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-conferenceCarver-Hawkeye Arena, Iowa City, IA
Lipscomb
Efficiency #179
2025-26: 19-13 · 12-7 conf
@
Iowa
Efficiency #22
2025-26: 24-13 · 11-11 conf
Tue, Nov 3 · TBD
66.3
win 12%
Projected
79.8
win 88%
No line posted yet.
Model: IOWA −13.5 · total 146.1 · 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 oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Iowa 65.0, Lipscomb 69.7 → 66.4 possessions
−4.1
Iowa offense vs Lipscomb defense
+5.8
Lipscomb offense vs Iowa defense
−3.8
Projected total
146.1
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Iowa offense vs Lipscomb defense
+5.8
Lipscomb offense vs Iowa defense
+3.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Iowa by 13.5
13.5
Lipscomb side ◂▸ Iowa side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +13.4 against +13.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Iowa.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Lipscomb is the faster team (70.5, #76 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
66.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
146.1
model
Projected team totals
66.3 / 79.8
Lipscomb / Iowa
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.7#69
Lipscomb
65.0#363
Iowa
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageIowa
Where Iowa scores: shooting
Iowa shoots an effective 56.4% (#17); Lipscomb allows 53.2% (#273). Expect about 55.2%, 3.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.6 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Iowa averages 62.8 possessions per 40, Lipscomb 70.5. 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 65 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageLipscomb
Where Lipscomb scores: shooting
Lipscomb shoots an effective 54.1% (#67); Iowa allows 52.6% (#245). Expect about 53.6%, 2.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.2 points per 100 possessions.
GlassLipscomb
Lipscomb gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 26.6% is worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions against Lipscomb's offense.
TurnoversLipscomb
Lipscomb turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.6% is worth roughly -2.2 points per 100 possessions against Lipscomb's offense.
ClashIowa
Style clash: ball movement
Iowa assists on 57.7% of its made baskets; Lipscomb breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.2% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 51.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).
Lipscomb has the ball
OffenseIowa allowsvs D1 avg
54.1% #67
52.6% #245
+3.2 pt/100
16.0% #142
20.3% #17
-2.2 pt/100
25.8% #327
29.2% #119
-2.3 pt/100
26.0% #357
38.5% #272
-0.3 pt/100
74.9% #85
—
+0.2 pt/100
Lipscomb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.4 pts/100
Iowa has the ball
OffenseLipscomb allowsvs D1 avg
56.4% #17
53.2% #273
+5.6 pt/100
15.1% #73
17.7% #112
+0.4 pt/100
30.2% #192
30.2% #171
-0.1 pt/100
35.1% #176
29.0% #45
-0.4 pt/100
76.9% #34
—
+0.4 pt/100
Iowa net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLipscomboffense vsIowadefense
Share of shots by zone
Lipscomb shoots
39.4
5.7
7.1
47.8
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 | 60.2%#114 | 65.5%#354 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.8%#246 | 44.2%#273 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.1%#361 | 32.5%#21 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#75 | 33.3%#141 | 33.7% |
Iowaoffense vsLipscombdefense
Share of shots by zone
Iowa shoots
38.4
7.1
11.5
43.0
Lipscomb allows
36.4
9.7
13.7
40.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.8%#25 | 62.9%#322 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.1%#145 | 43.8%#264 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 44.0%#26 | 35.8%#102 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#85 | 34.3%#207 | 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 numbersLipscomb
−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#220 of 365
Off reb %
25.8%
#327
Def reb %
69.8%
#171
Turnover %
16.0%
#142
Forced TO %
17.7%
#112
FT rate
26.0%
#357
FT allowed
29.0%
#45
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.5
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+0.5
Forcing turnovers+0.7
Foul shots drawn−2.3
Foul shots allowed+1.6
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 Lipscomb’s −0.8 (#220).
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
Lipscomb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mateo Esmeraldo | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 1.6 | 53.2% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 82.9% | 19.0% | |
| 35 | Grant Asman | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 27.8 | 14.3 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 60.8% | 36.2% | 5.1 | 76.8% | 26.3% | |
| 26 | Titas Sargiunas | F | Jr | 6'4" | 32-20 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 51.8% | 34.0% | 4.4 | 73.3% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Ross Candelino | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-13 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 62.4% | 42.6% | 5.5 | 69.8% | 22.3% | |
| 33 | Charlie Williams | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 21.3 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.2% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 79.2% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Ethan Duncan | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-7 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 55.7% | 36.7% | 5.7 | 92.3% | 26.0% | |
| 6 | Or Ashkenazi | F | Fr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 39.4% | 1.1 | 75.0% | 9.4% | |
| 3 | Kennedy Okpara | F | Fr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 50.4% | 30.2% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 23.3% | |
| 23 | Kellan Boylan | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-0 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 47.0% | 6.3% | 0.5 | 67.3% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Cole Middleton | F | Sr | 6'6" | 29-0 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 26.5% | |
| 12 | Luke Carter | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.2% | 71.4% | 1.0 | — | 23.1% | |
| 2 | Devyn Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Josh Scott | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Logan Suber | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Luke Jack | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Miles White | G | Sr | 6'3" | 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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Lipscomb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mateo Esmeraldo | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 1.6 | 53.2% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 82.9% | 19.0% | |
| 35 | Grant Asman | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 27.8 | 14.3 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 60.8% | 36.2% | 5.1 | 76.8% | 26.3% | |
| 26 | Titas Sargiunas | F | Jr | 6'4" | 32-20 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 51.8% | 34.0% | 4.4 | 73.3% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Ross Candelino | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-13 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 62.4% | 42.6% | 5.5 | 69.8% | 22.3% | |
| 33 | Charlie Williams | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 21.3 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.2% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 79.2% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Ethan Duncan | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-7 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 55.7% | 36.7% | 5.7 | 92.3% | 26.0% | |
| 6 | Or Ashkenazi | F | Fr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 39.4% | 1.1 | 75.0% | 9.4% | |
| 3 | Kennedy Okpara | F | Fr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 50.4% | 30.2% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 23.3% | |
| 23 | Kellan Boylan | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-0 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 47.0% | 6.3% | 0.5 | 67.3% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Cole Middleton | F | Sr | 6'6" | 29-0 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 26.5% | |
| 12 | Luke Carter | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.2% | 71.4% | 1.0 | — | 23.1% | |
| 2 | Devyn Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Josh Scott | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Logan Suber | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Luke Jack | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Miles White | G | Sr | 6'3" | 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 2025-26Lipscomb
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
8-4
Road
7-10
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −4.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
16-14
Home
5-7
Road
11-6
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −2.8
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | FGCU | N | L 53–77 | −4.5 | L−28.5 | 150.0 | U130 | 84.1 | 122.2 | 63.0 |
| Feb 28 | E Kentucky | A | W 80–77 | −2.5 | W+0.5 | 159.0 | U157 | 122.3 | 117.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 25 | West Georgia | A | L 78–84 | −5.5 | L−11.5 | 153.0 | O162 | 110.6 | 119.1 | 70.5 |
| Feb 21 | North Alabama | H | W 73–51 | −12.0 | W+10.0 | 149.5 | U124 | 116.8 | 81.6 | 62.5 |
| Feb 18 | Bellarmine | A | W 75–72 | −3.5 | L−0.5 | 155.5 | U147 | 117.2 | 112.5 | 64.0 |
| Feb 14 | Queens | A | L 81–87 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 165.5 | O168 | 103.2 | 110.9 | 78.5 |
| Feb 11 | E Kentucky | H | W 75–61 | −6.0 | W+8.0 | 161.0 | U136 | 114.6 | 93.2 | 65.5 |
| Feb 7 | C Arkansas | H | L 78–86 | −4.0 | L−12.0 | 155.5 | O164 | 107.3 | 118.3 | 72.7 |
| Feb 4 | Austin Peay | A | L 76–87 | +4.5 | L−6.5 | 157.0 | O163 | 105.6 | 120.9 | 71.9 |
| Jan 31 | North Florida | A | W 100–94 | −11.0 | L−5.0 | 166.5 | O194 | 137.2 | 129.0 | 72.9 |
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 | #3Illinois | N | L 59–71 | +7.0 | L−5.0 | 138.5 | U130 | 107.6 | 129.5 | 54.8 |
| Mar 26 | #4Nebraska | N | W 77–71 | +1.5 | W+7.5 | 131.0 | O148 | 127.4 | 117.4 | 60.5 |
| Mar 22 | #1Florida | N | W 73–72 | +10.0 | W+11.0 | 145.0 | P145 | 119.4 | 117.8 | 61.1 |
| Mar 20 | #8Clemson | N | W 67–61 | −1.5 | W+4.5 | 131.0 | U128 | 124.7 | 113.6 | 53.7 |
| Mar 12 | Ohio State | N | L 69–72 | −1.5 | L−4.5 | 140.5 | O141 | 118.9 | 124.1 | 58.0 |
| Mar 11 | Maryland | N | W 75–64 | −12.0 | L−1.0 | 134.5 | O139 | 114.1 | 97.4 | 65.7 |
| Mar 8 | #9Nebraska | A | L 75–84 OT | +5.0 | L−4.0 | 136.5 | O159 | 100.7 | 112.8 | 74.5 |
| Mar 5 | #3Michigan | H | L 68–71 | +9.0 | W+6.0 | 147.0 | U139 | 104.5 | 109.1 | 65.1 |
| Feb 28 | Penn State | A | L 69–71 | −9.0 | L−11.0 | 144.0 | U140 | 116.1 | 119.5 | 59.4 |
| Feb 25 | Ohio State | 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 homeLipscombIowa
Efficiency
107.8
117.6
108.1
103.4
69.7
65.0
—
—
Shooting
54.1%
56.4%
54.5%
58.6%
35.7%
35.6%
74.9%
76.9%
26.0%
35.1%
Ball control & glass
16.0%
15.1%
17.7%
20.3%
25.8%
30.2%
30.2%
29.2%
9.3%
8.1%
10.1%
8.8%
Style
47.9%
43.0%
42.5%
43.9%
16.2%
9.6%
62.3%
57.7%
36.9%
32.9%
Roster
3.04
2.31
6'5.4"
6'6.8"
—
68.0%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLipscomb
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb'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.)
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 lastNo 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.