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

MTSU

Efficiency #167

2025-26: 17-15 · 11-10 conf

Belmont

Efficiency #54

2025-26: 26-6 · 16-5 conf

Sat, Dec 5 · 8:00 PM ET

71.4

win 20%

Projected

81.0

win 80%

No line posted yet.

Model: BEL −9.7 · total 152.4 · 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, MTSU 67.2 → 68.3 possessions

−0.1

Belmont offense vs MTSU defense

+5.0

MTSU offense vs Belmont defense

−0.8

Projected total

152.4

Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Belmont offense vs MTSU defense

+5.0

MTSU offense vs Belmont defense

+0.8

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

+3.9

Belmont by 9.7

9.7

MTSU side ◂▸ Belmont side

Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 152.3 against a projected 152.4. 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: 68.3, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Belmont is the faster team (70.0, #96 of 365) and MTSU the slower (66.5, #266). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

68.3

per team, 40 min

Projected total

152.4

model

Projected team totals

71.4 / 81.0

MTSU / Belmont

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

67.2#275

MTSU

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); MTSU allows 51.0% (#155). Expect about 56.8%, 5.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +7.8 points per 100 possessions.

ClashMTSU

Style match: 3-point volume

MTSU takes 45.3% of its shots from three; Belmont lets opponents take 49.1% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 50.4% — both habits push the same way.

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 MTSU at about 50.4% of its shots from three, Belmont about 41.8%.

ClashMTSU

Style match: paint scoring

MTSU gets only 37.7% of its points in the paint; Belmont protects the paint (34.8% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 38.8% — both habits push the same way.

ClashBelmont

Style clash: ball movement

Belmont assists on 61.9% of its made baskets; MTSU breaks up passing offenses (assists on 47.2% allowed) (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 55.2% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.65 vs 0.65).

ClashBelmont

Style clash: 3-point volume

Belmont takes 45.7% of its shots from three; MTSU runs teams off the line (35.3% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 41.8% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).

MTSU has the ball

OffenseBelmont allowsvs D1 avg

51.6% #167

49.9% #93

-0.7 pt/100

17.1% #214

17.4% #128

-0.7 pt/100

30.7% #171

29.2% #118

-0.3 pt/100

32.7% #245

30.7% #77

-0.5 pt/100

70.2% #267

—

-0.2 pt/100

MTSU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.4 pts/100

Belmont has the ball

OffenseMTSU allowsvs D1 avg

61.0% #1

51.0% #155

+7.8 pt/100

18.1% #274

15.0% #291

+0.5 pt/100

28.8% #241

28.5% #83

-1.3 pt/100

32.5% #248

35.7% #204

-0.1 pt/100

68.6% #309

—

-0.3 pt/100

Belmont net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.6 pts/100

Shot diet

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

MTSUoffense vsBelmontdefense

Share of shots by zone

MTSU shoots

30.4

7.2

17.0

45.4

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%#65	58.8%#177	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.6%#183	28.3%#8	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	39.9%#114	34.8%#71	38.0%
Three	33.8%#183	34.2%#197	33.7%

Belmontoffense vsMTSUdefense

Share of shots by zone

Belmont shoots

40.0

5.9

8.0

46.0

MTSU allows

42.2

7.7

14.9

35.3

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	67.9%#5	58.9%#188	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	41.8%#128	37.5%#124	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	45.5%#11	33.0%#30	38.0%
Three	41.0%#1	33.9%#180	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

MTSU

−1.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#253 of 365

Off reb %

30.7%

#171

Def reb %

71.5%

#83

Turnover %

17.1%

#214

Forced TO %

15.0%

#291

FT rate

32.7%

#245

FT allowed

35.7%

#204

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.1

Defensive rebounding+0.7

Ball security−0.2

Forcing turnovers−1.2

Foul shots drawn−0.6

Foul shots allowed−0.1

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 MTSU’s −1.4 (#253).

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

MTSU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted MTSU'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
10	Torey Alston	F	So	6'9"	32-32	29.3	13.1	7.9	1.4	1.9	55.9%	11.1%	0.6	63.6%	26.7%
22	Kamari Lands	G	Sr	6'8"	32-32	29.2	13.3	3.7	2.2	1.4	49.0%	32.1%	5.9	80.8%	28.4%
2	Jahvin Carter	G	So	6'3"	32-19	26.8	10.8	3.2	3.6	1.6	47.9%	33.6%	4.3	76.2%	27.4%
13	Chris Loofe	F	Jr	6'11"	32-32	24.9	7.3	6.3	0.8	1.7	54.9%	26.3%	1.2	62.2%	19.4%
55	Sean Smith	G	Sr	6'3"	32-16	23.2	9.3	2.3	3.5	1.5	51.4%	36.1%	2.6	75.9%	25.9%
0	Alec Oglesby	G	Sr	6'5"	30-17	24.0	8.3	1.9	0.9	0.7	56.4%	40.9%	5.0	70.7%	19.4%
11	Tre Green	G	Sr	6'3"	31-12	18.7	7.1	2.1	0.6	0.6	51.3%	35.0%	5.1	90.3%	22.1%
3	Luka Jovanovic	C	Fr	6'11"	31-0	13.7	2.2	3.0	0.4	0.5	70.9%	100.0%	0.0	53.3%	9.1%
1	Marcus Whitlock Jr.	G	So	6'3"	21-0	11.6	3.9	1.1	0.5	0.3	56.0%	35.8%	2.5	75.0%	18.4%
23	James Dent Jr.	G	Sr	6'5"	20-0	10.6	1.9	1.7	0.9	0.5	39.0%	20.7%	1.4	55.6%	14.9%
5	Jarred Hall	F	Jr	6'9"	11-0	8.4	2.5	1.5	0.6	0.8	53.8%	30.8%	1.2	—	20.8%
20	Savon Wykle	G	Sr	6'5"	1-0	13.0	10.0	2.0	1.0	1.0	71.4%	40.0%	5.0	—	32.3%
12	Brandon Oloumou	C	Jr	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	Charvez Ambrose	G	Jr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
8	Jax Howard	G	Fr	6'0"	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.

MTSU2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted MTSU'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
10	Torey Alston	F	So	6'9"	32-32	29.3	13.1	7.9	1.4	1.9	55.9%	11.1%	0.6	63.6%	26.7%
22	Kamari Lands	G	Sr	6'8"	32-32	29.2	13.3	3.7	2.2	1.4	49.0%	32.1%	5.9	80.8%	28.4%
2	Jahvin Carter	G	So	6'3"	32-19	26.8	10.8	3.2	3.6	1.6	47.9%	33.6%	4.3	76.2%	27.4%
13	Chris Loofe	F	Jr	6'11"	32-32	24.9	7.3	6.3	0.8	1.7	54.9%	26.3%	1.2	62.2%	19.4%
55	Sean Smith	G	Sr	6'3"	32-16	23.2	9.3	2.3	3.5	1.5	51.4%	36.1%	2.6	75.9%	25.9%
0	Alec Oglesby	G	Sr	6'5"	30-17	24.0	8.3	1.9	0.9	0.7	56.4%	40.9%	5.0	70.7%	19.4%
11	Tre Green	G	Sr	6'3"	31-12	18.7	7.1	2.1	0.6	0.6	51.3%	35.0%	5.1	90.3%	22.1%
3	Luka Jovanovic	C	Fr	6'11"	31-0	13.7	2.2	3.0	0.4	0.5	70.9%	100.0%	0.0	53.3%	9.1%
1	Marcus Whitlock Jr.	G	So	6'3"	21-0	11.6	3.9	1.1	0.5	0.3	56.0%	35.8%	2.5	75.0%	18.4%
23	James Dent Jr.	G	Sr	6'5"	20-0	10.6	1.9	1.7	0.9	0.5	39.0%	20.7%	1.4	55.6%	14.9%
5	Jarred Hall	F	Jr	6'9"	11-0	8.4	2.5	1.5	0.6	0.8	53.8%	30.8%	1.2	—	20.8%
20	Savon Wykle	G	Sr	6'5"	1-0	13.0	10.0	2.0	1.0	1.0	71.4%	40.0%	5.0	—	32.3%
12	Brandon Oloumou	C	Jr	6'9"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
7	Charvez Ambrose	G	Jr	6'5"	0-0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	—
8	Jax Howard	G	Fr	6'0"	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

MTSU

Against the spread

Season

13-16

Home

4-8

Road

8-5

Last 10

6-4

avg cover +0.3

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

15-14

Home

7-5

Road

5-8

Last 10

7-3

avg vs total +11.4

Over in the last gameOver in 5 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 12	Louisiana TechAdjEM #211	N	L 69–80	−2.0	L−13.0	133.5	O149	104.0	120.6	66.3
Mar 7	Missouri StAdjEM #212	A	W 75–63	+2.5	W+14.5	146.5	U138	113.1	95.0	66.3
Mar 5	FIUAdjEM #200	A	W 73–67	−1.0	W+5.0	153.5	U140	106.1	97.4	68.8
Feb 28	New Mexico StAdjEM #178	H	W 86–85 OT	−5.5	L−4.5	148.0	O171	114.3	113.0	75.2
Feb 26	UTEPAdjEM #279	H	W 77–67	−8.5	W+1.5	139.5	O144	112.8	98.2	68.3
Feb 21	DelawareAdjEM #302	H	W 78–66	−10.0	W+2.0	137.5	O144	125.8	106.5	62.0
Feb 18	Sam HoustonAdjEM #101	A	L 70–78	+4.0	L−4.0	151.5	U148	100.5	112.0	69.6
Feb 14	Western KYAdjEM #159	A	L 80–82	+3.0	W+1.0	144.5	O162	113.2	116.0	70.7
Feb 12	Kennesaw StAdjEM #154	A	W 90–87	+3.0	W+6.0	147.5	O177	128.3	124.0	70.1
Feb 7	DelawareAdjEM #302	A	L 88–89 OT	−4.5	L−5.5	133.5	O177	128.5	129.9	68.5

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

MTSUBelmont

Efficiency

108.8

115.9

108.4

107.1

67.2

69.4

—

Shooting

51.6%

61.0%

52.3%

60.6%

33.8%

41.0%

70.2%

68.6%

32.7%

32.5%

Ball control & glass

17.1%

18.1%

15.0%

17.4%

30.7%

28.8%

28.5%

29.2%

9.3%

9.7%

8.3%

9.4%

Style

45.3%

45.7%

37.7%

42.9%

11.4%

9.1%

53.5%

61.9%

34.4%

35.9%

Roster

3.05

2.50

6'6.4"

6'5.4"

—

89.9%

Offseason

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

MTSU

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%

ESPN hasn't posted MTSU'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.)

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

Date	Season	Result
Sun, Dec 7	2025-26	Belmont 83 – 62 MTSU

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.