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-conferenceReed Arena, College Station, TX

AR-Pine Bluff

Efficiency #323

2025-26: 13-19 · 10-9 conf

Texas A&M

Efficiency #43

2025-26: 22-12 · 11-8 conf

Sun, Dec 6 · TBD

70.4

win 6%

Projected

88.7

win 94%

No line posted yet.

Model: TA&M −18.3 · total 159.1 · 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: Texas A&M 70.5, AR-Pine Bluff 69.7 → 71.8 possessions

+7.7

Texas A&M offense vs AR-Pine Bluff defense

+8.7

AR-Pine Bluff offense vs Texas A&M defense

−5.5

Projected total

159.1

Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step

Projected margin

Even game

0.0

Texas A&M offense vs AR-Pine Bluff defense

+8.7

AR-Pine Bluff offense vs Texas A&M defense

+5.5

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

+4.1

Texas A&M by 18.3

18.3

AR-Pine Bluff side ◂▸ Texas A&M 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 Texas A&M.

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes

Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Texas A&M is the faster team (72.0, #24 of 365) and AR-Pine Bluff the slower (71.2, #43). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions

71.8

per team, 40 min

Projected total

159.1

model

Projected team totals

70.4 / 88.7

AR-Pine Bluff / Texas A&M

Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent

69.7#73

AR-Pine Bluff

70.5#27

Texas A&M

How this game plays

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

Pace

Track meet

Texas A&M averages 72.0 possessions per 40, AR-Pine Bluff 71.2. 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 73 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.

AdvantageTexas A&M

Where Texas A&M scores: shooting

Texas A&M shoots an effective 53.8% (#71); AR-Pine Bluff allows 52.6% (#249). Expect about 53.4%, 2.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions.

AdvantageAR-Pine Bluff

Where AR-Pine Bluff struggles: ball control

AR-Pine Bluff turns it over on 18.7% of possessions (#309); Texas A&M forces turnovers on 18.4% of opponent possessions (#82). Expect about 18.9%, 2.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.

GlassTexas A&M

Texas A&M owns the glass

Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.4% is worth roughly +1.8 points per 100 possessions for Texas A&M's offense.

TurnoversTexas A&M

Texas A&M protects the ball

Projected turnover rate of 15.4% is worth roughly +1.7 points per 100 possessions for Texas A&M's offense.

AR-Pine Bluff has the ball

OffenseTexas A&M allowsvs D1 avg

50.0% #233

50.7% #141

-1.5 pt/100

18.7% #309

18.4% #82

-2.6 pt/100

27.9% #271

33.0% #300

-0.3 pt/100

38.4% #91

35.3% #190

+0.2 pt/100

75.5% #65

—

+0.3 pt/100

AR-Pine Bluff net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.8 pts/100

Texas A&M has the ball

OffenseAR-Pine Bluff allowsvs D1 avg

53.8% #71

52.6% #249

+3.1 pt/100

14.7% #52

16.5% #188

+1.7 pt/100

32.0% #122

34.2% #321

+1.8 pt/100

37.1% #128

43.6% #342

+0.8 pt/100

73.8% #144

—

+0.1 pt/100

Texas A&M net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.5 pts/100

Shot diet

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

AR-Pine Bluffoffense vsTexas A&Mdefense

Share of shots by zone

AR-Pine Bluff shoots

38.1

4.9

20.4

36.6

Texas A&M allows

35.1

5.9

16.4

42.6

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	59.3%#153	62.4%#308	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	39.7%#180	39.2%#161	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	34.5%#299	38.5%#175	38.0%
Three	33.6%#190	31.8%#53	33.7%

Texas A&Moffense vsAR-Pine Bluffdefense

Share of shots by zone

Texas A&M shoots

41.5

5.6

6.9

46.1

AR-Pine Bluff allows

41.3

4.5

17.0

37.2

D-I average

38.5

6.4

15.8

39.3

FG% by zone

Zone			D-I avg
Rim	57.5%#213	61.3%#276	58.6%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)	38.4%#212	52.9%#360	39.5%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)	36.9%#228	35.5%#89	38.0%
Three	35.9%#63	33.2%#136	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

AR-Pine Bluff

−4.7extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#345 of 365

Off reb %

27.9%

#271

Def reb %

65.8%

#321

Turnover %

18.7%

#309

Forced TO %

16.5%

#188

FT rate

38.4%

#91

FT allowed

43.6%

#342

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding−0.8

Defensive rebounding−1.2

Ball security−1.3

Forcing turnovers−0.2

Foul shots drawn+0.9

Foul shots allowed−2.1

Texas A&M

+2.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#62 of 365

Off reb %

32.0%

#122

Def reb %

67.0%

#300

Turnover %

14.7%

#52

Forced TO %

18.4%

#82

FT rate

37.1%

#128

FT allowed

35.3%

#190

Where the chances come from (per game)

Offensive rebounding+0.5

Defensive rebounding−0.8

Ball security+1.4

Forcing turnovers+1.1

Foul shots drawn+0.5

Foul shots allowed0.0

Texas A&M has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.8 (#62 of 365) to AR-Pine Bluff’s −4.7 (#345).

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

AR-Pine Bluff2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted AR-Pine Bluff'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
11	Quion Williams	G	Sr	6'5"	32-32	36.1	17.7	8.2	5.4	3.3	49.8%	32.2%	2.8	73.6%	30.0%
20	Trevon Payton	G	Jr	6'5"	32-32	33.8	10.0	3.6	2.9	1.8	67.1%	47.1%	4.4	76.3%	15.0%
1	Alex Mirhosseini	G	Sr	5'10"	31-31	31.9	11.7	2.4	2.7	1.6	47.3%	33.2%	7.7	71.2%	23.3%
9	Milhan Charles	G	Fr	6'7"	30-30	30.1	10.5	4.0	1.4	1.8	55.7%	23.1%	0.9	72.4%	19.6%
4	Jaquan Scott	F	Sr	6'8"	31-30	28.5	16.0	7.0	1.1	2.4	50.0%	31.1%	1.5	85.1%	32.1%
22	Ramel Lloyd Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	20-0	21.1	6.8	2.3	1.0	1.1	45.7%	26.5%	2.5	64.6%	21.6%
10	Ahmad Johnson	G	Sr	6'4"	29-2	12.2	3.7	0.8	0.8	0.6	47.5%	31.5%	2.5	73.3%	19.0%
24	Kyle Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	23-1	7.7	1.4	2.0	0.5	0.3	34.2%	28.6%	0.3	70.0%	14.9%
2	Jai'chaunn Hayes	G	Fr	6'7"	10-1	17.4	6.1	1.3	0.6	0.5	47.2%	23.1%	2.6	84.6%	18.3%
15	Dennis Asoro	F	Sr	6'8"	30-1	5.3	1.1	1.1	0.2	0.5	59.3%	—	0.0	28.6%	15.5%
3	Anthony Sellars	G	Jr	6'7"	14-0	7.4	2.9	1.1	0.2	0.5	60.7%	33.3%	0.9	100.0%	19.1%
0	Trejon Ware	G	Sr	5'9"	1-0	18.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	9.2%
33	Travis Pourciau	F	Sr	6'10"	2-0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
23	Harrison Pickett	G	Fr	6'2"	1-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
8	Jahmari Hamilton-Brown	G	Jr	6'7"	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.

Texas A&M2025-26 numbers

#	Player	Pos	Cl	Ht	GP-GS	MPG	PPG	RPG	APG	TOV	eFG%	3P%	3PA/g	FT%	Usage
9	Ruben Dominguez	G	So	6'6"	34-27	23.4	10.2	2.3	1.4	0.4	57.7%	40.0%	6.3	87.1%	20.7%
0	Marcus Hill	G	Sr	6'3"	34-30	22.8	10.3	3.1	1.6	1.1	51.1%	23.8%	1.9	71.6%	25.4%
5	Jacari Lane	G	Sr	6'0"	33-28	19.3	6.1	1.7	3.0	1.0	47.8%	30.3%	2.7	86.8%	19.2%
7	Zach Clemence	F	Sr	6'11"	34-4	16.9	6.9	3.2	0.9	0.8	57.0%	40.0%	2.8	78.0%	22.0%
6	Ali Dibba	G	Sr	6'5"	34-1	15.8	5.7	2.8	0.8	0.4	48.8%	37.0%	1.4	56.5%	21.8%
1	Josh Holloway	G	Jr	6'1"	34-0	13.4	4.6	1.7	1.8	1.4	56.1%	40.0%	0.9	69.2%	21.4%
33	Federiko Federiko	F	Sr	6'11"	31-4	8.7	1.8	1.9	0.5	0.2	60.0%	—	0.0	46.9%	11.3%
4	Jamie Vinson	F	So	6'11"	30-0	6.6	3.5	2.3	0.4	0.4	55.6%	16.7%	0.6	57.7%	28.8%
21	Mackenzie Mgbako	F	Jr	6'9"	7-7	18.9	10.4	4.9	1.3	1.7	49.2%	34.3%	5.0	88.2%	31.0%
14	Chris McDermott	F	So	6'7"	11-1	3.7	1.1	1.1	0.3	0.1	75.0%	0.0%	0.2	0.0%	13.9%
10	Jeremiah Green	G	Fr	6'3"	7-0	4.6	1.0	0.1	0.6	0.3	30.0%	33.3%	0.4	100.0%	13.6%
8	Noah Shelby	G	Jr	6'3"	8-0	2.8	1.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	30.0%	20.0%	1.3	100.0%	27.6%

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

AR-Pine Bluff2025-26 numbers

ESPN hasn't posted AR-Pine Bluff'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
11	Quion Williams	G	Sr	6'5"	32-32	36.1	17.7	8.2	5.4	3.3	49.8%	32.2%	2.8	73.6%	30.0%
20	Trevon Payton	G	Jr	6'5"	32-32	33.8	10.0	3.6	2.9	1.8	67.1%	47.1%	4.4	76.3%	15.0%
1	Alex Mirhosseini	G	Sr	5'10"	31-31	31.9	11.7	2.4	2.7	1.6	47.3%	33.2%	7.7	71.2%	23.3%
9	Milhan Charles	G	Fr	6'7"	30-30	30.1	10.5	4.0	1.4	1.8	55.7%	23.1%	0.9	72.4%	19.6%
4	Jaquan Scott	F	Sr	6'8"	31-30	28.5	16.0	7.0	1.1	2.4	50.0%	31.1%	1.5	85.1%	32.1%
22	Ramel Lloyd Jr.	G	Jr	6'6"	20-0	21.1	6.8	2.3	1.0	1.1	45.7%	26.5%	2.5	64.6%	21.6%
10	Ahmad Johnson	G	Sr	6'4"	29-2	12.2	3.7	0.8	0.8	0.6	47.5%	31.5%	2.5	73.3%	19.0%
24	Kyle Brown	F	Sr	6'9"	23-1	7.7	1.4	2.0	0.5	0.3	34.2%	28.6%	0.3	70.0%	14.9%
2	Jai'chaunn Hayes	G	Fr	6'7"	10-1	17.4	6.1	1.3	0.6	0.5	47.2%	23.1%	2.6	84.6%	18.3%
15	Dennis Asoro	F	Sr	6'8"	30-1	5.3	1.1	1.1	0.2	0.5	59.3%	—	0.0	28.6%	15.5%
3	Anthony Sellars	G	Jr	6'7"	14-0	7.4	2.9	1.1	0.2	0.5	60.7%	33.3%	0.9	100.0%	19.1%
0	Trejon Ware	G	Sr	5'9"	1-0	18.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	0.0%	—	0.0	—	9.2%
33	Travis Pourciau	F	Sr	6'10"	2-0	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
23	Harrison Pickett	G	Fr	6'2"	1-0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	—	0.0	—	0.0%
8	Jahmari Hamilton-Brown	G	Jr	6'7"	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

AR-Pine Bluff

Against the spread

Season

13-16-1

Home

3-5-1

Road

9-11

Last 10

3-6-1

avg cover −1.3

Covered 2 straightCovered 2 of 7 as a favorite, 1 push

Over / under

Season

14-16

Home

5-4

Road

8-12

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total +0.6

Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 7 as a favorite

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 12	SouthernAdjEM #286	N	L 81–84	+5.0	W+2.0	150.5	O165	123.9	128.4	65.4
Mar 5	Alcorn StAdjEM #355	A	W 83–48	−1.0	W+34.0	144.0	U131	111.6	64.5	74.4
Mar 3	Jackson StAdjEM #353	A	L 78–81	−1.0	L−4.0	153.0	O159	112.5	116.8	69.3
Feb 28	Miss Valley StAdjEM #365	H	L 69–70	−14.0	L−15.0	147.5	U139	99.0	100.4	69.7
Feb 21	Prairie ViewAdjEM #303	H	W 84–82	−3.5	L−1.5	158.0	O166	123.7	120.8	67.9
Feb 19	Texas SouthernAdjEM #321	H	L 64–83	−1.0	L−20.0	152.5	U147	93.7	121.5	68.3
Feb 16	Alabama A&MAdjEM #312	A	L 70–82	+3.5	L−8.5	144.0	O152	110.4	129.3	63.4
Feb 14	Alabama StAdjEM #324	A	L 61–79	+3.5	L−14.5	150.0	U140	84.2	109.1	72.4
Feb 9	Jackson StAdjEM #353	H	W 84–63	−6.5	W+14.5	156.5	U147	128.1	96.1	65.5
Feb 7	Alcorn StAdjEM #355	H	W 84–77	−7.0	P0.0	145.5	O161	126.7	116.2	66.3

Texas A&M

Against the spread

Season

19-15

Home

9-9

Road

8-3

Last 10

4-6

avg cover −4.0

Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog

Over / under

Season

20-14

Home

12-6

Road

6-5

Last 10

5-5

avg vs total −3.9

Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog

Last 10 games, newest first

Date	Opponent	Site	Result			Total		PPP for	PPP vs	Pace
Mar 21	#2HoustonAdjEM #6	N	L 57–88	+10.0	L−21.0	143.0	O145	87.1	134.5	65.5
Mar 19	#7Saint Mary'sAdjEM #23	N	W 63–50	+2.5	W+15.5	148.5	U113	106.4	84.5	59.2
Mar 12	OklahomaAdjEM #47	N	L 63–83	−2.0	L−22.0	162.0	U146	96.4	127.0	65.3
Mar 7	LSUAdjEM #72	A	W 94–91 3OT	−2.5	W+0.5	160.5	O185	101.9	98.7	92.2
Mar 3	KentuckyAdjEM #27	H	W 96–85	−1.5	W+9.5	162.0	O181	127.3	112.7	75.4
Feb 28	TexasAdjEM #38	H	L 70–76	−2.5	L−8.5	160.5	U146	101.8	110.5	68.8
Feb 25	#20ArkansasAdjEM #19	A	L 84–99	+7.5	L−7.5	170.0	O183	108.7	128.1	77.3
Feb 21	OklahomaAdjEM #47	A	W 75–71	+1.5	W+5.5	165.5	U146	120.1	113.7	62.5
Feb 18	Ole MissAdjEM #82	H	W 80–77	−9.5	L−6.5	155.0	O157	116.3	111.9	68.8
Feb 14	#19VanderbiltAdjEM #12	A	L 69–82	+7.5	L−5.5	165.0	U151	98.9	117.5	69.8

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

AR-Pine BluffTexas A&M

Efficiency

104.6

115.1

114.0

104.8

69.7

70.5

—

Shooting

50.0%

53.8%

49.8%

53.8%

33.6%

35.9%

75.5%

73.8%

38.4%

37.1%

Ball control & glass

18.7%

14.7%

16.5%

18.4%

27.9%

32.0%

34.2%

33.0%

10.7%

8.8%

8.7%

11.7%

Style

37.2%

46.2%

42.7%

40.4%

13.1%

12.5%

56.3%

61.2%

20.7%

41.1%

Roster

3.25

3.38

6'4.9"

6'5.2"

—

64.3%

Offseason

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

AR-Pine Bluff

Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.1%

ESPN hasn't posted AR-Pine Bluff'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.)

Texas A&M

Returning minutes: 64.3%Returning production: 58.9%

Lost

Rashaun Agee 26.9 mpg, 14.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Rylan Griffen 24.4 mpg, 10.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Pop Isaacs 21.7 mpg, 9.5 ppg · transferred to Oklahoma

Added

Nobody of note.

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

Returns 64% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred).

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.