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-conferenceMVP Arena, Albany, NY
Vermont
Efficiency #199
2025-26: 22-12 · 14-5 conf
@
Siena
Efficiency #134
2025-26: 23-12 · 16-7 conf
Tue, Nov 24 · 7:00 PM ET
66.9
win 31%
Projected
72.7
win 69%
No line posted yet.
Model: SIE −5.8 · total 139.6 · 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: Siena 66.4, Vermont 66.5 → 64.7 possessions
−7.9
Siena offense vs Vermont defense
+0.7
Vermont offense vs Siena defense
−1.4
Projected total
139.6
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Siena offense vs Vermont defense
+0.7
Vermont offense vs Siena defense
+1.4
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.7
Siena by 5.8
5.8
Vermont side ◂▸ Siena 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 Siena.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 64.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Vermont is the faster team (64.4, #346 of 365) and Siena the slower (64.2, #350). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
64.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
139.6
model
Projected team totals
66.9 / 72.7
Vermont / Siena
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
66.5#317
Vermont
66.4#322
Siena

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
Pace
Half-court grind
Siena averages 64.2 possessions per 40, Vermont 64.4. 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 62 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageSiena
Where Siena scores: ball control
Siena turns it over on 15.8% of possessions (#126); Vermont forces turnovers on 14.8% of opponent possessions (#305). Expect about 15.0%, 1.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageVermont
Where Vermont struggles: the offensive glass
Vermont rebounds 26.2% of its own misses (#318); Siena lets opponents grab 29.5% of their own misses (#133). Expect about 27.0%, 3.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.1 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Siena) 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 Vermont at about 43.6% of its shots from three, Siena about 34.8%.
GlassSiena
Siena gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.8% is worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions against Siena's offense.
TurnoversVermont
Vermont protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for Vermont's offense.
Vermont has the ball
OffenseSiena allowsvs D1 avg
53.1% #95
48.5% #48
-0.5 pt/100
14.3% #35
17.0% #152
+1.5 pt/100
26.2% #318
29.5% #133
-2.1 pt/100
31.1% #279
27.5% #27
-0.8 pt/100
71.9% #213
—
-0.0 pt/100
Vermont net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.8 pts/100
Siena has the ball
OffenseVermont allowsvs D1 avg
50.4% #222
50.4% #121
-1.4 pt/100
15.8% #126
14.8% #305
+2.2 pt/100
31.8% #133
23.0% #2
-1.6 pt/100
33.4% #226
36.4% #226
+0.0 pt/100
77.1% #32
—
+0.4 pt/100
Siena net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
Vermontoffense vsSienadefense
Share of shots by zone
Vermont shoots
Siena allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim62.5%#6153.4%#2958.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)48.0%#2344.7%#28739.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)40.3%#10439.7%#23238.0%
Three33.3%#20832.3%#8233.7%
Sienaoffense vsVermontdefense
Share of shots by zone
Siena shoots
Vermont allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim57.7%#20657.1%#11858.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)46.5%#4641.9%#23039.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)44.1%#2335.1%#8038.0%
Three30.6%#33035.3%#26733.7%
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
Vermont
+0.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#174 of 365
Off reb %
26.2%
#318
Def reb %
77.0%
#2
Turnover %
14.3%
#35
Forced TO %
14.8%
#305
FT rate
31.1%
#279
FT allowed
36.4%
#226
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.4
Defensive rebounding+2.5
Ball security+1.7
Forcing turnovers−1.3
Foul shots drawn−1.0
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Siena
+3.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#50 of 365
Off reb %
31.8%
#133
Def reb %
70.5%
#133
Turnover %
15.8%
#126
Forced TO %
17.0%
#152
FT rate
33.4%
#226
FT allowed
27.5%
#27
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.5
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.4
Foul shots allowed+2.0

Siena has more extra scoring chances per game: +3.2 (#50 of 365) to Vermont’s +0.2 (#174).

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

Vermont2025-26 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
3TJ HurleyGSr6'5"34-3430.915.03.51.40.958.1%38.5%6.087.3%25.8%
20TJ LongGSr6'4"29-1729.612.14.81.11.148.2%31.4%6.579.7%26.7%
19Gus YaldenFSo6'9"31-3025.516.15.82.11.756.1%34.7%3.867.3%37.9%
34Noah BarnettFSo6'9"31-2522.35.83.60.50.466.8%50.0%0.164.1%13.3%
24Ben JohnsonGSr6'3"34-1718.25.42.11.10.359.7%42.2%3.272.2%16.2%
21Lucas MariGFr6'6"30-820.04.94.01.71.246.5%26.3%2.570.0%18.8%
2Ben MichaelsFSo6'8"31-1113.12.02.20.40.538.3%9.1%0.762.5%13.2%
1Momo NkugwaGFr6'3"29-013.13.02.30.70.454.9%25.0%1.147.4%15.0%
4Jackson SkipperFSr6'7"29-18.51.81.10.30.543.9%27.3%1.176.9%17.6%
0David SimonFSo6'11"18-010.63.42.20.30.670.7%57.1%0.436.4%18.6%
32Trey WoodyardFSr6'6"4-08.01.50.30.30.042.9%40.0%1.3—13.6%
12Ben WessonGFr6'4"7-02.31.90.30.10.185.7%66.7%0.450.0%32.4%
25Sincere ClemonsGFr6'2"6-02.20.20.20.00.20.0%0.0%0.350.0%26.3%
15Drew BessetteFFr6'8"5-02.40.41.40.20.025.0%0.0%0.6—19.0%
13Chris KuzemkaGSr6'0"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.

Tale of the tape

national rank toned left for away, right for home
VermontSiena
Efficiency
108.2
108.6
109.4
106.7
66.5
66.4
—
—
Shooting
53.1%
50.4%
55.7%
52.5%
33.3%
30.6%
71.9%
77.1%
31.1%
33.4%
Ball control & glass
14.3%
15.8%
14.8%
17.0%
26.2%
31.8%
23.0%
29.5%
8.3%
10.2%
8.3%
9.5%
Style
44.6%
32.2%
41.8%
47.7%
5.5%
7.1%
47.9%
53.2%
34.4%
22.3%
Roster
2.78
3.65
6'6.1"
6'5.6"
85.8%
21.6%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Vermont
Returning minutes: 85.8%Returning production: 85.6%
Lost
  • Sean Blake 28.6 mpg, 9.9 ppg · transferred to Ball State
Added
  • Chris Kuzemka no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 86% 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).

Siena
Returning minutes: 21.6%Returning production: 12.4%
Lost
  • Gavin Doty 36.7 mpg, 18.0 ppg · transferred to Syracuse
  • Justice Shoats 35.6 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Francis Folefac 28.1 mpg, 11.3 ppg · transferred to Syracuse
  • Antonio Chandler 18.3 mpg, 6.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Christian Jones 17.0 mpg, 4.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Riley Mulvey 13.4 mpg, 2.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Tan Yildizoglu from VMI · 30.2 mpg, 9.9 ppg last season
  • Paul Lambert no D1 minutes last season
  • Angelos Bratakos no D1 minutes last season
  • Mana Martin no D1 minutes last season
  • Yannis Steger no D1 minutes last season
  • Tim Ibukunoluwa no D1 minutes last season

Returns 22% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (2 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Head-to-head

this season and last
DateSeasonResult
Wed, Dec 172025-26Siena 69 – 83 Vermont

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.