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-conferenceAllen Arena, Nashville, TN

SIUE

Efficiency #229

2025-26: 19-13 · 12-9 conf

Lipscomb

Efficiency #179

2025-26: 19-13 · 12-7 conf

Sat, Nov 7 · 5:00 PM ET

67.6

win 31%

Projected

73.2

win 69%

No line posted yet.

Model: LIP −5.6 · total 140.8 · 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: Lipscomb 69.7, SIUE 66.4 → 67.8 possessions

−1.2

Lipscomb offense vs SIUE defense

−2.2

SIUE offense vs Lipscomb defense

−4.0

Projected total

140.8

Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Lipscomb offense vs SIUE defense

−2.2

SIUE offense vs Lipscomb defense

+4.0

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

+3.9

Lipscomb by 5.6

5.6

SIUE side ◂▸ Lipscomb side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +5.7 against +5.6. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Lipscomb.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Lipscomb is the faster team (70.5, #76 of 365) and SIUE the slower (65.6, #314). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

67.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

140.8

model

Projected team totals

67.6 / 73.2

SIUE / Lipscomb

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

66.4#326

SIUE

69.7#69

Lipscomb

How this game plays

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

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (SIUE'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 SIUE at about 37.3% of its shots from three, Lipscomb about 45.6%.

AdvantageLipscomb

Where Lipscomb struggles: shooting

Lipscomb shoots an effective 54.1% (#67); SIUE allows 45.6% (#6). Expect about 50.0%, 1.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.8 points per 100 possessions.

GlassLipscomb

Lipscomb gets out-rebounded

Projected offensive rebound rate of 27.8% is worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions against Lipscomb's offense.

AdvantageSIUE

Where SIUE struggles: ball control

SIUE turns it over on 17.9% of possessions (#268); Lipscomb forces turnovers on 17.7% of opponent possessions (#112). Expect about 18.0%, 1.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions.

ClashLipscomb

Style clash: ball movement

Lipscomb assists on 62.3% of its made baskets; SIUE breaks up passing offenses (assists on 46.4% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 55.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

SIUE has the ball

OffenseLipscomb allowsvs D1 avg

49.5% #266

53.2% #273

-0.1 pt/100

17.9% #268

17.7% #112

-1.5 pt/100

30.1% #195

30.2% #171

-0.2 pt/100

30.6% #294

29.0% #45

-0.7 pt/100

67.1% #343

—

-0.5 pt/100

SIUE net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.0 pts/100

Lipscomb has the ball

OffenseSIUE allowsvs D1 avg

54.1% #67

45.6% #6

-1.8 pt/100

16.0% #142

17.0% #148

+0.3 pt/100

25.8% #327

31.6% #235

-1.6 pt/100

26.0% #357

34.3% #159

-0.6 pt/100

74.9% #85

—

+0.2 pt/100

Lipscomb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

SIUEoffense vsLipscombdefense

Share of shots by zone

SIUE shoots

37.9

5.5

21.0

35.6

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	56.9%#241	62.9%#322	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	34.5%#294	43.8%#264	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	33.0%#329	35.8%#102	38.0%
Three	35.0%#123	34.3%#207	33.7%

Lipscomboffense vsSIUEdefense

Share of shots by zone

Lipscomb shoots

39.4

5.7

7.1

47.8

SIUE allows

35.7

6.8

18.9

38.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.2%#114	54.3%#45	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.8%#246	31.1%#20	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	29.1%#361	35.7%#99	38.0%
Three	35.7%#75	30.2%#10	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

SIUE

−1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#265 of 365

Off reb %

30.1%

#195

Def reb %

68.4%

#235

Turnover %

17.9%

#268

Forced TO %

17.0%

#148

FT rate

30.6%

#294

FT allowed

34.3%

#159

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.1

Defensive rebounding−0.3

Ball security−0.8

Forcing turnovers+0.2

Foul shots drawn−1.1

Foul shots allowed+0.2

Lipscomb

−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

Lipscomb has more extra scoring chances per game: −0.8 (#220 of 365) to SIUE’s −1.9 (#265).

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

SIUE2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Jack Campion	G	Sr	5'11"	32-32	27.5	8.2	3.7	5.2	2.3	43.8%	38.8%	2.1	72.8%	23.5%
33	Jo Valrie	F	Sr	6'5"	32-24	23.6	6.3	4.3	0.4	1.1	49.4%	37.3%	2.3	68.9%	18.4%
4	Darrion Baker	F	So	6'8"	32-18	20.4	7.3	4.1	0.7	1.3	58.5%	45.3%	2.3	64.7%	22.0%
9	Tyler King	G	Jr	6'4"	30-17	21.1	9.9	2.5	1.0	0.7	53.5%	36.2%	3.9	60.7%	28.2%
1	Jordan Pickett	G	Jr	6'3"	31-15	19.9	5.3	3.0	1.3	0.9	41.3%	31.1%	2.9	72.2%	20.6%
24	Kyle Thomas	F	Sr	6'10"	27-4	19.1	6.7	3.9	0.4	0.9	48.4%	33.3%	1.2	82.5%	22.7%
0	Ring Malith	G	Sr	6'9"	14-14	29.7	17.0	5.4	1.5	1.8	54.4%	32.9%	5.0	73.9%	32.2%
2	CJ Hall	G	Sr	6'2"	29-0	13.1	4.7	1.8	1.7	0.9	42.4%	33.3%	1.6	65.0%	28.1%
21	Myles Thompson	F	Sr	6'7"	8-8	28.6	10.8	6.1	1.4	2.0	47.9%	21.4%	1.8	54.3%	26.5%
7	Darius Robinson Jr.	G	Sr	6'1"	22-0	9.6	3.4	0.8	0.8	0.5	44.0%	29.2%	2.2	64.3%	25.8%
17	Corentin Efono	G	Fr	6'4"	19-0	9.4	1.3	1.2	0.8	0.6	55.3%	20.0%	0.3	66.7%	10.8%
8	Harrison Alexander	G	So	6'5"	18-0	8.2	3.5	0.8	0.3	0.4	57.7%	27.6%	1.6	60.0%	24.9%
20	Iwo Baganc	F	Fr	6'8"	9-0	5.2	2.8	1.1	0.1	0.2	71.4%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	20.9%
11	Dehrio McCaskill	G	Fr	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.

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
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.

SIUE2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
5	Jack Campion	G	Sr	5'11"	32-32	27.5	8.2	3.7	5.2	2.3	43.8%	38.8%	2.1	72.8%	23.5%
33	Jo Valrie	F	Sr	6'5"	32-24	23.6	6.3	4.3	0.4	1.1	49.4%	37.3%	2.3	68.9%	18.4%
4	Darrion Baker	F	So	6'8"	32-18	20.4	7.3	4.1	0.7	1.3	58.5%	45.3%	2.3	64.7%	22.0%
9	Tyler King	G	Jr	6'4"	30-17	21.1	9.9	2.5	1.0	0.7	53.5%	36.2%	3.9	60.7%	28.2%
1	Jordan Pickett	G	Jr	6'3"	31-15	19.9	5.3	3.0	1.3	0.9	41.3%	31.1%	2.9	72.2%	20.6%
24	Kyle Thomas	F	Sr	6'10"	27-4	19.1	6.7	3.9	0.4	0.9	48.4%	33.3%	1.2	82.5%	22.7%
0	Ring Malith	G	Sr	6'9"	14-14	29.7	17.0	5.4	1.5	1.8	54.4%	32.9%	5.0	73.9%	32.2%
2	CJ Hall	G	Sr	6'2"	29-0	13.1	4.7	1.8	1.7	0.9	42.4%	33.3%	1.6	65.0%	28.1%
21	Myles Thompson	F	Sr	6'7"	8-8	28.6	10.8	6.1	1.4	2.0	47.9%	21.4%	1.8	54.3%	26.5%
7	Darius Robinson Jr.	G	Sr	6'1"	22-0	9.6	3.4	0.8	0.8	0.5	44.0%	29.2%	2.2	64.3%	25.8%
17	Corentin Efono	G	Fr	6'4"	19-0	9.4	1.3	1.2	0.8	0.6	55.3%	20.0%	0.3	66.7%	10.8%
8	Harrison Alexander	G	So	6'5"	18-0	8.2	3.5	0.8	0.3	0.4	57.7%	27.6%	1.6	60.0%	24.9%
20	Iwo Baganc	F	Fr	6'8"	9-0	5.2	2.8	1.1	0.1	0.2	71.4%	0.0%	0.3	100.0%	20.9%
11	Dehrio McCaskill	G	Fr	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 2025-26

SIUE

Against the spread

Season

15-14

Home

5-7

Road

9-6

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +3.0

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

Over / under

Season

11-18

Home

4-8

Road

5-10

Last 10

3-7

avg vs total −3.5

Over in the last gameOver in 1 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 4	E IllinoisAdjEM #317	N	L 71–77 OT	−4.5	L−10.5	128.0	O148	102.8	111.5	69.0
Feb 28	E IllinoisAdjEM #317	H	W 77–50	−6.0	W+21.0	130.0	U127	127.9	83.0	60.2
Feb 26	W IllinoisAdjEM #362	H	W 67–47	−14.0	W+6.0	135.5	U114	99.6	69.8	67.3
Feb 21	Tennessee StAdjEM #155	A	L 53–80	+4.5	L−22.5	143.5	U133	83.2	125.6	63.7
Feb 19	Tennessee TechAdjEM #298	A	L 52–62	−2.0	L−12.0	135.0	U114	77.1	92.0	67.4
Feb 14	UT MartinAdjEM #182	H	L 76–81	+1.5	L−3.5	130.0	O157	112.3	119.7	67.7
Feb 12	SE MissouriAdjEM #209	H	W 74–56	+1.0	W+19.0	137.5	U130	112.8	85.4	65.6
Feb 7	Little RockAdjEM #300	A	W 71–61	+1.5	W+11.5	133.0	U132	105.3	90.5	67.4
Feb 3	LindenwoodAdjEM #244	A	W 78–72	+4.5	W+10.5	140.5	O150	106.8	98.6	73.0
Jan 31	S IndianaAdjEM #333	A	W 58–46	−2.0	W+10.0	130.5	U104	96.1	76.2	60.4

Lipscomb

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	FGCUAdjEM #246	N	L 53–77	−4.5	L−28.5	150.0	U130	84.1	122.2	63.0
Feb 28	E KentuckyAdjEM #287	A	W 80–77	−2.5	W+0.5	159.0	U157	122.3	117.7	65.4
Feb 25	West GeorgiaAdjEM #304	A	L 78–84	−5.5	L−11.5	153.0	O162	110.6	119.1	70.5
Feb 21	North AlabamaAdjEM #343	H	W 73–51	−12.0	W+10.0	149.5	U124	116.8	81.6	62.5
Feb 18	BellarmineAdjEM #281	A	W 75–72	−3.5	L−0.5	155.5	U147	117.2	112.5	64.0
Feb 14	QueensAdjEM #191	A	L 81–87	+3.0	L−3.0	165.5	O168	103.2	110.9	78.5
Feb 11	E KentuckyAdjEM #287	H	W 75–61	−6.0	W+8.0	161.0	U136	114.6	93.2	65.5
Feb 7	C ArkansasAdjEM #139	H	L 78–86	−4.0	L−12.0	155.5	O164	107.3	118.3	72.7
Feb 4	Austin PeayAdjEM #141	A	L 76–87	+4.5	L−6.5	157.0	O163	105.6	120.9	71.9
Jan 31	North FloridaAdjEM #338	A	W 100–94	−11.0	L−5.0	166.5	O194	137.2	129.0	72.9

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

SIUELipscomb

Efficiency

103.0

107.8

105.9

108.1

66.4

69.7

—

Shooting

49.5%

54.1%

47.8%

54.5%

35.0%

35.7%

67.1%

74.9%

30.6%

26.0%

Ball control & glass

17.9%

16.0%

17.0%

17.7%

30.1%

25.8%

31.6%

30.2%

10.6%

9.3%

8.9%

10.1%

Style

36.2%

47.9%

42.6%

42.5%

12.1%

16.2%

50.9%

62.3%

33.4%

36.9%

Roster

3.38

3.04

6'4.6"

6'5.4"

87.8%

—

Offseason

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

SIUE

Returning minutes: 87.8%Returning production: 82.7%

Lost

Arnas Sakenis 24.5 mpg, 8.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet

Added

Dehrio McCaskill no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 88% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5. 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).

Lipscomb

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.)

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.