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-conferenceACC NetworkCassell Coliseum, Blacksburg, VAACC/SEC Men's Challenge

Ole Miss

Efficiency #82

2025-26: 15-20 · 7-15 conf

Virginia Tech

Efficiency #61

2025-26: 19-13 · 8-11 conf

Tue, Dec 1 · 9:00 PM ET

70.4

win 32%

Projected

75.8

win 68%

No line posted yet.

Model: VT −5.4 · total 146.2 · 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: Virginia Tech 68.2, Ole Miss 67.5 → 67.4 possessions

−2.0

Virginia Tech offense vs Ole Miss defense

+0.7

Ole Miss offense vs Virginia Tech defense

−0.8

Projected total

146.2

Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Virginia Tech offense vs Ole Miss defense

+0.7

Ole Miss offense vs Virginia Tech defense

+0.8

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

+3.9

Virginia Tech by 5.4

5.4

Ole Miss side ◂▸ Virginia Tech side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 146.1 against a projected 146.2. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Virginia Tech.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Ole Miss is the faster team (68.3, #188 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

67.4

per team, 40 min

Projected total

146.2

model

Projected team totals

70.4 / 75.8

Ole Miss / Virginia Tech

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.5#248

Ole Miss

68.2#191

Virginia Tech

How this game plays

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

DefenseOle Miss

Ole Miss's shot-blocking

Ole Miss ranks #28 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.7% of Virginia Tech's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.

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 Ole Miss at about 36.4% of its shots from three, Virginia Tech about 41.7%.

AdvantageOle Miss

Where Ole Miss scores: ball control

Ole Miss turns it over on 14.0% of possessions (#23); Virginia Tech forces turnovers on 17.2% of opponent possessions (#133). Expect about 15.5%, 1.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.6 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageVirginia Tech

Where Virginia Tech scores: ball control

Virginia Tech turns it over on 14.9% of possessions (#61); Ole Miss forces turnovers on 16.4% of opponent possessions (#189). Expect about 15.5%, 1.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions.

Ole Miss has the ball

OffenseVirginia Tech allowsvs D1 avg

50.4% #217

50.8% #147

-1.0 pt/100

14.0% #23

17.2% #133

+1.6 pt/100

28.3% #253

32.6% #284

-0.3 pt/100

33.0% #238

28.8% #41

-0.6 pt/100

74.9% #86

—

+0.2 pt/100

Ole Miss net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.0 pts/100

Virginia Tech has the ball

OffenseOle Miss allowsvs D1 avg

52.2% #134

50.5% #127

+0.2 pt/100

14.9% #61

16.4% #189

+1.5 pt/100

31.9% #129

32.6% #285

+1.3 pt/100

34.0% #209

41.2% #315

+0.4 pt/100

74.3% #116

—

+0.2 pt/100

Virginia Tech net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.6 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Ole Missoffense vsVirginia Techdefense

Share of shots by zone

Ole Miss shoots

28.6

7.4

29.0

34.9

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%#26	61.0%#269	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.4%#213	41.4%#222	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.2%#140	42.1%#307	38.0%
Three	33.2%#221	30.6%#26	33.7%

Virginia Techoffense vsOle Missdefense

Share of shots by zone

Virginia Tech shoots

35.1

6.7

18.3

39.9

Ole Miss allows

36.3

6.1

15.0

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	62.6%#59	57.5%#129	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	43.3%#95	45.2%#303	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	32.4%#339	36.8%#125	38.0%
Three	35.5%#88	33.4%#151	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

Ole Miss

−1.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#260 of 365

Off reb %

28.3%

#253

Def reb %

67.4%

#285

Turnover %

14.0%

#23

Forced TO %

16.4%

#189

FT rate

33.0%

#238

FT allowed

41.2%

#315

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.7

Defensive rebounding−0.6

Ball security+1.9

Forcing turnovers−0.2

Foul shots drawn−0.5

Foul shots allowed−1.5

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

Virginia Tech has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.9 (#59 of 365) to Ole Miss’s −1.6 (#260).

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

Ole Miss2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
6	Ilias Kamardine	G	Sr	6'4"	35-35	31.1	11.3	3.4	3.8	2.0	47.9%	29.3%	4.0	76.4%	24.6%
2	AJ Storr	G	Sr	6'5"	35-15	26.3	15.5	3.1	1.9	1.5	49.5%	35.0%	3.3	78.3%	35.4%
23	Patton Pinkins	G	Fr	6'5"	35-20	25.0	9.3	1.9	0.9	0.3	55.9%	42.2%	2.9	85.9%	18.5%
11	Travis Perry	G	So	6'1"	35-16	16.5	5.3	1.6	1.1	0.5	48.8%	35.3%	3.9	88.0%	19.6%
8	Eduardo Klafke	G	So	6'5"	34-12	15.0	4.6	2.5	1.1	0.5	59.0%	42.6%	1.4	74.4%	16.3%
1	Corey Chest	F	So	6'8"	34-4	13.1	2.6	3.8	0.6	0.5	60.2%	100.0%	0.0	48.1%	12.5%
13	Kezza Giffa	G	Sr	6'1"	28-8	15.5	5.9	1.3	1.3	1.0	52.2%	37.2%	1.5	82.4%	22.0%
88	Augusto Cassia	F	Jr	6'8"	31-5	10.4	2.2	1.6	0.5	0.3	49.1%	25.0%	0.5	77.8%	13.5%
3	Koren Johnson	G	Jr	6'1"	25-1	9.6	1.8	0.8	1.4	0.4	31.7%	19.4%	1.2	72.7%	18.7%
31	Zach Day	G	Fr	6'5"	20-0	7.6	0.9	1.4	0.3	0.1	26.6%	18.5%	1.4	50.0%	13.6%
7	Niko Bundalo	F	Fr	6'10"	11-0	3.1	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.5	66.7%	—	0.0	66.7%	16.0%
5	Hobert Grayson IV	G	Sr	6'4"	5-0	5.6	1.4	1.4	0.2	0.2	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	18.2%
22	Max Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	10-1	2.5	1.0	0.2	0.1	0.1	30.0%	20.0%	1.0	100.0%	29.3%

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.

Ole Miss2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
6	Ilias Kamardine	G	Sr	6'4"	35-35	31.1	11.3	3.4	3.8	2.0	47.9%	29.3%	4.0	76.4%	24.6%
2	AJ Storr	G	Sr	6'5"	35-15	26.3	15.5	3.1	1.9	1.5	49.5%	35.0%	3.3	78.3%	35.4%
23	Patton Pinkins	G	Fr	6'5"	35-20	25.0	9.3	1.9	0.9	0.3	55.9%	42.2%	2.9	85.9%	18.5%
11	Travis Perry	G	So	6'1"	35-16	16.5	5.3	1.6	1.1	0.5	48.8%	35.3%	3.9	88.0%	19.6%
8	Eduardo Klafke	G	So	6'5"	34-12	15.0	4.6	2.5	1.1	0.5	59.0%	42.6%	1.4	74.4%	16.3%
1	Corey Chest	F	So	6'8"	34-4	13.1	2.6	3.8	0.6	0.5	60.2%	100.0%	0.0	48.1%	12.5%
13	Kezza Giffa	G	Sr	6'1"	28-8	15.5	5.9	1.3	1.3	1.0	52.2%	37.2%	1.5	82.4%	22.0%
88	Augusto Cassia	F	Jr	6'8"	31-5	10.4	2.2	1.6	0.5	0.3	49.1%	25.0%	0.5	77.8%	13.5%
3	Koren Johnson	G	Jr	6'1"	25-1	9.6	1.8	0.8	1.4	0.4	31.7%	19.4%	1.2	72.7%	18.7%
31	Zach Day	G	Fr	6'5"	20-0	7.6	0.9	1.4	0.3	0.1	26.6%	18.5%	1.4	50.0%	13.6%
7	Niko Bundalo	F	Fr	6'10"	11-0	3.1	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.5	66.7%	—	0.0	66.7%	16.0%
5	Hobert Grayson IV	G	Sr	6'4"	5-0	5.6	1.4	1.4	0.2	0.2	42.9%	0.0%	0.2	50.0%	18.2%
22	Max Smith	G	Sr	6'1"	10-1	2.5	1.0	0.2	0.1	0.1	30.0%	20.0%	1.0	100.0%	29.3%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Ole Miss

Against the spread

Season

15-20

Home

4-12

Road

7-3

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +4.8

Covered 4 straightCovered 7 of 8 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

21-13-1

Home

11-5

Road

6-4

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +9.2

Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 8 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 14	#17ArkansasAdjEM #19	N	L 90–93 OT	+8.5	W+5.5	158.5	O183	115.8	119.7	77.7
Mar 13	#15AlabamaAdjEM #18	N	W 80–79	+12.5	W+13.5	164.5	U159	108.8	107.5	73.5
Mar 12	GeorgiaAdjEM #32	N	W 76–72	+5.5	W+9.5	156.5	U148	102.4	97.0	74.2
Mar 11	TexasAdjEM #38	N	W 76–66	+6.0	W+16.0	148.0	U142	109.1	94.7	69.7
Mar 7	South CarolinaAdjEM #123	H	L 61–64	−7.0	L−10.0	147.0	U125	92.0	96.5	66.3
Mar 3	#24VanderbiltAdjEM #12	H	L 86–89 OT	+7.0	W+4.0	155.5	O175	111.7	115.6	77.0
Feb 28	AuburnAdjEM #41	A	W 85–79	+11.0	W+17.0	152.5	O164	127.0	118.0	67.0
Feb 25	LSUAdjEM #72	H	L 99–106 2OT	−2.0	L−9.0	147.0	O205	117.5	125.8	84.3
Feb 21	#12FloridaAdjEM #5	H	L 75–94	+13.5	L−5.5	150.5	O169	97.5	122.2	76.9
Feb 18	Texas A&MAdjEM #43	A	L 77–80	+9.5	W+6.5	155.0	O157	111.9	116.3	68.8

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

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

Ole MissVirginia Tech

Efficiency

110.4

113.1

105.0

105.3

67.5

68.2

—

Shooting

50.4%

52.2%

50.8%

51.5%

33.2%

35.5%

74.9%

74.3%

33.0%

34.0%

Ball control & glass

14.0%

14.9%

16.4%

17.2%

28.3%

31.9%

32.6%

8.6%

7.8%

7.9%

9.3%

Style

35.5%

39.7%

39.5%

42.1%

12.1%

10.6%

50.2%

52.4%

40.2%

27.6%

Roster

2.79

2.51

6'4.3"

6'5"

79.3%

74.9%

Offseason

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

Ole Miss

Returning minutes: 79.3%Returning production: 75.1%

Lost

Malik Dia 24.3 mpg, 14.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
James Scott 17.9 mpg, 3.9 ppg · transferred to Georgia

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 79% 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).

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).

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.