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-conferenceWelsh-Ryan Arena, Evanston, IL
Binghamton
Efficiency #354
2025-26: 8-23 · 4-12 conf
@
Northwestern
Efficiency #78
2025-26: 15-19 · 7-16 conf
Mon, Nov 2 · TBD
63.3
win 7%
Projected
80.8
win 93%
No line posted yet.
Model: NU −17.5 · total 144.1 · 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: Northwestern 66.9, Binghamton 67.1 → 65.6 possessions
−5.9
Northwestern offense vs Binghamton defense
+7.7
Binghamton offense vs Northwestern defense
−6.0
Projected total
144.1
Axis starts at 135 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Northwestern offense vs Binghamton defense
+7.7
Binghamton offense vs Northwestern defense
+6.0
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.8
Northwestern by 17.5
17.5
Binghamton side ◂▸ Northwestern side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 144.0 against a projected 144.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Northwestern.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 65.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Northwestern is the faster team (65.3, #322 of 365) and Binghamton the slower (65.1, #331). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
65.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.1
model
Projected team totals
63.3 / 80.8
Binghamton / Northwestern
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.1#281
Binghamton
66.9#299
Northwestern
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageNorthwestern
Where Northwestern scores: ball control
Northwestern turns it over on 13.0% of possessions (#7); Binghamton forces turnovers on 13.3% of opponent possessions (#349). Expect about 12.4%, 4.4 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +5.4 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Half-court grind
Northwestern averages 65.3 possessions per 40, Binghamton 65.1. 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 64 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageBinghamton
Where Binghamton struggles: the offensive glass
Binghamton rebounds 20.9% of its own misses (#361); Northwestern lets opponents grab 34.7% of their own misses (#332). Expect about 25.9%, 4.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.8 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversBinghamton
Binghamton turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.4% is worth roughly -2.0 points per 100 possessions against Binghamton's offense.
Binghamton has the ball
OffenseNorthwestern allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #234
51.0% #157
-1.3 pt/100
18.8% #312
17.5% #119
-2.0 pt/100
20.9% #361
34.7% #332
-2.8 pt/100
41.5% #37
34.8% #172
+0.4 pt/100
75.3% #75
—
+0.3 pt/100
Binghamton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.4 pts/100
Northwestern has the ball
OffenseBinghamton allowsvs D1 avg
51.7% #159
54.3% #309
+2.6 pt/100
13.0% #7
13.3% #349
+5.4 pt/100
28.1% #260
29.4% #128
-1.3 pt/100
33.9% #213
34.6% #167
-0.1 pt/100
75.1% #80
—
+0.2 pt/100
Northwestern net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersBinghamtonoffense vsNorthwesterndefense
Share of shots by zone
Binghamton shoots
44.6
8.1
16.3
31.0
Northwestern allows
37.9
6.1
16.5
39.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.9%#275 | 60.5%#248 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.7%#228 | 33.6%#38 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.0%#78 | 38.8%#190 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.5%#254 | 33.4%#145 | 33.7% |
Northwesternoffense vsBinghamtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Northwestern shoots
35.0
7.2
23.9
34.0
Binghamton allows
42.2
6.8
11.7
39.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 63.4%#47 | 58.7%#174 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.6%#233 | 45.5%#314 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.6%#66 | 42.0%#300 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.0%#232 | 35.8%#294 | 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 numbersBinghamton
−4.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#340 of 365
Off reb %
20.9%
#361
Def reb %
70.6%
#128
Turnover %
18.8%
#312
Forced TO %
13.3%
#349
FT rate
41.5%
#37
FT allowed
34.6%
#167
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−3.1
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security−1.4
Forcing turnovers−2.3
Foul shots drawn+1.7
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Northwestern
+0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#140 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#260
Def reb %
65.3%
#332
Turnover %
13.0%
#7
Forced TO %
17.5%
#119
FT rate
33.9%
#213
FT allowed
34.8%
#172
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−1.3
Ball security+2.6
Forcing turnovers+0.6
Foul shots drawn−0.3
Foul shots allowed+0.1
Northwestern has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.9 (#140 of 365) to Binghamton’s −4.6 (#340).
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
Binghamton2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jeremiah Quigley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 30-30 | 37.1 | 14.5 | 4.9 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 47.7% | 17.4% | 1.5 | 78.4% | 27.5% | |
| 5 | Wes Peterson Jr. | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-26 | 35.7 | 10.7 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 47.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 77.5% | 21.0% | |
| 24 | Jackson Benigni | G | Sr | 6'1" | 30-21 | 31.5 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 62.0% | 40.1% | 5.1 | 89.2% | 16.4% | |
| 10 | Zyier Beverly | F | Jr | 6'9" | 29-18 | 25.0 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 61.0% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 64.4% | 27.7% | |
| 4 | Ryan Richardson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 22-12 | 25.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 39.8% | 31.0% | 3.2 | 35.3% | 16.2% | |
| 13 | Stephan Snagg | F | So | 6'8" | 27-14 | 19.9 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 61.6% | — | 0.0 | 56.3% | 11.3% | |
| 14 | Demetrius Lilley | C | Sr | 6'9" | 11-11 | 33.5 | 14.6 | 9.4 | 0.9 | 2.7 | 44.3% | 14.3% | 2.5 | 80.8% | 29.5% | |
| 30 | Jake Blackburn | G | Fr | 6'5" | 14-1 | 16.4 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 62.9% | 39.5% | 3.1 | 66.7% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Jayden Kelsey | G | Fr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 17.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 | 50.0% | 9.9% | |
| 12 | Nevin Ibroci | G | Fr | 6'2" | 10-0 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0% | 30.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Evan Ashe | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jayden Lemond | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Sayerr Senghore | F | Sr | 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.
Northwestern2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Jayden Reid | G | Jr | 5'10" | 34-28 | 25.8 | 10.1 | 1.4 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 44.5% | 31.7% | 3.0 | 82.0% | 28.3% | |
| 8 | Tre Singleton | F | Fr | 6'8" | 34-31 | 25.0 | 7.6 | 4.8 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 16.7% | 1.6 | 73.8% | 19.5% | |
| 44 | Angelo Ciaravino | G | So | 6'6" | 33-18 | 22.0 | 6.3 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 54.6% | 25.6% | 1.3 | 58.3% | 17.0% | |
| 3 | Jake West | G | Fr | 6'3" | 33-17 | 21.8 | 5.3 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 49.4% | 36.4% | 2.3 | 77.4% | 17.4% | |
| 22 | Arrinten Page | F | Jr | 6'11" | 29-16 | 22.8 | 10.2 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 57.2% | 25.0% | 1.5 | 65.6% | 26.2% | |
| 11 | Jordan Clayton | G | Jr | 6'2" | 31-10 | 18.3 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 57.7% | 41.0% | 2.5 | 53.3% | 12.9% | |
| 1 | Tyler Kropp | F | Fr | 6'9" | 31-10 | 11.9 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 46.1% | 27.3% | 0.4 | 92.3% | 16.6% | |
| 10 | Max Green | G | So | 6'6" | 23-4 | 14.8 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 48.5% | 33.8% | 3.0 | 60.0% | 19.5% | |
| 20 | Justin Mullins | G | Sr | 6'6" | 24-3 | 13.5 | 3.2 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 53.2% | 32.3% | 1.3 | 50.0% | 16.4% | |
| 24 | K.J. Windham | G | So | 6'3" | 13-0 | 13.3 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 45.7% | 33.3% | 2.8 | 100.0% | 17.8% | |
| 13 | Phoenix Gill | G | Fr | 6'2" | 11-0 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 12.5% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 75.0% | 18.6% | |
| 54 | Gus Hurlburt | F | Jr | 6'9" | 2-0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 26.4% | |
| 43 | Blake Smith | G | Sr | 6'6" | 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.
Binghamton2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jeremiah Quigley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 30-30 | 37.1 | 14.5 | 4.9 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 47.7% | 17.4% | 1.5 | 78.4% | 27.5% | |
| 5 | Wes Peterson Jr. | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-26 | 35.7 | 10.7 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 47.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 77.5% | 21.0% | |
| 24 | Jackson Benigni | G | Sr | 6'1" | 30-21 | 31.5 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 62.0% | 40.1% | 5.1 | 89.2% | 16.4% | |
| 10 | Zyier Beverly | F | Jr | 6'9" | 29-18 | 25.0 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 61.0% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 64.4% | 27.7% | |
| 4 | Ryan Richardson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 22-12 | 25.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 39.8% | 31.0% | 3.2 | 35.3% | 16.2% | |
| 13 | Stephan Snagg | F | So | 6'8" | 27-14 | 19.9 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 61.6% | — | 0.0 | 56.3% | 11.3% | |
| 14 | Demetrius Lilley | C | Sr | 6'9" | 11-11 | 33.5 | 14.6 | 9.4 | 0.9 | 2.7 | 44.3% | 14.3% | 2.5 | 80.8% | 29.5% | |
| 30 | Jake Blackburn | G | Fr | 6'5" | 14-1 | 16.4 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 62.9% | 39.5% | 3.1 | 66.7% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Jayden Kelsey | G | Fr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 17.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 | 50.0% | 9.9% | |
| 12 | Nevin Ibroci | G | Fr | 6'2" | 10-0 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0% | 30.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Evan Ashe | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jayden Lemond | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Sayerr Senghore | F | Sr | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Binghamton
Against the spread
Season
14-14
Home
7-5
Road
7-8
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.9
Covered 2 straightCovered 6 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-12
Home
5-7
Road
11-4
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +5.5
Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28 | Maine | H | W 74–67 | −1.0 | W+6.0 | 134.0 | O141 | 112.4 | 101.8 | 65.8 |
| Feb 26 | New Hampshire | H | W 65–63 | +3.0 | W+5.0 | 141.5 | U128 | 103.7 | 100.5 | 62.7 |
| Feb 21 | UMass Lowell | A | L 79–92 | +9.0 | L−4.0 | 146.5 | O171 | 122.0 | 142.1 | 64.7 |
| Feb 19 | Bryant | A | W 79–67 | +5.5 | W+17.5 | 135.0 | O146 | 130.4 | 110.6 | 60.6 |
| Feb 14 | UAlbany | H | L 74–77 | +4.5 | W+1.5 | 137.0 | O151 | 108.0 | 112.4 | 68.5 |
| Feb 12 | Vermont | H | L 65–73 | +11.0 | W+3.0 | 136.0 | O138 | 99.1 | 111.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 7 | NJIT | A | L 64–73 | +9.5 | W+0.5 | 140.5 | U137 | 96.9 | 110.5 | 66.0 |
| Feb 5 | UMBC | A | L 62–79 | +11.0 | L−6.0 | 138.0 | O141 | 93.5 | 119.2 | 66.3 |
| Jan 29 | Bryant | H | W 63–60 | +2.0 | W+5.0 | 130.5 | U123 | 106.7 | 101.7 | 59.0 |
| Jan 24 | Maine | A | L 63–79 | +6.0 | L−10.0 | 124.0 | O142 | 102.2 | 128.1 | 61.7 |
Northwestern
Against the spread
Season
18-16
Home
7-10
Road
6-5
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +3.8
Covered 5 straightCovered 6 of 7 as an underdogCovered 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
15-19
Home
8-9
Road
4-7
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −4.5
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 7 as an underdogOver in 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12 | #18Purdue | N | L 68–81 | +13.5 | W+0.5 | 140.0 | O149 | 114.4 | 136.3 | 59.4 |
| Mar 11 | Indiana | N | W 74–61 | +6.0 | W+19.0 | 142.0 | U135 | 121.9 | 100.5 | 60.7 |
| Mar 10 | Penn State | N | W 76–66 | −5.0 | W+5.0 | 144.5 | U142 | 119.6 | 103.9 | 63.6 |
| Mar 7 | Minnesota | A | L 66–67 | +4.0 | W+3.0 | 133.5 | U133 | 119.7 | 121.5 | 55.1 |
| Mar 4 | #15Purdue | H | L 66–70 | +10.5 | W+6.5 | 145.5 | U136 | 114.9 | 121.8 | 57.5 |
| Feb 28 | Oregon | H | W 63–62 | −3.5 | L−2.5 | 142.5 | U125 | 98.9 | 97.3 | 63.7 |
| Feb 24 | Indiana | A | W 72–68 | +8.5 | W+12.5 | 146.0 | U140 | 117.8 | 111.3 | 61.1 |
| Feb 18 | Maryland | H | W 78–74 | −8.0 | L−4.0 | 142.5 | O152 | 118.3 | 112.2 | 65.9 |
| Feb 14 | #7Nebraska | A | L 49–68 | +13.5 | L−5.5 | 145.5 | U117 | 76.0 | 105.5 | 64.5 |
| Feb 11 | #2Michigan | H | L 75–87 | +15.0 | W+3.0 | 153.5 | O162 | 100.4 | 116.4 | 74.7 |
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 homeBinghamtonNorthwestern
Efficiency
101.6
112.5
116.3
106.2
67.1
66.9
—
—
Shooting
50.0%
51.7%
50.6%
52.9%
32.5%
33.0%
75.3%
75.1%
41.5%
33.9%
Ball control & glass
18.8%
13.0%
13.3%
17.5%
20.9%
28.1%
29.4%
34.7%
10.9%
7.3%
8.8%
6.4%
Style
30.9%
34.0%
47.2%
44.0%
9.5%
15.6%
48.7%
65.8%
21.1%
31.7%
Roster
3.21
2.14
6'4.4"
6'4.9"
87.5%
82.8%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputBinghamton
Returning minutes: 87.5%Returning production: 88.7%
Lost
- Bryson Wilson 25.4 mpg, 8.9 ppg · transferred to Saint Peter's
Added
- Evan Ashe no D1 minutes last season
- Jayden Lemond no D1 minutes last season
- Sayerr Senghore 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 (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).
Northwestern
Returning minutes: 82.8%Returning production: 74.0%
Lost
- Nick Martinelli 34.6 mpg, 22.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Blake Smith no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 83% 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).
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.