

Home

14-7

Road

4-6

Last 10

8-2

avg vs total +11.9

Over 8 straightOver in 6 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 22	Wichita StAdjEM #60	H	L 70–96	−2.5	L−28.5	163.0	O166	95.1	130.5	73.6
Mar 17	DavidsonAdjEM #112	H	W 84–80	−6.5	L−2.5	154.0	O164	114.6	109.2	73.3
Mar 11	TCUAdjEM #51	N	L 88–95	+7.0	P0.0	158.0	O183	127.6	137.8	69.0
Mar 10	ColoradoAdjEM #91	N	W 92–83	+1.0	W+10.0	165.0	O175	125.8	113.5	73.1
Mar 7	#7HoustonAdjEM #6	H	L 75–82	+13.5	W+6.5	150.5	O157	112.1	122.6	66.9
Mar 3	UCFAdjEM #70	A	W 111–104 OT	+8.5	W+15.5	168.5	O215	127.3	119.3	87.2
Feb 28	CincinnatiAdjEM #52	A	L 68–91	+9.5	L−13.5	152.5	O159	94.7	126.7	71.8
Feb 24	West VirginiaAdjEM #58	H	W 91–84 OT	+1.0	W+8.0	143.5	O175	125.1	115.4	72.8
Feb 21	ColoradoAdjEM #91	A	L 69–83	+3.5	L−10.5	162.5	U152	95.6	114.9	72.2
Feb 18	#8KansasAdjEM #25	H	L 69–81	+6.5	L−5.5	159.5	U150	98.2	115.2	70.3

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 TechOklahoma St

Efficiency

113.1

105.3

108.6

68.2

71.7

—

Shooting

52.2%

52.0%

51.5%

52.6%

35.5%

33.9%

74.3%

74.5%

34.0%

39.4%

Ball control & glass

14.9%

15.8%

17.2%

15.6%

31.9%

30.8%

32.6%

30.4%

7.8%

9.1%

9.3%

10.3%

Style

39.7%

35.5%

42.1%

45.9%

10.6%

15.5%

52.4%

50.4%

27.6%

35.8%

Roster

2.51

2.92

6'5"

6'5.4"

74.9%

—

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).

Oklahoma St

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted Oklahoma 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.)

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.