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-conferenceGill Coliseum, Corvallis, OR
E Washington
Efficiency #189
2025-26: 14-19 · 12-8 conf
@
Oregon St
Efficiency #219
2025-26: 17-16 · 10-10 conf
Mon, Nov 9 · TBD
73.4
win 40%
Projected
76.4
win 60%
No line posted yet.
Model: ORST −3.0 · total 149.8 · 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: Oregon St 66.9, E Washington 68.6 → 67.2 possessions
−2.5
Oregon St offense vs E Washington defense
+1.6
E Washington offense vs Oregon St defense
+2.5
Projected total
149.8
Axis starts at 144 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Oregon St offense vs E Washington defense
+1.6
E Washington offense vs Oregon St defense
−2.5
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Oregon St by 3.0
3.0
E Washington side ◂▸ Oregon St 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 Oregon St.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 67.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, E Washington is the faster team (68.9, #154 of 365) and Oregon St the slower (66.2, #284). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
67.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
149.8
model
Projected team totals
73.4 / 76.4
E Washington / Oregon St
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.6#158
E Washington
66.9#295
Oregon St

How this game plays

what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meet
AdvantageOregon St
Where Oregon St scores: shooting
Oregon St shoots an effective 50.5% (#216); E Washington allows 54.9% (#326). Expect about 52.7%, 1.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions.
E Washington has the ball
OffenseOregon St allowsvs D1 avg
53.7% #75
50.3% #119
+1.3 pt/100
17.7% #251
15.3% #262
+0.5 pt/100
31.3% #153
32.1% #265
+0.9 pt/100
36.1% #148
35.1% #180
+0.1 pt/100
74.3% #118
—
+0.2 pt/100
E Washington net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.9 pts/100
Oregon St has the ball
OffenseE Washington allowsvs D1 avg
50.5% #216
54.9% #326
+2.0 pt/100
17.7% #253
16.2% #211
-0.2 pt/100
26.8% #303
30.8% #194
-1.4 pt/100
43.1% #20
37.3% #246
+0.7 pt/100
77.2% #30
—
+0.4 pt/100
Oregon St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +1.4 pts/100

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbers
E Washingtonoffense vsOregon Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
E Washington shoots
Oregon St allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim59.7%#13256.0%#8558.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)42.9%#10542.5%#23739.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)44.4%#2141.0%#27538.0%
Three35.9%#6232.9%#11633.7%
Oregon Stoffense vsE Washingtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Oregon St shoots
E Washington allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim56.6%#25360.5%#25258.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)36.1%#26744.9%#29439.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)37.0%#22046.8%#35838.0%
Three35.0%#11535.2%#26133.7%
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
E Washington
−1.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#231 of 365
Off reb %
31.3%
#153
Def reb %
69.2%
#194
Turnover %
17.7%
#251
Forced TO %
16.2%
#211
FT rate
36.1%
#148
FT allowed
37.3%
#246
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding−0.1
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers−0.3
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed−0.5
Oregon St
−1.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#239 of 365
Off reb %
26.8%
#303
Def reb %
67.9%
#265
Turnover %
17.7%
#253
Forced TO %
15.3%
#262
FT rate
43.1%
#20
FT allowed
35.1%
#180
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.2
Defensive rebounding−0.5
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers−0.9
Foul shots drawn+2.1
Foul shots allowed0.0

E Washington has more extra scoring chances per game: −1.0 (#231 of 365) to Oregon St’s −1.1 (#239).

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

E Washington2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted E Washington's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
2Isaiah MosesGSr6'0"33-3333.417.83.04.22.953.1%41.3%4.893.4%30.8%
4Alton Hamilton IVFJr6'8"33-2328.113.55.72.22.160.1%36.4%1.375.9%25.8%
15Kiree HuieFSr6'9"33-3225.312.85.20.82.054.8%0.0%0.058.0%30.6%
12Straton RogersGSr6'5"33-1422.05.84.61.10.561.4%28.6%0.265.1%13.4%
22Jojo AndersonGSr6'1"33-821.77.41.82.21.251.7%36.8%2.167.9%21.0%
21Johnny RadfordGSr6'1"33-1118.86.52.00.90.749.2%37.7%3.982.6%20.9%
1Tyler PowellGSr6'5"33-1716.54.82.00.60.655.8%36.8%2.672.7%16.9%
33Emmett MarquardtFSo6'9"30-1115.95.52.80.80.954.5%35.8%2.786.4%20.5%
5Elijah ThomasGSr6'6"30-410.91.91.40.30.338.9%19.0%1.475.0%12.8%
11Cole SchererGFr6'2"29-127.82.11.00.40.341.9%24.3%1.371.4%20.7%
35Shaumba NgoyiFSo6'9"20-04.30.60.90.10.350.0%—0.00.0%12.9%
10Maddox MonsonGSr6'2"11-03.91.00.50.10.242.3%30.0%0.9—19.6%
0Angelo WinkelFSr6'8"4-05.01.80.50.30.866.7%—0.075.0%22.2%
55Alan GballouFFr6'7"0-00.00.00.00.00.0——0.0——
9Andrew CookGSr6'4"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
E WashingtonOregon St
Efficiency
110.8
107.7
111.6
109.8
68.6
66.9
—
—
Shooting
53.7%
50.5%
53.6%
48.8%
35.9%
35.0%
74.3%
77.2%
36.1%
43.1%
Ball control & glass
17.7%
17.7%
16.2%
15.3%
31.3%
26.8%
30.8%
32.1%
10.6%
10.7%
7.9%
9.3%
Style
34.7%
44.3%
44.2%
34.1%
9.8%
9.2%
49.0%
61.2%
37.4%
34.1%
Roster
3.59
2.39
6'4.6"
6'6"
—
85.8%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
E Washington
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted E Washington'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.)

Oregon St
Returning minutes: 85.8%Returning production: 82.5%
Lost
  • Jorge Diaz Graham 17.4 mpg, 5.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Yaak Yaak 11.3 mpg, 5.0 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma
Added
  • Gavin Marrs 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. 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.