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-conferenceCurb Event Center Arena, Nashville, TN

Furman

Efficiency #163

2025-26: 22-13 · 13-8 conf

Belmont

Efficiency #54

2025-26: 26-6 · 16-5 conf

Sat, Nov 14 · 8:30 PM ET

71.4

win 21%

Projected

80.9

win 79%

No line posted yet.

Model: BEL −9.5 · total 152.2 · 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: Belmont 69.4, Furman 67.3 → 68.4 possessions

+0.2

Belmont offense vs Furman defense

+4.7

Furman offense vs Belmont defense

−0.9

Projected total

152.2

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Belmont offense vs Furman defense

+4.7

Furman offense vs Belmont defense

+0.9

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

+3.9

Belmont by 9.5

9.5

Furman side ◂▸ Belmont 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 Belmont.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 68.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Belmont is the faster team (70.0, #96 of 365) and Furman the slower (66.4, #279). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.4

per team, 40 min

Projected total

152.2

model

Projected team totals

71.4 / 80.9

Furman / Belmont

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.3#265

Furman

69.4#90

Belmont

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); Furman allows 50.2% (#112). Expect about 56.4%, 5.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +7.3 points per 100 possessions.

ClashFurman

Style match: 3-point volume

Furman takes 46.5% of its shots from three; Belmont lets opponents take 49.1% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 51.3% — both habits push the same way.

ClashFurman

Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting

Furman (#14 in 2-point shooting) against Belmont (#50 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 54.3%. Historically Furman's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).

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 Furman at about 51.3% of its shots from three, Belmont about 46.0%.

AdvantageFurman

Where Furman scores: shooting

Furman shoots an effective 54.8% (#43); Belmont allows 49.9% (#93). Expect about 52.6%, 1.3 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +1.9 points per 100 possessions.

TurnoversBelmont

Belmont protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.5% is worth roughly +1.5 points per 100 possessions for Belmont's offense.

Furman has the ball

OffenseBelmont allowsvs D1 avg

54.8% #43

49.9% #93

+1.9 pt/100

17.8% #259

17.4% #128

-1.2 pt/100

30.5% #180

29.2% #118

-0.3 pt/100

32.7% #246

30.7% #77

-0.5 pt/100

70.1% #269

—

-0.2 pt/100

Furman net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.3 pts/100

Belmont has the ball

OffenseFurman allowsvs D1 avg

61.0% #1

50.2% #112

+7.3 pt/100

18.1% #274

13.7% #342

+1.5 pt/100

28.8% #241

28.2% #72

-1.4 pt/100

32.5% #248

28.9% #44

-0.6 pt/100

68.6% #309

—

-0.3 pt/100

Belmont net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

Furmanoffense vsBelmontdefense

Share of shots by zone

Furman shoots

38.5

5.8

8.9

46.8

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	62.3%#66	58.8%#177	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	51.5%#8	28.3%#8	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	43.5%#28	34.8%#71	38.0%
Three	33.4%#204	34.2%#197	33.7%

Belmontoffense vsFurmandefense

Share of shots by zone

Belmont shoots

40.0

5.9

8.0

46.0

Furman allows

37.0

5.5

15.9

41.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	67.9%#5	56.0%#86	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.8%#128	45.5%#314	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	45.5%#11	41.9%#297	38.0%
Three	41.0%#1	32.3%#75	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

Furman

−0.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#227 of 365

Off reb %

30.5%

#180

Def reb %

71.8%

#72

Turnover %

17.8%

#259

Forced TO %

13.7%

#342

FT rate

32.7%

#246

FT allowed

28.9%

#44

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding0.0

Defensive rebounding+0.8

Ball security−0.7

Forcing turnovers−2.1

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed+1.6

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

Belmont has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.1 (#178 of 365) to Furman’s −0.9 (#227).

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

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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.

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.

Furman2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
1	Charles Johnston	F	Sr	6'11"	35-35	28.3	9.8	9.0	1.7	1.5	56.1%	28.7%	3.9	66.2%	21.2%
4	Ben Vander Wal	F	Sr	6'7"	34-31	27.9	7.2	5.5	2.4	1.1	66.2%	22.2%	0.3	43.5%	14.9%
12	Tom House	G	Sr	6'7"	33-17	25.2	8.5	2.8	1.7	0.7	47.4%	31.5%	5.0	84.3%	21.0%
3	Asa Thomas	G	So	6'7"	28-21	27.4	11.9	3.8	1.9	0.6	55.4%	38.2%	7.4	74.0%	24.0%
2	Eddrin Bronson	G	So	6'4"	34-7	19.2	5.4	1.7	1.1	1.2	47.4%	32.3%	2.7	74.0%	20.3%
6	Cole Bowser	G	Fr	6'6"	20-6	22.6	5.2	5.3	0.6	0.9	55.4%	35.9%	1.9	87.5%	14.2%
0	Abijah Franklin	G	Fr	6'5"	24-0	11.2	4.4	1.8	0.9	0.8	42.4%	29.8%	2.0	63.6%	29.3%
8	Collin O'Neal	G	Fr	6'4"	17-0	10.3	2.9	1.4	0.5	0.6	50.0%	37.0%	1.6	60.0%	20.3%
15	Owen Ritger	F	Fr	6'9"	17-0	7.5	1.7	1.1	0.4	0.4	52.1%	20.0%	0.3	50.0%	16.3%
5	Mason Smith	F	So	6'7"	7-0	9.6	3.0	4.6	0.1	0.4	42.9%	25.0%	2.3	75.0%	22.5%
11	Gunnar Lewis	G	Fr	5'10"	3-0	3.0	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	125.0%	100.0%	0.3	—	12.8%
30	Thomas Tillman	F	Sr	6'6"	5-1	1.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	40.0%	0.0%	0.6	0.0%	43.9%
77	Davis Molnar	F	Jr	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.

Trends

Last 10 games of 2025-26

Furman

Against the spread

Season

15-15-2

Home

4-8-1

Road

7-5

Last 10

6-3-1

avg cover +1.9

Covered 2 straightCovered 3 of 6 as a favorite, 1 pushCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

16-15-1

Home

6-7

Road

6-5-1

Last 10

6-4

avg vs total +2.4

Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 20	#2UConnAdjEM #10	N	L 71–82	+21.0	W+10.0	135.0	O153	108.5	125.3	65.4
Mar 9	ETSUAdjEM #110	N	W 76–61	+1.0	W+16.0	138.0	U137	122.9	98.6	61.8
Mar 8	UNC GreensboroAdjEM #301	N	W 81–75	−6.0	P0.0	148.5	O156	123.4	114.3	65.6
Mar 7	SamfordAdjEM #202	N	W 86–81	+1.5	W+6.5	145.5	O167	124.6	117.4	69.0
Feb 28	W CarolinaAdjEM #217	A	L 67–86	−2.0	L−21.0	148.0	O153	105.4	135.3	63.6
Feb 25	The CitadelAdjEM #348	H	W 72–51	−15.5	W+5.5	143.5	U123	120.3	85.2	59.8
Feb 21	WoffordAdjEM #235	A	W 76–67	−1.5	W+7.5	152.5	U143	118.7	104.6	64.1
Feb 18	ETSUAdjEM #110	H	L 69–78	−1.5	L−10.5	141.0	O147	101.2	114.4	68.2
Feb 14	VMIAdjEM #361	A	W 90–72	−12.0	W+6.0	146.5	O162	126.8	101.4	71.0
Feb 11	MercerAdjEM #161	A	L 64–69	+3.5	L−1.5	151.5	U133	96.1	103.6	66.6

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

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

FurmanBelmont

Efficiency

108.6

115.9

107.9

107.1

67.3

69.4

—

Shooting

54.8%

61.0%

58.8%

60.6%

33.4%

41.0%

70.1%

68.6%

32.7%

32.5%

Ball control & glass

17.8%

18.1%

13.7%

17.4%

30.5%

28.8%

28.2%

29.2%

11.3%

9.7%

10.6%

9.4%

Style

46.5%

45.7%

42.6%

42.9%

11.1%

9.1%

56.1%

61.9%

28.5%

35.9%

Roster

2.85

2.50

6'7.1"

6'5.4"

74.9%

89.9%

Offseason

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

Furman

Returning minutes: 74.9%Returning production: 66.0%

Lost

Alex Wilkins 29.7 mpg, 17.8 ppg · transferred to Kentucky
Cooper Bowser 21.1 mpg, 9.8 ppg · transferred to Arkansas

Added

Davis Molnar no D1 minutes last season

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

Returns 75% 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).

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).

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.