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

Belmont

Efficiency #54

2025-26: 26-6 · 16-5 conf

Lipscomb

Efficiency #179

2025-26: 19-13 · 12-7 conf

Tue, Nov 10 · 8:00 PM ET

79.8

win 58%

Projected

77.4

win 42%

No line posted yet.

Model: BEL −2.4 · total 157.1 · 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 one

Projected total

Average D-I game

148.2

PaceAdjusted tempo: Lipscomb 69.7, Belmont 69.4 → 70.8 possessions

+5.4

Lipscomb offense vs Belmont defense

−1.5

Belmont offense vs Lipscomb defense

+5.0

Projected total

157.1

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Lipscomb offense vs Belmont defense

−1.5

Belmont offense vs Lipscomb defense

−5.0

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

+4.1

Belmont by 2.4

2.4

Belmont side ◂▸ Lipscomb 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 Lipscomb.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 70.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Lipscomb is the faster team (70.5, #76 of 365) and Belmont the slower (70.0, #96). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

70.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

157.1

model

Projected team totals

79.8 / 77.4

Belmont / Lipscomb

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.4#90

Belmont

69.7#69

Lipscomb

How this game plays

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

AdvantageBelmont

Where Belmont scores: shooting

Belmont shoots an effective 61.0% (#1); Lipscomb allows 53.2% (#273). Expect about 57.9%, 6.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +9.4 points per 100 possessions.

ClashLipscomb

Style match: 3-point volume

Lipscomb takes 47.9% of its shots from three; Belmont lets opponents take 49.1% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 52.4% — both habits push the same way.

Pace

Track meet

Lipscomb averages 70.5 possessions per 40, Belmont 70.0. 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 71 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageLipscomb

Where Lipscomb struggles: the offensive glass

Lipscomb rebounds 25.8% of its own misses (#327); Belmont lets opponents grab 29.2% of their own misses (#118). Expect about 26.6%, 3.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.3 points per 100 possessions.

Watch for noise

3-point caution

A notable season 3-point number here (Belmont) 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 Belmont at about 44.9% of its shots from three, Lipscomb about 52.4%.

TurnoversBelmont

Belmont turns it over

Projected turnover rate of 18.1% is worth roughly -1.6 points per 100 possessions against Belmont's offense.

Belmont has the ball

OffenseLipscomb allowsvs D1 avg

61.0% #1

53.2% #273

+9.4 pt/100

18.1% #274

17.7% #112

-1.6 pt/100

28.8% #241

30.2% #171

-0.8 pt/100

32.5% #248

29.0% #45

-0.6 pt/100

68.6% #309

—

-0.3 pt/100

Belmont net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.1 pts/100

Lipscomb has the ball

OffenseBelmont allowsvs D1 avg

54.1% #67

49.9% #93

+1.3 pt/100

16.0% #142

17.4% #128

+0.1 pt/100

25.8% #327

29.2% #118

-2.3 pt/100

26.0% #357

30.7% #77

-0.9 pt/100

74.9% #85

—

+0.2 pt/100

Lipscomb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.6 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Belmontoffense vsLipscombdefense

Share of shots by zone

Belmont shoots

40.0

5.9

8.0

46.0

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	67.9%#5	62.9%#322	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.8%#128	43.8%#264	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	45.5%#11	35.8%#102	38.0%
Three	41.0%#1	34.3%#207	33.7%

Lipscomboffense vsBelmontdefense

Share of shots by zone

Lipscomb shoots

39.4

5.7

7.1

47.8

Belmont allows

30.2

5.8

15.4

48.7

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	60.2%#114	58.8%#177	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	36.8%#246	28.3%#8	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	29.1%#361	34.8%#71	38.0%
Three	35.7%#75	34.2%#197	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

Belmont

+0.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#178 of 365

Off reb %

28.8%

#241

Def reb %

70.8%

#118

Turnover %

18.1%

#274

Forced TO %

17.4%

#128

FT rate

32.5%

#248

FT allowed

30.7%

#77

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.5

Defensive rebounding+0.5

Ball security−0.9

Forcing turnovers+0.5

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.2

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

Belmont has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.1 (#178 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

Belmont2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Tyler Lundblade	G	Sr	6'5"	32-32	34.3	15.6	2.7	1.8	0.9	59.5%	40.6%	8.8	93.4%	21.9%
10	Jabez Jenkins	G	Fr	6'4"	32-32	24.2	9.0	4.5	1.3	1.8	52.7%	28.1%	1.8	72.7%	23.0%
14	Sam Orme	F	So	6'9"	29-28	25.6	12.7	5.0	1.8	1.1	65.1%	39.7%	4.2	63.6%	23.9%
12	Brigham Rogers	F	Jr	6'9"	32-12	18.2	7.1	3.9	1.7	1.0	72.5%	—	0.0	50.0%	18.7%
3	Isaiah West	G	Jr	6'2"	32-16	16.9	2.9	2.6	1.8	1.3	46.3%	27.6%	0.9	69.2%	14.1%
2	Jack Smiley	G	Fr	6'2"	31-0	17.3	8.5	1.9	2.6	1.2	59.1%	43.6%	3.3	81.1%	27.2%
5	Eoin Dillon	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	16.4	7.6	2.5	1.5	0.9	63.5%	44.6%	3.5	91.2%	23.0%
1	Nic McClain	G	Sr	6'3"	15-15	25.3	10.4	4.3	6.3	3.3	54.6%	44.7%	2.5	66.1%	27.0%
0	Win Miller	G	Jr	6'3"	27-1	8.6	2.9	0.7	0.6	0.7	51.6%	40.5%	1.4	88.9%	21.6%
4	Aidan Noyes	F	Sr	6'7"	14-0	14.8	5.9	1.9	0.3	0.4	71.7%	47.8%	3.3	100.0%	16.8%
13	Cooper Haynes	G	Fr	6'2"	14-0	5.4	1.8	0.6	0.4	0.2	57.5%	60.0%	0.4	66.7%	18.2%
23	Jake Dykstra	G	Sr	6'4"	13-0	3.3	0.7	0.5	0.2	0.1	34.6%	25.0%	0.9	—	18.0%
24	Keith Robbins	G	Jr	6'4"	13-0	3.1	1.4	0.5	0.2	0.0	61.5%	44.4%	0.7	100.0%	19.2%
7	Graydon Lemke	F	Fr	6'10"	12-0	1.9	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.1	45.8%	33.3%	0.8	—	31.1%

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.

Belmont2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
8	Tyler Lundblade	G	Sr	6'5"	32-32	34.3	15.6	2.7	1.8	0.9	59.5%	40.6%	8.8	93.4%	21.9%
10	Jabez Jenkins	G	Fr	6'4"	32-32	24.2	9.0	4.5	1.3	1.8	52.7%	28.1%	1.8	72.7%	23.0%
14	Sam Orme	F	So	6'9"	29-28	25.6	12.7	5.0	1.8	1.1	65.1%	39.7%	4.2	63.6%	23.9%
12	Brigham Rogers	F	Jr	6'9"	32-12	18.2	7.1	3.9	1.7	1.0	72.5%	—	0.0	50.0%	18.7%
3	Isaiah West	G	Jr	6'2"	32-16	16.9	2.9	2.6	1.8	1.3	46.3%	27.6%	0.9	69.2%	14.1%
2	Jack Smiley	G	Fr	6'2"	31-0	17.3	8.5	1.9	2.6	1.2	59.1%	43.6%	3.3	81.1%	27.2%
5	Eoin Dillon	F	Fr	6'9"	32-0	16.4	7.6	2.5	1.5	0.9	63.5%	44.6%	3.5	91.2%	23.0%
1	Nic McClain	G	Sr	6'3"	15-15	25.3	10.4	4.3	6.3	3.3	54.6%	44.7%	2.5	66.1%	27.0%
0	Win Miller	G	Jr	6'3"	27-1	8.6	2.9	0.7	0.6	0.7	51.6%	40.5%	1.4	88.9%	21.6%
4	Aidan Noyes	F	Sr	6'7"	14-0	14.8	5.9	1.9	0.3	0.4	71.7%	47.8%	3.3	100.0%	16.8%
13	Cooper Haynes	G	Fr	6'2"	14-0	5.4	1.8	0.6	0.4	0.2	57.5%	60.0%	0.4	66.7%	18.2%
23	Jake Dykstra	G	Sr	6'4"	13-0	3.3	0.7	0.5	0.2	0.1	34.6%	25.0%	0.9	—	18.0%
24	Keith Robbins	G	Jr	6'4"	13-0	3.1	1.4	0.5	0.2	0.0	61.5%	44.4%	0.7	100.0%	19.2%
7	Graydon Lemke	F	Fr	6'10"	12-0	1.9	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.1	45.8%	33.3%	0.8	—	31.1%

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

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Belmont

Against the spread

Season

17-14

Home

7-7

Road

8-6

Last 10

7-3

avg cover +0.3

Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 7 of 10 as a favorite

Over / under

Season

19-12

Home

10-4

Road

8-6

Last 10

8-2

avg vs total +13.6

Over 4 straightOver in 8 of 10 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 6	DrakeAdjEM #210	N	L 79–100	−12.5	L−33.5	153.5	O179	109.5	138.6	72.2
Mar 1	Illinois StAdjEM #80	A	L 74–81	−1.0	L−8.0	151.0	O155	119.8	131.1	61.8
Feb 25	EvansvilleAdjEM #327	H	W 98–64	−18.5	W+15.5	152.0	O162	145.2	94.8	67.5
Feb 21	Indiana StAdjEM #213	H	W 87–70	−13.0	W+4.0	156.0	O157	119.2	95.9	73.0
Feb 15	Murray StAdjEM #108	A	W 87–70	−1.0	W+16.0	166.5	U157	118.8	95.6	73.2
Feb 12	Northern IowaAdjEM #64	H	W 91–86	−4.5	W+0.5	140.0	O177	128.2	121.2	71.0
Feb 9	BradleyAdjEM #117	A	L 84–95 OT	−1.0	L−12.0	153.0	O179	108.6	122.8	77.4
Feb 6	UICAdjEM #99	A	W 68–62	−2.0	W+4.0	151.0	U130	107.4	97.9	63.3
Feb 3	DrakeAdjEM #210	H	W 103–90	−9.5	W+3.5	155.0	O193	147.4	128.8	69.9
Jan 31	Murray StAdjEM #108	H	W 103–86	−3.5	W+13.5	164.0	O189	145.9	121.8	70.6

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

BelmontLipscomb

Efficiency

115.9

107.8

107.1

108.1

69.4

69.7

—

Shooting

61.0%

54.1%

60.6%

54.5%

41.0%

35.7%

68.6%

74.9%

32.5%

26.0%

Ball control & glass

18.1%

16.0%

17.4%

17.7%

28.8%

25.8%

29.2%

30.2%

9.7%

9.3%

9.4%

10.1%

Style

45.7%

47.9%

42.9%

42.5%

9.1%

16.2%

61.9%

62.3%

35.9%

36.9%

Roster

2.50

3.04

6'5.4"

89.9%

—

Offseason

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

Belmont

Returning minutes: 89.9%Returning production: 86.3%

Lost

Drew Scharnowski 20.3 mpg, 10.1 ppg · transferred to Duke

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 90% 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).

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

Date	Season	Result
Wed, Nov 19	2025-26	Lipscomb 68 – 75 Belmont

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.